My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but is he aware that the rate of increase in the rate of inflation has been going up steadily over the last few years, and it is a fact that the inflation rate in this country has been rising for some years?
====================
My Lords, is it not the case that in the case of a child in residential care the parents who are not able to take care of the child are left in charge of the care until the child is deemed to be capable of the care of its own home? Is not that a rather odd situation?
====================
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity now offered to them to give an undertaking that they will, in the light of the recommendations of the Committee and of the Royal Commission, give careful attention to the question of casualty benefits. I do not want to press this Motion too hard, but I think it absolutely essential, and I am sure that in the need of a Joint Committee of this House and another place, which will judge this matter, that the Government should at once give an undertaking to pay attention to this problem. I think the House is understandably anxious to get this undertaking, and, if this question can be ruled out of order, I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate that we shall be entering a new chapter of the history of this House.
====================
My Lords, I wonder whether the right reverend Prelate is aware that the Ministry of Defence has a central register of individuals in the Armed Forces, and that those individuals are being transferred to the Ministry of Defence? I think he may be mentioning that, and I should like to know whether he is aware of it.
====================
No, noble Lords are not.
====================
My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for the reply he has given to my two amendments, I take it that he is aware that we have to deal with the issue of the value of the property in the initial phase of a residential development. The noble Lord has not dealt with the issue of the value of the land, but he has dealt with the issue of value to the tenant. I am not sure from what the noble Lord has said exactly what the position is. Perhaps the noble Lord will write to me with more information in a later amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord for putting the matter in that way and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
====================
My Lords, surely it is quite clear that we are talking about a very small number of cases. Is the noble Lord saying that some of the cases which come within the scope of the nearest relative?
====================
My Lords, I am aware of the problem. I realise the danger of the word "notor" in the Amendment, but I am not going to press it because I think that it is a matter for the Lords committee. There is a difficulty with the word "notor" and I should like to see an Amendment put down by the Government, so that the word "notor" should be changed by the committee.
====================
My Lords, in the interests of brevity I should like to make a brief point. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is not here at this time, and I am grateful to him for his kind words of congratulation on his colleague's appointment to the post. However, he will be aware that he was not able to be here earlier. He has offered the House a very welcome little more than usual and I do not think he should be so complacent as to think that we have had a general discussion on the agreement that he has put before the House. As I said, this is a very important matter and I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will feel that, in his new position, he can deal with the very serious problems that he has been encountering for many, many years. I think that he has made a most valuable contribution to the debate. I hope that he will find it a pleasant one.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Street, for introducing this critical debate. The debate is also timely, as it is the year of the World Cup. For many years this House has been involved in matters of international football, and in international sport. It is timely because during the past 20 years the sport which I know best of all is cricket. I leave it to the noble Lord to make his case, and I shall not bore the House by referring to the merits or otherwise of the debate. I shall, however, say a few words about international football. The debate will be about the best way of developing international cricket in a manner which is acceptable in the countries of the world. The noble Lord, Lord Street, mentioned in opening that, "the sport is different only in that it develops on its own frontier". That is not a new idea; it is something which was developed by the early nineteenth century. We have only to look at the Middle Ages to see that that was the case. I am sure that in the next century we shall have developed the same idea that the development of international cricket is a matter for the developing countries themselves. The idea is that that is the way in which cricket should develop. It is not a matter for the developing countries, but it is a matter for the developing countries, and they have developed the idea that they should develop cricket, so that they have a fair chance of going out on the winning side, with a few points deducted from the top of the bowling bowlers' list. Of course, if they do not do it, they are not going to win the game. The noble Lord, Lord Street, spoke about the question of the Olympic Games. I should like to pay tribute to the United Nations, which has been involved in the development of international cricket. My noble friend Lord Sandford spoke about the development of the International Cricket Council. I am sure that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not go into their names today. I should like to pay a tribute to the development of the ICC, which is at present developing cricket. However, I should like to refer briefly to the development of the ICC. It was established by the United Nations in 1951. It was returned to its home when the United Nations adopted the status of the Commission for Co-operation in International Cricket. The ICC is a non-governmental organisation and the development of the ICC is a matter for the Commonwealth Heads of Government and the other international organisations which have developed cricket. The noble Lord, Lord Street, referred to the major events in cricket which are now taking place. I have no doubt that he will refer to the last World Cup in Sydney in 1979, which was played at the Royal Victoria Dock. I will refer to the first World Cup which was played at the Royal Albert Dock in 1959. I welcome the development of the cricket in the world. As my noble friend Lord Pakenham said, the development was not simply a matter of international cricket but a matter of international cricket in the Commonwealth. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, mentioned the importance of the Birmingham Test, which is now held in England. I congratulate the noble Lord on his maiden speech. I would also like to pay tribute to the efforts of my noble friend Lord Pakenham and I am glad to say that he has been able to contribute in this important way. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, said that the cricket is the world's game. I have never heard anyone criticise cricket as the world's game. It is the world's game, and in cricket it is the world's game. Cricket is a world game, and it is the world's game that the Commonwealth game is developed. I should like to point out that cricket is a global game and not a matter of Commonwealth cricket. I should also like to point out that in the past there have been many Commonwealth games, but some of the most interesting ones were played in Australia and South Africa. I should like to ask my noble friend whether he can tell us what was the position at the time of the Melbourne Test, which was played at the Royal Albert Dock. I think that my noble friend was told that the ball was stopped at the end of the third ball and that the bowler had to make a deliberate stop. Rather, it was a little "rudy" and he did bail it out. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, mentioned the question of the Indian Ocean. I do not believe that it is a question of cricket but of international cricket. I believe that in the future it will be the development of international cricket that will operate. As was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Pakenham, cricket has developed in a world of risk. It was developed as a risk game and in the future it will be developed as a risk game. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Pakenham has given us a good example of the evolution of cricket. I also appreciate his reference to the fact that
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his Answer, but I am not sure that his answer is completely satisfactory. When he says that the arrangements which have been made for the benefit of the elderly are now being implemented, does he agree that that is not really what the Government are saying? I wonder whether the Minister can tell us, as I want to know, what the position is about the housing benefit claimants being given an option to move on to a means test, so that they can qualify for housing benefit? In those circumstances, I wonder whether the Minister can tell us whether that has been done or is at all the intention. It is very confusing and I suspect that many of your Lordships will be wondering the same thing. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will tell us what he thinks. I am not sure that I am quite clear what the position is, although I understand that it is the intention of the Government to introduce housing benefit. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer any questions that I may have. I am not sure whether the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, is aware that the Bill makes it possible for a person who is at home to apply for housing benefit, as a pensioner, if he wishes to move to a home. That is a very substantial benefit, which is available to a pensioner. I wonder whether the Minister can answer the last question I asked. I do not know whether the Bill makes the benefits available to pensioners available to those who are in need of housing benefit. I should like to know whether it is the intention of the Government to legislate that that should be the case. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, is aware that the Bill makes it possible for a pensioner who is in need of housing benefit to try and get a home. I do not know whether it is the intention of the Government to provide, through the social security system, for someone in that situation to get some form of housing benefit if he is in need of some form of pension. It would be a very substantial benefit, but not a pension. I asked the Minister whether such a provision might be made. I understand that it is not possible to legislate for pensioners. I also wonder whether this Bill will enable a pensioner to move somewhere else if he wishes to do that. I should like to know whether it is intended to permit a pensioner to move to a home. I believe that a pensioner will move to a home for the first time if the Bill is passed. I am not quite clear what is meant by "a home". I am not sure whether the clause means that a pensioner who has moved to a home will automatically have access to a home. I do not know whether a pensioner will live in a house without a home, or whether the conditions are merely that he should have a home and that he should have a home when he is eligible for pension. Are the Government saying that, when he has moved to a home, he will be entitled to an extra home, but that he will not have to live in it? I think that is not a very satisfactory way of looking at this matter. I should like to know whether the Minister could comment on that. We have not had an answer to my Question. I am not sure whether the Minister has the justification for the scheme. I do not want to repeat what he has said in the Statement. I do not want to speak for long. I am only trying to get the Government to look at the matter again, because there is something entirely wrong here. We are talking about a pensioner moving to a home, or he will be using a home for the first time, and should be assisted on the move. That seems to me to be the whole purpose of the Bill.
====================
I do not think that the noble Lord mentioned that at all. I said that the Minister had said that the matter would be considered. The fact is that the Bill will not be introduced until the next Session, in the first year of the current Session. I think that the noble Lord will agree that it will take some considerable time to introduce it. I do not think that the Bill will stand up, as he thinks, to scrutiny. I think that the Minister has made a mistake. He said that it would not be introduced until the next Session. That is not right. It was introduced between the beginning of the Session and the beginning of the Session from which the Bill would come. I did not say that it would not be introduced by the next Session. I said that it would be introduced in the first year of the current Session.
====================
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for raising this important point during the previous business day. I have to admit that I have not been on to the Committee and, if I were, I would have been happy to take his noble friend's point away and consider it.
====================
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. I was privileged to be a member of the Royal Commission on Human Rights and I was fortunate to be able to report at its first meeting; but it was a very wonderful experience for me to have to be present at the first meeting of the Royal Commission on Human Rights. This Bill brings together together the spirit and the letter of the Royal Commission on Human Rights and implements the recommendations of that Royal Commission. I am sure that the House will welcome the Bill. It is a very important Bill. I should like to congratulate the Government on their new initiative. I am not sure that I agree with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, says about it, but I am sure that the Bill will go a long way to preserving the rights of family life and protecting the family. I should like to thank the Government for their willingness to introduce the Bill. I am pretty sure that the Government have done it with the greatest of commendable courage and tenacity. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Foot, for his support. I feel that the Bill is very important and I congratulate him as it has been introduced into the Bill. As your Lordships will know, there is another Bill before the House. I am sure that the House will be interested in this Bill as it has been introduced into the Bill stage. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will also have a great deal to say on it. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Foot, for taking this Bill forward and for his support. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for his support. I am sure that we all wish the Bill a speedy passage. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Foot, for introducing the Bill.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. But is my noble friend aware that the reason for this amendment is not simply that the Government have not yet been consulted and have not yet decided? The government have done their best to consult on this matter. However, the many questions I am asking for clarification are not just technical questions. They should be answered now.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for what he has said, but I do not believe that this is a case for a public inquiry. However, in the light of the fact that in fact the Government have nothing to offer at the moment, I think that we should take the opportunity that he has indicated of asking the noble Lord now. I am grateful for the Minister's sympathy.
====================
I support the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his statement. We appreciate the difficulties that have been experienced in the past by the British Airports Authority. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, is right to draw attention to the point that all the problems have arisen in the past, but it is not just a matter of the past. The reason is that the BAA has been in office since the end of the war. That means that the problems have arisen from and have been with the BAA. I am sure that, for many years, we shall have a great difficulty in dealing with all the problems that have arisen. It is not just a matter of the past. Even the noble Lord was not happy with the statement that he read out.
====================
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, is here. Perhaps he will not take up my remark. I shall be very pleased to keep it to my brief. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, quite rightly said that there were people outside the House who were not prepared to accept the amendment. I have not heard the final word on the amendment but I shall certainly look at it again if the noble Lord feels that it is not fair.
====================
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, is right in thinking that the welfare of the child involved is something that is in our minds. However, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, is wrong in thinking that the welfare of the child involved is something for the local authority towards which they are not responsible. I should like to remind the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, that it is a matter for the local authority.
====================
My Lords, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that the sale of these freehold houses to local authorities is a normal matter for a local authority? Therefore the sale of them to housing associations is not a normal matter for a housing association.
====================
My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, refers to the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, which, however, I have not the slightest doubt about. I had the pleasure of hearing him speak on another occasion on the Second Reading of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, and I have the honour of being the junior counsel for the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I think we would all agree that the Government are right when they say that the purpose of the Bill is to give greater protection to the women who have been through the line and are now being treated when it is discovered that they have miscarried and that they are to be subject to the law. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was right in saying that there is a danger of women being taken out of the family home to be treated and that is a point which is not being made. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is right in his opinion that the Bill is a miscarriage of justice. I think I am right in saying that the Bill, as it now stands, will prevent miscarriages of justice, and that one of the reasons for that is the way in which it is drafted. I believe that it is a miscarriage of justice that there should be a law in regard to the medical advice given to a woman who has had a miscarriage. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is right when he says that if the Bill had been introduced the woman would have been entitled to legal aid. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is right when he says, as he has suggested, that the Bill is a miscarriage of justice. I do not think it is a miscarriage of justice that the woman should be entitled to legal advice; I think it is a miscarriage of justice that she should not be entitled to legal advice because the law is not a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will not press his Motion.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. It is no part of the Government's policy to limit or restrict the freedom of expression. I accept the noble Lord's commitment that this is a matter of fundamental concern to the British community.
====================
My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has understood that the Government are discussing the position on the Bill and not the position as it is now. I would be happy to bring forward amendments if the noble Lord wishes them.
====================
My Lords, is not the Minister aware that the whole burden of taxation in the country is being transferred to the public sector? Is he not also aware that the burden of cost is being transferred to the public sector? Is he not also aware that, so far as the public sector is concerned, the burden of taxation is being transferred from the public sector to the employer, who, by the very nature of the economy and the way in which the public sector has been allowed to operate, will not be able to carry that burden of taxation?
====================
My Lords, one of the immediate problems of the situation is the actual lack of funds for the national health services. I am sure that we have all heard the stories of the terrible hardship caused by the lack of funds for the national health services. The Government are aware of this and that they are going to find some way towards resolving it.
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, for their support for the amendment. I think it is necessary to have a clear definition of "corporation". I can see some difficulties in the definition of "corporation" because it could be a corporation which is a nationalised company or an industrial company. It is not an absolute definition, but it is a useful one. I should like to support the amendment.
====================
My Lords, at this time I would like to make two brief points. First, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Reay, has in his mind that the loss of the extra revenue from the planned increases of the rates would be very much to be welcomed. I would like to add one further point. I have in mind the possibility of a higher rate for a house of poverty—a house in which the landlord is the owner—if the Government can persuade the tenants to pay more for their housing. I should like to ask the noble Lord if he is not yet aware that a house on the wrong side of the road is a less desirable property than a house on the right side of the road. I hope he will think of that point. Secondly, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Reay, is right in thinking that the Government and the country are now conscious of the need for house price inflation and we should not be in a position to provide more houses to the country as a whole, or even to provide more to the benefit of the owner of the house. I would like to say a word on the second point. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, are right in thinking that there is a fair chance that the Government will make a contribution in some way towards the further rises in prices. I would like to add one further point. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, is right in thinking that some contribution should be made in some way or another towards the price and the maintenance of the house. I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Reay, for the way in which he has put forward the case that the Government should contribute in some way towards the maintenance of the properties in which the owner is involved. I am sure that this is the right thing to do. I would like to say this. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Reay, will have his own views on the point, but I think that I have got the impression that he is quite right in saying that there is a fair chance that the Government will contribute in some way towards the maintenance of these properties. If the noble Lord, Lord Reay, is right in that belief, I am sure he is right in saying that he is right to make the suggestion.
====================
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Nuffield, has made a useful contribution. I am sure that the House will wish to hear it, and I am grateful to him for giving us the opportunity of our reply to a very important question. In the course of his speech, the noble Lord said that he had seen the White Paper about the future of the National Health Service. It is, I understand, a most comprehensive review of the whole structure of the National Health Service and the proposals which the Government are making. I should like to say to the noble Lord that, as a result of this review, the Government have decided that they will take the action which he suggested. The noble Lord also asked about the question of the future of the National Health Service. The noble Lord has made it clear that he does not want legislation to be passed which would jeopardise the National Health Service. I can assure noble Lords that, despite our very strict inspection of the White Paper, we are considering all the alternatives, and this is a matter for the National Health Service as a whole to consider. The noble Lord asked me about the position of the National Health Service and the possibility of the United Kingdom being divided into parts. The White Paper is entitled "The Future of the National Health Service", and the measures of a future National Health Service are given in the introduction. It is quite true that the White Paper suggests the application of a single national health scheme, but the proposals that the Government have issued are designed to provide for a much wider and more flexible scheme. There are three main differences between the proposals that the Government have published and those that I have just mentioned. First, the proposals for some future national health scheme are oriented towards the key, and not towards the home and social services. I think there are two points here. In the first place, the White Paper proposes that the home health service should be a central part of any future National Health Service. The Home Health Service is, after all, the service which is best administered by the home and social services. In the second place, there is a difference of approach between the type of scheme which the Government have published and which the Government have rejected. In the former, the Home Health Service is not to be a central part of the National Health Service. The Home Health Service is not to be a central part of the National Health Service; in the latter, it is to be a central part of the social services. The first of these differences is that the Home Health Service is to be a central part of the social services. In the first case, there is a difference of approach between home health and social services. In the second case, the Home Health Service is not to be a central part of the National Health Service. The noble Lord asked me about the National Health Service. As I said, the Government have published a comprehensive review of the whole structure of the National Health Service. I can assure him that there is no question that the Government are not prepared to take away the proposals for a change of structure, but that the structure is the subject of the discussions between the National Health Service and the various local authorities. I can assure him that the proposals for a change of structure are in fact under discussion. The noble Lord asked me about the National Health Service. I think that the noble Lord will find in the White Paper a large part of the proposals for a change of structure, and I do not think that he will expect me to say anything further about that matter. The noble Lord asked me about the future of the National Health Service. The answer is that it is intended that the policy of the National Health Service will continue, and will continue to be changed by legislation. The noble Lord asked me about the National Health Service and whether the Health Service is to be a central part of it. I cannot give him any kind of guarantee that it is to be a central part. Perhaps I may make this clear. The ultimate aim of the National Health Service is to provide a comprehensive service for people. I have said it many times; it is a central aim, and it is not a central part of the National Health Service. I am not prepared to say that this will not be changed by legislation, because, of course, this is a matter for the National Health Service. But it is intended that the National Health Service will continue to be a central part of the social services, and it is the central part of the social services that this is intended to be a central part of the National Health Service. I am sorry that the noble Lord does not want to hear any more about this matter.
====================
My Lords, I am sure that the House will wish me to repeat the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in another place on the recent visit of his Council for Scotland to the United Kingdom. The Statement says: "My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has visited the United Kingdom. He has said that he has received from the body of the Lord President of the Council a letter inviting him to make a statement on his behalf and asking him to convey the letter to the United Kingdom. I have also received a copy of the letter. I have here a letter from the Lord President of the Council, dated 1st October, which asks me to convey the letter to the United Kingdom. I have not yet received the letter. I have asked the matter to be referred now to the Lord President of the Council, and I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this with him."
====================
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I am not sure that if he had been here this afternoon he would have noticed that this is not the only occasion on which I raised the question of the London boroughs. If the noble Lord had noticed, I am sure he would have been very glad to hear that. As the noble Lord will know, the London boroughs are excluded from the primary Bill, but they have been consulted. The London boroughs have put their views on to the Select Committees and they have been considered in every other place. I do not know whether my noble friend the Minister sees fit to call them a Select Committee, but I hope that he will look at this point in that light. I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister whether he will give us a reply as to the position of the London boroughs with regard to the Bill.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for providing this opportunity for us to debate the subject of the right of people to be on the NHS. I know that the House will agree that the right of people to be on the NHS should be regulated and that that should be the condition of membership of the NHS. However, I want to introduce a second point which I believe the Bill should address. That is the issue of the right of people to remain on the NHS. I am not sure that that is a personal aim at all. I am not sure that at all the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is aware how many of my very distinguished colleagues are on the Health Service. Therefore, I hope that he will agree that it is a personal aim at the moment.
====================
My Lords, it is not a question of not wanting to come to a decision, it is a question of the Government thinking what they want to do when it comes to the matter. As I understand it there is no declaration of intent. It is a question of whether or not it will be a Declaration of Intent. The Minister of State has not yet arrived, but it is what I have heard.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He has raised two points on this Bill. One is that the people who want to be left out are the people who live in the south of England, and the other is the people who want to be selected. I am not sure whether the people that go forward to be left out are the people who live in the south of England or the people who live in the north of England. I can see the point about the north, but it is not very clear whether the people in the north of England are really going to be left out.
====================
My Lords, I support the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, on his Motion. I support it because I think that the Government are not yet prepared to face up to the fact that not only do we need to take action in this matter of the future of the National Health Service, but that we in this House have to face the fact that the National Health Service is a service which is needed not only for patients in the National Health Service, but for all citizens in this country. The fact that we have had to face that fact is not only a disappointment but a danger to the future of the National Health Service. I have for years been an advocate of the National Health Service. I have taken part in debates and I have been very interested in debates, but I do not think that I have ever had any experience whatever of the primary care of patients. I was a member of the National Health Service, but I have not had any experience in the hospital or in the National Health Service. I feel that it is necessary to have some kind of personal contacts with patients in their own hospitals, because if they are really sick they have to be seen in their own hospitals and so get the very best treatment and no inconvenience at all. I therefore hope very much that the Government will at least look at this question very carefully and find a way of dealing with it. As the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, has said, it is essential that we should have proper medical care for the people who are sick. I believe that if you are sick and are seen in the National Health Service you will get the best treatment. If you are really sick and are seen in your own hospital, your doctor will call out for you. In my view, it is absolutely essential that we should have proper medical care for sick people. I welcome the attempt of the Government to deal with this matter. I hope they will do so. I hope the Minister will look at this matter again. I congratulate the noble Viscount on the way in which he has dealt with it. We are all very grateful for that. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
====================
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend but I will not trouble your Lordships with the details of the proceedings at the First Reading of the Bill. As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Robert, has not yet got his own name, and I think I am right in saying that the name of the noble Lord, Lord Speight, has been put forward, but in any case the noble Lord is, I think, the only one who appears to be right in this matter. Therefore, if there is a difference between us, and if Lord Speight is not the one who wants this Bill, then my noble friend Lord Sandford will have his way. I was going to ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, whether he would like to speak on this Bill. Surely it would not be proper for the noble Lord to speak on the First Reading and to speak against the Bill. Therefore, if he will not he welcome. If he will, I am sure he will feel that we are all in sympathy with him.
====================
I am not sure about the last one, but I was a little surprised to hear what my noble friend said. You make the decision in the most direct and constructive way possible, and it is a decision which the Government are now taking. The Government have already made it clear that the Government will take the view that the new system is impracticable. The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, said that the Government are consulting the trades unions, and I think he is right in saying that they are to be consulted. I do not think there is any doubt about that. I think the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, is right in saying that the Government are in a position to make the decision in the way he has indicated. I do not think the noble Lord has said that they are not. I think they are, but that is not the whole point. One of the reasons for the Government's decision is that they are putting the country on the right track and getting the right attitude. I did not say that they are not.
====================
I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, could give us a fuller answer to that point. He said that the cost of the new building would be £50,000. I would like to know what the figure is. I think that the cost of the new building will be £2,750,000. Is that £50,000 or £500,000—
====================
I should like to support the amendment, which is in my name and in the name of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. I believe that the Government have a great opportunity to show their good intentions in this regard, because one way would be to make it compulsory for children over the age of 11 to have a single-parent home. The other way would be to make it compulsory for children under the age of 11 to have a single-parent home, or, equally, for children over the age of 11 to have a single-parent home. That would make an enormous difference to the child and would do a lot of good. There is a huge problem in this area. A child who is single-parented for the first time is, by comparison, a child with two parents. It is not a child with two parents; it is a child with two parents, and those who are single-parenters cannot have a single-parent home. I should like to see that made compulsory, and I should like to see that it should be compulsory for children under the age of 11 to have a single-parent home. I believe that these amendments are a help to the Government in this matter.
====================
I am not quite sure what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said. He said that we should not be looking for new legislation at all. I thought the answer was that we should have been. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, asked about the possibility of legislation being introduced in the future. I do not know whether it is the Government's intention to introduce legislation in the future. But I think it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce legislation on this very point. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, made a wonderful speech. I have listened to his speech many times in your Lordships' House. I know that he is one of the best speakers ever to speak in a debate. Therefore, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for his speech. I appreciate the great difficulties that he has been in all this time, and I am sure that we shall have many more debates on this very important question. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
====================
My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will let me have the figures. The figure of £3 million was the figure of the Government, and the figure of £5 million was the figure of the noble Baroness. It is not a matter of the amount in money, but the amount of money. I will not give the figure to the noble Lord, but I will be very happy to look at this matter again and see whether I am right. I am not sure whether the noble Lord can give me the figures, but I will look at it.
====================
My Lords, may I intervene? The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, is asking me to intervene, and I am obliged to do so. I do not think the noble Lord has an understanding of the situation at the moment. A new minister came in, who has been appointed by the previous government and has had to deal with this problem before this Government came in, and he has had to deal with the problems of the Irish situation. Can the noble Lord say whether that trouble of the Irish situation is in the programme of action being taken by the present Minister of State?
====================
My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for the payment of compensation to the injured party in respect of any loss sustained as a result of a breach of contract or other tort or violation of contract. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time; and I beg to move that it be now read a second time.
====================
I am grateful for that clarification. I am not sure whether the word "correct" is intended as a noun or as an adjective. I shall be glad to be reassured by the noble Lord, Lord Richard.
====================
If I may say so, I did not say that the Minister should be allowed to say, "I am sorry I am not convinced of the facts, but I shall find out what is happening and write to you". I said that he should not be allowed to say, "I am just saying, I am not convinced, but I will write to you", or "I am not sure, but I shall try to find out", or to say, "I am sorry but I cannot give you another answer". It is not true to say that you should not ask for a revised answer". I should not have thought that that was the right course to take.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I am not sure that I have met the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, and I am not sure that I met the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, either. I am not sure about the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and I am not sure that I met him. I was not sure about the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and I am not sure about the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron. I am not sure about the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, met the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, but I think I did. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, met the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, or not. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, met the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, or not. I think I did. I met the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, and I met the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, but I lost him. I did not see the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron. I did not see the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, and I cannot believe that I missed him. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, was in his place at the time and I am not sure that he did meet the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, as I understood it. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, met the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, or not. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, met the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron and the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron. I did not meet the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron. I did not see him. The noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, met the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron. It was not my business to go round meeting the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron. I have not met anybody else. However, I have met the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, and that was the very end of the story. He did not meet the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, and I did not see him. I was not told that he met the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron. I said that I was not sure about his meeting, but I did not see him. He did not meet the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, and I did not see the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, either. I was not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, met the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, or not. I did not see him and I do not know whether he met the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, or not. I did not meet the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, but I did not cover him. I did not meet him. I did not see him. I was not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, was in his place at the time and I was not sure that he did meet the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, or not. I did not meet the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, and I did not see him. I was not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, met the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, or not. I did not meet the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, as I understood it. I did not see the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron. I did not meet the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, but I did meet the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, met the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, or not. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, met the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, or not. But I did not meet the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron. The noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, met the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron. I was not sure whether he met the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, or not. I did not meet him. I was not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, met the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, or not. I did not meet the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, and I did not meet the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron. I did not meet the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, and
====================
I shall not detain the Committee by repeating the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, but I am bound to say that I do not agree with what he says. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is wrong. It is a combination of all the circumstances that we are discussing now. We are dealing now with what happened after the report of the Select Committee. As I understand it, it did not take place at all. I am not certain the exact circumstances, but it was not at all. That is why we are now discussing these amendments.
====================
My Lords, I am in a sense grateful for the noble Lord's intervention. I am sure that when he speaks in a debate in your Lordships' House he will wish to speak with a little more passion and not, as he did last time, with a little, or even a little, of the quips that are his forte. I do not think that we could be reassured by his intervention. It is a pity that the spirit of this debate has not been more in tune with the spirit of the business. If we are to have a more vigorous debate, we must have stronger indication of what the Government propose to do. As my noble friend Lord Belstead said, there are a great many issues on which there is not sufficient time to discuss them. I think that I may have misheard my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, when he said that he did not think that this was a party political debate. I believe that it is a party political debate because it is not party political. It is a very serious issue. It is a serious issue which we must be well aware of and we have not spoken about it in the way that we should. There is a large number of issues which must be properly discussed. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, have made some very important points. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, whether the Government have not talked to the CBI about the increasing cost of the Civil Service. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, referred to the fact that in the Civil Service the junior officers are not paid. There are many other reasons why they do not get the pay that they do get. It is up to the Government to explain to the public that they will ensure that senior officers receive as much as they get. That is why we have increased the salaries of some of the lowest ranks of the Civil Service. It is because of the kind of problems that we have been discussing that in the past we have done our best to raise the pay of the other ranks of the Civil Service.
====================
My Lords, it is not often that I have occasion to say to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that I am sorry that he is unable to be here this afternoon. I have already said to him that I have nothing to add to what I said in my opening remarks in the last debate this afternoon. I must apologise to him for the delay in which he has taken up your Lordships' time. It has been one of the things that has blocked me as regards my opening remarks. However, I have now received his letter of resignation, and I am grateful for its assurance that he will have the opportunity of hearing it. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful for the easy reply which the Minister has given. I am sure that he understands that the amendment was drafted with the intention that it should be available, but it is not available now. My question relates to the deletion of Clause 4, which refers to the payment of compensation for damage caused to property. The clause refers to the payment of compensation for damage caused to property, but it refers to the damage suffered by the owner. What is the position as between the owner and the owner of the property, if the owner is in possession of the property and the property is damaged? What is its position in that case?
====================
My Lords, as one who was one of those who wrote the last report, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, feels that he is not represented by my noble friend the Minister. I am sure that the whole House will agree that the report was extremely useful and valuable, particularly when the Government were faced with the task of dealing with the very serious problems which faced them. That is why I say that it was more appropriate for the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to speak in his place, particularly in contrast to the comment which he made in his opening speech. It is not only right that the noble Lord should speak in his place, but I suggest that it is also right for the Minister to make a contribution in his place.
====================
The noble Lord can add to that.
====================
I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He has done a service by giving me an opportunity to put my case. I am sure that he will agree that I have done that and that he has found the way to the Bill very clear. I shall of course read what he has said in Hansard with interest. I very much hope that the Minister will feel that the Bill is clear and can be supported.
====================
I have not moved the amendment.
====================
Amendment No. 5?
====================
My Lords, lets be very clear about one thing. We have not yet met the burden of the whole of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, among others, has explained how the Bill will work. I understood what he said, but I do not know whether he has not, and perhaps he will write to me about it. I was not clear about the second part of the noble Lord's question. I did not understand the distinction between the criminal justice system and the judicial system. I do not know whether he has not misunderstood. However, that is the distinction I made. I thought that the Bill was going to be introduced in this Session. If the Bill is introduced in the first Session I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, will not press his amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I thought I was getting the gist of the matter. I have no idea what the Government's position is as regards the figures referred to by my noble friend. I have no idea that the figures are correct. If he wants to know about them I shall write to him. But the problem is that we are talking about the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Hinton. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Hinton, referred to any figures at all.
====================
The noble Lord has, I think, mentioned the P.5A. Is he correct?
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that clarification and I shall read his words carefully. I do not think that the four-day debate in the other place attracted the necessary amount of attention, in terms of what the Government intend to do and what the Secretary of State, Mr. Milburn, intends to do. But I believe that he was sufficiently succinct to make it clear that the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the Secretary of State has the power of veto. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said about the need to be in a position to make a decision in the end, so far as the two Houses are concerned, as to which parts of the Bill are in or are in need of review. I was interested to hear from my noble friend that the Government believe that the two Houses have a proper balance in this matter. I am not sure whether that is appropriate or not. I am not sure whether I have been able to follow the noble Lord, Lord Meston, on this matter. I am not sure whether there is any danger of dividing the House on this. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, has made a very good speech, and I did not know that he was taking up the amendment and saying, "You are either in or you are out". I thought that he was merely saying that I was in or out. I am not sure about the balance, and I am grateful for the opportunity to put it to the Government.
====================
My Lords, I hope that the Minister will accept that I am not entirely satisfied with the way in which the new clause is drafted. It is a small, simplified and at first sight simple clause. It is not really effective. It is to be hoped that the amendments will be taken into account and that the new clause is to be seen as one of the amendments introduced on the last occasion. The clause is very simple. The amendments are an improvement and I am grateful that the Government have the courage to put it forward.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for his introduction of this important Bill. I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to him. I was a little surprised to hear him say that the Government were considering some changes to the Bill in the light of the events that took place at the weekend. I was not certain whether or not what he was saying was true, but of course that is the case. I have been in touch with the Minister and I hope he will be able to tell us whether the noble Lord is correct. I am also grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for the kind remarks he made to me. I should like to congratulate him on the way in which he dealt with the problems of this Bill. I know that many of your Lordships will wish to hear the words that he has spoken. I am sure that many of your Lordships are also very grateful for the noble Lord's kind words about my junior parliamentary draftsman. I am also very grateful for the support given by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. I am grateful for the support I received from the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, with which I am glad to be joined by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, on his introduction of this Bill. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, would agree with me that the questions of pension and other matters are a matter of an important matter for which the Government should take a good deal of time and which they have a good deal to learn from the experience of the past. As I say, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for providing the opportunity for this Bill. He will be able to deal with the matters which are of concern. I am also grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for the way in which they have dealt with the matters which are of concern. I am also grateful for the support which the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has given to the Bill, and for the way in which he has dealt with the problems of pensions. I am grateful for the support given by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. I am also grateful for the sympathy and support of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. I am glad to be joined by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, on his first term of office. I am happy to be here. I am sure that all Members of the House will be very glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, here. I am grateful for his patience, and also for his kind remarks about me. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for his support for this Bill. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for his sympathy to my honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for the way he dealt with the issues of pension, and also his own support for some of the measures which the Government propose in this Bill. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for the way in which he has dealt with some of the issues of pension concerns, and also for the support he has given to the proposals of the Government. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for the way in which he has dealt with the issues of pensions. I am grateful for the support that he has given to the Government's proposals. I am grateful for the sympathy of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for the pension provisions which are to be found in the Bill. I am grateful for the sympathy of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for the way in which he has dealt with the issues of pensions. I am also grateful for the support given by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to the proposals which are contained in this Bill. I am grateful for the support which he has given to the measures which are contained in this Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for the way in which he has dealt with the issues of pensions. I am grateful for the support he has given to many of the measures in the Bill, and also to the support which he has given to the Bill before us. I am grateful to him for the support he has given to the measures in the Bill which are set out in this Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for his support for this Bill. I am glad to have the opportunity, as I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on occasion with the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, so that the issues of pension are dealt with in the Bill. I
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does he accept that the issues with which we are concerned are the specific issue of the safety of services and that the public is entitled to expect an unequivocal answer to those issues? Does he further accept that the public has the right to expect an unequivocal answer to the specific question, "Will this place be safe?"
====================
My Lords, I speak from the Front Bench in this debate, but I have to be a little more discreet in my speech because I am speaking to the Leader of the House. I speak on behalf of the Opposition. However, I am glad that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde is interested in the Bill and I am glad that he has been given the opportunity to speak in this debate. I hope that I shall not be misunderstood in any way. I am glad that he is interested in the Bill and I am glad that he is to speak to the Opposition. I hope that he will be able to say what the Government intend to do, especially in relation to the Bill which is the subject of this Motion from the Front Bench. I hope that he will also say what is likely to be the Government's attitude towards the Bill so as to maintain the balance between the parties and secure the support of the House. I beg him to accept the Motion.
====================
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Reay, raised the question of the number of inspectors, perhaps I may reply briefly for the reasons which he gave. He pointed out that to get a full explanation of the reasons behind the new procedure a person working separate and apart from the Inspectorate would have to be able to be in an area where there was such problems. The Inspectorate contents itself with the problem of finding out the cause of the problems. The Minister said that such people should be able to be quickly and easily available on the spot. But if they were not, it would be very difficult for them to be able to report. It would be very difficult to get them to report because they would not be able to report. They would not be able to get them to report. They would not be able to report to them. It would be very difficult to do that at the moment. The Minister suggested that simply that there should be someone in the area, not a person in the Inspectorate, and that the inspector should have a go at the problem. I have heard the Minister's reply. I have a feeling that it will not work, but I am not so sure. I should have thought that if the Inspectorate were the person in the area and there was the problem that it would report to the Inspectorate, the inspector would have a go at it and the inspector would go down there and report. That is not what is proposed in this Bill. The Inspectorate is the person in the area and it is in the interest of the inspectorate to help the inspectorate to solve the problem. If there is a problem the Inspectorate would report it to the Inspectorate; and if the inspector had a problem and the Inspectorate had to report it, that would not help the inspector. What is proposed is that the inspector should be in the Inspector-General's area and that he should report to him the problems of the inspectorate. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Reay, is right in that argument. I do not know whether it is the case that if the Inspectorate is there, the inspector will have a go at it, or whether he will report to the Inspectorate and so on. I do not know. I would not be happy if I did not have some notion that the inspector will be there. I should have thought that it would be quite impossible to get the inspector there. We do not know what will happen. The Minister said that it will depend upon the arrangement of the inspectors. Well, it is quite often that the Inspector-General will be there, and we have set up the Inspectorate in the first place. Therefore I do not think that that is a very satisfactory argument. I think that the Minister is right about the importance of the inspector. I think that the supervisory function of the inspector is a good thing. It is helpful to have the inspector there, because he can tell us what is going on and tell us what is happening. I leave any doubts to the noble Lord.
====================
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, for giving us the opportunity of discussing this matter, and I can assure him that the Government are fully aware of the problems that face the small employer. I have a number of letters from them, and I shall be glad to discuss them with him. I have talked to the National Union of Small Businesses and they are most sympathetic to the small employer, who is faced with the necessity of going into the small employer's market, having to go through this process of retraining and reorganisation. I am sure that the Government are fully aware of the problems that face small employers, and that they are conscious of the need to do it in order to provide the most suitable, competitive environment for small employers. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that his letter has given a very sympathetic reply.
====================
<|startoftext|>I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for his remarks. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for raising the point about the great interest in the future of the railways. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for raising the issue of regional air services to the attention of the Committee. All of these amendments are helpful and I welcome the addition of these amendments to the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for raising the issue of the planning of the railways. I am glad that he has raised it, because I think it is important. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for raising the point which I used to raise in your Lordships' House on these issues in relation to the planning of the railways. I am glad to hear from the noble Lord that there will be a review of this, and I am most grateful to him for raising it. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for raising the issue of the relationship between the railway authorities and the Rail Freight Group, and also for raising the issue of the possible use of the Rail Freight Group and the Railways Board to enable the Rail Freight Group to acquire land. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for raising the issue of the Railway Act and the more recent development of the Rail Freight Group. I am very grateful for the stiff welcome given by the noble Lord to these amendments. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for raising the question of the powers of the Rail Freight Group. I am grateful to him for raising the issue of the Rail Freight Group and for pointing out the problems which will arise because of the concentration of interests which will be brought to the Forecourt. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for raising the question of the plans for the Forecourt. I am grateful to him for raising the matter in this House. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. I would like to say to him that I shall be consulting the Minister about the question which he has asked me. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Houghton and Lord Houghton of Saffron Walden, for their relatively wide-ranging and detailed amendments. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for raising the question of the possibility of the Rail Freight Group acquiring land. Having said that, I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, that I welcome the opening up of the discussion. I hope that it will be of use to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, when he raises the question of the proposed acquisition. I would suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will look at the point which he raises in relation to the Forecourt. I am glad that he raised the point about the Rail Freight Group, and I am grateful to him for raising it. I am glad that he raised the point about the possible use of the Rail Freight Group to acquire land. I am glad to hear from him that, if he has the opportunity to look at the question of the possible use of the Rail Freight Group, he will find there is a very good reason for it. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for raising the question of the co-operation of the Rail Freight Group and the Rail Freight Board in the purchase of land. I am grateful to him for raising the point about the possible use of the Rail Freight Board and the Rail Freight Group to acquire land. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for raising the question of the use of the Forecourt. I am grateful for his remarks. I am grateful to him for raising the question of the possibility of the Rail Freight Group acquiring land. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for raising the question of the possible use of the Rail Freight Group to acquire land. I am grateful for his remarks and I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that I am most grateful for his support. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that I am most grateful for the welcome given to these amendments, which I have everything to say about them. I am glad to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will be seeking advice on the matter. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Saffron Walden, for raising the question of the future of the Forecourt. I am grateful to him for raising the question of resources. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has raised the question of the potential of the Forecourt to be used as a site for the National Theatre. I am grateful
====================
My Lords, I am sure that the House will agree that the time has now come to consider the question of the payment of compensation to the employees. It seems to me that it is possible, as the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, suggested, that we might like to see a compensation scheme, and perhaps make some provision for it, for those who have lost their jobs because of the actions which they have brought to their employers, but that is not an issue which would justify the clause.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's intervention. I have some sympathy with him. I am sure that when the Government are considering the bill, they will provide a proper protection which is appropriate to the field. However, as he is well aware, the whole of the field is covered by this Bill. The noble Lord has raised a number of points about the Bill. I can in no way seek to comment on them. I believe that the purpose of the word "national" is to provide for the protection of wildlife and other natural features, and I am grateful to him for raising the issue. I should like to consider the noble Lord's remarks and perhaps write to him. I do not believe that I can answer all his points, but I shall consider his criticisms. On the point about the word "national" in the Bill, I wish to make it clear that there is no difference in the meaning of the word either in the Bill or in the regulations. The reason that the word is used is to ensure that there is clarity about what the Bill is about. It is important to follow the word "national" and ensure that there is clarity in the Bill about what the Bill is about. I have not yet come to any real point about the use of the word "national". I have listened to the noble Lord. I can see the benefit in giving the Government the authority to interpret the word in the way he wishes.
====================
My Lords, is the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, aware that I am a consultant to the National Council for Citizens Advice, and I am a member of the Select Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, on Diseases of the Mind? I should like to ask the noble Lord this question. Can he say whether any member of the public is informed of the incidence or incidence of all mental disorders? I agree that some people will be, but the public are not informed of the incidence or incidence of mental disorders, and it is most unsatisfactory that they should be.
====================
My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Knowles, asked me about the number of diedhards, I said that I would not comment on it.
====================
My Lords, I do not want to take up the time of the House, but I feel that the Minister is wrong when he says that the purpose of the Bill has been to keep the Tories out. The purpose of the Bill is to protect the Labour Party. That is what it does. I do not want to spend too long on the matter, but perhaps I may add my voice to that of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, in saying that this is a very serious matter indeed. I think that the Government have gone a long way in trying to protect the Labour Party with the Bill. I should like to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, and I hope he will accept the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I said that there was no world in which that kind of thing could take place. Things that could happen, if people were in the same position, are very different. It is not the same as if one were to be a secretary of the Bank of England and the other was a director of the Bank of England. I am not saying that they would be in the same position. I am saying that they would be in the same position if they were in a similar position. It is not the same as if one were to be a secretary of the Bank of England and the other were to be a director of the Bank of England. I am not saying that they would be in the same position.
====================
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I do not believe that the local authorities are guilty. I do not believe that they are guilty, and I think they are innocent. The local authorities are guilty.
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for raising this question, and for raising it so clearly and so strongly. I am sure that most of your Lordships will have read in the newspapers the accounts of the conference which was held in Edinburgh last night, and the accounts of the discussions. It is with some regret that I am unable to speak for the Government in this matter at this stage. I think it would be out of keeping the House in suspense if I were to do so. I can only say that I will look at the report very carefully, and give my best consideration to it. I am sure, as I am sure most of your Lordships will, that it will be a valuable contribution to the debate. I should like to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for raising this matter, because it is a subject which is very important to the country. I am sure that, under the circumstances, he will not expect me to give any kind of answer, because he knows his position better than I do. Nevertheless, I am sure that I am speaking for the Government in this case, and I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he would like me to answer this particular point.
====================
My Lords, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that I hope he is not going to take the view that the Bill will not secure the rights of the individual, but that it is something which should be considered after four years, and that we should not rush it through?
====================
My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, one question. In the case of a private medical school, how much is the market value of the medical school, and how much is the cost of the medicine. Is that the case in Scotland?
====================
I do not think that we are now discussing the general criteria of the Bill. We are talking about the particular aspects of the Bill, as I understand it. I am not prepared to give way to the noble Lord.
====================
I was not proposing that the Government should change the law to give the courts power to refuse bail unless there is a breach of the terms of the bail order. That would be contrary to the wisdom of the provisions of the Bill. If the court is to have discretion in relation to the disclosure of information, then it should be empowered to refuse bail in that respect.
====================
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but he is not in a position to answer my point without the permission of the House. I hope he will give the answer now, because I am not in that position, and I am afraid that the Amendment is to be found not in the Bill, but in the Standing Orders.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for introducing this debate. I am sure he will be gratified that it has taken place today and that we have had such a lively debate. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, began by saying that he welcomed the Bill. I agree. This is a Bill which should be introduced. I am sorry that it has not been introduced earlier. I have been asked to speak on this Bill from the Front Bench by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, because I have written a book about the Bills which I hope the Government will introduce. I appreciate the difficulty of his introduction. I do not believe that he has the slightest idea what he is talking about. Therefore, I am bound to say that he will probably find that he has had to solve his problems on this Bill. I am glad that he has. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, also asked me what I meant by "apparently". I should have been more good and more clear if the noble Lord had concentrated on the word "apparently". I do not believe that he was speaking about that. I speak about what I am trying to do. I think it is a good idea. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has done so. I should also like to say a word about the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, himself. My own view is that he is an extremely good Minister. I am glad that he has been in the D.S.I. and I hope that he will have no faults. I have not met him since I left the D.S.I.—I am sorry, I had to take the noble Lord with me—and I hope that I shall not have to deal with him again. I do not know whether he is an elected member of the D.S.I. but I have read his speech and I have an idea that he spoke with some authority. Therefore, I am glad that he has been in the D.S.I. and I am very glad that he is in the House of Commons. I should like to say a word about the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on the subject of the D.S.I. I am sure that he will find it very difficult to explain himself, but if I have understood him correctly he will find that I am not speaking for him. As the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said, we are dealing with a very important Bill. I think it is a good Bill and we especially welcome it. It is one of several measures that we are considering in your Lordships' House. I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for introducing this Bill. I am sure that we all look forward to the Committee stage and to the Report stage which are going to follow the passage of this Bill. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will find it a very useful Bill. I am sure that we all look forward to its Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said that this was a "monumental" Bill. I am glad to know that there is a good deal to be said for it. I am very glad that he thinks that it will be a "monumental" Bill and that it will be a very suitable place in which to discuss this Bill. I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for his remarks. I am sure that this is a Bill that is of great importance, which I should have thought would have been a very good opportunity for the House to discuss it. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will find it much easier to present it to the House if he has finished his speech and the debate is over. I am sure that we shall all be very grateful to him for the speech he made. I am very glad that he has not taken up the invitation to speak in the debate and that he has been advised to speak in this House. I am sure that the House will feel that he has performed a very useful service in doing so. I am sure that the House will also feel that it has been a very useful and efficient debate. I am very glad that it has not been used as an occasion for the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, to make a speech. I am very glad that he is not speaking at the moment and I am sure that the House will be greatly indebted for the speech he made. I am also very glad that he has not put down an amendment. I am not going to ask the noble Lord to move it. I will certainly not do so. I am grateful to him for giving me this opportunity to put down an amendment. I am very glad that he has not done so.
====================
The noble Lord. Lord Harris of Greenwich, has been correct. I was not referring to the principle of the Amendment, but to the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. I should like to see the word "foster" replaced by the word "pup", as I referred to the word "foster" in the Committee debate. I hope that the noble Lord will consider that point, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for introducing this debate. I agree with him that we have a very important task in preparing for the conflict in Bosnia. I am sure that he is right in saying that we must learn now from our experience and learn from that experience of the past. It is deeply regrettable that we should not have been prepared to learn from our experience of the past. I shall speak in this debate from the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, in that we have had many discussions in this House over the past few weeks. I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for opening up this debate to-day, and for his manner of speech. I should have thought that the speeches of my noble friend Lord Carrington and the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, were at least a contribution to the discourse. I should like, if I may, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for his kind words about my excellent wife, Vera Picciani, whose speech I listened with interest to very closely and which I shall read with interest. I should like to say how much I enjoyed his speech. It is, I am sure, the sort of speech which anybody with a little experience of this sort would make. I am quite certain that he will find the words of my noble friend Lord Carrington a great comfort. I personally am a little embarrassed by some of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, in regard to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I am sure that he will find it a great comfort to know that the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, is not a great supporter of the Government, and that he has a very good reason for that. Many of us are very glad to have a very intelligent and able friend of mine on the Front Bench. I am sure that he will find that I have many friends on the Front Bench who are not quite so well informed. I am sure that he will also find that I am a most useful Minister. My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his kind remarks about my wife Vera Picciani. I am sure that we all know how much she has contributed to the cause of freedom and democracy in Bosnia-Herzegovina and in other parts of the world. I am also quite certain that she has been a great help to me in many years of my life. I am glad to say that she has not been in the least embarrassed about her absence from the House to speak. I am sure that she is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, for his kind words about my noble friend Lord Carrington. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for inviting me to speak on this subject. I am sure that he will find that I have many friends on the Front Bench who are not quite so well informed. I should like to say a few words about my noble friend Lord Carrington because in later years he will be able to quote from my speeches in regard to many of the problems of the Balkans. I am sure that he will find that I am not a great supporter of the Government, but I am sure that I am one of the few Members of your Lordships' House who have had a great deal to do with the Government during the past few years. I am sure that he will find that I am one of the few Members who has been a great influence in the past. I am sure that he will find that I am one of the few Members of your Lordships' House who has been a great influence in the past. I was very interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, say that he feels that we are leaving a great responsibility on the shoulders of the Secretary of State for Bosnia. I think that that is a very good thing and will, if there are any members of the staff in Bosnia, be very glad to help them. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Carrington added to this, but he said he was leaving the Secretary of State for Bosnia, but I do not think that it is as easy as he thinks. My Lords, I should like to say a few words about the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who is, after all, a very capable speaker. I think that he has given a very full account of the circumstances in which he was appointed. He has brought to these problems the experience of his own time. It is a tribute to his own memory that we have had these exchanges. I am sure that he will find that he has a great deal to gain from what I have said. I am particularly glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, refer to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, as one of the best ambassadors that we have had in the
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I rise to speak on a subject which is not a party matter. I am the Minister responsible for the Bill, but my fellow Ministers are the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and I have no personal interest in the matter at all. I do not think anyone could disagree that the Bill is an excellent idea. In my view, it will be even better than the present system, and I do not think it will be as bad as the present system, because by and large the Bill will be a better system, but it is not a party matter. It is a matter of public confidence and public confidence in the Bill. It is not a party matter to-day, but it is a party matter to-morrow. I know, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and my noble friend Lord Wigg, will agree, that this Bill is good for the country. It is good for the trade and good for the national economy. The Bill is good for the body of the people, and it is good for the economy of the country. What we are concerned with is the badness of the Bill. The badness is that, after the Bill has been in operation for five years, the normal mechanism of public ownership will have been broken, because the Government have decided that it is not right to keep an existing system in place. I do not think that we are right to break the normal proper order. It is a very bad thing to break the order and then to increase the ownership of the ownership of the stock at a cost of about £200,000 a year—and it is not only a bad thing to break the order—or to raise the price of stock to such an extent that the public will then be left with no rights to buy. That is not just a bad thing; it is, after all, the best thing that can be done to encourage the purchase of shares, because the people will buy the stock with the hope of profit. That is the worst thing that can be done, and it is the only thing the Government can do to encourage the people to buy. I really do not think that the Bill is a good thing. I am sure you have no doubt that if we had had a Bill of this kind, with the other arrangements that I have mentioned, it would not have been accepted, and the prices that it would have brought to the market would have been much higher than they are now. So I think it is a bad thing that we have had this Bill, and I do not think that it is necessary. I have referred to the disadvantages of the Bill. Some of the disadvantages are not recognised at all, either in this House or elsewhere, but they are recognised in the business press, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, was right in saying that it is the business press in the City that gives the impression that it is bad for the Government. I really do not think that that is so. The report of the Select Committee was a very good report, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has said that this Bill will be improved. If it is improved it is undoubtedly going to be better than the present system. I think that it will be better than the present system. I think that it will be better than the present system, and I believe it will be better than the present system. I have put a great deal of good sense into the Bill, and I think that the Government are right. I do not think they are right in saying that it is the business press that gives the impression that it is bad for the Government. I believe it is the business press in the City that gives the impression that its views are wrong. This Bill will be better than the present system. I believe that it will be better than the present system. I do not think it is necessary to break the normal order, because I do not think it is necessary to break the order, because one should always do what one wishes to do. I am sure that this Bill is better than the present system. I have put a great deal of good sense; I have put an immense amount of good faith into it. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will agree with me that the present system is not just a bad one but a bad one. I do not think it is a bad one in any sense of the word, and I do not think it is a bad one in any sense of the word, but it is a bad one. I do not think it will be bad in any sense of the word. It is a bad one, but it is not a bad one, and it is not a bad one. I do not think any of the very great evils that have been mentioned have resulted from this Bill. I do not think it is bad, or it is not a bad one, but it is a bad one
====================
My Lords, in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has said, I should like to have a quotation from the official transcript of the debate on 4th March 1988, which states: "The House will be familiar with the development of the proposed new charter for the UK Government and of the constitution for the United Kingdom, and the proposals for the future of the UK Parliament, the UK Parliament, and the UK Parliament House of Lords. As a result, this House is now accountable to the people of the United Kingdom". I should like to know the exact words used to describe the "people of the United Kingdom" in this debate.
====================
My Lords, as a result of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I was given the opportunity to speak today. I am aware of the welfare implications of the introduction of the income support supplement. I am very keen to be responsible for the future of the benefit. I accept that it is an important part of the budget for this Government and the work that we have done with the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and others to bring the benefit to the people who need it most. I suggest that it is now time to look at the scale of the problem and the way it should be dealt with. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, will be reassured by the comments that I have made. I am not unaware that the Government have listened to the concerns that have been expressed. I have tried to be as helpful as I can and to try to respond to the points that have been raised. I have said that I will consider the points raised. I am happy to assure the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that I shall do so.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the amendment, which received an enthusiastic response from all parts of the House. I also thank the Government for making that clear. I am glad that the Government have taken note of the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. It is a matter of concern that other countries may be able to return to their original policies and associated costs of war on a different basis. Does the noble Baroness not recognise that Russia is now in a position to respond to the United Nations' mandate to end the cold war by reducing the number of people in prison, and by reducing the number of people living in detention centres? In addition to that, it is also hoped that the Government will do a little to encourage health authorities to provide rehabilitation programmes that will encourage people to return to the community. That is not only a good humanitarian objective but also a good economic objective. It is also hoped that the Government will take advantage of the opportunity provided by the fact that they are better known to the public as the Government. The amendment is not an amendment to the Bill. The amendment is a series of amendments, some of which are tabled at this stage. As the amendment has been tabled, perhaps I may speak briefly. I am grateful to the Minister for his clear explanation of the amendment. I also thank his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for his response. I am grateful to him for his commitment to take note of the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I am grateful to him for answering the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. The noble Lord asked a number of questions. I have dealt with them all. I am not sure whether the noble Lord asked me a question about a person being detained in a detention centre. I am not certain whether he asked me about a person being detained in a prison. If he does, I am sorry to say that I do not have that figure in front of me. I have answered the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. The noble Lord asked about the two amendments. I am happy to tell him that I am aware of the noble Lord's amendment. The amendments are tabled at the moment. I shall not move the amendments to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill was originally introduced into your Lordships' House in the other place on 18th December, 1964, but unfortunately was not introduced in the other place until a full majority of your Lordships had arrived. When the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, dealt with the Second Reading, she made some observations which have been mentioned. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that this Bill is the product of the efforts of the Government in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, with the assistance of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who is the Deputy Leader of the House, and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who is the Permanent Leader of the House. It was then the wish of the House to receive the Bill in its full form, and we have had a full debate on it. It is of course the function of the House to consider and consider the Bill and to pass it; but it is essential that we should have a full opportunity to consider the provisions of the Bill and the grounds for it. We have had a full debate on the Bill and we have had a full and full debate on the reasons for it, and we have had a full and full debate on the reasons for the Bill. The Bill has been introduced as a Bill into the House of Lords by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in his capacity as Leader of the House. During the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House it was the wish of your Lordships to give it its Second Reading as a Bill of the first line. For that reason, I therefore introduce this Bill in this House, in the first line, with the hope that the House will give it a Second Reading. As your Lordships know, the Bill is intended to provide for the appointment of a Secretary of State for Scotland. I am sure the House will agree that this is the right and proper form of appointment for the Secretary of State for Scotland. It can be seen from the Bill that it will be his function to call and inspect the Board of Deputies which he has been appointed to serve. I think it will also be the Government's wish to see that the Board of Deputies is properly staffed to enable it to discharge its functions. It would not be appropriate to make provision for the appointment of a Secretary of State for Scotland, when the Board of Deputies are already in touch with the Board of Deputies. But it would be the wish of your Lordships to provide for the appointment of a Secretary of State for Scotland, either in his capacity as Leader of the House or in his capacity as Secretary of State for Scotland, who will stop the Board of Deputies from being properly staffed. My Lords, I beg to move.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the way in which he put his Motion. As he will know, it is not in the usual pattern of debates in your Lordships' House to discuss a Motion on the Order Paper, except in the rarest cases. Therefore, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising the matter on this occasion. I am also grateful for the welcome which has been given to the Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. I feel that I owe my noble friend an apology for the fact that I shall be unable to be here at the beginning of the debate. The level of the debate will depend fundamentally on the number and quality of the contributions made in the course of the debate. My noble friend's Motion will surely not have been necessary in the first place, because the debate will have been so widely spread all the way through our House that the very fact of the Motion itself would have been lost, except perhaps for the fact that it is attached to the Order Paper. My noble friend has raised a matter which is of the utmost importance, and is of the utmost importance to those who are interested in the whole subject. The Motion is not without its merits. I will not repeat the arguments which I gave to the House when the Motion was first published. However, I should like to make two points. First, it is a very important matter that the House should have the opportunity to deal with this, because it is one of the most important matters that needs to be dealt with. Secondly, it is the second time in the last three years that this matter has been raised to-day. I appreciate the difficulty that my noble friend has had in raising the matter. It is a very serious matter. I am glad that he has raised it because I feel that in these days, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has said, it is important that the House should have the opportunity to talk about the serious matters which are to be dealt with. I am very glad that my noble friend the Leader of the House has brought forward the Motion. I am sure that, if he had not, the House would have had a long discussion on this matter. It was a very important topic and I hope that the House will feel that there is a real need for a debate on this important matter.
====================
My Lords, I am sorry if I have occurred to the noble Lord, Lord Royle, in speaking on this matter, that I was not able to be present at the earlier stages of the Bill. I was, however, fortunate to be present at the earlier stages, so I hope this Motion will not be pressed, but I am concerned about the wording of the Bill. In fact, it is not clear whether the Bill is dealing with offences committed between the old age pensioners and the young person, or is dealing with the new age pensioners and the new age pensioners. First, the word "new" is used. If it is a new offence, it is not clear that the offence of benefit, which is dealt with later in the Bill, is to be new. If it is a new offence it is not clear whether it is new or not. It is therefore important to know whether the Bill is dealing with something new or not. The word "new" is used in an indefinite way. Why is the word "new" used? One of the difficulties about how to deal with benefits is that they are not a new form of payment, but are a very old form of payment. In the case of the old age pensioners, who are entitled to benefit, it is necessary to transfer their benefits to a new form of payment. There is a problem about the new form of payment. The old age pensioners' benefit is a new form of payment and in fact it is a form of payment which is not available to old age pensioners. The old age pensioners' benefit is a form of payment which is available only to old age pensioners. But the old age pensioners themselves have to transfer their benefits and there is a problem about the new form of payment. If one is to transfer the old age pensioners' benefit to the new form of payment, it is necessary to transfer it in a form which has to be transferred on a regular basis. I cannot understand what point of view the noble Lord, Lord Royle, takes on this matter.
====================
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to intervene to give my views on this problem. I am certain that my noble friend will realise that I am not alone in believing that chemical warfare is in the same category as biological warfare. I believe that chemical warfare is an example of what can happen if you have a war which is not declared and is not declared when it is declared. I would like to suggest that what my noble friend has said is very important, because this is the subject that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, is asking us to discuss. I do not want to quarrel with my noble friend; I have seen his argument and I am not sure that I am in agreement with him. I hope that we shall not quarrel with him any more, so I am not going to quarrel with him.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. He is, of course, correct. I have said that the powers of the Minister are not unlimited because the President of the Board has the power. The noble Lord is correct. I am glad to hear him say that. I am also grateful to him because it is one of the few times that I have not heard him say this. It is frustrating to hear him say it. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for giving us the opportunity to discuss a matter that is of great importance to the nation and to the country. I hope that I am not making the impression that I am not in touch with the career of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence. I am in touch with the practice of your Lordships' House. I am not. I am not in touch with the position of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence. I believe that what the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, has asked for is a full-time, non-partisan and non-party membership by the chairmen of the committees. That is the purpose of this debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for giving us the opportunity to discuss a subject which, so far as I am concerned, has been of very great importance to the nation. I am grateful to him for the opportunity to raise it to the foreword of the report. I am grateful to him for the opportunity to raise it in your Lordships' House. I am grateful to him for the opportunity to raise the matter in a debate as it has been raised in another place and in this House. I am very grateful to him for his kind remarks about the frankness and frankness of the President of the Board. I am grateful to him for the opportunity to raise the matter in the House of Commons by the courtesy with which he raised it in another place. As he said, this is a matter of great importance to the nation and to the country. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, for raising it and I am grateful to him again for his kind remarks about the President of the Board. I am grateful to him for the opportunity to raise it in this House. I am grateful to him for the reason for the opportunity to raise it. He thought that it was a matter for the House of Commons. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, for raising it and I am grateful to the House of Commons for the opportunity to raise it. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, for raising the matter in the House of Commons and in your Lordships' House. I am grateful to him for the opportunity to raise it in this House. I am grateful to him for the fact that he raised it in this place and in another place. I am grateful to him for raising it in this place and in another place. I am grateful to him for the opportunity to raise it in this House. I am grateful to the noble Lord and to the House of Commons for the opportunity to raise it. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence. I am grateful to him for raising the matter in another place. I am grateful to him for raising it in this House and for the opportunity to raise it again. I am grateful to him for the opportunity to raise it again. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence. I am grateful to him for raising it in the House of Commons. I am grateful to him for raising it again. I am also grateful to him for his kind remarks about the President of the Board. I am grateful for his comment about the frankness of the President of the Board. I feel that the frankness of the President of the Board is an important matter. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he can say whether the president of the board can answer questions without being asked a question or whether he notifies the President of the Board? I am sorry if I have offended the noble Lord. I have not asked for a question. I have not raised the matter to the foreword of the report. I have asked for the opportunity to raise it in a debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, for raising it in another place. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise it in this House. I am grateful to him for raising the matter in the House of Commons. I am grateful to him for raising it in another place. I am grateful to him for raising it in your Lordships' House. I am grateful to him for the opportunity to raise it again and for the opportunity to raise it again. I am grateful to him for raising it in another place. I am grateful to him for raising it in this House. I am grateful to him
====================
As the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said, the amendment is intended to ensure that workers who have been given training to assist with the training and training costs of their own work will not be required to incur the costs of the training that they are required to undertake. However, we have come to a point where the amendment is really obscure, so I am sorry that the noble Lord feels that he cannot accept it.
====================
My Lords, I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that I am very glad to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, that she has taken the view which has come from the Government that it is essential that the Bill should be considered in the proper way. I am also glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, that the Government have come forward with a very modest Bill, but I must say that it does not go far enough. I believe that the Bill would be helpful if it were put up in this House in the form of a private Bill. I think that if the Government were to accept that it would be an improvement on the present situation. I am not sure that the Government are serious about the Bill. I am not sure whether they are serious about it because they have not given us an assurance that it will be passed by this House. We have not had an assurance that it will be passed by this House. I was not in a position to give an assurance that it would be passed by the other place but I am sure that I am right, because so far as I know, the other place has no power to pass a private Bill. I should like to say this to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton: I think that the Government are going too far in saying that we cannot pass a Private Bill. I hope that the Government are not so serious as to say that. I am certain that they are serious about the Bill. I hope that the Government will take it back and see it in the other place. I am quite sure that if they do not they will find that we shall not be able to pass it. I am sorry that the Government have not given us an assurance that it will be passed in the proper way. I am sorry that they have not given an assurance that it will not be passed by another place. I hope that they will pass it back again.
====================
My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that in recent months, during the period of my first residence, I have had the benefit of the assistance of the staff of the Ministry of Health and the Royal Society. The noble Lord's question is perhaps a little wider than that of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and I think it is a fair point. The noble Lord is not asking for an immediate increase in the number of doctors, nurses and other related staff. But he is asking for an increase in the number of doctors, nurses and other related staff who are now being trained. There is a shortage of such doctors and nurses as are required. That is a matter for the Board of Trustees of the Royal Society. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, asked for an increase in the number of doctors, nurses and other related staff who are now being trained. I have here a list of the number of doctors, nurses and other related staff who are now being trained. As I said in my first Answer, we are now working closely with the Royal Society and are hoping to have this training up and running in about three months' time. I am sure the noble Lord will agree that, in any such case, there will be a need for an intensive programme of training. I do not think that the noble Lord would think that I was referring to a shortage of doctors and nurses, but a shortage of nurses. I hope that that will reassure him. I am sure that, in the course of time, we shall have an increase in the number of doctors, nurses and other related staff who will need training. The noble Lord was quite right. We are working closely with the Royal Society. As he knows, I am in close touch with the Royal Society's Board of Trustees. I know it is always possible to have a meeting with the Minister of Health or the Board of Trustees, and I am sure that the noble Lord will feel that the Board of Trustees are doing their best. I do not think he would think that I am referring to a shortage of doctors and nurses. I was not saying that there was a shortage. I was saying that there was not a shortage of nurses. I was referring to the shortage of doctors and nurses.
====================
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for his support. I am grateful for the support of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I do not think that I can speak for the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, in his absence, but I can also speak for the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and I are both very concerned about the situation. I am also conscious of the inadequacy of the position in which we are now placed, but I am also aware of the difficulties that we are in. I am aware of the fact that there is a duty of care to be shown to the children, both in regard to the school and the home, and in regard to the condition of the home. There is a duty to be done under which the home is inspected by the local authority, and a duty to be done for the rest of the child's life to be cared for and to be cared for in a home. In the home, only when the child has no need for a home does he have a home. It is not a home that he wants. It is not a home that he wants because the home is not a home for him. It is not a home that he needs because his home is not a home for his child. That is an extremely serious situation. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, is concerned about the position in regard to the care of the home, and the position in regard to the home. I can only assure the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that if the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, were here I think he would have a very different opinion from that expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I concede that the situation is a serious one. It is one that we have not to face in this House. I am very concerned about it. I think, as I said, the position is one which we have to face. I am also aware of the fact that we are not in a position to deal with this problem, but I am very glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, is here. He is a very able and very sympathetic Minister, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is also a very able Minister. I believe that we are all in agreement that it is a serious situation which we have to face, but I am afraid that we are not in a position to deal with it. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, asked me three questions: why are we not in a position to deal with the situation?— to which I personally have not been able to reply. I can only add that the Home Secretary has made it absolutely clear that he will deal with the situation in a very serious way if he is asked to do so by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, would wish to know the answer to his question. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, also asked me about the Home Secretary's powers and whether he is being asked to deal with the situation. I do not think that his question is relevant to the Home Secretary's powers, because they are not specifically given in the Bill.
====================
I am sorry to interrupt and I think the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has made a mistake in what he was saying. I was saying that the £100,000 would be a considerable sum. The noble Lord was speaking, I thought, from memory, but I was referring to the figure of £100,000, which is the figure now in the Bill. If he is right, it would seem to me that he is speaking of the £100,000.
====================
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his introduction of the measure. I am not sure whether it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to explain it now, but I should like to make two points. First, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, raised a point in relation to the question of the cover of the special monthly and the date on the document. That is what I understood—that the date is the date on the special monthly and not the date on the document. Secondly, I am not sure whether the provision of the special monthly covers the whole of the month. It may not. I wonder whether the noble Lord can enlighten me on that point. It may well be that the date will vary. As I understand it, it is the date on the special monthly as well as the document which we are now discussing. My final point is a very important one. I have not been in this House for very long and I would not like to be accused of not having read the Bill. I do not think that I have read it very carefully but I have read it with some care and care. If I have misread it, I apologise.
====================
I think the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is right. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, is wrong. This is a Bill to ensure that government departments are adequately equipped to ensure the safety of our national infrastructure.
====================
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. I think it is possible to say a very short version of the Bill. As it is, I will try to do that, as I am sure the noble Lord would like to do it. When we are discussing something of this kind I think it is always right to remind the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that the Bill is an Act of Parliament. I should like to say that it is an Act of Parliament because the Bill itself is a Bill. I am not going to make a speech about the merits of the Bill, although I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, will make an interesting contribution. I should like to refer to the Bill as an Act of Parliament. I should like to begin by saying that I understand fully the spirit of the Bill, but I think I must make it clear that I am not in a position to give a detailed answer to the Amendments which have been made in another place. I have already explained the purpose of the Bill and I hope that the noble Lord will feel that I have moved the Second Reading of it. The main purpose of the Bill is to extend the jurisdiction of this House to include the consideration of questions arising out of the Report of the Select Committee of the Lords. I believe the House will agree that the Bill would extend the jurisdiction of this House to cover questions arising out of the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons, and therefore I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendments. The Bill would extend the jurisdiction of the House of Commons to include questions arising out of a Report of the House of Commons. I think I should add a word about the nature of the Select Committee. I am sure the noble Lord will agree that this was a Select Committee of a House of Commons, and I think that the Select Committee has been a very useful instrument in this House for many years. I have not the slightest doubt that the advice of Lord Belstead, which was very valuable, came to a very useful conclusion, and, if the House of Commons Committee came to the same conclusion, the Bill would he an Act of Parliament. The Bill, therefore, is an Act of Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, asked me whether I would be good enough to read the Bill on the Paper in his own words. As he will see, it is an Act of Parliament. The reason that I am not in a position to give a detailed reply to the Amendments which have been made in another place is, to my mind, that I should not be able to give him a detailed answer to the Amendments. The only point I should like to make is that I am not in a position to give a detailed answer to the Amendments which have been made in another place. I have said that I am prepared to give him a detailed answer to the Amendments, but so far as I am concerned I am not in a position to give a detailed answer to the Amendments. I should like to make a brief communique not to the House, but to the Select Committee of the House of Commons. I should like to make it plain that we do not have any intention of calling a Select Committee. I can give a complete assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that he will see that the Select Committee are appointed, but I should like to mention that we are not going to recommend any Amendment, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, would like to see, to this Bill. I have already said that we are not going to recommend any Amendment to the House of Commons, and I hope that he will see that the Select Committee of the House of Commons are appointed.
====================
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement about the course of our debates in the following hours. I now make the Statement that the House was notified of the intention of the House to adjourn during pleasure.
====================
My Lords, before my noble friend sits down perhaps he will clarify a point that I raised to him. He said that, "the Government do not intend to interfere with the operations of the NRFC". But that is not the whole purpose of the Bill. It is the purpose of the Bill to give the NRFC powers and duties which are separate from the powers and duties under the Metrication Act 1976. There is no reason why the NRFC should not have the power and duties conferred on it under the Metrication Act.
====================
My Lords, I am not sure whether this is a matter for the noble Lord, but I think it would be helpful if I were to remind the House what the Minister said in the Statement on the Government's proposals. He said: "I believe that we can use the National Health Service as a vehicle for social care. I have decided that we shall not provide social care directly for patients. I have decided that we shall provide a range of services that give patients the choice to purchase their own care. "I have decided that we shall not provide a range of services that provide patients with chronic conditions… I have decided that we shall not provide services that provide services provided by patients with chronic conditions".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/5/93; col. 5.]
====================
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that this is a complicated Bill which has been so thoroughly discussed and so thoroughly discussed in another place? Does he really believe that the very existence of this Bill, and the way in which it has been introduced in this House, will result in the Government changing their mind about the nature of the Bill? I do not believe that the changes will be made.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his full explanation of the amendment. I am very pleased that he has raised it. I am sorry that he has not raised the matter in the way in which he has done. I shall have to consider it very carefully and possibly issue a correction at a later stage. However, I am grateful for the explanation that the noble Lord has given and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, for introducing this important debate. As I have said on previous occasions, the Government have given a resounding endorsement to this amendment and, I am sure, the House will be grateful for the efforts that have been made to get it through. Will the noble Lord look at it again? I think the amendment is sensible and it gives the House something to say.
====================
It may be that I am wrong, but that is not exactly what I said.
====================
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I do not think that he has understood, if he reads what I said, that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that we are all in favour of this Bill. I was saying that we are all in favour of the Bill. We are not in favour of this Bill, but we are in favour of the Bill.
====================
On the question of the UK, we are in general the most efficient of the European countries in this respect. We have managed to reduce our workforce by more than 60 per cent. in the last five years, and we are probably the most productive country in the world. However, we are not the only one. We have many other countries in Europe who suffer from the same problem. That is why we are seriously considering with the assistance of the European Commission whether there is a way of providing for firms to have a financial guarantee in respect of the kind of equipment that they are purchasing at the moment. That is why I am pleased to inform the Committee that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry is considering how to exercise some financial powers to keep down costs in the private sector. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for raising the point of the UK. The point was raised by my noble friend Lord Beloff. I have listened with interest to all the arguments but I am still not convinced that the UK is the best the world has to offer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Is he saying that the Government will not support the amendments?
====================
Is the Minister saying that, because, in spite of the fact that after the war there was a huge increase in the number of miners employed, the number of miners employed in other industries increased from 3,500,000 in 1947 to 12,000,000 in 1952, which was the year of the last miners' strike, to 350,000 in 1954? Is he saying that perhaps it is not quite proportionate to the number of miners employed in other industries which may have the same effect? I do not think it is proportionate and I do not think it is appropriate at this time of the year.
====================
My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord to say that, if the noble Lord, Lord Megarry, had been here I would have raised this matter. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is not here; there is something else.
====================
My Lords, I am not going to make a speech in this debate, but I should like to express the hope that my noble friend Lord Northfield is not going to press the amendment. I do not know whether my noble friend is following my noble friend Lord Annan's suggestion that he should be. He asked me about an amendment in another place which I put down on the Committee stage. I think it was a recommendation of the Select Committee in another place. I was not then advised by the Select Committee. I should like to take two minutes, but I am not sure that that is the right way to do it, so I am not going to move the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. I am sure he is aware of the fact that our continued policies to reduce the size of the population of this country are not the right answer. However, I am aware that many of us are in favour of the people of this country—and this is what worries me about the noble Lord's intervention. In the light of that, I am not entirely sure that he is right in his judgment.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, one of my first duties as a Minister is to make the comments that are appropriate to the Government's position. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for raising the question of compensation for compensation, in terms of the various other events which are now being of great concern to the people of Scotland. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, raised that point because it is a matter which has bothered us throughout the Bill and which we have found deeply disturbing. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will know what I can say. I have referred to the fact that there is a question of compensation for compensation, as it was called. There is a question of compensation for compensation and it was a question of compensation for compensation for compensation. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, raised the question of compensation for compensation. There is a question of compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation, and it is a question of compensation for compensation for compensation as compensation for compensation. That is the situation which we have been faced with throughout the Bill and as we have been through it throughout the residential property Bill. It is the situation that we are faced with now in regard to this Bill. We are faced with the fact that compensation for compensation for compensation is a matter to be decided by the tribunal. It is a matter for the tribunal and it is a matter for the people of Scotland to decide whether compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation is compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation against compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation against compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation against compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation against compensation for compensation for compensation against compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation against compensation for compensation for compensation against compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation against compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation against compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation against compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation in compensation for compensation against compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation against compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation against compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation against compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation against compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation in compensation for compensation for compensation against compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation for
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, for explaining this Motion so well. It is worth reiterating the Government's policy on the Northern Ireland economy. Our objective is to create a strong and dynamic economy with an environment that will foster a high quality of life for its people. The Government's policy is to encourage development, by providing the means and incentives to create jobs, and work together to create a stronger and more sustainable economy. The Belfast agreement is a signal of our commitment to the creation of a strong and dynamic economy, and to promote the creation of new jobs and industries. The Belfast agreement provides a framework for the long-term development of Northern Ireland's economy. The Belfast agreement has been welcomed by the Government, as the first step in the process of introducing the new measures set out in the Belfast agreement; and the Belfast agreement is now being implemented. The Belfast agreement, the first step in the process of implementing the Belfast agreement, is now being implemented and we are all now working together to implement it. The Belfast agreement goes a long way towards creating the framework for the long-term development of Northern Ireland's economy. The Belfast agreement is an important step in the process of developing a more stable economy, and that is the purpose of the Government's policy of promoting the creation of new jobs and industries. The Belfast agreement is an important step in the process of developing a more stable economy. The Belfast agreement provides a framework for the long-term development of Northern Ireland's economy. The Belfast agreement provides a framework for the long-term development of Northern Ireland's economy. I should like to make a personal plea to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, to put his mind at ease on a more permanent basis on the Belfast agreement. I believe that that is what he has done. I am sure that he will realise that he is to be congratulated on the way in which he has conducted his business in Northern Ireland. The Belfast agreement has been implemented and the process of the creation of new jobs and industries has been well underway. The Belfast agreement is a sign of the Government's commitment to the creation of new jobs and industries. It is an important step in the process of developing a new economy in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that I need go into much detail because the Belfast agreement is now being implemented and has been signed by the Government. It is a very important step in the process of developing a new economy. I hope that the noble Lord will now be able to withdraw his Motion.
====================
I think it is the duty of the Minister and the noble Baroness to ensure that no one is misled into thinking that the noble Baroness is opposed to the Bill as it is. I am not. I am against what the Government intend to do.
====================
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his response. I am sorry that I was not present during the debate on the previous amendment. I read carefully what he said, but it does not seem to me that the amendment is likely to be in the form it was originally drafted. The amendment would require the inspector to investigate all the relevant information. I think that the amendment might be better drafted in the form which I have suggested, which is the word "relevant". It would require him to consider all the information provided by the inspector. I do not see the amendment in the form it was originally drafted. I am sorry that the noble Lord did not respond to the earlier amendment with which I was concerned. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
====================
My Lords, it is not your Lordships' custom to discuss the merits or otherwise of any case. Therefore, I propose to deal only with the question of compensation. As I understand the situation, in the case of the Bill as it now stands, the Government have to pay between £1,000 and £2,000 to the plaintiff and £1,000 to the plaintiff's solicitor. If the case is thrown out on summary judgment, the plaintiff would have to pay between £500 and £2,000 in compensation. The question of compensation would be raised on the report of the Law Society or at some later stage of the Bill. Certainly the position is that the plaintiff would have to pay between £500 and £2,000 and the plaintiff's solicitor of £1,000 to the plaintiff. And the situation is that the plaintiff would have to pay between £2,000 and £3,000 in compensation. Meanwhile, he is still being represented by the plaintiff's solicitor, and he is still not being paid what amounts to the usual part of the amount. But the plaintiff is still being paid £500 to represent him and £2,000 as compensation. In fact, although he is on the same side of the case as the plaintiff, he is being paid £2,000 as compensation. Therefore, the situation is not quite the same as it was in the instance of the Landlord's Insurance Company case. In that case, the plaintiff had a claim for £3,000 and the plaintiff had a claim for £2,000. Therefore, the position is that the plaintiff is still being paid £2,000 as compensation, and the plaintiff himself has his solicitor. In the case of the Bill as it now stands, the plaintiff's solicitor has to be paid £1,000. The plaintiff's solicitor does not ask for anything. He asks for £2,000, and he gets it. The plaintiff's solicitor is not paid anything either way; he is paid £1,000 in compensation, and he does not ask for anything. Therefore, there is no question of compensation being paid to him. The law is that he is entitled to recover his £2,000. Therefore he is entitled to his £2,000, and he has to be paid the appropriate part of the £2,000. Thus, he is not only getting £2,000 in compensation, but also being paid £2,000 as compensation. I am sure it is obvious from the facts that if the plaintiff is still being paid £2,000 as compensation as a matter of courtesy, then he will have to pay £2,000 in compensation. Therefore, he will not get this proportion of £1,000. I suggest that the result of this Bill is that the plaintiff is still getting £2,000 as compensation and that he will not get any part of the £2,000. Therefore, it is important that the plaintiff gets a pr .nussion and not that he gets nothing.
====================
My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. It would make it easier for the courts to impose a sentence which suited the needs of the offender. It is not always easy to impose a sentence which is appropriate to the circumstances of the offence, but the amendment would enable the courts to do so. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment. If he does not withdraw it, I shall move it and I will try to convince him that while he is entitled to say that there is a need for a sentence, that is not the case. The crime has been committed, and the offender must be brought to account. To say that he must be brought to account for a particular offence, is not the way to deal with this problem. There is no doubt that if we had a general requirement, that was the way to deal with this problem.
====================
I am afraid I am not entirely happy about the amendment. It is vague. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
====================
My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of the Motion that has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. I am not entirely certain whether the noble Lord sees in it the same thing as suggested by the previous Speaker, and I am not sure that I do. I think he is talking about a different set of circumstances, a different set of circumstances in which he is going to have to make an application to the Secretary of State, or to the Lord Chancellor, or to the Director of Public Prosecutions, for a sentence of imprisonment. It is not done by way of normal procedure in any court. It is done by order of the Lord Chancellor, and it is done by the Lord Chancellor in the absence of the Lord Chancellor. It is done by one of the courts, and it is done by the Lord Chancellor in the absence of the Lord Chancellor. That is the way it is done now. The noble Lord has put down a Motion that the power of the Secretary of State to order the imprisonment of a person is as follows: "To be prepared to make an order of imprisonment for an offence which has been committed for a period of five years or for an offence not committed for a period of five years and not committed for a period of five years and not committed for a period of more than five years." I think that that is the power. The Motion goes on to say: "To be prepared to make an order of imprisonment for an offence which has been committed for a period of five years or for an offence not committed for a period of five years and not committed for a period of five years and not committed for a period of more than five years." So the power is there. If the noble Lord wishes to carry out his Motion, I am prepared to take it up.
====================
My Lords, is the noble Baroness saying that, in the case of a county council, the question of whether or not the balloting should be taken is one of the questions which the county council will consider?
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for bringing the point of the amendment to our attention. We are aware of the committee's work, but we will not pursue the matter at the moment. However, I am aware that the amendment received a warm reception from the Minister, and I hope that the Minister will take it away to consider.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's intervention. I am sure that he will agree with me that the new procedures for the National Health Service are being thoroughly designed and are being prepared. I am sure that he will agree with me that the new procedures are designed to provide for immediate and efficient management of the National Health Service and are designed to enable the National Health Service to provide the best services for patients. I am sure that he would agree with me that the new procedures will deliver for the National Health Service people who are suffering, and that they will make the service better. I am sure that he will agree with me that the new procedures will give patients better care. They will deliver for patients and therefore for the National Health Service. I am sure that he will agree with me that the new procedures will deliver for patients, and help them to be better treated. I am sure that he will agree with me, too, that the new procedures will improve the health of the country, and they will give patients better access to treatment. I am sure that he will agree with me that the new procedures can deliver for patients better care. I really cannot think of a better way in which to deliver for patients better care. I am sure that he will agree with me that the new procedures, in helping to improve the health of the country, will deliver a better service to the National Health Service.
====================
My Lords, the noble Lord has taken a rather difficult task in this matter. In the House of Lords, in the course of this debate, we have had many debates and we have had the debates of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and myself. In the other place, on the other side of the House, we had the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and of many others. The fact of the matter is that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has made a very strong case in this matter. He has been prepared to say what he believes, and I have no doubt that he will in time take up his view. But the noble Lord has not said what he believes. We are talking about the Procedure Committee in this House. They are the people who decide what is wrong in the House and there is no way in which they can say what is right in this House. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Motion.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foot. I am aware that the Government have taken some steps to improve the arrangements for collection. I am also aware that the committee has made a number of recommendations. I am aware that the department has been working hard to improve the arrangements for collection. However, I should point out that if one person leaves a home and does not collect the property for a fortnight or a year, the owner can agree to a claim for a refund of the unpaid rent for the period of the tenancy. If the owner moves the property, the tenancy is automatically transferred to the new tenant, and to the new tenant's legal adviser. The point is that a new tenant will have no legal adviser and will therefore not have the authority to collect the property. But I am aware that the department has experimented with the idea and that the department is studying the proposals. I believe that in the long run the Government will find that the way to provide the cash and the infrastructure is to make the new tenant responsible for collecting and paying the rent and to the legal adviser. That will provide the cash and the infrastructure. I do not want to confuse the House any further. I have spent quite a lot of time on this. I looked at the matter in detail and I am sorry that I have not been able to find the answer that I was seeking. I should like to know the answer and I am not being unduly persistent. I am sorry that I have not been able to find it and I am sorry that I have not been able to find it.
====================
My Lords, because of the number of minutes that I have already spoken, I do not think I have really set out why this amendment is necessary. I understand that it will be necessary to have body measures put in place. There is a need for that but it is not a necessary part of the Bill. I am not suggesting that it will be abolished, but the Government have made a commitment to consider it. I do not propose to press the amendment tonight.
====================
I am most grateful for that. I think that the noble Lord is right in saying that he does not deny the expression "satisfaction of the Secretary of State" because he has said that he did not know what it meant when he used "further consideration". Is that not what he is talking about?
====================
My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord's question is relevant to the change of policy which was announced in March 1988. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, asked whether the Government were considering the question of the extent to which it was possible to retain a slice of the original industries. This was a point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, in his excellent maiden speech. I do not think it is relevant to this debate at all. I have already corrected the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and I apologise for the fact that I did not hear what he said. He asked whether there was an attempt to have a slice of the original industries. We have not done so. The noble Lord asked about the extent to which it is possible, as a result of the change of policy, to keep a slice of the original industries. I do not know. I am not sure that I would have answered the question he raised. The answer he gave was that he did not know and I am not sure that he would have answered the point. But I do know that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sarver, would have given a slice of the industry to the Minister of State, and I was delighted to hear what he said. So I am satisfied that it is not possible to keep a slice of the original industries. On the noble Lord's second question, I have to say that having said what I said on the last occasion, I am not sure that what I said was not true. I think the noble Lord asked whether he could get himself up to mischief. I am not sure if he is saying that I am saying that he is saying that the Government now expect to maintain the existing arrangements. I am not saying that it is going to be retained. It is just that the people concerned are to be taken out of the original industries, and they will have the privilege of having a slice of the industry which they will have had for some years. I do not think that it is likely that the Government will go back on the assurances which they gave in 1988. On the question of the size of the industry, I can assure noble Lords that the Government have no intention of closing down the existing industries. As I said a few moments ago, this may be a subject for debate later on. On the question of the economic position, I hope to say in this House that the Government recognise the problems of the present situation, but they will not be satisfied simply by virtue of the assurances given in 1988. I will say in this House that the Government recognise the economic position which they have now found themselves in. I cannot give any assurance about it.
====================
My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, whether he is aware that, as I understand it, the contributory insurance is to remain with the insured company, but the beneficiary of the insurance does not have the right to join the company and receive a dividend? Therefore, is not the answer that the noble Lord is giving to the important question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, an answer which is very close to the one he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, in his recent Question?
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to my noble friend for his explanation of this very difficult matter. It has been a most difficult and difficult issue. I am grateful for the opportunity that it has given to go through this in a semi-technical manner, but I am grateful also for the opportunity of discussing it with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I am grateful for the opportunity to examine the matter in the light of what has been said. I am also grateful for the opportunity to discuss it with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss it with the noble Lord, Lord Oram, and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I am grateful for the opportunity to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, to put her question. I am grateful for the opportunity to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, a question. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss it with the noble Lord, Lord Oram. I am grateful for the opportunity to ask the noble Lord, Lord Oram, a question. I have made it clear that I shall not divide the House on this matter on Report. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss it with the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I am grateful for the opportunity to consider the matter in the light of the knowledge that I have gained. I am grateful for the opportunity to put the question to the noble Lord, Lord Oram. I am grateful for the opportunity to put my question to the noble Lord, Lord Oram, and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I am grateful for the opportunity to put my question to the noble Lord, Lord Oram. This is a significant day in world politics. It is a day when, as we have seen in the past few days, the West is playing a major role in the world. I wish to refer to the question of the fate of the West in the post-war world. I think that it is fair to say that the English have a very important role in the world. The question is whether the world is now going to continue to play a major role in the world. The question is whether the world does not need to continue to play a major role in the world. I believe that the fifth world war was largely due to the fact that the British Empire was unable to stop the manoeuvre of the Axis Powers across the desert. It is true that we could have prevented it had we had a proper world defence policy. But it is equally true that we failed to realise the need for a complete world defence policy. I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, will take this point to heart when he considers what has been said this afternoon. I am certain that he will find in his heart of hearts that we have a responsibility to the world. In the past 40 years, we have been a major military Power in the world. Today, we have been a major industrial Power, with a militaryised economy. The noble Lord, Lord Oram, will find in his heart of hearts that we have a responsibility to the world. The noble Lord, Lord Oram, has said that we are the dominant Power in the world; he is correct. We are. I think that this was a point that was made by my noble friend Lord Shackleton in his report. The reason for our superiority is not that we have any specialised capacity, but because we were in a position to negotiate a world security policy which was agreed by the nations of the world. We had a lot of different ways of dealing with the defence problems of the world—I am talking now about the European Powers and not about the nation States. We had the idea of the Alliance. We had other ways of dealing with the problems of the world. I think that some of our problems are due to the fact that we failed to realise, as we had to do, in the past, that the way to arm the world was to have a world peace policy. I believe that that is badly criticised in some quarters. The noble Lord, Lord Oram, knows that we did not properly realise that the problem was the problem of the world. We did not realise that war was an international problem. That is the reason why we failed to put in place a world peace policy. It was the reason why we failed to build up a world war policy. We failed to build up a world peace policy which is now part of our national life. We failed to build up a world peace policy which was a necessity of the world and which we had to maintain. We failed to build up a world peace policy which was a necessity of the world and which we had to maintain because war was the only way to disarm the world. The noble Lord, Lord Oram, will find that I am wrong in that. The only way of disarmament is to get a world peace policy. The noble Lord, Lord Oram, will find that
====================
I should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for having introduced this debate. I have had the privilege of being a Member of your Lordships' House for many years, and I know the House very well. I am one of the few Members of your Lordships' House who has not done so. I am one of those noble Lords who has been a Member of another place, and I know the House and the kind of problems which occur there. The first problem is that of the giving up of a GP. If that is done, it is likely to be done within a few years, and it will not be done at will. It will not be done by the patient, because the GP is the person who is likely to give up the practice. However, it would be much better if patients were given the opportunity to go to a GP. I have had the opportunity to deal with many patients who would not have been able to go to a doctor if they had been able to go to a GP. I have a few points to make. The first one concerns insurance, which is mentioned in a speech by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. I wonder whether, as one of the reasons for asking my colleagues here to vote for the Bill, I might make a special plea for the non-consensual treatment of children. My own experience is that in many cases the children are not around to see the doctor. They are not present to see the doctor and they do not know that the doctor is going to give them the treatment that they want. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Tormea, will agree that the Bill is a good thing and that it will bring back the idea of insurance. If insurance is not provided, there will not be any form of treatment. The employer will not get it if he is in a position where he has to put up his premiums, which are very high. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that insurance as a whole is a good thing. I should like to echo what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said about the good feeling in the profession towards the Bill. I should like to echo some of the points that have been made by my noble friend Lord Elton, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, as well as by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who is a member of the profession. I hope that His Majesty's Government will be able to take note of the lively feelings of the profession in this matter. I should like to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, who spoke so well. It is an important Bill, but it is not a perfect Bill. It is a Bill for the patient and the profession, and the profession is so important that it should be treated equally with the patient. Therefore, I hope that the Government will take note of the spirit of the Bill and, if possible, will give it a Second Reading.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, the noble Lord is too kind, too kind, to use the word "unenlightened". I am not trying to be unenlightened. I am delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, speak in support of the Bill. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, is speaking for the Labour Party. I am delighted to hear my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby speaking in support of the Bill. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is speaking for the Liberal Party. I know the honourable gentleman, Mr. Adam Smith, speaks for the Conservative Party. I am happy to hear from my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby that the Labour Party support the Bill. I am happy to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that the Liberal Party support the Bill. I am happy to hear my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby speak in defence of the Bill. I am happy to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, that the Conservatives support the Bill. I am happy to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that the Labour Party support the Bill. I am happy to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that the Liberal Party support the Bill. I am happy to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, speaking in defence of the Bill. I am happy to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, speaking in defence of the Bill. I am happy to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, speaking in defence of the Bill. I am happy to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, speaking in defence of the Bill. I am happy to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, speaking in defence of the Bill. I am happy to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, speaking in defence of the Bill. I am happy to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, speaking in defence of the Bill. I am happy to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, speaking in defence of the Bill. I am happy to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, speaking in defence of the Bill. I am happy to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, speaking in defence of the Bill. I am happy to hear from my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby speaking in defence of the Bill. I am happy to hear my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby speaking in defence of the Bill. I am happy to hear the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, speaking in defence of the Bill. I am happy to hear my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby speaking in defence of the Bill. I am happy to hear my noble friend Lord Houghton, speaking in defence of the Bill. I am happy to hear my noble friend Lord Houghton, speaking in defence of the Bill. I am happy to hear the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, speaking in defence of the Bill. I am happy to hear the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, speaking in defence of the Bill. I am happy to hear my noble friend Lord Houghton, speaking in defence of the Bill. I am happy to hear the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, speaking in defence of the Bill. I am happy to hear the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, speaking in defence of the Bill. I am happy to hear my noble friend Lord Houghton, speaking in defence of the Bill. I am happy to hear my noble friend Lord Houghton, speaking in defence of the Bill. I am happy to hear my noble friend Lord Houghton, speaking in defence of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is speaking in defence of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is speaking in defence of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is speaking in defence of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is speaking in defence of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is speaking in defence of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is speaking in defence of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is speaking in defence of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is speaking in defence of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is speaking in defence of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is speaking in defence of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is speaking in defence of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is speaking in defence of the Bill
====================
But I am glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, say, "We are happy to take this Bill and to be able to consider it". Of course it is the case that there is a great deal of work to be done on the job of reviewing the whole question of employment. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, is doing. I am sorry that he is not in his place. However, I understand the concerns behind the amendment.
====================
I am sure that we shall all accept the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, with all due diffidence. I am quite certain that the noble Lord, Lord Aycock, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, have taken a great deal to heart from what the noble Lord has said. I am not certain whether the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, referred to the fact that at the time the decision was taken by the Minister, there was a great deal of secrecy about it. He said that the only people who knew what was going to be done were the lawyers. The lawyers were told that it would be an offence to put on a television set, but that it was not an offence to go to a cinema, and indeed the noble Lord the Lord Chancellor said that there were no such prohibitions. One has only to go to a cinema, to see what is going on. I have always regarded the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, as a very able Lord Chancellor of this country. He has kept this matter under review. But I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Aycock, if he has not already done so, whether he can answer this question. It is very difficult to give an answer. I do not know whether he could answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Aycock, as to whether or not a television set is not an offence. Is it? That is the only question. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, whether he could answer this question. I would ask him to think again. It is a question of a television set, or a cinema, or a theatre, or a television stage. He has not answered the question as to whether or not a television set is an offence. I should like to see him do that and then, in due course, I would ask him to consider it.
====================
My Lords, I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, is not here, but I am interested that he is on the list. Perhaps he could talk to me about the matter.
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. I apologise to him if I did not answer his queries. I do not want to take up the time of the House by giving a full answer. I am most grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to do so. I hope that the noble Lord is satisfied that the Government have made some progress.
====================
My Lords, I am sure the House will agree that it is not practicable for me to intervene in this debate. Given that I am not a Member of your Lordships' House, I shall be glad to withdraw my Motion for Papers. I shall be glad to withdraw it, and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
====================
My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law of England and Wales. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for raising this important question. I found the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, a little more reassuring than mine. Perhaps I may reply to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, with a word of apology. I was not in the Chamber when he spoke. I have given her notice of the remarks I am to make, and I am quite sure that she will understand the nature of the comments I have made. I can only delete them in my capacity as Leader of the House. I am afraid that the comments I made were not entirely within the terms of reference of the Government. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for raising the point that is at the root of the very significant part of the House I play in this House. I have had a very distinguished career, starting in 1975. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for raising this important and important matter. However, I am the only speaker on the Front Bench who has no connection with the House of Lords. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for raising the point about the troublesome nature of the parliamentary system and the House of Lords. I can only say to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that I am not aware that there is a difference between the House of Lords and the House of Commons. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for raising the important question of the composition of the House of Lords. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for her very good remarks about my noble friend Lord Gifford. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for raising the issue of the future of the House of Lords. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for his remarks about the noble Baroness, Lady Penrose. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for the very encouraging remarks he made about my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for the important point he made about the importance of the devolution process. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for his comments about my noble friend Lord Patten. I am grateful to him for his remarks on the importance of the House of Commons, which I am sure are obviously of considerable interest to all noble Lords in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked about the general policy of the Government on the devolved issue. I agree that Ministers generally take a balanced view of the issues in their respective areas. They are trying to build a consensus which may lead to the eventual removal of the status quo. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister made a Statement in your Lordships' House on the devolved issue on 22nd March. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the House of Commons has made representations on the issue and has been given a full opportunity of considering the matter before we agreed to the terms of reference of the House of Commons. I hope I have said enough about the House of Commons. I do not want to repeat the arguments that have been repeated many times out of order, but I should like to elaborate on the argument that has been made over and over again. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked about the position of the hereditary Peers. As I explained in my Statement on 22nd March, we have a policy to remove hereditary Peers from the House of Commons. We are under no obligation to remove any hereditary Peer from the House of Commons. We are therefore fully committed to the principle of removing hereditary Peers from the House of Commons. The noble Lord asked about the position of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I have already explained the position of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the views he has expressed. I can only add to that. I should like to make it clear that hereditary Peers will be removed from the House of Commons. I hope I have said enough to explain to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that, in the case of the House of Commons, hereditary Peers will be removed from the House of Commons. I have also confirmed our commitment to removing hereditary Peers from the House of Commons. I hope that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde will accept that. I have no intention of separating the House of Commons from the House of Commons. I have said that in relation to the House of Commons and I hope that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde will accept that. I hope that I have also
====================
Yes, my Lords, I shall be very glad to take that point on board.
====================
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord has made a most useful contribution to this debate. I am sorry that the Minister has not been able to answer the point about the possible loss of a lease. I am not sure if that is not covered. I should like to know what the position is.
====================
My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Reay, is aware that in my constituency the term "marriage" is now widely used in the sense that in the end it is a permanent structure.
====================
I am not sure that I could agree with the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that the judiciary is a substitute for the criminal courts. The criminal courts have to work. The criminal courts are there to keep the law in force, not to punish the criminal population.
====================
Hear, hear!
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. The fact that he is writing an amendment now means that he has taken it on board, even though it is a long and complicated amendment. It is worth mentioning the point that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, raised about the farm. I was also looking through the amendment and I can see that it would be a great aid to the farmers if the amendment were accepted. I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I am sure that there is much more to be said on the matter, but at least it has been dealt with on the basis that it has been raised. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I must confess that I was not looking very closely at the amendment. It was rather like the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, which we have now discussed at length. However, I thought that we had to be careful that it was not put into the Bill the very idea that Government Ministers should be able to take the initiative and the decision to bring forward proposals or legislation. I think that that is a very good idea. However, I am a little puzzled about the amendment. It refers to the "undoubted need for the Secretary of State to have power to be in a position to say to a Member of Parliament: "Not to call in a Bill in the summer of 1995". A lot of people might be tempted to do so and might frankly argue that they had to have a new name. I do not know whether the Minister's mind is working in that way. In the event, I should not have thought that it was a bad idea to introduce such a power. I should have thought that a number of people would be tempted. Perhaps I may declare an interest in that I am a member of the National Trust, where I have been an elected trustee and chairman. I do not know whether we were supposed to be doing this or not, but perhaps the Minister might bear in mind that the National Trust is a very wealthy body which has the good fortune to work in a very difficult financial climate. Therefore, it would not be a bad idea to introduce a power to say, "Not to call in a Bill in the summer of 1995". I am not sure whether that is the intention. It is not in the Bill. The amendment is not an amendment to be discussed at a later stage. I think that the Government ought to look at it carefully. I do not want to press it any further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am not prepared to make an intervention in the debate. I should like to join in considering what the noble Baroness has said. I shall certainly study what the noble Baroness has said. I am sure that she will find that I am not being unsympathetic to the point which she has made. I therefore sincerely hope that she will not press her amendments.
====================
My Lords, the gist of the Opposition's position is that the Government have not proposed, and do not propose, legislation to control the production of the food chain. What the Government propose is that they should pass powers to control the production of agriculture. I have said that I have nothing further to add to that. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, asked me to say something about the private farmers. I do not think I can answer that question in detail. I have said that the Bill will control the production of agriculture. I think the noble Lord will find in the Bill that the Bill will control agriculture, but it will not control the private farmers. So far as I can see, there is no compulsion on the private farmer to produce food, but only by Government direction, and I would ask the noble Lord to look at that again. I do not think he will find that. I should like to conclude by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that, so far as the production of food products is concerned, this Bill will achieve the purpose for which it is intended. I am sure that it will have the effect that it is intended, but it will not achieve it. I am sure we have many bureaucrats who will admit that this Bill will not achieve the purpose for which it is intended. When one is dealing with a private enterprise such as a private enterprise—that is, a private enterprise which has managed to make a good profit—it is a matter of judgment. I believe that the noble Lord's approach is not really suited to the private enterprise; it will be judged by the Government to be inefficient and inefficient, because that is what it is doing. If it is to achieve the purpose for which it is intended, it must consider it. But let me make it quite clear that the purpose for which the Bill is intended is to control agriculture, and not to control industry. After all, agriculture is doing the work of industry, so I am not sure it is not doing the same work. But I do not think the noble Lord's approach is the right approach. It is not the right approach to look at the Bill in isolation from the Bill in the context of the wider task of controlling industry. I believe that the Bill does not do the job that is intended. I think that it is better to look at the Bill in the context of the broader context of the whole matter, and not to look at it separately.
====================
My Lords, in regard to the noble and learned Lord's Question, I do not think I was able to give him a full answer. I was asked whether he would say that if the general purpose of the Bill is to be achieved by means of a vote, the Government will give the Bill a Second Reading.
====================
My Lords, I am sorry I was not in my place during the earlier part of the debate. I should like to take the opportunity to say quite clearly—I am not quite sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, did it when he spoke—that this is not a question for the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and that I do not want him to reply to it. It is a question for the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I do not want to be drawn into the argument which he has advanced by quoting the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I am not on his side in that matter, but I do not think that any of us would suggest that he should answer this question. It is a question for the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I am not on his side in this matter. I am prepared to say categorically, I am not, that if the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, were here to answer the first part of this Question, and if he were to defend the Government's position on this, I should not want him to reply to the second part. In that case, I should not want him to answer the first part.
====================
My Lords, as I said in the Statement, I wish to make the point that there has been the Government's policy of no compulsory apprenticeships for all teachers. I do not think we need go any further about that, because all the evidence is that there are teachers in this country who would not be prepared to go to a school of any importance for money, if they knew that they would be expected to go to a school where they had to pay for their own schooling. Therefore, I do not want to say more about that.
====================
My Lords, I should like to say in support of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, that I am a member of the Council and he is one of the Royal Prerogative. Perhaps I may quote the words of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, in his excellent speech this afternoon, and I should like to quote the words of my noble friend Lord Huntingdon, who made a very excellent speech, to which I expect we shall return shortly. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who is not here this evening, that I am quite sure that he will have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and that he will have it from the whole House. I will not repeat all the arguments which he advanced against the Bill in its Second Reading, but only those which he advanced against the Bill in its Second Readings. I should like to add a word or two to what I said in the course of my speech in that debate. I am bound to say that I do not think the Bill can be improved, but I think to my mind it is an improvement in something which is not really improvement at all. So far as the Bill is concerned, I think the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, was perfectly right in saying that the Bill is not a remedy for the present abuses. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, thinks that it is, or whether he was satisfied that the Bill would make a difference in the present position, but I am not going to press that. I am sure that when the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, comes to reply to this debate he will do all he can to improve the Bill. I should like to point out to the noble Lord that the Bill, as I understand it, is not intended to limit the rights of the subject, because he knows better than I do. I am not going to ask the noble Lord whether he is satisfied that he is satisfied. I am going to ask him whether he is satisfied that he has had any satisfactory reply from the Government. I am not going to ask the noble Lord whether he is satisfied that the Bill will not be used as a tool for the use of excessive pressure and unreasonable demands of the police. I am not going to ask him whether he is satisfied that the Bill will not be used as a tool for the use of unnecessarily harsh and unforgiving methods of the police. I am going to ask the noble Lord whether he is satisfied that the Bill will not be used as a tool for the use of force or for the taking of petty revenge. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, asked for that. It is not an important question, but it is one which we have had many debates on. I am not going to ask the noble Lord whether he is satisfied that the Bill will not be used as a tool for the use of excessive methods of the police. But the other question we have been asked, and I am told that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is not here this evening, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is, I am sorry to say, not here this afternoon, is the question of the right of the person to bring a criminal action. This Bill is designed to give the person who is brought before a court the right to bring a criminal action. In the Bill as it stands, the right to bring a criminal action is limited to a court in which a person has been brought before. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked whether the Bill would not prevent the prosecution of the person who brought the criminal action. I cannot tell him that the Bill would not prevent it from being brought before a court. That is something which we shall have to consider. The right of a person to bring a criminal action is a very important one. I have said that I am not going to press the matter, but I am going to ask the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, whether he can give me an assurance that there is no provision in the Bill which would put the accused person in a position of wanting to get a jury trial or to get the case to a jury which would not be the case in the ordinary courts. I am in some difficulty about this. I cannot see how the Bill makes any difference at all. I am not asking the noble Lord whether he can give me an assurance that there is no provision in the Bill which would allow the prosecution to be brought by the prosecution if it was suspected that the accused person was going to bring a criminal action.
====================
My Lords, the noble Lord has been very kind to me. I was trying to point out that the local authority is a statutory body, but it has a different function from that of the Water Commission. I have no doubt that that is the intention. I am grateful to him for his explanation of the matter. I have no doubt that the noble Lord will find it helpful.
====================
My Lords, although I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, that the national parks have a very important role to play, I am sorry that he has not found a way in which to put his case. I am sorry that he should have assumed that the parks are not included in the Bill. They are the only areas which are listed in the Bill. I am sorry that the noble Lord should have assumed that the national parks are not included in the Bill. They are so. The National Parks Act 1977 makes it in principle clear that the National Parks Act 1978 applies to the national park, which is the area of the Bill. All it does is to make it clear that the National Parks Act 1978 does not apply to the national parks. I believe that in the amendment the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, has not justified the amendment by saying that the National Parks Act is meant to apply to the national parks. The amendment is intended to ensure that the National Parks Act 1978 applies only to the national parks. I do not believe that it would make sense to make the National Parks Act 1978 apply to the national parks only. If the amendment is accepted, it will still apply in all the national parks. I do not believe that it would make sense to include the National Parks Act in the Bill. We are talking about the national parks. The National Parks Act 1978 applies only to the national parks. The national parks are not mentioned in the Bill. I believe that it is not appropriate to include them in the Bill. I do not believe that it is appropriate for the Bill to specify the measures taken to control development. The National Parks Act has been the cornerstone of the National Parks Act since land use planning was brought within the scope of the Act. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, gave an example of how the Act could be used to control development. I do not believe that it is desirable to include the legislation of the National Parks Act in the Bill. It is merely a matter of drafting. I give an example of how it could be used to control development, as I have done. In the case of the national parks, the National Parks Act requires the National Parks Commission to monitor the management and use of the parks. The National Parks Commission has done this for over 100 years. It has been very successful in the control of development and has advised the Commission on the measures that it should take. The National Parks Commission has done this work for the National Parks Act. I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. If one is looking at the future of national parks, one must look at the landscape of our national parks. I know that the National Parks Commission will be doing this work very effectively indeed in all our national parks. The National Parks Commission will be taking this to the right degree of care and in the right way. I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. I do not believe that it is necessary for national parks to be included in the Bill. It would mean that national parks are excluded from the Bill. I am sorry to have to give way to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. I do not believe that it is appropriate to include the National Parks Act 1978 in the Bill, but I think that it is appropriate for the Bill to provide for the national parks and the National Parks Commission, and to include national parks in the Bill. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, feels that I am giving way to him. I know that he feels that I am giving way and I hope that I have given him the benefit of my apology. I believe that the amendment is unnecessary. I believe that the National Parks Act includes only the National Parks Act 1978. I have given way to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, in the interests of brevity. I may be wrong but I believe that the National Parks Act 1978 makes it clear that the National Parks Act 1978 applies to the national parks. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, wants to speak to this Amendment, and I am sure that he has done so with the object of preventing my speaking to the Amendments which have been tabled by my noble friend Lord Brockway. I am sure that, if he was a layman, he would find this matter very difficult to understand, because the definitions have been used for a good many years in the Bill, and it is not really an Amendment to be proud of. The Bill as it stands deals with an Act of Parliament, and the transition to it is not an Act of Parliament; it is the Act of Parliament that is involved. The Amendment in question, intended to clarify the meaning of a new Section 87A(5), which is a new subsection inserted in the Bill. It refers to the "as soon as is reasonably practicable thereafter". The Amendment in question deals with a reference to a new subsection (6), which deals with transitional arrangements. The Amendment in question refers to a new subsection (7). For the reasons I have given, I cannot accept the Amendment which has been tabled by my noble friend Lord Brockway. I do not think I can do better than refer the noble Lord to the Explanatory Memorandum of the Bill. I think we should read it if noble Lords wish to see what is meant. I think that the best we can do is to read it. I am sure that it will answer the questions that the noble Lord has asked, but I cannot accept the Amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, will agree that there is much to be said for the proposals of my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon. However, he has not dealt as effectively with the points that I raised in my first intervention. Perhaps I may refer to one or two points that have been raised in this House. I had hoped that my noble friend would address himself to the points that I raised in Committee and to move the amendments that I have now moved. However, as he has not done so, I am sorry for him. Nevertheless, I am grateful for his intervention. I have a number of amendments to move as a whole, as well as the amendment to which my noble friend referred. As the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, said, we are discussing the matter today on a number of amendments. I am not sure whether he is doing that because I am prepared to do that in his amendment. I am not sure whether he is doing that because I am not prepared to move the amendment that he has moved. I have an amendment to move to Clause 3, which I will move in a moment. I am not sure whether he is doing that because I am not prepared to move the amendment that he has moved. It is not an issue of whether or not he is in a hurry. I am not prepared to move it.
====================
My Lords, can my noble friend say whether this is a temporary, non-statutory power and, if so, what is its nature?
====================
My Lords, I am sure that the House is fully aware of the great support which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has shown for the amendment. It is a very clear illustration of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is in the United Kingdom and is entitled to receive a benefit which is not available anywhere else in the Commonwealth.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am not sure that I would be prepared to go so far as to say that the noble Lord's amendment would not be accepted.
====================
My Lords, I think we are all agreed that this is a useful measure and one which has been, and will be, of use in the future. I have a great deal to say on what the noble Viscount said, but I shall be as brief as I can. I am glad of the noble Viscount's remarks on the Bill. My noble friend Lord Silkin would like to know my reasons for this measure, and I am not really prepared to go into it now. I should be glad to answer the points he has made, and I am sure that he will find them in Hansard tomorrow. I think I made it clear that we are not going to deal with the Bill as it stands at the moment. I am not going to deal with the point of the powers that it has been given to the Secretary of State to be given powers to deal with, and that seems to me to be a fundamental flaw in the Bill. It is not the powers that are given to the Secretary of State which are being sought for, in the Bill as it stands. It is the powers of the Secretary of State to deal with the problems of the country and other people, and to consult the people of the country. It is the power of the Secretary of State to say to the people of the country: "I am going to make an order which will be of immense assistance to the community, and I propose to make it in this House or elsewhere." And it is the power of the Secretary of State to say to the people of the country: "I am going to suspend any order which has been made, and I am going to make orders in this House or elsewhere, which may, for some reason, happen to be incorrect." It is as if we are saying to the people of the country that they must have this order, and that is the real point. I am not going to answer the point that the noble Viscount made. I am not going to give him an answer now, because I am not prepared to deal with some of the points he has raised.
====================
I am not sure about the sharpening edge, and the noble Lord is right when he says that the sharpening edge is the point about which he has quoted, and I am not sure that the sharpening edge is quite so sharp. My own feeling is that the sharpening edge is a little too sharp on the one side. I think the noble Viscount is right in saying that the sharpening edge is a little too sharp on the other side, and that is why we have put in the Amendment. I do not want to stay on the sharpening point and speak for too long. I should like to say one word about this amendment. I do not know why the noble Viscount has inserted it. I do not think it is necessary. But I think it is necessary to keep in mind that in this Bill the words "or have the right to withdraw" are inserted, and do not have to be inserted again. I do not know why the noble Viscount has inserted it, and I do not think it is necessary. I do not think the words "or have the right to withdraw" are necessary, because this Bill deals with a right to withdraw from a contract of trust, and the words "or have the right to withdraw" cover a right to withdraw from a contract of trust. I do not see why it is necessary to keep in mind that the words "or have the right to withdraw" should not be inserted. I think it is unnecessary and unnecessary. The definitions are perfectly plain. They are the words "or have the right to withdraw" and "or have the right to withdraw". I do not think it is necessary to keep this in mind.
====================
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount, but I hope that he is right when he says that these people can go to a solicitor without having to give the solicitor's solicitor's fee.
====================
My Lords, let me make it clear, in relation to the point made by my noble friend Lord Goodhart, that I support the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I have been trying to understand what his question was about when he referred to the fact that the Secretary of State could not appeal.
====================
My Lords, I am not sure that it is the intent of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, to suggest that all carers should have access to care. As I indicated at the end of the debate on the Aneurin Bevan's life, I believe that it is the right approach to put the emphasis on giving people the choice to decide how they spend their life and to spend it in the way that they choose.
====================
I am sorry, but I do not think this is a satisfactory way of going about this. I am not quite sure how you are going to put the money in the right way. In the first place, there are the people who will benefit from this. One of the great advantages of this plan is that we are establishing a system which will be in place in a very short time. The first seven months of the new plan will be in the next five years. So, if the money is available, it will be available in two years. I should have thought that if the money were in the right way it would be within two years. I am not quite sure whether it is within two years. I am not entirely sure whether it is within two years to get the money, or whether it is within one year. I do not know, and I do not think that we shall get the money without having a great deal of consideration and thinking going on. I have no doubt that the Minister will say that no more will be provided in the next five years than has been provided in the first seven months. I do not think that the money could be provided in that way. I hope he will say that a good deal of thought will go into the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for giving us the opportunity to debate the subject. I am sure that most of us have been in the House for a long time. Therefore, I think that we should not require the patience of the House to discuss all the amendments today. I shall not do that, because I know that I shall not be able to finish my speech. However, I shall deal with the amendments, and I shall let the noble Lord have a copy of the letter from the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I do not intend to deal with the whole of the Bill. I shall deal with the amendments for which I made a note of the debate in that I shall not deal with the whole of the Bill. I shall deal with the amendments for which I made a note of the debate in the name of my noble friend Lady Young. I shall also deal with any amendments on which I shall find myself in disagreement. I am aware of the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and I hope that I have reassured him. I have a note of the debate from which I shall not stray. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, is absolutely right. In the spirit of openness that we would expect in a private Bill, it is quite a different matter for the Government to explain the rationale for their original proposals in a Second Reading debate. I believe that we have a proper basis on which to discuss these amendments. I find the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, a most remarkable amendment. I am not sure whether the noble Lord has read the amendments for the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I have, but it is not my intention to deal with those amendments today. I shall deal with the amendments for which I have a note. The first amendment is one which I did not move and I am not sure whether I have already spoken to it. The second amendment is a very reasonable amendment. For example, I have an amendment about a foreigner who gets a job and goes abroad. It has nothing to do with the contract that he enters into. It is common sense and it would not be sensible to seek to limit the right of a foreign national to come here and work as a contract worker. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, is right that we should not do so. We have to be wary of making too tight a control on the ability of people coming here to work. I have not heard a single argument in favour of the amendments. I am not sure whether the noble Lord has read the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I have not. However, I agree with him that we should take note of all the comments that have been made today and, on the basis of that, I wish to deal with the amendments. I wish to deal with the amendments for which I made a note of the debate and which are consequential on the Bill. I hear a great deal of complaints about the Bill. I understand that many of us are unhappy about it. However, I have not heard any complaints about the Bill. Perhaps I may say at this point that what I have said is not a criticism of the Government. I am not talking about the Government. I am talking about the general attitudes and lack of confidence which we feel about the Bill. It is a matter for the House to debate and to consider. I do not intend to respond to the amendments today. They are matters for debate. I am not going to deal with the amendments that are not consequential on the Bill; indeed, I do not intend to do so. I am aware of the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and I am not sure that I have made my position clear. I have tried not to repeat any of the previous debates. I am grateful for the courtesy of the House and I am sure that it will accept my apology. I am grateful to him. I repeat that I shall not stray into the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I should like to respond to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I was going to make a point about my own amendment. I shall do so now, but I do not wish to repeat the arguments that have been made. I have read the debate. I certainly do not accept the arguments that have been put. I am not sure that I am right about the position of foreign nationals. I believe that the position of foreign nationals is that they are fully protected under the Bill. I do not believe that they are not. I am not quite clear why they are not protected. However, I understand that they are not. I refer in particular to a foreign national who is employed by the government of a country. He is not considered to be a contract worker. He is an employee of the government of a country and he does not belong to the contract workers of the country. It would not be sensible to limit the rights of a contract worker. While I understand the concerns
====================
My Lords, I am aware of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, and I am very grateful for his remarks; I hope they will not be read in too long. However, I should like to make clear my position on this matter. I have been in the House for over half a century. I am not a member of the Select Committee. I am not a member of the Committee of Inquiry. I am not a member of the Government. I do not know what the position is. If the noble Lord feels that he has something to say, I shall be glad to listen to it. However, I do not believe that I can answer it.
====================
My Lords, I should like, first, to thank my noble friend for raising this matter this evening, and also to say that he has given me very extra courtesy to raise it, because I have to this afternoon. I am very sorry that my noble friend did not have time to answer my questions, because I was travelling to the Royal Society, and so I am sorry if he has not been here in time to hear me thank him for the very nice way he has responded. I am very sorry that he did not have time to answer the questions that I asked him, because I have not had the time to write him a detailed letter. I am sorry that he did not have the time to answer my questions in another place because I have not got his name down there. I am sorry that I did not have time to answer the questions put to him in another place. I am sorry that my noble friend did not have time to answer my questions in another place because, of course, he is a very busy man. So I should like to give him a personal apology for not having put the questions which he has now put to me. I am very sorry that he has not answered the questions asked to him in another place. I am very sorry that I have not said that I would like the answers that I have given to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to be invariably received in another place. I am very sorry that he did not have the time to answer my questions in another place. I have a copy of the letter in front of me—it is not a copy of the memorandum, he has not put it down—but I do not know whether it is the same letter that I sent to the noble and learned Lord. I think that this is a question of law and order and that it ought to be answered. I am afraid that I should like to have had an answer of this sort available to the House; I do not know whether it is the same letter that it has been sent to my noble friend Lord Hailsham, but it is the same letter that I sent to the noble and learned Lord. I am sorry that I failed to answer the questions put to me this afternoon. I understand that there was discussion with the Lord Chancellor about this, and that it was being considered and that there was a detailed letter about it. I am sorry that I did not have the time to write to my noble friend.
====================
My Lords, I hope I have not mused too long. I said that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, was in his place and that the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, is not in his place. But he is, I believe, in his place. I am not sure, but I am sure that I am right in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is still a great authority on the subject. It is not a matter for me to add to what he has said, except to say that I hope he will forgive me if I do not take his place in your Lordships' House. In that case, I hope that I shall not be considered as a rookie.
====================
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I am not sure that he really understands the case. I understand that the fuel among the elderly in a house in the country is a kind of synthetic fuel. It is not always the case that if you have a furnace and a gas stove that is necessary but is not always available, that is the kind of fuel that is available for the elderly. I am not sure that he is really dealing with the case with his usual solicitious and careful way.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, for the manner in which he introduced this debate. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lang, for the admirable way in which he introduced it. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, for his support and for the emphasis he paid to the labour market. The noble Lord was, I think, slightly unfair to refer to the labour market when he referred to the challenge of the young unemployed. I should like to make it clear that the Labour market is not a job market. It is a market in which people come together to work and where the welfare state is the key. I have a great deal of sympathy with the point made by my noble friend Lord Reay. I agree with him that it is a socially necessary job market. It has no evil over it and it cannot be taken away from the young unemployed. I am not sure that any Government, at any time, will get rid of the welfare state in this country. The welfare state in Britain, even if it gets rid of all welfare and other benefits, will still exist. Once the welfare state is introduced it will be there, as it was in the old days of the welfare state, and as it has been in the new age of the welfare state. In my view, the welfare state is a social necessity. It is a necessity to keep the whole family together. To keep the whole family together is a social necessity and must be a social necessity. In this country, as we know, we are the only country which has a welfare state. If we were to have a welfare state I think it would create a deficit of some £4,000 a year. The reason is that the welfare state is a social necessity. Welfare is the only social necessity. It is the only social necessity which provides shelter for the whole family. It is the only social necessity that is providing shelter for the young unemployed. I believe that the welfare state is necessary. I am not sure that it will disappear, but I believe it will be there, and that it must exist to help the young unemployed. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Reay, whether he thinks we should be prepared to introduce a welfare state into this country, or whether it should be left to the country or whether it should be established somewhere else. We should like to know what it will be. It is the welfare state that creates the social budget. It is the welfare and dignity of our country which create the social budget. Welfare is a social necessity, and it should not be abolished. This is a key point, and I should like to make it clear. I make it clear from my own experience that it is possible for a country, if it is prepared to have a welfare state, to create a welfare budget. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, is absolutely right on that point, but I would say that it is not possible to create a welfare budget unless one has a social welfare system. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Reay, is saying that we should not try to create a welfare budget, because we would find it very difficult to succeed. That is an absurd attitude which I believe the Government should take. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, implied that the present welfare budget is not adequate. I would ask him to make that clear to the noble Lord, Lord Reay, because I believe that we are currently in a position in this country where we are faced with a very tight labour market. It is not merely a question of the unemployment problem, that we are faced with a very tight labour market, and unemployment is a social problem. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Reay, is not going to be a Social Democrat, but he has touched on the point, and I hope that he will not take it amiss if I refer to it. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Reay, was right to say that there is a need for a welfare budget. A welfare budget is not something which is imposed upon the private economy. It is something which is imposed upon the private economy. It is not something that is laid down upon the private economy. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Reay, would agree that it is not a social necessity to have a welfare budget; it is a social necessity for the reason that it is a social necessity. In the absence of a welfare budget, there would be a shortage of money, and the problem would be solved not only for the people who are unemployed but for the whole community as a whole. We would have a better budget because it would be there to help people. It would help them to have all the things that they need. I would say that the noble Lord, Lord Reay, was right. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Reay, was right when he said that the main point of concern in this country is not
====================
My Lords, I should like to make the brief point that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, has made. He said that it is the Government's policy to bring to an end the practice of charging for admissions.
====================
My Lords, I was not going to speak for long, but I should like to say that I think we should all like to see a much bigger increase in defence expenditure. I was about to say that I thought the figures for defence expenditure had changed considerably during the last year, but I am afraid that I am wrong about that. I am sorry that I did not give notice of the fact that I was going to make this statement, but I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, who is to speak later, could have made it without knowing. As I see it, I do not think we can have got to a defence budget. As I understand it, we have the situation that the Government are going to cut defence, and they will do so in the next Session. That is the way I see it. I do not think we can have got to a defence budget in the next Session. I do not think it will be in the next Session. Therefore, I think that the time is now ripe for a more stable defence policy. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is not suggesting a single policy. I think he is suggesting a balanced policy and that we should have a defence policy which depends on our freedom. It is a very good thing that we should have a definite policy. I am rather worried by the present situation. There seems to be a great many people in the country who do not realise that we are in a very dangerous situation. In the war that we are fighting, we are fighting for freedom which is at stake. I do not believe we should go down that road—I am not suggesting that we should go down that road—but I believe the country should realise that we are in a very dangerous situation. I am not saying that we are not in a dangerous situation; I am not suggesting that we are not going to fight for freedom. All I am suggesting is that we should have a policy which depends on freedom. I should like to ask my noble friend whether the Government have any plans for this purpose. If the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, were here, he would tell me that he hopes they will. I do not know what the policy is. It depends on freedom. Can it be done? If it is done, it will be done in the next Session. I am not suggesting that it should be done in the next Session; I am not suggesting it should be done in the next Session. I am saying that the policy is not simple. No one can say that it is. It depends on freedom.
====================
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for raising this matter. I had the opportunity of being briefed by the Home Office as to the principles that underlie the procedure. The Home Office has a whole range of inquiries to undertake, and, as I said, one of them includes a major inquiry which is going to take place shortly. I am not sure what the Home Office's position is. I am not sure why the Home Office, after the Department of Trade and Industry's announcement that they are going to be put in charge of the inquiry, should not be involved in the discussions, but I am not sure what the position is. The Home Office is not in a position to tell the inquiry what to do, and that is why I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her Motion.
====================
My Lords, I am sure that we shall have a full debate on the Motion. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, will be speaking from the Front Bench. I do not know whether our lower Back-Benchers are going to be in the Chamber. I know that I shall not have the advantage of a full debate. I hope that the noble Lord has a copy or the will of the House. I should like to ask the noble Lord two basic questions. First, is the Minister saying that there is any plan to introduce a special category of child care, for example, for the elderly, where the child is developing and there is a risk of a fallacious statement being made about the nature of the care in which the person is cared for? Secondly, is it not the case that the Government's commitment to improving care and support for the elderly is an example of what many people would welcome? Are we not also taking steps to improve care and support for the elderly? I should like to put these questions to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
====================
I am sure that we will all agree that the noble Lord has made a very acceptable speech; but I think that he did not adequately explain the meaning of subsection (3) of Clause 5. I believe that it is quite clear that it is meant to cover the case in which a person has an interest in land. Why should he then be prevented from acquiring it? I do not think that it is right to allow the person who has an interest in land to acquire the land, or even the land, because it might have the effect of preventing him from acquiring any other land.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I am more than happy to withdraw my amendment.
====================
There is no point in having a single department if there is not one chairman. No one wants to pretend that the Department of Trade and Industry is not an excellent body. It is. The noble Viscount should not presume that. The noble Viscount will thus lose his job and his place in this House. There is no reason why he should not have another job in the Trade and Industry Commissions.
====================
Oh!
====================
My Lords, I am not sure whether the amendment has been moved in the wrong place, but I have been advised that it has not been moved. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I was not aware that it was moved.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. I shall be glad to study it. I am sure that, as the noble Lord said, he is aware that the cost of the project to the National Health Service is likely to be very small. However, it will have to be seen how short the course is. I am most grateful for the words of the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I was curious about this. The Minister is saying that he will not make a statement on it later on. Can he confirm that?
====================
My Lords, I am not sure what the noble Lord has in the Bill. He speaks of "a substantial reduction of the total costs of the programme". I think he is wrong in thinking that. It is a substantial reduction of the total costs of the programme, and I was not talking about an increase in the cost to the taxpayer. I was talking about the amount to be put into the public purse. I am not sure what he means by "a substantial reduction of the total cost of the programme". I think that it would be difficult to give a precise figure to him. The noble Lord is talking about "a substantial reduction of the cost of the programme". What I was saying was that it is not possible to give a precise figure to him.
====================
I hope that I may be forgiven for intervening on a point which perhaps the noble Lord would agree is slightly frivolous. I am not sure whether it is a matter of law or not. If it is not, I would like to know, and if he can help me I shall be most grateful.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I am most grateful for the opportunity that this House has given to my noble friend Lord Mallalieu to discuss the Bill passed through this House by his honourable friend Mr. Arthur Robinson. The Bill was of course welcomed by every trade unionist, and I am glad to say that it did not get an outright victory, as I thought it would. The fact that it was not defeated was a result of the efforts of the trade unionists. The difficulties that I had in relation to the Bill were a result of the fact that the trade unionists at that time felt that if they had given it a Second Reading they would have had it on the Floor of the House, but that the Bill was not a Bill which they were going to pass. The trade unionists did not like it, the trade unions did not like it because they felt that it was an unbalanced Bill. However, I do not think that the trade unions have been altogether successful in the trades dispute in this country in recent years. There have been many more disputes than any other trade dispute in this country and in the past two years more than one-third of our trade disputes have been between employers and trade unions. Therefore, it is not a Bill which is going to be accepted by the trade unions. The Bill was passed in another place by a majority. In spite of the fact that it was a Second Reading, it was not defeated. There was a minority, which was a minority of the trade unions, which was a minority of the trade unionists. Nevertheless, the Bill passed through the House in a majority after considerable debate. The Bill which was tabled in the other place was defeated because there was a minority. After this Bill had been introduced in another place, the trade unionists at that time were very unsympathetic to it as it was not going to have a Second Reading and they did not know what it meant. By the time the Bill had been introduced in this House it became an Act of Parliament and it was passed in the trade dispute House of Commons. Therefore, the Bill was not defeated. The Bill did not get an outright defeat. It was defeated on the Floor of the House. I am sorry that the Bill did not come to the House of Commons after this debate. The trade dispute is the one on which we have the greatest need to have negotiations. It is by far the best-known trade dispute in this country. It is an unbalanced one. The only dispute in which the Government of the day have been in a majority is the one in which the Government of the day are in a minority. Therefore, it is not a Bill which is going to be accepted by the trade unions. The Bill was introduced on the same day in another place by my honourable friend the Minister of State, Mr. John Moynihan. It had been introduced by the previous speaker, who was a trade unionist. I do not think that the Government have been in a majority on the Bill. It was introduced on the same day in another place by the previous speaker, who was a trade unionist, and the Bill which was tabled at that time was opposed. I think that the Government have been in a minority on the Bill. I have had the opportunity of discussing the Bill with many of my honourable friends in the trade dispute. I am glad to say that they have now changed their minds. I am glad to say that Mr. Moynihan has now changed his mind. I hope that the Government will change their mind in due course. What the Bill did was to introduce the Bill to deal with the point of the trade dispute. That is what it does. It does not impose a new principle, it does not impose a new law, it does not impose a new precedent, it does not impose a new rule, it does not impose a new precedent. It is an attempt to deal with a point that has been raised in the past. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, would agree with me or not, but I think that it is a matter of perspective. But this Bill, to which I have referred, was introduced into the House of Commons on the same day by my honourable and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. He then introduced the Bill, and the Bill was defeated. It did not get an outright defeat. It was defeated by a majority of the whole House of Commons, and that was a majority of trade unionists. From the point of view of trade unions, this Bill, which came to this House on the same day as the Bill that was tabled in another place, is an attempt to deal with a point that has been raised in the past. Therefore, I feel that this Bill is not going to achieve the goal that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, is seeking. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, is seeking to achieve the objective that he had in his Second Reading. I am quite prepared to say that I am
====================
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked me a number of questions, I thought I had answered them by now. I will bear in mind what he has said and perhaps he will write to me with a different answer. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked me about the position of the trusts. If a trust is a trust, it is a trust for the whole of its assets and not a trust for the part of its assets which it holds and which is its property. If it is a trust in the sense of a trust capital, it is not a trust for its assets but a trust for its property. So if there is a trust for the whole of its assets and the part which it holds and the property which it holds, that is a trust for the whole of its property; and if it is a trust in the sense of a trust capital, then the part which is held and the property which is held are what is included in the trust capital, whereas if it is a trust in the sense of a trust for its property, then it is a trust for its property. I think I have answered the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in his case, and I hope that he will be satisfied.
====================
My Lords, I rise to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
====================
No, my Lords, I am afraid I am not quite certain about that. I think the noble Lord must have misunderstood me, but I am all right. The case was before the Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I do not know what she said, but I am extremely grateful for the way in which she introduced the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, it is a case of negligence, and I should like to assure him that if he reads it carefully he will find that in this case, if it is this Bill, it is negligence. I understand that it is a fault if this Bill is passed. It is negligence, and I am quite sure that it is not negligence that this Bill is being passed. I hope that he will not press this Amendment. I should like to deal with the question of the junior doctor, because I think he is an extraordinary lawyer. I remember the case of a medical student who had been to a very great length of hospital. He was young, and he was a most perfect young doctor. He was the student of the Royal College of Surgeons. He was going to be discharged, and the hospital said, "We do not want this young doctor any more. We will not give him a job unless you tell us that you are going to extend the term of service". The young doctor turned out and said," Well, we will extend the term of service, but the Royal College of Surgeons will take over from us." I think that that is a remarkable case, in which a young doctor, who had served in the Royal College of Surgeons, was turned away by a hospital which was working with a very old doctor who was very old. That is evidence of the very great difficulty of the junior doctor in these days. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw this Amendment.
====================
I am grateful to my noble friend. I am sure that the added burden would be quite a considerable burden. It is quite a considerable burden, even in the most well-funded private company, but it is a considerable amount of burden. I do not think that the D.A.A. is going to be very much helped by the Bill. It has its own, low rateable values. Its rateable values are not such as to make a significant amount of difference to the cost of the company, but it is a matter for the company. As to the question of the distribution of the money, I cannot say, because I am not at all sure about that. But it certainly does not belong in the Bill, because it is not going to be distributed. I am not quite sure about the distribution of the money, either. I am not quite sure about the distribution of the money in the sense that it may belong in the Bill. I am not quite sure about the distribution of the money, based on the fact that it may not be distributed. I should like to ask my noble friend whether the distribution of the money is to be in the Bill or in the Regulations? I really should like to know that. I am not sure about the distribution of the money that it may not belong in the Bill. I am not sure about the distribution of the money that it may not belong in the Regulations. I am not quite sure about the distribution of the money, but I should like to ask my noble friend whether it is in the Bill or in the Regulations. I should like to ask my noble friend whether he does not think that the distribution of the money is not going to make a substantial difference to the cost of the company. I really do not think that the Bill is going to make a substantial difference to the cost of the company, and therefore I can see no reason why it should appear in the Bill.
====================
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I am sure that the House will agree that he has made a very full Statement. I am sure that we are all grateful to him for that. I am sure that the House will agree with me that he has done an extremely thorough job. I have some questions on the Order Paper which I do not think I can deal with this afternoon, but I shall write, and perhaps you can help me. I shall have to write to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, in writing. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, made some interesting suggestions in his Report that I should not necessarily look at the Order Paper at this time and I shall certainly look at the matter again. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, referred to the question of the prices. I think that we have to look again at the question of the price of the goods and the cost of distribution, because the point he was making was one of very great importance. The noble Lord asked about the price of the goods. I am not certain that the figure of £4 a ton of coal is necessarily the price of the goods. It depends on the weight of the coal. In some cases they are the price of the coal, but in other cases the price is the price of the coal itself. There are some cases where the price is not the price of the goods. In other words, the price of the coal is not the price of the goods, but the price of the coal itself. The noble Lord asked me about the effect of the Order on production. I think that the effect of the Order is a very large one indeed. I think this is a very good illustration of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. You can always make good use of the Coal Board and can always expect to get the results which are expected of them. I think this is very much in keeping with the policy which was adopted in the early days of this Government. It is a very good illustration of the point that I made about not supplying coal in quantities which have not been planned. When you do, you make bad use of the Coal Board, and many other people, and therefore you get expenses in payments for planning the supply, particularly the coal trade. So far as the Order is concerned, I am sure that it is going to be a very large one. As I said, I am sure it is going to be a very large one. My Lords, I beg to move.
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. I am sure that I should like to ask him to give us some idea of the cost to be involved in this scheme.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I hope I can put the case without being too inflammatory. I am not quite sure that the argument is in the least robust. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, used a precise phrase. He said that, "an extremely large number of people are involved who are eligible for unemployment benefit who are not in work". It is not. We are talking about a very small number of people who are ineligible but nonetheless are eligible for unemployment benefit who are not in work. We are not talking about a large number of people who are permanently out of work who are not eligible for unemployment benefit; we are talking about a very small number of people who are not in work but who are eligible for unemployment benefit and who are not in work. The noble Lord said that they are not receiving unemployment benefit. They are receiving income support. That is the situation as it is now. If the noble Lord goes on to say that the number of people that are eligible for unemployment benefit, and of course the vast majority of that are in work, is very small indeed, I think that raises a very serious question. We are not talking about a large number of people who are eligible for unemployment benefit but who are not in work, and who are eligible for unemployment benefit. This is a very small number. We are talking about a very small number of people who are not in work and who are not eligible for unemployment benefit. Then I come to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who both said that they thought they were talking about a very small number. I am not afraid to say that it would not be wrong of the Minister to exclude those people. I am not trying to suggest that anybody who is not in work is not eligible for unemployment benefit, but we are talking about a very small number of people who are in work but who are not eligible for unemployment benefit. We are talking about a very small number of people who are not in work and who are not eligible for unemployment benefit but who are eligible for unemployment benefit and who are in work. I shall deal with that part of the case. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked about the possibility of a family arrangement. The first point is that there is no family arrangement. The second point is that it is very rare for this type of circumstance to arise. I understand that I am not allowed to speak for the Government on this matter. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, that I can assure them that I am not going to tell the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that he is wrong. I shall read what has been said. I will of course draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend. As I said, I shall do my best to ensure that an appropriate arrangement should be made to secure the help that those people who are not in work who are not eligible for unemployment benefit, who are in work, need. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, asked about the fact that the family allowance has been cut. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, raised the question of a family arrangement and asked about the fact that it had been cut. I do not know what "family arrangement" means. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is right when he says that a family may be strengthened by a reduction in benefits. That is a question for the Minister. I do not know what "family arrangement" means. I am not sure that, in that context, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was entirely right. He, too, is right, but, as I told the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, I am not sure that his interpretation is correct. One of the great difficulties of the dispute on the benefits side of the House is that we do not always agree on everything. We disagree on very many matters and we do not always agree on every single one. I would not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, or anyone else who suggested that we had put on benefits in the wrong order. I would not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that anything we were doing was wrong. I would not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, who said that the cuts were not draconian or draconian, but that they were necessary. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, that they were necessary. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who asked whether the cuts were necessary, and I agree with him that they are necessary. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked whether it would be possible for a family arrangement to be made. I do not know what it is. I will not say what is a family arrangement. I am not sure
====================
My Lords, I should like to say that I am grateful to the noble Lord for the very fine reply he has given to me. I am satisfied that it is not in the nature of the present machinery for dealing with the matter, or that it has been able to deal with it in the past. I was never able to get the machinery used long ago, and I hope that the noble Lord will understand that I am not asking for a machine. I am asking for a new system which is capable of dealing with this problem. I am grateful for the response that he has given.
====================
My Lords, I am not going to intervene for more than a few moments, but I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord a question. If he cannot answer it now, then I am sure he will be able to answer it later on. Do the Government realise that in the case of a person who is arrested, and for whom a warrant is issued, and the person is released on bail, the police have a right of appeal, both to the court and to the sheriff?
====================
My Lords, I am grateful for the assurance that the noble Lord has given. In 1988, 86 per cent of those who are not in school are in a home. That is a very small proportion. I am certain that the noble Lord's intention is the right one. We are talking about the number of pupils who are in a home. If that is a small proportion, it is a very small figure.
====================
My Lords, I am fully aware of the noble Lord's intention. I say that in relation to my amendment. I hope that he will not press it.
====================
My Lords, I am not sure whether we are talking about the fact that the manager of a river board is an officer of the Board of Trade. I am not sure, because it might be that he is not. All I know is that he is a river board manager. The noble Lord is quite right. I am saying that might be the case. I think he is also right in saying that he can be a river board manager at any time. But I hope he will be able to be a river board manager when he was appointed as a river board manager.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He has not answered the question of the time. We are talking about the time when it is not practicable for the NHS to give guidance to where and how it is to use the powers and to make available the information. The answers to the two questions are in the affirmative. The noble Lord has not answered the question of the time the document is available.
====================
I take it that the noble Lord will accept my offer to withdraw the Amendment and therefore he will not press it.
====================
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt. I am not sure whether the noble Lord is suggesting that the old Minister of Education should not have been put in charge of the new school.
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He says that I am wrong. I was trying to say that the word "unpopular" was not used in the debate in another place on the Standing Orders Committee. I was trying to suggest that it was not.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I can see no reason why the Government should not be afforded the opportunity to say how it can be done.
====================
The point is that the noble Lord said in his Amendment No. 5 that it was intended to ensure that people would be entitled to the benefits of a home and not to a flat. I thought that the Amendment was intended to ensure that people would be entitled to benefit to which they paid for their own use. I have a great deal to say on the Amendment, but I should have thought that the whole purpose of it was to ensure that people would be entitled to benefit from a home and not to a flat.
====================
My Lords, I would like to ask my noble friend whether he is aware of the rumours that arise from the maintenance of the system in Dagenham? There are rumours that have come from the maintenance that the local authority is to be reduced from one to two. However, I am advised that, with the present arrangements, Dagenham will be able to have two officers. Would my noble friend consider that?
====================
I am not certain that I understand what the noble Lord is getting at, because I was not going to ask him to read it because I thought it would be helpful to the Committee. I am sure the noble Lord will find that I am right in saying that it is certainly not the case that the Government have any intention of making grants to the churches which are not already operated or financed, although we are in touch with the Churches' Association, and we are also in touch with the Churches' Council.
====================
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for intervening. I had not intended to intervene in this debate but I listened with interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. They dealt with the same matter in a slightly different way. I am not sure that both noble Lords agreed with me on that matter, but I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, agreed with me either. As a Member of the House I therefore support the amendment. However, it misconstrued the amendment in my view. I believe that we are dealing with a different matter. The amendment was originally intended to deal with the matter of the compensation for those who suffer from mental illness, but it is equally intended to deal with the matter of the loss of income caused by incapacity. I should like to consider the two issues together. I apologise that I did not finish my speech. I was not sure whether I had already finished my speech. I do not think that any noble Lord should take the view that the amendment is misconceived. The amendment is drafted in the way that it was intended to deal with these two issues. The amendment deals with compensation for the loss of income caused under the National Health Service Act and the amendment deals with the loss of income caused under the Mental Health Act. Those two issues are used interchangeably. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that he has dealt with the issue properly.
====================
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has already said, we on these Benches would not be prepared to allow the Bill to proceed along that road. We have the advantage, as I said, of knowing what the Government intend to do. With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
====================
It is unfortunate that the noble Lord cannot speak today because he has had the opportunity of hearing from the noble Earl the Leader of the House. I was not surprised to hear him say that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, was so concerned about the future of the House. No, I was not. I was not going to say that what the noble Lord has said about the House is the same as what the Leader of the House said about the future of the House. He has not said anything of the sort. That would not be the right way of of doing it. I am not here to say that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is not in a position to express his views. I am here to make a statement about the future of the House. The House will know that because of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I hope that the House will take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has said. I know that it is not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, to take the House to the Division Box. I hope that the House will take note of the views that have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, said that he would not have raised this matter if he had had a chance to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I hope that he will not take it amiss by saying that he did not hear the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, making those remarks.
====================
My Lords, I am not sure I am in order in speaking now, but is it not the case that when the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was in his place he did not reply to his name?
====================
My Lords, in replying to the Minister, I should say that the letter of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was sent out on 14th October. It was not formally sent out until 3rd October. I am not sure what the Minister meant by those two days.
====================
I am saying that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is wrong, and I am sorry that he did not make the point that this is not a Civil Service Bill. It is a Private Bill. It is a Private Bill for the Private sector. But I am not talking about civil servants.
====================
My Lords, I am not an expert on any particular case but I have had experience of these cases in the Tarmore Division of the Civil Service. I have seen the black papers and I have seen the black papers of the various companies at a very early stage. The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, has made some very interesting comments. But it is not only the black papers of a Department to be found in the Civil Service and it is not only the black papers of the Department of Trade and Industry, which have been published, which have been in circulation for some time. The black papers of the Department of Trade and Industry are published and are in circulation on a daily basis. The noble Lord, Lord Garrett, has made one rather critical comment on the black papers, and I know that he will be most dispassionately corrected. I think that one comment will be corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who will be in a position to correct any misapprehensions. I am not quite sure how many black papers have been published. I know that there are some black papers which are more than black. I think that there are some black papers which have been published for some time and which have been in circulation since. It is not only the black papers which are published, it is the black papers of the Department of Trade and Industry, which have been published and which are in circulation. I do not know how many black papers have been published; I have not seen them. I have seen the black papers and I have seen the black papers of the various Departments. I cannot tell you how many black papers of the Department of Trade and Industry have been published. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that black papers have been published more than once, but in many cases they have not been published for very many years. They have been published for many years, and in some cases they have not been published at all. I do not think that the Government are in any danger of not being able to look at their black papers. They have all been published. The black papers have been published for many years and have been in circulation. I do not think that the black papers of the Department of Trade and Industry have been published since the war. I have seen the black papers of the Departmental accounting staff. I have seen the black papers of the Departmental insurance staff. That is the difficulty. I do not know whether the black papers of the Departmental accounting staff have been published since the war or whether they have not. I have seen the black papers of the Departmental planning staff. However, I do not think that they have been published since the war. They have not been published since the war. We have seen the black papers of the Departmental condensing staff. I have seen the black papers of the Departmental staff, the internal police staff, the distribution staff, the officers of the Civil Service, the financial staff and the other staff in the Civil Service. I have seen the black papers to which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, referred and the black papers of the Departmental railway staff. Again, I do not know. I have seen a large number of black papers, and I do not think that the black papers which have been published have been published since the war. I think it is extremely difficult for the Government to determine the black papers of the Departmental railway staff. I do not know whether that is the case or whether the black papers are published and have been published for a long time. I have seen the black papers of the Departmental police. They have been published for many years. I do not know whether any of the black papers have been published since the war. I have seen many black papers, but I have not seen many black papers since the war. I am not sure whether they have been published or not.
====================
My Lords, I do not think that it is right to say that because the Minister has said it in another place.
====================
I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Cannon, said anything. The fact that he did so later was quite an indication of where he was. I am not sure that it was in the form in which he said it.
====================
My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the Government have made any progress in this matter?
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the amendments. I am sorry that he was not here in time to hear me warmly support them. I agree that the amendments are a very good idea. I am glad that the Government have put it on the face of the Bill, and I hope that it will not be too long delayed.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. "I am pleased to announce that the number of children in care in Great Britain rose by 5 per cent. in the first half of this year to 1,073, compared with the same period last year. The figures for the second half show a fall to 1,016, a fall of 15 per cent., and a fall of 19 per cent. compared with the same period in 1989. "The Government's aim in the light of these figures is to reduce the number of children in care in Great Britain to the number that we expect will be in care in the next year. "The target for the next year is 1,073. But while 1,073 is our aim, we shall seek to reduce the number of children in care by at least half over the next two years, which will provide a better basis for the future. The Government are committed to reducing the number of children in care by at least half over the next two years, and I am glad to say that the target is being achieved. "With improved data we can now say that the overall number of children in care in Great Britain is down from 1,195 in 1989 to 1,151 in 1988. The numbers for children in foster care is also down from 78 in 1989 to 28 in 1988. The number of children in care in foster care in Great Britain—in England and Wales alone—is down from 2,318 in 1989 to 1,073. "The figures show that the number of children in care in Great Britain has fallen over the two years to 1,073. The number of children in care in England and Wales who are now in foster care has dropped from 82 to 70. "The number of children in care in Great Britain has fallen by 16 per cent. since 1989, and the number of children in foster care in England and Wales is down by 18 per cent. since 1989. There is also a fall in the number of children in care in Great Britain. "The figures for England and Wales show that the number of children in care in Great Britain has fallen by a total of 5 per cent. over the same period. This is the lowest level of all the countries of Great Britain. In addition, there has been a fall in the number of children in foster care in Great Britain. "The Government are determined to reduce the numbers in care in Great Britain. We have no intention of reducing the number in care in Great Britain. We are committed to reducing the number in foster care in Great Britain. We have no intention of reducing the number in foster care in Great Britain. We are determined to reduce the number in care in Great Britain. The Government have no intention of reducing the number in foster care in Great Britain. We will continue to reduce the number in foster care in Great Britain. "The Government are committed to reducing the number in foster care in Great Britain. The Government have no intention of reducing the number in foster care in Great Britain. The Government have no intention of reducing the number in foster care in Great Britain. We are committed to reducing the number in foster care in Great Britain. We have no intention of reducing the number in foster care in Great Britain. We will continue to reduce the number. "I am pleased to say that in Great Britain the number of children in care has fallen by a total of 5 per cent. over the past two years. In Great Britain, the number of children in care has fallen by 43 per cent. since 1989. The Government's aim is to reduce the number in care in Great Britain. We have no intention of reducing the number in foster care in Great Britain. We intend to reduce the number in foster care in Great Britain. The target for the next year is 1,073. "The Government have no intention of reducing the number in foster care in Great Britain. We have no intention of reducing the number in foster care in Great Britain. We intend to reduce the number. The target for the next year is 1,073. "The figures for the second and third half of this year show a fall of 15 per cent. compared with the same period last year. I shall be making representations to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science on the figures for the second half of this year. "The longer-term targets for closing the gap between the number of children in care in Great Britain and the number in foster care are in the centre of our plans for reducing the number in care in Great Britain. "The Government have no intention of closing the gap in foster care in Great Britain. The Government's aim for the future is to reduce the number in care in Great Britain. We have no intention of closing the gap in foster care in Great Britain. We intend to reduce the number in foster care in Great Britain. We have no intention of reducing
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I was not clear whether she intended to continue.
====================
I am grateful to my noble friend for the courtesy he has shown in regard to my three amendments. However, I should like to refer specifically to Amendment No. 63. I did not particularly like his title of "Lord" for the purpose of the first amendment, and I think that the word "Lord" is suited to a Member of the House of Lords. I hope that he is not going to take a different view of what the word "Lord" means in this context. I do not know whether it is a matter for the House of Lords; I shall certainly have some further discussion of this matter.
====================
I was about to say that I was tempted to say that I did not know what the Minister talks about. He talked about a lack of confidence. I asked the Minister one question, and he replied: "No, I am just going to say that we have confidence in our ability to compete effectively and to deliver in all the markets in the world ". This was in a debate in this House on the White Paper. The Minister said: "I want to know whether we can do it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1/8/93, col. 8.] A few moments later, in his opening speech, he said: "I believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between the existing situation and the future prospects".—[Commons, 9/8/93, col. 21.] The Minister then went on to say: "I want to know whether we have succeeded in finding a balance between the existing position and the future prospects".—[Col. 22.] Some of us might have thought that, but he did not. I believe that he used the words "and the future prospects" rather than "and the present position". I am not sure that he did. The draft order was published on 6th February, in the Official Report, and I know that it was not then distributed. It was, I understand, in the Library. I do not know what happened to it. The Minister, which I always know to be correct, said: "We have embarked on a large number of regulations in order to make sure that the Government are able to deliver".—[Col. 25.] The draft order was not published until one month later. It was not put through Parliament until 6th February.
====================
My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Reay, is to be congratulated on his maiden speech, which I am sure will be read ad nauseam in this House. I was not expecting a maiden speech by a Member of your Lordships' House. I certainly did not expect a maiden speech by the Leader of the House. Perhaps I may say at once that I am not going to take any of the noble Lords' points at all, because I am not qualified to take them. Nevertheless, I have come to the House with a fair amount of time to meet the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Reay. I begin by saying that I was made redundant by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton. No one could accuse me of being a lay-out. I was not a lay-out. I was a Member of Parliament, though I was not a member of the House of Commons. I have never been a Member of either House. I want to correct that impression. I am not a lay-out. It is not true. I have been a Member of Parliament, but I have never been a Member of the House of Commons. I am not a lay-out. However, I am a member of the House of Commons. I shall certainly undertake to look into the point with the noble Lord. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, asked me about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Reay. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Reay, will wish to return to the House of Commons, but so far as I know, I am not sure what the result of the House of Commons' amendment will be. However, I can assure him that I am a very strong supporter of it. I have no doubt that the noble Lord will return to the House of Commons. However, I was asked a number of questions in that regard. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Renton, asked whether I was aware of the fact that the amendment was proposed in his name. I did not know that it was proposed in his name. I looked it up on the Marshalled List, but I did not find it there. If I did, I will gladly write to the noble Lord.
====================
I did not intend to intervene and I wish to say that I was not complaining of the leave of absence of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, at all. I should have liked to have heard him speak, but that is not the occasion. I was not complaining about the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, at all. I was saying that he did not speak in this debate, because he was not really here to speak. I have felt that he could not speak. I think it is a pity that he did not. I did not want to make a speech, because I am not sure that I am speaking for myself. I am very sorry, but I do not think that the noble Lord would have spoken in this debate. I am not here to be critical. I am sorry that he has left the House. I hope that he will not feel the same way. I should have liked to hear him speak, and I think I should have liked to hear him speak. I am not complaining about the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, but I was hoping that he would speak. I am very sorry that he did not. I am very sorry that he has not come, because I do not think that he would have spoken this afternoon, and I hope he will not feel the same way. I hope he will not feel that he is not speaking for himself. I have taken the liberty of coming in to try to speak. I am very sorry that he has not come. I thought I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, whether or not he was in his place, and he said no. I am very sorry that he has not. I think that he should have been here. I am very sorry that he has not come. I hope he will not feel the same way. I am sorry to have come.
====================
My Lords, I am sure that I shall be forgiven for saying that I was wrong on the first Amendment I moved, but I am bound to tell the noble Lord that the Government's priority is to encourage alternative forms of safeguarding services for patients. The vital importance of the service is to patients. If the Government are thinking seriously about it, they must consider all the factors and argue for their proposition.
====================
I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, would consider the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, which relates to the use of the word "health" rather than "health". It is not good enough to say that they are not allowed to use the word "health" in such sentences. The words "health" and "health" are used in the Bill, and I am not saying that they should not be used in the amendment.
====================
My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he can state the all-purpose language of these Amendments. Does he mean that the words of the Bill will be inserted as they are now, or will they be written into this Bill?
====================
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but it is not our intention to have a further debate on the matter. We are only going to have one or two speeches.
====================
My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, for the warm welcome he has given to the Motion which has been put down by the noble Lord, Lord Reay. I am sure that all your Lordships will agree that we on these Benches attach importance to the long-term welfare of our youngest generation. We are more concerned to ensure that our brightest children find the right kind of education to make a contribution to the success and development of our children and to help them to find the right kind of career to fulfil. As the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has said, the question of our education system is of no less importance than the future well-being of our country, which is the purpose of this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has given us a very short list of some of the problems of the educational system. I am sure that a number of the problems will be raised when the debate is concluded. I was very glad to hear the Leader of the House, Mr. Gardiner, say that he was glad to hear my noble friend Lord Reay. I am sure that he cannot have had the same feeling when he heard the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, say that he was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Reay, but he will have to deal with the very difficult problems facing the future of our educational system. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether, in his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Reay, he will be able to say that the Government recognise the importance of the education system. I am sure that he will not be able to say that because these are not the priorities of the Government.
====================
My Lords, I understand that the Government have no intention of using their powers to dictate to the executive what are its responsibilities. It is entirely proper to say that the executive must take the responsibility. But I cannot accept the argument that there is a need for the power. We have not had a power to dictate the terms of a contract. We have been told that unless your contract is in the contract it does not matter. That is the logic of the argument. It is absurd to suggest that because a contract is in a contract it does not matter. We all know what happens when a contract is in a contract and a person has a contract of which he is not a party. He has to go to court to enforce it. He has to go to court to see who is to enforce it. That is what is going to happen when a contract is in a contract. What we are saying is that the responsibility of the individual to enforce his contract varies according to the circumstances of the contract. A contract of this kind will be binding in any event. At some time that will be the case. At another time it may not be binding but it will be binding until the terms of the contract are announced and then the contract is deemed to have been entered into. There is no need to have a contract of this kind.
====================
My Lords, while I do not propose to press this Amendment, I should like to point out that it is only right that the Government should explain on what lines this Amendment is being drawn.
====================
My Lords, I am sure it would be a great pleasure to the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, if he were to be here in this debate. It would be a great pleasure to me to hear the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, speak in this debate. I have listened to many of his speeches and I know of many of his difficulties. The noble Lord made a most interesting suggestion, which I am sure we shall study very carefully. I am glad to be able to tell the noble Lord that I am travelling to the United States to be with him.
====================
My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, will allow me to intervene. If he did, I am sure he would have been wise to intervene. I agree that the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, is a very good lawyer and that he is well qualified to take the views of the House.
====================
It is as well to speak at once, as I am sure all Members of this Committee would wish to do, about what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said. I think the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is right, and I hope we shall hear the Minister at some stage during the debate. I am not sure whether the usual channels are the preferred channel. I can only tell him that I was the channel of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, when he was re-reading his speech. I was not a member of the usual channels. I was a member of the Select Committee, and I heard it. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has quite correctly read what the Committee said. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether it would not be absolutely essential that we should have the opportunity of discussing the Report of the Select Committee, because I think that it is essential that we should have the opportunity of discussing the whole of the Report. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is right—and I am not sure—but I hope that he is right. I think it would be quite right to say that there is there a right of reply. We have not had a full debate on the Report, but we have had a full debate on the Report. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to say that, if he could, he would do all he can to see that the Report is published. I think it would be quite right on his behalf to see that that is done.
====================
My Lords, I am still not clear whether the clauses of the Bill are to be found in the last part of the Bill, or whether they are in the first part. I hope they are not.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Mar, for saying what she said and for her support for the Motion. I am sure that her noble friend the Minister will take note of what she has said. I am also grateful to her for her support for the Motion. I am most grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for the Motion. I am grateful to him for his support for the Motion. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for raising the matter and for her support for the Motion. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for raising the matter. I am most grateful to her for her support for the Motion. I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, for raising the matter. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pearce. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for raising the matter. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for raising the matter. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for raising the matter. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for her support for the Motion. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pearce, for raising the matter. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for raising the matter. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for the support which he has given to the Motion. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for raising the matter. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for raising the matter, and I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for the support which he has given to the Motion. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for raising the matter. I am most grateful to him for the support he has given to my Motion. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for raising the matter. I am most grateful to him for raising the matter. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for raising the issue. I am most grateful to him for the support which he has given to my Motion. I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, for raising the issue. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for raising the matter. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for raising the issue. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for raising the issue. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for raising the issue. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for raising the issue. I am most grateful to him for his support for the Motion. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for raising the matter. I am most grateful to him for raising the matter, for the support which he has given to my Motion. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for raising the issue. I am most grateful to her for her support, and I am most grateful to her for raising it. I am most grateful to her for her support, and to her for her support. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for raising the issue. I am most grateful to her for her support. I am most grateful to her for her support. I am most grateful to her for raising the issue. I am most grateful to her for raising the issue. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for raising the matter. I am most grateful to him for raising the issue and for the support which he has given to it. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for raising the matter. I am most grateful to him for his support for the Motion. I am most grateful to him for raising the issue. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for raising the issue. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for raising the issue. I am most grateful to him for the support which he has given to the Motion. I am most grateful to him for raising the issue. I am most grateful to him for raising the issue. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for raising the matter. I am most grateful to him for raising the issue. I am most grateful to him for raising the issue. I am most
====================
I am not sure whether I should have said that.
====================
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but there is nothing in the Bill, even the wording, which is so specific. What it says is: "The Secretary of State may by order provide for the provision of, or adaptations of, premises for houses for the purpose of housing homeless persons". But what I am saying is that there is no provision in the Bill under which houses can be provided for homeless persons.
====================
I am interested to know the exact words used by the noble Baroness. I am bound to say that I can see no other way of putting these amendments down.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Is he aware that the effect of the Bill on the employment of women is that every single woman will lose her job and that no one can go to the courts to have a job? The law in this country is that no one can go to the courts to have a job. The law is that no one can get a job. I think that is a fundamental injustice. I should like to support my noble friend.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Will he bear in mind that a student of this country comes to this country and, when he leaves, has an opportunity for a job? He may even be paid for doing so.
====================
This is an important matter. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, has raised it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I certainly support this amendment, as have other noble Lords. It is a pity that it was not included in the Bill of Rights in a way which helps the public rather than the person who is actually in charge of the justice system. I do not know if it was included in the Bill of Rights, but there is nothing very much to stop an employer from saying that the woman is expected to get something done in the House of Lords. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will not press this amendment.
====================
<|startoftext|>The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, was extremely moving and profound in his speech. I listened with great interest to the contribution of my noble friend Lord Houghton, who was kind enough to take time out of his busy schedule to be here to support the themes that he had set out. I also listened with interest to the contribution of my noble friend Lord Peston, who is a senior member of the Appeal Court. I returned from that trip because I was present at the meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and I can say that both had a very great deal to contribute. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and I are both of us in the same boat. He is a champion of the independence of the judiciary and he spoke with great authority on the subject. If he will allow me, I shall not repeat all his speech but I shall refer to the points that he raised. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will forgive me if I leave out some of the points that he raised on my case. For example, he asked about the sentence of the court in my case. He asked about the reasons given by the court in the report of the Queen's Counsel. In my case, the majority decided that the appeal should be dismissed. However, the noble Lord was concerned that I should be re-submitted to the Appeal Court if I did not withdraw my appeal. I shall be asked to withdraw my appeal before the Queen's Counsel, and I have no doubt that the noble Lord will ask that question. He asked about the possibility of the Court of Appeal saying that the Court of Appeal would not have heard the appeal had it been in my position. I cannot go beyond the case to which he referred. There are a number of cases in which I may have to argue to the Court of Appeal. I have not asked for the Court of Appeal ruling in my case. The noble Lord asked whether I was doing my best to set the record straight. I am not doing my best to set the record straight. I am trying to make the record clear. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is a supporter of the right of the person to ask for a fresh trial, and so on. I am sure that he will agree with me that we have to look at this problem very carefully. The noble Lord raised the question of the balance of the two sides of the argument. It is not for the sake of procedural rules. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that a caution which is given to the judge is not a warning; it is a warning to the judge not to render a judgment. I would remind the noble Lord that in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, who was convicted, the sentence was subsequently reduced. It was not a warning. The noble Lord asked whether it is not a question of the balance of probabilities. We have not decided whether the criminal and the defence issues are not in the jurisdiction of the court. The case to which the noble Lord referred was the case of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. The noble Lord referred to the fact that there was a defence of the kind he raised; in fact, the noble Lord was not aware that there was a defence. The noble Lord raised the question of whether Clause 2(1) is unconstitutional. If the noble Lord is saying that that section of the law is unconstitutional, then I disagree with him. I do not believe that it is unconstitutional because it is not in the law. I wonder whether the noble Lord would care to consider the matter further. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, asked a number of specific questions. I do not think that I can answer the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, without notice of the points which he raised, because the point he raised about the number of appeals to the Court of Appeal is very relevant. I can give the noble Lord a straight answer. I know that he has a good heart. He asked about the position of the applicant. I have to tell him that there is no special provision in the law of England and Wales for the appointment of the applicant to the Court of Appeal. There is an existing statutory provision in the Statute. Perhaps I may give the noble Lord an answer. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, asked whether the applicant can be dismissed. The answer is, yes. He is not allowed to be dismissed. There is no reason why he should not be dismissed. He is not put in the dock. If the noble Lord wishes to look at the question again, I can give him the answer. The noble Lord asked about the possibility of a reference being made to the Court of Appeal. He asked whether there was that possibility. The answer is, yes. I am not sure what the Court of Appeal would do if the applicant were dismissed. The noble Lord also asked whether the Court of Appeal would consider whether the trial should be dismissed. The
====================
I am sorry if I am not in order, but I am not saying that the noble Viscount is not right. Are we to take this Amendment away and have a discussion on it? I do not think there is a great deal between the two of us on that. But it is a matter to which I should like to refer. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has been in order.
====================
My Lords, I think that this is a very important question. Let us take it at first glance. I do not know how long it will take to complete the survey. I have not seen it. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is right when he said that they were planning to get a project started. I only hope it will be finished. I do not know how long it will take. I am not certain. I would have thought that the time may not be very long, but I am afraid it will not be. I hope it will be finished in five or six years. Then I wonder what the position will be. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, suggested that there should be a public inquiry, or the noble Lord, Lord Renton, may be quite right in saying that there should be a public inquiry into the whole question. I do not know if that is correct. I do not know. I am sorry if the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is not right. I thought he was talking about the pre-war survey. I am not sure that he was referring to the survey of the whole thing. It is very important that we should get a public inquiry into this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, made a very interesting suggestion, and suggested that there should be a public inquiry into the whole question. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, then gave a number of other suggestions which were not particularly well received by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, but in view of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, I should like to suggest that a public inquiry should be started. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, was referring to the survey of the whole thing or to a selection of the parts of it which were of the greatest interest. I think it is important that the survey should be started. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, suggested that a public inquiry should be started. As I said, I am not sure whether he was referring to the complete survey or to the different parts of the question.
====================
I am not sure that I can support the amendment, but if it is a question of confidence, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, has a very good argument for it. If it is not, I shall certainly withdraw it and put it down on the next amendment.
====================
My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House whether or not the Department of Trade and Industry and the National Coal Board are in touch with each other on the future of the coal industry?
====================
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I am not aware of any such evidence? Is he aware also that the conclusion of the Select Committee on the Broadcasting Bill was that there should be no restriction on the number of licences or the amount of time that could be devoted to television programmes? Would he agree that the Select Committee on Broadcasting was wrong and that the Government, in the wisdom of their position, should have accepted the recommendation of the Select Committee and had a licence?
====================
By the way, the noble Lord is not going to answer me.
====================
My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord is not foreseeing that a more limited approach will be adopted and that these questions of economic sanctions may be raised with the usual channels? I appreciate that in the interests of peace and harmony in the Middle East the only way to make peace and prosperity is to restrict the power of the enemy, as in other countries, but the fact is that it is the political factors which make the war possible. It is not the principle of economic sanctions which will make war possible, because of the different economic conditions of different countries. Therefore, it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to secure that in the interests of peace and prosperity, economic sanctions will not be imposed.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for raising that point. The Government's position has been well established. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked about the level of the Government's contribution to the relief of some of the difficult humanitarian problems of the Horn of Africa. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked about the level of the contribution to the relief of the worst humanitarian crises of the Horn of Africa. We have undertaken to make an assessment of the level of the contribution and the amount, and we will be considering that. However, I am not certain whether the noble Lord has raised the question of the level of the contribution of the European Union and the Commonwealth Fund to the relief of this particular humanitarian crisis.
====================
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I am sure that everyone in the House would wish to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, for raising this very important issue on Third Reading and for introducing this Motion. I should like to begin by referring to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence, which were well-deservedly welcomed by his noble friend Lord Mottistone: "I am glad to see that the Bill has reached a satisfactory stage and that it has been a useful discussion. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, for raising this matter. I am sure that it will be helpful to the Government if I deal with it in a rather different way. It is the job of the Secretary of State to look after the interests of agriculture and to ensure that the interests of consumers have been very much looked after. During the next few days we shall have a different discussion about the agriculture Bill, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his Motion today. I believe that I am right in saying that the Bill is the subject of a Private Notice Question, which is open to the Lord Chairman, and I should like to put a Question to the Lord Chairman. I know that the noble Lord is not quite certain about his position, but I hope he will agree that it would not be right to raise the issue of the agriculture Bill, because it is a Private Notice Question. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his Motion.
====================
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
====================
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but I think the purpose of the amendment was simply to assist the Government in the drafting of the Bill. I am not sure whether it was intended to assist the Government in the drafting, but the Government's intention is to be carried out.
====================
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for departing from the usual channels. I have my notes on the list of speakers, and I shall read them with care. However, I must say that I found the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and others, against the amendment so persuasive that it seemed rather difficult to find my way around the amendment itself. I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for her very clear explanation of the situation and her clear indications that the problems are still there. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for her careful consideration of the amendments and for her detailed and cogent argument. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for giving us a detailed indication of the way in which she thinks the Government have gone about the amendment. I am all for this amendment. It is a very important amendment, because it is the only amendment which will give the job of the Secretary of State greater clarity and consistency. It will enable him to act more flexibly and more effectively. It will enable him to ensure that the powers are not abused and that they are not abused in any way. The noble Baroness and I are both proponents of the amendment. I am not sure that that is the right phrase. I would be prepared to sit down and read the amendment with care, if that is the right phrase, but I do not think that it is the right one. In our discussions on the amendment, I have been told that it is necessary to have the definition in the Bill. I am not certain that that is the right phrase. But I understand the argument, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has put it forward in such eloquent terms. It is not the end of the story. In fact, it is quite the reverse. If the amendment had been in the Bill, it would have been in order to enable the Secretary of State to act flexibly and more effectively. If it were in the Bill, it would have been to assist the Government. There is a contradiction in that. My point is that I do not think the amendment is essential. Perhaps the Minister will look at it carefully and reflect on it.
====================
My Lords, it is a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Bridgeman, to reply to the Question which has been tabled by my noble friend Lord St. Oswald, and I should like to ask him whether he will avenge himself on the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, by reminding him that I am supposed to be Lord Chancellor for many years, and am I not supposed to know what that is?
====================
My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will not press the amendment. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has spoken again. I knew that I had the support of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, but I am sorry that I have not, and I shall withdraw the amendment. However, I shall look at the matter and see whether I have made myself clear.
====================
My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, I can understand why he moved the amendment in the first place. I would say that it was not necessarily a matter for the courts to decide, because they had never been asked to decide on these matters. It is a matter for the courts to decide in the light of the evidence and the evidence given by the prosecution, and it is not a matter for the chief constable to say what is a criminal offence. The police will of course have to understand the offence, and it will be a criminal offence in the sense that it is a criminal offence. But if a police officer, or the chief constable, says that the offence is not a criminal offence, then the defendant is not likely to have any defence. I was not at all dissatisfied about the amendment. I do not blame the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, for what he has done; but the fact is that the amendments would have made the situation worse.
====================
In that case, I say that the clause is not necessary. In the case of the single-parent home, I should have thought that it was a question for the Minister. The Minister has said that he does not intend to add anything. I think he has the right to say with his own hand that he will not add anything.
====================
I cannot speak for the Government but I can speak for some of those communities who have already been affected.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments. I am grateful to him for raising this issue. I am not sure whether the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, are the best steps to take on this matter. I rather like the way in which he suggested that she should be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to be able to face up to the fact that she is not going to
====================
My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the government of which she is a member have been guilty of a grievous breach of the European Parliament by their inaction with regard to the handling of the Falkland Islands? Is she further aware that the Government have shown a total lack of concern and an inability to make an agreement with a united Ireland?
====================
My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord. In my opinion the matter is one for the National Gallery.
====================
My Lords, I agree that the problem was no more than a question of wording. I have no doubt that it was intended to mean that it was not only the responsibility of the individual, but also the responsibility of the community, and not only the individual's responsibility, but the responsibility of the community as a whole. It was intended to make the wording as reasonable as it could be. I am not sure whether the Labour Party at that time wished to make the wording more reasonable. I believe that there was a great deal to be said for keeping it as reasonable as possible, but I do not think the wording was intended to make it more reasonable.
====================
My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has got it right. Do we not now have a common sense British-style system? I was talking about the actual building of dams and how they were connected and the flow of water from them. Is that not the critical point in this situation? Is that not the critical point? I do not know the answer to the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I think I should leave it at that.
====================
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Viscount does not mean that as a matter of courteous courtesy, but as a matter of fact I do not think he said it.
====================
My Lords, the Foreign Office has been informed of the Cabinet decision in relation to the Falkland Islands.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her introduction of the amendment and I beg to move.
====================
My Lords, may I ask the Minister a question on the subject of the railways? He has made it quite clear that the Government will not impose any conditions on the railways. I wondered whether he would say whether he would consult the chairman of the Railways Board to see whether a condition of the agreement to impose a condition of the agreement was not right. That is the first question. I do not know whether he can say whether anything is forthcoming. The second question is whether he would not like to see the railways being protected at a reasonable cost compared with other forms of transport. I should like to know whether the noble Lord can say that.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I do not have the honour to speak in this debate. I come to it only from the point of view of a long-serving soldier of the Royal Armed Forces. I am not, of course, a member of the Defence Select Committee. I will not attempt to deal with the questions that have been raised. I would like to deal with the question of the language, which was raised by my noble friend Lord Burton, but I should like to come to the question of the terms of reference. As your Lordships will know, the Defence Select Committee has two Chairmen, one of whom is a former officer in the Royal Corps of Transport. The other is a former member of the Royal Marines. I was asked whether I would take this matter up with the Committee. I did so in the hope that I might be able to inform the noble Lord, Lord Burton, that I would do so. I have no doubt that he would be glad to receive me in his own company and I am sure that he would reply with a similar sort of response. The Minister is absolutely right to point out that in the previous Defence Select Committee discussions on this matter we drew the view that the language was too coarse and it was not necessary to have a term of reference. The Committee did not like the word "discretion". I am sure that the Minister is right in that regard. The Committee took a view that the word "discretion" was not in the Bill. The Government had their own views on this matter. It was a matter which was submitted to a Select Committee. It was not submitted to a Select Committee on the whole. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Burton, that indeed the Committee of the House of Lords is the one which has the power of deciding what the terms of reference should be. The Committee of the House of Lords has the power of deciding what the terms of reference should be. I would like to say to the noble Lord that I did not expect the Committee of the House of Lords to decide. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Burton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, are not here to hear what I have said. I do not think they would have voted in the Chamber. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Burton, that in the matter of the defence of this country by our Armed Forces, I believe there is a great deal to be said for asking Parliament what it should do. I am not happy about the terms of reference. I should like to refer to the terms of reference for defence and foreign affairs. For defence, I would suggest that we should make it clear that we are not going to be asked to sit on the Foreign Affairs Committee, but I would suggest that we should ask the Foreign Office what terms of reference we should ask. I would suggest that we should ask the Foreign Office what terms of reference we should ask. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Burton, will be interested to know what terms we should ask. I am sure that he will be happy to receive it. I think that we should ask the Foreign Office what terms of reference we should ask. I think that we should ask the Foreign Office what terms of reference they should ask. I do not know what terms of reference we should ask. I was asked what terms of reference we should ask. I would suggest that we should ask the Foreign Office what terms of reference we should ask. It is not my intention to ask the Foreign Office what the terms of reference should be. I have dealt with some of the questions raised. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Burton, will not press the Motion. I am speaking for myself. I do not think that the words in the clause are necessary. I turn now to the question of the terms of reference. I do not know what the terms of reference should be. I know that the Defence Select Committee, in its report, recommended that there should be there a term of reference. I do not know whether that is a recommendation which has been accepted by the Government. I think the noble Lord, Lord Burton, has made it clear that he would like to know what the terms of reference should be. I did not expect the terms of reference to be very different from those of the previous Defence Select Committee. I was asked whether there should be a term of reference. I did not expect the terms of reference to be very different from those of the previous committee. I did not expect the terms of reference to be very different from those of the previous committee. It is true that the terms of reference of the Defence Select Committee were different from those of the previous committee. In the case of the previous Defence Select Committee, the terms of reference were different from those of the previous committee. I am not sure that I should reply to the question of what was the terms of reference of the previous Defence Select Committee. I am not sure that the terms of reference of the Defence Select Committee were different from the terms of reference of
====================
My Lords, the noble Lord has not answered my point. I raised the issue on Third Reading of the Bill, and I intend to press it at the next stage of the Bill.
====================
It is not the same thing.
====================
Is the noble Lord aware that over the years we have had many thousands of cases of accidental poisoning?
====================
The noble Lord's amendment is a little narrow. It is limited to the definition of "funny" which applies to any of the things mentioned in subsection (2)(b). Perhaps the noble Lord can explain this further.
====================
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has raised a matter of great importance in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, against whom I have to say that I think it is right to inquire into the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, as to the operation of the Act of 1948, particularly the question as to whether or not, when the Act was as a matter of law, the landlord and tenant could have been bound by it. I think the noble Lord asked the question as to whether, in the event of the law of 1949 being repealed, the strong tenant might be able to ask the landlord for a grant of a reasonable thing and then be entitled to the benefit of the grant. The answer to the noble Lord is, I think, Yes, and that is the first question. The second question was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thornhill, to which I should like to refer. I am not sure whether the noble Lord was right in his impression that the law of 1949 was repealed or whether it was not. He said that it was not. I do not know whether he asked for a repeal, but I should have thought it was quite clear that the law of 1949 was not repealed because this Bill provides for the removal of the Act of 1948 from the Statute Book. I do not know whether the noble Lord asked for a repeal, but I think it is plain that the law of 1949 was not repealed or whether it is the case that the law of 1949 was repealed, but in fact I am not sure. The noble Lord asked whether the landlord could ask for a grant of a reasonable thing for a period of not less than seven years. This is not a matter which is covered in this Bill, but I am telling him that the Bill provides for the removal of the Act of 1948 from the Statute Book. I do not know whether the noble Lord asked for a repeal, but I think it is plain that the law of 1949 was not repealed. The noble Lord asked whether the landlord could ask for a grant. I am not sure about this, but it seems to me that the landlord could ask for a grant. If he did, it would be a grant which would cover the rent of the property in question and not the rent of the apartment. The Bill provides that in the event of a vacancy the landlord must be entitled to the rent in the first instance; and, in the event of a vacancy of the tenant, he will be entitled to the rent in the first instance. The noble Lord asked whether the landlord could make an agreement for the tenant to remain in possession of the apartment at a rent of not less than 10s. a week, or whether he could ask for a grant of a reasonable thing or take the tenant on. The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, is no, because the tenant would not have a channelled rent from the landlord, and therefore the landlord could not ask for a grant of a reasonable thing for the tenant.
====================
My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask the noble Lord a question. He has been very kind to me in this matter. Although he did not say that there was any intention of employing a National Health Service Commissioner, I thought that I understood him to say what he said, but he said that the general case was that the Minister of Health had not been appointed by a Government. Would he explain to me whether there is any reason why we should not have him appointed from the Government, because, as I understand it, the Minister of Health is the delegate of the Minister of Health, and in these days it is a very difficult matter to say which party is responsible for a temporary Minister. The Minister is at one, and a Minister is at another. I do not really see why we should not have the Secretary of State appointed from the Government.
====================
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I am grateful to him for his intervention. I should like to make it clear that I accept the undertaking given by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I think that the answer gives the noble Lord the assurance that it will be possible to move a Question in this House at the end of this Session. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the chance to make my maiden speech in this House. I am sure that the House will be grateful to him for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, for having taken on the work of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I are grateful to him for the opportunity to make a contribution to the debates that we have had on this subject. I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. He has had an interesting and insightful contribution. I am sure that the House will wish to consider his contribution. As he has said, I am a great fan of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I was interested to hear him speak. I shall listen very carefully to his remarks. Indeed, he has a point of view. I am sure that we shall study them with interest. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, for giving us the opportunity to discuss the problems of human rights and the obligations and responsibilities of the nation. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and I were both part of the Select Committee of the other place that examined the human rights legislation. However, I do not wish to go into that matter now because I do not know what the future will hold in relation to the human rights legislation. I should like to refer to the implications of the noble Lord's remarks. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, is seeking to resolve the problem of the removal of the child protection provisions. I do not believe that I can do that, but I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the issues of the abolition of the child protection provisions. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Rippon for his speech. I am glad that he accepted the principle that child protection should be a matter for the courts. I am grateful also to my noble friend Lord Rippon for the very constructive way in which he explained the problems and benefits of the child protection legislation and I am grateful to him for his very helpful remarks about the workings of the legislation. However, I believe that we are all aware that the child protection provisions are of very great importance and that the amendments will not be helpful in any way. I am grateful to my noble friend for his generous remarks about the work of the Child Protection Advisory Service. I am grateful also to my noble friend Lord Rippon. I agree with him that the best way of dealing with the problems of child protection is to provide the right level of support for the people involved. However, I am not sure about the most effective way of dealing with the problems of child protection. Certainly, I am not sure about the best way of dealing with the problems of child protection. I recognise that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is now talking about the presence of children in this country. I shall not take that as a plea for a particular area of the country. We need to look at the present situation and the future. To many people, it is of the greatest importance to have the right level of support to ensure that children are not put in the same situation on the streets and in the homes that they would otherwise be in. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his comments about the effect of the new legislation on the situation in the country. I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments about the attractiveness of the new legislation. I am grateful to him, too, for his comments about the legislation. However, I am not certain that he is correct in his statement that the new legislation does not affect the human rights situation. He made it clear in his opening remarks that there is no question of the legislation affecting the rights of the child. It is the other legislation that affects the rights of the child. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was wrong in his comments about the effect of the law on human rights. I do not believe that he was referring to the human rights legislation, but to the rather wider-ranging legislation. Perhaps I may refer to the comments that I made in my opening remarks about the burden of proof. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, was referring to that to some extent. However, I do not accept his argument that there is no burden of proof. The Bill introduces an element of certainty to the law. That brings in the most important part of the Human Rights Act to which I referred earlier. That is a very important part when the law has been in place for so long. It is important that the people who are responsible for the law should know what is true. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Rippon for his helpful remarks about the Child Protection Advisory Service. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his remarks. I am grateful to him for saying that there should be a definition of the responsibilities of the child protection agency. I
====================
My Lords, I am sure that all the noble Lords who wish to speak at this hour will do so. I am sure that all the noble Lords will wish to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hendrie, who is a distinguished Minister. He is a very experienced Minister and he will speak with all the skill, authority and knowledge that he brings to these matters. I am sure that all noble Lords will wish to hear his speech. I beg to move.
====================
My Lords, I do not want to re-open this debate again. It is a good thing that I should not be doing so, because I have already put two questions in my own Defence debate. I wished to know, first, whether it was not the case that the Government's policy is to retain the position of the school-leavers, in spite of the fact that we have no statutory responsibility for education. Secondly, I asked whether it is not the case that it was the Government's policy to retain the position of the school-leavers, in spite of the fact that we have no statutory responsibility for education. I have received no answer to that question, and I should like to know what has been the attitude of the Government. I should like to ask that the question, if I may, be put to the Minister of Education. I know that the Minister has said that he will do so. I think that the Minister of Education is a man of integrity, and I am sure that he would not be taken in by the arguments. For myself, I am not sure that I know what is the attitude of the Ministry of Education. I think it has been the policy of the Government to retain the position of the school-leavers, in spite of the fact that we have no statutory responsibility for education, and on this account I am sorry that I was not given an answer to the second question.
====================
I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. I am a little disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Inverloch, has not taken the opportunity to call attention to the points he has raised, but I appreciate that the money has to be found and that it is essential that we should have the ability to do so. I was not very happy with the Minister's response to my Question, although I am grateful for her reply. I was not quite as happy as I thought I was. I think that the Minister's reply was rather vague and I am still not happy. I am sure that I am not alone in not being happy about the Minister's reply. It seemed to me that the Minister has not really explained how it will be put right. As I understand it, it will be the subject of a committee, which will go into it and will report at the end of the year. Could the Minister say what direction it will be given and how long it will be before it is finally put right?
====================
My Lords, I support the amendment. I wish to amend it in the way it is proposed. But I should like to speak to the amendment in the way the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, has done. I wish to put the matter more briefly. I am not convinced that the Bill deals with this particular matter. I am not persuaded that the Bill deals with the problem. I hope that I have explained the situation, so that my noble friend can consider the matter. I am not convinced that the Bill deals with the problem. I am not convinced that the Bill deals with the problem. I wish to put this matter in the wider perspective. It may be that I have not explained it enough, but I hope that the Minister will consider the matter further. It is a very important matter. I am not certain that it is a particularly important matter. I hope that he will be able to give a further assurance, if he can, that at the earliest possible stage there will be a proper review of the matter. I should like to put my question to him. Is it the Government's intention to introduce a Bill of Rights, or is there a case for that?
====================
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord the Leader of the House is right in saying that there will be a debate in this House later this evening. I did not say that there would be a debate at all.
====================
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, raised the question of the medical equipment that is used in the hospitals. I appreciate that he is a surgeon, but his question has a certain relevance to the problem of the equipment that is used in the hospitals. I can assure him that, as far as I know, every surgeon in the country has his own equipment, and it is not necessary to have a separate measuring machine.
====================
My Lords, in this House, as in another place, we have the privilege of hearing the wisdom of the Government and the wisdom of the Opposition, and we hear the wisdom of the Government and the wisdom of the Opposition, and we hear the wisdom of the Government and also the wisdom of the Opposition. In this House, as in another place, we have the privilege of considering the wisdom of the Administration and the wisdom of the Opposition. When I came to the House of Commons, I was very fortunate to have the privilege of hearing the wisdom of the Government and the wisdom of the Opposition; and when I came to the House of Commons, I was also privileged to hear the wisdom of the Government and the wisdom of the Opposition. But the House of Commons is not so fortunate as the other place. I am a member of the Cabinet, and I am not a member of the Cabinet. I have heard the wisdom of the Cabinet, and I have heard the wisdom of the Cabinet. But the Cabinet is not so fortunate as the other place. I am not a member of the Cabinet. I am a member of the Cabinet, and I am not a member of the Cabinet. It is not so fortunate as the other place. I am a member of the Cabinet, and I am not a member of the Cabinet. I am a member of the Cabinet, and I am not a member of the Cabinet. I am a member of the Cabinet, and I am not a member of the Cabinet. It is not so fortunate as the other place.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I do not believe that I am the only person in this House who is a farmer. We have farmers, and every one of us, whether I am a farmer or not, is a farmer. I have a good many men here to help me. I am sure, from the number of people who are here, that it is a good thing that people have been brought together in this House to discuss the subjects which are of great importance in farming. I have to say, as one who has a direct interest in farming, that I like it. I have a good many men here to help me over my own land and the land of other people who are farmers. I am sure that all the other farmers are glad to help me. I am not going to get into a debate on the agricultural business, but I should like to say how much I appreciate the many contributions we are hearing this afternoon. I should like to say at the outset that I think we are all agreed that, in spite of the difficulties of the price-fixing business, the agricultural industry is not going to suffer as a result of the agricultural price-fixing business. A great many agricultural farmers have made a good case for their position, and I am not going to say that I do not agree with them. I am going to say, however, that I do not think the farming community as a whole, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, said, is going to suffer as a result of the agricultural price-fixing business. I am going to say that, however, I think we are all agreed that the agricultural industry and the farming industry in general are going to benefit as a result of this business. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, agrees with me, and I am very sorry to see that he is not here. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, agrees with me, but I believe he is here. We are all agreed that the agricultural industry is going to benefit as a result of this business. I am going to say five or six words, but I am going to repeat myself. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that the agricultural industry is going to benefit as a result of this business, and that is why I am here. I am going to say nothing about agriculture, except to say that I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that there is not much to be gained. I agree that it is a great relief if, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said, it is possible to pay more for the produce that one buys at the market. I agree that it is a great relief if, as he said, one can buy less at the market. I agree with him that it is a great relief to see that some produce is being sold at a higher price. I agree with him that it is a great relief to see that some produce is being sold at a price that is higher than is permitted by the Act of Parliament. But I do not agree that there is much to be gained at all. The only thing I am going to say is that I am not going to take up the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, because I do not think he will like my remarks. I am going to say that I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, said. I am going to say nothing about agriculture, except to make two points. First, I am not going to dispute the great importance of the need for the agricultural industry to be self-financing. I will let the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, have that in mind. Secondly, I am not going to dispute that agricultural industry is going to benefit as a result of this great taxation. It is there. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, said that it was not going to benefit. I am going to say that I am not going to dispute the fact that the fact that the levy is being paid in the first place is going to be beneficial in the long run. In my opinion, it is not going to be beneficial. I am going to say nothing about the agricultural industry. I am going to say two things. The first is that I am not going to dispute the fact that the agricultural industry is going to benefit as a result of the levy. The second point is that I am not going to dispute that the levy will be paid in the quantities specified by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, in the next year. It is not going to be paid in the way that I would like it to be. I am not going to dispute that. I am going to say nothing about the levy. I am going to
====================
My Lords, I am not sure that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. I think I heard him say "no". I did not say "no" and I am not sure whether the noble Lord went to the end of the chain, so I am not sure whether he was saying "no" in the sense in which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, would use this phrase.
====================
My Lords, we are aware of the bombing of the Ministry of Defence. I think the Ministry of Defence is the only one of the armed services in that country which has not been bombed. We have had a very severe bombing in the last few weeks.
====================
My Lords, this is a matter for the noble Lord. I should like to make some brief comments on the proposals for a report and I am sure we shall be grateful if he would be willing to give me the opportunity of reading some of the suggestions which have been made. I am sure that the noble Lord will find a great deal to say on the report that is to be published in due course. I am sure that he will feel that the proposals are not overly intrusive. The noble Lord will be aware that he has been sitting as a Lord of Appeal for 16 years. I know that he was responsible for the conduct of the first couple of cases involving the noble Lord, Lord Reith. But I am sure that he will be particularly grateful if I were to read some of the suggestions that were made to him about the matter, to which I have referred. I am sure that he will also be glad to hear that the Government have been considering the matter carefully. I am sure that he will feel that he has done his best.
====================
My Lords, can the noble Lord speak with greater clarity on the Question: Whether I shall be able to make a Statement about the future of the Health Services in Scotland at a convenient moment?
====================
I am not sure whether the noble Lord is referring to the report of the Select Committee, or is he referring to a copy of it in the Library?
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of his amendments. I am afraid that I misunderstood him. He said, "This is an opportunity to raise points with the Government on this issue. It is not an opportunity to raise points with a particular group of individuals". I took it as such. I understand that the amendment has nothing to do with the particular individual. It is not an opportunity to raise points about who is to have access to the information. It is an opportunity to raise the issue of the need to have access to the information and to the process. I shall read what the Minister has said. I am grateful for his explanation.
====================
My Lords, I think it would be wrong for me to intervene in this debate. My noble friend Lord Addison said that he would not intervene except for the three paragraphs on the last page of the White Paper. I do not know whether he will accept this letter from me or whether it is in order now.
====================
Before the noble Lord leaves the subject, can he confirm that there is no such thing as a guarantee to an individual who is receiving a benefit which he has not received in the past?
====================
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, made a well informed, thoughtful and extremely valuable contribution. I am grateful for her comments on what the Government have done and the good sense which they have shown in their response to the concerns of the charities. She mentioned the plight of the disabled, but I am not sure whether she is referring to the disabled who have been denied life-saving treatment, or whether she is referring to those who have received life-saving treatment and are therefore being denied treatment. The noble Baroness asked whether the Government will look at what the charities have been asked to do. Of course we will look at what they have done, and we will take note of what the charities have said. I accept the fact that they have been genuinely concerned about the situation. I hope that the Government will do their best to ensure that the situation is dealt with in a way which is satisfactory to the charities involved. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, made the point that the Government are not acting responsibly. I hope that the Government will remember the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and that they will take the crucial decision that the disabled are being denied life-saving treatment. I hope that the Government will take that matter seriously and will be able to make a positive and constructive response.
====================
My Lords, I am speaking from the Front Bench on this occasion, but I should like to say a few words on the subject. I am speaking from the Front Bench, because I am in the same position as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, who is a Member of this House and a Member of another place. I do not propose to repeat his arguments, but I hope he will forgive me if I do so. They have been repeated, and I do not propose to repeat them. The point is that we have had the experience of the last war. I have no reason at all to suppose it was any different from the present War. A man is shot down in the street in a London railway car. His wife and two children are all taken away. The car is found, with all the paraphernalia and the papers in it, and is sent to the police station. He is taken away to the police station; and, when he is brought out, they ask him to produce a statement—and it is a statement that is not made on any side, but is made by the police, who I think were a little surprised when they saw that the statement given to them was that they already had it from his wife. So it is not impossible for the police to say that this man has been shot down. He is taken to a warehouse—I believe he was taken to the Home Office—and he is taken to a police station, where he is asked what he has said. He says, "I have something which I want to say." When he gets in the police car and goes down to the police station, he is asked to produce a statement, and he says, "I am not going to produce anything at all." He was taken away to a police station, where he was asked to produce a statement. He did not produce anything, but he was not asked to produce anything at all. So I feel that this is not a case of a man being shot down in a London police car, but is a case of a man taking a statement from a police car, and then being asked to produce the statement, and then having to be asked to produce something. I am quite sure that is the position which faces a police car when a man is shot down, when the police ask him a question, and he says, "I am not going to produce anything at all." I am quite certain that, if the police have to take the statement of the man to the police station, they will take the statement to the police station, and, if the statement is not produced, they will send the man to prison. That seems to me not to be very unreasonable. That is what the law is, and that is what the law ought to be. I am quite certain that if this man were arrested for a second time, if he had to be brought before the court again, if the court were to say, "Yes, you have not been charged with anything," he would know that the facts were not there, and that he had not been charged with anything. He would be taken away and given a new trial, and he would get a new trial if he did not produce a statement. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will not pursue the matter at all.
====================
My Lords, I am not sure whether I can help the noble Lord. I had not the same feeling in my own constituency as he has in this House. I do not know whether I am right in my own constituency, but I did have this feeling, and I was wondering whether I was necessarily right in what he said. I was not quite certain whether I was right or not, and I thought I heard him say that I was wrong, and I was not quite sure whether I was right or not. I am very sorry to hear the noble Lord say that he was wrong. It is not the fault of my own party; it is the fault of the Government.
====================
I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way, but I did not quite follow his argument. He said that if the noble Lord had made his speech in the House yesterday, the discussion would have been very different. He is quite right—I think that would be true—but the only thing that would have saved the noble Lord—or the Government—from a very much worse situation was if the noble Lord had made his speech. I do not know whether that is true, but I have heard the noble Lord's speech. If the noble Lord had made his speech—and I do not know whether he made it—I can hardly believe that he would have been saved.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. I am grateful for the support of the three previous speakers who have dealt with the same subject. My major concern is that the Government are ignoring the lesson of the past. The problem is not that the Government are failing to implement the recommendations; it is that they are failing to implement the recommendations. They have not brought the recommendations before Parliament. Instead, the Government are taking up the new powers which are being given to them. We are now at a stage where we are debating these matters, and the Minister himself has been inculcating the new powers. I am only disappointed that the Government have been so insistent on the requirement to implement the recommendations. The Government should have done so in the first place. Secondly, they should have had the opportunity to consider any further proposals which might be made to improve the system. I am not for a moment suggesting that we should have had the opportunity to put forward any proposals, but the Government should have had the opportunity to consider all the suggestions that might be made. I do not want to refer to the point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, about the Government's policies and not the subject of this debate with which we are now dealing. I am not suggesting that we should have had the opportunity to put forward any proposals. I am just suggesting that the Government should have had the opportunity to consider any further suggestions that might be made to improve the system. The Government have been told repeatedly that they should consider any suggestions which might be made to improve the system. The Government should have had the opportunity to consider proposals, and if they had not done so they would not have received the support of the public. I would make two further points. First, the Government should have had the opportunity to consider any proposals made to improve the system. I do not want to use the word "recommendation" to mean anything else—it would be an invention of the Government. But the Government would have been required to consider proposals. Secondly, the Government should have had the opportunity to consider any further suggestions that might be made. In that case, if they had not done so, they would not have had the support of the public.
====================
I am sorry if I was not clear, but I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, was speaking in his usual manner.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his intervention. I should like to ask him two questions. First, does he recall that there was a report by Dr. Ammon, the father of the mothers, that a large number of mothers had no child of their own and that their children had been taken away from them because their husbands had left? I do not believe that that is true. Secondly, does he recall that it was in the "National Health Service" that the mother was cared for after the man had left the house? Does he recall that the woman was cared for by the GP and that the GP, in his usual way, looked after her and helped to provide care? I should like to know whether that is true. I am not sure that if it is true it is true everywhere. I think it is true in countries where there are no hospital beds. Nevertheless, it is true in many places in the world where there is a hospital.
====================
I certainly shall not have any hesitation in supporting this Amendment. The noble Lord has pointed out that there is an Amendment on the Paper which deals with the question of compensation for loss of earnings and so on. I think we have got it quite literally right. It does not get rid of the question of compensation altogether. I would like to know what the Government have in mind.
====================
It is not. It is the precise point, but the noble Baroness is right in that it is not.
====================
My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord a question. I take it that he means that it is not part of the procedure of the House for a Member of the House to be required to withdraw. If that is the case, he is not entitled to withdraw.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving me that opportunity to intervene. As your Lordships are aware, the purpose of the amendment is to make it possible for the Government to amend the original charter, which was made in 1971, by a new clause. Without that amendment, the Government of the day would have been able to introduce the Bill. However, it would then be difficult for the Government to amend the charter to prevent them introducing a new clause which would prevent the Government of the day from introducing a new clause. Therefore, I hope that the noble Earl will be content to withdraw the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this very important issue. I too should like to express my gratitude to him for raising it at this late stage. I have one question to ask the noble Lord. Will the noble Lord bear in mind the National Health Service to which he referred earlier? Will he bear in mind also that it is not possible to give a proper answer on this matter? Does he realise that the National Health Service is a service that is missing in its present form? Will he bear in mind also the question of the National Health Service which has recently been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, and which has been referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Longford? I am not sure whether the National Health Service needs this amendment.
====================
My Lords, we have no intention of introducing a statutory basis for these powers. We have shown that we are prepared to debate the matter in detail, and we shall be seeking to raise it in both Houses. We have no intention of introducing a statutory basis for these powers. We are seeking to raise the matter in both Houses, but I think it is right for me to say that if a power is introduced to give the Secretary of State power to restrict the right of appeal to be taken by a tribunal, we shall back it up with the necessary measures. It is right that we should do so.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Answer. Is he aware that, as at present constituted, the A.A. now represents only one-sixteenth of the total population of the country, and that the vast majority of the people are still suffering from the disease of malnutrition? Is he further aware that it would be an insult to the spirit of negotiation and compromise to suggest that the A.A. should adopt measures such as this, when in many cases they have done so for years, and have been given a great deal of help, not by the Government but by the international organisations?
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I was not quite clear whether or not the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was intended to be a probing amendment. I knew that it was intended to be a probing amendment. I thought that it was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and I thought that it was, but I did not always know that it was a probing amendment. I was not very clear whether it was intended to be a probing amendment or not. I am not quite clear. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was intended to be a probing amendment. I thought that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was intended to be a probing amendment, and I thought that we had to ask the Minister what the intentions were.
====================
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has raised an important point. He said that the relationship between the various departments and the police is extremely important and that we should not forget that. As I understand it, the main problem with which the noble Lord is concerned is that the police do not always act as a liaison officer to the authorities. The officers are not usually called to the scene. The noble Lord asked the police to act as a liaison officer, but it is not generally done. The noble Lord asks for the police to act as liaison officers. But that cannot be done. In some circumstances, I think that that will not count. The noble Lord asked the police to act as a liaison officer, but it is not usually done. The noble Lord asked whether the police are taking a lead role in liaison, as he said. I think that it is difficult to imagine what they would be doing. This is a very important matter, and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement on the Coal Industry Inquiry. It is my duty to inform the House, not because I am a Minister but because I am responsible for the Coal Industry Inquiry, and I think that it is my duty to tell the House what I have to say. The inquiry is undoubtedly an occasion for me to explain the reasons for the inquiry. As I know from my own experience, when I have had to deal with inquiries of this kind, I have never expected to find that the objector, the chairman or head of the inquiry, had any feelings of kinship with the claimant or any other party. I was not expecting to find that that was the case. I have tried to be helpful in dealing with the inquiry. I have tried to be helpful in explaining the difficulties of the situation and the problems of the coal industry and its future. There has been a good deal of criticism on the inquiry. A number of noble Lords have made speeches, and, as I say, I have tried to deal with the situation. I should like to emphasise that I have no desire to criticise the inquiry and to criticise the way in which it was conducted. I should like to put this to the House: that this is an opportunity for me to explain a number of the reasons why I am glad to be able to say that we are now in agreement on the inquiry. It is a special occasion. Some of the problems of the coal industry are very different from others, and it is only right to ask the Government to recognise the special circumstances of the coal industry. The inquiry has been held for over two years. It is a special occasion because it deals with an industry which is one of the great national industries which is threatened by external influences and which is one of the logical linkages with the rest of the economy. The Inquiry is a special occasion because we are dealing with the latest developments without delay, without any of the checks that are necessary, without any of the safeguards that are necessary, without any of the barriers that are necessary, without any of the responsibilities that are necessary. I am glad to be able to tell the House that I am now pleased to be able to tell the House that the inquiry will not be broken up. I do not believe that it will be broken up on the day that the inquiry is held. I believe that it will be broken up on the day that the inquiry is held. I should like to say something about the issue of the decline of the coal industry. I know that noble Lords have tried to deal with this issue, but I want to emphasise that the problem is not only the decline of the coal industry; it is also the decline of the whole national economy as a whole. I cannot speak for long on this question, but I want to make this point. The reasons are not lack of resources, but lack of will to make the best use of resources. We all know that there is a great shortage of labour, a shortage of skilled labour, a shortage of skilled manpower and a shortage of skilled manpower. It is not just the coal miners or the coal seamen who are to blame. The problem is the whole problem of the coal industry. It is the coal miners who are to blame for the situation. The matter is not only the decline of the coal industry; it is also the whole industry. It is the whole problem of the coal industry. The problem is the whole problem of the coal industry. It is one of the great industrial problems that is faced by the nation to-day. The Government must no doubt be upset by the criticism that they have made of the high wages and the high salaries that are being paid to the coal miners. I know that it is said that they have not been paid for two years. I am sure that they have been. I have tried to give the House an answer to that point. The Government must not blame the miners or the coal miners. It is the whole problem. It is the problem of the economic position that is faced by the nation now that the coal mines have declined. It is the whole problem of the coal industry, and it will remain so, unless we can find a solution to it. I want to say a word about the Mines Advisory Board. I admitted to the House that I was a member of the board. I stated that in the course of my previous work in the mines I became a member of the board. I admitted that to the House, and I am still a member of the board. That is good enough. I was on the board for many years. I was a member of the board of the Coal Board for some time, and again I became a member of the board. I have been on it ever since, and I do not want to deal with the miners any further than I have done in this speech. I want to deal with the other problem of the Mines Advisory Board, and particularly with the problem of the mines
====================
I am not entirely certain that the Government have yet made up their minds in the matter.
====================
I wonder whether it is possible for the Minister to withdraw his amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, for introducing this important debate today. I have been bothered to find myself in the unusual position of having to respond to a debate on a subject which is not covered in the current statutory instrument. My noble friend Lord Stoddart, in his admirable maiden speech, made the point that it is not possible to make a precise statement on the terms of reference of the inquiry. I should like to suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is right. The statement is the subject of the inquiry. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
====================
My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is now to speak to Amendment No. 72. May I point out that that is a very bad Amendment, and I am much obliged to him for making it.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, for his support. I am not really sure what the noble Lord's problem is. I have a rather different problem to the noble Lord. If I recall correctly, I am not entirely clear whether I am being asked: are we talking about the questionnaire that has been sent to the Minister? I am not sure. I do not know. I do not know whether it is a questionnaire. I know that it is not. It would be helpful if we knew.
====================
My Lords, as I understand it, the noble Lord's Question is that the Minister should give a Statement to the House on the outcome of the International Conference on the Promoting of Human Rights in Geneva on the occasion of the opening of the new Parliament in London, which the noble Lord asked the Government to do in my name.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, has raised this subject again. The noble Lord asked whether we can have a debate on the Bill. It is a matter for consideration. It is a matter for consideration by the House. The noble Lord will certainly be following the debate in another place.
====================
I am not entirely certain what the intention of this clause was. It appears to be in the wrong place, in my view. However, I am not entirely certain what the intention was. It is not as though the Charter were not in force, but it is a few steps from the date when this Bill was introduced. It is quite clear that it was introduced, and the reasons why it was introduced had nothing to do with the Charter.
====================
My Lords, I think there is a case for saying "no" or for saying yes, or that one may not be given a penny, and the other must be given a penny, or that the friend of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, instead of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, should be given a penny. I do not know whether that is a perfectly satisfactory way of going about it. But I should like to suggest that the best course would be for the Minister to make a statement, if he was satisfied that it was necessary, that the collection of a penny would not be an illegal act. At the moment, the person who is looking for a penny is not likely to look in the right place in the shops.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shelby, for raising this question, but are we not now faced with a situation which has been described by many speakers, particularly by my noble friend Lord Teynham, and which is reminiscent of the situation in the United States with regard to the issue of the treaty between the United States and Canada? I must confess that I was not completely clear in my mind as to the position of the Treaty of Rome, but I know that it is a treaty of which the two countries are bound by it and that the other countries are not so bound.
====================
I do not think the noble Lord has completely answered the point I made. First, the noble Lord, Lord Foot, said that the calculation of the value of the facility is not a matter for any particular authority; secondly, if the noble Lord will read my reply, he will see that it is a matter for the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education and for the Ministry of Transport. The noble Lord asked me specifically about the area and the connection of the public. I am not going to answer specifically to this question, because it is a matter for the public bodies concerned with the care of the population. My right honourable friend the Minister of Health has no power to direct the public bodies concerned to provide or to dispose of a facility, and he has no power to direct the public bodies to take a different view. I have said that the charging authorities are required to make a report to the Minister, and if the noble Lord has any further questions he may give them.
====================
I do not think I can answer this question. I am talking of a matter which is in the hands of the Secretary of State, and he is not responsible for tax collectors. If I have got it wrong, I shall be glad to inform him.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I was not going to ask him whether he would tell the House whether the payments were in the form of cheques or in some form of money. I am not sure about that. I should like to know whether they are cheques or money.
====================
I do not propose to prolong this discussion now, but I propose to put a Question on the Order Paper. If the Question is answered, I shall table a Motion for the Order Paper. I beg to move.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for a hurried half-hour delay. While I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for his assistance in this matter, I was going to say that I think the amendment would have been better put in a different way. I should have referred to paragraph (a) of Schedule 3 with the words "a person employed by the relevant authority". I should have said "the relevant authority". I should have said "or by the relevant authority". I was astounded to find that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, thinks that paragraph (b) is not there. I thought that we ought to have had it.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his kind remarks. In the light of his remarks, I have decided not to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I do not think it would be right for me to make a Statement today without having made clear the features of the amendments. I do not want to say more than I have done today.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that statement, which I undertook to look at very carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for raising this issue. I am not sure whether she had a preliminary letter from the Government, but it is a matter that is of concern to this House. I have seen the letter from the Minister, but obviously the Minister cannot deal with this matter in a satisfactory way. The Minister should have an assurance from the department that this is a matter that will be considered, and if that is not forthcoming the amendment will clearly be raised in this House.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I hope that the House understands my point of view. Although I am sure that there has been no deliberate intent to mislead, I am not sure that I can accept the noble Lord's argument. I do not think that the amendment would go far enough. I think that it would take the blanket answer that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, that you must be careful not to mislead the country. I believe that the amendment must be accepted.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his intervention. I should like to support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, who I understand has some experience in the field of bank accounts. I am sure that he will have heard the speech of my noble friend Lord Peston. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will also be pleased to hear what my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove has said. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is right when he says that this is one of the most important issues and is one of the most difficult areas for the Bank of England to decide. However, I was not sure that I had fully understood what my noble friend Lord Peston had in his Motion, because it is not very clear. The motion states: "That this House does not wish to approve … (a) any measure which appears to the Bank of England to be designed to achieve the ultimate aim of the Bank of England—that of maintaining a stable value of money"— and then goes on to say: "This House does not wish to approve … (b)" which is the reverse. Yes, of course, it is a matter of public record in the newspapers—it is an official document—that the Bank of England is against the Bill, but how far will the Bank of England react if the Bill is later on defeated? I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Peston, whether he can explain the position further. It is this: if the Bill is defeated, the Bank of England will not have the power to set aside reserves. The Bank will have to rely on the discretion of the Treasury. He said that he had thought it right to describe the objectives of the Bank as being "stable". I think that he has. Can he explain, first, whether the Bank of England is to be in a position to set aside reserves or whether the Bank is left in a position which is not to set aside reserves? Secondly, is the Bank to be in a position which is not to set aside reserves or is it left in a position where it is not to set aside reserves?
====================
My Lords, I should like to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and ask the Minister to give us some indication as to how the public will be able to access the issues which are being discussed today. I remember well my own experience in the late 1970s, when I was a member of the Select Committee which made recommendations to the Government. I remember the very important recommendations which were made by that committee. I should like to ask the Minister whether he can confirm that that committee, with its wide, varied experience, is now responsible for the report of the Select Committee on the Public Bill Committee. I am sure that that committee will be very happy to hear what I have to say. I do not ask the Minister to give us an assurance that it will be possible for the public to obtain the records of the Select Committee which is dealing with the public Bill Committee. I am sure that the public will be able to obtain the records of the Select Committee as soon as possible. I hope that the Government will bear in mind the words of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who said that he does not expect an answer in the near future.
====================
My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is not a Liberal. I was a Conservative in another place. I had to be careful about whether I said what I said in the debate on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I was as well aware also of what he had in his hand. I was not aware that he was a Liberal.
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he not agree that the fact that there is an extra 10 per cent. of trainees in the system is probably a good reason why there is a need for the Government to have this new scheme? Will it not be a blessing to the trainee industry if the extra trainees are allowed to enjoy the trainees on the wait list?
====================
My Lords, in welcoming this Bill the noble Lord has set out the objectives of the Bill, as I understand them. First, it is intended to allow a person who had a judgment and was made under the provisions of the Bill to appeal to a court to take the matter to the court and hear its judgment, which would allow him to have his property and time, in the same way as where a person had been awarded compensation for the loss of a job. Secondly, the Bill provides for a civil remedy for any person who has been awarded a judgment which he did not seek. Thirdly, it provides for a civil remedy for anyone who has been awarded compensation for wrongful dismissal. I agree with the noble Lord that this is an important Bill and I hope it will receive a fair wind. I therefore commend it to the House.
====================
I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, would care to read my speech, which I hope he will find very short and powerful. He looks at the programme, which is the main subject of this debate, as if it were the proposals of the Government and he was given the choices. I said they were not. I was not given the choice. I asked the questions as I thought they might be put, and I asked the questions as I thought they were put. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has done it so much better than I have, and I am glad to know that he has put it on the record. I am quite prepared to give way to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and to withdraw the Motion.
====================
It is not the intention of the Bill to make an improvement to the law. It is intended to ensure that the law will always be applied to the best interests of children. The Bill aims to make child protection legislation more effective. It is a great pity that it is being used to make child protection legislation more challenging. The Bill is unnecessary. The Government have done a great job in the past year of ensuring the protection of children, both at home and in the community. It is a pity that the law is being re-written in the way it is. I am sure that the child protection authorities will see the need to make the law in the best interests of children. I hope that the Minister accepts that the Bill is unnecessary. I hope that in Committee he will withdraw it.
====================
My Lords, I am sorry if the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, has misunderstood me. I said that the Bill was intended to provide a greater protection for subscribers against potential "bogus" non-payment of bills, and not to provide additional protection for subscribers against a "bogus" non-payment of bills. If that is true, I am sorry that the noble Lord does not accept it. I also said that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would, I think, be right, and I am sorry that he has not accepted it.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I had not been in the Chamber when he started his speech and I am sorry if I have listened with a little more than usual interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brown. I have listened to many speeches in this House and I have always enjoyed the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who made the points that he did. I thought that he was a little more eloquent than some of his colleagues in another place who have perhaps had more experience. However, I was sorry that the noble Lord did not make the speech he made in the Chamber to which I referred. It was due to a previous engagement and I am sorry that he was not able to make it. I was very disappointed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and I shall read the speech in Hansard tomorrow. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was very fair to the Government. However, he made a very important point. I understand that the Government have a ship under contract for almost 50 years and a very good date for that ship. If the Government are not prepared to make their commitment to that ship, I ask the noble Lord to look at the date when that ship will be available to British Railways to the extent of its regular services. I am not sure that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that his offer is really worth pursuing. However, I am not at all sure that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is the right man to make that point. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in his speech, said that he was not going to take the matter any further. I would like to put a question to him. Does he think that the Government should take this matter away and get a fresh offer from the British Railways Board? If not, will he consider putting a Question down at Report stage?
====================
My Lords, will the noble Lord say, if he does not wish to answer me now, whether the Home Secretary has power to issue directions to the police to stop and search the driver of a car?
====================
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
====================
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the whole House will know that Her Majesty's Government are going to undertake their duties in the field of defence? Will he confirm that the Government are going to take his right honourable friend, Mr. Bruton, to the Arms Control Organisation?
====================
My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord is right in his interpretation of the words "relevant to the purposes of the Bill" and that they are intended to cover any point of detail or whether they are intended to cover only the meaning of the Bill as it now stands.
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal for giving way. She said that I had never said anything that I have not said, and I do not know what she means by that. I said that I did not know what he meant, and I am sorry if she has misunderstood me. I was saying that we had not discussed this matter in the House of Lords. I have not done so, and I will not say so. I will write to the noble Baroness. I do not think it is really a matter for the noble Baroness. My noble friend Lord Mansbridge referred to a statement in the Financial Times today, and it is not my intention to quote it again today. However, I should like to say at once that the one criticism which I would make is that it was not carried out by the Minister of State. I say it is not because, as in a normal parliamentary Chamber, he is a Minister of State.
====================
My Lords, I am sure the House will appreciate the great care with which the noble Lord has dealt with this matter. I am very glad indeed to have been able to call the attention of the Government to it. I should have thought that the ordinary trade unionist in the country, who is not so keen on the general situation, would not be so pleased about it.
====================
I am most grateful to my noble friend for his intervention. I had not noticed that I had been invited. Perhaps I may introduce the amendment to a very brief point. I am sure that the draftsman will not be too keen on this matter, but I wonder whether it would be better to include the words "and for any person to be admitted to this House". This amendment is drafted in the way that I am proposing to do it.
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am sure that we can all take a great deal from his remarks on this matter, though I am not sure that he will really take any of the lessons that he has learnt from this matter. I am sure that he will take a great deal from the general experience in this matter in the past. I was particularly struck by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and I think we all agree that we should be looking at this problem very carefully. However, as I said earlier, I should like to take the opportunity to discuss it with him. I have no doubt that the noble Lord will find that the Government are going to take note of the issues that we are raising and that we shall have an opportunity to discuss this matter with him.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. However, I feel that the Minister has not addressed the point at all. It is not the point and the question is not the one. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was asked a specific question. She answered that question, but she did not address the issue of the effect of transference. The Minister repeated that, and I felt that the Minister had not addressed the point at all. My noble friend the Minister was also asked a specific question. She answered it, but she did not address the issue of the timing of the transfer of the new school. As my noble friend has said, the new school will be made in September and the new premises in the old premises will be in March. Is there a plan to bring the new school into the old school in September, or is it a matter for the new authority to decide?
====================
My Lords, I am grateful for that. I was not familiar with it and I did not know what was involved. However, I understood it was a situation which was not a matter of statutory regulation, which was not one that we are doing at the moment. So I am all in favour of it.
====================
My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the noble Lords' remarks. I will look at what they said. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said a number of things about the amendment. I shall look at his suggestions and will write to the noble Lord.
====================
My Lords, I think that that is a very different question, because although the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, is in his place I think he would not agree that we have heard enough of him in this House. There is much more important business. It is rather the same point of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. The noble Lord was very kind in his criticism of the brevity of the debate. I am not going to argue with him; we are no longer in the Chamber. We are in a debate on the Motion. I am glad that he is in his place because I am sorry that he is not here, but I am not going to argue with him. I wish to ask the noble Lord this question. What I am seeking to find out is whether, when the Motion is debated—I will not stress the word "tabled"; it is another word—it is intended to be moved that the Bill should be now read a second time. It is not the intention of the noble Lord to move it. I wonder whether that is the intention. I do not know. We have no idea what the intention is. I should like the noble Lord to tell me whether it is intended to be moved that the Bill be now read a second time.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that clarification. However, can he say whether the Government have so far decided to terminate the period at which the Port of London Authority is required to make its report to the Secretary of State? I think he must have been referring to the Port of London Authority's report on the internal workings of the Port of London Authority.
====================
My Lords, perhaps I may raise a point for my noble friend Lady Phillips, who has been very patient in pressing me to bring this matter forward. I am surprised that the Government have not had the courtesy to look at the Report, and I should like to make two points. I think it would be useful if we had some indication of the Government's attitude. I put this Motion down on the Order Paper with no intention of speaking in it, but I have been asked to do so by the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I do not know whether I should speak, but I should like an assurance if the noble Lord the Leader of the House will send me a copy of the letter which he has sent to me. The noble Lord the Leader of the House writes: "In the circumstances, I am afraid I must ask your Lordships to do your duty in relation to this Motion." I do not think that I can ask your Lordships' House to do that without a reply. I did not think I could ask your Lordships to do it without a reply, because I think, on the evidence which I have received, that your Lordships' House should not have acted in a way which was inconsistent with the duty which you have put upon it to consider this Motion. I am sorry that the noble Lord the Leader of the House is not here to-day, but I am sure he would like to receive a copy of his letter. I have had an assurance from this House that your Lordships' House will consider this Motion, and I am not going to put it down for discussion. I hope that my noble friend will go away and consider it, and that my noble friend the Leader of the House will send a copy of his letter to me.
====================
May I make a brief intervention? The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, was talking about the need to give a special status to children who are the victims of this Bill. I am not suggesting that the child welfare in this country should be placed in a special category, but that it should be placed in a special category. The noble Lord asked me about the procedure under the Children Act and I feel that he will find in my reply that the procedure under the Children Act is now made up of the whole of the children's Act, and the process for dealing with children on the basis of the Children Act in 1977, is now covered by the Children Act. I am not suggesting that there should be different procedures for children under the Children Act, but that they should have the same sort of treatment as applies to children under the Children Act, and that they should have the same type of treatment as applies to children under the Children Act.
====================
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will not expect me to reply to his point. I believe he is trying to find a balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the representative, which is not the case with this amendment. The rights of the individual at present are fully protected under the Bill as it now stands. The right of representative representation will continue to exist under the Bill as it now stands. I cannot give a complete answer because I do not have that information. However, it is possible to make a judgment as to whether the rights of the individual are in or out of line with the rights of representative representation. I do not want to give the impression that I am predicting that. The noble Lord is asking a different question. He is asking whether the right of representative representation is a right in respect of the representation of the other House. I do not believe that is in his mind. I believe that the right of representative representation exists. However, I do not have that information.
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for raising the issue of compensation. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for raising the issue of the compensation which was paid to the victims of the action taken by the legal advisers of the Supreme Court in the case. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for raising the issue of the amendment which was proposed by the Government. As I read it, it was in the form of a separate amendment which was tabled to the Motion, in order to push the Government's case. In any case, that is not what it is. It is that the amendment was tabled by the legal adviser of the Supreme Court, not the Supreme Court, but that is the position and it is not the matter which the noble Lord seeks to convey to the House. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
====================
I am not sure whether it is a case of mutatis mutandis—
====================
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, when he responded to the Question that I gave on my last day on this matter, said that he had no intention of intervening in the debate on the Motion to move the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his intervention. It was a very useful intervention, and I congratulate him on it. I am sure we are all glad that he took it. I still hope that I shall not be seen to be being discourteous to him, but, quite frankly, that was not what I meant. I am not a great fan of my noble friend's amendments. I entirely accept the point he made, although I am not entirely sure about the point he raised about the need to have a special hearing officer. That is what I was trying to get at. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also raised this point. If we are to have that special hearing officer, then a special hearing officer should be consulted. I hope that, as a result of that, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
====================
My Lords, my noble friend is speaking from this Box. I am glad to speak from this box, but I do not think that he is using the new terminology. I was using the old terminology, and it is not the same. I am sorry to keep repeating it on the Floor of the House, but I am using the old terminology. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, if I have made myself redundant. I am sorry that I should have been unable to persuade him that I was a child of the age. I was one of the generation of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence. I was one of the generation of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, who wrote the book about my life. I was one of his children and, as a child, he taught me how to read. I have always regretted his retirement from the House of Lords. I know that he is not here, but many of the things that he says are now on the record. If he was here, he would be here now. I am not sure whether he is still here, but I am sure that he is not; and I hope that he will be here.
====================
My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is right in saying that in this matter of the wounded man, where he has been wounded, there is a separate provision for repairing him? In a case of this sort, is it not possible to repair a wound which has been inflicted?
====================
As I understood the noble Lords, Lord Coleraine and Lord Balfour of Inchrye, it is very difficult for the Secretary of State to say that it is not possible for him to do this. It is a legal obligation, a legal obligation. I think the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, said that he was making an unnecessary point, that any Secretary of State could do this or that, but I am not suggesting that that is impossible. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, I am not suggesting that a Secretary of State could not do it. I am suggesting that a Secretary of State in a case of this kind could not do it. If Lord Coleraine thinks he is making an unnecessary point, he can rest assured that I am not making it.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity that this evening has given us to discuss the important issues raised on the Eighth Report of the Select Committee of Parliament on the general thrust of the committee's report. It is a matter of regret that the House has not had the opportunity to express its views on the report. I have said that I should like to put my name up to my name in the debate for the reasons which I gave in the debate we had on 18th March. I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words on a matter of such national concern. I am sure that the House will be grateful that the Select Committee on the Eighth Report has given us the opportunity to do so. I am making no apology for that, for the reasons already given to the Select Committee were sufficient reason for my being unable to be here today. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Norman, for tabling and moving the amendment which is now before the House. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for tabling the amendment which we were discussing on 18th March. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for tabling the amendment which we were discussing also on 18th March. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Norman, for tabling the amendment that we were discussing on 18th March. Your Lordships are aware, as I am sure are many of your Lordships, of the serious situation in which we find ourselves. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has made it clear that he has no intention of tabling any amendment to this Bill. I do not believe that the problem is one of the Select Committee's report. As I have said, the problem is the Select Committee's report. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, asked whether I would accept the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has moved. I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norman. I know that he is happy to withdraw it. I am happy to say that he will not be tabling any other amendment they have tabled. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, asked whether I would accept the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Renton. I am afraid that I can only reiterate my view that the committee did not consider the point. I was asked whether I would accept the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. Again, I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin.
====================
I wonder whether, in an amendment to Clause 27, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, might say that they were not being asked to do so. I think it is a little difficult to justify themselves that the Government are asking for a change of heart. I am not asking for that because I cannot see that it would be the Government's intention to do so. If we are asked to do so, I doubt whether an amendment is necessary. I think the Minister is right in saying that the matter should not be handled in the way that we have done.
====================
My Lords, I was asked a question by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I said that I would not be here to answer it.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments. I shall read what is said with interest. I am also grateful to my noble friend for his support. I am grateful to my noble friend for his support, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. The noble Lord asked about the intention of this measure to be passed within the next Session. I have no intention of putting it on the statute book at the moment. However, the point that he makes is a valid one, and I shall certainly consider it.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for his intervention, and for his suggestion in the debate that I should explain to the House what I am doing. The noble Lord asked me what I am doing, which is to try to find out what the advantages and disadvantages of the amendment are and what the facts are. I shall be happy to explain that to him in writing. I am a little puzzled as to why the amendment is to be tabled at all. Why are we not to have it now? I do not know. I should like to know why it is tabled.
====================
My Lords, I wonder whether this is a matter for the usual channels, because this is a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. But I shall be very glad to have an answer on that point.
====================
I would not like to give my noble friend any more information than he has given me. It is not true that the orders are being made. They have been made by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Home Office. They are made by his right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Employment Service.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention. Perhaps I may return to the point I made earlier—the point that it would not be wise to make a decision on the matter in advance of the consultation. I have to say to the noble Lord that I have not seen the consultation. I am told that it is not yet complete, but if he looks at the memorandum he will find that it is incomplete. I should like to make two points. I am not entirely clear whether the noble Lord is referring to the draft Bill, or to the consultation. I am not entirely clear whether he is referring to the draft Bill, or the consultation. I wonder whether he is referring to the draft Bill, or to the consultation. I think that he is referring to the draft Bill. I am not entirely clear whether he is referring to the draft Bill, or the consultation. I am not quite sure whether he is referring to the draft Bill, or to the consultation. I have not gone through the consultation. I should like to do so in the hope that I shall be able to make the point which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, made when he moved the amendment to my right honourable friend's honourable friend, the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The noble Lord said that he was not referring to the consultation. I wonder if he is referring to the draft Bill, which was not generally published. I have not quite followed it in the sense that he will have done but I have found a copy in the Library. However, I wonder whether the Minister can assure me that he has not just taken a copy of the draft Bill, and is not referring to the consultation, as he said he was.
====================
I am sure that my noble friend Lord Ponsonby would agree that what we are trying to do is to ensure that the letter and the spirit of the amendment are put into operation. I will consider the amendment with care and perhaps write to him with amendment.
====================
My Lords, I shall not detain the House more than I have already done. I should like to make a statement on the situation in Northern Ireland. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has invited the Republic of Ireland to meet him in person tonight. My right honourable friend has agreed to meet the lads of the IRA in Belfast tomorrow. The Prime Minister has also invited the IRA to meet him in person tomorrow.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has already moved it on the Order Paper. It may be convenient to the House if I explain my introduction to the House. For many years I have been a member of the Board of Trade. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, will not be here to hear me, but he will know that I am the chairman of the Select Committee on National Enterprise. I have taken part in the recent debate on the White Paper on the White Paper. I am delighted that the noble Lord should join me, and I hope that I shall be able to answer all the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys. The White Paper on the White Paper is a detailed analysis of Government policies. It reflects the broad themes of the Conservative Party platform. It also reflects the policy of the country. It is, in my opinion, a good piece of work, but I am not a member of the Board of Trade. That is a very important distinction. It was an honourable House, but it is a very important body. I am glad to tell the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, that the Board of Trade, unlike the Cabinet Office, has the widest range of expertise to promote the country's economic interest. That is an important point. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, referred to the fact that the White Paper was a detailed analysis of Government policy. I am not sure whether he meant that it was a detailed account of the policies underlying the White Paper, or whether he meant that the White Paper was a detailed account of the Government's economic policies. I do not think that is a fair comparison. The White Paper was not a summary of the Government's economic policies. It was a detailed assessment of the government's intentions. That was the role of the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, asked me whether I could give details of the Government's proposals for industrial relations. I can, but I have no time. I have a great deal to say in this debate, if that is what the House wishes. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, asked me whether I could give details of the Government's proposals for industrial relations and the means of ending the present dispute between Britain and Northern Ireland. I am not sure whether he meant that I could give him a detailed summary of the Government's proposals for industrial relations, or whether he meant that I could give him a detailed summary of the Government's proposals in the White Paper. I should have thought that the noble Lord would be better placed to study the Government's proposals in the White Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, asked me whether the Government's policy is "reform or reform by stealth". I do not believe that that was intended. There is a sense of history in the matter. I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, intended that a number of the proposals contained in the White Paper should be "reform or reform by stealth", but he went on to ask whether I could give him an assurance that they will not be "reform or reform by stealth". I can give him that assurance. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, raised a number of questions about the White Paper. I apologise to him for not giving him my answer. I was not in my place when he raised the question that I should like to raise with him. I had no intention of doing so, but I gave him what I thought was a generous reply. The noble Lord asked me about the Government's proposals in the White Paper on the reorganisation of the economy. I cannot say more than that now. I am sorry that he will not be here to hear me say it. The noble Lord asked me about the White Paper on the White Paper. The White Paper is not "reform or reform by stealth", as he would have thought. It is a detailed account of the Government's policy and the Government's intentions. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, asked me about the White Paper on industrial relations. I can only say that I am not sure whether the noble Lord intended me to answer that question. I was not in my place when he raised the question. I shall read the question with interest. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, asked me about the European Community. I am not sure that I could have answered the noble Lord on that point. I would not, however, have been the first to have thought that we should have been involved in the European Community, but I am not sure that that was what the noble Lord intended. I am not sure that I would have thought that if one takes a look at the phrase that is used in the White Paper, "The Single Market is the best hope of securing the long-term goal of a competitive and stable single market". The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, asked me about the cost of the proposals in the White Paper.
====================
My Lords, I think it is necessary to speak on this occasion, because I will not speak on it at all, but it seems to me that I should be making a statement after the debate and not after a speech by the noble Earl who is to make it. Therefore, I shall be speaking in the absence of the noble Viscount who is to make the Statement. May I make a statement here, in reply to the Question that the noble Lord the Leader of the House have chosen to put down?
====================
I am not sure that I understood the noble Lord, Lord Reay, speaking at the same time, but I understood the noble Lord, Lord Lester, speaking in a similar context. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether, when he replies to the debate, he will give notice of his intention to ask Lord Reay to withdraw his Motion.
====================
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. I do not think it is a very useful idea to have a double test. It is a perfectly good scheme. The noble Lord is suggesting that the double test is a useful arrangement. I am not saying that it is; I am not suggesting that it is. I am suggesting that the two tests are a useful arrangement. I do not know what measure of success the Government are going to find. I am not suggesting that it will be a handsome little thing or something in the mould of the new Bill. As the noble Lord said, it is a little thing. I cannot think that the Government can find a point of the sort that the noble Lord has in mind, and I very much doubt whether it can find one. I think that it will be, in fact, a very complicated thing. On the other point, I should point out that one can take the test of the success of a plan under a benevolent system and not one under a dictatorship. I think it would be a very useful thing in a benevolent system to make it clear that, if you are taking a dictator over you have to take a look at what the dictator is doing and you have to consider how you are going to see that the people who are in charge of the planning are in charge again. I do not think that it is very useful to have a double test. I am not suggesting that it is a pretty thing, as I am suggesting that it is a very complicated thing. It is not very useful to have a double test. I am not suggesting that it is a good thing; it is not. It would not be a good thing I had in my head to have a double test.
====================
God grant the boy the courage to go for a walk in the rain!
====================
My Lords, will the Minister answer my question, which is: will he bear in mind that under the Bill we can go to the next stage of the Bill to say: "No; you have to pay up; we have got the Secretary of State's power to order the payment of this money"?
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for letting me intervene. Can my noble friend, with the leave of the House, say whether in due course we shall be able to make progress on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra? That amendment would bring the Bill about. I should have thought that in the interests of the Secretary of State, if it had to be introduced, it would be proposed by the Opposition. In the interests of the Government it would not be so proposed but by the Opposition. I am a little annoyed. In the interests of the Treasury, if it were to impose a duty on the Treasury to take over any of the functions in respect of the National Health Service, I should not have thought that would be acceptable. I do not think it would be acceptable.
====================
My Lords, I am sure that all of your Lordships will agree that it is a tremendous tragedy that it happened in the first place, and that it has been a heartrending experience for the family. However, the Minister has indicated that he will be giving an explanation of what happened. I am sure he will be able to say that it did not, in the view of the Government, necessarily mean that the case had been disposed of. Having said that, I am sure that one of the greatest difficulties in this matter is the point of view taken by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who said that the case was not disposed of because the Commissioner is not competent. Can the noble Lord say what was the reason for that statement being made? In view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will be speaking, I wonder whether it is necessary to press the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I could not quite understand what he said. It is certainly not the case that all customers of the hospital have to go to the clinic, but they have to go to the general practitioner. In the case of a patient who has to pay for the treatment of his case, it is for the general practitioner to decide whether he should go to the general practitioner or whether he should go to the clinic.
====================
My Lords, in this House I have had the honour to serve for many years. I cannot think that a single one of your Lordships has ever served on another place. I have not spoken in another place since I was a young man, and I am quite sure that I have never sat on another occasion during my life. I do not know how many noble Lords are here, but I can certainly feel that I am not alone. I think that my noble friend Lord Pargiter is here. The noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, is here. My noble friend Lord Selkirk, is here, and my noble friend Lord Addison. The noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, is here. My noble friend Lord Selkirk is here, too. I should like to join in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, on his appointment as the chairman of the Transport and General Workers' Union. It is an honour to be appointed, and I accept his congratulations.
====================
My Lords, I wish to intervene in a brief way from the position of my noble friend Lord Peston. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for the replies he has given in this House, but I am not sure that I completely accept the whole thrust of the points he has made. He referred to the fact that the benefit payments were made on a monthly basis. But is it not the case that in many further cases the benefit payments are made on a daily basis, to enable people to know exactly how much is owed and how quickly they can recover it? Does that not mean that the schedule is not executed? My noble friend said that they were not executed, but he did not say whether or not they were executed. I do not believe that it is executed, and I believe that the benefit payment is not executed.
====================
My Lords, I am sure that we should all agree that this is a very interesting Bill and one which we have had to deal with. I am sure that it will not be without interest to all your Lordships. I am also sure that this measure will not be without interest to the many people who have to make the journey from their homes into work. I am also glad that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is here and that he has been able to be here. I am sure that he will take the trouble to read the Bill. I also think that the way in which it is given a Second Reading will be of interest to all, especially those who have had a long experience of the poor person who has to make a journey from their home to work. I am sure that this measure will be given a Second Reading at the earliest opportunity. I am also glad that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, is here and that he is able to be here. I am sure that he will take the trouble to read the Bill. I am also glad that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is here and that he will be able to be here. I am also glad that so many people are here and that so many noble Lords are in favour of the Bill. I am also glad that this Bill has been brought forward by the Government. I hope that it will not be without interest to noble Lords. I do not want to say that I am satisfied with the way in which the Bill was introduced. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will take the trouble to read the Bill. I am also glad that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will attend the Bill's Second Reading, and also that he will have an opportunity of discussing this measure with me. I am especially glad about the fact that we have got the Bill through as it is. I am also glad that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will take the trouble to read the Bill. I am also glad that he will be able to discuss this clause with me. I would like to end by saying that I am very grateful to the Government for having introduced this Bill. I am sure that there will be great interest in it, and that all those noble Lords who are pleased to have this Bill will take the trouble to read it. I beg to move.
====================
My Lords, in his Second Reading speech, the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, said that he would not seek to persuade the House that the Amendment was necessary to be included in the Bill, but that he wanted to make the point that it was not necessary to have it in the Bill because it was contained by Clause 30 (2) (b). He said that he did not intend to press it.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for raising this matter. I am grateful to him for the useful letter which he sent to my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey. I am grateful to him for giving us notice of the letter. I am grateful for the fact that he has raised this matter. I am grateful for the very helpful letter which I sent to my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey. I am not particularly happy about a letter which I received from my noble friend's noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey; I do not think that they are a very good letter. But we cannot have a situation where a Member of Parliament receives the letter from a member of the Government and asks that the letter should be withdrawn. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, will take a little time in looking at this matter again. I am sorry if I have made a mistake, but I thought I had made my point. I am sorry if I have not set my mind at rest. I am sorry if I have not answered the points that have been raised to the letter which I sent to my noble friend. I think that I have answered them in my own way.
====================
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for raising the issue in this debate. I must confess that I have been inclined towards the conclusion of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that the case for a statutory instrument is on the face of the Bill. I do not believe that there is any strong argument against a statutory instrument. I find it hard to say that it is not. However, I do not believe that it is on the face of the Bill. I am bound to say that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has not raised the issue in this debate, and I do not know what influence he has had on the Bill, because he has never intervened in the debate on the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has referred to the point that we might think of a second amendment. The point he makes is not that that is a realistic option but that we should have a statutory instrument, perhaps on the face of the Bill, as a first step towards a statutory instrument. The noble Lord has suggested that there is a case for a statutory instrument. I am not saying that we should not have a statutory instrument. At the moment, we are not in a position to do so. I believe that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, is on the face of the Bill. I should like to make a plea to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, that he should consider these matters and not press his amendment.
====================
My Lords, I wonder whether I have answered the noble Lord. I am afraid I did not.
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I do not know whether he will accept that I am not saying that the justice committee should lay down the content of the code. I am saying that the code should be laid down.
====================
My Lords, I am sure the House will agree that the noble Lord the Leader of the House has done a most useful service in dealing with the many points made by my noble friend Lord Peston in his most interesting and thoughtful speech. I am sure that he has dealt with the issues in a most effective manner. I am sure that he has dealt with the issues in a most effective manner, but in a very helpful way. I am sure that he has dealt with very many of those matters which I raised in my speech on the last occasion. I am sure that he has dealt with many of them in the most constructive way he can. I am very sorry that the Leader of the House cannot be here to hear me say how I feel about the issue. I have no intention of pressing the issue further. I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will find ways within which he can deal with the points raised, and I hope that the House will accept the amendment.
====================
I should like to join in this, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, is quite right. The point I am making is that in the first instance I should have thought that the Secretary of State should be able to do it, and that he should be able to do it in this Bill in such circumstances as he thinks fit. But he is not, and he is in the wrong place. I do not think that we should put it in the Bill. I think it is the wrong place. I should have thought that this would be a good time to introduce it. I think it is the wrong place. It is a time when there is a good chance that this Departmental Department, in the first place, will try to help us, and in the second place that they will try to get us to do our duty to the best advantage. How they get us to do it I am not quite sure, but in the first place I do not know.
====================
The noble Lord is quite right: this is a piece of legislation which is in the nature of a Bill of the kind that we are asked to pass. The Bill is not criminalising traffic accidents. It has nothing to do with the formation of the offences under the Act. It is a piece of legislation which is intended to deal with the prevention of traffic accidents. The offence is to be dealt with by the courts as a criminal offence, and it is that which is set out in the Bill. But neither the offence of negligence to which the noble Lord referred nor the offence contained in subsection (2) in the Bill are criminal offences. The only criminal offence is negligence. The Bill is designed to deal with the prevention of accidents. It is the prevention of accidents which is the offence in the Bill. The noble Lord's amendment would in practice be inconsistent with this amendment and with the remainder of the Bill. The noble Lord's amendment would have the effect of creating the offence of negligence to which I referred in the previous debate. The noble Lord's amendment would create a criminal offence. But what the noble Lord was seeking to do was create a criminal offence in the Bill. There is nothing between us and that is an entirely different matter. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
====================
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. However, does he not agree that the introduction of MMR, together with changes in the MMR formula which will mean that the infant formula will no longer be used in the school to determine the number of children in the grade 1 and 2 schools and that the formula for school admission for the final year of the school year will be calculated by the school and will not rely on the formula which is used for the final year of the school year, or will it? I beg to move.
====================
My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will agree that the case is very serious indeed. I have not the slightest doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is absolutely right in saying that the whole question of the future of football is a matter of great concern. I believe it is a matter of great concern and of great importance, and it is a matter of great regret that it should have come about over this case. I believe that there is an overwhelming case for a royal commission to inquire into the whole matter, because so many of the problems are in the hands of football managers, and I am quite certain that the best way of determining them is to have a royal commission. I hope that the Government will feel that they have done their duty in having initiated the inquiry, in hope of finding a solution. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not follow the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, because I am a very little football fan. I find that all football managers are all right. I know what football managers do; I know what football managers are; I know football managers are bad; I know football managers are bad; I know football managers are bad; I know football managers are bad. I think football managers are responsible football managers. I have never met a football manager who is not. I am sure that it is a totally wrong analogy. I do not think that any football manager is responsible football manager for one moment. I am sure that football managers are responsible football managers for the next moment, and I think football managers are responsible football managers for the next moment. Football managers are responsible football managers for the next moment. I am sure that football managers are responsible football managers for the next moment, and I am sure football managers are responsible football managers for the next moment. Football managers are responsible football managers for the next moment. Football managers are responsible football managers for the next moment. My Lords, I beg to move.
====================
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this matter is being discussed in the very near future, and that we have had three reports on it? Is he further aware that the responses to the two reports were not satisfactory? Is he further aware that there is a very strong body of opinion that the Government are not taking enough cognisance of the report's recommendations? Is he further aware that, in the light of the results of the debate in the House of Commons, the Government will now have to take the matter back to the House of Commons, or will they make the matter painful for the Government and the nation, as they have done in the last couple of years?
====================
Perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend. When he says "when he has completed his term of office", does he mean when he receives an invitation to take part in a debate?
====================
My Lords, has the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, ever considered the possibility of my having the benefit of that information, which I am not entitled to have in writing? He ought to have it and it ought to be in writing.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful and delighted to be able to be here today, and I must say that I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for bringing the issue to this House for a debate in the first place. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt for raising it, and to the noble Earl, Lord Bingham, for his contribution. I am not sure whether I can give the noble Lord, Lord Renton, the assurance that it is not a matter of a suggestion from Downing Street that the Government might consider a proposal to set up a Commission to deal with this problem. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, raised a rather different question. In the case of a national authority which is being asked to do something for someone, would the noble Lord be in a position to say that it was in his power to say that he would not be asked to give a grant to that person? I notice that he is now in a position to say that he would not be asked to give a grant to the person who is asked to do something for the person he is asked to help. He would be in a position to say that he would not be asked to give a grant to the person in question. I have not the slightest idea what the position of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is. I was not quite certain whether he was asking whether he would or the other way round. I only know that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is asking whether the Minister would not be in a position to say that he would not be asked to do something for the person in question. I have not the slightest idea what the position of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is. I am waiting to hear what the noble Lord has to say. I am both grateful and delighted to be here today. I am also grateful for the opportunity of a debate today. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt for raising the matter of a national authority, and grateful to him for what he said about the Government's proposals. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton, for raising this point. I think it is a very important matter and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for raising it at the first time. I am also grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that he has given us at the start of this debate. I think the Government's proposals are in the best spirit and I hope it will be of use in the future. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's reaction to his proposals.
====================
My Lords, the noble Lord has made a very good speech. I am not sure that I agree with what he said. I am not sure that he said that the level of the population in this country is getting so much worse that it must be stopped and we should then have to come to some other form of Government. I do not think that he has explained the purpose of the amendment. It is a question of words and not of substance. I wish the noble Lord would explain his reasons for it.
====================
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I am not going to do so. He is perfectly entitled to say that I am wrong, and I can only say that I am not going to say that.
====================
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Christopher, has raised a small point in the second Question. I understand that the purpose of this Question is to see whether this Amendment is an improvement over the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, in his reply to the noble Lord's amendment, raised the question of the cost of the general purchase order having to be made in the first instance, and he asked whether the cost of the small order could not be met from the proceeds of the sale of the land. My answer is that in the case of a small purchase order the profit is deposited in the account, and in the case of a major purchase order the profit is deposited in the account. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this question, for I believe it to be a very important one. I am afraid, however, that I cannot answer with any certainty if the noble Lord wants me to say. I hope he will know that I am not able to answer at the moment.
====================
I am not sure whether I am in order in the Chamber. I am looking at the noble Lord's Amendment No. 22, which I am now moving, as it is the second Amendment in the Group.
====================
This amendment would allow for the use of the word "in" to denote "consumable" in Clause 1(5) and so for the repeal of the word "in" and the word "in" to denote "unpackaged", which is intended to allow for the use of the word "in" for the purpose of the word "packaged". I have no wish to make a Party political point at all, but the language is not clear. I believe that "packaged" would be appropriate here. However, I am not convinced that the amendment is necessary because the words in the Bill already cover this.
====================
The noble Lord is absolutely right. When the Bill was given a Second Reading, it was widely welcomed by the country for, as I said in my introducing the Bill, it was a necessary measure to give the Government some clarity about the basis for the various provisions in the Bill, which were not in the Bill themselves. I have been unable to find it in the Bill at all, and I speak with the greatest possible respect to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, on this occasion. I think we have heard the answers to the questions put to the Government. But I should like to press the noble Lord to ask us to look again at this matter, because it is one which we are considering very closely and which must, I think, be looked at very carefully. That is the actual point. I am not asking for an answer now.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I am grateful to him for what he said, but I should like to know whether he is aware of the very considerable disquiet there is among those who are opposed to the Bill in some quarters. I have had the good fortune to study some of the amendments. I think I have the impression that the Bill is not really good. It seems to be a very small Bill. I should like to know whether the Minister can give us some indication of whether it is really good. It is deeply flawed. It is not a Bill which is really needed; it is not a Bill which is needed at all. It is a very small Bill and it is a small Bill, but it is a very important Bill. I shall give it careful consideration. I should like to ask the Minister to consider whether it is really needed. I am not sure that the Bill is needed in this House, but it is a small Bill in this House. I think it is a very small Bill. I should like to know whether it is really needed. I have some questions for the noble Lord, Lord Piazza. As he knows, I am a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. I would like to know whether this Bill is needed or whether it is a small Bill. That is a question which would not be answered if it were not for the fact that it is a very small Bill. I had not realised until the end of the debate on the Bill that there were no amendments in this Bill. I had to go through the voting procedure. I have only the voting record of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. I believe that the Chair of the Select Committee on Science and Technology is a very worthy member of the Committee and has a very distinguished record in this House. I am also a member of the Committee on Science and Technology. When I was a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, we had to put a questionnaire. I did not expect that it would be possible to have a questionnaire to ask questions of the noble Lord. The replies were not always satisfactory. Some questions were answered with a complete mix of answers. I was not given a list of the questions, but I had a list of the answers. I have been asked a number of questions, not only on the matter of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, but also on the question of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. The noble Lord, Lord Piazza, asked about the right of cross-examination. I do not know whether it was an incident in your Lordships' House, but I can see that it is an incident there, and I should like to know what the right of cross-examination was. I am sorry to keep saying that it is an incident, but I was asked a question about the right of cross-examination. I can see that that is an incident. I still do not know whether it was an incident in your Lordships' House, but it is an incident. I am sorry to keep saying that it is an incident. I did not have time to speak to the amendments, but I shall now try to answer them. Clearly, there is a great deal of difference between the Select Committee on Science and Technology and the Select Committee of the House of Commons. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Piazza, that we are short of the number of scientific experts. Although we have not quite reached our goal, we are moving very fast as regards the number of scientific experts. I must confess to a different feeling from that of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, that I want to see a better number of scientists. I am not complaining of the number of scientists who are here. They are the people who have worked in the past. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, is not here, because I have some good questions to ask him. He was a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. I believe that he was a superb member of the Select Committee. I have a feeling that we are not going to get a good scientific answer from the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, because he is not a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. I am sorry if he is not a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. I wish to know the answer to that question. I shall not press the noble Lord, Lord Piazza, because I know that he is not here. I have not had any opportunity to study every single question that has been raised in the debate today. I have not had the opportunity to study the matter very carefully. I have listened to the answers that have been given to me. I know that many of the questions were answered at the beginning of the debate. I have no doubt that I am not going to be number one in the list of questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. There is a great deal of difference between the debate today and the
====================
My Lords, this is a matter on which the Minister is probably right. We have talked in the past about the involvement of the Civil Service in this matter. I know that the Minister has said that the Civil Service is in touch with the civil servants, but I am not sure that it is. Perhaps he will allow me to go further and make clear that they will not be involved.
====================
That is certainly what the amendment would aim to do. The amendment would provide, as I understand it, that the authority could not make a decision whether to apply for a licence or not. That seems to me to be a contradiction in terms. If the authority were to seek to deny a licence it would be subject to a period of appeal by the Secretary of State. I understand that would be a contradiction in terms. I should be very grateful if the noble Lord could write to me about it.
====================
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should now like to say a word in support of what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. I have had the privilege of leading a political party in another place for a number of years, and I know that there is a great deal of emotion involved in some of the speeches that have been made on this subject. This is a singularly difficult question because we are all aware that the labour market is not a place where, no matter what the Government may do, there will be growth. There will be growth in the industries, and there will be growth for the private sector. In order that we may know where we are, we must know the position of those who are employed in the private sector, and we must know what the position is because we are constantly told that there are many people who are employed in the private sector who are in little or no jobs, and it is very difficult for them to know what is going on, because no one can say exactly what is going on. How many of those people are in private employment? Let me give the figures to the House. There are some 1,500 people who are employed in the private sector. Of those, some 600 are in the public sector and some 300 are employed in the private sector, and some 600 are in the public sector. One of the interesting facts about the private sector is that it is very increasingly a part of the community. So, whatever the Government may do, there will be growth in the private sector. That is a fact which cannot be denied. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, have indicated that there will be more opportunities for those on the private sector to find work, and that is a fact. At the same time, it is going to be increasingly difficult for the public sector to find young people to provide jobs. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, has said that there will be unemployment. I do not think there will be unemployment. I do not know if unemployment is a good phrase. I say that I do not think it is very good. That is really one of the conclusions that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, draws. But I do not think that it is true to say that unemployment is a bad thing. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has been kind enough to send a letter to me explaining his view on that: that is, that the message is that unemployment is not a bad thing. But it is not true to say that unemployment is bad in itself. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, was a little unfair when he said that because he thinks that the noble Baroness was wrong, because there will be unemployment; and he is wrong. Unemployment is largely a function of the labour market. If we look at unemployment in the same way, I do not think that it is in itself bad. I think that unemployment is a function of the labour market; that is the reason why unemployment is increasing. I think that you can find unemployment more easily if you employ the people who are in the labour force instead of those who are in the labour force and the jobs are not in the labour force. I am not sure, but I think that it is a fact that we have had to face unemployment. That is the reason why we have had to face unemployment. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, have referred to the possibility of the Government taking steps to give small firms more credit. I do not know whether or not they are going to do that, but I am glad to say that I am not involved in any talks to-day about the Government taking steps in that direction. I have said that there will be a lot of job losses. I am sorry, but I have been unable to come to any conclusion as to whether or not there will be job losses. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, mentioned the possibility that a small firm will not get a loan because it is not going to the right place. That is the reason why I have said that there will be a lot of job losses. The job losses will not necessarily be in the small firms, but in the larger firms. It is because there is a lack of credit and a lack of credit in small firms that they are going to be in the big firms. But the reason why they are not in the big firms is because a lack of credit is not a bad thing, but it is something which may be good. If they are not, then there is no reason why they should not get a loan if they want one.
====================
My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister agree that the rights of a child are the most important rights and that he himself is well aware of that? Therefore, the case has been made out.
====================
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, has said that he was not present when the Minister told the House that the Government would no doubt look at this matter in the context of the national interest. Will the Minister agree that the present position underlies the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture that, "there is no question of the Government taking account of the interests of farmers in this country"? Does the noble Lord agree that that statement is based on a misconception?
====================
My Lords, I shall be glad to be able to give the noble Lord a full reply. However, I may be able to give him an answer which he would like to take to the Dispatch Box. Anybody who takes a paper to the Dispatch Box will be glad to receive a full reply. However, I should like to make it clear that I am not talking about the Cabinet Office. My department has no responsibility for the work of the Cabinet Office. However, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education will take the view that the Cabinet Office has a wide range of powers of influence, both across the board and in government and in the private sector. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education will take the view that it is not appropriate to give powers of influence to the Cabinet Office.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. I think his definition is one that is familiar to the industry, which will be dealt with later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It is a simple Motion. It is simple to say. I beg to move.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for raising this matter today. There is a certain similarity between the Government's position and that of the noble Lord, Lord Carter. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, said that if the Opposition had been in power at the time, the problem would have been solved. That is exactly the point that I am trying to make. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is wrong on that. I do not believe that you will get a solution to the problem if you are in a minority. That is the point that I am trying to make. It is not a question of whether you are in a minority. It is a question of whether you have a majority. That is the point. If you have a majority, the problem is quite different. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, made a very good case, but I do not believe that that is the case. He called it a "regard with respect to the status of Parliament". I believe it is rather like the position in another place in the case of Lord Reay. Now, under Lord Reay, the Minister is more or less the man in the street. He is in the nature of a petty politician, which is perfectly true. My noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey gave a very good case for the amendment that I moved, as I am sure that he is doing at the moment. I was not in a minority. I was not invited to participate in the debate, and I made no speeches. I am not sure that that was a representation of the Opposition. If it was, it was not a representation of the Opposition. It does not matter, because the matter was decided.
====================
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. I am sure that he will appreciate that many of your Lordships will be pleased to hear the noble Lord's announcement of his intention of withdrawing the Motion that he is moving this afternoon. I thought that we had a useful debate, and I am sure that the House, for its understanding of the noble Lord's intentions, will be grateful to him for the reply he has given. I am sure that the noble Lord will also appreciate that, in view of the fact that the noble Lord has had such an important undertaking in his heart to withdraw the Motion that he has moved this afternoon, I am quite sure that we are all grateful to him for that undertaking. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, made a powerful speech, on the subject of the international relations of the United Nations. I am sure all of your Lordships will agree that he has placed the case in a very different way from that put by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, that the United Nations is a good example of a major international organisation which is not a mere copy of the United Nations. It has a number of other international characteristics which, while they may be similar, are not equivalent. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, said that the United Nations is no exception to the rule. He said that it was averse to the rule itself. I have the impudence, which he has not the self-respect, to propose to suggest that the United Nations was ad hoc. I am not suggesting that. In fact, I am suggesting that the United Nations is one of the great international organisations which is not ad hoc to the same extent that the United Nations is. I am suggesting that the United Nations is not a copy of the United Nations. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that the United Nations is a piece of the world. The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, said that the United Nations is a piece of the world which is one of the great international organisations. I do not agree with him. There are many international organisations, not only the United Nations, which are not identical. We are no exception to the rule. In the long run, the world is a much more important organisation than the United Nations. The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, said that if we had equal opportunities at home and abroad in the world, we could have had a better life. I suggest that we are not equal opportunities. The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, said that if we are equal opportunity we will have more reason for being good citizens. I do not agree with that statement. As I have said, the fact is that we are not equal opportunity. We are not equal to the level of the world in the same way as the peoples of the world are. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, said, the United Nations is a copy of the United Nations. It is a copy of the world. It is a copy of the world which is one of the great international organisations leading up to the United Nations. So far from equal opportunities, we are not equal to the level of the world. It is the same as saying that if there are equal opportunities we will have more reason for being good citizens. The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, said that the United Nations was not a copy of the United Nations. I do not agree with that statement. The United Nations is a copy of the world, not a copy of the world. I admit that we have differences of opinion, but not as much as the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, suggested. I am sure that there are differences of opinion which are not as great as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, suggested. I am prepared to accept the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that there is a country in which we have not equal opportunities. I accept his statement that we are not equal to the level of the world. I accept his statement that we do not have equal opportunities in this country. But I accept that we are not equal to the level of the world. Our right to equal opportunities is, in my view, a fundamental right and one which is essential for the safeguarding of our national security and for the maintenance of peace in the world. In my opinion, if we do not have that right, we shall not have the right for which we are looking. I am not suggesting that we have it now, but that we have not equal opportunities. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, said that we had not equal opportunities. I do not believe that we have. I say that we have not had the right to equal opportunity. We have had the right to equal opportunity in other countries as well. I do not believe that we can have it now in this country. I have not the right to equal opportunity. I realise that we are not equal to the level of the world. But we have an international obligation. I am not suggesting that we have not had it. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that we had not given good help to others in the world. I believe that we have. I do not say that we have not; but we are not equal to the level of the world. We have had a world of unequal opportunities in other countries. I do not believe that we are equal to the level of the world. If we are not equal to the level of the world, it does not matter whether we are equal or unequal. In my opinion, we are not
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his Answer. It does not seem to me that the amendments which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, proposes are compatible with the Bill, and I am sure that he understands that. I should like to suggest that the Government should look at the matter again, because the matter is still under consideration. I should also like to suggest that the Government should look again at the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Ross, which seems to me to be really an improvement.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I am also glad that he stressed the importance of our cooperation with the Community. I hope that that will be a very valuable contribution to our work. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, for the opportunity to discuss the many issues concerning the relationship between the European Community and our country. I do not want to keep the House unnecessarily long. I know that my noble friend Lady Thatcher is in her place. She has had a long and distinguished career in the world. She is a very wise and responsible Minister. We look forward to hearing her in the future. I am grateful to her for giving us this opportunity to discuss some of these issues. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the future. It is a very important part of the relationship between the European Community and the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom has no economic or political advantage to anybody. We are in a different position. We are in a new and complex relationship. That is why we have a strong role within the Community. We are one of the first countries to join the European Community and we have been for many years. We have a good relationship with the Community. We share a common interest in reforming the Community. We have a good relationship with the Community in many ways. We co-operate closely in the development of the European Community. We have a good relationship with the European Commission and that is why we have a good relationship with the European Parliament. However, we are not in a situation where we are not able to work closely with the European Community. We are in a different position. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the future and I beg to move for Papers.
====================
My Lords, I am aware that we have been saying this in every debate on this great Bill, and I am looking forward to hearing the Minister's reply, but I want to ask him one further question. Does he really accept that there will be a hospital fund which will be raised by the funding of this Bill? Is he saying that that fund will be raised by the funds of the hospital fund, or by some other fund? I want to know which fund.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, for his amendment. I do not believe that it is entirely appropriate to ask the Government to undertake what I believe is a very difficult task of balancing the competing interests of the area health authority—which is the district health authorities—against the interests of the public sector operator. I too am anxious to see the Bill go through. However, I am anxious that the public sector operator, when engaged in the exercise of the functions of the district health authority, should be able to appoint a representative member of his staff for a period of five years. I am not at all happy about the answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that the public sector authority will not be able to appoint a consultant. Nevertheless, I am afraid that I cannot give any assurance that it will not appoint a consultant. So far as the authority is concerned, I can assure them that they will be able to appoint a consultant. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, has laid down any specific conditions as to whether the public sector authority will be able to appoint a consultant or not. The important question is whether it will. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment and perhaps consider it again before the next stage.
====================
My Lords, I am not sure that I go along with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in thinking that a power of admission for students from the Republic of Ireland, and the Tribunal of the Irish Republic should not be granted. I think that is very much in accordance with the opinion of the First Secretary of State. I am not sure that I go along with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in thinking that such an admission should be granted. I think that it would be wrong to give a blanket power to admit foreign students, because it would lead to wide possibilities of conflict of origin and nationality. But look at the position. Suppose you have a student from a country which came into this country and has a left of English to go through a particular place in the United Kingdom. Suppose you have one from the Republic of Ireland who comes into this country and has become an Irish citizen and can come in on a certain date. Suppose you have one from the Republic of Ireland and has become a British citizen. Suppose you have one from the Republic of Ireland who is a citizen of this country and can come in on a certain date. Suppose you have one from the Republic of Ireland, and he is a citizen of this country, and can come in on a certain date. Suppose you have one from the Republic of Ireland and has the right of entry and can come in on a certain date. Then suppose you have one from the Republic of Ireland, and he is a citizen of the United Kingdom, and can come in on a certain date. Then suppose you have one from the Republic of Ireland, and he is a citizen of the Republic, and can come in on a certain date. Then suppose you have one from the Republic, and he is a citizen of the Kingdom of Ireland. If he has that right he is entitled to come in on a certain date. That is the position. I tend to think that the First Secretary of State would not be too happy about this. This is a case where a student from a country which has a right of entry can come in on a certain date. That is the position. I should like to know what the Government are thinking about this. I should like to know the position of the First Secretary of State. I think it is likely that this procedure is being used in practice to admit foreign students.
====================
My Lords, I rise to speak to my amendment and I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for having introduced it. I am sure that we all would agree that the amendment is important. It is important to ensure that we ensure that they are properly protected. I believe that we are going to do that by introducing the amendment now. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for having introduced it. I am sure that this amendment is important and that it has been fully considered. It is important from the point of view of the nature of the business that I have in mind. We are all so worried, and our concern is for the Bill and not for employees. I am not sure that the amendment in its present form will achieve that. They can be protected under the provisions of the Bill. I am not sure that it will set the stage for their rights to be properly protected. I hope that the noble Lord will take the view that the amendment is worth while.
====================
I am not quite certain that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I should have thought that the provision which he has proposed, that the matters which are to be dealt with in the Select Committee—not in the usual way of reports, but in the way of amendments—would cover the matters that are in the courts and the way in which the courts will deal with the matter when it is raised in the House. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, is quite right. I am not certain whether he is right because he has been told that the procedure is set out in the Bill. I am not sure whether that is correct. I am not going to read it to him, but I am not quite sure whether the procedure is set out in the Bill or whether it is not. Does the procedure set out in the Bill cover the procedure of the Select Committee?
====================
In those circumstances, I think it is not the case that the amendment is necessary.
====================
My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Earl said that it was not the case that the UK is in the fifth place in the European Community compared with the United States. I was referring to the fact that we have the second lowest number of bankruptcies in the European Community. Although I am not aware of the figures that have been mentioned by the Minister, I believe that the fact that we have a higher number of bankruptcies is not in the least evidence of our inferiority in the European Community.
====================
My Lords, I think that I am right in saying that about a third of the work may in fact be in the pipeline.
====================
I am sure that both my noble friends are right about that. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is right about that too. The Government have criticized the Bill in general terms as it was originally introduced. They have also criticised it in particular terms for the way it was drafted. I do not believe that we should rehearse the arguments in that respect on a more recent occasion. But I do want to make the point that the Bill is not the only one of the many Bill attempts to impose on the public sector the responsibility of running the railways to provide them with the necessary services. As regards the question of public sector ownership, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is right in his interpretation of the words in the Bill. The words in the Bill, "The Minister of State shall acquire the franchises", refer to the Secretary of State, and not to the Minister of Transport. I am sure that that is why the word "transport" is used in the Bill to refer to the Minister of Transport. I am not sure that I understand that at this stage. I do not think that the words "The Minister of State" are the only reference to the Secretary of State, and that the word "transport" is a reference to the Minister of Transport. Again, I do not know the meaning of the words in the Bill, and I am led to believe that it refers to the Minister of Transport. I have not been able to find the word "Transport" in the Bill, and I wonder whether it is not an abbreviation for "Transport Scheme". I do not know what the meaning of that word might be. I am not sure that it is the only word, but perhaps it means something else. One word is not necessarily all, and one word could be quite different. I do not think that the wording in the Bill is to blame for the perceived need for public ownership in the railways. I believe that it is a symptom of the total disorganisation of the public sector—I do not think that it is the fault of the Government. It is a symptom of the fact that the public sector is not able to provide the necessary service at the prices set by the private sector. I hope that the Government will now consider the Bill and see whether it is the right way to proceed in the way in which it was originally introduced.
====================
I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the matter in a most useful way and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
====================
<|startoftext|>I am afraid that the noble Lord is right in saying that I have not been able to offer him any sort of explanation of the fact that I am not prepared to give way or to take the Amendment. I am not prepared to give way to him in this case, because I do not think the most satisfactory answer that I ought to make is this one: "This is not a matter for the courts, but for the Minister of State. I think it is a very different thing. The person is acquitted, but the person is taken away and put in prison. A stranger is thrown into custody, and then a man who is not a convict is put away for a month or two, and then a man who is not a convict is put away for a month or two, then a man who is not a convict is put away for five years, then a man who is not a convict is put away for six years, then a man who is not a convict is put away for ten years, then a man who is not a convict is taken away for twelve years, then a man who is not a convict is taken away for eighteen years, then a person who is not a convict is taken away for eighteen years, then a person who is not a convict is taken away for fourteen years, then a person who is not a convict is taken away for sixteen years, and then a person who is not a convict is taken away for sixteen years. Then, finally, a person who is not a convict is taken away for a period not exceeding fourteen years. Then a person who is not a convict is taken away for a period not exceeding ten years. Then a person who is not a convict is taken away for a period not exceeding fourteen years. Then a person who is not a convict is taken away for a period not exceeding fifteen years. Then a person who is not a convict is taken away for a period not exceeding ten years. Then a person who is not a convict is taken away for a period not exceeding fourteen years. Then a person who is not a convict is taken away for a period not exceeding five years. Then a person who is not a convict is taken away for a period not exceeding five years. Then a person who is not a convict is taken away for a period not exceeding twenty years. Then a person who is not a convict is for a period not exceeding ten years, and then for a period not exceeding fifteen years. Then a person who is not a convict is for a period not exceeding three years. Then a person who is not a convict is for a period not exceeding three years, and then for a period not exceeding fifteen years. Then a person who is not a convict is for a period not exceeding five years, and then for a period not exceeding twenty years. Then a person who is not a convict is for a period not exceeding six years. Then a person who is not a convict is for a period not exceeding six years, and then for a period not exceeding twenty years. Then a person who is not a convict is for a period not exceeding eight years, and then for a period not exceeding thirty years. Then a person who is not a convict is for a period not exceeding eight years, and then for a period not exceeding forty years. Then a person who is not a convict is for a period not exceeding five years, and then for a period not exceeding fifty years. Then a person who is not a convict is for a period not exceeding five years, and then for a period not exceeding ten years. Then a person who is not a convict is for a period not exceeding five years and then for a period not exceeding ten years. Then a person who is not a convict is for a period not exceeding five years and then for a period not exceeding seven years. Then a person who is not a convict is for a period not exceeding five years and then for a period not exceeding thirty years. Then a person who is not a convict is for a period not exceeding three and then for a period not exceeding twenty years. Then a person who is not a convict is for a period not exceeding three and then for a period not exceeding thirty years. Then a person who is not a convict is for a period not exceeding six years and then for a period not exceeding five years. Then a person who is not a convict is for a period not exceeding five years and then for a period not exceeding thirty years. Then a person who is not a convict is for a period not exceeding three and then for a period not exceeding thirty years. Then a person who is not a convict is for a period not exceeding three and then for a period not exceeding twenty years. Then a person who is not a convict is for a period not exceeding three and then for a period not exceeding forty years. Then a person who is not a convict is for a period not exceeding five and then for a period not exceeding twenty years. Then a person who is not a convict is for a period not exceeding three and then for a
====================
My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, is right in saying that the amendment would not have been considered.
====================
My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I entirely accept the value of the amendment. The general thrust behind it is that the powers of the Secretary of State to make orders must be exercised with discretion. However, here we have a power to make a statement of rights which will guide the courts in determining whether someone has been given a licence and in what circumstances. It is extremely important to know how the power is to be exercised and what procedure will be followed to ensure that it is not abused. The amendment is not necessary because the Secretary of State will be able to make orders subject to conditions and that that will already be in place. The power is already there in the Bill and is not needed. I hope that the noble Lord will agree with that. I beg to move.
====================
My Lords, I am afraid that I am unable to give the noble Viscount an answer which was satisfactory to him. I am very sorry that he should feel that he has been unable to give the assurance. I hope the noble Lord will look at his letter again and see whether he is not still unable to give me the assurance which I sought.
====================
My Lords, is it not a fact that the quantity of fish is so limited that if the Government were to make an amendment to the Bill now, they would have the effect of saying that there would be no requirement to purchase fish other than those which are caught at sea, so there would not be any need for the fish?
====================
My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has said a lot in this House on these matters. I know that he has given up his position and is now dealing with a new position. I take that point at once. I am sure the noble Lord is right in his expectation of a progressive change that he hoped for. The noble Lord is right in expectation of a radical change that he hoped for. I do not know what is going to happen, but I go along with the noble Lord in his expectation of progress.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for his intervention. I am certain that it will be welcomed by the whole House. I am sure that the whole House would like to see this matter passed through, but I do not think that it should be passed through now.
====================
My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether that is not the point which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, raised? The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is a brilliant and a very eloquent speaker, but I wonder whether I might ask the noble Lord whether he has not read the report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on Defence? I have not been able to read the report, but I should like to know whether he has not read the reply of the Minister, who had it in the Clerk of the Parliaments. I wonder whether he has not been able to read the reply of the Minister, and, if so, whether he has not read the reply of the Select Committee. I am not going to press the matter now because it has been generally felt that we should leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, to speak for himself. I should like to know whether the Minister has not read the reply to the Select Committee.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for raising this important subject. As I understand it, it is important that the consultation process should begin as soon as possible. The Minister will be aware that I have put forward two amendments to the Bill. I cannot promise that the Government will be able to accept any of them, but I hope that they will not press them in a way which gives undue concern to the mining industry. The first amendment would extend the powers of the Secretary of State to intervene in a mining company's affairs, including the company's directors. I am very grateful for the permission given by the Minister in another place to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter to withdraw his amendment. The second amendment would add a new clause to subsection (2), which would give the Secretary of State power to intervene in a company's affairs and the company's directors. I am grateful for the opportunity given to me to withdraw the amendments.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his response. I am not entirely clear what "by" means. What is the intention of the word "by-product"? What is the word "by-product"? On the first point, I presume that it means "by-product of the action". On the second, it means "by-product of the opinion" of the Secretary of State or he may, of course, give his opinion in writing or he may not. On the third point, I am not sure, but I am sure that the Secretary of State or he may give an opinion in writing, and I am sure that the noble Lord is right. On the last point, I am not sure about the words "by-product of the action", but I know from my own experience that the Secretary of State is obliged by law to give an opinion or to give an order. I suspect that he is required to help in the giving of the opinion or the giving of an order. If it is not, then it cannot be an opinion or order. Therefore, what the word "by-product" means is "by-product of the action", or the action of the Secretary of State or he may give his opinion in writing. On the second point, it seems to me that it means what it says. I am not sure about the words "by-product of the action". It means "by-product of the opinion". I cannot see the word "by-product". I am not sure whether it means "by-product of the opinion" or not. On the third point, I am not sure whether it means "of the opinion of the Secretary of State", or it is a different matter. The word appears in the definition of the word "by-product of the action" but it does not look like that in the definition of the word "by-product of the action". It does not go so far as the word "by-product of the opinion". It simply says "of the opinion of the Secretary of State". On the last point, I am unable to think of the word "by-product of the opinion". I am not sure whether it means "of the opinion of the Secretary of State". It may be that the Secretary of State may give a decision in writing or he may not. I do not know. On the first point, one cannot know what is meant by "by-product of the action", which is the word "by-product of the action". I do not know. That is the whole point. It can be done, but not the word "by-product". That is what I am asking. On the second point, obviously there is a difference of meaning between the word "by-product of the action" and the words "by-product of the opinion". I am not sure about the words "of the opinion" and the word "by-product of the opinion", which seem to me to be the key.
====================
My Lords, I am very conscious of the importance of this Bill. I do not know whether it is right to ask the Government to press ahead with it. I ite the intention of the Government to press ahead. But I am concerned about the importance of the Bill and the timing of it. The Bill is going to be the next stage in the history of the Commonwealth and I am concerned that the Commonwealth countries should have the opportunity to make their views known. I should like to know the attitude of the Government on the Bill. I have been very concerned about some of the details of the Bill. I should like to know the attitude of the Government on the Bill. It is important that the Commonwealth countries should have the opportunity to make their views known. I have not yet had an opportunity to read the Bill when it was presented for consideration. I would like to know from the Government that they should be prepared to press ahead with the Bill and make it clear that, as I said, the Commonwealth governments have full powers and can do what they please with the Bill.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, for the amendment that he has moved. As he understands it, it is concerned with the application of the powers of the Secretary of State to the exercise of those powers. It is not intended to be a blanket power. It is intended to be a power to deal with particular circumstances. I do not know whether it is intended to be a blanket power. I assume that it is not intended to apply in all circumstances; it is a power to deal with specific circumstances. However, it is intended to be a power to deal with specific circumstances and I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. I am grateful to him for his kind words about my daughter. I appreciate that we should not be too forthcoming about what she is going to say. However, I hope that nobody will be unaware that I am now a trustee of the Royal Society. I am also an honorary fellow of the Royal Society. I am a Director of the Royal Society. I am the chair of the Royal Society's governing committee and the chairman of the council. I understand that it is my job to ensure that the Royal Society's activities are focused on the interests of those people who are most directly affected by the Royal Society's activities. As I said in my speech, we are working to ensure that the Royal Society does its job effectively. The noble Lord made the very correct point about the broadness of the contribution that we are making. The noble Lord asked whether I have knowledge that the Government have given priority to the industries that are most directly affected by the Royal Society activities. I have no information that I have. However, I have been advised that the Government have not given priority to those activities in the past. I must say to him that I believe the noble Lord is wrong. I believe that the Royal Society is a very good organisation. I have been given a copy of the report of the Atomic Energy Authority. I have no reason to believe that the noble Lord will wish me to repeat it. However, I must say that I do not believe that the total discussions in the past were worth very much. We are now working in partnership with the Royal Society. I hope that the noble Lord will find he has no reason to think that the Government are not taking account of the wishes of the Royal Society and its membership. I am not sure that he should expect me to repeat again the figures which he quoted from the report. I am not sure that he will expect me to repeat the figures which he quoted from the report. I hope that he will be able to find an answer to the question which he is not asking.
====================
My Lords, I was very much shocked by the noble Lord's remarks. I think he was referring to the Energy Farming Bill. It was brought up in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and the noble Lord was the chairman of the Select Committee on Pesticides and Veterinary Medicine. Indeed, so far back as the end of 1952, the noble Lord was the chairman of the Select Committee on Pesticides and Veterinary Medicine, and then I was the chairman of the Select Committee on Research, which was set up under the chairmanship of Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I should like to say that I did not wish to be treated in any way as though I was the chairman of that committee and had no responsibility for it. I had other duties which the noble Lord mentioned, but I had the responsibility of being chairman of the Select Committee and I hope that if he has any doubts he will correct it. It seems to me that the noble Lord is suggesting that we have had a Select Committee, and that we have had a Committee of Inquiry, and that they have been spent in preparation for this Select Committee, and that we have been told that we have to get rid of all those who are troublesome to the National Farmers' Union and there are many who are interested in that. I think it is a very much different argument to suggest that because the Select Committee are set up and have been trained by the Minister of Agriculture we have not had any Select Committee put on, and that we have had the Select Committee on Pesticides and Veterinary Medicine. I think it is a strange and a very illogical argument to suggest that because the Select Committee on Pesticides and Veterinary Medicine was set up in 1952, that does not mean that we have had a Select Committee of Inquiry. I think it is a very illogical argument. We have had a Select Committee of Inquiry, and I hope that is a very different argument from the argument that we have had a Select Committee of Inquiry.
====================
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is quite right. I have been in the House for a great many years. My father was a Member of the House of Commons. My mother was a Member of the House of Commons, too. I am not a lawyer; I am not a law-maker. I am a member of the public. I am a member of a profession. If one looks at the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, he will find that I am not a member of a profession; I am a member of the public. I am a former chairman of the joint committee of the Home Office and the Home Secretary, an honourable member of that body, Sir Gladwyn Lloyd-George. I have been in the House of Commons for 40 years, and I have spent a great deal of my life in the public sphere, so I am a member of the public. I am a former chair of the Select Committee of the House of Commons, an honourable member of that body, Sir William Butler. I am a member of the Select Committee of the House of Commons. I have been in the House of Commons for 40 years and I have spent a great deal of my life in the public sphere. I am not a lawyer; I am not a law-maker. I am a member of the public.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's reply. The point is that these amendments are not designed to deal with the central issue of the issue of the cost of bringing an injustice to account. There is a difference of opinion as to whether the proposals are in the best interests of the claimants, although I am grateful for the replies that the Government have given. However, I believe that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, is not about that; it is a new way to deal with the matter. It is a very good amendment. I am grateful for the Minister's reply. I do not think that it is a problem that has been developed in the past, which can be rectified. I am very grateful for the Minister's reply.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I recently heard a report from the UK Government's National Institute for the Social Work which was entitled "Report: Update on Community Care. It is full of interesting stories of the great advances that have been made in the past decade through the improvement of care in the community, but also the need to build on that foundation.
====================
My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that the Home Secretary has been a little bit prissy in his approach to this matter? He made a statement that the Minister is to be given time to consider the report. Is he saying that he intends to give the Minister an answer?
====================
I am sorry if I have missed the wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and I am sorry if I have missed his motion. I was interested to hear him say that he must, I think, accept, and I am sure he must, if he is a Minister, his position. I do not know when the noble Lord, Lord Judd, was in another place, but I am sure that I heard him here. I thought he was making a point on the provision of the Bill and that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, was using the word "nonsense"; but I did not hear it. I am very glad that the noble Lord thought it was nonsense, and I hope that it is nonsense, too, in the future.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful for that intervention. I have had the opportunity to receive a letter from the Royal Society, which is, indeed, an initial response to the resulting debate. I should like to make it clear that they will be well aware of the debate on the Bill. I have no doubt that they will be as well informed about the views of those who are concerned about the issue as I am. I also hope that they will take account of what the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has said this evening. Although I am not going to press the Motion this evening, I hope that the House will consider the letter in the general sense. I should like to make it clear that the Royal Society did not in any way oppose the Bill. It is, of course, customary to express an opinion as to the appropriateness or otherwise of any legislation. I understand the reasons for and need for the fact that the Royal Society is one of the organisations which is not under pressure for support. I note the letter in the sense that it was written the other day. I am not sure that I should press the Motion.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. Does that mean that in the event of any increase in the standard of living the Government will do everything they can, or will they take a different approach?
====================
My Lords, I wonder whether I may intervene for a moment. I should like to say that I am not sure that I am in a position to say anything about the paper which the noble Lord the Leader of the House has in his hand, but I certainly hope to see it, and will see what the noble Lord the Leader of the House has said.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for giving us the opportunity to discuss these subjects in the context of the National Health Service. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked me about the recommendations of the National Health Service Select Committee of the Royal College of Nursing. I am not sure whether he is referring to the draft report of the Select Committee on the General Medical Council of the Royal College of Nursing which was published in January 1999. I should declare an interest as a patient in the National Health Service.
====================
My Lords, I cannot say thank you. I was not questioning the noble Lord on the Motion that the amendment be agreed to. I was asking whether the Minister would consider the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and whether he would be prepared to consider it.
====================
My Lords, I fully accept that the noble Baroness is right in her assumption that the new clause would make the Bill work, but I am still worried about what happens if the Bill does not work. The noble Baroness asked me about the possibility of appeal to the Judicial Committee. In the event of a miscarriage of justice, it may well be that the Judicial Committee would have a different view, but there would be an appeal from a court where a case had been decided not by the individual but by the judge. I do not know the system that would work in such a case, but I should be delighted to discuss it with the noble Baroness. It would seem that one can have a system that would not make the Bill work. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could confirm that.
====================
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton has raised a number of points which I should like to examine, particularly as he is an oil executive and perhaps I could ask the Minister whether he can take the opportunity to make a short statement on the report, and perhaps reply to the questions that have been raised. Can my noble friend say how long the report will take to complete?
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He said that there would be no special powers for the Secretary of State. It is true that there are powers for the Secretary of State to bring proceedings and to ensure that the compensation is fair. However, he added that they are not already available. We have no idea what is meant by the word "power". I wonder whether the Minister could look at the clause again. I am not at all clear about the time limits. I was not clear about the amount of compensation being paid.
====================
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if he takes this away and makes a statement, or a statement of such a general nature, it might not be quite so easy to get people to believe it?
====================
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, for giving us the opportunity to discuss the subject of the growth of the economy. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, will be pleased to hear that I am talking about the subject of the economy of this country. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, asked me to comment on the report of the Financial Times about the Government's failure to spend. I am sorry that the Government are now faced with the report of the Financial Times. I can only assure him that it is a report of the very highest quality. It is not intended to criticise the Government, but it is important that we should be able to assess the report's conclusions and to judge its conclusions in that context.
====================
I did not say that. I said "in a way formed by the law as it now exists". I am quite certain that the law as it now exists is not formed by the law which is now in force but by the law as it was in the day. That is the effect of the Amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am not sure whether, in the noble Lord's view, that is the only possible way of stimulating the production of photographic equipment for the medical profession. I do not know.
====================
My Lords, I must express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, for initiating this debate on the amendment. I am sure the House is hoping he will continue it, and I am sure that our views are not far apart. I am glad to be able to support the amendments, as I am glad to be able to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and to say that I hope he will also be able to speak at some length on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. I am glad to be able to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen, said, that he is a well qualified person to speak on the amendment. I am sure the House is all grateful for the support he has given to the amendments which we are discussing. It is not easy from the point of view of the Committee to accept the amendments. However, I hope the noble Lord will, in his capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee, take on board the arguments he has given. I hope he will not press his amendment to a Division.
====================
My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, had been here, he would have had an opportunity to make his point. I did not know the position, but the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, must be excused at any rate for giving me the opportunity to answer it. I take that point to be entirely in the hands of my noble friend. First, I should like to make clear that all those working in the industry—and, in my view, most of them are in the public sector—are welcome to the Bill as it is now drafted. There is no question about that. I am sure they are also welcome to the Bill as it is now drafted. Firstly, I am sure that all my colleagues who are working in the industry are very much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this matter. Secondly, the Bill has been so comprehensively put to us that the willingness of the industry to give a job to a person who is qualified to do it is extremely high. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has made that point very well—and I hope he will not press the amendment.
====================
I think that the noble Lord is going to take a different attitude. The object of the Bill is to make sure that the people who have to make decisions have the necessary information about the nature of the work involved and the responsibilities within the companies and about the way in which they are working. If the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, feels that a company has not properly communicated its duties, it could abuse its position in the courts, as it has done. However, if the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, feels that the company has not communicated its duties, it has to show that the position of the company is dealt with adequately in the Act. I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware that the Act of 1948 requires companies to make representations to their shareholders, and that the company is obliged to make representations to the employees; and that the company is not obliged to make representations about the nature of the work involved. What is the position of a company? We are now being asked to do something which is not required under the Act. In the first place, is it a company that is required to make representations, or is it required to make representations under the Act? I do not know. I am not sure how it is required to make representations. It could be a company to which the Act refers as "the holder" of the stock. Subsection (5) states: "The holder of any such stock shall be entitled to receive interest in it at such time as he may request; so long as he does not require it in any such circumstances as being so request." The noble Lord is saying that he would like a company to make representations, but not the other way round. The noble Lord is saying that it would not do so; but the Act says it is required to make representations. The noble Lord is saying that it is required to make representations by representations. I am saying that it is not required to make representations by representations. The noble Lord is saying that it is not required to make representations by representations. It is not required to make representations by representations. How do you make representations? You do not make representations in the way in which the noble Lord proposes. Not in the way in which the noble Lord proposes, and not in the way in which the noble Lord suggests.
====================
My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. I understand that the noble Lord has a particular point of view which I am not in agreement with. I think it would be helpful if I were in agreement with the noble Lord.
====================
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a Bill to enable the Secretary of State to appoint a body, which he may from time to time designate, to inquire into the future operation of the young persons' courts, including the creation of a new body for the purpose. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is, as I have already indicated in this House, to provide for the establishment of an independent body, initially for the establishment of the youth court, and later to cover the establishment of an interim body for the establishment of the juvenile court. It is the case that the youth court system is being operated by a body which has geographical relationships with the local sessions, and it is the intention of the Bill to provide for a body to be set up to inquire into the problem of the establishment of the youth court and possibly to inquire into the establishment of a new body for the establishment of the juvenile court. I beg to move.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for raising this matter for debate. I am particularly grateful for the opportunity he has given me to contribute to the debate on the Bill in the context of the international nature of the current situation. The Bill, as an Act, is the first piece of legislation to be introduced into Parliament. It has been welcomed by all parties in both Houses and has been welcomed by the Government. It is a timely measure which we are considering as one that should be supported as a matter of urgency. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked me to say something about the matter of the European Communities Committee. I do so with great pleasure. I do so because the Committee has been supported by all parties in both Houses. I should like to say something about the importance of getting the European Communities Committee in place as soon as possible. I would make one further comment about the United Nations. I am not too sure that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. I believe that it is important to have a strong United Nations presence in many parts of the world. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, raised the issue of the international nature of this matter. My noble friend Lord Renton referred to the fact that this has been a global problem, and it is one that we have to face up to. As I said, it is a matter about which we are considering a Bill to deal with the problem. The noble Lord asked about the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in London tomorrow. I can confirm to him that that meeting is to take place today. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked about the Indian sub-continent. I apologise to him if I am wrong, but I cannot quote from the Statement given in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. I can say a few words about that. I should like to say how much I appreciate the contributions that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has made to this debate. I think that the debate has been paid for. It has been appropriately informed, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, will feel that his contributions are well worth his while. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that we shall be considering the points he raised. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for raising this subject for debate. The House will have learned from the debate in another place. I hope that he will be reassured by the fact that we have taken the view that the future matters of the Commonwealth will be discussed in a more general way than they are at the moment. We have made it abundantly clear that we shall discuss them at a fairly short notice. I am grateful for the support given to the Bill in another place. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for raising the matter of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in London tomorrow. I am not sure that I agree with what he said about the situation, but I can assure him that, as I said, we are considering the matter at a fairly short notice. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that matters of the Commonwealth will be discussed when we come to the Bill in due course. I should like to turn my attention to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, about the way in which Commonwealth relations with the Republic of Ireland are handled. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that we are aware of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. He asked me specifically about a statement that was made by the Minister and he referred to it. I shall have to write to him about the statement that I made. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, raised the issue of a statement that was made by the Minister. I have no information about that. As I said, the matter is under consideration and I have no doubt that the appropriate statement will be made in due course. I am aware of the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, raised, but I cannot for the life of me produce any more information about the statement. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, asked why we have not treated the New Zealand Government so far. I did not know that the New Zealand Government were not included on the original list of the Commonwealth Heads of Government. That was not the intention. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that there is no question of the New Zealand Government being included on the original list of the Commonwealth Heads of Government. I am sure that the noble Lord will not expect me to say more, but I can assure him that the New Zealand Government will be included in the original list. I would also like to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, because he raised the question of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in London tomorrow. I am unable to give the noble Lord the reference that he has asked me to give him. I am sure that the noble Lord
====================
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
====================
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I do not think it is correct to say that the occupier of the premises is liable for damage. Clearly, if he is, then it is not the occupier of the premises.
====================
My Lords, will the noble Lord be good enough to give way for a moment? I think that he has made the point that I was attempting to put a case for the amendment. I never said that it was a matter for the House. I said that I was asking the House to consider it.
====================
I am sorry if I have misrepresented the noble Lord. The noble Lord said that there was no annual review, and he did not say that. If he says that on the face of it I am quite content with his statement, I am perfectly content to withdraw the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I was not so much a Member of the House as an opponent of this Bill, but I am not going to come on to the arguments for and against the Bill. The Bill is out of step with the Labour Party's policy. In his opening speech, the noble Lord, Lord Foot, said that this Bill would be a self-defeating measure. The Government, as he said, have said a good deal this afternoon. As he said it, it would he an impossible Bill to put right, even in the opinion of Labour Ministers. I think that the Conservatives are right to say that we should not have done it. The fact that they are right to say that is a point of considerable importance. There is a lot of discussion in the Labour Party about how this Bill should be put into operation. I do not know whether the right reverend Prelate has the same point. There is a lot of discussion about how one would put the Bill into operation. The other thing that I should like to tell the noble Lord, Lord Foot, is that I have not yet heard from anybody, not even the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who is a member of this House, who is in favour of this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is in favour of the Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Foot, is not. It is a matter for the House. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is in favour of this Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Foot, is not. I have not heard the debate; I have not heard the speeches which have been made. I can only say that I do not know what the real position is. I can only say that in the hour and days that lie between then and the Report stage, perhaps the noble Lord the Leader of the House will bring his own arguments to bear.
====================
My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, is referring to the new Act of 1953, which is not yet in force and would he the first time that the performance of the Lord Chancellor's office would be considered by Parliament. As I understand it, this will be for the first time.
====================
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Would he not agree that the position is not good enough to say that, if the position is not such that it is not possible for any landlord to take action, then it is not the landlord's business, because it is the landlord's duty to look after the tenants?
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this matter today. That is, in a sense, a welcome change of policy, which I am glad to hear. But I am still not quite clear what is the argument for and what is the problem. The problem is that we are not clear about what is meant by "unfair" in relation to a profession which has been in existence for hundreds of years, whether it be practised in the private or the public sector, as it is in this case. Is it a combination or two-tier industry? In my view, yes, it is a combination of two different kinds of industry: one is the public sector and the other private sector. It is quite unfair and I am not sure that the public sector is the right tool to deal with it. I am wondering whether we are left in a position in this matter to think that the public sector is superior to the private sector, which is the other sector. That is the problem. I am not sure that we are left with an endless case of the public sector. It is not a case of the public sector being better than private industry. But it is an argument so far as that is concerned.
====================
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his introductory remarks. I, too, should like to associate myself with his proposal for a national network of schools, and I am grateful to him for bringing it forward. I must confess that when I first read the Bill, I was a little puzzled as to how it was to be carried out. One of the most perplexing things about the Bill is that it is extremely difficult to see the purpose it does. It is said that it is intended to ensure that those children who are receiving a national network of schools will have the best possible education; that is, to secure the future of the children in the schools. But it is in fact somewhat difficult to see what that means. For example, one can see only if one looks at the Bill in the first place as it is now. One can quite clearly see that the Bill intends that the children in the schools will have the best possible education. It does not say that. It says that the children will have the best possible education in many places. It does not say that they will have the best possible education in the particular school. What it says is that they will have the best possible education in many places. The Bill really does not say that. Of course, it does say that they will have the best possible education; that is all. But it does not say what they will have in one place, or anywhere, and that is the difficulty. Then, when the Minister of Education comes to reply, will he tell us what they will have in one place or in another or how they will be in many places? We have gradually become used to the proposal that this Bill will do something for children and indeed for many schools. It was referred to by my noble friend Lord Newall, but I think it is not really appropriate to refer to it now. I would suggest that the Bill does not really do much, except in one case. I hope that the Minister will not have too much trouble with it.
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said, the subject of the Bill is of great concern to many people. However, I am sure that we shall all agree that it is a very complicated and complicated matter. The noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, is a good example of what it is. I have a copy of the report of the Select Committee, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb. I shall not say much about that committee's recommendations at this stage. They are very important and they are most disturbing. I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, is right in saying that the Bill should be amended. I have been advised that it is possible to amend the Bill to allow the Secretary of State, if he is satisfied that the bill is too complex, to amend it. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, is right about that. I am sure that he is. The Government have given us a clear assurance that they will not seek to amend the Bill. It is a matter for the Select Committee to consider and to come back with a recommendation on how the Bill should be amended. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, is right to say that the Bill is too complicated. I am not sure that he is right to say that it is too complex. I have a copy of a draft that he has given me and that I shall consider.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, the situation in this country today is very different from the position in the past. It is now possible to travel around the world faster than it could have been before the war. This is now providing for a different sort of life and for people to travel for a different sort of purpose. The young man in the village in the woods, or the young man living in the house, is now able to go to the schools and the schools are available for him. The old man, or the old man living in the house, can go to school; but if he is in the street, he cannot. It is a different situation and if the old man is out of the house at school, he cannot go to the library, because he is not in the street. The noble Lord is the first to suggest that if the old man is with the kids, he is too old; but he is not. He is old enough now to be able to go to the library. But if he is a young man and he is not old enough to go to the library, then he is not old enough to go to the school. Therefore, the old man is not old enough to go to the library. There is a difference between old people living in the streets and the young people living in the houses. The noble Lord talks about the old man having to make the trip of 40 to 45 miles. I do not know the figure, but the old man has to go in the house; and the house has to have a library. The old man who is the employer, and so on, has to work for a living. But if the old man is with the kids and is able to go to the library, then that is not a reason, as I understand it, why he should not go to the library. I should like to know the figure, but it is rather difficult to find. As I said, I do not understand the reason why old men should not go to the library and to the community. It is not because they do not want to. They want to make the trip to school and to the community. I am not proposing that old men should have to go to the library on their way to school; that old men should go around in shops, or wherever. I am not proposing that young people should go round in shops and do their shopping in the streets. I am not suggesting that old people should go round in the streets. I am not suggesting that the old man should go round in the streets and do his shopping. I am not suggesting that the old man should go round in the streets and do his shopping. I am suggesting that the old man should go round in the streets and do his shopping, wherever he goes. I am not suggesting that the old man should go round in the streets and do his shopping. If he is earning a living, he should go round in the streets and do his shopping. If he is not earning a living, he should not go round in the streets. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, asked the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, whether he could give the figures to show whether this is a fair way of going about it. I do not suppose that he can, but I can give him a figure. I go along with him in saying that if he were to divide the country into the rich and poor and try to divide the country as I have done, it would not be an easy task. Nobody would deny that. But that is not the question. The question is whether we are going to divide the country into the rich and the poor. I think we are going to divide it into the rich and the poor, and I think we are going to divide it into the rich and the poor. I think that we are going to divide it into the rich and the poor. I do not say that the rich will be worse off; I do not think they are going to be worse off. I do not think they are going to be worse off. I have the figure of the average wealth of the village now, and I know that the average wealth is about £5,000. That is a very good figure to get from the village. If they were to divide the country into the rich and the poor, I think that they would find that the average wealth of the village was half the average wealth of the village. I should like to know the figure, but I cannot find it. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, suggested that the people who are not going to make a trip are not going to be there to make a trip. Perhaps he is right in that. But in my opinion, as I said earlier on, it is a very poor thing to have people going round in shops and doing their shopping and buying groceries. I am not saying that it is a bad thing; I am saying that it is not a good thing; it is a bad thing
====================
The noble Lord said that he was not certain whether the amendment was in the Liberal Democrat or the Labour Party Manifesto. I do not know about that, but the Labour Party Manifesto is quite different from this amendment.
====================
I think I can assure the noble Lord that there is no retrospective legislation being introduced. I said that we were not considering a retrospective legislation for the future and that there would not be retrospective legislation. The noble Lord asked me if I could tell him the position as I understood it. I can say that there is no retrospective legislation for the past. The noble Lord asked whether I could tell him the position as it now stands, as I have explained it to him. I can assure the noble Lord that it is a retrospective legislation.
====================
My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for having been away for so long. I was in my place, so I was able to listen to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I should like to support him on his maiden speech. It is a sad, sad reflection on the times of the country. We are faced with the situation of a shrinking trade. I understand that the other day we were told that the Home Secretary was not doing a very good job. I personally think he is doing a very good job. I should like to believe that he would be doing a much better job if he had more time. He is not doing a good job. He is not doing a good job, but he might have been. What he wants is more time and he has not got it. It is a very sad reflection on the times of the country. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said that it would be a disgrace if he did not come here. I do not know that he would be here because he is not here. He has not come to hear me speak. I have to say that I have not heard him speak. I was told that I should not have been here. He is not here to-day. I should have thought he would have made a speech. I should have thought he would have said something. I doubt if the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, could have. I am sorry. I am sorry that he has not had the time to speak. I should like to ask my noble friend whether he is in his place. I have read him very well and he was able to be here. I am sorry that he has not come to hear me speak. I should like to ask my noble friend whether he has any idea what I am talking about. I am talking about the true position of the country to-day. I am saying that it is a disgrace. My noble friend has not heard me speak. I cannot understand what he has been saying. I do not know what he has been talking about. I think he will find out what I am talking about.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. I am not sure whether he is aware that I had the opportunity to raise this matter in the last debate, when I raised it in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I am very pleased to see that the noble Lord has taken the opportunity to come back to the issue. I am sure that he will be pleased about the kind words he has said to me and will look very sympathetically on my efforts to raise this matter again in the future.
====================
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I am not sure that he has not said that the money should be transferred to the National Health Service.
====================
<|startoftext|>Perhaps I may make a brief comment. I am not much impressed by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, in particular the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. I am concerned about the size of the House. It is not my intention that the House should be smaller. But there is one thing that I should like to see. It has been said that the House is not to be the centre of a vast bureaucracy and that it must not be. It is a very old phrase. It should be "not to be the centre of a vast bureaucracy". The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, made great play about the size of the House. I am not sure that it is the size of the House that causes the problems. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said that he would like to see the size of the House reduced to a certain number. I should like the House that we are now discussing to be reduced to a certain number. It is a very old phrase. I am concerned about the size of the House. It is now, I think, in the last century, but it is not as old as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. I am not sure that it is a phrase, but I should like to see it reduced to a certain number. I do not think that it should be reduced to a certain number. I am not sure that it should be reduced to a certain number. It seems to me to be a very old phrase. I am concerned about the size of the House and about the size of the Government. I am not sure that the size of the House is the cause of the problems that lie at the root of the problems of the Government. There are two problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, referred. That is a problem of the House which is not the centre of a vast bureaucracy. It is not the centre of a huge bureaucracy. I have had some experience as a Minister of the Crown and I have seen the kind of problems that arise in a House which has a large number of Members. I do not think that the House is the centre of a large bureaucracy. It is a very old phrase, "not to be the centre of a vast bureaucracy". One of the problems of the House is that there is too great a concentration of power in the hands of the Prime Minister. That is a problem of the House which is not the centre of a vast bureaucracy. It is not the centre of a vast bureaucracy. I am not sure that it is the centre of a large bureaucracy. I am not sure that it is the centre of a large bureaucracy. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, referred to the difficulties of the party in power. I do not know whether that is true or not. I am not sure that the party in power has the same problems that face the Prime Minister of the day. I am not sure that it has the same problems as facing the Prime Minister of the day. I do not know whether it is true or not. It is very old in this country, I think, that if you have to work in the House of Commons you must work with the people who are at it. I do not know whether it is true or not. It is very old to say, "Work with the people who are at it"; it is a very old phrase. It is an old phrase. I am not sure whether it is true or not. I am not sure that it is true, but it is a very old phrase which I have had over many years in the other place. It is very old. I am not sure that it is true. I am not sure that it is true, but it is a very old phrase. If it is true that the Prime Minister in the House of Commons has the same problems that face the Prime Minister of the day, I am not sure whether it is true or not. One of the problems of the House is that it is not a party in power. If we are to have large departments and large conferences, I do not think that there is a case for the Government of the day being the centre of a great bureaucracy. My Lords, I should like to say a few words about the policy of the Government. There is one point that I should like to make, and that is to ask the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, when he is asked in his first term of office a question about the size of the House and whether it is the Government of the day that controls the size of the House. I am not sure whether he can answer it. I am not sure whether he can answer it in his first term of office. I am saying that the Prime Minister controls the size of the House and controls the number of Members that he has in a party. I am saying that the Prime Minister controls the size of the House and controls the number of Members that he has. The first question that I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, is this: Are they satisfied with the size of the
====================
I am trying to decide whether the word "inappropriate" is entirely inapplicable. Is it allowable to let my noble friend off the hook? I do not want to be misunderstood. I want to say that the word "inappropriate" is not inapplicable, but I am trying to be helpful. I do not want to be misunderstood, but I am trying to be helpful. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, has mentioned the Labour Party's resolution to extend the life of the newspaper, and this is something that I feel is relevant now. The resolution says: "We recommend the appointment of a chairman and an executive committee of a newspaper company." I am not sure whether that is the name of the firm. I have no idea. The name of the firm is "The Times Corporation", but it is not: "The Times Corporation". I understand that it is the name of a company composed of people who are not in politics, who are not in business, who do not have the experience of managing companies or who are not in any way in a managerial capacity—is that not appropriate? The chairman and "The Times" executive committee are there to look and assess the company's financial performance. I would only mention that. I do not want to be misunderstood, but I am trying to be helpful. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, has referred to my other point. I said that I would provide a list of the names of the people who have been appointed. I am not sure whether I have done that. I have not looked at the list, but I have not looked at the names of the staff. It cannot be done, it is not possible, and I should like to have some assurance that if the name of the firm is "The Times Corporation", and if it is not "The Times Corporation", then the "Times" executive committee is not appointed.
====================
My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord could explain a matter of detail. He is obviously a bit confused about the new clause he has just introduced. It does not seem to be clear as to whether the language is intended to cover not only children born in the United Kingdom but also those born in the country of the person's parents. Could he explain that?
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I have not made myself clear. I am not sure—I am sorry if I misread the Minister's Statement. I wonder whether that is not the case. I have not tried to interpret the Statement, but I am not sure if I misread it.
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, for giving us the opportunity of discussing matters of which the noble Lord, Lord Sarf, is a member. As I said in my opening speech, I am a member of the Labour Party and I am not a member of the Conservative Party. I am in a position to speak on the major issues of the day, and I hope to address the points that the Minister has raised. I shall therefore, with the leave of the House, make a brief statement. First, I should explain the legislative changes that I am proposing. The changes are consequential upon the passing of the Bill and will not cause any disruption in the ordinary business of business. Secondly, I should explain the procedure that we propose and explain why we propose it. Thirdly, I should explain the purpose of the Bill, and why we have chosen the timetable. The purpose of the Bill is to make the imposition of the statutory duty on the Government to make regulations for the financial management of the National Health Service. I am consulting my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on the Bill. I hope to publish the Bill in the autumn of this year. I think the House will welcome its proposals. The Bill is in some detail the result of consultation with the National Health Service Council. I am satisfied that the public will be aware of its purpose. The Bill will require the Government to make regulations to which the public will be entitled and to which the public will have access in writing. Those regulations will cover the main changes to the Bill and make provision for the creation of a new Council. I should like to make clear that the Bill is not intended to replace safeguards for patients. The primary purpose of the Bill is to make some provision for the provision of a new and more flexible system of insurance for the National Health Service. I have had a good discussion on the Bill with my noble friend Lord Renfrew. I am not sure that I have yet reached a decision on the matter. I have received representations from the National Health Service Council, which is also a consultee, that they believe that the Bill would create a new and more flexible insurance scheme for the National Health Service. I am aware of that, and I shall write to the Council on the matter. The question of the free market insurance scheme, which is referred to in the Bill, is not a new one. I am not sure that I have yet reached a decision on this matter. I understand that there is a specific need to include in the Bill a provision for the free market insurance scheme. I am pleased to say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health is in a position to make regulations for the scheme. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sarf, will feel that, as a result of this Bill, the Government have gone a long way towards making the solution of the problem of the free market insurance scheme a reality. I do not know the answer to the noble Lord's question about the removal of the requirement on insurance companies to provide coverage for patients. I have to say that I believe that that is not a matter for the House. I shall write to the noble Lord. However, I am happy to write to him with the details of my reply. I should like to answer the point about the rebate. I am not sure whether this rebate system is included in the Bill, but it is a matter for the National Health Service Council. It is not their practice to provide insurance for their members, but they are able to provide insurance. I think that this is an issue on which the Government should look very carefully. I should also like to take the opportunity to explain the plans for the implementation of the Bill. I do not think I need to take up time on this matter because I have explained the nature of the Bill. However, I should like to take this opportunity to explain my intention behind the Bill, so that the public will know what it is all about. I and the Government are in a position to announce the details of the Bill, as I have done. I hope that the House will be pleased that I am including in the Bill the principles upon which the Bill is based. I hope that the House will accept the assurances that I have given, and that the Bill will then be introduced.
====================
<|startoftext|>I am familiar with the difficulties associated with the word "denormalisation". I am not aware of any case where a school has been required to change the gender of a pupil. I am not aware of any case in which a school has been compelled to change the nature of its education. I am not aware of any case in which a school has requested permission to change its name. There are a series of legal difficulties connected with the word "denormalisation". I am not aware of any case in which a school has requested permission to alter its name. I am not aware of any case in which a school has asked permission to alter its name, or to alter its logo, or to alter its name or logo. I am not aware of any case in which a school has requested permission to alter its name or logo. I am not aware of any case where a school has requested permission to alter its name or logo. I am not aware of any case where a school has requested permission to alter its name, or to alter its logo. I am not aware of any case in which a school has asked permission to alter its name or logo. I am not aware of any case where a school has requested permission to alter its name or logo. I am not aware of any case in which a school has requested permission to alter its name or logo. I am not aware of any case in which a school has requested permission to alter its name or logo. I am not aware of any case in which a school has asked permission to alter its name, or to alter its logo, or to alter its name or logo. The word "denormalisation" is used in the Bill to refer to one or more of the following. It is used in Clause 3(2) to define "denormalisation". The word may be used in Clause 3(2) to define "denormalisation". It may also be used in Clause 3(3), and the word "denormalisation" may be used in Clause 3(5). It may be used in Clause 3(6) to define "denormalisation". It may also be used in Clause 3(8). It may also be used in Clause 3(9), and the word "denormalisation" may be used in Clause 3(9). It may also be used in Clause 3(10), and the word "denormalisation" may be used in Clause 3(10). It may also be used in Clause 3(11), and the word "denormalisation" may be used in Clause 3(11). It may also be used in Clause 3(12), and the word "denormalisation" may be used in Clause 3(12). It may also be used in Clause 3(13), and the word "denormalisation" may be used in Clause 3(13). It may also be used in Clause 3(14), and the word "denormalisation" may be used in Clause 3(14). It may also be used in Clause 3(15), and the word "denormalisation" may be used in Clause 3(15). It may also be used in Clause 3(16), and the word "denormalisation" may be used in Clause 3(16). The word "denormalisation" may be used in Clause 3(16). The word "denormalisation" may be used in Clause 3(18)." Denormalisation". It may be used either in the Bill or in Clause 3(18). The word "denormalisation" may not be used in Clause 3(18). It may only be used in Clause 3(19) to define "denormalisation". It may be used either in the Bill or in Clause 3(19). It may only be used in Clause 3(20)." Denormalisation". It may also be used in Clause 3(21)." Denormalisation"— that is, in the context of Clause 3(22)" Denormalisation". Clause 3(22)" Denormalisation " may be used, as I have in the case of Clause 3(23), or in the context of Clause 3(24) or in Clause 3(25)" Denormalisation." Clause 3(25)" Denormalisation " may be used, as I have in the case of Clause 3(26)" Denormalisation ", and so on. I am not sure whether the language of Clause 3(26)" Denormalisation ", would be used in Clause 3(26)" Denormalisation ". It may be used in Clause 3(27)" Denormalisation ", and so on. I am not sure whether Clause 3(27)" Denormalisation ", would be used in Clause 3(27)" Denormalisation ". I am not sure whether Clause 3(28)" Denormalisation ", would be used in Clause 3(28)" Denormalisation " may be used in Clause 3a, where my noble friend says, " Denormalisation ", or Clause 3b, where my
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am not clear about the effect of his Amendment on the upland areas. It may be that this Amendment has nothing to do with the upland areas, but it may be that it has something to do with the whole question. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord and I shall look at the other matter. If I can see that the amendment is moved, I shall it.
====================
My Lords, I rise to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
====================
There is one point that I should like to raise, but I will be brief. I know that there is some unease in the City about the practicality of the system. It seems to me that an entirely new system is introduced, and it seems to me that the Government have put their hands to it in the wrong way. I would like to know whether there is any prospect of a Bill of Rights being introduced in this House to deal with the many difficulties that might arise from the provision of this form of organisation. I think we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, if he would discuss it with us in some detail.
====================
My Lords, I am sorry if I appeared in the House of Commons in the second half of the debate to speak with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, but I had to do so because I was unable to attend the debate in the first instance. If I had been present, I should have been speaking back to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and I am sorry if I were not able to say what I should have said. I must say that I did not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, was speaking on the last occasion. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour, seems to have no idea when he speaks on the last occasion that he is speaking for the first time.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, for giving us this opportunity to discuss this important matter. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for his warning that the Government have been unable to take action on the matter. I believe that we shall discuss it tomorrow and I am sure that noble Lords will be pleased to hear that I have a full-time and hon. Member of Parliament's technical staff ready to discuss the matter tomorrow. I shall have to give the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, a copy of that letter. I am glad that the noble Lord is here and it has allowed us to discuss the matter, although I am not sure how the Government can take action. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, asked whether an independent body could be set up to consider the basis of arbitration. I shall shortly put a copy of the letter that the noble Lord has sent to me. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, asked for an assurance from the Government that they would not not merely go out of their way to make money out of the dispute. That is not my intention. I am not saying that they do not have the right to make money out of the dispute, but the arbitration is not one way of obtaining that. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, asked whether the Government shall give further consideration to the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and others. I think that the Government would be wise not to give further consideration to the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, unless they are found to be right. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, asked whether the Government would not reconsider the position of the current law on the payment of compensation. This is an important matter. Noble Lords will recall that this year the Government came down on the side of the Government, who are seeking to pay compensation, because they believed that this was an important matter and it was one which should receive very careful consideration. Therefore, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, not to press his amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am not so sure about the definitions of "incidental" and "particular". I am not sure whether the word, "incidental" is understood. I simply ask the Minister to consider it.
====================
My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. The question of whether or not the Government are in a position to comment on matters appearing in the press at any time is a matter for them. I am sure that the noble Lord will accept my assurance that the matter is in the hands of the Press Council. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that it is not possible to do anything for the Press Council without running the risk of losing the confidence of the Press Council. The noble Lord has raised the matter of the Press Council. I am sure that he is right in that view.
====================
My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is absolutely clear as to what he means by "no advance" and "no advance" and what he means by "no advance" in this context?
====================
My Lords, I am sorry that I missed the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in another place, which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, mentioned. I believe that it is 30th November.
====================
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked a question about the situation in the United States and I shall respond very briefly. As we have said, we have no plans to deploy nuclear weapons as a permanent part of the deterrent. We are in the process of developing a more realistic option, which I shall come to later. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked about the command structure. As I said in my Answer, the United States is currently in the process of developing a joint force structure for the United States and the Soviet Union. If we are to use force in accordance with the treaties of the Warsaw Pact, nuclear weapons will be a key element. It is also worth emphasising that the United States has no nuclear weapons which are capable of delivery on the territory of the United States. Nor is there any nuclear weapon which can be deployed on the territory of the United States, with the exception of one weapon to which the noble Lord referred in his Question. The noble Lord asked about the possibility of nuclear weapons being used as an alternative to conventional forces. We are seeking to develop a realistic alternative, which will be separate from conventional forces. Of course, nuclear weapons are an alternative to conventional forces. The noble Lord asked whether there is any prospect of the establishment of any such force in the United States. My answer to that is no. We are seeking to develop a realistic alternative which will be separate from conventional forces, which is different from an alternative force which is a threat to the security of the United States. I said that we are pursuing a realistic alternative, and we have been seeking to develop one together with other countries. A number of noble Lords raised the question of the position in the gulf. The position is that we remain in close contact with the United States. As I said in my Answer, we have no plans to deploy nuclear weapons as a permanent part of the deterrent. We are in the process of developing a more realistic option to which I referred earlier. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked whether there were current discussions about the use of nuclear weapons as a weapon in the Gulf. I can assure the House that we have no such discussions. The noble Lord asked whether we were aware of the threat to the United States' interests from nuclear weapons in the gulf. I can assure him that we are aware of the threat to the United States' security from nuclear weapons. In our judgment, there is no prospect that nuclear weapons will be used as an alternative to conventional forces. The noble Lord asked about the situation in the United States. I can assure the noble Lord that we have no plans to deploy nuclear weapons as a permanent part of the deterrent. In the circumstances, we do not believe that it is appropriate to deploy a nuclear weapon which can be used as an alternative to conventional forces. I have no reason to believe that nuclear weapons could be deployed as a weapon in the Gulf. I therefore believe that, in the circumstances in which we are seeking to develop a realistic alternative, the use of nuclear weapons as a weapon in the Gulf is not justified.
====================
I am very grateful to the noble Lord. The noble Lord is absolutely right. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, will not be too disappointed. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and I were acquainted during the debate on the Second Reading and we have been on this subject all day, so I am not entirely sure that I am not being a little unfair when I say that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, is one of the few people to have taken part in an earlier debate, so I am not certain that I am not being unfair. However, I am not going to say that I am not being fair. I hope I have not been unfair.
====================
My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, if the amount of money that he is asking for is about £250,000, or £150,000, six million pounds, he would be prepared to accept the last figure?
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer, but I am not entirely satisfied with the Government's reserve powers. What I am very displeased about is the lack of powers of power for the police, the fire and the ambulance services. I am not sure whether the Minister is correct in saying that the only power which the Government retain is for the police and fire services, not for the ambulance services. I do not know what the Minister can say without saying that they have reserves. The police and fire services are not in a position to ask for powers for ambulance services. I am not suggesting that they should ask for power for ambulance services; I am saying that they have not been given powers to do so. That is why I made the point that I am not satisfied with the Minister's reply. I am not satisfied about the powers which the Government retain for ambulance services. The only power which the Government have is for the fire service. Fire services have a very great need and a very big need for ambulances. Fire is an expensive service for London. The fire service has an emergency of a burning building. It is not an emergency of a burning building, it is an emergency of a fire. The fire service is the best fire service in London. I do not know what the Minister can say without saying that the fire service is the best fire service in London. I do not know what the Minister could say without saying that there is no power to do this. I am not satisfied that there is any power. I am not satisfied that there is any power. I am again not satisfied how the property of the police is to be replaced by the property of the fire service. I do not know whether the Minister is saying that the powers are reserved or not. I think the country is entitled to know. I do not know what the Minister can say without saying that there is no power. I am not satisfied about the power which is given to the fire service to ask for powers for ambulance services. I do not know what the Minister can say without saying that they have not been given powers to do so. I am not satisfied that there is any power. I am not satisfied that there is any power. I do not know what the Minister is saying without saying that there is no power. I am not satisfied that there is any power. I am not satisfied that the powers given to the police and fire services are limited to the ambulance services. There is no power to the police and fire service. I am not satisfied that there is any power. I am not satisfied that there is any power. I am not satisfied that there is any power. I am not satisfied that the powers which are given to the fire services are limited to the fire service. I do not know what the Minister can say without saying that it is all right.
====================
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked me what was the position with regard to Amersham. As I understand it, he is asking whether the Government have any plans for Amersham. I am afraid there is no answer to that particular question. I should be better informed if he wished to know.
====================
My Lords, having listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, I must declare an interest. I am a director of the British Airports Authority, and I am also a member of the Traveller's Association. I am also a member of the Greater London Council, and a member of the National Travel Advisory Council. I am also a member of the Greater London Council, and a member of the BAA. I am the chairman of the Greater London Council's Travel Advisory Council. So I am an authority on travel and travel planning, which is the body which has the other responsibility of planning within the city. I very much welcome the opportunity given by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, to bring about a change in the future of London travel planning. I believe that in certain circumstances it will be necessary to have a new body. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, made a very good speech, and it is a pity that he was not here last week. He will have heard me say that I believe that there is a well-founded case for such a body. Now we have the opportunity to do it, and to make it work. What we need now is a committee with the following qualifications. First, there is to be a national authority to advise the Mayor of London. Secondly, there must be parliamentary representation and there must be a majority in the City. Thirdly, there must be a substantial working population, and there must be a substantial amount of money in the City. Fourthly, there must be a standard of travel planning in the London area, and there must be a standard of travel planning in the south-east. Fifthly, there must be a large amount of money in the City. That should not be left to the Secretary of State. That is not right, and it is not right. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will recognise that there is a case for a new body to be set up, and will not press his amendment.
====================
The point I am trying to make is that we have now abandoned the final proposal which our Party made. We are considering the question of the job of the Adviser to the Secretary of State. I apologise to the noble Lord if I do not have the information that he requires.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, for raising this important issue of the future health of the nation. I have the honour to be the Queen's Counsel, and I am delighted to be able to say that I will be joining the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in thanking him for his appointment to the Bar. I think it is probably a good idea to make it clear that I am not a lawyer but that I am a lawyer in my family, and I respect the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. I am grateful for the opportunity to be both a lawyer and a member of the Bar in such a dispensation. I am not a lawyer; I am not a member of the Bar, but I am a member of the Royal Bar. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, will find that she can be in the position of a member of the Bar, but I hope that she will find that it is not a very convenient occasion for me to attend the Bar. I am grateful for the opportunity to be, as it were, both a lawyer and a member of the Bar. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for his appointment as Lord Advocate. I am delighted to be able to say that I shall be joining the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in thanking him for his appointment. I do not think it would be reasonable to expect me to say at this stage that I am not a lawyer or a member of the Bar. I am not a member of the Bar, but I am a member of the Royal Bar. I am thankful for the opportunity to be both a lawyer and a member of the Bar. I am grateful for the opportunity to be in the position of a member of the Bar. I am grateful for the opportunity to be in the position of a member of the Bar. I am grateful for the opportunity to be both a lawyer and a member of the Bar. I am grateful for the opportunity to be both a lawyer and a member of the Bar. I am grateful for the opportunity to be both a lawyer and a member of the Bar. I am grateful for the opportunity to be both a lawyer and a member of the Bar. I am grateful for the opportunity to be both a lawyer and a member of the Bar. I am grateful for the opportunity to be both a lawyer and a member of the Bar. I am grateful for the opportunity of being both a lawyer and a member of the Bar. I am grateful for the opportunity to be both a lawyer and a member of the Bar. I am grateful for the opportunity to be both a lawyer and a member of the Bar. I am grateful for the opportunity to be both a lawyer and a member of the Bar. I am grateful for the opportunity to be both a lawyer and a member of the Bar. I am grateful for the opportunity to be both a lawyer and a member of the Bar. I am grateful for the opportunity to be both a lawyer and a member of the Bar. I am grateful for the opportunity for me to be both a lawyer and a member of the Bar. I am grateful for the opportunity for me to be both a lawyer and a member of the Bar. I am grateful for the opportunity for me to be both a lawyer and a member of the Bar. I am grateful for the opportunity to be both a lawyer and a member of the Bar. I am grateful for the opportunity to be both a lawyer and a member of the Bar. I am grateful for the opportunity to be both a lawyer and a member of the Bar. I am grateful for the opportunity to be both a lawyer and a member of the Bar. I am grateful for the opportunity to be both a lawyer and a member of the Bar. I am grateful for the opportunity to be both a lawyer and a member of the Bar. I am grateful for the opportunity for me to be both a lawyer and a member of the Bar. I am grateful for the opportunity to be both a lawyer and a member of the Bar. I am grateful for the opportunity to be both a lawyer and a member of the Bar. I am grateful for the opportunity to be both a lawyer and a member of the Bar. I am grateful for the opportunity to be both a lawyer and a member of the Bar. I am grateful for the opportunity to be both a lawyer and a member of the Bar. I am grateful for the opportunity to be both a lawyer and a member of the Bar. I am grateful for the opportunity to be both a lawyer and a member of the Bar. I am grateful for the opportunity to be both a lawyer and a member of the Bar. I am grateful for the opportunity to be both a lawyer and a member of the Bar. I am grateful for the opportunity to be both a lawyer and a member of the Bar. I am grateful for the opportunity to be both a lawyer and a member of the Bar. I am grateful for the
====================
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, quite apart from the question of pay, there are many other matters which have to do with pay, including the prices at which the goods are purchased and the prices at which the payments are made?
====================
My Lords, I think it is a little complicated to try to justify every single thing that is done in the Ministry of Defence, but I think it is true that the Minister of Defence has some of the heaviest responsibilities in the Ministry of Defence. I have had some experience of a lot of these problems in the last few years, and I am not so sure that there is not some sense in the House in that I am trying to justify every single thing that is done in the Ministry of Defence.
====================
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that one of our major problems in the country is that people are living in slums, and that housing only makes a person less dignified and less able to live in his own home because the slums are full of people who live in them? Is the noble Lord further aware that one of our problems is that many of these slums are filled with people who are living in them? Can he tell us what the Government and the local authorities are doing to help that problem?
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention. I am sorry if my noble friend in charge of the Bill has been a little slow—I am sorry if I have not understood the noble Lord—because I suggested that I would like to have the support of the House when we have had one or two debates on it. However, I am not disappointed by the manner in which the noble Lord put his Amendment at the Dispatch Box. I should like to make it clear that I do not accept the Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
====================
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, is quite right. This is not a case of a local authority not picking up the tab. They are entitled to rebates, so they are entitled to rebates. But the fact is that a local authority is entitled to rebates, and they can rebate to the extent that they can show that they have taken steps to get it.
====================
My Lords, we have heard a number of interesting and insightful speeches from both the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Lord, Lord Cowley, but I feel that perhaps I may speak to two or three of the points that have been raised in this debate. First, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has raised the question of the future of broadcasting. He asked whether there was any possibility of a modicum of control over the programmes. My answer is yes. I do not think there is any reason why any company, whether it is owned by a company or by a company without a controlling interest, should not be given that licence. Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Cowley, raised the subject of the Broadcasting Bill. I am grateful for the opportunity he has taken to raise this matter. I regret that I am not in a position at the moment to bring forward a Bill, but I should be delighted to take advice from those who will be more able to do so. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cowley, for raising this matter. I would like to put one or two points to the noble Lord. The first is that I cannot guarantee that what the noble Lord is proposing is going to be produced but, as he knows, the programmes will be the subject of a competition. I am sure that the noble Lord will also know that, because there is a competition under the Broadcasting Act, the licence will cover all the programmes. In that case, the matter will not be a question of the licence or of the licence itself, but of the competition between the various companies. That is the kind of issue that we are discussing. I would like him to think again about it. Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, raised the question of the future of broadcasting. Again, I would like to reserve my position. I have this question to consider. The noble Lord, Lord Cowley, raised a number of points which are also related to the licence. I would not like to go into the exact details but I think that I should say again that this licence is really no licence at all. It is simply a licence for the carriage of a programme. So far as I know, no licence is required for the carriage of the programme. I have no need to give an answer about that. But I am sure the noble Lord will wish to look at the matter again.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I wish to add my congratulations to those that have already been made to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, on his maiden speech. It will be a pleasure to listen to the kindest, most reasonable and most persuasive speeches that he makes, and it will be a pleasure to listen to him on the Front Bench this evening. I do not know what the noble Lord's experience has been in this House, but I am sure he will recognise that the noble Lord is a most distinguished and responsible Member of this House. It would be a great mistake to suppose that he is a member of the Board of Trade. I know that he is not. I am sure that he has been a Member of another place for two or three years, and I am sure that he is not a member of the Board of Trade. The noble Lord is a most distinguished Member of this House, and I am sure that he will make a most useful contribution to the debate. I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, on his maiden speech. I hope that I may be forgiven for saying that the noble Lord never ceases to be a member of the Board of Trade. I know that he has a great deal to contribute to the debate, and I should like him to add his congratulations to my own during his contribution. I also wish to associate my own name with the congratulations of other Members of the House who are going to speak in this debate. I am not going to say a word about the record of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, because he is quite capable of providing a very good speech. As I have said, I wish to express a few words of my own. I think that we are all aware that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has a very distinguished record in this House. I am bound to say that I am always delighted when he has asked me for advice. He has done so twice in the past. We are not all in agreement about the record of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, but I should like to make the point that if he is going to be a member of the Board of Trade he will be a very good one indeed. He is a very distinguished Member of this House. He has served on many other Boards of Trade, and he has been a Member of another place. He is a very distinguished Member of another place. I am very glad to know that he is going to be a member of the Board of Trade. I should like to remind your Lordships that Sir John Chatterley, the Minister of State in the Ministry of Transport, has made it abundantly clear that he is a member of the Board of Trade, and I know that the whole House is quite grateful to Sir John for his services to the House in the past. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Chatterley, is not going to be a member of the Board of Trade. We are all bound to agree that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, is a very distinguished Member of this House. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Chatterley, is going to be a member of the Board of Trade. I think we are all well aware of the fact that he is a very distinguished Member of the House; and I hope that he will be a member of the Board of Trade. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Chatterley, whether he would not agree that the noble Lord, Lord Chatterley, is a Member of the Board of Trade? I should have thought that was a very good thing to say. I do not think there is a single Member of the House who has not been a Member of the Board of Trade; and I should certainly be the first to agree that the noble Lord, Lord Chatterley, is a very good Member of the House. So far as the position of the noble Lord, Lord Chatterley, is concerned, I should say that I consider that he is a rich man. I should have thought he was entitled to be treated in the same way as many other Members of your Lordships' House, and that he was not a poor man. I am sure he will be treated in the same way as other Members of the House. I had not intended to speak in this debate, and I have not something to say except to say that I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Chatterley, will make a useful contribution in this debate. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for the very useful remarks which he made on the subject of the transport budget, and also for the tribute which he paid to the fact that it was not only in the national interest that the Lord Chairman of Committees should be paid a very profound attention to the transport budget, but it was inevitable in the long run that it should have been in the national interest that he should carry out the very difficult duties of a Chairman of Committees. I am sure
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for the opportunity to speak from these Benches. We are grateful for the opportunity to discuss the merits of the amendment. I shall not detain the House by going through the reasons why we believe that it is necessary to make the amendment now. Instead, I will refer to the argument that has already been advanced on the matter at greater length than I expected, and I shall give some examples. I refer first to the lack of confidence that is contained in the Minister in the new arrangements. I refer first to the question of the problem of people being refused one of a number of medical conditions, such as epilepsy, Parkinson's disease or Alzheimer's disease. The Minister was asked, "Are you part of the new scheme?" At first blush, the answer was, "No". However, he was asked, "Are you part of the new scheme?" With the greatest possible courtesy, he said, "Yes". Why did he not say, "Yes"? Why did he not say, "Yes"? Why did he not say, "Yes"? Why did he not say, "Yes"? Why did he not say, "Yes"? Why did he not say, "Yes"? Why did he not say, "Yes"? Why did he not say, "Yes"? Why did he not say, "Yes"? Why did he not say "Yes"? Why did he not say, "Yes"? Why did he not say, "Yes"? Why did he not say, "Yes"? Why did he not say, "Yes"? Why did he not say, "Yes"? Why did he not say, "Yes"? Why did he not say, "Yes"?". Why did he not say, "Yes"? Why did he not say, "Yes"? Why did he not say, "Yes"? Why did he not say, "Yes"? Why did he not say, "Yes"; "Yes" was his answer? Why did he not say, "Yes"? Why did he not say, "Yes"? Why did he not say, "Yes"? Why did he not say, "Yes"? Why did he not say, "Yes"? Why did he not say, "Yes"? What about the fact that the Government are carrying on this scheme, and are doing the best they can with it? I suggest that the Minister should have said, "I am happy in the new scheme; I am not unhappy in the old". They are doing the best they can. Why did he not say the words, "No"? Why did he not say: "No"; "No"? Why did he say, "No"? Why did he not say, "No"? Why did he not say, "Yes"? Why did he not say, "Yes"; "No"? "No" is what is asked for. The Minister told the Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that he would like to see a new scheme. He said, "I will not say what it is". But he did so, and the new scheme is now appearing. What happens to the old scheme? What happens to the old scheme? It will be the same as the new scheme. It will be a new scheme. But what happens to the old scheme? What happens to the old scheme? It will be the same as the new scheme. The noble Lord raised the question as to whether the new scheme will be anything like the old scheme, and I would ask him to look at this. It has been given to him to look at. He will find that there are differences in the scheme. It is not a new scheme; it is a new scheme. It is not a new scheme for a new scheme; it is a new scheme for a new scheme. It is not new scheme for a new scheme. But it is a new scheme for different new schemes. For example, the new scheme is called the Parkinson's Disease Scheme. This has been introduced by the Government as a result of the announcement that they had been made. It was designed to deal with Parkinson's disease. It has now been extended to other diseases as well. But this is a new scheme and it is not a new scheme. It is a new scheme for a new scheme. My noble friend Lord Lucas has raised a very important point. He has asked why we have not had a press release. We have had one since the Bill came into the Commons. I believe that the press release is available. It is in the Library. I should like to know why we have not had a press release. I should like to know why we are not allowed to have a press release. I believe that the same question was raised in the previous debate. I do not know whether a press release is available, but I have the answer for him. I do not know how it is possible to have a press release, but I do not know how to get it. I should like to know why
====================
My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord is correct in the statement he has made. The statement is that the nationalisation of the coal industry is to be postponed until the end of the year. If that is the case, I think it is quite right that some things should be done now. I do not think that is a bad thing. If it is not, there is no reason why it should not be done.
====================
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, put his case in very persuasive terms. I can only say that I am as well informed as any of his speakers. I am not sure whether or not he was aware that the noble Lord, Lord Abinger, was born in the United Kingdom but I am sure that he has read my speech to-day. It was well made and I hope that it is to be read by the noble Lord. I hope that he will listen to it.
====================
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, is right in looking at the opportunities for the role of the previous Secretary of State. As I understand it, that is the purpose of the clause—namely, to ensure that the Secretary of State could not be a member of an an executive body " which he is not an elected member of. The implication of that is that he could not be a member of a body of which he was not an elected member. That is not an accurate picture. The noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, said that it was a question of the relationship between the Secretary of State and the executive body. The relationship between the Secretary of State and the executive body can be different. He is a member of the executive body and not necessarily a member of the body. He is not a member of the body because he is not an elected member. He is not a member of the body because he is not an elected member. He is a member of the body because he is a non-executive member. I think that that is a matter for its own committee. It is not a matter for your Lordships to decide.
====================
My Lords, we are now in Committee on the Motion that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
====================
My Lords, I have been asked by my noble friend whether he would consider placing a Question on this matter at a suitable time. I shall be glad to consider it.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer, which is most welcome. Will he take it from me that we have made progress on the matter? We are not opposed to the Bill but we are not sure whether we are moving swiftly enough. We are discussing the Bill. Is he content?
====================
On the last amendment that has been tabled, which is concerned with the mitigation of damages for breach of contract and in relation to what may happen to an award in respect of breach of contract, I do not think that I can say that the Secretary of State would have the power to take that action. That is the basis of the amendment. I do not know whether the Minister can clarify that.
====================
My Lords, if this amendment is accepted, does it mean that the determination of the terms and conditions of employment is still to be made by the National Council for Teachers, who will be set up by the Government?
====================
I understand the noble Lord, Lord Foot, to be referring to the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, which I am not sure whether I read correctly. I thought the amendments were in effect amendments to the amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, referred. I am not sure whether they were or not.
====================
My Lords, we have heard a good deal today. I was not aware of the noble Lord's intentions. Does he feel that the Government are right to take this matter more seriously than they are taking it at the moment?
====================
The noble Lord would like me to clarify the position. I am not sure whether it is an Amendment or a Bill. It would appear that the Bill makes no provision for a person to be eligible to use the telephone and the telephone will be used only by the person. Is this a clarification?
====================
<|startoftext|>moved Amendment No. 1: Page 32, line 8, at end insert— "( ) The Minister shall, if he considers it is appropriate, give a notice of the proposed transaction to the director of the National Union of Journalists.". The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene to make two points. The first relates to the powers of the director. That is the first point. The second relates to the power of the operator when the director is in the control of the broadcaster. The Minister's power is limited. He is allowed to intervene by means of a direction. I propose to come to this point on the next amendment. Therefore, I am not talking about a direction. I am talking about a direction by the director. The amendment refers to a direction from the director. I do not know whether the amendment is directed by the director or whether the amendment is a way of making the director give a direction. I am not giving a direction. I am giving a direction to give a direction to the director to provide an appropriate service.". The Minister said: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for his intervention. He raised the point that we have to look at this matter in the context of the Bill. I recognise that there are cases in which you have a commercial broadcaster and you do really want a licence. I am not suggesting that if you have a commercial broadcaster you should be placed under the control of the board. I am suggesting that it would be reasonable to give a licence to a commercial broadcaster. In the light of that, I am not suggesting that it would be reasonable to give a licence to a commercial broadcaster. I am suggesting that it is reasonable to give a licence to a commercial broadcaster. However, there are cases where you have a commercial broadcaster who does need a licence. I do not suggest that it is unreasonable to give a licence to a commercial broadcaster. I am not suggesting that the licence is unreasonable to give a licence. The noble Lord asked whether the licence was unreasonable. I think that it is. He asked whether it was unreasonable for the licensee to ask for it. It would not be unreasonable for the licensee. I am not suggesting that a license is unreasonable. The licence is a notification to the licensee that he will be required to comply with the licence. The noble Lord asked whether it was unreasonable for the licensee to ask for a licence. It is not unreasonable for the licensee to ask for a licence. I do not think that one should think that it is unreasonable to ask for a licence. The noble Lord asked whether it was reasonable for the licensee to ask for a licence. It is not unreasonable for the licensee. The licence is a notification of the licence requirement. The licence is a notification to the licensee that the licence will be required. The noble Lord asked whether it was reasonable for the licensee to ask for a licence. The licence is a notification to the licensee to inform him that he will be required to comply with the licence. The licensee is required to comply with the licence. He is required to comply with the licence. The licence is a notification to the licensee that he will be required to comply with the licence. The licence is a notification of the licensing requirement. I am not suggesting that it is unreasonable for the licensee to ask for a licence. The licence is a notification to the licensee that he will be required to comply with the licence. The licensee is required to comply with the licence. The licence is a notification to the licensee that he will be required to comply with the licence. I do not think that one should be unduly unreasonable in asking for a licence. It is not unreasonable for the licensee to ask for a licence. I do not think that the licence is unreasonable. I am not suggesting that the licence is unreasonable. I am suggesting that it is unreasonable to ask for a licence. The noble Lord asked whether it was unreasonable for the licensee to ask for a licence. That is not the way. I am not suggesting that the licence is unreasonable. The licence is a requirement that the licensee should comply with all of the requirements set out in the licence. I am not suggesting that the licence is unreasonable. The licence is a requirement that the licensee should comply with all the requirements set out in the licence. The licensee is not required to comply with all the requirements set out in the licence; he is required to comply with the licence. I do not think that the licence is unreasonable. It is a requirement that the licensee should comply with all the requirements set out in the licence. The licence is a requirement that the licensee should comply with the licence. The licensee is required to comply with the licence. The licence is a requirement that the licensee should comply with the licence. The licensee is required to comply with the licence. The licence is a requirement that the licensee should comply with the licence. The licence is a requirement to do all the things set out in the licence. The licence is a requirement that the licensee should comply with all the requirements
====================
My Lords, perhaps I could have the noble Viscount's assistance. I did not see in the Bill the words "for the purposes of the purpose of the Act of 1851", but I attempted to read the words in the Revised Statutes, and I think I understand them. I am still a little puzzled by the meaning of the phrase "for the purposes of the Act of 1851" when it is not in the Bill.
====================
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I think that the noble Lord deals with entirely other matters. I spoke to him about the financial position of the Government. I am not sure whether the noble Lord agreed with me that the Government were securing a sufficient financial position, but I am certain that the noble Lord accepts that the Government are not in a position to make an estimate of the future of the Government. It is not the Government's wish to have an estimate of their future, and I do not think it necessary to make such an estimate.
====================
I must say that I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, is wrong about that. It is the other way round.
====================
My Lords, certainly the noble Lord should be aware of the arrangements relating to the examination of the collateral documents. The one that I have in front of me is the one which I gave on the previous occasion. It is a note from the Director General of the CBI. The note states: "One of the main problems is the routine nature of the examination and the lack of an independent body to consider the collateral document. The industry's willingness to change the format of collateral documents is a matter of concern to industry and of particular concern to the CBI." The note continues: "The CBI recognises that a number of institutions have a crucial role to play in the development of collateral documents. The CBI has therefore been looking for another body to undertake the work of the banks and the other institutions which have such expertise as is available to them." There is another note from the noble Lord, Lord Geddes. The note states: "The CBI has not ruled out the possibility of a new body to consider the collateral documents, but it is not yet certain that it will be able to do so in the near future." There is another note from the former Minister of State, Sir Arthur Roberts, who says: "Most of the banks are aware that collateral documents are of very important interest in their investigations and are willing to take action to prevent the distortions of collateral documents." Another note from the Chief Executive Officer of the CBI, Mr. Chris Patten, says: "The CBI has no doubt that in the near future an independent body will be able to weigh up the collateral documents. It has therefore been looking for an independent body." In the last part of my speech, I referred to industrial relations. I was interested in the remark which the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, made about the lack of independent bodies. I wonder whether I can give him an example of a case in the South African economy in which an author or any editor of a newspaper who is not giving evidence is clumsily using his privilege to obtain a piece of information. I have a copy of the report of an inquiry which has been conducted by the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. The report states: "Evidence was received from the South African Government of the statement made by Mr. Achehill, Minister of State in the South African Government on the question of the publication of the evidence that was given by the South African Government to an inquiry under the Chairmanship of the Lord Chancellor in the United Kingdom, in South Africa at the South African High Court, Johannesburg, South Africa, on 8th November 1985, in which Mr. Achehill gave evidence in relation to the publication of the evidence of the accused. The committee therefore recommended that Mr. Achehill should not have been summoned for the evidence on the grounds that he was not a legal expert and was therefore unqualified to give it." The report goes on to state: "The committee therefore suggested that Mr. Achehill should not have been summoned for the evidence on the grounds that he was not a legal expert and was therefore unqualified to give it." The report also states: "The panel therefore recommended that the evidence should not have been given and that Mr. Achehill should be summoned for the evidence on the grounds that he was not a legal expert and was therefore unqualified to give it." The report goes on to state: "The company then proceeded to make a statement and the object is set out." I should have thought that that was a matter of considerable concern to the CBI. It states: "The CBI has therefore been looking for a new body to undertake the work of the banks and the other institutions which have such expertise as is available to them." And so it goes on until the last sentence. The report goes on to say: "The CBI has therefore been looking for an independent body to undertake the task." The CBI has not been looking for a new body to undertake the work, and I wonder whether there is any difference between the view of the CBI and the view of the Government. It is the case that the CBI has already done that and it is the Government who have not. The CBI is a body of people who are prepared to undertake that work. It is the Government who have not, and that is the reason why this matter has been raised.
====================
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for his intervention. I am sure that he will not expect me to comment on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, because I am not the first Minister to have spoken to him in this House. I have spent a great deal of my life in the City. It is not a matter for me. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, on his appearance. I am not sure whether it was the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, who made this point or whether it was the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, with whom I am now in agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, is the kind of person who, I think, would be a great asset to the City. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, say that he had not put his money where the Government did not know it. I do not think that any Member of this House would be proud of the City, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, would be. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, to the Government and wish him every success with this Bill.
====================
As I said, I am afraid I cannot add to the words of my noble friend Lady Young. I have tried to read the whole of the Bill. I am advised by the Law Society that it is not necessary to introduce the requirement to include an auditor's report. That is a matter for the Board of Trade and the Bar Council. The Government are not going to accept the amendment, but I am not going to press the amendments.
====================
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am sure that the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for having brought this Motion to us. I find it an extremely fine example of how the Government are taking a long-standing view which is shared by many other people. I am sure that the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for putting down the Motion, and for the opportunity to bring it forward. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has brought forward a Motion that this country should be treated as a unitary state and that the structure of its relations with other parts of the world should be constructed from the beginning according to the principles of international co-operation, and that the value of this co-operation should continue to be the safeguard of the people of this country. I have the honour of being one of the last speakers in this debate, and I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for having introduced it. I am sure that he will take the opportunity to study it with the greatest possible care and attention. I am sure that he will also study the reasons for this Motion. I am sorry that we are not in a position to be able to move the Motion; it is a matter that we discussed in the other place, and I am sure he will take the opportunity of studying the reasons why we are not in a position to move the Motion. I am sure that he will take the opportunity of studying in detail the reasons why we are not in a position to move the Motion. I beg the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, to consider the Motion, and to express the hope that he will be able to bring it forward.
====================
My Lords, I apologise for not having been present during the course of the debate, but I heard the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, refer to the fact that the cost of administering the facilities in the hospital was so great that it was necessary to make it payable in advance. I also heard him refer to the fact that the hospital was in a very bad form, as it had to be made to work, and it had to be made to work in order to get the money. I should like to ask him to consider that point.
====================
I am sure the noble Lord will agree that in principle the Government's position is that the Bill is a good one, but, as he indicated, we are considering it at the moment and will be taking it to the Committee stage. I am sure he will agree that that is a very reasonable suggestion. I should like to ask the noble Lord to bear in mind the paper which was published on the subject by Sir Michael Mayhew, the Prime Minister's then staff officer. The noble Lord mentioned in his introductory remarks that he had had discussions with the Minister of State for Defence and, as the noble Lord will know, he is not able to comment on the matter.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to make a Statement about the future of the Commonwealth Development Corporation. I will, of course, write a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, explaining the reasons for the Government's decision. I shall also make a Statement on the preparation of the Commonwealth Development Corporation's report. In the meantime, I am sure that the House will wish me to repeat what I have said. It is the Government's intention to put the Commonwealth Development Corporation Fund into full operation in 1960, and the Government are therefore considering the possibility of a voluntary arrangement between the Commonwealth Development Corporation and the Commonwealth Development Commission in order to enable the Commonwealth Development Corporation to concentrate on science and research as well as on the administrative and financial problems of the Commonwealth. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, asked about the position of the Strategic Energy Development Corporation. I have no doubt that the noble Lord will wish to know, or that he will understand, when he reads the correspondence which I have sent to him, and I shall write to him with the information. I hope that he will find it helpful when I have answered his questions. The noble Lord also asked me a number of questions about the gap between the Commonwealth Development Corporation and the Commonwealth Development Commission. The position is that the Commonwealth Development Commission, as the noble Lord will be aware, has the responsibility for Commonwealth science and technology. The balance between the two is not actually very great. The noble Lord asked me about the position of the Strategic Energy Development Corporation and the Commonwealth Development Commission. The position is that the Commonwealth Development Commission are responsible for Commonwealth science and technology, and the Commonwealth Development Corporation are responsible for Commonwealth development. The position is that the Commonwealth Development Commission are responsible for Commonwealth research and development, and the Commonwealth Development Corporation are responsible for Commonwealth development. In the short period since I came to power, the position is that the Commonwealth Development Commission have the responsibility for science and technology, the Commonwealth Development Corporation have the responsibility for research and development. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, asked me about the development of the Commonwealth. I am able to tell him that the Commonwealth Development Commission have agreed to a framework agreement with the Commonwealth Development Corporation which will enable the Commonwealth Development Corporation to concentrate on science and technology and the Commonwealth to concentrate on science and development. The noble Lord also asked me about the position of the Commonwealth Development Commission and the Commonwealth Development Commission. The position is that the Commonwealth Development Commission are responsible for Commonwealth science and technology, and the Commonwealth Development Corporation are responsible for Commonwealth development. The position is that the Commonwealth Development Commission are responsible for Commonwealth research and development, and the Commonwealth Development Corporation are responsible for Commonwealth development. The noble Lord asked me about the position of the Strategic Energy Development Corporation. The position is that the Strategic Energy Development Corporation, as the noble Lord will be aware, is responsible for Commonwealth science and technology, and the Commonwealth Development Commission are responsible for Commonwealth development. The position is that the Commonwealth Development Commission are responsible for Commonwealth research and development, and the Commonwealth Development Corporation are responsible for Commonwealth development. The noble Lord asked me about the position of the Commonwealth Development Commission. The position is that the Commonwealth Development Commission are responsible for Commonwealth science and technology, and the Commonwealth Development Corporation are responsible for Commonwealth development. The position is that the Commonwealth Development Commission are responsible for Commonwealth research and development, and the Commonwealth Development Corporation for Commonwealth development. The noble Lord asked me about the position of the Commonwealth Development Commission and the Commonwealth Development Commission. The position is that the Commonwealth Development Commission are responsible for Commonwealth science and technology, and the Commonwealth Development Commission are responsible for Commonwealth development. The position is that the Commonwealth Development Commission are responsible for Commonwealth research and development, and the Commonwealth Development Commission for Commonwealth development. The noble Lord asked me about the position of the Commonwealth Development Commission and the Commonwealth Development Commission. The position is that the Commonwealth Development Commission are responsible for Commonwealth research and development, and the Commonwealth Development Commission for Commonwealth development. The position is that the Commonwealth Development Commission are responsible for Commonwealth research and development, and the Commonwealth Development Commission for Commonwealth development. The noble Lord asked me about the position of the Commonwealth Development Commission and the Commonwealth Development Commission. I am afraid that I am not able to give him the answer he seeks. He will be the first to welcome the fact that we are a Commonwealth organization. I am afraid that I cannot answer the points he asked me about the Commonwealth Development Corporation. I should not be the first to send him a copy of my letter of May 11, which we shall in due course wish to submit, but I will seek to tell him as soon as possible what I have said. I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, and what the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, said about the Commonwealth. I am sure that he will agree that the Commonwealth is a wonderful example of trade which should not be diluted by any other. It is extraordinary
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, for raising this matter. I do not wish to press the matter to a Division, but I should like to put a Question to the Minister. Is the Government aware of the growing number of children who are exclusively dependent on the State for food, clothing, shelter, school meals, school books and so on? What I am asking is whether they are aware that many of these children are not in need of food, shelter, books or even books. I think that the Government are responsible for many of these children. There are a number of the reasons why the amount of money being spent on education is diminishing and not increasing, and even the amount of money that is being spent on the NHS is diminishing. You have to spend more money on the NHS than the other side of the House spends. I turn now to the question of the importance of introducing a child benefit and the extent to which the child benefit is being cut. I repeat what the Minister said on 12th March. I am not sure whether it is the case that the child benefit is being cut—I do not know whether it is; I am not sure. I welcome the fact that it is being reduced. It is a fact that if there are cuts, there are cuts. I hope that the Minister will say that the cuts are being made without any pressure being put on the Government. I do not know what the Government intend to do about it. I am not sure that it is a matter for me. I do not know what the Government intend to do. I think that the Child Support Agency is doing a good job given the support of the Chancellor. I think we should take it back to see what is going on. I beg the Minister to take it back and see how it is doing so far. It is now 12th March. I am not sure whether the cuts took place as a result of the Budget or whether the cuts took place because of the Budget. The cuts were made to the Child Support Agency. It seems as if the cuts were made to the Child Support Agency. I am not sure. I should like to put a question to the Minister and to ask whether it is not a fact that the Child Support Agency has been cut by the cuts.
====================
I am not sure whether the noble Lord has made that clear in his amendment or whether I misunderstood him. I was trying to refer to the word "prevent" and not "prevent the execution of a scheme". I am not sure about the same word.
====================
My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to the Minister for his reply. I am not sure from the wording of the Question that he could give the answer that the Government are in favour of the amendment. Is the noble Baroness aware that the Government are opposed to this amendment because they do not think that it is necessary? The amendment is necessary because no one has ever argued for the amendment. It is not a question of whether the amendment is good or bad. It is a question of whether, in the light of experience, it can be improved. That is why I have raised the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
====================
I am just trying to get some clarification about the noble Lord's last point. I am sure that he is right in saying that the provision may not be on the face of the Bill. If it is, then I am sure that the noble Lord will tell me what it means.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful for the very careful way in which the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howell, has put this Motion forward. It is my first duty to say how much I am grateful for his warm reception of the Motion. I am also grateful to him for having introduced it. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that it is on the condition of the Government that the Motion should be carried, because it is clear that it is no use having a Motion that does not carry the day if the Government have a majority as well as a majority in the other place. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howell, will agree that. I am also grateful to him for the way in which he has introduced the Motion and for the way in which he has dealt with the matter in his very comprehensive way. I am sure that we all hope that the usual channels will not treat the Motion with any slight inferences and should accept it without a Division. I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am sure that we all hope that the usual channels will not treat the Motion with any inferences and should accept it without a Division.
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for describing what has come from the recent Statement. I should like to ask him whether he is aware that the Unionist Party, in its manifesto for the forthcoming General Election, envisages a referendum to be held before the end of this year? Will he confirm that that is the position?
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I shall, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Statement is as follows: "My Lords, I should like to make a Statement about the Government's intentions. This is a very important issue in respect of Scotland. It affects the rights and responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament and the Assembly. "Before I make my Statement I should like to explain the Government's position. The Scottish Parliament is to be dissolved on 1st March 1972. This is a very important issue for the future of Scotland. I have already said that the Scottish Parliament will be dissolved on 1st March 1972 and that the Assembly will be dissolved on 1st March 1973. I also explained that the Assembly will be dissolved on 1st March 1974. "I am glad to be able to announce now that the Scottish Parliament will be dissolved on 1st March 1972. "The Scottish assembly will consist of elected members of the Scottish Parliament and of the Scottish Assembly. The Assembly will be a single assembly, consisting of a chairman of the Scottish Parliament, a most senior member of each of the Scottish Houses of Parliament, and a deputy chairman of the Scottish Assembly. The Assembly will consist of elected members of the Scottish Assembly and of the Scottish Assembly. The Scottish Assembly will consist of elected members of the Scottish Parliament. The member of the Scottish Secretary will be appointed by the Scottish Assembly. As a result of the dissolution of the Scottish Assembly, the Scottish Assembly will no longer function. It will be required to stand as a single assembly. "The Assembly will be restored to powers and functions in 1972. It will be required to work as a single body. The Scottish Assembly will continue to be the main legislative body. I have no plans to dissolve the Assembly. However, I am proposing to dissolve the Assembly on 1st March 1972. It will then remain a single body. "The Assembly is not to be dissolved still later than 1st March 1972. This is a matter for the Scottish parliament and the Scottish Assembly. The Assembly will continue to have powers and functions, as now, until 1st March 1972. The Scottish Assembly will be dissolved on 1st March 1972. I am not sure that the Scottish Assembly will be dissolved on 1st March 1973. However, I am proposing to dissolve the Assembly on 1st March 1974. The Assembly will be dissolved on 1st March 1972. "I should like to say a word about the future of the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Assembly will be dissolved on 1st March 1972. Before this happens, I shall make a statement about the future of the Scottish Parliament. This is a very important matter for the future of Scotland. I have made it clear that the Scottish Parliament will be dissolved on 1st March 1972 and that the Assembly will be dissolved on 1st March 1973. The Assembly will be dissolved on 1st March 1974 and the Scottish Assembly will be dissolved on 1st March 1974. "This is a very important matter for the future of Scotland. The Assembly will be dissolved on 1st March 1972 and the Scottish Assembly will be dissolved on 1st March 1973. The Assembly will then continue to function as the main legislative body. The Scottish Assembly will now be the main legislative body. I am not sure that the Assembly will continue to function as a single body, as it did before 1st March 1972. I should like to make it clear that the Scottish Assembly will continue to function as a single body until 1st March 1972. I have no plans to dissolve the Assembly on 1st March 1974. However, I have made it clear that the Assembly will be dissolved on 1st March 1974. The Assembly will now be the main legislative body. I have made it clear that the Assembly will be dissolved on 1st March 1974. The Assembly will then function as the main legislative body. I should like to make it clear that the removal of the Scottish Assembly—which I have already proposed—will not in any way be a break-up of the constitutional structure of the Scottish Parliament. It will be for the Assembly to decide whether or not to dissolve. I am now proposing to make it clear that the Assembly will continue to function as the main legislative body until 1st March 1972, and that the Assembly will not be dissolved on 1st March 1973. I should like to make it clear that the Assembly will be dissolved on 1st March 1972. "The Scottish Parliament will remain in existence. The Scottish Assembly will continue to function as a single body until 1st March 1972. The Assembly will continue to be the main legislative body. "I should like to make it clear that the Government have no intention of disbanding the Scottish Parliament, or of removing the Scottish Commons. The Government have made clear that they will not disband the Scottish parliament. I am confident that all of the parties in the Scottish Parliament will continue to be in agreement. I do not believe that this point should be stressed too strongly. The Government's intentions
====================
My Lords, I am delighted to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, who is a friend of mine and a member of the Select Committee. I also hope that the noble Lord will convey to the Minister's right honourable friend the support of the Select Committee. It is essential that, when he replies, he will not be so dismissive as to treat the amendments negatively. I am quite sure that, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has said, the amendment would add a great deal of speed to the process. I shall read carefully what the Minister has said and I am sure that when he comes to reply we shall also be able to deal with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's intervention and for his clear explanation of the matter. He did not take the argument away from him that the clauses were, in his words, "unnecessary" in the sense that the Government were considering them in a spirit of "fiddling". He is not. The fact that the Government are considering them is a matter for the House to decide. That is what the Government are thinking about. Will the Minister say at this stage, as he has said in the past, that his view is that the Bill is unnecessary?
====================
My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton in what he has just said. I am sure that it is true that the increase in the amount of revenue that is available to local authorities is mainly due to higher rates, but that is a different question. The question of the amount of revenue that is available for the local authorities is a different question altogether.
====================
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has fallen behind some of the other speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, has done a very good job. I know that I am not alone in the Committee in welcoming this amendment, but I should like to say that I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, has done. I am quite confident that he has done his best to get this right, but he is not the kind of expert that one can rely on in the case of a proposed Bill. He is a little more of a layman and he does not understand all the problems that arise. I am sure that if he had had the chance I would be sitting in his place. The amendment is to be welcomed, but it is important to remember that the Bill is an attempt to deal with the problem of the national park. It is important, therefore, to remember that the amendment is not about the national park. My noble friend Lord Carmichael will make a good case for the amendment, but it is important to remember that the national park is not a national park. I beg noble Lords to not consider the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am sure the House will agree that the most important feature of the amendments is one which, although I am not qualified to speak on it, concerns the final. I shall not say whether I am qualified to speak on the last, because I am not a lawyer, but I am a Member of Parliament and I have played a Member of Parliament for many years. The amendments are concerned with the final. I have two points to make on this matter. The first concerns the point that in the last few years there has been a very great deal of confusion on this issue. It is not a question of if there is confusion; it is a question of when it has occurred. At the time the first bill was introduced, it was not possible to say that the first child was in a home. That was the first step. But now it is clear that it is not possible to say that that first child is in a home. It is now very difficult to say that it is in a home. I believe that the Government have taken a very good decision in this matter. I was very glad to hear my noble friend Lord Renfrew say that he thought that he was going to vote for the amendment because he thought that it might be a step towards a reduction of the number of children in care. I am not sure that that is what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said. Quite clearly, it is not a matter of the number of children in care, it is a matter of the number of people in care. I believe that the best answer to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is that we are now going to bring in a Bill to enable this to happen. I am not sure what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, meant by the word "best". The second point concerns the fact that the first child is in a home now; the second is not. I would have thought that the second was in a home, and that the first was in a home, which would be the kind of position that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is seeking to redress. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
====================
My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. It is a pity that he was not here, but I think he is probably the only one on the Opposition Benches who has not got a great deal of experience in this House. I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Dedham, speak on the subject of Coal, and I have listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. I am sorry that he is not here, but I hope he will excuse me for not being here.
====================
I am not. I am not a fan of the noble Lord.
====================
I certainly have not lost my faith, and I am grateful for it. I am only sorry that the noble Baroness has not been able to hear me, because I do not think I ought to bring up matters about which I am not entirely certain. However, I should like to say how much I appreciate the interest that the authors of the report have taken in the matter. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that the kind of questions that have been raised here are relevant to the matter of the National Health Service.
====================
My Lords, I am just coming on to some of the points which have been raised. I am sorry to have to try to repeat myself, but I should like to remind your Lordships that the Bill as it now stands is a small Bill, and it may be that the amendment, though it is significant, will not form part of the Bill. I am afraid that it is a small Bill, and it is necessary to write in a small Bill. I should like to say from these Benches that I am not sure I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peddle, and I hope, as I said on Second Reading, that I shall be able to see what he has to say. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Peddle, is not in his place at the moment. I hope I am not misinterpreting him, because I have not been in my place very long. At the moment, I hope he will take it that I do not agree with him.
====================
My Lords, I do not know a great many of these people, because they are not all in my house. But I know about a few of them, and they are beginning to go through a form of society—I think in the United States—where they are becoming a little bit old and not feeling that they are getting a fair deal. If they are not going to have anything to do with their own livelihood, they do not want to be forced to work for a living, and they do not want to die. Therefore, we do not need this Bill. The whole object of this Bill is to give them something that they want, and then they will be able to do something about it. It is not that they have no wish to work. It is that they have the will to work, and the will to earn a living. It is a wholly different kind of job for the man who makes a living, and I would ask my noble friend a question. He has asked me about a certain number of people who are among the small number of people who will be eligible for benefit under the Bill. I should like to know the figure, because I have not seen it. I should like to know if the figure is £3,000.
====================
My Lords, we are not entirely clear whether the amendment does not refer to Clause 7(5)(b). The clause states, "there shall of such order be made as may be made by the court." When its words were moved at Second Reading, the Minister said, "I have clarification on that point. I apologise for the delay". So I am slightly confused. I do not wish to press the amendment but I shall study what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
====================
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount, but I have only just secured permission to speak. It is not necessary to say that the noble Viscount is ungrateful to me for a favour. I am sorry about that. I am not ungrateful to him for a favour. I am sorry that he is not also ungrateful to the other place.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for his kind remarks about my absence. I am sorry that I was not here when he spoke to the Motion. It is a matter for consideration. I am in the process of setting up an inquiry, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, will be right in saying that the inquiry will be chaired by a former Minister of State at the Home Office, Mr. Lloyd of Berwick, who, as we have heard, is a former Leader of the House, and who has been a Member of this House for the last ten years. It would be quite wrong for me to say that I should not be here, because I am here to-day. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, referred to the fact that there were at the time of the last war a number of Committees which dealt with the problems of public opinion. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, will be the chairman of the new inquiry, and I hope he will be here.
====================
My Lords, I am sure the House will agree that the most important of the many questions raised by my noble friend was raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester. I am sure that all the Ministers in all parts of the House will agree that the most important, although they have been relatively quiet during the past few months, are the Government's present position in regard to the issue of BSE, and the question of whether the Government have enough evidence to justify a move towards a Federal solution. I am sure that this is a matter of very great concern to the House. I am sure that it has been discussed in another place and has been raised in this House many times. No one can pretend that the Government have not made a point of this. They have not been in a position, when asked for evidence, to produce it. I would ask the House to consider this. We are in a position now, and so far as concerns the first part of my noble friend's Question, to examine the very difficult and delicate situation which exists in the Balkans. I therefore ask the House to give me the opportunity of answering the two questions asked by my noble friend. First, has the Government any information about the Greek Government's position on the issue of BSE? Secondly, is the House aware that the Greek Government have made a statement which will be published in the Greek Press shortly?
====================
I should like to support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, is a leading advocate of this Amendment, but I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that there is a very large number of companies which are now going to be in a position to make a claim to be in a position to get their profits. It is a very small number, but it is a very large proportion of the valuable companies which are going to be in the position of being able to make a claim to be in a position to take advantage of the regulations. The fact is that the large companies are going to be in a position to make a claim, when they are in a position to do so, for the in-principle benefits and benefits which are conferred on them by the regulations. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am quite happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I joined in the noble Lord's congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, on his maiden speech. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Renton, on his maiden speech. I should like to say that I am a huge fan of his and I hope he will continue to be so. I shall say nothing further about my noble friend's maiden speech. I am sure that I speak for all of your Lordships when I say that I, too, am a huge fan of his. I am sure that he has a vision and a plan of how to reach it. I am sure that he has a vision of what we need to do to move forward. I am also a huge fan of his vision for the future as he has a vision of the future as a whole. I am sure that he had a vision of the future as a whole. I am also a huge fan of his vision of the future as a whole. We have had a great deal of the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. It was very worth while listening. It was also worth doing. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked me this question. It is worth asking. I am sure that we shall have a great deal of further discussion on this matter. My noble friend the Leader of the House raised a very important and important point, which I think he has mentioned already. I am sure that we shall have a great deal of discussion on it. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, asked me the question, which I answered, that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, had put down a Motion to bring this Motion before the House. The noble Earl said, "Co-operation", which in itself is the last word. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, will find it interesting to know that I have already told him that I was going to ask him to withdraw his Motion. I am certain that he will find that my noble friend the Leader of the House will he most interested in his reply. I am also aware that he has put down a Motion to bring this Motion before the House. I am sure that we shall have discussions on that matter. There are still a great many questions left for me to answer. I should like to mention the speech of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. He made a very fine speech and I admired his speech. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that he has set out a very clear plan for the future of this House. He has put it forward in a most attractive form, which I hope will appeal to all of your Lordships. I think we all agree that he is a most admirable person. I am sure that he will find it very difficult to get a paper of this kind in the Library. I hope that my noble friend will find it very difficult to get a paper of a similar kind in the Library. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon will find it very difficult to get a paper of this kind in the Library. I mention the fact that he has put down a Motion and I hope he will find his way to it. I do not know whether he has, or has not, a copy of the Motion. I am not sure whether it is attached to the Motion, but I would assume that it is sitting in his Library, or may have been. I should like to suggest that he may make his own copy of it and bring it to the Library and then we shall have a better chance of discussing it.
====================
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
====================
My Lords, I do not think I am alone in being a little alarmed by the Government's decision to withdraw the suffrage from the first and second cousins of the first and second cousins of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham. I think that the Government are aware of the importance of this question. I think they should have made clear the position as it is. The noble Lord has explained it quite clearly, and I hope your Lordships will give him the support of your Lordships' House.
====================
My Lords, I hope I did not interrupt the noble Lord.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene. I am not quite sure what the Minister meant about the effect of the amendment on the private sector. It is clear that the private sector will be interested in the outcome of the review, but the question of how it will be consulted will be relevant. I am not sure whether the Minister has seen the amendment. I should be grateful if she could explain.
====================
My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether he would give way for one moment to the observation that he has made and to move that the debate be adjourned.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for giving me the opportunity to speak today. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise some very important issues, both in terms of the value of the existing welfare state and in terms of the future welfare state. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that the present welfare state is a dangerous condition for the nation. There has been a huge increase in the number of people aged 65 and over, which is a new phenomenon. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and some noble Lords said that over the past few years we have seen a dramatic deterioration in the social fabric of this country. Many of us feel that the welfare state is a dangerous condition for the nation. There is a danger of a general crisis of this nature in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, asked whether the welfare state is a dangerous condition for the nation. I believe that none of us would dispute that. We have seen a massive increase in the number of people in the welfare state for the past 20 years. People have been living in misery. They are sick, lonely, frustrated and depressed and unable to work. They are also a cause of the problems in housing and housing problems. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, asked whether the welfare state is a dangerous condition for the nation. I believe that that is the wrong question. I believe that the welfare state is a condition for the nation. It is not a condition for the benefit of the nation. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, asked whether I had made up my mind and whether I was ready to go along with the Labour Party on everything. I do not believe that I am. I am not prepared to go along with the Labour Party on everything. I believe that the welfare state is a condition for the nation. While the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, does not agree with me, I believe he has made the same point as I have made. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for giving us the opportunity to discuss the present welfare state. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for giving me the opportunity to raise some very important questions. We have had a good debate. I think that we have heard a good debate. I am glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, say that the Government are prepared to look at the whole welfare system in this country. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I believe that we are in a position now to consider the welfare state of this country. We have a certain amount of experience of that in the past 20 years. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, asked me a number of questions. I said that I would not undertake a detailed examination of the welfare state. I am not prepared to do that yet. However, I would like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, whether he would like to raise a number of detailed points on the welfare state. I do not think that I can answer every point raised in your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. However, I can give the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, an idea of how I would look at the welfare state. He asked me whether I could consider it. I would consider it very carefully. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, asked about the number of people in the welfare state. I think that the truth is that I do not know the answer to that question. I do not know the answer to that question. I have not had the opportunity to look at it in detail. I have read and re-read the debate in the other place. I have read the comments of some of the speakers, particularly my noble friend Lord Houghton, and I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, speak. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Houghton is a socialist or not. I do not know. However, I think I know what a welfare state is. I know that it is a condition for the benefit of the nation. I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has that in his mind. Perhaps I may quote a quotation from the last speaker, Lord Brockway. He said: "The welfare state is a condition for the welfare of the nation". That is the crux of the debate. I believe that the welfare state is a condition for the welfare of the nation. I do not know whether the noble Lord is a Socialist or not; I am not sure. However, I think he is a Socialist. He said that he would like to see that the welfare state is a condition for the welfare of the nation. I believe that that is the crux of the debate. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, was in the Labour Party. I do not
====================
My Lords, I think I am right in saying that it is not possible to estimate the size of the impact for a particular year on the cost of the programme. The noble Lord is right in saying that it would depend on the relative priorities for each year. On the other hand, I believe that it is a matter of some confidence in the Secretary of State's judgement as regards the likely costs of the programme.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's response. I note that he is aware that the previous government (Minority) refused a second round of an inquiry to the PHS at the very outset of the inquiry, which is the reasonable expectation that the Government expect in the light of the political circumstances at the time. I am not sure that the Minister is aware that the new inquiry recommended by his successor is an inquiry which has resolved this matter in a way that has satisfied everyone. I do not know that the Minister has a clear idea of how the inquiry is to be conducted. I also do not know that he can say on the face of the Bill what the inquiry will do. We have an opportunity in the Bill to have the Minister give us an assurance that the purpose of the inquiry is to publicise and to promote the type of care that we need and that is the best available to patients. We have had this with the Royal National Institute for the Blind recently. I am not sure that the Minister can give an assurance that the purpose of the inquiry will be the promotion of health care. The Minister is saying that it will not be the promotion of health care, but I do not know whether he thinks that "health care" in the context of the Bill means health care in the sense that we have in the past been told that it means health care. I do not know whether he can give an assurance that it will not be the promotion of health care.
====================
My Lords, as the Minister is aware, the occupation of the field is not recognised by the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1985. In addition, it is not recognised by the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1985, which the Minister will have the power to alter, and it is not recognised by the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1985, which the Minister will have the power to alter. Therefore, the Minister is not in a position to change the occupation of the field.
====================
Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, could put his question more clearly. The clause, ''That the following Act shall come into force on the day appointed by the Lord President of the Council for the purpose of this Act and that the Act shall not come into force on the day appointed by the Lord President of the Council for the purpose of the Act, and that it shall not come into force until the Act has been approved by the Parliament of Great Britain and the Act has been laid before Parliament for the purposes of this Act and that the Act shall not come into force on the day appointed by the Lord President of the Council for the purposes of this Act" does not refer to the Act of the Lord President of the Council for the purposes of this Act because it refers to the Act of the Lord President of the Council for the purposes of the Act of the House of Lords. Therefore, there is nothing to prevent the existence of this Act. It is simply a point to be considered.
====================
My Lords, as my noble friend said, this is a matter of public interest. I am sure that this would be the case if the Bill were passed. I hope that the Government will feel that it is a matter of public interest. I do not think that the way in which the Bill is drafted is the way it should be drafted. This is a matter of absolute public interest. I hope that the Government will consider it, because this is a matter of public interest. I am sure that the noble Lord who has the responsibility for this Bill, will consider it carefully and will see that it is not passed.
====================
I am sure that I have my noble friend's agreement. My concern is that this is a different set of words, but I am not sure that it is. The reason why I put that on the face of the Bill is that if this were a case where the judge was required to set aside the appeal panel without the absence of the conduct of the deceased or if there were a requirement on the panel to make a recommendation that the applicant should have been heard, this would be a way of ensuring that the deceased were heard and that the conduct of the deceased was properly considered.
====================
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. I should like to thank my noble friend and all those who have taken part in the debate for his support of the Bill. At a recent public conference, the Minister of State at the Home Office, Mr. Bruce, indicated that he would like to see a Bill introduced into Parliament in the near future to allow disabled people to live in their own homes because they would be very grateful if they could afford to do so. The Bill is in my own constituency and has been introduced in a measure which was also introduced by the previous Government. I am grateful to my noble friend for his support.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for having raised this important question. I am not sure that I can accept the logic of the argument which has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, but I can say, as I have said on many previous occasions, that you can have a reasonable degree of confidence in a Minister of Housing and Local Government. The Minister of Housing and Local Government has been a distinguished member of the local government service. I am certain that we all admire his commitment to the public services. We know that he is a diligent servant of the public interest, and it would be no surprise if he were forced out of office at any time. I am not sure that I can accept the argument which has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I am a little surprised by his suggestion that I was wrong and that he said the Government were right. I am not sure that I can accept that either. The noble Lord has said that I was wrong about the figures. I can only say that I read everything he said with great care. I have read it in the Library. I refer to the figures I have used and the figures which look at the figure I quoted. The noble Lord has said that the figures show that I was wrong. I think the figures show that I was right. I think that the figures are of great interest. I tell him that many of us who have been in local government know the figures. We know the statistics as well as do his friends on the other side. I say that quite frankly. I cannot accept the argument. The noble Lord has said that the figures show that the Government were wrong. I can only say that I was wrong. I will read his speech with the utmost care. If I have misunderstood him I shall bring it to his attention. I hope that when he hears my argument he will have to deal with it.
====================
My Lords, perhaps I may say a word or two in response to the noble Lord. I am not sure that I am entirely clear about this matter. I am advised that the amendment is being tabled for the purpose of clarification. I was not informed of the Motion formally tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, which I am now asking to be withdrawn. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, was not speaking for himself, or whether I was speaking for the Opposition. I do not know what the noble Lord was intending to say, but I will certainly look into it. I should like to suggest to the noble Lord that he withdraws.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for his support for this Amendment. I hope the noble Lord is aware that the Government have quite recently made representations to the National Association of Airports, and it is hoped that the associations will make representations to the Airports Advisory Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has asked me to say a word or two about the Amendment. I am afraid that it is the duty of the Minister to correct an error, but I am sure he will agree that there is a great deal of public interest in this. I can assure him that it is a matter of public concern. I do not think it would help the House if I made any statement about it. I do not think it would help the House if I were to outline to the House the position as it is now. The noble Lord asked me to give some indication of the Government's attitude, and I will do that. The noble Lord asked me to say something about the position as it is at the moment. It is because we have had to take these steps that we are now proposing this Amendment, and on the basis of the suggestion of the Transport Advisory Committee that it is not necessary for this to be done at all. The noble Lord asked me to say that we are in favour of the Amendment, and that we are prepared to come back on this at a later stage. I am afraid that, in the circumstances, I am unable to do so. I think it would be right for me to say that the Government are in favour of the Amendment. I want to make it clear that this is a general Amendment. It comes on the Statute Book, and it will be dealt with in a different way from the Airport Commissioners' Amendment. I am not sure that I would expect the noble Lord to make a long speech on it. The noble Lord asked me to leave the matter there, and I am sorry he has gone on to ask me to deal with it. The noble Lord asked me to say that the Amendment was not intended to deal with the Airport Commissioners' Amendment, but to deal with the Amendment which he has put up. I am not sure that this would be appropriate, because the Amendment is merely a drafting Amendment. I am advised that it is a better Amendment than that before the Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, sat. I can assure him, in the interests of the House, that these discussions are under way, and we will bring forward a comprehensive Amendment at a later stage. I am sorry that the noble Lord has taken this view, but I think it is perfectly readily explained to him. The noble Lord said that the Amendment was intended to deal with a misunderstanding, but it is really unnecessary. This Amendment is intended to deal with a misunderstanding, as it has been for many years. It is the intention of the Government to take these steps for the avoidance of the danger which I have described.
====================
Can the noble Lord clarify the issue? Do the Government intend to use the powers in Clause 1(2)(e) to provide assistance to the country at large?
====================
I am sorry if the noble Lord is not in a position to answer now, but I am sure we should receive his full reply. I do not want to detain the Committee any longer, but I believe that the noble Lord has said that he would be glad to look again at the point which the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, made. I would have hoped that the noble Lord would have been able to reply to the point. I am not sure that he has been able to do so, but I am sure he will. I am not sure whether he has been able to reply to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, and by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence. I will certainly look into the point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
====================
I am sorry if I said anything; I thought I was in a loose sense. I did not say that the "agreement" was in writing. I was merely asking the Minister whether that was not the case. Perhaps I became confused. I thought that the "agreement" was in writing. I have no reason why the "agreement" should not be in writing. I am not concerned with the word "agreement". I am concerned with the words "agreement", referring to something else. I am certain that the words "agreement" would not include those words "agreement" and "major" which are included in Clause 1(2)(a). The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that there should be no right of appeal against the cancellation of the contract. The clause states: "The decision of the Council not to proceed with the contract shall not affect the right of any person or body to sue in the High Court". That is not set out in the Bill. It is not? I know that the clause says that if a contract is cancelled "the right to sue in the High Court". but it does not say what the right of a person to sue is. The clause states that the "contract", in the words of subsection (7) of the clause, "shall be cancelled". What is the right of a person to sue in the High Court? I have a feeling that that is not set out in the Bill and that the right to sue is included in subsection (7). I am not quite clear about the word "agreement". I do not know what the word "agreement" means. I have not had time to look at the clause. I am not sure. I have raised it again. I am trying to find out what it means. I am not sure what is meant by the word "agreement". There is one point in the Bill that I am not clear about. When a contract is cancelled it is not cancelled. But if the contract is not cancelled, then it is cancelled by the contract. The contract is not cancelled. The contract is in writing. It is not in writing. It is in the contract. I do not know what the contract means. The clause is not clear.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. He is absolutely right. I asked the Minister to comment on the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry. The Minister will be aware that we are talking about the one and only report of the relevant Select Committee of your Lordships' House, albeit, not an official report. I have been given notice of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, and I am sure that we shall hear him often from now on. Finally, I am grateful for the opportunity to make a statement which is as comprehensible as possible. The statement is as follows: "The House will be aware that the Plowden Committee has recommended the setting up of a Northern Ireland Coal Board and has recommended that the Board should be responsible for the management and development of each of the Coal Board's mines. This is an important step towards the creation of a comprehensive coal industry in Northern Ireland. It would be undesirable to have coal that was separate from the rest of the British economy because there would be no incentive for the Board to provide it. The Board's activities should be closely linked to those of the British Coal Board. The Board should not be responsible for the conduct of its mines, but should be responsible for their conduct and development. The Board, as such, should not be responsible for the coal industry in Northern Ireland itself. The Board should make arrangements for its own security of supply. Coal should not be supplied from anywhere else, but should be supplied from the Board's mines. The Board should not be responsible for the coal exports, but should be responsible for the coal that is exported and the Board should not be responsible for the export of coal."
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am not totally certain that I agree with him. I am not sure that he is right about that. I am not quite sure which is the Government's view.
====================
There is a separate clause in the Bill about such land. I can see the difficulty there, but I do not think that is an entirely satisfactory way of dealing with it.
====================
In a word.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity that the noble Baroness has given the House to refer to the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which was published a few weeks ago. I shall be very pleased to ensure that the noble Baroness receives a copy of the report. The Select Committee's report was published in February 1993. In addition to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is interested in it. I said that I would seek to put down a copy of the report in the Library to her. I assume that she will like to read it.
====================
My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord is referring to the fact that he was Secretary of State for Scotland. Is he aware that, although he was in charge of the affairs of Scotland, he was not responsible for the welfare of his people? They were not as well treated as he was.
====================
I am very sorry about the gentleman. I am not sure whether he was speaking in the Chamber this afternoon or not. I am sure that that is the situation, and I am afraid I was not in the Chamber this afternoon. I was waiting to hear the noble Lord say it. I thought the noble Lord was making a statement. The noble Lord has said that he was not making a statement; he has not. It is a statement that the Government are prepared to do the job and to do it well, and to handle the business, and the job is being handled in a most satisfactory manner. I can assure the noble Lord that it is not a situation which causes delay on a matter which is obviously of great importance in the national interest.
====================
My Lords, I found it very difficult to know whether my noble friend is speaking for the Government or for the Opposition. I am not sure whether he is speaking for the Government or for the Opposition.
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that intervention. I shall study his question with interest. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
====================
I am sorry I did not realise it. I thought it was very nice to have this noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, here, but the fact is that we are in a period of very great economic uncertainty. We have to make an assessment of it, and it is not just in the minds of the public; it is something that we have to assess, and it is a period of great uncertainty.
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, who pointed out that he knew that the clause was to be put forward, and I am grateful for his congratulations. I feel that we are very fortunate in having the noble Lord and the noble Baroness on the Front Bench. I am sure that they will be grateful for the Minister's response, and I am sure that the majority of the House will be very grateful to him for having given us such a clear and definitive assurance that the clause will not be moved.
====================
My Lords, may I also ask the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, whether there is any supplementary provision in the White Paper for the rehabilitation of the mines in the North Sea? Secondly, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will be at all forthcoming when he replies to my noble friend Lord Alport?
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. The fact is that a great many of the people who go out in the armed forces are men of foreign origin. Most of the people who go out in the Home Guard are people who have been overseas most of their lives. If there were a shortage of men of foreign origin in the Armed Forces it would be a huge problem. However, the fact is that there are a great many people who come from overseas—and I am not talking about the people who come here. I am not talking about the people to whom the noble Lord refers. I am not talking about the people who go out in the armed forces; I am talking about the people who go out in the Home Guard.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks. The issue is whether the right place at the table is that in the normal way of the House of Lords. Is it not not true that the most senior Government Minister is in very many places at the top of the House, and that therefore the right place in the Chamber is the Chamber of Lords?
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. I shall read in Hansard what he has said. I will also look carefully at the remarks he has made and hope to return to the matter at a later stage.
====================
My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for his intervention. I take the point which he made about the public sector borrowing requirements. I would agree that that is a very important matter. I was sorry that he did not deal with the question of the national skilled-labour shortage, but the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has made the point that in the past a great many people in the public sector have had poor skills in the public sector. Therefore the inadequacy of the skills of public sector workers should be a matter for the Government. I do not think the Government have dealt with this point.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the opportunity he has given to the noble Lord, Lord Ilchester, to respond to his summons to move the Motion standing in his name. I am grateful also to my noble friend for his helpful and helpful remarks about the future structure of the House. I am also grateful for his suggestions that I might look at the matter and perhaps bring forward a compromise. I am sorry I did not respond to the Motion, in that I was not aware of the noble Lord's point about being able to retire on a monthly salary. I understand that my noble friend, Lord Ilchester, is asking whether, when the House resumes, there will be a reorganisation of the upper Chamber. I do not know whether that is a matter for my noble friend, but perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Ilchester, could help his noble friend.
====================
My Lords, I am sure that all Members of the Committee will agree that a great deal of the effort must be made to ensure that the Bill is not at this stage a mere opportunity to revisit the debate. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is right in his insistence that there is no possibility of making amendments in the House of Lords in the next Session. I hope he is not. I submit that in the circumstances he is wholly and unequivocally wrong. I do not think there is any hope of getting an amendment on the Marshalled List this Session. I think that when we have an opportunity to reconsider the matter we shall see that it does not become an opportunity to re-open the whole debate again. I hope the noble Lord will be content with what I have said.
====================
My Lords, I shall speak briefly on the issue of the availability of nursing homes, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I am not sure whether I fully understand the motive behind the amendment. The amendment is intended to provide for the establishment of nursing homes, as it is now, but it would allow nurses who are not registered in nursing homes to obtain a medical licence. It is, therefore, not clear whether the amendment is intended to allow nurses to obtain a medical licence which would not be necessary if they were qualified in nursing care. It is important to draw that distinction. I understand that the amendment is intended to provide for the establishment of nursing home nursing homes, but it is not intended to allow nurses to obtain a medical licence which would not be necessary if they were registered in nursing care. I shall not press the amendment. I believe that the Government have made some progress in introducing the amendment. We have a good deal of sympathy with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on the case. However, I believe that we should continue to make progress in that direction, and I hope that he will feel that I have put the matter well. I believe that the amendment would be unworkable. An organisation which is registered with the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act does not need a licence to do its job. It is possible to locate nurse homes through the NHS and, if necessary, nurse training can be arranged. The amendments would not therefore enable nurses to obtain a medical licence if they were not qualified in nursing care. We have, as I have said, a good deal of sympathy with the aim of the amendment. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will accept it.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention, but as he knows I have been in the House for a good many years and I take his point of view. Therefore, although I should not have been here if I had not stood near him, I think that he is perfectly right. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, raised the question of the cost. As I said, the cost of the new service is £150 million. I am glad to say that the decision to have the new service is one which has been taken by the Government. They have taken the view that it is right that there should be a separate charge for travel and a separate charge for the use of the new station. That has been so. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that my figures are on a relatively small scale. However, I should stress that the figures are correct. It would be absurd for me to suggest that I am wrong. I should be quite foolish to suggest that I am wrong. I know that the noble Lord is right, and I hope that it will not appear to him that I am wrong. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will accept what I have said. I do not believe that there is any reason why the costs should not be on a per annum basis. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, raised the question of the costs to the Exchequer. I am not sure that he asked me about the costs to the Exchequer. I am not quite sure that that was the point of his Question. I am sure that he was referring to the cost to the Exchequer. However, I am not absolutely certain. I hope I shall get a better answer today. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for raising the point. I do not know whether he would wish me to write to him. My position is that I have no knowledge whatever. I hope he is not too surprised. I am sure that the noble Lord will be. At this stage I hope that he will take that view and not press this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, raised the question of the British Airports Authority and the question of what is going to be done about the different decisions made on the basis of the decisions of the BAA. I have not had the opportunity to study the evidence given by the Minister of the day. It is true that the BAA have already taken action and the action of the BAA will follow the action taken by the BAA themselves. I hope that the noble Lord will take that into account when he comes to reply.
====================
My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I, with the leave of the House, ask him whether he is aware that this is the first time that this question has been raised by the Government?
====================
I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I am sorry if I did not say that. I do not think that I said that.
====================
My Lords, I am happy to hear what the noble and gallant Lord has said. I am sure that he would not have made the statement if he had thought that he was entitled to ask the Minister any question about the withdrawal of aircraft from the Falklands. I ask the Minister to take on board the argument which was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, that these planes should be withdrawn so that they could be used as a landing force for a defensive land force. I feel the logic of the noble Lord's proposition is that, in his view, they should take over the defensive land force role, but in his view they should be withdrawn. I hope that the Minister will take on board the arguments put by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander. I am not sure whether he agrees with the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, that it is better to withdraw the aircraft. I do not think I can understand the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, that it is better to withdraw the aircraft. I would have thought that in his view it would be better to leave it hanging. I hope that the Minister will take on board the arguments put by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander.
====================
My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, whether he appreciates that these regulations are made in some way to deal with home insulation, and whether he is aware that in some of the houses that are not insulated, very considerable costs are incurred on the house owner—probably quite a large amount, for some heating bills, and also on the cost of the insulation. Is the noble Lord aware that the Home Insulation Association is one of the societies which is making an appeal against the Government's regulation of insulation? I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell us whether it is an appeal against the Government's regulation of insulation.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He said that he was not prepared to accept the amendment. Is he prepared to accept it? I do not know.
====================
No!
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that Answer, for which I am most grateful. I am sure that we welcome him in his new capacity in the House of Commons. Is he aware that the aim of the new Executive is to make it easier for the Standard Oil Board to take over the powers of the Standard Oil Board? Can he say whether he is aware that the Board are prepared to accept that?
====================
My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to lay before the House of Lords a Bill to give effect to the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Education of the House of Lords, and to make provision for its adoption by the House of Commons, and for its being introduced into Parliament by the same method as the Bill to make provision under this Bill was brought forward by my noble friend the Leader of the House of Commons.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. I know that he has had to leave the Chamber but I am sure he will accept that I am a little bit disappointed, not that he will not hear the reply. I am extremely grateful to him for the kind words that he has said, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is here. I am sure that the House will wish to take his views on the matter. There is an excellent debate in another place on the future of the European Parliament. I should like to be clear about that issue. I am sure that, even if the noble Lord, Lord Harris, were here, he would be familiar with the excellent debate in another place. It is not a question of abolishing the European Parliament. It is not a question of abolishing the parliament of the United Kingdom. It has grown up in a number of different ways. It is a question of human rights. It is a question of power in the European Parliament. That is why we are now discussing it. I am not certain what the committee's recommendation is. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is familiar with it. Perhaps I may read it. Perhaps I may have a copy of it in the Library. I should like to know. I am sorry if I have not given it fully. I have not had the opportunity to read the report. I am sorry if I have not given it the full attention it deserves. I am not sure whether I have made the report so comprehensively that I am not sure what is contained in it, but I have read the report. I am not sure whether I have a copy in the Library. I have not had an opportunity to read the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I am not sure whether a copy of the report is available. I am not sure whether the report is available, but I have studied it. I am not sure whether the report is the one or the other. As I have said, my copy of the report is in the Library. I am not certain whether the report is the one or the other. I should like to know. I am sorry if I have not given it the full attention it deserves. I have not had the opportunity to read the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, but I have read the report. I am not certain whether I have a copy in the Library or not, but I have studied it. I am not sure whether the report is the one or the other.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I may be wrong, but I am sure he is right that it is not the practice to make such minor amendments as to substitute the word "new" for the words "existing" in Clause 1(1). In the event, he will be right. I do not think it would be right to make an amendment to the effect that the provision includes the word "existing" in the provision for the purposes of the new clause. In the event, I am sorry if I missed his amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am sure that I can assure the noble Lord that the part of the Bill which makes it clear that the Secretary of State should be responsible for the development of the Water Resources Development Board will be included in the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured.
====================
I should like to say in reply that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, is entirely right. The Government's views are that this is a matter for the courts to decide.
====================
First, I wonder whether the Minister could tell us whether he has obtained the information from the centre of the City of London. Secondly, how many persons are in the United Kingdom at that moment? I do not know whether the Minister can answer that question.
====================
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, asked me in particular about the possibility of the Government taking some measures to address this problem, and I have answered that question by saying that the Government will be interested in it in the next Session. In the meantime, I can give a very full assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that they will be very much interested in any action which may be taken by the Minister. The noble Lord asked me about the immediate future, and I can assure him that the Government will be very much interested indeed in the development of co-operation between the European Community and other organisations, not least the United Nations, and other organisations, in seeking to achieve a solution of this problem.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his introduction of the Bill. The Bill has been in my mind for a long time. It is a difficult Bill to introduce but it has a measure of familiarity about it. It is the only measure of familiarity that I have ever witnessed and it is clear that it is the only measure of familiarity that I have ever had to deal with. It deals with the question of a large number of persons having a right to a mortgage who are not entitled to a mortgage. I am not qualified to speak on that. I am not qualified to speak on that question in this House. I must say that I was a little bit nervous about approaching the Bill. I was a little bit nervous about what came out of the House. I was a little bit nervous about the promises and the assurances given to me by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. That was certainly not the intention. I was anxious to know, as I think have a good many others, what the intention is. I do not think we need ask it. Let us take a few examples. The first example concerns a number of mortgagees and a number of people, a couple, who are not guaranteed by any form of guarantee. I am not qualified to speak on it, but the matter is dealt with in the Bill. The second example concerns a number of people who have been in the same house for many years. There is a general rule that you cannot have a mortgage unless you are entitled to a mortgage. I understand that it is not only the mortgagees who are not guaranteed mortgages; there are also the mortgagees who are not guaranteed mortgages. I do not know whether the noble Lord knows that. I am not qualified to speak on that. I am not qualified to speak on that, but I know of the rule. We are dealing with one type of case. I do not know the other type. I should not have thought that the Bill dealt with the other cases. I also refer to the question of a large number of persons who are not entitled to a mortgage and are living on the soil. I am not qualified to speak on that. I should not be qualified to speak on that. It is a great deal more than a question of a large number of persons who are not entitled to a mortgage. I am not qualified to speak on that matter. I may be wrong. I do not know the answer to the question as to whether or not people are entitled to mortgage. I am not qualified to speak on that. I am not qualified to speak on that. I am not qualified to speak on that. I am not qualified to speak as to whether or not a mortgage is held by somebody or whether it is held by somebody else, or whether it is held by somebody else. It may be that it is held by somebody else, but I do not know. I am not qualified to speak on that. I am not qualified to speak as to whether or not a mortgage is held by somebody or whether it is held by somebody else. It may be that somebody is holding it without the consent of the person who is entitled to it. I am not qualified to speak as to those matters. I am not qualified to speak as to whether or not a mortgage is held by somebody or whether it is held by somebody else. I think that the clause dealing with mortgagees is necessary. I am not qualified to speak on that, but I think that it is necessary. I am not qualified to speak as to whether or not a mortgage is held by somebody or whether it is held by somebody else. The point that I am trying to make is that I believe that the Bill is necessary, but it is not the only Bill which has been introduced in this House. It is important that it should be introduced as soon as possible. It is not the only Bill, but it is the right Bill to introduce. I do not think that this Bill will go through, or will give rise to the same type of problems that we have had to face in this House over the years. I feel that the only Bill to deal with the mortgagees is the Bill on mortgage. I know that this is a difficult Bill, but it is a noble and a difficult Bill, and it is the right Bill to introduce it.
====================
I welcome this amendment. I am not sure that it is necessary to look at the amendment again. I have already dealt with the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, in order to deal with what I am going to say because I do not want to repeat the arguments that I have not had the opportunity to consider the amendments which have been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, is still not satisfied with the Government's amendment. I believe that the Government are right to bring forward an amendment—I hope that it is not too popular—to deal with the situation that the noble Lord has described. I hope that he will still press the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I was not aware of his contribution. I am sure that if he has put down his name and wished to speak in this debate, he would have done so.
====================
I am much obliged. I am glad to hear the noble Lord's remarks. I also feel that this is a substantial amendment. It is a significant amendment for the reason which he gave. It is not a standard of the kind which is used in the Bill or commonly used in the country. It is not, as I understood it, the law of the land in Scotland, although I have looked at it. I do not know what is meant by the word "providing". Is it a phrase which means providing a proper education for the children, or is it a term which means providing such a service? I do not know. If it is a term which means providing, then I see no reason why it should not be included in the clause. I do not know whether it is a phrase which means providing a proper education or providing such a service. I should like to know the terminology.
====================
My Lords, I am afraid I am not entirely clear why we are now being led into a debate on the National Health Service. I am now speaking for myself. I am not a Government Minister and I do not speak for the Government. I am speaking for the members of your Lordships' House. I suggest that an amendment should be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is, I think, a little clever. I believe that it has been brought forward to bring out a rather different aspect of the question. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is a very sensible amendment. It makes the Government demonstrate that they are prepared to take a different view and come forward with a different amendment. I think the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is a very sensible amendment, but I think the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is in a slightly different position. I think that this is a very interesting debate; it is not about the health service. It is about the problems of the National Health Service. We are getting into a debate on the National Health Service. There are a number of different questions about it; and we are all right, I think, in our minds. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, asked for a different amendment. My noble friend Lord Carrington said that he would like the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I would not like to say that that is not worth having. It is not a question of coming forward with a different amendment. I think the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, would do the job better than if he had not. But we are now rather in a different position than we were when we were discussing the Health Service Bill.
====================
It is not, I am afraid. If the noble Lord is going to put down words that will make it very clear to those on either side of the Chamber, that it is a pity that we have not begun to use these words already.
====================
My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Prentice of Shrewsbury, for raising the matter of the draft law on this matter. I hope that I have a clear explanation of what the draft law would do. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Brockway, who is to reply to the debate, will be able to deal with it and will give us the assurance that he agrees that the draft law would be acceptable to the House.
====================
I rise to ask the first question. Does the Lord Chancellor's remit apply to the Home Secretary, the Lord Advocate, the Lord Advocate's solicitor, or the Lady Warden?
====================
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
====================
I think perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is privy to some of the information that he was given in the course of his speech. I am not sure that the details that he gave were entirely accurate.
====================
I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, is not here. As I said, I was delighted to see him. I did not feel that he was really speaking for the Government. He said that he did not want the clause to be voted on. I do not think that he wanted to say that it is the law, but I am not going to say that it is not. I have not got the intention of a Bill to be passed which is really a Bill of Rights. If we have to have a Bill of Rights in the future, I should like to see it before the end of the century. I do not think that any Government can have a Bill which is truly a Bill of Rights. I do not know what is going to be the effect of this Bill on the interpretation of the Bill of Rights. We have to have a little more research before we can put this provision on the face of the Bill.
====================
My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is right about the delay. I am not sure that the order is necessary, but I have tried to make arrangements so that the order can be made as soon as possible. I hope it will be as soon as possible, because no matter how it is made it will be a delay.
====================
My Lords, I am sure that the whole House would agree that it is not the norm for a Minister to be present in the House in the House of Lords. However, I am aware of the situation. However, I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who feels that the situation is somewhat different from that of his noble friend Lord Beloff. The noble Lord has a good case in his own circumstances. In fairness to the noble Lord, I think the case is on the other side of the coin. However, we need to look at the situation in a different way. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, would not wish to see them in the Chamber, but the situation is different from the case of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, made a serious case, but the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, made a totally non-sequitur argument. My noble friend Lord Beloff said that he did not feel that the House of Lords is the appropriate place for that. The House serves that very purpose, and it serves that purpose most effectively and efficiently. However, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, made a serious case and, therefore, I believe that the Government must look at the matter in a different way. It is a serious case, but it is not a party case. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, gave an impassioned speech. I listened carefully to what he said. I listened to his case and I listened carefully to the arguments he deployed. I am sure that I shall not take up too much time in responding to the arguments that have been made. I am sure that I shall not take up many more. I do not wish to dwell in detail on the arguments that have been deployed, but I should like to put the case in a slightly different way. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, was right to make the case against the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. I do not know how much time I shall spend on the case that he made. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, make the case for the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has done justice to his case. I have not heard the argument that he deployed; it is a case of a case of which I know nothing. I shall read it carefully. I shall not press the amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, for giving the assurance that he will stand by it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
====================
It is too early for the Government to comment on the future of the NHS.
====================
We are not, I think, giving the further notice of the statement which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, made that this was an important matter and it would be appropriate that the information should be placed before the House.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I think it is important that the Minister should be able to answer the question. He has not responded to the points that I raised. I do not know why he is not prepared to answer them. I have given the matter a lot of thought and I hope that we shall have an answer, but I hope that he will respond to the question.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I said that I did not think that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, would want me to say that he is going to carry out what he is doing. I am sorry if I misrepresented him.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. The correct and straightforward steps are to be found in paragraph 5. The Government have not yet made up their mind on the way ahead on the matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, we must not change the arrangements which we have established.
====================
I am obliged to the noble Lord for the way he has introduced this amendment. I have to say that I am not entirely sure whether it is the intention of the Government to make this a new clause. I have not had the benefit of the usual processes of consultation, as it has in the case of this Bill. I know that the noble Lord will understand that I would not seek to amend the Bill in this way if I could guarantee that it would be possible to delay the passage of the Bill through this House. I can assure him that if an amendment were to be agreed to it would not be put on the face of the Bill. I should like to go a little further. I have been speaking on this amendment for two days and I do not think that I have heard the reasons for it at all. I am not sure whether I should proceed on the basis that, as I have not heard so far, what I have said will not be put on the face of the Bill. I do not see why I should not proceed without it. If I did I should then be able to discuss it in your Lordships' House and say that I believe it is right in the national interest that there should be some amendment to the Bill. I am not prepared to say that I am prepared to go along with the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, in what he is proposing. I do not know whether it is not the intention of the Government to make a new clause. I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will not press the amendment.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, did not have the opportunity of attending the debate. I was not going to speak to the Motion but I wish to declare my interest. I am an officer of the National Association of Terrible and Violent Offenders. I have been active for many years, having been a member of the Royal Society, for many years as a magistrate. I have recently been appointed to an Advisory Commission on the Criminal Justice System which is looking into the problem of the problem of non-custodial sentences. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is interested in it. I venture to say that I have seen the problems which are facing this country. I have seen the problems of the problem of the problems of the crime of violence. I have seen them for myself. The problem is not entirely one of the courts; it is the way in which the courts are being used to deal with these problems. I have seen the problems of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of the problem of
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, it is a great privilege to be able to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Elton, to the Front Bench for what is a long-standing service to the House. To my knowledge, he is one of the most eloquent and determined speakers in this House. I am sure the House will be grateful as well as pleased to him for the opportunity to address us today and for the opportunity of talking about the general economy. I think that he demonstrated a very distinguished background of experience in this House. In the case of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I think he speaks with great authority—and I am not sure whether I support him—in this field. There is no doubt that there is a great deal of interest in the general economy and in what he has to say has been referred to as the "war against inflation". The noble Lord, Lord Elton, is a distinguished economist. I listened with great interest to what he said, and I am sure I shall agree with him that the economy is one of the areas which is of great concern to the country. We have heard today from a number of distinguished economists, including the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft. So far as one can see, there is a consensus of view and a consensus of view in the country, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, will agree that the Government are taking the course which the country should take. I would like to make two points here to the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft. First, I would like to refer to the noble Lord's opening remarks. He spoke of the great difficulty of balancing the economy. I would remind him that I spent many years of my life in the European Community, and I have seen the great problems of balancing the economy of the country in the past. I can tell him how the Government have to balance the economy for the country, and how they are determined that it must be balanced for the country. I am sure we can all agree that it is a matter which can best be discussed in your Lordships' House. However, I would like to refer to the noble Lord's remarks about the future. The noble Lord was anxious to quote the words of President Reagan, and he quoted his wife, who said, "We are living in an area of disaster for the economy". The noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, made a very interesting suggestion. He suggested a course of action which, as I understand it, would lead to increased prospectus profits and, as I understand it, to increased sales. I think we are all agreed that increased sales are a good thing. But I should like to be quite clear about the basis of that argument, and to make a few brief remarks on the question of tax credits and so on. I am not a tax man, but I am familiar with the arguments about tax credits. I am sure every careful tax man in this country would agree that as a legal obligation one must use the tax credit system to maintain employment and to give people more income. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, made a very strong case for using tax credits in a positive way. The noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, said that the whole basis of the tax credit system is that people should be able to get as much as they can afford. I think the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, will agree that that is a perfectly true statement and one can always find more money in that system. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, said that the tax credit system is a form of permanent unemployment insurance. I do not know how much he said, but I think he said that people who are out of work or who are long-term unemployed are better off than long-term unemployed. I do not think that is right. I agree that they are better off. But that is not the whole basis of the system. I do not think it is a permanent unemployment insurance. It is not a permanent insurance against unemployment. I would like to be clear about the point. I think the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, raised the question of the percentage of gross national product that people earn. I do not know whether there is a question of the proportion of gross national product that people earn. I have not heard any question about the percentage of gross national product that people earn. Many people are paid a wage to earn and they do not earn the amount of money that they would like to earn. But that is not the whole basis of the matter. The only question is whether the percentage earned by the people who earn it is justified, in the long run, or whether it is justified in the short run. I believe that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, was that if the people earn more the percentage of gross national product that they earn is justified. I would like to know whether the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, has seen the number of times on
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful for the opportunity to speak on this matter. I am sure we all appreciate the significance of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I must say that I have a great deal of sympathy with the way that the amendments are being drafted. If one reads the amendments in the back of the book one becomes clear that there is a strong possibility that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, could have had his way with them. I wish that he had. I wish that the Government had agreed to them.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I am sure that we all agree that the key to this Bill is to establish clearer terms for the future of the GP fund. But I would not be in a position to accept the amendment now, but I am quite prepared to consider it carefully, first, on the basis of the advice that has been made to me by the National Institute of GPs and, secondly, on the basis of the advice that I have received from the National Institute of Health. Perhaps I may deal first with the matter of the GP fund. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said that he had some sympathy with the aims of the amendment. I agree that the purpose of the amendment is to clarify the position. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said that he was concerned about the effect of the amendment. I do not think that I can answer that point without heeding the advice given to me by the National Institute of GPs. First, I should like to explain why the GP fund is to be abolished. The GP fund is a non-departmental public body granted by Parliament which pays the full cost of the care of a GP. It is, therefore, an independent body. The GP fund is a non-departmental public body which, in addition to the care that it pays, spends its own money on GP services. If the GP fund were to be abolished, the GP fund would see a fall-off in its expenditure by 1.5 per cent. so far as the GP fund was concerned. The GP fund would see an increase in its expenditure of something in the region of 10 per cent. The fund would therefore be facing a fall-off in its expenditure by 1.5 per cent. The GP fund has been a great success in making a GP service available to the patient. It has also helped to create a national network of GP practice. The GP fund will continue to be one of the bodies which pays for the care of those who need it most. The GP fund will continue to serve the public, and it will continue to be the responsibility of the GP fund to make the service available. The GP fund has done an outstanding job in providing the health service that we all want. The GP fund will continue to be one of the bodies which provides the health service for the patient. The GP fund will continue to provide the health service that the public want. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health is considering the position. The committee of which I am a member has made £19 million available from the fund. The committee has provided all the necessary advice and assistance to the GP fund. The committee is considering the position with a view to establishing a formula which would ensure that if the GP fund were abolished the GP fund would see a fall-off in its expenditure by 1.5 per cent. so far as the GP fund was concerned. The GP fund would see an increase in its expenditure of something in the region of 10 per cent. The GP fund would therefore see an increase in its expenditure of something in the region of 10 per cent. The GP fund has been a great success in making a GP service available to the patient. The GP fund will continue to be one of the bodies which pays for the care of those who need it most. The GP fund is to be abolished. The GP fund is a non-departmental public body which, in addition to the care that it pays, spends its own money on GP services. If the GP fund were to be abolished, the GP fund would see a fall-off in its expenditure by 1.5 per cent. The GP fund would therefore be facing a fall-off in its expenditure by 1.5 per cent. The GP fund has been a great success in providing the health service that we all want. It has also helped to create a national network of GP practice. The GP fund will continue to be one of the bodies which provides the health service for the patient. The GP fund will continue to provide the health service that the public want. The GP fund will continue to be one of the bodies which pays for the care of those who need it most. The GP fund will continue to be one of the bodies which provides the health service for the patient. The GP fund will continue to be one of the bodies which provides the health service for the patient. The GP fund will continue to be one of the bodies which pays for the care of those who need it most. The GP fund will continue to be one of the bodies which provides the health service for the patient. The GP fund will continue to be one of the bodies which provides the health service for the patient. The GP fund is to be abolished. The GP fund is a non-departmental public body which, in addition to the care that it pays, spends its own money on GP services. If the GP fund were to be abolished, the GP fund would see a fall-off in its expenditure by 1.5 per cent. The
====================
My Lords, I am not sure that I can deal with that point. I have mentioned the issue at this stage, but I do not want to make any further comments until the Bill has been introduced. It is not a matter for me.
====================
I am grateful for that explanation, but I am not entirely sure about its application in the context of the Bill. The effect of the amendment would be to give the Secretary of State power to make applications for the appointment of a special police officer. If the amendment is passed, which I hope we shall not be, it will give him power to appoint a special constabulary officer, which is quite different from a regular police officer. I should have thought that under the Bill the Secretary of State could not appoint a special constabulary officer because it would not be a police officer. If that were the case, there would not be a special constabulary officer.
====================
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Although this will be a short Bill, it is an important one, and, in the interests of the country as a whole, I fear that it will be necessary to go through the Committee stage of the Bill at this stage and to make quite sure that the Lord Chancellor is satisfied that, in the circumstances, he should not deal with the Bill to-day. I am afraid that that is another reason why the Bill would not afford a satisfactory answer to the present occasion. I should like to add my congratulations to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, on his appointment as Lord Chancellor, and on the way in which he has dealt with the Bill. The Bill has been dealing with this Bill for a long time. Indeed, as I have said, it has been dealing with the question of the appointment of Lord Justice. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will agree that he has shown a very great deal of patience and attention in dealing with this Bill, and it would be wrong (I am sorry if I caused any irritation to him) if he were to take the view that he was satisfied that he could not deal with the Bill to-day. I should like to refer to one or two points which have arisen during the course of the proceedings. I apologise for the length of some of my speech, but I am sure that it will be helpful if I set the Bill and the amendments down on the Marshalled List. First of all, I should like to refer to the question of the appointment of Lord Justice. I am not sure that I entirely follow the noble and learned Lord's explanation. What I thought was the position was that the Lord Chancellor would appoint a Lord Justice, and that the Lord Chancellor would then proceed to deal with the Bill to-day. I should like to know whether that is the position. I am sure that it is not, because I have not heard anything to suggest that it is the case. As I understand it, the Lord Chancellor was being asked to give advice and to consider the Bill to-day, and if he did not give that advice he would not be able to deal with the Bill to-day. I feel that the Lord Chancellor would have to deal with the Bill to-day. That is the position as I understand it. But, as I have said, there has been no suggestion whatever that any of the Lord Chancellor's advice was given to him. He is acting under the direction of the Lord Chancellor on the legislation to-day, and it is entirely proper that he should act under the direction of the Lord Chancellor on the legislation to-day. This is a Bill which will have to go to a Select Committee, and I hope that, when it has gone to a Select Committee, the Lord Chancellor will be able to deal with the Bill to-day. I should like to refer to another point in the Bill, which was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, about the appointment of the Clerk of the Peace. I am told by the clerks at the Ministry of Defence, and I am sure they have been consulted, that the appointment of a Clerk of the Peace is necessary in order to facilitate the connection of the Court for the purposes of the law, and that it is desirable, as your Lordships know, that the Court should always be accessible to the public, and to those who have special problems. It is not necessary, as your Lordships know, that there should be a Clerk to the Peace, because there is no person to deal with the Bill to-day. That is the position, and I hope that the Lord Chancellor will consider it.
====================
My Lords, I rise to speak in this debate on a subject which has been mentioned other times, and to that extent I am under no obligation to speak about the question of England and Wales. But I should like to say a word about Scotland, because I think it would be useful to have a view upon it. I was always told that the Scottish problem was not so much as England is but as the problem of the world. It was always thought that the more enlightened nations of the world are better equipped to deal with the problems of the world. I cannot remember a time when the Western powers, or the British power, were in such a state as they were at the beginning of the last war. We were not in a State like any other country in the world, and we had not been in one for ten years. We were at the beginning of the last war. We were doing all we could. We were doing all we could to get one out of it. We were ready to come out of it. We were ready to get out of it, and to get out when the world and the people of the country wanted us to, to get it out. We were ready to get out when the people of the country wanted us to get out. In the last war the West was in a State. We were fighting and winning. We were in a State which was ready to respond in any form of war. The last war was in a State, but we were not at that stage in it. We were in a State which was prepared to fight and win. We were prepared to fight and win. The last war was in a State which was prepared to fight and win. The last war was in a State which was prepared to fight and win. I do not want to go through the history of the last war in this way, but I want to give a picture of how things have changed so far. It was in a State which was ready to fight and win. It was in a State which was prepared to fight and win. It was in a State which was prepared to fight and win. It is now in a State which is prepared to fight and win. That is a difference of opinion. I am not saying that it is a different thing for the next generation. It is not. If we look at the statistics so far from the war of the last war, we find that over the last fifteen years we have got more people out of work than the number of unemployed who were in the country in the last war; we have got more young people out of employment than the number of young people who were in it. This is the difference, and I hope that in the future many of us, and many of your Lordships, will realise that difference. More than that, we are now in a State which is prepared to fight and win. The difference is not that we are in a State in which the Government are trying to win; I am not saying that. But we are in a State which is prepared to fight and win, and I am not saying that it is a good thing that we should be in a State in which they are trying to win. The difference is that in the last war the Government were the rulers of the country, and we were the slaves of the State. That is the difference. I should like to give a few examples, because I have been very interested in them. The first is the one which I should like to give to your Lordships' House, but I will do my best not to quote him. It is the one to which I refer in the first part of the Speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, who is to speak later. The first is two years ago, in 1913, when there was a General Election. The second was during the war, when the Labour Party was in power and the Labour Party controlled the country. The present Government in this country have not only had the opposite, but have had the reverse, that they have not only controlled the country but have controlled the country in one way or another. Again, I am speaking from memory, but in 1913 the situation was such that there was a General Election. I have not the slightest doubt that this time it is not so different as it was in 1913.
====================
My Lords, I am afraid I must have missed the part of the Statement on the Order Paper which says that the Government would not expect to have an implementation date until the year was over. However, I shall look at it and see what I have missed.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing the Motion. I also am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for raising the issue of the timing of the debates in this House. I believe that I have a clear understanding that the dates are not the same as in other Senate Houses. I have in fact repeated some of the points that I made in my speech on the Motion. It is difficult to find the exact dates. When I put the Motion forward on a previous occasion it was suggested that the dates might be different in the other place. It is difficult to find the exact dates. When I put forward the Motion on a previous occasion, I deliberately said that it might be convenient to the House for me to repeat the points that I had made. I am grateful for the opportunity for the House to hear those points again. I have done so in the hope that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who is not present, can refer to the points that I have made. I should like to return to the Motion that the House do now adjourn.
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. I am a little disappointed that he did not intervene with his usual force during the debate on the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, which was also, to my mind, the subject of a rather different debate. It is true that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is to be congratulated on bringing forward that amendment, and I am quite certain that I should not be so surprised if he did not set his face against the amendment in the Chamber. But I am certain that he would have wanted to bring forward an amendment which would have been quite different from the amendment introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has now referred. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will find it very difficult to oppose the amendment.
====================
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for his reply. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will agree that the matter should be discussed. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, will agree that the Bill should go through. It is almost as important as the amendment. It is almost as important as the amendment, and I hope that it will go through. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am sorry. I was not seeking to give the noble Lord that. I was seeking to explore in some detail the extent to which the term "Community" is used and, therefore, the broad question of whether the word "Community" is interchangeable with "Network". It is a little difficult to know whether it is possible to make this move without damaging the word "Community", which is the word used for the old purposes. I assure the noble Lord that the purpose of the amendment is to preserve the distinction. I assure him that we are not backing away from it. I was merely seeking to see whether it might be possible to make the distinction between those two things.
====================
I am not sure whether it is correct to say that there is a compulsion in the Bill. It is not a compulsion, it is a matter for the discretion of the local authority. It is not a compulsion to have a specific number. If the noble Lord is not planning to come to the House to speak on the Bill, I need not bother to oppose the Bill.
====================
My Lords, I am afraid that I must announce my retirement from the House of Lords, subject to the usual requirement that I shall not do so if I am not in the Chamber for the opening speeches. I am not yet retired and I do not intend to sit in your Lordships' House. I am returning to the House of Commons and will be rejoicing to the end of my career there. I should like to associate my noble friend Lord Ennals with the tribute we pay to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for what he has done for this House and the other place. They are two things which are inseparable. I am not sure whether it is a matter of the acceptance of the Prime Minister or the refusal of my noble friend. I hope that the Prime Minister will accept the offer of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. I should like to associate my noble friend Lord Ennals with the suggestion that we should have a Speaker of this House. As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has said, I am a member of that House and I know all the members of that House. I have been at it for more than 20 years. I cannot stand apart from the House as it is at present constituted. I should like to associate my noble friend Lord Ennals with the suggestion that we should have a Special Orders Committee. I know that he has said that he would like to see a special order committee. I am not sure who is doing the talking. I would like to associate myself with the suggestion that the House should have a new Speaker. I am not certain of the reasons for that. I am not sure whether it is a matter of the Prime Minister's departure, or whether it is a matter of the remoteness of the House. I think it is a special case. I would like a new Speaker to be appointed. I do not know who is doing the talking. I hope that the Prime Minister will accept the offer of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and that he will be here.
====================
I must say that I was not entirely sure of that in connection with the amendment. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has clearly made it clear that the Government are determined to establish the European de-linking of the Navy from the Royal Air Force, but not yet the Government have decided what the effect of the agreement would be, as I understand it. Would it be to reduce the number of ships and aircraft aircraft and therefore reduce the capability of the Royal Air Force, but not in any way restrict it?
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. What he said was that the operation of the Bill is in a different form from the operation of the old reservation. In fact, the operation of the reservation is running parallel with the operation of the old reservation.
====================
My Lords, I am a little surprised to hear my noble friend speaking so ably, but there is not a good case whatever for this amendment. The principle is that if the Government were to impose a tax on all businesses, they would be able to tax only the people who employed the people in the business and not the people who employed the people in the business and did not employ anybody but paid them. The effect of the amendment would be to impose a tax on the whole of the United Kingdom. I do not believe that the effect would be that of putting a tax on all normal business activities, but only on the people who employed the people in the business. There is not a good case for that.
====================
My Lords, I am relieved that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is in his place, and I apologise for my absence from the Chamber. I should like to say how much I appreciated the special role of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in this Bill, particularly his very wide-ranging speech in Committee. I am sure that he was very much aware that I was not going to follow his line of argument, but I was grateful that he spoke. I am sure that he will take it from me that I did not accept his argument that the Bill should not be passed. However, I did not accept his argument that it should be passed. I was not persuaded by his argument that it was not a Bill to benefit the disabled. In fact, it was not. If I had known that I would not have been able to attend the debate today, I would not have been able to speak. I am sorry to have missed the debate, but I was disappointed that the Bill should not be passed. As I said at the beginning, this is not a Bill to benefit the disabled. It is a Bill to benefit widowed parents, to help widowed children and to help widowed mothers. I hope that, when the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, says that he cannot give a satisfactory answer, he will accept that this is not a Bill to benefit widowed mothers or widowed fathers. In fact, this is a Bill to help widowed mothers and widowed fathers. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that, despite his comments, I am not in the least prepared to accept his arguments about one part of the Bill. I must say that I was somewhat disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, should take the view that this is not a Bill to benefit widowed mothers. The noble Lord said that it is a Bill to help widowed mothers, widowed fathers and widowed mothers. I did not say that. I said that it is a Bill to help widowed widowed mothers and widowed fathers. I said that it is a Bill to help widowed widowed mothers and widowed fathers. If there is to be a Bill for widowed widowed mothers, I take that view. I also said that it is a Bill to help widowed widowed mothers and widowed fathers. I did not say that it was a Bill which was meant to benefit widowed widowed mothers and widowed fathers, because that is not the Bill we are discussing today. I then proceeded to say that it is a Bill to help widowed widowed mothers and widowed fathers. I repeated that it was not a Bill which was meant to benefit widowed mothers and widowed fathers, because that is not the Bill we are discussing today. I then proceeded to say that it is a Bill to help widowed mothers and widowed fathers. I repeated that it was not a Bill to benefit widowed widowed widowed mothers and widowed fathers, because that is not the Bill we are discussing today. I then proceeded to say that it is a Bill for widowed widowed widowed mothers and widowed fathers, even though I did not say they were to be included in the Bill. I repeat now that the Bill is not intended to benefit widowed mothers and widowed fathers. I said that it is not a Bill to benefit widowed mothers and widowed fathers, because that is not the Bill we are discussing today. I then proceeded to say that it is not a Bill to benefit widowed widowed widowed mothers and widowed fathers. I repeated now that it is not a Bill to benefit widowed widowed widowed mothers and widowed fathers. I said that it is a Bill to help widowed widowed widowed mothers and widowed fathers. I repeated that it is not a Bill to benefit widowed widowed widowed mothers and widowed fathers. I said that it is a Bill to help widowed widowed widowed mothers and widowed fathers. I repeat now that it is not intended to benefit widowed widowed widowed mothers and widowed fathers.
====================
My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is a more intelligent Minister of State than I am. I am sorry if he thinks I am a silly chap, but I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is a Minister of State who works for the Government, and the Ministry of State for which he is responsible is in fact my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
====================
I think I have already said that I certainly do not wish to alter the Bill or withdraw it.
====================
My Lords, this is a special Bill for the Minister. I do not know how many other Ministers are present in the House. I do not know how many in another place. I do not know how many in your Lordships' House. I do not know how many in the Commons. I do not know how many in another place. But I am sure that this is a special Bill. One would have thought, when the Minister said that he would like to come in to answer, that he would wish to answer this particular Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
====================
My Lords, too many of us are too busy to spend a great deal of time reading the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, Lord Harris of Haringey and Lord Harris of Greenwich, but I am sure that they would all agree that it is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, was not here to move the Motion which he has moved, because he is a man of such clarity, and I should have thought he had had a great deal to say. I know the Minister of State is pleased to see us here, and I hope he will have a good rest at the end of the debate. I thought he promised us a very informative debate, and I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, will be very glad indeed to hear that the noble Viscount is here. I hope he will not be discouraged by the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, but I am sure that he will appreciate that I think the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, is a very well informed and effective speaker. I was especially glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, speak on his experience, and I will study his speech very carefully. I am quite sure all your Lordships will be pleased that he is here, because I am sure that he will speak with the authority of the Government. I hope he will not feel that he is not represented in this House by anybody who is not there. I believe that the House will distinguish itself in this matter and that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, will speak with authority in the debate. We will all be glad that he is here. We should be glad to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, and to be able to hear the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and to hear his personal observations on the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter. We have had a very interesting debate on the Motion I have moved, and I am sure the House will be very much pleased to hear the Minister of State. I hope he will make a most interesting speech. I am also glad that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, is here, because he is a very well informed speaker in this matter. I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, was one of the most eloquent speakers in this House, and I am very glad he is here. I am much obliged. I am some blame for not knowing the noble Lord. I have tried to follow him through the motions of this House, and I did not anticipate that he was going to speak. I was not expecting to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, because I am not a very good speaker. However, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, is a good speaker, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, will not feel that he has not got the authority of the Government here. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, has spoken. I am grateful. I beg the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, to come to the House. I think he will find that he feels that he will be able to assist the House.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is he aware that the most efficient means of meeting this humanitarian need is through the development of the aid programme? Is the noble Lord saying that the United States is now engaged in that?
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. I was not sure from his remarks whether he was referring to the earlier statement in the House, or the statement in the other place, and perhaps I may ask him this question. What does the noble Lord mean by the statement that the Government have now accepted the amendment?
====================
I have not had time to consider the amendments of my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith. I shall do my best to look at the matter, but I am not prepared to accept his amendment.
====================
My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House and I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
====================
I support the amendment. The Government have a duty to ensure that the public do not suffer as a result of the work in the port. The port will have to be able to take the cost of its upkeep. They will have to make arrangements to ensure that the port is able to bear its costs. That is why the amendment makes it crystal clear that the port will not be able to incur any costs.
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I should have thought that we had now sorted out the law on the Sergeant-at-Arms and the officers and the rank of lieutenant. Is that the legal position, or is it not? Is it the law? My noble friend said that I was being unfair to him.
====================
I am not really, but the fact is that it was an order which the Government made and it was an order which the previous Government made, and for all I know it was one which the previous government made. If it had been an order made by the previous government, and it was made at the time of the previous Government, why, in fact, is it not being made by this Government?
====================
My Lords, I am not sure that I have understood the noble Lord's intentions. He suggests that there should be a two-tier system. I am not sure that I follow his argument. I would like to know the whole point.
====================
I was going to say that I was glad to hear the Minister say that he was happy to know the effect of the amendment. I recall that in 1992 a previous Government were able to make a summary of the effects of the amendment which was not the text of the Bill. I am not sure whether my noble friend the Minister is right on this matter. I do not think that the amendment was originally in the Bill. He may not have been in government. It may be that he did not propose it and it was not considered at the time. We may know more about it now. I am not sure that he is right about the effect of the amendment. If it should be necessary to introduce the amendment I shall be very happy to discuss it with my noble friend. I am happy to say that I have not received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Cope, which states that the amendment is being withdrawn.
====================
I think it is a little difficult, when you are talking about children, to draw a line between the two. I am not sure that there is a line between the children and the adults. Some children are more apt to be adult and some children are not, but I think it is a little difficult to draw a line. On the second point, I am not sure that the position of the parents is really the same as it is in the case of children. I think there is one other point on which I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is wrong, but I am not in a position to say at this stage what it is. I do not know at all. I do not know whether the parent is to blame or not.
====================
My Lords, I am sure the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for raising this matter in this debate. I cannot speak on behalf of the Government, but I wish to add my congratulations and support to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, on his maiden speech. I am sure that we are all grateful to him for putting his points so eloquently and clearly. Since he made his maiden speech but before the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, made his maiden speech, I did not know that I was going to take part because I thought that it would not be proper to take part in his maiden speech. I am sure the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for raising this matter in such a way. I should like to turn to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, for his introduction of the Motion in this House this evening. I am sure the House is grateful to him for his contribution and for the considerable amount of work he has done for the Labour Party. I am sure that it is a great pleasure to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that he was able to speak on this occasion. I am sure that he will be a great asset to the Tory Party. I am not sure, however, whether he has been able to listen to the debate with the manner in which he has done it, or whether he has not. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has listened to the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Kennet, Lord Harris of Haringey, Lord Harris of Greenwich and others. Perhaps he has. He has a very full-hearted and very impressive contribution to make tonight. I am sure that he will not expect, therefore, to have a full-time voice in your Lordships' House. I am sure that he will enjoy the opportunity to speak on these occasions. May I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for his introduction of the Motion. As he said, it is a short one. It has been welcomed by many noble Lords—and I am sure that many noble Lords will welcome it—and has been very well received in another place. I am sure that we all look forward to having the opportunity to discuss this matter in more detail. A number of other noble Lords have contributed, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, by way of contributions of two speeches and many other speeches. I am sure that we shall have ample opportunity to discuss the subject in the future. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for introducing the Motion. I think that it is appropriate that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, should speak first. I am sure that we shall hear from him often in the future. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for his introduction of the Motion. I am sure that we shall have ample opportunity to discuss the matter in the future. On the occasion of his maiden speech I have to admit to taking a small part in the debate. I do not think that that was a bad thing. I thought that my brief contribution was significant. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, made a valuable contribution. I am sure that we shall discuss these matters in the future. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for introducing this Motion. I am sure that it will be welcomed by many noble Lords. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this subject. I am sure that we shall study his speech with interest. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, made one of the most valuable contributions which I shall make. I was glad to see that he made a very good speech. I am sure that we shall have plenty to say about it. I am grateful to him for giving us the opportunity to discuss the matter. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for the opportunity to make a contribution. I am sure that we shall have ample opportunity to discuss the subject in the future. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, for his contribution. I am most grateful to him. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for his contribution. I also thank him for his contribution. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for giving us this opportunity to discuss the subject. I am very grateful for the opportunity to discuss the subject. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss it in general terms. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for his contribution. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the subject in a general way. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for giving us the opportunity to discuss the subject. My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
====================
My Lords, I am sure that the House will be most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, for initiating this debate, and for having made such a clear and very interesting contribution. I shall not weary the House with detailed answers, but will merely refer to the points which have been raised. I shall not ask the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, or the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to comment on what I have said, but I shall read his remarks carefully. I hope, however, that I shall not detain the House by repeating the arguments which have been so adequately and effectively advanced by my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence. I hope that I shall not delay the House by repeating the arguments that have been so well put by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I hope the House will agree that the words which I have used should be completely consistent with the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, will feel that I have responded to his arguments with all the force that I can. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, asked me whether I would determine whether the word "liberation" was recognised within the meaning of the word "possession" in Section 2 of the Act. I consider that there is little to be gained by going back on a decision. The House will know that, as he will know, I am a member of the Select Committee which the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, has chaired. He is also a member of its three noble Lords. I am in a position to tell him that I have no intention of intervening in any aspect of the case. As he will know, I have the honour and privilege of being a member of the Select Committee. I have had the honour, privilege and honour to serve on the Select Committee. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, for having emphasised the words which have been used by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for his welcome to the amendment that we are now discussing. I could not possibly agree with him that the words "liberation" was not defined in the Act, because the words "possession" and "liberation" are used in the Act, as is the word "possession". The noble Lord, Lord Renton, asked me whether I could explain to the House what "possession" means. The answer is, I think, that it is the expression "publicly or privately owned". I cannot give him the exact definition of "private ownership". I can only tell him that the word "private ownership" may be used in a different way. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for his suggestion of that. I shall read his remarks carefully and, if I have not made a clear reply, I shall try to write to him.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. During the debate on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, I expressed the hope that this was a Bill which dealt with the subject of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington. I am glad to understand that it is not going to be attached to the Bill when it is considered, but I hope that there is no intention of it being attached to the Bill when it is considered.
====================
As a member of a board, I am aware of the difficulties of the present situation. I have seen a report from the Medical Research Council, and I understand that the Board have made a study of the matter. If they are not, I shall be glad to know about it. I am not so sure whether they have the data, but I think they have the impression that very many people are suffering from this disease. I think that they are wrong.
====================
That is exactly what I said. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked me specifically whether anyone had seen the plat. I am not sure. I have seen it.
====================
My Lords, the noble Lord is obviously entitled to his opinion on this matter. I am sure that he will agree with me that it is right that this Act should be included in the Bill.
====================
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, will be glad to hear my noble friend Lord Jensen's recent comments about the future of the Broadcasting Bill. With regard to the Amendment, I am sure that he has listened to the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lord Jensen. I thought that the more misleading the noble Lord's comments might be, the more I agree with him.
====================
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. I am not sure whether he was aware that the amendments were tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. I am sure that the whole House was. However, I am not certain that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, that we ought to have a word on the matter now. The noble Lord asked the Government to give some planning guidance. I understand that the Minister for Housing and Planning has already given some guidance in a letter to the noble Lord. However, the amendments are concerned with planning. I do not know whether the noble Lord is asking for an assurance that this is not a matter for further guidance. Can the noble Lord say what is the intention of the Government on this?
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Will my right honourable friend confirm that?
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I am sure that the House appreciates that I am sorry to have had to leave the Chamber at this point, but it is not my intention to move this amendment and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for initiating it. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has in the past had to take the precaution of visiting the offices of the Home Office for the purpose of obtaining documents and making copies of the documents public. In practice, he was able to obtain the documents under the Freedom of Information Act, but he was not required to do so under the Freedom of Information Act. It is a matter of common knowledge—and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will acknowledge this—that the Home Office is an extremely powerful and efficient law enforcement agency. It is also an important part of the public life of this country. As a result of the Home Office, the number of police in this country has increased from 3,000 to almost 5,000. One reason why the Home Office has been so successful in the security of this country is that it is the only public body that has the machinery for publicising information. One of the lessons to be learnt from the Home Office is that it is an extremely difficult job to publish a simple action plan when one has to find out the people who are not prepared to take any part in it. The Home Office and the police are under a very tight control indeed. One of the things that the police have learnt is that they have to go to the Home Office and ask for a copy of the plan and the time that it is due to be published. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, may or may not be aware that the Home Office has the machinery for publicising the plan. When I was a member of the Home Office, I had to obtain a copy of the plan. They would not make it public. It is important to have a copy of the plan because if one is going to publish one's plan, one will not have to put up the paper to reveal the problems. That is why the Home Office publishes the plan. There is also a copy of the plan in the Library. The Home Office publication procedure is an important part of the police service and is a central part of the defence service. However, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, gives us an opportunity to discuss the Home Office publication procedure, because it is the only way of publishing one's plan. I will go through the procedure and explain the nature of the draft plan. I shall explain the draft plan as I have done. First, there will be a draft plan. The draft plan will be laid before Parliament and will be available for public examination. That will be the first stage. The draft plan will then receive a Royal Assent, and that will then be the second stage. The draft plan will then be laid before Parliament, with the affirmative resolution procedure. At this stage, the draft plan will be referred to the Home Secretary for his approval. At the end of the first stage, the draftsman will proceed to the next stage of the process. The draft plan will then go to the Home Secretary for his approval. After the second stage, the draft plan will be referred to the Home Secretary for his approval. At the third stage, the draft plan will go to the Home Secretary for his approval. The draft plan will then go to the Home Secretary for his approval. The draft plan will then be referred to the Home Secretary for his approval. At the fourth stage, the draft plan will go to the Home Secretary for his approval. The draft plan will then go to the Home Secretary for his approval. The draft plan will then go to the Home Secretary for his approval. At the fifth stage, the draft plan will go to the Home Secretary for his approval. The draft plan will then go to the Home Secretary for his approval. At the sixth stage, the draft plan will go to the Home Secretary for his approval. At the seventh stage, the draft plan will go to the Home Secretary for his approval. At the eighth stage, the draft plan will go to the Home Secretary for his approval. At the ninth stage, the draft plan will go to the Home Secretary for his approval. At the tenth stage, the draft plan will go to the Home Secretary for his approval. At the eleventh stage, the draft plan will go to the Home Secretary for his approval. At the twelfth stage, the draft plan will go to the Home Secretary for his approval. At the thirteenth and final stage, the draft plan will go to the Home Secretary for his approval. At the fourteenth stage, the draft plan will go to the Home Secretary for his approval. At the fifteenth stage, the draft plan will go to the Home Secretary for his approval. At the sixth stage, the draft plan will go to the Home Secretary for his approval. At the seventh stage, the draft plan will go to the Home Secretary for his approval. At the seventh
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the matter more clearly. I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to put my points of view. I agree with him that this is a serious matter, but I want it to be clear to the House that I am not at all complacent about the cuts made to the police and military services in the 1980s. Indeed, I do not feel that I can answer in a platitudinous way the points he has raised. I can say, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, said, that the police are still the largest police force in the country, and that we are taking action to ensure that their services are preserved. He also asked me about the cuts to the military in the 1980s. I told him that we were making a number of cuts to the military in the 1980s. I am not sure that the wider question of the cuts to the military in the 1980s is relevant to the question of the cuts to the police. I can tell the noble Lord that we are making a number of cuts to the military in the 1980s. My noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey asked about the cut to the police when I said that we were cutting the police force. I can tell him that in the 1980s we cut the police in line with our share of the population. The noble Lord also asked me about cuts to the military in the 1980s. I can tell him that we made a series of cuts in the military in line with our share of the population. The noble Lord also asked whether I could give the noble Lord, Lord Harris, the figures. I can. He asked whether I could tell him the percentage reduction in the number of police officers. I do not know whether he is right in thinking that I have said that. I am not sure whether he is right in thinking that I have said that. I am not sure whether he is right in thinking that I have said that. We are talking about the proportion of the population of the country which is employed in the police service. The noble Lord asked me whether I could give him the figures. I can. He asked whether I could give him the figures on the reduction in the number of police officers on the number of police who were in the military. I have not said that. I have said that we are not reducing the number of police officers in the police service. I am not sure that he asked for the percentage reduction. I am not sure that he asked for the percentage reduction. I am not sure whether he wants me to tell him that I have said that. I am not sure whether he wants me to tell him that I am not really at all complacent about the cuts that have been made in the 1980s. No, I am not. I am not complacent about the cuts that have been made to the police in the 1980s. I am quite realistic in the sense that I can say that we have been cutting the police, not the military, in line with our share of the population in the 1980s. I have a number of long-standing cuts, not all of which have been made in the 1980s. The noble Lord asked whether I could tell him the percentage reduction. I can, certainly. He asked whether I could tell him the percentage reduction in the number of police officers in the police service. I am not sure that he is right in thinking that I have told him that. I have not. I am not sure whether he wants me to tell him that I have not said that. I am not sure that he wants me to tell him that I have said that. The noble Lord asked whether I could tell him the percentage reduction in the number of police who were in the military. The answer to the noble Lord, of course, is yes. I can tell him that in the 1980s there was a reduction in the numbers of the military. What we are doing now is to make a number of cuts to the police. I cannot tell him more at this stage, but I can assure him that we are cutting the number of police, not the number of officers. The noble Lord asked whether I could give him the figures. I can. I have not said that the percentage reductions made to the police are not proportionate. They are proportionate to the percentage of our population that is employed in the police service. The noble Lord asked whether I could tell him the percentage of the people who have no qualifications. I can. I have not said that the percentage of people who have no qualifications is not proportionate. I have said that I have no intention of cutting the number of police officers.
====================
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
====================
My Lords, I am sure that the House will congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on his maiden speech. I know that he is an extremely experienced politician. However, I think that he is speaking for the whole House. I am not sure of his intentions. I hope that he will not take this opportunity to accuse the noble Lord, Lord Peston, of being a party hack. He is, but he is a very experienced politician. He has a great deal of experience. I am sure that he was campaigning against the Government of the day and we had the opportunity to hear the very powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. He was very good at it. I hope that the noble Lord will continue. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on his maiden speech. I am sure that he will tell us that he will speak with distinction. Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, spoke from experience. He will be able to tell us that he is a very experienced politician and that he will speak with distinction. I am sure that he will do so.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, for his intervention. I accept the view of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont of Whitley, that the Government's view is that a minimum of 50 per cent of the cost should be taken by the Treasury. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, then asked what was the cost. That is the point. This is a Government White Paper, and we have decided to start from the assumption that, whatever happens, the costs will be borne by the Treasury. I am sorry that I did not have the opportunity to look at the White Paper, and I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will look at what I have said. However, I must say that I am not satisfied with the argument that I put forward. I must also say that the Government have no intention of taking that view. I am not surprised by the Government's attitude, because people have been saying that the Government are making up their mind. I do not believe that the Government are. I believe that as soon as the White Paper comes out, it will be clear that it is the Government's belief that the benefit derived from this will be of some assistance to the Home Office. Therefore, I do not believe it is necessary to ask the House to accept the position that we are taking the view that the costs will be borne by the Treasury.
====================
My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Miles, will not press my amendment.
====================
My Lords, I should like to emphasize one point which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, raised. He asked whether the Government were satisfied that the Bill would reach the statute book. I am not sure that I have answered the point. I have not answered the noble Lord's first point, which was that there is no guarantee that this Bill will reach the statute book. I am not suggesting that, but if it were I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet.
====================
I think I can answer the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. The Bill is not specifically provided for in that part of it, but it is the intention that it shall be so provided. I am not sure whether it is appropriate to include it in the Bill itself, but I hope that with the advice of the noble Lord the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I should like to make a brief intervention. I am not sure whether or not I am entitled to speak on this matter, but my noble friend Lord Kennet is speaking with considerable authority, and I am most grateful to him for his speech. I should like to say straight away that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that this is an important matter and, in the interests of the military defence of our national interests, we ought to have an assurance that it will be considered by the Select Committee on Military and Defence at the earliest opportunity. May I also declare my interest as a military officer, and since I have a small interest I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for raising this question. On behalf of my noble friend Lord Kennet of Selkirk, may I say that I do not expect to receive the assurance that the Select Committee will be appointed, but I hope that it will not be in the near future. May I also add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, on the excellent speech he has made? I understood his main thesis to be that this will be a very difficult and complicated question. I am not sure whether or not that is true, but I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will be coming to the conclusion that it is true. I am pleased to hear that the Select Committee will be set up to have the widest possible consultations. I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich whether he has any idea of the difficulties of raising funds to purchase, as he suggested, these land-mines, in order to be ready for the invasion of the USSR? I am sure he will be able to give us an assurance that in this matter, as in many others, no one has any wish but to get the supplies where they are needed. But I understand that my noble friend has no intention of bringing his legislation to a successful conclusion. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give us a satisfactory assurance that it will not be merely a matter of the fees that are charged and the land-mines on which the fees are paid. I am very grateful to him for raising this question, and I am most grateful to members of the Select Committee for their very helpful and comprehensive report.
====================
I could not get my way. I thought that I had already said that I did not intend to say anything.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am not a lawyer but I understand what the noble Lord has said. I wonder whether the noble Lord is referring to the clause as it now stands.
====================
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sorensen, asked me about the British Antarctic Survey. It is quite right that the British Antarctic Survey should be given to the Natural Environment Research Council. I do not know what it is to be given to the other agencies, but to the chief officer, who will be responsible for the United States Antarctic Service, I should like to express my full support.
====================
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that assurance, which I hope will be reviewed in the near future. My noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton has made a number of points which I shall not repeat. I am grateful to the noble Lord for making it clear that there will be no change of policy on the issue. I am sorry that the noble Lord is not able to give a speech to-day. I am not sure that I can say more on the substantive issues that he raised. I have tried to provide the noble Lord with a summary of what was said. I am not sure that he can read it in the way I have. I have tried to say that the issue was referred to the Cabinet Secretary. I am not sure that that is the best way of dealing with it. I believe that we should take the matter away and talk to the noble Lord. I do not believe that I can repeat the assurance given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I am sorry that he cannot give me an assurance this afternoon. I hope that he will not press the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining this matter. I declare an interest as an ex-prisoner. My daughter is a prisoner. I understand the reasons for her being in prison. I am not sure that the reason why she is in prison is the cause of her being in prison. I understand the reason why she has been there. I am not sure whether or not the reason why she has been there is the cause of her being in prison. I shall read what the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am very happy to tell your Lordships that the Government are now in a position to announce their intentions on the restructuring of the Royal Air Force. Our objective is to restore the status quo and to restore the status quo ante. The noble Viscount will be aware that the methods of gaining the trust of the public are not new. The new methods are new to this country. The basic premise of the military is a military dictatorship. That was a great achievement of the military dictatorship of the last war. The noble Viscount will remember that the main structure of military power in this country was the Royal Air Force. At the time of the war years ago, I remember that the people in Scotland were very frightened. They were frightened to death because the air is not as dangerous as it was. They were frightened because the air was not so dangerous as it is now. They were frightened because there were many parts of the country which were not safe. They were frightened because they were frightened of the air. They were frightened as they have been ever since the war. They were frightened by the dangers of the sea, and they were frightened about the sea. They were frightened by the action of the United States. They were afraid to death by going out in the sea and then being shot down by American planes. They were frightened by the action of the United States in the Falklands war. They were not scared by the action of the Communists in Russia. They were frightened by the action of the United States in the Gulf. They were frightened by the actions of the Communists in China and by the action of the United States in the Middle East. They were frightened by the action of the United States in Korea. They were frightened by the actions of the United States in the Gulf. They were frightened by the action of the United States in Afghanistan. They were frightened by the action of the United States in Vietnam and by the actions of the United States in Angola. They were frightened by the actions of the United States in South Africa. They were frightened by the action of the United States in the Falklands war and by the action of the United States in Angola. They were scared by the actions of the United States in Korea. They were frightened by the action of the United States in Korea. They were frightened by the actions of the United States in the Gulf. They were frightened by the actions of the United States in the Middle East. They were frightened by the actions of the United States in South Africa, and, I am afraid, were frightened by the action of the United States in Southeast Asia. The noble Viscount will be aware that the Royal Air Force is now the dominant force in the world, and that it has the unique position of being the backbone of the cost of living. It is the one force which has stood the test of world opinion and of the people's views. We are for the security of the Crown. That is a statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. I apologise to the noble Viscount that the statement is not in his name—I shall have to use the title to remind him—but I will ensure that he has the opportunity of being given the reference.
====================
My Lords, I too welcome the report. Its main focus is the question of emergency powers. It is not a question of a censure of the Government for the manner in which they have used their powers. It is a question of whether it is right to send a body of this size the task of defending ourselves and our national interests, and whether, in the circumstances, it is right to send a body of this size the task of defending the interests of our people who are in that country at the moment. The situation is an extraordinary one. We have a situation in which you are very often in a position of desperation and on the streets of London and in other major cities. You have people who have no means of transport and who are unable to do so because they have no transport. This is a place where there are people who are homeless, who are homeless because their houses are not available and even if they could get somewhere, because they cannot go to a doctor and ask for money. I have never heard of a more desperate crisis. It is a grave crisis for our people. It is a terrible tragedy that the Government have not been able to get a response from the people of this country and to get a response from the people of this country in the place of the people of this country who are in their country at the moment.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful for that clarification. It is clear from the discussions that the problem may be one of policy and not of the inadequacy of the scheme. I do not want to make that argument again. I will look carefully at what the Minister has said and will write to him with the reasons.
====================
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Radnor, is not in a position to comment on the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Manchester, who is obviously not here to speak. I am sure he will be glad to see that I am here to speak on this occasion from the Front Bench. I know his views, but I am sure they are not his views. I shall be glad to withdraw the Motion and I will of course take his remarks with me.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene, and I am sure that in most parts of the House he has listened with great interest to the speeches of the two noble Lords, Lord Ambrose and Lord Pethick-Lawrence. The noble Lord, Lord Ambrose, asked me which of those two noble Lords had a better right to speak on the Government. My answer is, of course, that I have no right to speak for the Government, and that is the duty of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, who has a particular interest in this matter. I have taken a deep interest in the subject of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence. He has said that he hopes to have his views as widely distributed as possible, and he is getting on a plane to attend this debate. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, by saying that I think that he is wrong in the view that the very large number of people who are going to benefit from the scheme will get their benefit from the scheme. I am sure that it will get the benefit of the great majority of people who will benefit from it. I hope that, if one is going to have a scheme which is going to work and which helps people to get a job, it will not be like the scheme to which I have referred which has been mentioned in this House for a long time and which was criticised by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence. I believe that the people who will benefit from this scheme will get a job at the end of the scheme. That is the kind of thing which will happen. I know that there is no secret about it. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, has his own views on unemployment, and he has said that he has been advised by a number of experts. I think that there is a great deal in the noble Lord's own views. I am sure that if I were to give the noble Lord a speech here, and he had time to think out what he wanted to say, I should not agree with him, but I should certainly take the opportunity of doing so. I cannot do so because he is not here, but I hope that if he is here he will not feel that I am trying to mislead him. I am sure that he knows that I am not, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, is not. I think I have answered the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, by saying that I am aware of the issues which he raises in this matter. I am sorry to disappoint him, and I am sure that he is disappointed by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, who has a special interest in this matter, and I am sure he will view with some satisfaction the remarks I have made. I hope he will understand me when I say that I made no promise to him to make a speech here, and I hope he will take away my assurance that I shall be here when he speaks. I think he will find that I am going to be here in the hope of being able to answer his questions, and that I shall be able to answer all his questions when he speaks in his speech. I have no doubt at all that the noble Lord will appreciate that I have done my best to answer him. I have, in fact, answered every question raised by him, so far as he was concerned. I hope he will not press me further, and I shall have to look at the matter again.
====================
My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he understands what he is saying? I am trying to do something which is legalistically practical and not legalistically intellectual? He is not suggesting that I am merely building up a list. Is he suggesting that I am merely putting down a list? I am trying to put down a list of the things that can be done in the future. The noble Lord is suggesting that I am building up a list of the things which can be done in the future. I am not suggesting that I am building up a list. I am asking that the things that can be done in the future should not be required in a legalistic way. Is the noble Lord suggesting that I am building up a list for the future?
====================
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. I have to say that he has given me a very small piece of advice. That is not what I asked him about; I asked him about the new plan for the Trim Office. That is what I was asking him about. I am not asking him about it now; I am not questioning the old plan. I am only asking him to tell us about the new plan. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful for the Minister's reply. The fact is that we have used the term "non-competition" for quite long. What we are now seeking to provide is that we are dealing with the form and the way in which the public sector is to be regulated in the future. That is the question that we were discussing in relation to the private sector in 1996 when the Private Sector Bill was introduced. The new Department of Trade and Industry is under a very similar set of functions and responsibilities. There is no difference between that and the privatisation of the public sector in the sense that it is in this case a form of privatisation and not a transfer of powers. The private sector is not a transfer of powers. It is a transfer of responsibility. It is not a transfer of power. It is not the equivalent of a transfer of powers. It is a transfer of responsibility. We have not yet had an answer from the Government on the implications of the private sector on the public sector.
====================
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, for his kind words. I am sure that the whole House would be glad to hear him say that. As I understand it, this is the one in which you are not going to be required to wait until your applications have been made. I appreciate that it is not the intention of the Government to require a person to wait, but I do not know what the intention is. I have not heard. I am sorry that I am not able to give the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, the assurance he seeks.
====================
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that concession. I am sure that it is very much appreciated. It is a very useful concession which is likely to be very useful. I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I understand that the NDA is still open for an indefinite period.
====================
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I hope he will not press the amendment. I did not expect him to say that he thought it would work. I was not expecting him to say that he was going to accept it, and I thought that it was a dangerous amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Is he not aware that it is not completely clear to the public whether the words "any person" and "any body" refer to the same thing? It seems strange to me that in such a case, if one is going to have a tribunal, one would not have a person known as the tribunal. It seems to me that a tribunal would not be known as a body. It would be wholly unknown. What it refers to is a tribunal, and it seems to me that in that case it would be exactly the same.
====================
My Lords, I was going to refer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, as he said that it was very important to keep up the pressure of people who are not able to work in the field of welfare work. I should like to come straight away to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, when he said that we have to remember that the problem of unemployment is not a problem of the old welfare system, but of the present economic situation. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that there is a great deal more to be done in this field. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is not in his place, but he asked whether we could join the Commission. I am sure that it is not practicable to join the Commission; nor, indeed, is it practical to join any Commission, but the idea that there should be a body which would act as a Commission, that the system might be changed, is another thing altogether. For all this reason, I am sure that we shall not be making our contribution with any great enthusiasm. I will take the noble Lord's point, and give him my reasons. It would, I hope, be helpful if I were to say that, so far as we are concerned, we shall not be involved in the Council of Ministers for the next two years, and so long as the present Government of the day are in office we shall be. I have been asked why we are not. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is right, but I am sure that we are not the only ones who wish to use the procedure which he proposes. As he has suggested, we could use the procedure which he proposes, but we certainly could not accept the proposal which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, has made.
====================
My Lords, the Government are committed to bringing forward a Bill which will introduce a new framework of legislation for the application of the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. We are currently considering practical proposals for this Bill which are to be laid before the House. I can assure the noble Baroness that the Government will listen with interest to what she has said.
====================
I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Colville of Culross, who has been speaking with admirable eloquence. It was a great pleasure to read the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Colville of Culross. I am sure that the House is indebted to him for his speech and for the very clear and cogent way in which he put it. I, too, should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Stonehaven, for the eloquence he made. It is a good thing to have a distinguished Member of the other place to speak in this debate. It is also a great pleasure to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Colville of Culross, speaking with such clarity. I should like to say that I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Colville of Culross, will be listening with very great interest to what I have to say at the end of the debate, but I should like to say to him that I think he has a point of view which is difficult to follow. He said that he thought that the Minister should be able to take up the case of a person who is not financially well off, but he said that the sums involved would be much greater if the person were able to get a little more money. I believe that the sums involved are very small indeed. I could not help thinking that he does not really understand the point of view, as I understand it, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Colville. In my view, the Minister should look at the question of a person who is not financially well off; he should know that it is a vast deal less important if he is financially well off than if he is not. I should like to say that I believe that the Minister does not know the point at all of the noble Lord, Lord Colville of Culross. I should like to speak from the Government side of the House to my noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. My noble friend asked whether the Minister would look at the problem of a person who is not financially well off. I can only say that I will do my best to look into the matter. There is no doubt that it is a very serious matter. I should like to say to my noble friend that, in the most helpful way I can, I am sure that he will find that there are many people who would benefit from the protection of the superannuation scheme. This is a very substantial scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will know that it is a very large scheme. It is a very complicated one. I should like to say that I am only sorry that it has not been possible to move the amendments which have been taken down. It was the feeling of the House that that was a proper thing to do. I believe that the House would have preferred to leave the matter to the Committee, but I can only say that, in my view, it is a very complicated scheme.
====================
My Lords, there is no doubt about it. I am not sure whether or not the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has been here, but he has made some remarks. I understand that the Government are now in a position to say what they are going to do, though I am not sure whether or not they have done it already. I have not the slightest doubt about it. I am sure he will understand that we are very careful to provide for people who need it, and we will do everything we can to ensure that they have it in the way they want it. The question is whether the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, wishes to withdraw his Motion.
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lazell. It seems that we have not yet reached the stage where I can clarify the position of the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay, to whom I referred earlier, to whom I am grateful for his intervention. The noble Lord, Lord Lindsay, talked about the circumstances and circumstances of the present Motion for debate, which is not the Motion which is before the House now, but which was the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. The noble Lord kept talking about the nature of the present Motion. I am sure that in the circumstances the noble Lord will accept that it is not the Motion for debate. The Motion means that the noble Lord has heard the debate on the Motion for debate, and it is the only Motion on the Order Paper which is being moved. I am sorry that the noble Lord felt that he had not done so; I was not aware of the Motion for debate being moved, and I was only trying to be helpful to the noble Lord. I am most grateful to him.
====================
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but this does not deal with what I was saying. It is dealing with the question of charges. The noble Lord was dealing with charges. It is not the case that there is any fee. In the case of an insurance company the charge is the premium. It is not the case that there is any fee.
====================
My Lords, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Allen, will not take it amiss if I say that I am pleased to see him in his place. However, he has not answered the point that I made about the extra £500. That might have something to do with the fact that I am not an official of the Department of Trade and Industry. I do not know whether I am right about that. I know that some of the departments which are associated with transport in this House have a very small net budget. I would not be prepared to say that the extra money to be made available for the railways is going to be made available to the railways. It is not.[|endoftext|>
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I do not have to admit to that. Therefore, I am not prepared to say that it is not.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that intervention. I am sure it would not matter to the majority of the Panel that the children are in care. However, I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
====================
I am sure that we all listen with very great attention to the noble Lord, Lord Rawlinson. I am sure that he will be as anxious as I am to hear the end of the debate. However, I think that he is putting his finger on something. I do not think that it is the case that it is the case that we are in some way subsidising the private sector.
====================
My Lords, one of the beauties of the House of Lords is that it is the only place where we have not had the opportunity to debate major issues in which both Houses have been engaged. Therefore, I have no complaint to make. However, I must say that that has been the case for a great many years. I do not think that I should describe the position as "heartbreak", but it is a fact that you have to endure heartbreak almost every day. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has said that the best way for the House to be able to work is to work together. I believe that that is true. I do not know how anyone can hope to get the best results if there is no sense of partnership. I should like to know whether the noble Lord is aware of a recent academic report. It is called Pending Practice: A Framework for a Collective Commons. It states: "There can be no question but that the Commons will be a fully functioning entity in the future, subject to a number of agreed and unenforced conventions and to the process of law and order" and so on. The report goes on to say: "It is widely accepted that the House has a vital role to play in the legislative process. Its role is a significant and continuing component of the operation of the legislative process". Therefore, I believe that the best way to deal with the matter is to have a united House in which we are not subject to the vagaries of the other place, where we can work together. I should like to know how we can get there. I should like to know what is the position of the House. I should like to know what is the position of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross. I should like to know what is the position of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and what is the position of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I should like to know what is the position of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. I should like to know what is the position of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, and what is the position of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. And I should like to know whether the noble Lord is aware that it is the House that has to work together.
====================
I am grateful to the noble Earl for that clarification. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for allowing me to speak on the Motion which he moved. I certainly do not intend to press his amendment to a Division this evening. I am grateful for the noble Lord's offer, which I am happy to accept.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that clarification. I was not aware of the fact that it would not be an offence to produce alcohol to a child under the age of 21. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has been referring to the fact that it would not be an offence under the age of 21 for a parent to produce alcohol to a child under the age of 21. I shall not pursue the matter now but I shall read what he said with interest.
====================
My Lords, I should have thought that some people would welcome the amendment. However, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, is right. I wonder whether he is right in saying that it is not the intention of the Government to ask the Council to do this in the way it has at present done it. However, I do not know whether it would be wise to ask the Council to do this. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, is right in saying that it is not the intention of the Government to ask the Council to do this.
====================
The Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has moved and which I am now proposing is one of the words which I have replaced. I am perfectly prepared to accept it.
====================
The noble Lord is quite right. I have not been able to locate where I was taking the noble Lord. I tried to ask him whether he had been able to find where I had read the minutes of the earlier debate. As I have said, I am glad to have a copy and I hope it will prove to be useful.
====================
My Lords, is the noble Lord the Leader of the House saying that if no time is allowed for the consultation and discussion to be carried out, we shall not have a springboard for the development of a civil defence programme? I thought that the noble Lord said that he was not.
====================
I am grateful to the noble Viscount for that intervention. I am sorry if I said any of the things he has said.
====================
My Lords, I shall not pursue that argument at this stage, but I shall have a look at it. The noble Lord, Lord Gardner of Parkes, referred to the cost of the contingency plans in Northern Ireland. I understand that the cost is about £700,000, but I do not know what the amount will be.
====================
May I comment on the point made by my noble friend Lord Aycock? I am sure that he will agree that on these occasions it is the duty of the civil servant to ensure that the powers of a tribunal to deal with these matters are not abused. I should also like to make it clear that the powers of the tribunal are not discussed in this Bill. So far as the broader powers are concerned, they are discussed in the Bill. So far as the power of the authority to determine the standards and the content of the tribunal is concerned, I hope that I have answered the questions that have been put to me in the course of the debate.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows: "With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the security of the Falkland Islands Islands. "The Statement is as follows: "In reply to the Question, without giving reasons, I have given an Answer to the Commons Questions. "The question of the operation of the Salt Flats Canal was raised in another place by the Leader of the Opposition. The reply was that it was a matter for the Argentine Government. This was what we said in our reply in another place. "The reason for the operations is a matter for the Argentine Government. The British Government and the Argentine Government have discussed the operations of the Canal. The Argentine Government have conceded in the matter and the British Government are now prepared to discuss the Canal, and are prepared to negotiate on it. "I have made it clear to the Argentine Government that we shall not make a formal reply to the questions raised and that we shall not negotiate with them. "The British Government also accepted the Argentine Government's own reasons for the operation of the Canal, and I should like to make it clear that we shall not negotiate unless the Argentine Government have surrendered unconditionally their right to operate the Canal. This was the reason for the operations of the Canal. "The British Government recognise that the Federation of the Islands has a vital interest in the South Atlantic, and we have a special relationship with the Falkland Islands, which is in the South Atlantic Commonwealth. Therefore, we have decided to build up the Falkland Canal Authority and the Falkland Islands Government have agreed to the terms and conditions of the Agreement. "The British Government have already agreed to the terms of the Agreement. The Agreement, which I have explained to this House, is a preliminary to the full implementation of the Agreement. "I have expressed to the Argentine Government my regret that the operations of the Canal are now being interrupted, and I believe that the grounds for doing so will be given by the Argentine Government. I have already asked the Argentine Government to provide for a new Administration to operate the Canal in the Falkland Islands. The Argentine Government have declined to undertake this, and the British Government have dismissed them. "The Government have also accepted the Argentinian Government's own reasons for the operation of the Canal. We are prepared to negotiate with them and I have the right to negotiate with them. I have also asked the Argentine Government to make a formal reply on the question of the operation of the Canal. I have also asked them to make a statement in the form of a letter setting out the reasons for the operation of the Canal. "I have no doubt that this will be the Argentinian Government's reply when they have received the letter. I have also asked the Argentine Government to give me the letter. I have also asked them to give me the letter which was sent to my right honourable friend the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Argentine Government have now replied to this request, and I have asked the Argentine Government to make a statement on this at a convenient moment. "The main purpose of the Agreement is to facilitate the free movement of British armed forces and naval forces, subject to the control of the Mediterranean, and to enable naval operations to be carried out. This agreement by itself is not the means of lightening the heaviest burden on the Falkland Islands. It is a means of covering the two areas, for the Falkland Islands is the only island on which these operations can be carried out for the time being. There are other islands that are covered by separate agreements: Malta, Malta, Gibraltar, the Argentine Federation, Cyprus, and the Falkland Islands Government. "The agreements which are now in force provide the means of providing the necessary protection for British shipping in the Falkland Islands. The effect of these agreements will be to enable a British fleet anchored in the Falkland Islands to operate for a period of at least six years under the control of the Argentine Government. The effect of these agreements is that naval vessels from the Falkland Islands will be able to operate free of restriction. "The Agreement which I have described is an objective of the Agreement which I have just spoken to, to enable us to obtain the agreement of the Argentine Government to operate the Canal for a period of at least six years and to operate it for the protection of our navy. The Government have agreed to this and to the terms of the Agreement. "The objectives of the Agreement are: to enable the non-aligned countries of the South Atlantic to operate the Canal; to assist the non-aligned countries of the South China Sea to operate the Canal; and to enable the non-aligned countries of the South China Sea to operate the Canal for a period of at least six years. "The Agreement provides that we shall have the right to operate the Canal for a period of at least six years and the rights of navigation for a period of
====================
My Lords, I believe that it is perfectly reasonable to go to the courts and ask for a copy of the indictment, the evidence and the reasons why this was done. The person who is charged will then be given the opportunity to seek a copy of the indictment, and also the reasons why he did not receive a copy or why he should have been given a copy. The reason why he did not receive a copy is because the Government have not had time to consider this point and to do it. I doubt that the court would wish to hear a copy of an indictment. I have given the noble Lord notice that I will resist any attempt to do that. If he does not so do not.
====================
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and also, at my request, on behalf of my noble friends Lord Renton, Lord Symons and Lord Jopling, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
====================
My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has raised the point of the amounts of resources which would be involved in the operation. We have to make a judgement about the resources which are available and taken into account the fact that the costs to the Public Accounts Committee of the Government's proposals would be quite considerable. I am sure that the noble Lord will recognise that the amount of money which is available will be considerable. I am aware of the extent of the costs involved and I am confident that the noble Lord and his colleagues in the Treasury will look at this matter very carefully. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, asked me about the system of fines. I am happy to tell him that fines will be levied in accordance with the regulations.
====================
My Lords, I am sure that this is a very small matter, but I was interested to hear the Minister say that in the light of the fact that more than 70 per cent. of the air traffic service is under the control of private companies, it is possible that an even smaller number of companies are, nevertheless, in the private sector. I am not sure that there is an equality of treatment, but I have heard the Minister say that they are making progress. On those grounds, and as he is aware that the Minister of Air is about to be appointed to that post, I think I may say to him that I do not wish to spend my time on this matter this afternoon, but I should have thought that he would have been well advised to withdraw the Motion.
====================
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Ashburton, I am happy to tell him that the Government are committed to reducing the number of families in accommodation into which children are separated from their families by the introduction of a family benefit scheme. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced on 2nd December that, following consultation, a family benefit scheme would be introduced, in pursuance of recommendations of the Royal Commission on Special Housing. That also applies to the Home Help package, but it is in addition to the Home Help package which is being introduced in one form or another. As regards the noble Lord's question about age, I can assure him that I shall do my best to ensure that we have the support and encouragement of the age 71 pensioner.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention and I am sure he will understand that the Government are taking this matter very seriously. I am sure that the noble Lord will welcome the fact that in the course of the debate we have seen the views of the Government on the necessity for the expansion of the medical research programme. I think I am right in saying that almost all the views expressed in this House have been expressed and taken by the Minister and no doubt some of the decisions have been taken by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State—I do not know the exact position—but I am certain that the noble Lord will appreciate that there is a need for greater research in this field. Although I do not think any of his comments will cause any surprise, he will, however, be aware of the difficulties which face me. I am not going to add to what has already been said. I am glad to welcome the return of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and I hope that he will be permitted to speak in this debate.
====================
Would the noble Lord not agree that in certain countries the line of demarcation is a line of demarcation drawn with the flag on the end of the stick and not the middle of the stick?
====================
That is all right. I have listened to the argument, and I will look at it again.
====================
I am very much obliged, and with the greatest good wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Snell. I think it is rather more important, as the noble Lord has suggested, to get this right, because if you get it that way you are not going to a law of the land, as we all know, but you might have the problem of the result of the law of the land.
====================
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, that economic growth is the key to the success of the future. As he knows, I am a major shareholder of a company which is undertaking a new investment programme and is now investing in a new building. It is all part of that new investment programme. The noble Lord asked me whether I was aware that under the new scheme I am likely to win a substantial number of contracts that would be worth around £15 million. I am not sure that I can answer his question. I am sure that I am aware that a number of people who do not know how to help themselves are eligible to receive help from the Government. The noble Lord asked me a question about senior executives. I believe that it is simply not true. I do not know whether I can answer his question. However, I am aware that the present Secretary of State, Mr. David Owen, is making inquiries about the directors of the company. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could write to me with his questions.
====================
My Lords, I find the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, particularly interesting. It is not always easy to get the facts right in these Bills. But I think that the Government have made a very good start on this. In fact, the government of the day, having read this Bill, has put it to the people in this House. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Alport, was able to read the Bill, but I know that he is right in saying that it is entirely a matter of the words which are used in the Bill. They are not simply words and not words with meaning. It is a very difficult Bill to find out what is meant by "disorderly conduct". It is not always easy to find that out. However, I believe that the words "disorderly conduct" will have the effect of saying that it is not an offence to take part in an unruly performance of the duties of a constable. I hope that the noble Lord will consider the words carefully and bring forward an Amendment to clarify exactly what is meant by "disorderly conduct".
====================
My Lords, although I am not concerned for the details of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, if I may be permitted to say so, I should like to express my support for the amendment, and also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, for getting it in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in his desire to protect the current status quo. However, I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I wonder whether, after the debates we have had, there will be a different expression. I am not sure whether I should be all the way through now, or whether I should be necessary to have an argument on the next amendment. I think it would be useful to know which was which. If it were not, I am not sure what it would be.
====================
My Lords, I am not sure how many times it is said that the Government have been successful in persuading the unions to negotiate a joint agreement. Has that been done in the past, as well?
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord to put this point again. I mentioned the term "fault". Does he really want to get off the hook that if he is liable to a fine he is liable to a fine? Because I am sure the noble Lord will be aware that fine can be made out, even to the extent of £2,000, of course.
====================
My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for his kind introduction. I am particularly grateful that he is here who has been a Member of Parliament for many years, and I am sure that he will be very interested to know that many years ago a very distinguished Member of Parliament, Lord Brockway, made a speech about the subject of coal. He said that the debate was a boar's road and that no one would look forward to it. I am sure that this House is not going to look forward to it. I do not know whether the noble Lord has taken what the noble Lord, Lord Brockway said in his speech as a suggestion. I am sure that it is so, and I am sure that most of your Lordships will agree that it is a very serious matter. This debate is to be welcomed, and it is to be welcomed also by the country as a whole. You will find it in every paper and in every pamphlet, and you will hear it every day in the newspapers. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, will be able to look forward to his speech. I am sure there will be many others in this House who are equally interested in it. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, will agree that that is very important indeed. I am very much obliged to him for the opportunity of taking part in this debate. I have looked at the Order Paper and I have thought for a very long time about the question of the industrial structure of this country. I have thought about it for the last few weeks from my own point of view, and I would put that on record. Here I am taking a view which is based on great experience, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Brockway will bear with me in that view. I do not see why you would not have a nationalised industry. I do not see why you would not have a private owned industry. I do not see why you would not have a private enterprise. I do not see why you would not have a private enterprise in the public sector. I do not see why you would not have a public enterprise. I do not see why you would not have a public enterprise. I do not see what that means. I want to see a private enterprise, not a public enterprise. It is not a private enterprise. It is not a public enterprise; it is not a private enterprise. It is a public enterprise. The reason is that there are certain people who want to see something private. This is an attempt for a private enterprise to be an organised public enterprise, and to do that, it must have a structure. I believe that it is a structure which is needed in this country in the future, and I hope that it will be found.
====================
I am not sure about the definition of the word "prejudice". I was just withdrawing my Amendment because I did not know it. The noble Lord said, "But, one must not be prejudiced". I am not sure about the definition of "prejudice". I should be grateful to the noble Lord if he could explain what he meant, but I am not sure that that is the meaning of the word "prejudice".
====================
My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, is not in his place. I am particularly sorry to hear the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, because I have a great deal to say about him, as do many of your Lordships. It is my intention to confine myself to a very short speech, but I should like to say that I was very interested indeed by the discussion which took place on this subject last week on the Second Reading of the Unstarred Question of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, who suggested that that was a good idea and that it might have been better if we had had this debate on the Second Reading, which seems to me to be a very good idea. I was very interested myself in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and I feel that I ought to say a few words with regard to the Unstarred Question. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, gave quite the kind of speech which he hoped for, but he did refer to the question of the Select Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and I should like to say that I think I was in a place of honour when I said that he was not in a place of honour in his speech for he mentioned a number of other matters which I thought were worth mentioning. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, gave the kind of speech that he had hoped for from the Government, but that is a very good question. He asked whether I would give him a full reply on the question of the Select Committee. I will do my best not to do that, but I should like to say at once that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, is in a position of honour on the occasion of his induction. I hope he will not expect me to give him a full reply, but I will say how much I appreciate his very good wishes in this matter. I thought I made it clear that I would not be in a position to give him a full reply to his question on the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. Of course, I appreciate his concern that the Select Committee should be able to produce a report about the matter. I will certainly see that he receives it.
====================
My Lords, I did not understand the noble Lord's last remark. I understood that he said that he did not expect to see the information given to the Minister.
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I should like to ask the Minister whether she is aware that when the Bill was introduced in this House the then Prime Minister, Mr. Heseltine, and her predecessor, Mr. Wilson, said that they hoped it would be given a speedy passage to the statute book. They pointed out that it was not a mere forerunner, it was part of the package. I am sure that we are all better aware of this now. The Government have consistently opposed the introduction of this Bill in order to avoid the possibility of a Civil Service Bill which could bring advantages to the general public.
====================
My Lords, I have already said that I am not a lawyer, and I am not an expert in these matters. I should like to know whether they are ruled out or in.
====================
I apologise for intervening again but I wanted to know whether the Minister would confirm that there is an agreement between the Government and the ACPO about the way in which they operate. I have had the opportunity to read many of the letters dealing with this matter from the National Enterprise Board. They are not conclusive but they are certainly acknowledged as factual. The Minister must now have a chance to put those matters in rather more concrete form. I understand that the Minister will be able to respond positively to this amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am in the United States of America. I have never been to the United States of America. I have never had any chance to go through any of the steps which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has just put into effect. I have only been to the United States on my way to Canada. I was there to pick up a copy of the New Statesman.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I was not aware of the noble Lord's statement. I shall look into it.
====================
I am grateful for the summary of what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has said. I am glad that he has said it, because it is important. I must say that I am more concerned than I was about the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, to which I shall refer later. I am not sure whether you would have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, would have put the amendment on the Marshalled List, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, put it on the previous occasion. On the previous occasion, in the group that I spoke to, that amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and he spoke to it. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has made a similar suggestion. In those circumstances, I am glad to know that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has put it on the Marshalled List. I shall not press the amendment to a Division as it is a matter for the Committee.
====================
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the admirable report by Dr. Torvalds of the World Health Organisation on the subject of disease control and prevention? In his report, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, he says: "The key to prevention of disease is prevention of effective control, including effective prevention and education of public health issues, as well as prevention of infectious disease and prevention of transmission, spread and disease through the internet". Does the Minister agree that the media, which has been one of the major problems of the past few years, has played an unfortunate part in this? Does he further agree that it is a great pity that it is not being dealt with on a regional basis?
====================
My Lords, I should like to say at once that I note the noble Lord's speech and entirely agree with his observations. I think that it does not seem to me that the Government are making any attempt to hide the fact that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to retain the support of the United Nations. If you take the view which I have taken, that the United Nations, as a whole, is not doing the job that it ought to do—and of course it cannot do it—then I should like to put this point to the Government. I made it quite clear in the course of my opening speech that I thought that the United Nations was doing the job which it ought to do, and I am quite sure that it has done it. I put that point in the past tense, because I think that the lack of confidence in the United Nations is one of the causes of our current difficulties. I am not going to read out the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, because I will put it in the word of my own experience, which is that it was Sir Winston Churchill who brought about the end of the war, and I think it was Sir Donald Stewart who led the way into the peace which we are now seeking.
====================
I understand the point. Of course, we are not going to give the same sort of treatment to all prisoners, except in some exceptional circumstances. We are only being advised, and it would be entirely out of order to ask what the position would be if, in the course of the process, we were to introduce an amendment of the present meaning of the words "or other person who is not a person who has been convicted of an offence under this section". The Amendment which I put before the Committee is designed to secure a better definition for any person who is in a position to be called for trial under this section, and in particular for the person who is alleged to be a person in the position of a prisoner of war—a person who is a person who has been convicted of an offence under this section. It is intended to secure the meaning of the words "or other person who is not a person who has been convicted of an offence under this section", but we do not think it is necessary to provide for a person who is not a person who has been convicted of an offence under this section, because a person who is a prisoner of war cannot be called for trial under this section. I should like to emphasise to the Committee that, for the purposes of this section, it means a person who has been convicted of an offence under this section. When a person has been convicted of an offence under this section, it means the person who is alleged to have committed the offence. I do not think the words "or other person who is not a person who has been convicted of an offence under this section" are necessary, because the person who has been convicted of an offence under this section is the person who has not been convicted of an offence under this section. I would remind the Committee that the word "or other person" is defined in the Amendment. When the term is used, it means a person who is alleged to have committed an offence under this section, but I do not think it is necessary to provide for that person being deemed to be a person who has not been convicted of an offence under this section. In the light of that explanation, I hope the Committee will not press the Amendment.
====================
My Lords, let me give way to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. I understand he has been imprisoned. I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell us whether he is in the library. I cannot find that.
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his reply. I understood him to say that it is a great loss to the taxpayer that one should receive a certificate from the Secretary of State or the Director General of Fair Trading; but is he aware that the costs associated with the new procedures have been quite considerable? I should like to ask my noble friend whether he has any idea of the cost to the taxpayer of the new procedures. I understand that the Secretary of State's expenses are now estimated at £30,000; but the costs incurred by the Fair Trading and Fair Trading Administration Board, which is the board of my noble friend, are in the region of £8,000. Does the noble Lord consider that the National Institute for Civil Engineers is now going to be brought in to do the work on this? I was not quite sure whether the noble Lord could tell us whether or not.
====================
My Lords, I am not sure that I follow the noble Lord's argument. I should like to know whether he is referring to Clause 42, which I am not sure about; I have not seen it. I do not know whether it is a purely technical matter, or whether part of the amendment was intended to cover the point, and so on. I am not sure whether it is intended to cover the point. I should like to know whether it is intended to cover the point.
====================
My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the debate and I am so glad of the opportunity to speak again without the necessity for going through the usual channels. I acknowledge the fact that the Minister has said that he is considering the matter, but he has not answered my question. Does he agree that an amendment is needed to deal with the situation in which a child cries out for help and is picked up by the local authority? Is he further aware that, in the case of a deaf child, the sounds of crying can be made very loud of the word "help", and of the words "if you cry sing" in some case the child can be brought to the attention of the person who is meant to help?
====================
My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer, but I should say that I think he made a mistake. I was not going to say that the law is a great deal better than it was, because no one can pretend that it is not; but the law is not as good as it was. The noble Lord, Lord Swinton, particularly criticized the question of the additonal regulations. I am sorry that he did not understand me, but the point I was trying to make was that there will be a period of a year in which the forms will be produced and the regulations will be in force, and I think that at that time it will be possible for the noble Lord to interpret the regulations, because they are in the form of regulations and not as regulations, and it will be possible for him to interpret them. I had in mind the formulae. I do not think there is any doubt about that. I should like to say one word about the additional regulations which are coming, and which the noble Lord, Lord Swinton, refers to in his speech. There have been a lot of these. I am going to deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinton, as to the amount of money that is to be spent on the matter. I am quite certain that the noble Lord, Lord Swinton, is well aware of the huge amount of money that has been spent on the matter. I am sure that he is also aware that the Government are very anxious that we should get it spent. I am sure that he is also well aware of the want of money that will be left in the hands of the diktats. I should like to say straightaway that I was not taking the view that they are as good as the Government, but that it is better to try to get the best money we can. I think the noble Lord, Lord Swinton, was quite right; that is the important thing. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, says that the extra money is a waste of money. He did not say for what. It is a waste of money, and the Government have wasted it. But it is not wasted money. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Swinton, will not be too anxious to add to this. He is a good economist, and I know that he would not like to add to it. I hope he will not say that we have wasted money, because the money is a waste of money. It is a waste of money. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, asked me—and I do not think I heard him say it—whether we can look at the matter again. I should like to remind him that we have spent £10,000,000. I do not know whether his Government will look at the matter again, but I should like to ask him to look at it again. I do not think that he will do so at the moment. I hope he will look at the matter again. Perhaps he will not add to the matter. I do not think he said it was a waste of money. I think he said that we were wasting money, but that the money was a waste of money. I must say that I cannot conceive of spending money at a rate of £10,000,000, and then not being able to find another thing to spend it on. It is a waste of money. One of the things that I am afraid of is that the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, is not a good economist. He said that we could not spend as much money as we wanted, but we have done so. Secondly, he said that this money is a waste of money. I do not think he said that. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, is not a good economist. I think he was wrong in saying that. I do not know. It is a waste of money. That is the situation so far as I am concerned. I am not trying to get money out of the Treasury, but in the way in which we are spending it. The Government have not spent on this. We have spent £10,000,000.
====================
It may be that there is some similarity between the two. Of course, we are talking about whether or not there is a penalty. It is not something in the nature of a fine. It is a penalty on the spot. What happens if a person has committed an offence and he is fined? Should he be given a new decision and drawn up in writing? Often that is the case. The person may not be able to obtain a new decision. That is the way it is going to work. The amendment is intended to ensure that a person who is convicted of the offence is given a new decision and not a fine. It is a question of whether or not the fine should be increased. I think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is rather unfair on the amendment. He is saying that a person who is convicted of an offence should not be given a new decision and drawn up in writing. I do not think that is right. I do not know if that is the point.
====================
I am not sure whether this is the right time to ask the noble Baroness. The noble Lord has been very detailed in his comments on the amendments which we will seek to discuss. I should like to know whether he has considered them and put them in so that we can discuss them in Hansard. I am not sure whether he has considered the whole question of the future of the health service.
====================
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has been most helpful. I was not sure whether to send it back or not. The noble Lord is one of the few Members of this House who really understands the value of this Bill. He has explained it clearly and made a very cogent case for it. I have found his arguments very convincing. He has also explained the problems of the amendment and the Bill, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Reay, will feel that this is a constructive and constructive amendment. I hope he will not say that it is a dangerous amendment because it is not. I am not suggesting that it is dangerous, but it is a constructive amendment. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw it.
====================
My Lords, is the noble Lord the Leader of the House aware that if he had been here earlier he would have had the support of all sides of the House?
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister. I have not had the benefit of his own experience in the City. I would like to say that I have never heard of a case of racial hatred. I was asked a question about a recent case in London. It was a case in which a person was arrested on suspicion of murder. I have never heard of such a case. I should like to ask the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, whether he could help the House. I take his answer to mean that the police are making an arrest on suspicion of murder. I hope he will consider what I have said and see whether there is anything that I could have said in reply. On Question, amendment agreed to.
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his intervention. I am not sure whether the letter which he has sent to the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, has been accepted. The letter is a clarification of the letter which I had sent to the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, to the effect that the local authority should not be given special powers. It is not something which is peculiar to the local authority. It is something which is shared by any local authority in the area. It is not something which is exclusive to the authority. It is something which is said in the Bill as it now stands. Therefore, I am very glad that my noble friend has asked the Question. I am not sure whether the letter did not refer to the letter which my noble friend sent to the noble Lord, Lord Corbett.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Reay, for his intervention. I said that the question was whether it was not generally recognised that such acts of terrorism are a matter of international terrorism. I am grateful to the noble Lord for putting that on the record, although he may not be aware that in this House we have no power to detain people for interrogation, as the noble Lord will know. The whole question of detention is a matter for the courts. The noble Lord said that if there were to be a detention of a person for interrogation and the person was declared to be entitled to bail or, in the case where somebody is charged with some other offence, a person would be detained as soon as possible after the arrest. I do not know whether the noble Lord thinks that I am suggesting that. I am not suggesting that. It is a matter for the courts to decide. I am not suggesting that the courts should detain people for interrogation. I know what the noble Lord is suggesting. I am not suggesting that they should detain people for interrogation. I am saying that I do not wish to detain people for interrogation or for detention in custody. I am speaking for myself. I know that I am speaking for the Government. I have no idea what the noble Lord, Lord Reay, is trying to do.
====================
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
====================
I am sorry if I have not heard the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I am sure that he has noticed that I have not. In fact, I did not hear it. I am sorry if I have given the impression that I have. I know that I have not. I am sorry that I have not. I do not want to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am not sure that it is not a little bizarre that the noble Lord, Lord Londonderry, should be here in this short speech to-day, but perhaps he will let me have his view on it. I must confess that I was a little surprised when I saw the noble Lord, Lord Londonderry. He happens to be the kind of man who is a very good negotiator. I thought that he was going to see a very good case for keeping the price up, at a much lower price, and I hope that he will not have to be there this afternoon. I listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Londonderry. I think it is a little odd for a Scottish politician to do that. I know that he is a very good negotiator, but I think the point that he made was very much the same one that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and he made it at least a little more intelligible, because he asked for a certain amount of money. I could not help remembering that when Lord Londonderry was in charge of the Government of the day he was regularly asking for a certain amount of money. I do not think it is as though he is going to be asked for more money. It is a question of the amount that the Government are prepared to spend, and it is a question of the amount of money that the Government are prepared to retain in Scotland. I think it is a question of the amount that the Government can be trusted to give to the people of Scotland, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Londonderry, would be the first to agree that the amount of money that is being spent here must be a very considerable one.
====================
My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, can help us. I have had a long correspondence with him on this. He is a man with an enormous amount of experience in mining matters and I do not think he has read what I said in your Lordships' House last week. But he has read a letter sent to him from a senior executive of the Coal Board, who says this: "As a result of the uncertainty caused by the threat of closure of Old Mill and the possible closing of Old M. on the West Coast, many of your Lordships have taken the view that the closure of Old Mill is not in the national interest. I am therefore calling for a debate to be held on the subject on the day after the Royal Commission on Coal. This would ensure that the matter could be debated and discussed on the same day". The letter continues: "The Government's position is that the closure of Old Mill will not be in the national interest. The Government will therefore ask you to reconsider the opinion you gave in March 1974 in response to a special inquiry by the Chief of the Coal Board". The letter continues: "The Government's position is that you have given your judgement in the meantime, and should therefore now reconsider your view". The letter goes on to say: "The Government intend to ask the House to consider its opinion on this", which is based on a special inquiry by the Coal Board. The letter continues: "The Government will then make a Statement about the matter at a convenient moment after the debate on the Motion to call a special inquiry". The letter continues: "The Government will then proceed with the development of their proposals and will invite the House to approve them". The letter continues: "The Government's position is that the closure of Old Mill is not in the national interest but was in the spirit of the special inquiry. The Government intend to set up a special inquiry to consider whether the closure of Old Mill is in the national interest. The Government will then proceed with the development of their proposals and invite the House to approve them. The Government's position is that the closure of Old Mill is not in the national interest but was in the spirit of a special inquiry". The letter continues: "The Government have therefore invited the House to accept the special inquiry." The letter continues: "The Government have now come forward with a Statement and will ask the House to approve it". The Government's position is that the closure of Old Mill is not in the national interest and is in the spirit of a special inquiry. The Government intend to set up a special inquiry to consider whether the closure of Old Mill is in the national interest and is in the spirit of a special inquiry. The Government intend to set up a special inquiry to consider whether the closure of Old Mill is in the national interest and is in the spirit of a special inquiry. The Minister says that the closure of Old Mill will not damage the Royal Commission's report and that he will do his best to see that it is not one of the recommendations. I have often thought that that was not true, but I should like to hear the Minister say that these findings will be considered by the special inquiry into the firing at Old Mill, and as I have tried to make this point on previous occasions it is on the record that the Government intend to set up a special inquiry into the firing at Old Mill. I do not think that the Minister can say more to me now. It seems to me that he cannot answer the question that has been posed to him by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. It is a question which is very far from a question of the closure of Old Mill but of the closure of Old M. on the West Coast. I do not think that the Minister can answer it.
====================
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I have already said that the Secretary of State has to be satisfied that there is a remit to be assigned to the board in respect of any particular case. The Board has a remit to deal with all the cases that it has. Is there not a need to have a remit for the board?
====================
My Lords, at the beginning of my remarks, I should like to say that I am a little disappointed that the noble Baroness has made such a bold statement. I had not intended to make it, because it is not as though I was advocating that we should not make use of the new power. I am not in favour of extending it now, but I am prepared to consider it. I am not prepared to support the amendment, because if it were extended I should have to justify why it should not be extended in the future. I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether she is prepared to consider it.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, for introducing this important debate. We are all aware that the future of the NHS is at stake. We are all aware that the future of the NHS is at stake. The NHS is a big business, it is a major employer in the health service, it is a major employer in training and education and it is a major employer in the community, and it is a major employer in the commercial world. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, mentioned the question of the future of the NHS. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, will agree that it is a big business with a huge number of employees, a big number of staff, and it is a major employer. It is a major employer in the health service, it is a major employer in training and education. It is a major employer in the community, it is a major employer in the commercial world. Therefore, let us look at how the Government can best invest the resources which are available to the NHS. First, let us look at the future of the NHS. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, mentioned the question of the future of the NHS. I am sorry that he is not here. I know that he is with the House, and I am grateful to him for raising the issue. The question of the future of the NHS is a major economic problem and I shall address it later in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked whether the Government would commit themselves to a firm timetable. I certainly do not expect to be able to commit the Government to a timetable, but I will say that we are in discussion with the Department of Health about the future. I hope that, when that discussion is complete, the noble Lord will feel that we have been able to provide ample time for him to ask questions. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked whether I could give him an assurance that we would make a firm commitment in the short term to preserve the NHS for patients. I do not know when that would be, but certainly it would be sooner rather than later. I cannot offer him an absolute commitment. I can only outline that the Government will look at that subject in that light. I am sorry that he is not here, but I am grateful to him for raising the issue. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, for mentioning the question of the future of the NHS. I am grateful to him for raising that same question. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for raising it. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, for raising the issue. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for raising it, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, for raising it. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, for raising it. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for raising it. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe for raising it. I am grateful to noble Lords on these Benches for raising the issue. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, raised it. I am grateful to him for raising it. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for raising it. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Beaumont for raising it, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for raising it. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for raising the issue. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for raising it. We are in discussion with the Department of Health about the future of the NHS. I do not know when the discussion will be complete, but I think it will be shortly after the debate has finished. I should like to emphasise that there will be ample time for the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, to ask questions, which I hope will not be time-consuming, but will be useful in informing the House, which will appreciate that the noble Lord is not here. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for my absence. I am sorry it was not possible for me to persuade him to attend, but he did his best. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for not being here. I have other engagements. I should like to attend the debate.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roll, for introducing this debate. I believe that it has been a very good debate. It has shown the various aspects of the Bill while it is being introduced. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, for his support. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pritchard, for his support. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for his support. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sarra, for his support. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Meston for his support. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Aberdare for his support. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Pritchard, who was kind enough to let me know that he would like to support the Bill. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Sarra in particular for his support. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh for his support. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Pritchard for his support. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Pritchard for his support. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Pritchard. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Sarra for his support. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Aberdare and to my noble friend Lord Pritchard. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, for his support. The Labour Party Leader of the House has been a member of the Select Committees of both Houses. He is a member of the Select Committees of another place, of the European Parliament and of this House. In his letter to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, dated 15th July 1992, the Leader of the House, Mr. John Major, said that he would be happy to be able to give the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, a copy of the Bill and refer to the Points the noble Lord made. He will ask him to read the letter. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, has now been given an opportunity to read the letter. He will, I believe, take note of it. It is my understanding that his letter indicates that he will be able to read it and will be able to give a satisfactory reply. That is a relief to me and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, for having raised this matter. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh for the support he has given this afternoon. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for supporting the Bill and for the helpful way in which he introduced the Bill. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh for his support. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sarra, for his warm support and for the very helpful way in which he introduced the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, for his suggestion that I should sit on the Select Committee and for the fact that he will be able to give me a copy of the Bill. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh for his support. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for the reception she gave to the Bill. I am grateful to her for the very informative, helpful and helpful letter she wrote to me. She will be pleased to hear that I have a copy of the Bill. I am thankful to my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh for his support. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Sarra for his support. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for his warm support. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh for his very helpful letter. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for his warm support. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Sarra. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh for introducing the Bill. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, for his support. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Sarra, for his warm support. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, for his warm support. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sarra, for his warm support. I am grateful to him for his gentlemanly attitude. I am grateful to him for the way he introduced the Bill. I am grateful for the way in which he introduced the Bill and to the way in which he introduced it. I am grateful for the way in which he introduced the Bill. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Sarra for his warm
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. When he says that the Government have not yet decided upon a plan, does he mean that the choice is due to the Prime Minister?
====================
My Lords, perhaps I may help the noble Lord, Lord Renton, whose question I tried to answer, but I can only state the facts. I asked him whether the agreement to the subsequent amendment would be subject to the affirmative procedure. The answer is yes.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for his intervention. I do not need to apologise to him for my return to the House. I understand that I am being invited to make a statement to the House on the future of the House. I am not quite clear as to why I was not here when the Statement was made by my noble friend, the Leader of the House, and I thank him.
====================
My Lords, the Government have made a statement in another place about the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will say that he will study the statement with care and will take the opportunity to bring it to the attention of his right honourable friend.
====================
My Lords, I should not have been surprised if the noble Lord, Lord Warmington, had given a warning on that point. But that is not to say that I do not recognise the emotions of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and the noble Lord, Lord Sadler of St. Marylebone. I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for his very clear explanation of the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, the amendment will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations for the power of disclosure to be included in the amendment of a work. That power is for the purpose of achieving a balance between the interests of the public and the public sector. I am sure that the House will understand that the Government welcome the amendment and that they will consider it fully. However, I am a little worried about the effect of the amendment. I cannot see how the Secretary of State would be able to tell the public of the detail of the operation of the amendment, or the intent of the amendment. It is for the purpose of achieving a balance between the public and the public sector. That is why the amendment is drafted at all. It provides that, if the public sector is involved in the operation of the amendment, it should be able to have an opportunity to put a question. I am sure that the House will accept that it is a strength of the amendment which it is proposed to introduce. I am sure that it will want to consider it fully and that it will want to consider the issues raised in the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his Answer. I was not quite clear to what extent he was referring to the strings of the Bill and the interposition of the Secretary of State. I should like to know whether that is the case or not. I wonder whether he is referring to the interposition of the Secretary of State.
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his explanation of the measures he has proposed. I suspect that I am in a little difficulty here because I am not clear whether or not the clause was intended to cover prepayment, but I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, will be able to deal with it.
====================
My Lords, as I said on Report, the rate of change will be gradual. It is a small Bill which will not affect the lives of everyone, but it will not affect the future of the energy industry as a whole. It is therefore in the interests of the nation that, in the interests of the nation, there should be some system of gas control at the present time. That is the way that it was brought in by the Government.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I shall read very carefully what he has said but I am a little puzzled as to why he has only just begun to deal with this point. I was not in the Chamber when he moved the amendments but I do not believe that his explanations were satisfactory. I have heard the argument many times before and I have never been satisfied. I have not heard any argument in favour of the amendments, so perhaps he will look at the matter again.
====================
My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will agree that the amendment of my noble friend Lord Hylton of Selsdon—which is to be supported by both Houses on this particular matter—must be supported.
====================
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I did not see the amendment. It might be, but I am not going to move it.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, for his intervention. I thought he was rather more critical of the Government's attitude towards the issue of foreign aid and so forth. I must confess that I am more than a little surprised by the noble Lord's remarks about the Government's policy towards our foreign aid. I know that there is a tendency in foreign aid circles to talk about the need for a larger role for the Government and for the Government to invest more, but I do not believe that that is close to the truth, and I am not sure that it is quite close to the case. As I said, there is a certain tendency in foreign aid circles to discuss the need for a centralised, integrated administration. I hope that the Government will recognise that in foreign aid circles we are talking about a very different form of aid from that which is given to the poor countries, and that aid which helps the country to develop its economy and its health and education. It is also very different from the aid given to the poorer countries which are severely affected by the poverty line. That aid should not be given to the poorer countries. It should be given to those who are not so severely affected by the poverty line. I hope that the Government will accept the argument which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, made.
====================
My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is right in his last observation. I was not aware that the Government had made a statement in the other place on the issue. I was not aware that they had made a statement. I have not yet had the opportunity to read it.
====================
With great respect to my noble friend, I am a little concerned about the allocation of resources. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, mentioned the existing planning arrangements, but I should like to know—and perhaps he can answer—the allocation of resources to the area. We have had discussions about the allocation of resources, and I should like to know what is happening.
====================
My Lords, we have had an interesting debate. I should like to say how much to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who has been most patient with me, and thank him, with all the sympathy that he has moved towards me in this question of the last amendment. I am disappointed that he is not here, and I am sure he has his sympathy.
====================
I am not a lawyer; I am an advocate. I am not an advocate of the courts. I am not an advocate of the legal profession. I am an advocate of the principle of the separation of criminal and civil cases. That is what we have been trying to do. I am a lawyer; I am not a lawyer of law. I am an advocate of the principle of the separation of criminal and civil cases. I am a lawyer of law. If a lawyer is an advocate of the separation of cases, I can see no reason why he should not also be an advocate of the principle of the separation of criminal and civil cases. Therefore, I am not a lawyer, and I am not an advocate.
====================
My Lords, I am very conscious of the fact that there is a legal vacuum in which the accused may be expected to submit to trial. Therefore, I am very conscious of the urgency of the need to ensure that the law is being enforced.
====================
My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for his intervention. That is a very significant difference. It is not clear whether it is the case that the Government are behind one or another of the two amendments which are before us today. I do not know what is going on. I am not sure whether the Government are behind the amendments before us, but perhaps the noble Lord can enlighten me.
====================
My Lords, we are not naming any politicians as the party which controls the House of Lords. I had intended to say that if in the next Parliament, which I hope will be, a similar arrangement is made for the House of Commons, to which I referred, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will not blame me.
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for pointing that out. I am also grateful for the fact that in the Statement published yesterday the Government were saying that they were going to be prepared to examine the report of the inquiry and to make an announcement in due course. That is a very good step forward. I am most grateful for that. I am sure that the Government are now looking at the report. I hope that they will also examine the report of the inquiry. I am also grateful for the Statement that we have had. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that it is a satisfactory Statement; that the report will be made, and that the Government will take steps to improve that report. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for giving us a chance to discuss this matter in such a comprehensive way. I should like to say that I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that the report is a valuable and useful document. But it is also an essential document. I think that the questions that have been raised by other noble Lords have been covered very fully in the Statement. So far as concerns the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I would say that the noble Lord has raised the point that the Government are in a position to do something about this matter. I shall consider what has been said and perhaps come back with some further amendments. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for pointing out that we have a good record of dealing with this matter. I am also grateful to him for saying that he will take the matter away to study it and perhaps consider it. I was very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Wilcox of Bankston, say that he was not an expert, but he reminded us that he had been Chairman of the Wildlife and Countryside Commission. I am grateful to him for that.
====================
My Lords, I work in the City and although I am a director of a large international company I am not a member of the City Council. Therefore I cannot speak for the City of London. However, I am a member of the National Trust and I know that the City is one of the biggest providers of conservation and its integrity is one of the most important aspects of its work. I am not sure that the City can look after itself but it can look after the interests of the country as a whole. Therefore I am sure that the City Council of the United Kingdom will do its best and seek to ensure that the capital costs of the City are met. I am not sure that I can say that the City Council will take responsibility for the conservation of the capital costs of the City. However, I hope that it will be doing so.
====================
I think I should say that I am not suggesting that the Ministers should be summonsed into this. The extent to which they should be summonsed is a matter for consideration by the Select Committee.
====================
It was not that they did not like it, it was a question of the feasibility of some other solution being found.
====================
I am very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, say that he will look at the amendment in its entirety, as in fact I am. I should have thought that it was the duty of the Minister to make a statement as to whether or not this is an amendment which he proposes to bring forward. I am sure he will wish to look at it carefully.
====================
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the present situation is the result of the absence of a Secretary of State who will be able to make a decision? Will he accept that, in view of the number of people in the other place, and in view of the fact that the number of Parliamentary Secretaries in the other place is much greater than the number of Parliamentary Secretaries in this House? Is the noble Lord not aware that, like the Minister of Health, this is a very important appointment that would be made? Will he accept that the number of Parliamentary Secretaries is not large; that some of them are very large indeed?
====================
My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. The noble Lord is quite right about the value of the facility. It is a great deal. It is a great deal. The value of the facility is perhaps not as great as it might be. I am quite willing to put the proposition to him that the only value of the facility is its monetary value. The value of the facility is counting the pound sterling lost at this point when we are only trading in the pound sterling. I am sure the noble Lord has read the article in the Guardian, which dealt with this matter, and I hope he will agree that the value of the facility is worth a great deal. I am quite willing to pay him a compliment if he will investigate it, but I do not think he has done so sufficiently. I think he is quite willing to accept me that this is a good thing, but it is not a good bargain. He is quite willing to accept that this is an economic bargain, but he is not willing to accept that the pound sterling is not worth the pound sterling. If that were accepted, it would be a bad bargain and whoever profits would be in considerable danger of losing the pound sterling. I am prepared to accept that the pound sterling is not worth the pound sterling, but the pound sterling is not worth the pound sterling. That is the argument which is put forward by the noble Lord for the pound sterling settlement. I am prepared to accept it but there is not a word of it in the article that he has read. I think it is quite obvious that the pound sterling is worth something in monetary terms. It is worth something in terms of value—it is not in terms of monetary value. Therefore, the pound sterling is worth more than the pound sterling.
====================
The amendment is a very good idea. It introduces a principle which is very important to the whole project, and I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for his acceptance of it.
====================
The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, is absolutely right that if the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, had before him a document which I am sure he would think would have been very much more appropriate, I am sure he would be one of the few people who would have questioned the government of the day. But I was not suggesting that there was not a case for discussion on both sides of the House. I was suggesting that the breadth and scope of the debate was appropriate for the occasion.
====================
Can the noble Lord tell us what they will be? I am not sure they will be anything. They will be this Bill. It is not a Bill to do anything for the country. It will do nothing for the country. It will merely be a Bill that is for the benefit of the people of the country.
====================
I am not sure that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, when he says that the memorandum is likely to be printed, but I shall look at it carefully. I should have thought that, if it was a question of pensions, it would be immediately obvious that one would get them. At least, I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, did not accept the conclusion of the report that pensions were to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. I do not think that anyone would suggest that. I would not agree with the conclusion that it is a question of a particular individual, because that is a different question and, as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has said, pensions are a statement of individual responsibility.
====================
I am not sure that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Hillhead. The question is whether or not the Bill is, in fact, a Bill for the purpose. I should have thought that the phrase "for the purpose" would have been more appropriate, because it is not possible to describe the purpose of this clause in any other way. I was a little worried about this particular clause, because it seems to me that, as it is styled, it is not only a clause for the purpose of the Bill, but it has some kind of purpose for itself. It is not really "for the purposes of the Bill". That seems the best way to put it. However, the phrase "for the purposes of the Bill" is an almost superfluous phrase. The purpose of the Bill, as the Bill is written, is to give the powers of the Secretary of State, in the Bill, to make orders. For the purposes of the Bill, this means that it is a Bill for the purposes of the Secretary of State. If the noble Lord can think of a better phrasing, I will look at the clause.
====================
My Lords, I apologise for intervening again in the debate, but the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has had to leave the Chamber because he is ill and therefore I shall not take him up. The Question was: "What is the position of the Minister of Transport, Transport Minister, and the Transport Commissioner, Mr. Macmillan, under whom they are both the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Transport, the Transport Minister, and Mr. Macmillan, the Transport Commissioner, in respect of the same works?"
====================
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, made some interesting points. It is not only a question of the size of the Government. It is a question of the nature of the Government. It is not just a question of the number of Ministers but the nature of the Government itself. And, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that is not fair. I do not think it is fair, either, to say that there are more than one Secretaries of State. That is not true. There are only three. I have no quarrel with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that it is not fair for anybody to say that the Secretary of State for Scotland is the only Secretary of State. It is true that there are three, but they are a part of the Cabinet, and you may not confine yourself to one particular Secretary. In the past there has been a Secretary General of the Exchequer who has been able to carry out the operations of the Cabinet. I am not saying that there are not many more. There are just a few more. I think it is fair, therefore, that I should ask the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, whether he perceives that this is a fair point to make, and whether he thinks that if you had a Secretariat Minister he would not be elected.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for bringing this matter to our attention as it has done in other respects. It is a relatively minor matter but it is a significant matter. I went to the House of Commons every week for the last two years and I found that the same place was occupied by Members of all Parties. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was not only the Leader of the Opposition but was also the Leader of the Opposition. My main credit for that is that he brought the House together. I do not deny that he did that—that is a credit which I am grateful to him. I wish I had been in his place, but am content to be here and to speak in this debate rather than to speak in the debate on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, which I am now asking the House to accept. I do not have the experience to bring this matter to the notice of the House of Commons, but I am a former Member of Parliament and I am well aware of the difficulties that Members of all Parties face under the system which we use. I am not saying that there are not some Members of this House with a problem, as there are many Members of Parliament who do not have many problems. I think the difficulty is the difficulty of getting an answer, because sometimes one has to face a very difficult situation in a House of Commons. I am going to say no more now. I have given notice of my intention to withdraw my Motion, but I would like to put this question to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. Has he read the Speech of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde?
====================
I am sorry if I have not given the Minister time to reply to me. I am sure that my hopes are not too great. Does he agree that, apart from the normal channels, there is no ordinary channel that is available to the Government at all?
====================
My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount whether he can tell me whether this record, which is an extremely important one, is going to be made available?
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. I shall study it with interest, particularly his suggestion that the issue should not be confined to the police but should be covered by the Home Office. I believe that the Home Office has an enormous amount of experience and knowledge in this area. I am sure that the noble Lord has no wish to deal with the issue on a more formal basis than in the context of the Home Office and the Home Office. However, I am grateful to him for his comments. I shall study them with interest.
====================
There will be a sense of urgency in the country as a whole. I would not assume that those who have attended the go-ahead hearings in the House of Commons, or those who have had the opportunity of taking part in the debates in the other place, will have been particularly disappointed. I hope that they will be encouraged to come back and have that opportunity.
====================
I am grateful to the Minister. But we are not dealing with the Bill; we are dealing with the amendment. The amendment is substantive. I should have thought that it would have been an amendment to the Bill, not a Bill. The amendment is consequential on the amendment, which I think is the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, that we are discussing. So I should have thought that it was an amendment to the Bill, not an amendment to the Bill.
====================
I am obliged to the noble Baroness, Lady Park, for introducing this debate and its importance in these days of austerity. However, I must confess that my experience is that the Labour Party was responsible for the present Government's austerity measures. I also consider that it was responsible for the government of the day, the Conservative Government, which brought about the recession of the late 1980s which was subsequently followed up by the recession which we had experienced in the 1990s. I should have thought that the Labour Party was responsible for the present Government's austerity measures. I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Park, that that was the responsibility of the Conservative Government. I only wish that we might have been responsible for the Conservatives in the early part of the 1990s. We were the Labour Party responsible for bringing about the early recession of the 1980s. I am therefore particularly indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Park, for raising that point today. Like the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I have a great deal of sympathy with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Park. I think that the noble Baroness needs to give further thought to what she said.
====================
My Lords, I am not interested in the noble Lord's speech, but I am interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. The noble Lord made some rather interesting comments, and I should like to thank him for them. However, I am not sure that he answered my question about the delay. It was not expected, and I am not sure that it is right, to await the report of the Select Committee. I go along with the noble Lord. I am glad that the Select Committee has written that report. So far as I can see, the source of the delay has not been the Select Committee but the Select Committee itself. I hope the Minister will not blame the Select Committee, because if he did he would be making a statement that I am not interested in, and therefore I shall not have the pleasure of listening to it. I am not interested in the report, which is not about the report. I am interested in the evidence that was given to the Select Committee, and I am interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, say that we are not interested in the report. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, was not a member of the Select Committee—
====================
My Lords, the noble Lord has not quite read the amendment, but I will try.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. Does he not agree that the Government are now in the process of ensuring that the Welsh language is not lost because of this Bill? Will the noble Earl look at that again? He is moving.
====================
My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend the Minister for giving us the opportunity to discuss the gas industry at this time. He has made an important contribution to our discussions today. I have a few questions for him. First, would he agree that it is essential that the gas industry is not taken over by the public, that it should remain a private company, and that it should remain a British company? Secondly, are there any suggestions in the Bill to avoid this and that the gas industry should be given a second life? Thirdly, does the Minister agree that the gas industry is one of the most important industries in this country, and if it is not, it is not worth the subsidy it receives from the taxpayer? Fourthly, will the Minister agree that it is essential for the development of the gas industry to be carried on by the gas industry? Fifthly, will the Minister agree that it is essential for the development of the gas industry that it is not taken over by the public, that it should remain a private company, and that it should remain a British company? Sixthly, does the Minister agree that this Bill will help in the development of the gas industry by giving it a second life?
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention. Can he tell us how often the Government have had discussions with the National Union of Students with regard to the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, on the subject, to which I have referred?
====================
My Lords, I support the principle of the amendment. I think that it is a good idea to do so, and I hope that it will be taken to heart.
====================
In view of what my noble friend has said, I wonder whether it would not have been better to deal with the problem at earlier stages, but I am happy to accept what he has said.
====================
I can see the benefits of language that is consistent and it is not a matter on which I can speak for the Government. I have been here at the Dispatch Box for a long time, but I cannot remember the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I am not sure whether he is the Lord Chairman or the Lord Chairman of Committees. However, I have asked the noble Lord a question. I have no doubt that he is Lord Chairman of Committees. I wonder whether he is answering the question that I asked him.
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord who has just spoken. I wonder whether he would just give way for a moment. When he does, I shall be very happy to listen. But with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, I wonder whether she was not trying to be helpful, because she said that she would like to do something. I am not sure that she was, but I am a little confused about this matter. I know that the noble Baroness is deeply concerned about this matter and is trying to help us.
====================
My Lords, I should like to speak in support of the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time. In my opinion, the Bill represents an important step in the right direction to end the restrictions on the possession of guns in public places. I believe that the Bill is the first step in a long-term solution to the problem of the number of guns in this country, and I hope that it will receive the support of the House. I should like to start by addressing the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who said that he would not want me to deal with the Bill on Second Reading. It would not be appropriate to discuss the Second Reading of the Bill, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. So far as concerns the Bill, I am sure that there will have been an opportunity to discuss it on Second Reading if the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, had wished to do so. The Bill is a long one and I do not propose to deal with its detail now. However, I should like to address some of the points raised at the beginning of the debate. The issue of a police presence at gun shows is not one of the guns to be seized, but is of the guns which are not seized. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to the fact that there is a large number of firearms which are not seized, but the numbers are not necessarily large. I have asked the noble Lord many questions on this point, and he has not answered them. He mentioned the level of the number of guns seized. I should like to know why the figures are not higher. If there is a large number of guns which are not seized, why are they not seized? I would like to know why the figures of the number of pistols found in the police area are so small. I certainly believe that they are very small. I do not know whether the figures are large or small. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, seemed to say that the problem of the number of guns is not a problem at all. That is not what I had in mind. I do not believe that the problem of the number of guns seized is a problem at all. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, also claimed that there were not enough guns available. What he said was that there were some 2,000 guns in the country but that this was due to a great number of people returning home. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is right. He is in a minority, so I hope that he is not referring to that. Perhaps he will read what I said about guns confiscated. I do not know whether guns are recovered all the time, but they are not recovered all the time. I am told that they are sometimes seized in police areas as a result of the operation of the Home Office. There is nothing to stop that. I hope that the noble Lord will find that answer satisfactory because it is not the case that the figures are small.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, first of all I should like to add my congratulations to those already given to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, on his maiden speech. May I also thank him for the many hours of his time that he has devoted to the debate? I have a feeling that we have heard a very great round of applause from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. I was not always certain whether he wished to take part in the debate but I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will have the advantage of being able to take part. I know that the noble Lord does not agree with the Government's policy. I am sure that he will agree with me that it is not the right way of dealing with this matter, but I certainly hope that he will agree that we should look at it again. The noble Lord quoted the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry in his speech on the evening of Monday, April 9, when he said: "The Government have inherited a programme of austerity which the world has been accustomed to expect." He also quoted his right reverend father in his speech on the same day. The right reverend father also said that he did not agree with the Government's policies. This was reported in the Press the day after the debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said that the report has been widely circulated. I read it myself and I have no doubt that it will be widely circulated. The report is, I regret to say, not published. It is considered that it is not in the Library, so I shall not read it. The noble Lord quoted in the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons, the Report of the Lords Select Committee, as to the means of reducing expenditure had it been available. The committee had the opportunity of discussing the Report. I think the chairman of the Select Committee, Sir William Cash, will find the paragraph in his Report. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred to the Report of the Government Select Committee. I would not have thought that it would have been appropriate here to discuss the Report of the Government Select Committee. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will feel able to read it, because I do not think he would disagree with the conclusions of the Government Select Committee. I was asked to attend the Committee. I was not sure whether I was in order to speak and I was not sure of my place. In fact I was not. I should like to quote one sentence from the report: "The Committee, however, were aware of the difficulties that had arisen from the absence of a full-time Chairman of the Select Committee and of the way in which it had decided to meet, and that it was not possible to meet the Committee and deal with all the technical questions involved. The Committee, therefore, considered the question of the appointment of a Chairman". I quote: "A majority of the Committee, therefore, agreed that a Chairman should be appointed, and the Committee recommended the appointment of one." I think it is important to emphasise that what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said was that he did not agree with the report's conclusions. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, explained that he is not here to argue the case, but I did not understand him to say that he was not arguing the case. Although he said that he was not, I thought he was trying to compare the Government with the previous Labour Government, which he called the Conservative Party. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, to take note of the expressions of opinion on the Conservative Benches in the House of Commons. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has a basic reason for his question. I am sure that he will read the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and will remember that he said that the Government had a right to expect. I do not think they have. All we are asking is that they should rise to the challenge of the Government's policy, and not just to say that they do not agree with the Government's policy but they are afraid of it. Although I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is quite right about the report's conclusions, he does not seem to have raised the question of whether or not the Government agree with the report's conclusions. On page 7 of the Report, there is a statement which is not printed as it is in the Library, but which was introduced in another place by my honourable friend Mr. Whitelaw. The report is titled The Effect of the Budget on Labour Expenditure. The Report states: "They have said, without any doubt being right, that they are prepared to reduce the size of the tax base, and that the main cause of this is the increase in the cost of living which they have expected during the past 12 months." The point I am trying to make is
====================
My Lords, will the noble Earl explain to me whether the Bill is to do with the Bill now on the Order Paper, or whether it is an amendment to be made to the Bill?
====================
I cannot see why it is necessary to make an order to this effect.
====================
If I may interrupt the noble Lord, I do not think he said that because he did not refer to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
====================
My Lords, I should like to tell the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that I cannot possibly understand that. I have not yet heard the reply.
====================
I am happy to join in the noble Lord's congratulations. As I said earlier, we were all very interested to hear the noble Lord's speech, but I am fully aware that I am not the only speaker on this side of the Chamber. I am sure that many of the noble Lords who spoke will comment on what the noble Lord said. I want to make one very brief comment. I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware that the Mineral Management Board has recently been privatised. The board is an absolutely wonderful organisation. It was created under an agreement between the Government of the day and the Mineral Board. It is a very good organisation. One of the reasons why it was created was that the Mineral Board had been in existence for some time. It was not a mere profit-making organisation but a very profitable organisation. The board is a great success story. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is going to speak. I said earlier that I personally enjoyed it. I did not like the Board at all. I think that the Board will be hit badly if it is privatised. The Board is in fact a great success story. It has given ample encouragement to the mineral industry and has caused it to prosper because the Board has done everything that it could to help the mineral industry. That is one reason why the Board was privatised. There is another. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is aware that there is a considerable section of the mineral industry which is not in favour of privatisation. There is a certain section that is in favour of privatisation. I do not know whether noble Lords on this side of the Chamber have been in touch with the Mineral Board or the Mineral Board. I think that it is in favour of privatisation. However, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, will consider that. I should like to ask the noble Lord one question. Is the Minister aware that the Board is a great success story? I do not think that any of us could have had a better organisation or a more profitable one. I am not suggesting that it should be privatised, but I think that the Board is a good one. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to comment on that. I should like to ask the Minister whether he is aware that the Board of the Mineral Board is now a national body and that it has received the support of the Government of the day? I am not suggesting that it should be privatised. It is a great success story. I am not suggesting that the Board should be privatised. It is a great success story.
====================
My Lords, we are not currently in a position to discuss the detailed technical issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, but in the light of what the noble Lord has said I should be grateful for it. I am happy to tell him that he is correct, and I hope that the Minister will accept that. I should also like to have some clarification of the position, if not now I shall certainly write to the noble Lord.
====================
moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 1, at end insert— ( ) Any direction under this section may in the case of a prisoner who is detained in a penal institution or a detention centre, or in a prison or a penal institution, be made by the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State, or his delegate, as the case may be, or by such person as may be specified in the direction. (6) The effect of subsection (5) above is to give effect to subsection (6), which provides that a direction under this section may be made by the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State, or his delegate, as the case may be, or by such person as may be specified in the direction. (7) The amendment makes an exception to the power of the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State to make a direction under this section. (8) Paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bill provides that to the extent that a direction is made under this section by the Lord Chancellor or his delegate, the direction is not subject to the restrictions to which this Schedule applies. (9) With the leave of the House, the amendment is now being considered. (7) The effect of this section is to provide that any direction under this section may be made by the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State, or by such person as may be specified in the direction. (8) The amendment makes an exception to the power of the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State to make a direction under this section. (9) With the leave of the House, the amendment is now being considered. (8) The effect of this section is to provide that any direction made under this section by the Lord Chancellor or his delegate was not subject to the restrictions to which this Schedule applies. (9) The amendment makes an exception to the power of the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State to make a direction under this section. (9) With the leave of the House, the amendment is now being considered. (9) The amendment makes an exception to the power of the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State to make a direction under this section. (9) With the leave of the House, the amendment is now being considered. (10) This section applies to the Bill making the order and not to the order made under the Bill made by the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State. (11) The order made by the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State is in general not subject to any of the restrictions to which this Schedule applies. (13) The effect of this section is not to provide for the making of a direction by the Lord Chancellor or his delegate. (14) This section applies to a direction made by the Lord Chancellor or by his delegate. (15) The order made by the Lord Chancellor or his delegate is not subject to the restrictions to which this Schedule applies. (16) The effect of this section is not to provide for the making of a direction by the Lord Chancellor or his delegate. (17) Any direction or order made by the Lord Chancellor or his delegate is not subject to the restrictions to which this Schedule applies. (18) The order made by the Lord Chancellor or his delegate is not subject to the restrictions to which this Schedule applies. (19) The order made by the Lord Chancellor or his delegate is not subject to the restrictions to which this Schedule applies.
====================
With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, I found his argument a little allusive. Could he explain what he said to the Committee?
====================
There is a difference between the two. I was going to ask whether the word "deny" means that the defence of the right to silence is covered by the defence of the right to remain silent. The word "deny" is not there for the defence of the right to remain silent. This is an invention of our own and we are bringing it to the attention of the Government.
====================
My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Peston, whether he is aware that it is the practice of the Home Office and the Home Secretary for many years, since the end of war, to make inquiries into complaints of labour disputes which are in connection with the service. The complaints which the noble Lord has described are the very kind of complaints which, unfortunately, are not in fact made to the Home Secretary. I am very conscious of the fact that many of these complaints are not made to him. I believe that there are many more, and many more cases where and when complaints are made to the Home Secretary.
====================
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, raised the important question of the cost of the exercise. I do not think it is for the purpose of the question that the noble Lord asked, but I should like to know whether the noble Lord has in mind how many extra lives are lost. I think the answer is probably about the same as the answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby: that it is likely to be about the equivalent of a quarter of the total number of people who are killed in the field. The noble Lord asked me whether the Minister of Health could be given an assurance that he will have a proper inquiry into the matter and what the effect will be on the cost of the exercise. I shall certainly bring it to the notice of my right honourable friend the Minister of Health, but I do not think that he would like to know what the effect on the cost of the exercise would be.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comment. I was not at all certain whether he was looking at the matter in a certain way or whether he was looking to the wider question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. He was looking for the wider question as well, but I am sure that the wider question is very much wider than the narrower one. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry has been considering this matter for some time. I know that he is thinking about it, but he is aware that it is a serious matter and that it is likely to involve the National Enterprise Board. I am very pleased to tell the noble Lord that he has been advised by the board. I am sorry if I did not make clear to him that the board is in a position to advise and also to make recommendations. I would remind the noble Lord that the answer to his question is "Yes".
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, for his kind words about my former colleague. I am aware of his position, and I am sure that all of your Lordships will feel grateful to him for the kind words he has spoken. I did not intend to speak because I am not a lawyer, so I have no knowledge of the statute, but I am sure that he will find the provision in the Bill which I am proposing to make somewhat difficult.
====================
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. It is a long and complicated Bill, which is a continuation of a long period of negotiation between the Government of the day and the Opposition. It is a Bill which is the result of the belief that the Government of the day have a clear direction from Parliament and from the other place that they should be prepared to negotiate on the terms of the Bill, and that they should proceed by agreement. There was a precedent in the House of Commons in 1952, when a Bill was brought forward and was moved by the Leader of the House, on the ground that the Opposition, having been in government, had had not indicated that they should accept it. The Bill was passed, and the Commons accepted it, but the agreement was not a binding agreement. An arrangement was made and the Bill, as a result of a conversation between the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition, was passed in the Commons. The Government of the day announced their intention to negotiate on the terms of the Bill, and the Bill was introduced by the Leader of the House on his own. The Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on the same day, on a day when the House was in opposition to the Bill. The House of Commons, as the result of the motion of the Leader of the House, agreed to the Bill, and the Bill was introduced by the Leader of the House. I am sure the House of Commons appreciate that its terms were negotiated in and after the talks which took place between the Government and the Opposition in the other place, and not during the House of Commons. I think those proceedings are the record which is now being cited in the debate. I am sure, however, that some of your Lordships will remember that, during the debate in the House of Commons on the Bill, the Leader of the House gave the Government of the day a warning that, in view of the circumstances in the House of Commons, they would not accept the Bill. That warning was not given in the House of Commons. The Bill was introduced in the House of Commons, and that is the record, as I have said. I beg to move.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that response. In my view, it is an extremely useful way of bringing together the issues raised by the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and the amendments to be moved by my noble friend Lord Judd. The Government's position is that we are considering the amendments. As I understand it, they are looking at them for the more detailed amendment which is before us. The intention behind the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is that the final decision on the issue should be made by a Select Committee appointed by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. The way that the amendments are drafted, however, makes the difference between the amendment tabled by the noble Lord and that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. It is that difference which makes the difference between the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. One wonders whether the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was right. I hope that it was not. It is clear that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was a better way of dealing with the issue. That amendment has been worked on in some detail by the Select Committee and, as I understand it, the amendments that we are considering are the same as those tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Judd. Perhaps I have misunderstood the noble Lord, Lord Peston. He suggested that we could have had a Select Committee if the amendments were not tabled. That is incorrect. It is true that if the amendments were tabled the final outcome might not be what it should be. Neither the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, nor those tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, were exactly what they were intended to be. They were intended to address the issue of the compensation that can be paid. That is why we have sought to move them in that way. I am sorry to have misunderstood his remarks. I apologise if I have been misled. I do not know what the position is as a result of Amendment No. 126 being tabled.
====================
I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. I am not particularly certain that I would agree with him. I should not have thought that a court would feel that there had been no evidence that a party had been given in evidence. It seems to me that it is now fairly clear that a party has been given in an evidence by a lawyer. I should have thought that the Court of Appeal would have to make a judgment about whether the lawyer had given evidence in the case. I should have thought that the court is now quite clear that it has to decide whether there has been evidence and whether it should consider it. I should have thought that the court is now quite clear that it should grant the appeal.
====================
Subsection (3) of Clause 7 allows the Secretary of State to appoint a group of people to give advice on the discharge of functions of the body. Under the amendment, a group would include those who are not part of the public authority. It would not be possible to appoint the chairman and the vice-chairman of a body. A good example would be the Department of Health. Is there a group of people who would be able to give advice on the discharge of public functions? I have not seen it. But the amendment is not concerned with that.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. I am not particularly surprised by it. I have no quarrel with the Government that it was not the intention of the Government to impose any form of control upon the railways, because the railways are run by their own people, and because railwaymen have their own responsibility. But I am not so sure that they have been put in a position by the Government that it is not their duty to impose control on them.
====================
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will be glad to hear that. I am only sorry that I was not here when he spoke. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, has raised the matter. I am quite prepared to discuss it with him, because I think in the circumstances he is quite right.
====================
I am sorry if the Minister is not here to hear me say that. I am now in a position to make the statement. I do not want to press the amendment.
====================
My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that he is not aware of the facts, or is he saying that he has not been informed?
====================
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for restoring this important Bill. I wish him well in his task. I am sure that we shall all wish to take the opportunity of discussing the Bill with him and to listen to him in his important role in the new House. I am pleased that he has taken the time to put the Bill before the House. I am sure that we shall all wish to see the Bill become law. It is an important Bill, and I hope that it will be the subject of our consideration in the House of Lords.
====================
My Lords, will my noble friend say what is the position in regard to the possibility of an officer of the same rank being promoted to a higher rank?
====================
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
====================
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
====================
My Lords, I shall not detain the House by reading a speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne. I shall merely read the speech of my noble friend Lord Renton. I am not sure that I could possibly have made it. As I understand it, he was not going to give me the whole of his speech. I was left with a few lines of his speech to which I should have liked to have seen some little indication of what he was going to say. My only question is one which we shall have to consider very carefully tonight. I listened with interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne. I should have liked to hear him say a few words about the problems which we should all be worried about. I listened to the speech of my noble friend Lord Renton. I thought that he was going to say that if we got rid of the old humanist attitude and allowed people to go into the world of science we would be a better society. That is not to say that we should not have a good society. But I had a good society, and I should not have been concerned if we had not. I thought it was a great pity that we did not have a society of scientists. That is the great tragedy of this world. It brought a lot of good people into it, and it was a good society. It was a great success. Now that we have had a great success, we are going to have a great failure. I thought that the speech of my noble friend Lord Renton was a great contribution to the debate. I should have liked to hear him say a few words about new scientific methods and new methods for the making of maps, and so on. We are going to have a great change, but I think that there is a good chance that the new scientific methods will be able to solve the great problems which we have. It is a great pity that they did not get the chance to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, said that he was not going to give way to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I am glad we are going to have a speech from the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I rise to speak to-day in a debate on the Motion which the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, has put down. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence will agree that it is a privilege to speak to-day on the occasion of the first anniversary of the passing of the Banabans and to express the hope that the Banabans will be returned to their native land and restored to safety in the future. I hope that my noble friend will join me in thanking him for his patience and his kindness in dealing with this difficult problem. I am very grateful to him for the time and trouble he has taken in preparing the speech which we now have in front of us. I am sure that it has caused the greatest possible satisfaction in the Banabans, and will be of great satisfaction to all of us who have been so fortunate as to have been able to listen to my noble friend's speech. May I say straight away that, for me, there is no greater honour than to be able to address your Lordships. I do not wish to discuss at any length the general policy of the Government with regard to the Banabans. I should like to say a word or two about the letters which were sent to the Banabans in view of the decision of your Lordships' House to overturn the Letter of May 17th, 1937, and the decision of the Banabans to be returned to their native land. The first letter which I received, from the Banabans themselves, is dated February 24th, 1936. The letter begins: "We feel that the only way we can be sure of our safety, and the only way we can be sure of getting our Banabans back, is if they are to be returned to their native land. We are quite determined that their safe return will be by the simple expedient of re-converting to the British system. We do not think we can do it without their permission." That is the first letter I have ever received from the Banabans, and I have never heard of any other. It is not a personal letter, but it is one which points out the grave misfortune which the Banabans have suffered in that they have lost their own homeland. The second letter, the second letter from the Banabans to the Banabans, is dated November 18th, 1936. The letter refers to the fact that "the government of the Banabans have been informed that they are to be returned to their native lands, and that to-day they will be sent for their native land on March 1, 1937." Then, on the third letter, the letter of March 7th, 1937, refers to the "Declaration of the Government of the Banabans which states: 'The Royal Government and the Government of the Banabans, on whose behalf they are represented by Mr. Mitchell, have stated that in their opinion the Banabans are to be returned to their native land.' The Government of the Banabans are to be returned to their native land.' "The letter continues: "'We propose to send to Her Majesty the Queen this Declaration of the Government of the Banabans, upon which we hope she will give the Banabans their independence, and the Government of which they are members.'" The last letter I received was, I think, on the other side of the same lines. It is to be found in the first letter and it is dated January 15, 1937, "All of us who were fortunate enough to be in the position of having a Banabans are very grateful to Her Majesty the Queen for the Declaration of the Government of the Banabans; and we hope that the Government of the Banabans will give their assistance to restore the Banabans to their native land." I have not had time to read all the letters and I would not suggest to your Lordships that they are not very full of very bitter things. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that the Banabans are a nation of honour, and they deserve the utmost honour. The first letter from the Banabans goes on to say: "We, the Banabans, have never had any intention of renouncing British citizenship. We have been here for nearly six years and we have a very high regard for the English language." The second letter states: "The Banabans have never accepted the principle of British citizenship. We feel that we have a right to be British citizens and we are grateful to the English people for the permission of our language to be used in our country." The third letter states: "The Banabans feel that they are entitled to claim the title of the British Empire and that they should be accorded the honour of a Sovereign. They have never had any intention of renouncing their own native land." The fourth letter states: "The Banabans are very anxious to return to their native land, and we are
====================
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is not here to take part in this debate. I was not aware that he was to speak. He has done so in his usual eloquent manner. However, I support the amendment. I am not aware of any other amendment which states the same thing. I am not sure that the amendment would achieve the goal of the Government. It is not put forward as a way of raising additional money, as one would expect from the noble Lord. However, in the situation as it is now, it is not going to help raise more money and therefore I have no alternative but to support the amendment.
====================
I am not sure whether I can deal with that now. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Mills, asked a question about the question of the right of appeal. I said that the Government were willing to consider the question with our advisers. I do not think that it is necessary to make any statement about the view that is taken. I can, however, tell him of my own view. I have been asked a question in your Lordships' House on two occasions. One was on March 20, 1967, when I answered a question on the matter, and the other was on March 14, 1968, when I answered a question put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mills. I think on both occasions I answered the same question. I do not think that I am in a position to go into the whole question of the right of appeal in this matter except to say that I took note of it.
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. The point I was making is that although there is a complaint on the one side and there is a report on the other, that does not mean that there is a decision, because the report has not yet been circulated. However, the Minister is correct in that the statement is in the Library. I am most grateful for that. We have no intention of pressing the matter further.
====================
The real problem is that the people who wish to be educated and learn will not get a place. Those who wish to be educated and learn will not get a place because the places will not be filled. It is a matter of urgency for all the schools to get their places filled.
====================
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's explanations of the legislation and the amendments which they, I am sure, all welcome. I should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for his speech. I am sure that we all wish to see that the Bill passes through as quickly as possible. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am sure that all the noble Lords who are concerned with the subject will be aware that the Government have taken the opportunity to allow all interested parties to make representations and have had discussions and discussions with the National Union of Journalists, the National Association of Daily Telegraph editors, the Society of Professional Journalists, the Association of Television News Executives, the Association of Senior Editors, and the National Union of Journalists, among others. The Home Office has received representations from the B.B.C. and the National Union of Journalists, and has been in touch with the B.B.C. to discuss those representations. I cannot at this stage say whether these representations have been accepted or rejected, but as I have already said, the Government are looking at the representations and will announce their conclusions at the appropriate time.
====================
I, too, would be very interested to know, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, how many of those who have been convicted of the offence are still serving. I know that in some cases they are. If a man is convicted of an offence, is he still serving?
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for his intervention. I am grateful also to the Foreign Secretary for his very helpful comments to which I shall refer later. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, for his intervention. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, for his very helpful comments about the reasons for the closure of the casino in Glasgow. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Terry, for his intervention. He is always a pleasure to be here and I wish him well in his new role. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for his comments about the question of the future of the Manchester Royal Naval Hospital. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, also the kind words of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Neil, for his intervention. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for his very kind remarks about my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, for her very kind remarks about my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde for pointing out that I am not a surgeon. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde for his suggestion that I should have been the chairman of the Royal Commission on the Future of the Royal College of Physicians. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde for his suggestion that I should be chairman of the Royal Commission on the Future of the Royal College of Physicians. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde for his suggestion that I should be chair of the Royal Commission on the Future of the Royal College of Physicians. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for what he said about the problems of the Royal College of Physicians in terms of the present structure of the Royal College of Physicians. He is quite right. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for his comments about the recent lack of a liaison officer and that this has led to a severe shortage of nurses. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde for his suggestion that I should be the chairman of the Royal Commission on the Future of the Royal College of Physicians. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde for the remarks he made about my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde for his suggestion that I should be chair of the Royal Commission on the Future of the Royal College of Physicians. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde for his comments about the problems of the Royal College of Physicians in Scotland. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde for his comments about the Royal Commission on the Future of the Royal College of Physicians. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde for his comments about the general problems of the Royal College of Physicians. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde for his suggestion that I should be chair of the Royal Commission on the Future of the Royal College of Physicians. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde for his suggestion that I should be chairman of the Royal Commission on the Future of the Royal College of Physicians. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for his intervention. I am grateful indeed to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde for his very encouraging comments about the general problems of the Royal College. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde for his suggestion that in this connection he should be chairman of the Royal Commission on the Future of the Royal College of Physicians. I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. I am sorry that he is not here. I was delighted to hear him say that he was happy to be here. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde for his comments on the problems of the Royal College of Physicians. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde for his suggestion that I should be chairman of the Royal Commission on the Future of the Royal College of Physicians. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for his intervention. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for his intervention. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde for his comments about the Royal College of Physicians. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde for his suggestion that I should be chair of the Royal Commission on the Future of the Royal College of Physicians.
====================
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware, in connection with his Answer, that I am not seeking to kill any birds in my garden, but in order to be certain that I am not discharging the responsibility, I have brought a trap along to catch them? The trap is now being put out and I am taking it down as a trap, not as a bait. Is the noble Lord aware that the trap is a trap, and therefore it is not a bait?
====================
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
====================
My Lords, I was interested to see that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was nodding his head. I know that he would be nodding his head in agreement if he had been here longer. He is there and I have listened to his arguments in this House, and I have been impressed by his speech. I am sorry that the noble Lord did not hear my argument. I am sorry that he did not hear it. I am sorry that he did not hear the speech of my noble friend Lord Croft. I am sorry that he did not hear the speech of my noble friend Lord Croft. I am sorry that he did not hear my noble friend Lord Croft. I am sorry that he did not hear my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. I am sorry that he did not hear my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. I am sorry that he did not hear my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. I am sorry that he did not hear the speech of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. I am sorry that he did not hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I am sorry that he did not hear from the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that he was nodding his head; that he was nodding his head in agreement. I am sorry that he did not hear the speech of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. I am sorry that he did not hear my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. I am sorry that he did not hear the noble Lord, Lord Colville of Culross, nod his head. I am sorry that he did not hear my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross nod his head in agreement. I am sorry that he did not hear my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross nod his head in agreement. I hope that he heard my noble friend Lord Colville nodding his head. I am sorry that he did not hear the speech of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. I am sorry that he did not hear my noble friend Lord Colville nodding his head in agreement. I am sorry that he did not hear my noble friend Lord Colville nod his head in agreement. I am sorry that he did not hear the speech of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. I am sorry that he did not hear the speech of my noble friend Lord Colville nod his head in agreement. I am sorry that he did not hear my noble friend Lord Colville nod his head in agreement. I hope that he heard my noble friend nodding his head in agreement. I am sorry that he did not hear my noble friend nod his head in agreement. I am sorry that he did not hear my noble friend nod his head in agreement. I am sorry that he did not hear my noble friend nod his head in agreement. I am sorry that he did not hear the speech of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, nod his head in agreement, nod his head in agreement; nod his head in agreement. I am sorry that he did not hear my noble friend nod his head in agreement. I am sorry that he did not hear my noble friend nod his head in agreement. I am sorry that he did not hear my noble friend nod his head in agreement. I am sorry that he heard the speech of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, nod his head in agreement, nod his head in agreement. I am sorry that he did not hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, nod his head in agreement.
====================
I am sure that the Minister will say that he does not mean that. It is not meant to be said. Perhaps he will give an undertaking that he will consider the situation in Clause 3 and give the matter some thought.
====================
My Lords, I do not feel that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has made a case for doing anything at all. I am not aware that it is possible to obtain a licence to be a landlord for a lease in the case of a tenant. It is a question of finding out whether a landlord who is a tenant, or who is unoccupied or who has a lease in line with the tenant, can get a licence.
====================
My Lords, I have a great deal to say, but I may be a little short on matters I have to say. I think I caught the noble Lord's eye. I think he misheard me, but I had thought that I had caught his eye. I was merely referring to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, on the subject of inflation.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I hope that the case will be referred to the Select Committee, which will consider it very thoroughly. However, can the Minister say whether it is the case that the Attorney-General has ruled that the material is not material unless it is relevant to an issue of constitutional and public interest law? That appears to us to be a very doubtful and possibly unsatisfactory situation. Can the Minister say whether the Attorney-General has ruled on that point?
====================
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. Noble Lords will be aware that the Bill deals with a number of technical issues and it is sometimes difficult for speakers to deal with them, but I should like to draw attention to two of the amendments which are in the Bill as a whole. Clause 6 relates to the control of the internal combustion engine. This is a rather technical matter, but I am concerned that it should be possible to introduce a Bill of its own to deal with the internal combustion engine, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will not press his amendment. Clause 7 relates to the control of the internal combustion engine. This is a complicated area, but I believe that the noble Lord's amendments are unnecessary. If the internal combustion engine is to be controlled, we need to know what the rules are, whether they are to be specified in the Bill or whether the only means is to be found in the regulations of the Government. We need to know the purpose of the ownership. The purpose of the owner is to be the engine maker. The Minister is the engine maker, and the Bill is to control the internal combustion engine. We need to know what the purpose of the engine makers is. We need to know the purpose of the owner, and whether he has a right of entry. We need to know the purpose of the owner, and whether he has the right of entry. That is the purpose of Clause 6(1). The purpose of the owners is to be the owners of the engine. The Minister is the engine maker. The Bill is to control the internal combustion engine. We need to know the purpose of the owners, and whether they have a right of entry. We need to know the purpose of the owners and whether they have the right of entry. That is the purpose of Clause 6(2). The purpose of the owners is to be the owners of the engine. The Bill is to control the owners of the engine, and the Bill controls the owners of the engine. We need to know the purpose of the owners and whether they have the right of entry. I explained the purpose of the owners in Clause 6. The purpose of the owners is to be the owners of the engine. The Bill is to control the owners of the engine. I have said that the purpose of the owners is to control the internal combustion engine. That is the purpose of Clause 6. The purpose of the owners is to be the owners of the engine. The Bill is to control the owners of the engine, and the Bill controls the owners of the engine. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will not press the amendment.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I am sure that the House will be grateful to me for the detail of this Order. In order to explain the purpose of this Order, I should first of all explain the purpose of the Order itself. The purpose of the Order is to authorise the setting up of a bank, or an authorised bank, to deal with loans and advances, or with loans and advances. It is our intention to make the Bank of England the bank of the world for the purposes of these orders. The Order, which will be made by the affirmative procedure, will enable the Bank to make loans and advances not only in respect of loans and advances but also in respect of advances in respect of loans and advances. There is one other matter on which I should like to comment. The Order deals with the power to borrow money from the Bank by the creation of a bank banking account. This is a bank that is not in the ordinary sense of a bank. It is a bank which is a bank in the sense that it has a bank guarantee. The Bank of England would not be the bank of the world. It is not a bank which is a bank, but a bank which is not a bank. It is not a bank which is a bank, but a bank which is not a bank. It is not a bank which is a bank, but a bank which is not a bank. It is not a bank which is a bank, but a bank which is not a bank. It is not a bank which is a bank, but a bank which is not a bank. It is not a bank which is a bank, but a bank which is not a bank. It is not a bank which is a bank, but a bank which is not a bank. It is not a bank which is a bank, but a bank which is not a bank. It is not a bank which is a bank but a bank which is not a bank. It is not a bank which is a bank, but a bank which is not a bank. It is not a bank which is a bank, but a bank which is not a bank. It is not a bank which is a bank, but a bank which is not a bank. It is not a bank which is a bank, but a bank which is not a bank. It is not a bank which is a bank, but a bank which is not a bank. It is not a bank which is a bank, but a bank which is not a bank. It is not a bank which is a bank, but a bank which is not a bank. The Order is designed to make it possible for the Bank of England to make loans and advances not only in respect of loans and advances but also in respect of loans and advances. The order is a necessary part of the scheme of Prime Minister Gladstone for the establishment of a bank which is not a bank. The bank is to be set up as a bank, but it is to be set up as a bank which will form the Bank of England. The Bank will then be the bank of the world, and the Bank is the bank of the world. The Order is designed to enable the Bank to make loans and advances not only in respect of loans and advances but also in respect of loans and advances. The order makes it possible for the Bank to make loans and advances not only in respect of loans and advances but also in respect of loans and advances. The Order is a necessary part of the scheme of Prime Minister Gladstone for the establishment of a bank which is not a bank. The Bank is to be set up as a bank, but it is to be set up as a bank which will form the Bank of England. The Order is a necessary part of the scheme of Prime Minister Gladstone for the establishment of a bank which is not a bank. The Order makes it possible for the Bank to make loans and advances not only in respect of loans and advances but also in respect of loans and advances. The order is a necessary part of the scheme of Prime Minister Gladstone for the establishment of a bank which is not a bank. The Bank is to be set up as a bank, but it is to be set up as a bank which will form the Bank of England. The Order is a necessary part of the scheme of Prime Minister Gladstone for the establishment of a bank which is not a bank. The order makes it possible for the Bank to make loans and advances not only in respect of loans and advances but also in respect of loans and advances. The Order is a necessary part of the scheme of Prime Minister Gladstone for the establishment of a bank which is not a bank. The Bank is to be set up as a bank, but it is to be set up as a bank which will form the Bank of England. The Order is a necessary part of the scheme of Prime Minister Gladstone for the establishment of a bank which is not a bank. The Order
====================
I am not quite clear whether the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, meant the provisions of the Bill. I understood him to mean the provisions of the Bill. On the matter of the Amendment, I should have thought that the words "the effect" of the Amendment would not be used because of the fact that the Bill is drafted in such a way that the whole of the provisions of the Bill are covered. Therefore, I shall not press that Amendment.
====================
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but does he really think that the Government will put hundreds of thousands of pounds at risk, given the remarks that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Bush, about the abolition of the capital punishment penalty?
====================
We are now in the day that he is supposed to be in. I wonder whether we are now in the day at which he is supposed to be in.
====================
My Lords, I should like to intervene briefly. I am not sure whether the noble Lord's Amendment is over-ruled so far as the amounts of money to be taken from the local authority to be used in connection with the new charge. If so, I should not care to move it.
====================
My Lords, I am not quite clear as to the reference in the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, to "perpetual" and "perpetual" in this context. I am not sure that in the context of the Group of the Bill that refers to "perpetual" and not to "perpetual".
====================
My Lords, I am sure that all of us are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St. John, for raising this important issue this evening. On the one hand, we are grateful for the noble Lord's strong support for the Government's proposals for the withdrawal of the United Nations from Afghanistan. On the other hand, it is true that he has taken the view that the withdrawal would be ill-advised. It is a classic example of the position which the noble Lord has taken. I have always fought for the withdrawal of the United Nations, but I believe that we have made it clear that the withdrawal of the United Nations is not a prospect which we would wish to see. The right of withdrawal is not to be regarded as a final solution to the problems which we all face, but as a possibility. The noble Lord, Lord St. John, is right in saying that the United Kingdom should not be forced into a withdrawal of the United Nations. I am sure that no one has yet suggested that and the noble Lord is quite right in saying that it is not realistic to suppose that the United Nations will be able to continue in Afghanistan indefinitely. I should have thought that it would be regrettable if it were to be forced into a withdrawal which would mean that the entire international community would then be forced to accept the Western view. I am sure that we would not wish it to be forced into a withdrawal which would mean that the whole international community would have to face up to the terrible difficulties which the noble Lord has described in Afghanistan. However, I am sure that we would not wish to see the withdrawal of the United Nations in Afghanistan. I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St. John, for raising this important issue this evening. It is also important to remind the House, particularly as we are going to be debating later today, that the United Nations mission in Afghanistan was set up to promote the interests of Afghanistan and the interests of the Afghan people, and for the purpose was to promote peace, reconciliation and the achievement of a united Afghanistan. We have now reached a stage when that mission has been carrying out a very difficult task, and it is essential to remember this when we debate later today. It is also important to remember that the United Nations mission has been operating in Afghanistan for nearly 18 years. We have had a very good run in Afghanistan, and it is important to remember that the United Nations mission in Afghanistan was set up to promote the interests of Afghanistan and the interests of the Afghan people. It has done a very good job. I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord St. John, speaks to-day he will feel that he is not forced into a withdrawal if he wished to do so. I am sure that we would not wish to see the United Nations withdrawn from Afghanistan. We should not be forced into a withdrawal which would mean that we would have to face up to the terrible difficulties that we will all face if the United Nations were forced to withdraw. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord St. John, will take steps to assure us that he will not press this Motion.
====================
My Lords, will the noble Lord wait until he sits down to see whether he has said that the Government are in favour of arbitration, and then we shall be satisfied?
====================
My Lords, I was not so happy about the noble Lord's statement. It seems to me that there is not a great deal to be gained by pressing the Opposition to press the Government to accept this amendment. I wonder whether the noble Lord would. He put his case as though one were pressing the Government to accept this amendment, and said that the Government were going to do it. Is it that there is not a great deal of value to be gained by pressing the Government to press the Government to accept this amendment, and telling the Government that if they did that it would be exploited by the Government? I hope that the noble Lord will explain to his friends in another place that if they press the Government to accept this amendment, that will not be exploited. There are many other amendments to the Bill that could be pressed.
====================
My Lords, I am glad that we are here at this time of night. I certainly share the concerns expressed about the amendments that have been tabled and those that were tabled in the other place on the day before. Although I assume that the Government would be able to find some way to deal with the concerns that have been expressed, I am concerned—I am not sure whether the Minister is here—that they are not really a proper basis for dealing with the matter. At this stage—I think the noble Lord will agree—I am not sure whether the amendments are really necessary. However, I hope that the noble Lord will not press them.
====================
I am afraid that I am not. I was not in my place, and it was not my purpose to speak.
====================
My Lords, I am sorry if I delayed the noble and learned Lord, but I simply do not understand this. I do not understand what he said, but I am sorry to have delayed the noble and learned Lord.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I am sure that the Opposition are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for raising the issue of the estimated £50,000 a year lost by the closure of the Arts Council. I am sure that the Government will agree with him that the closure of the Arts Council has been a contributing factor to the extraordinary decline in the arts in this country. The Arts Council has also had a very difficult and complex period over the past ten years. It has had to have to cope with the loss of the Tate Gallery and the loss of the Royal Courtaulds. It has had to cope with a decline in the number of council seats and with the loss of the National Portrait Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds. It has had to cope with the loss of the two National Portrait Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds. It has had to cope with the loss of the Tate Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds. It has had to cope with the loss of the Royal Courtaulds, the South Kensington Gallery, the Museum of London, the National Portrait Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds. It has had to cope with the loss of the two Royal Courtsaulds, the National Portrait Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds, and with the loss of the Tate Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds. It has had to deal with the loss of the Tate Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds, and with the loss of the Tate Gallery, the South Kensington Gallery, the Royal Courtaulds and the Royal Courtaulds. It has had to cope with the loss of the Royal Courtaulds. It has had to deal with the loss of the Tate Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds. It has had to deal with the loss of the Tate Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds. It has had to cope with the loss of the Tate Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds. It has had to deal with the loss of the Tate Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds. It has had to cope with the loss of the Tate Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds. It has had to cope with the loss of the Tate Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds, and with the loss of the Tate Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds. It has had to cope with the loss of the Tate Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds. It has had to deal with the loss of the Tate Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds. It has had to deal with the loss of the Tate Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds. It has had to cope with the loss of the Tate Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds and with the loss of the Tate Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds, and the loss of the Royal Courtaulds and the Tate Gallery. It has had to cope with the loss of the Tate Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds and the Tate Gallery, but it has had to cope with the loss of the Tate Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds. It has had to deal with the loss of the Tate Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds, but it has had to cope with the loss of the Tate Gallery, the North Kensington Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds. It has had to deal with the loss of the Tate Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds, and the loss of the Royal Courtaulds and the Tate Gallery. It has had to deal with the loss of the Tate Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds, but it has had to cope with the loss of the Tate Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds, and the loss of the Tate Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds. It has had to cope with the loss of the Tate Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds, but it has had to cope with the loss of the Royal Courtaulds and the Tate Gallery. It has had to cope with the loss of the Tate Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds, and the loss of the Tate Gallery. It has had to cope with the loss of the Tate Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds, but it has had to cope with the loss of the Tate Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds. It has had to cope with the loss of the Tate Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds, and with the loss of the Tate Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds. It has had to cope with the loss of the Tate Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds and the Tate Gallery. It has had to cope with the loss of the Tate Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds, and the loss of the Tate Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds. It has had to cope with the loss of the Tate Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds, but it has had to cope with the loss of the Tate Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds. It has had to cope with the loss of the Tate Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds and the Tate Gallery, but it has had to cope with the loss of the Tate Gallery and the Royal Courtaulds.
====================
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I said that I would not go into the details of the matter, except to remind him that the settlement of the dispute was agreed at some length under the last government. I do not want to present it in a different way from the manner in which the dispute was dealt with.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pym, for his intervention. I apologise for intervening on the last occasion. I have never used the word "unfair". I have always used the word "unfair". I understand that the word is a misnomer, but I should like to tell the noble Lord that in my own county we have no statute of limitations for miscarriages of justice. On the last occasion I said some things which would not have been suitable for me to say, but I apologise for that. I was sorry for having used the word "unfair", but I hope that the noble Lord will accept it. On the question of the case in which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, spoke, I shall attempt to deal with it in the way I have been doing it. I should like to address the point in the context of the case in which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, spoke. It was a case for the use of the word "unfair". The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that a person should not be given a chance to go through the courts. I ask the noble Lord to consider what words he used. If he used the word "unfair", the man, the woman and so on would never be given a chance at all to go through the courts at all. That would be unfair to the person involved and unfair to the accused. I refer to the case in which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, spoke. It was a case for the use of the word "unfair" and not for "unfairness". I have not used the word "unfairness", but I have used the word "unfairness". I apologise for intervening in the case in which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, spoke. I have never used the word "unfair". I have always used the word "unfairness". I am sorry that I did not use the word "unfairness". I apologise for intervening. The case in which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, spoke was a case for letting the defendant go to the courts. When the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that he was sorry that he did not use the word "unfair", I was surprised that he chose to use the word "unfairness". I listened to him, and I listened with considerable interest. He said that he wished to seek justice in the courts and that he wished to have limited the cases to those involving parties who were not parties at the time. It was a case for using the word "unfair", not for dealing with unfairness. I do not think that the word "unfairness" is a word that you should use in your Lordships' House. I am sorry that I have used the word "unfairness". I apologise for the fact that I have used it. I apologise for the fact that I have used it, but it was not necessary to do so for the reasons that I gave.
====================
My Lords, I had not intended to intervene, but I have done so. I am not sure whether the noble Lord's remarks are correct. I do not know whether the noble Lord is correct in his remarks.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I am looking forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich. I shall start by saying that I am very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, speak after me. It gives me the opportunity of saying how much I enjoyed his speech today. It was good to hear from him and to see that he is able to speak to-day. I shall speak briefly because I believe I am entitled to say that we have had a very interesting debate, with many points raised by many speakers. I have not had time to read all the arguments, but I shall attempt to deal with some of the main points that have already been raised. As a matter of fact, I have not had time to read a great deal of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sorensen, but I gather that he dealt with a large number of his points. I am glad that he has taken the opportunity of saying that, and I should like to congratulate him on his speech, which was very well worth reading. I do not know how long it has been in the mind of the noble Lord, but I do not think the point was one of his. I think it was one of mine. But I think it is worth mentioning that I have always taken the view that the best Cabinet Minister is a Cabinet Minister. I am not saying that the noble Lord, Lord Sorensen, will always be a cabinet Minister. I am saying that if he is a Cabinet Minister he will always be a good Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, talked about the "penalty of silence". I am not sure that "penalty of silence" is the word that is used. I should like to look up the words that are used. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, spoke of the different prosecutions being being put before the courts. I am not sure about that. I was rather surprised at the word "penalty of silence". I believe that the word is "penalty of silence". The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked about cases in which there were no witnesses. I am not sure whether he is right in his interpretation, but I believe that it is the case. He also asked me why the majority of the witnesses did not report. It was not because they did not wish to make a report; it was because they did not want to go to the trouble to bring at all; they were not quite sure that they would be able to answer the questions. But I am sure the noble Lord has read the evidence of the lawyers and will be satisfied. I am sure he will be satisfied that the evidence is always satisfactory. The noble Lord, Lord Sorensen, said that the trial judge did not have the power to sentence. I do not know, but I believe that the whole matter was taken into consideration in the course of the inquiry. I do not think there is a great deal of evidence—I realise that I am not going to deal with that point in a minute—that the trial judge does not have that power. I venture to suggest that the trial judge may not have the power to sentence. I am sure that the lawyers have given the fullest consideration to the question, and I hope that the noble Lord will find that a satisfactory answer, because I would not like to be bound by it. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked me to refer to the inquiry by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and he did not want to do so. I am not going to do so myself, because I am not going to be bound by what he said. But I am going to refer to all the evidence that was made public. The inquiry was very well attended by the Attorney-General, and he said that he would first look at the report and then the evidence. He said that he would then put forward his views and, if he felt there was any question which was worth discussing again, he would give a decision. I do not know whether the noble Lord wishes to take that statement as fact or not. I am sure that it is true that the Home Secretary received only one report. I do not know how many. It is not out of order for me to say that that is not sufficient evidence. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked about the position of the Crown Court judges, and I cannot say more than that. I cannot say more than that. But I can say that a good deal of the evidence was very carefully considered by the Crown Court judges. He asked me about the trial judge. I believe that the trial judge is the person who hears the case, and he will decide. He will also take into consideration the evidence and decide whether or not the evidence is good. He is the judge and he can say what he thinks. The noble Lord asked about the case in which a prisoner was found guilty and sentenced, and I cannot give him an answer to
====================
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have been sitting here for a while now. I am grateful to the Minister for explaining to us that he has given us this reply. It is a pre-trial briefing. The Minister said, "Yes, we will look at the matter again". So this is a pre-trial briefing. It is not a pre-trial briefing because it is not a trial; it is a briefing on the consequences of the decision. It is a pre-trial briefing. I am not sure that this is the right time to raise this matter. I am not sure that we should raise it again on the Floor of the House. I am glad that, as the Minister has said, he will take advice as to the wording of the powers of the judge. However, I shall not press this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I am sure that he will understand that I am not sure. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that the importance of this is that the universities should participate in the new social structure. However, I am not certain that he was referring to the end of the social structure itself, which is what he is complaining is the case.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for his intervention. I should like to deal with one or two points that arose from the noble Lord's intervention. He raised the issue of the scheme for a new and newly set up organisation to which we are now going to send the advisory team. I hope he will forgive me if I do not go into the details of the scheme. However, he asked one question that I should like to answer. Is it intended to make the advisory team the official body to which the secretary of the board will appoint the chairman of the new body?
====================
I am not so happy about the amendment. I am not sure that it is absolutely necessary to have a special clause as to who should be liable for what. The Government have said they have no intention of making a special clause about the bill. I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was not deliberately stirring the pot, but he made an error in his amendment. I am not sure that he was moving an amendment significantly to the Government's advantage. I must say that I am a little surprised to hear that he is apparently prepared to accept my amendment. I do not know how the Government can explain to the Committee why they should not do so.
====================
I should have thought that the words, "with or without prejudice to the extent of the application of the powers", are entirely appropriate. It is the fact that a Bill is not in the form of a Bill. The words should be "with or without prejudice to the construction of the Bill". That is all.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for giving me the opportunity to intervene in this debate. I find myself in some difficulty because I am a member of the House of Commons and I have not been a Member of the House of Commons, with which my noble friend Lady Young is acquainted, twice. I am not a member of the House of Commons, but I am a member of this House, and I have been a Member of the House of Commons on many occasions in the past few years. I do not want to pursue the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, either now or at some stage in the future. But I can assure her that this House, in this place and in another place, is a place to debate and to debate, as well as to debate issues which are of a little more importance than those of the day. I can assure her that the activities of the House of Commons are not of a little importance. It is, I think, true to say that in recent years, while there has been a largely unbalanced and unbalanced debate in this House, there has been a somewhat balanced and unbalanced debate in another place. I should like to underline my noble friend's words. Of course, we are a House of Commons and therefore we are a place to debate and to debate. I am not saying that the kind of things that are said in this House are not of great importance, but, as the noble Baroness said, it is a place for debate and it is a place to discuss. Therefore, I should like to make one brief point on this matter. First of all, I should like to say that I am not taking the point of view that has been put forward on the previous occasion. I am not suggesting that there are not many Members of the House of Commons who are not Members of the House of Commons. I am not suggesting that there are not many Members of the House of Commons who are not Members of the House of Commons. I am not suggesting that there are not members of the House of Commons who are not Members of the House of Commons. I am not suggesting that there are not many Members of the House of Commons who are not Members of the House of Commons. I am not suggesting that there are not many Members of the House of Commons who are not Members of the House of Commons. But I am saying that this House is a place to debate and it is a place for debate. That is the only one point which I wish to make. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will forgive me if I do not repeat what she used to say, but, with the greatest respect to her, I think it would be better if I repeated myself. I am not suggesting that we do not have a House of Commons, but I am saying that it is a place for debate and it is a place to debate. I have one further point which I should like to make. I presume that it is not the intention of the Government, in the event of the House of Commons being reformed, to change the composition of this House. I am not a member of the House of Commons and I have no real connection with it; I am a Member of another place and I have been a Member of this House on many occasions. But I am entitled to say that if it is the intention of the Government to change the composition of this House, for example, it would be a great mistake for the House of Commons to have changed its composition. I should like to make one brief point about this House. There is an honourable hope that it is to be reformed. I am not suggesting that it should be reformed in the least. I am saying that it should be reformed. I am not saying that it should not be reformed, but it should be reformed. I should like to make two brief points which I hope will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. The first point is that the House of Commons is the place to debate and to debate issues of a little more importance than those of the day. The second point is that we are a House of Commons. I am not suggesting that the House of Commons is not a place to debate and to debate. I am not suggesting that it is not a place to debate issues of a little more importance than those of the day. I am not suggesting that it is not a place to debate. I am not suggesting that it is not a place to debate. I am saying that it is a place for debate. I am not suggesting that it is not a place to debate. I am not saying that it is not a place to debate. I am not suggesting that it is not a place to debate. I am not suggesting that it is not a place to debate. I am saying that it is a place for debate. The case has been made by my noble friend Lady Young on many occasions, and on many occasions in many different debates. I think
====================
My Lords, I am very disappointed at the Minister's response to my questions. It seems to me that there is some confusion about the position. I do not know whether the Minister knows about the position better than I do. I shall look closely at what he has said and will investigate the matter again.
====================
My Lords, is it not a fact that the reason why the Government do not provide a local authority with the powers of compulsory selection for the nationalised industries is that the nationalised industries are themselves nationalised? I should like to ask my noble friend whether it is not true that the reason why the Government do not provide a local authority with the powers of compulsory selection is because they consider that there is no case for it. I beg my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am afraid that I do not think that the House will agree that it is a perfectly proper question to ask the noble Viscount whether he is aware of the present position in regard to the application of the proportion of the rent to be paid to the tenant. I think he must have looked at the clause to see whether it is a satisfactory clause. I hope that he will now be prepared to accept this, and I am sure that it will be the wish of the House that it should be in.
====================
My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, I am afraid I shall have to leave the House at this stage. I am sorry that he has taken this opportunity of not agreeing to my Amendment. I have not had the opportunity of discussing the matter with him, but I am sure his desire is that he should be able to ask his Question on this matter if he has not been given a statement in writing. I can only say to him that I have taken the opportunity to work out this proposal, which I am sure he will find useful, and that I have been very fortunate in the circumstances in which it has come about. I am quite prepared to accept the Amendment.
====================
My Lords, what I shall not do is to continue to raise it in the debate. I was getting bored and getting rather tired of it. I shall withdraw it.
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. I am glad that he is in his place, because it seems to me that the problem is as simple as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has explained it.
====================
The noble Lord has said that he will consider the matter further. I am sure that he will do so.
====================
My Lords, I should like to ask the Leader of the House whether he would be kind enough to consider the position of some of the speakers on this side of your Lordships' House, who were, I would say, very wise on the occasion of the debate. I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, was extremely wise, and I believe that in a debate of this very wide-ranging nature he was the one who was wise. I have the greatest respect and admiration for him, and I should like to ask the Leader of the House whether he would consider that point, because I think it is a very important one. I was interested to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I think it is his, but I was not sure that I was seeing him. I believe that Lord Houghton is a wise man. He said that there are no easy answers, but he is right, and I could not feel more wise than he did on this occasion. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he thinks we have seen the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, yesterday and that he did not see him and that he is not here.
====================
My Lords, I think that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has shown very good judgment in discussing this amendment. I was very interested to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and I am a little surprised that he does not speak for the Union of South Yorkshire. However, I should like to be clear about the purpose of the amendment. It is important to understand that the amendment refers only to the provisions in the Bill. However, it is a legal construct to make it clear that the words "may" and "shall" refer to the specific acts of the Government which are themselves included within the scope of the Bill. I do not believe that it is necessary to make that clear, but I hope that the noble Earl will feel that it is those words that are important. I should like to clarify one matter which has been referred to before. I refer to the provision in the Bill that the Minister may include the words "may" in subsection (5). It seems that the words "may" and "shall" refer to the act of the Secretary of State or the Secretary of State's appointees. Those words appear in the Bill. I could not find them in the Bill. I asked the Minister a few questions. Is it not right that the Minister should have specified those words "may" and "shall" in the Bill? I should like to know whether the words "shall" and "may" refer to the specific acts of the Government which are included within the scope of the Bill. That is what I have in mind. I am not saying that the word "may" or "shall" should not be included in the Bill. I am saying that the words "may" and "shall" should be included in the Bill.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. He has made it clear that he would like to see the amendment. I can see the force of the arguments, but I am not sure that it is altogether helpful to lay down the amendment. I am asking for clarification on the clause. I do not want to repeat what my noble friend has said. I think that what we need is clarity on what the Government propose to do, and I want to know whether it is possible to provide clarity on this. My noble friend asks me to look at the clauses in another way, to take them into account. I am not sure whether I am right in what I said earlier. I am not sure if I am right in the wording of my amendment for the purposes of the Bill.
====================
That is what I was being asked about. I wonder whether I could help the noble Lord. The one principle which, I would suggest, has to be satisfied by such an arrangement is, that if there is a clause at the end of a Bill of Rights, it may not be moved and referred to a Committee. Therefore, it is not a question of whether or not it should be mentioned, or whether it should be referred to a Committee; it is a question of how it should be dealt with.
====================
I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the intervention I made. It would be helpful to know whether he is aware that the Community Agriculture Ministers are meeting to discuss the necessary measures. I will not hesitate to make inquiries, but I am glad that this point has been raised.
====================
My Lords, I am sorry if I interrupted my noble friend, but I am not sure whether the words "National Service" are used in the Bill. I should have thought it contained in the Terms of Reference. It is a bit difficult to know the meaning of "national service".
====================
My Lords, I am happy to beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This is the third time that I am speaking on the Motion. I should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, for having moved the Motion. I am sure the House will agree that this is one of the most important and controversial Bills before the House. I am sure that the noble Lord is right when he says that there will be widespread support for the Bill, on the ground that the consequences for the country and for the economy of what we are doing are very real. It is true that there has been a fall in our currency, in our currencies in general, and in our exports, but that is not the cause of the whole problem. The World Trade Organisation has now declared that we are going to have to accept the obligations that we have already signed. Are we going to have to accept them now? Are we in a position to pay them? I am sure that we should be. I am sure that we can afford to pay them. I am sure that we can afford to pay them. I believe that we can afford to pay them. I am also sure that we can afford to pay them. I believe that we can afford to pay them. I believe that we can afford to pay them. I am sure that we can afford to pay them. The noble Lord has said that we cannot afford to pay them. We have to pay them. We have to pay them to pay for the duties that we have already agreed. I am sure that we shall. I am sure that the noble Lord is right when he says that the country is going to have to pay these duties. I hope that we shall. I am sure that we shall. I am sure that we shall. Therefore, I am certain that we are going to have to pay the duties that we have already signed. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has explained that I am right when I say that we have to pay for the obligations that we have signed. I hope that we shall have to pay them. But I do not want to go on. I am not going to be taunted by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. I am not going to give him the benefit of the doubt. We will have to finish the business. I have done that before. I have been right before.
====================
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene. I thought that she referred to the fact that a great many of those who are interested in the matter of the flour mills and the other mills that are in the area of Yorkshire are not members of the council. What is the position there?
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. If he will look at it again, I hope he will find out whether he does not take account of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on the previous amendment.
====================
My Lords, the Secretary of State for Industry has received a letter from the chair of the Conservative Group on the National Economic Development Council, Sir John Cox, about the letter published in The Times today. The letter states that in response to a previous letter from the chairman of the Conservative Group which was published in November last year, the Government have announced their intention to publish a consultation paper by the end of 2005 on the effect of the proposed changes. The letter asks that this consultation paper be laid before Parliament in due course. The Government have also announced their intention to publish a consultation paper later in the year. The letter adds: "The statement [that the Government will publish a consultation paper later in the year] is not binding on the BBC. However, it sets out the steps we have taken to ensure that the BBC is properly informed about the impact of the proposals which are currently before Parliament. This is a matter for the BBC itself". The document goes on to refer to the letter of 11th March 1999, in which the BBC was asked to comment on the proposals for a new framework for the National Economic Development Council. The letter states: "We are grateful for the opportunity to publish these comments. However, in particular we should not repeat our previous position that we have no plans to publish a new framework for the council". The letter continues: "I hope that the BBC will not ignore the letter but will modify its approach to the council … this will be a very useful opportunity to provide the framework for the BBC to make its stance on the council known to Parliament before it is produced". The letter continues: "The other letter in the same chain states: "The BBC will need to consult on the real impact of the proposed changes. The Government will publish a consultation paper by the end of 2005". I should like to ask the noble Lord whether the Minister is aware that the letter in the issue of the current issue of The Times today is replete with references to the letter dated 11th March 1999. It states: "We are making no commitment to publish a new framework for the council". It goes on to say: "The current proposal is intended to replace the current framework for the council with a new framework for the National Economic Development Council". I should like to ask the noble Lord whether that indicates the Government's intention. I should like to say a word about the issue of The Times today. Many of your Lordships will have read the debate on The Times today, and I shall leave the point there. The present position is that the Labour Party is prepared to accept the proposal for a new council. I understand that there is no intention to publish a new framework for the council, but that is what the letter says. I shall not press the noble Lord further on that point today. The letter continues: "I do not believe that it is permissible to publish a new framework for the council without first publishing an appropriate commentary on the proposals for the council and the reasons for their proposals". I ask the noble Lord to comment on that. My letter asks that the publication of the next set of proposals for the council should not be made until the end of 2005. I give that instruction because we are trying to use a new framework for the council. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, will know what I mean. I am not speaking for the Government, but for the BBC. There is nothing in the letter which indicates that. I am not aware that it is possible to publish a new framework without first publishing an appropriate commentary on the proposals. It is not my intention to publish a new framework today, but I am making a commitment that the BBC will publish a consultation paper in due course. This is a matter for the BBC itself. I do not want to press the noble Lord further on that point. I am asking the noble Lord not to repeat his original position, but to modify his approach to the council. It was a specific request from the chairman of the Conservative Group. The letter goes on to say: "We are grateful for the opportunity to publish these comments". That is what it says. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that this is a matter for the BBC. It is a matter for the BBC to publish a consultation paper as soon as it has first published it in due course. The letter concludes: "I hope that the BBC will not ignore the letter and will modify its approach to the council". I want to ask the noble Lord whether he would care to comment on a statement by the chairman of the Conservative Group that the Government have no plans to publish a new framework for the council. That is what the letter says. The letter continues: "We are prepared to publish a new framework for the council. This is in addition to the existing framework for the council". I should like to know whether the noble Lord can comment on that.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I found the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, to be a very interesting one, but I am not going to weary your Lordships with a long recital. I would like to refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. I know that he has a great deal to say in this debate, but I should like to make a few observations. I am sure that the whole House is very glad to know that the noble Lords, Lord Sandford and Lord Sandford, have given us this opportunity to discuss the problems of the future of the railways. In my opinion, the more one looks at the map in the previous debate, the more one will see the rail system continuing to move forward, and the more one will see it continuing to move forward in the direction of the nation's prosperity. In my opinion, the railways are the key to our prosperity in the future, and any plan for the future of the railways is an important step in the right direction. In the past few years I have been an active member of the Labour Party. I have had the honour of sitting on the railway benches of the country, and I can assure your Lordships that I have never heard a more eloquent speech than the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. I have never heard a speech which has proved more important than that of his. I am sure that he will return to this issue on other occasions. I hope that he will continue to make speeches on this subject, as I wish him every success. I should like to add my tribute to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, quoted from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. I will read the speech. I was not sure whether it dealt with the problem of the railways. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will read it. I came to the conclusion that it dealt with the question of the railways. I believe that it dealt with the problems of the future, but it also dealt with the question of the railways, which is what my speech was about. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, mentioned the problems of the railways. There is another aspect. There are a number of aspects, and this is what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, was concerned about. I do not think that anybody disputes the need to keep the railways moving. But there are problems which beset the railways, and these have entirely to be faced, and that is why I feel that this debate is so important. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will have very much to say on this subject, but I do not intend to weary your Lordships with an analysis of the future of the railways. I would like to refer to one or two passages in a minute, and I am afraid that I am going to be a little short. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, quotes the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and says that he is not going to make any attack on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, but instead he is going to attack the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. I have with me a copy of the speech. It is a very interesting speech, and it is timely. It is a speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and it is very much in the spirit of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, began his speech by saying that he was trying to follow up what my noble friend Lord Sandford had said. I think it is not a waste of time to go back on that. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has done so very clearly and clearly. I would like to say on the question of the future of the railways that I think there has been a great deal of misunderstanding. It is not a question of whether or not the railways are going to be privatised. It is a question of whether or not the railways are going to be privatised. It is a question of whether they are going to be privatised in the way that many of us would like them to be, or whether they are going to be privatised in a different way. One of the problems in the railway is the amount of finance that is required, and the amount of money that is required for their improvement. I have never heard a case for privatisation, but I think there are a number of people who would like to see privatisation. After all, we are now in a time of crisis; the crisis is the one which gives rise to the problems of the railways. Therefore I do not know whether I should like to bring the argument away with the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, or whether the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, should bring the argument to the House at a later stage. It is
====================
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I shall not press the amendment now, but I shall be grateful if I can read it. As I understand it, this amendment is a straightforward one. It would not create any problem as I understand it. The problem is that, in order to come up with a reasonable definition of "consumers" and "exchange", there would have to be a legal definition of "exchange". The amendment would give a definition of "exchange", but I am not sure whether or not that is what the Minister meant. It could be that he meant a different definition. I hope that he meant a definition of "exchanging" by which the exchange of information would be defined. I do not want to press this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
====================
My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I am afraid that he means that the pay of the new chief inspector, which I understand, is to be £1,000 a year, and that the pay of the new head of the National Health Service is to be £75,000 a year. I am not surprised that the noble Lord is absolutely baffled.
====================
My Lords, I am happy to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, in that he has brought forward this Motion. I think that I can speak for the Government on this matter, because I was also in the House of Commons when the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, introduced a Motion, and I am still in the House of Commons, as the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, is moving a Motion of this House. The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, says that there is a great difference between the two Bills. It is the heavy weight of the legislation which is in the hands of this House, and, as I have said, it is the heavy weight of the legislation which is in the hands of another place. The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has given me the opportunity to put forward this Motion, and I am moving it on behalf of the Government. I think it is a very proper thing to do, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, for giving me the opportunity to put it forward. Therefore, I beg to move.
====================
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
====================
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that apology. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Swann, who has given us some serious information about the Government's attitude towards the North Sea. Does it not make sense to ask: why have the Government allowed the North Sea to become an illegal activity? I am not sure what is the Government's attitude on this. What they are doing is simply trying to get the North Sea to become an illegal activity. That is perfectly practicable. If it were not, I would not be here when the Minister replies.
====================
My Lords, I think that I ought to say, at the outset of my remarks, that I am not responsible for the present position. I am not responsible for the Government. I am responsible only for the future.
====================
I am not quite clear. As I understand it, the amendment is: "to provide for the appointment of the Secretary of State to co-ordinate the various activities of the division, or to ensure that the activities of the division are properly co-ordinated". That is the effect of the amendment.
====================
I was not going to make a speech in this debate, but I should like to make one. I feel that this Amendment is unnecessary, and I do not think that it is really necessary to make that statement.
====================
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is aware of the enthusiastic support given to the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was quite right to say that the amendment was intended to be a rebuff of the Government. It is not a rebuff of the Government, it is a rebuff of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, who said that she would oppose the amendment. She said that she would oppose it because she thought that the Government had made an error. I cannot see how there can be a rebuff of the Government. The only question I have with regard to the amendment is: was it right or wrong to put it forward? I think it was wrong because an amendment like this would offer the Government an opportunity to get something through, and they have not been able to get it through. For my own part, I think that the amendment is wrong. It is a rebuff of the Government, and I should like to ask whether the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, would support the amendment.
====================
My Lords, as I understand it, these are not lists of suspects; they are lists of persons who have been arrested. It is not the sort of list that is used in large criminal cases, but it is the sort of list that is sometimes used in small criminal cases where there is no person in custody. It is very important to note that in the large cases there is a list of persons who have been arrested. In the cases that are not, it is not a list of persons who have been charged or charged. So it is not the sort of list that is used in the large cases.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hamwee, for his introduction of this Motion. I think it was the intention of the Government to make this possible, and I hope he will not be too long in introducing it.
====================
I shall not pursue it. I have been trying to deal with it now, but I am not sure that I have dealt with it completely. I have taken on the matter on the basis that it is a question of commitment. We are committed to the three pillars of our defence policy, and we have agreed to the reduction of defence expenditure. We have made every effort to meet the two objectives of the defence review. We have made every effort to meet the calls that we have had for an every-dollar reduction, and we have done that. I am sorry that I have not dealt with it fully in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has done. I shall not pursue it. But I shall not pursue the matter any further. It is a matter of commitment. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for introducing the debate. In my experience, there is a great difference between those who are concerned and those who are not. Most of us are concerned with the deficit of milk supplies, especially in the public sector. I have had the privilege and the opportunity to travel around the world during my working life. I am concerned with the ability of the dairy industry to meet the industry's needs. I have seen the problem in the past and had to deal with it. I had to deal with it in the past and, if I had not, I should not be here today. I should like to follow the example of my noble friend Lord Renton, who was chairman of the Board of Trade and who gave a maxim which I then used in the House of Commons. I should like to quote from page 5 of the text of his speech, which states: "The aim of any Government is to reduce the deficit of milk supply and to restore the position of milk in the public sector. That is what we are doing". I have remembered what the Minister said in his reply. He said, "if we do not have that in the back of the tank then we can guarantee to the consumer that he will be getting the milk that he needs". Let me quote what he said in his reply. He said: "If you wish to maintain adequate supply of milk for the public you must give the public more milk". What we are trying to do in this Bill is to raise the standard of milk. At the moment, the product is not so good and it is not the quality that is important; it is the quality of milk. This is a problem that we are trying to solve. It is not that milk is bad, but that if we did not have it in the tank it could not be used as a substitute for milk. So I hope that the Minister will give us some reassurance that, if we do not have it in the tank, it could not be used as a substitute. I am not sure whether he has stated it as a maxim or whether it is "any other word". I believe that it is a maxim. I do not know what it means. I believe that it is "any other word", but it is a maxim. I think we are trying to raise the standard of milk and give more milk for the public.
====================
If the noble Lord does not want me to make a statement to that effect, I shall not detain you at all.
====================
My Lords, I have to inform the House that I am to meet the noble Lord, Lord Alport, and that I am to speak to the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I have already told the House that I am to speak to the Motion standing in my name. I should like, however, to introduce a number of Amendments, and I should like to discuss them with the noble Lord, Lord Alport, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Alport, who is to speak to the Motion in my name. As the noble Lord, Lord Alport, has said, I should like to limit my remarks to the first four Amendments, which are consequential upon the Amendments put down by my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence and my noble friend Lord Alport. The first Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment which was made in another place by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, which, as it is now Clause 1, is also consequential upon the Amendment which was made by my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence. The Amendment was therefore consequential upon the Amendment which was made by my noble friend Lord Alport. The second Amendment, which is consequential upon the Amendment made by my noble friend Lord Alport, is consequential upon the Amendment which was made by my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence. The third Amendment, which is consequential upon the Amendment made by my noble friend Lord Alport, is consequential upon the Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Alport. I beg to move.
====================
My Lords, I am not surprised to see that the letter was sent to all the public bodies whose functions had been transferred to the new organisations.
====================
My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that the Government are now prepared to detain people for questioning without asking them questions?
====================
I am not sure that that is still the case. I think we are all now workers in a private house. That is the only way in which the house is run.
====================
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, for his intervention. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, has said everything that he has said. He has not said that the account of the three days is correct. Indeed, he has not said that it is a complete account. I am sorry to interrupt him. I have not said that it is not complete. I think that it is absolutely accurate. I have said that it is a complete account, and I do not think that anyone who has had to deal with this matter in any way is going to suggest that it is not complete. I have not said that it is not correct. I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but what I am saying is that there is no perfect account of what happened and that it is a complete account of what happened. The noble Lord spoke from a position of great ignorance, and I do not think that he is entitled to speak as he did from that position.
====================
My Lords, I shall speak to my noble friend's Motion, and speak to it with the greatest possible care and attention.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am not sure whether the amendment relates to Clause 2(2), or whether it refers to Clause 2(2) and so on. I am most grateful to him for his explanation.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I should like to address my remarks specifically to Clause 3. I have decided to speak only on Clause 3 because it is a matter of some importance and it is a matter which I put down in my Question, although it is not a specific one. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has raised this issue on Clause 3, and I should like to stress that it is a question which concerns the rights of a person. The effect of Clause 3 is that a person cannot be compelled to give up his rights unless he is given a reasonable excuse. Therefore, it is an important Clause. I should like to make it clear. I am not saying that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is wrong. We have had many debates on this matter and the vast majority of people have been in favour of Clause 3. I should like to make that clear, because it is fundamental to the way in which we look at this. I have dealt with the points raised at considerable length in the other place. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for raising the matter and I am grateful for his views on it. It is a question that is causing concern among a number of people, and I should like to emphasise the importance of Clause 3. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, raised the issue of the rights of a person. I am not sure whether she was referring to Clause 3 or to the future. The Bill states: "If a person has a right of access to a premises and believes that he will be entitled to give evidence or waive the right of access, the court shall have the power to direct him to waive the right of access". But Clause 3 refers to the future. It may be that the noble Baroness will have heard me say that we will be considering the future. I think that the matter is also raised in the other place. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised the issue of the right of access. The purpose of Clause 3 is to give the right of access to premises to people who are in possession of documents. We have made it clear that the right to make representations and be treated as a witness will not extend to the right to make a copy of a document. The noble Lord raised the question of the rights of a person who refuses to give evidence. I have been asked a number of questions by noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, with which I shall not detain the House at this stage. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised the issue of the right of a person to waive his right of access. Clause 3(2) specifically provides that a person who has a right of access to premises may waive it if he has reasonable grounds for doing so. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised the issue of possible injunctions. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I am aware that we intend to deal with this matter. I am grateful to him for raising the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised the question of the right of a person to take photographs of a person in possession of a document. I have to say that it is a question for the court. I have answered this point so far and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I must point out that Clause 3(4) specifically provides for what is called a "reasonable excuse". The court may have to consider the circumstances in which a person is compelled to give evidence or waive the right of access. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised the issue of "reasonable excuse". The noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised the issue of the right of a person to refuse to give evidence. I said at the earlier stages that the person who is entitled to say that he will waive his right of access cannot be compelled to give evidence without a reasonable excuse. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised the issue of the right of a person to waive and take photographs. I am not sure on the future of the right of a person to refuse to give evidence. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised the issue of the right of a person to deny oral evidence. I am not sure about oral evidence. I am not sure whether I have answered that. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised the issue of the right to waive and to be seen to waive. The answer to the noble Lord's question is no. Clause 4 explicitly provides for the right of a person not to give evidence and to waive his right of access to premises. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised the issue of a person who refuses to give evidence. I am not sure of his view. The matter is again a matter for the court. I shall try to make this clear to the noble Lord, Lord Alton. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised the issue of a person who refuses to give evidence. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised a similar
====================
My Lords, at the beginning of last year, when the Minister of State was appointed, he told me that the events of that year had led him to make a statement in another place which could be referred to in this House. That statement was published at the end of October. I am sorry that the Minister of State has not received the same document since then, but I shall look at it. I would say that what the noble Lord says is true. I am not sure that he really wants an answer now, and we are rather worried when he makes such a statement. But I will look at it. The noble Lord gave the figures of the number of evacuations, but I am not sure that he really wants the numbers of deaths in that number. I would have thought that the figures for the number of casualties, if they were correct, were a little less than the figure given by the Minister of State, because in the event of a catastrophe there would have been a great deal of evacuation. In the event of a catastrophe, it would have been far better to have got in a little more and evacuated the people who were in a few hundred houses. They would have been far better evacuated than those who were on the streets, who had had to go out without help. The noble Lord said that the figures given in another place were wrong and that there was no way of getting them right. I think that, in the light of what the Minister of State said, however, it is true that the figures given by the Minister of State were wrong. I would suggest that they were wrong, and that the minister ought to apologise to the House.
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, for giving the Order. I am very sorry that he has not been here at the beginning of the debate. I did not know that he was here. I do not suppose that I could have made my speech at all. But this is a very important Order. I am certain that my noble friend has got it down, and I am sure that the whole House will be very grateful to him for it.
====================
I am not sure that the noble Lord is right in saying that these proposals involve the government of the day. We have to look at the matter in a wider context. It is not a question of government; it is not a question of the future of the United Kingdom. It is a question of the future of the Commonwealth.
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I am not at all certain about the exact contours of the amendments. We have been told that one of them is altering the wording of Clause 5. I attempted to look at the wording of Clause 5. I found that it was not. It was not a change of wording. It was a change of procedure. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. I am not sure whether he is saying that the Government have a policy on the matter. We have not had an explanation of the policy. I am sure that we shall have an explanation of the policy at a later stage.
====================
My Lords, I have had the pleasure of listening to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Clerke. He has confirmed that the Government are not prepared to accept the amendment. He also confirmed that they are not prepared to accept the amendment. I have no doubt that if he had been in the previous Administration he would have been prepared to accept the amendment, but we have no reason to suppose that he is not prepared to accept the amendment now. I am afraid that the next Minister will be prepared to accept it. I am afraid that if the next Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment the Government will not accept it. I am afraid that the next Minister will not be prepared to accept the amendment. I hope that I have made that plain. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, in welcoming the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester. It is a most kindly gesture that he is to be here. It is a very old tradition to wish him welfare. He has a very old tradition of welfare. Do not let us turn into a kind of charity. It is not charity. In any case, he is a Christian and I do not think it is a charity to be grateful for what the churches have done for him. I am sure that many in this House would wish to congratulate him on this very long and very devoted service that he has given to the Church. I am sure we should like to wish him welfare in this matter. I should like to ask him how he is to get home tonight if he is not going to make his contribution to the General Assembly of the United Nations.
====================
My Lords, I am not sure whether this is a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, but the answer to a Question which I have been given by my noble friend Lord Renton is, Yes, it is. I am not quite certain whether it is a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, but I am sure that he is aware of the fact that the Lord Advocate has asked the then Lord Advocate, Lord Mansfield, to examine the question of the Lord Advocate's own position and to tell him whether it is desirable to consider it. If so, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, could suggest that, because I have no idea: I do not know whether it is a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, or whether it is a matter for me. I hope that it is a matter for me. I listened with interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I remember well that very much as a young barrister in my last employment he had all his work taken away from him by the Lord Advocate, Lord Mansfield, who took away an enormous amount of work and left the service with a very large amount of material which the Lord Advocate could not have made up. After the war the Lord Advocate's office became very much more important than it had been when he was Lord Advocate. It was no longer a useful office to be a barrister. The Lord Advocate was recognised as the most useful office. It was not a function to be an advocate; it was not a function to be a judge but a function to be a judge. The Lord Advocate became the leader of the bar. The Lord Advocate became the Leader of the Bar Council. It was a very important position. Even the Lord Advocate was not always in the position of Judge Advocate. If he had had the position of Judge Advocate, he would not have been able to sit as Lord Advocate. He was not. It was no good being Judge Advocate. It was no use being a judge. You could not be a judge if you were not an advocate. There was no good in being an advocate. At that time the Lord Advocate's office was a very important office. It was the leader of the bar. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has put down an Amendment to-day, but I think he has done his job. I am not sure whether he has put down an Amendment which is in the Bill or whether he has put down an Amendment which is not in the Bill. I think he has put down a word which he has not put down. I should like to know what it is.
====================
My Lords, if I may, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth for raising this matter. I am not sure that I had the information that he had in the course of his speech, but I am sure that he received it and I am sure that he will receive it now. However, I shall express the same concern that I have expressed in the last debate on this subject. I must admit that I had some difficulty in getting my mind around the question on Saturday. As I said, I have some difficulty in trying to get my mind around it today. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving some indication of the outline of this Bill. I hope that it is not too long. It is one of the most important Acts that we have had in recent years. I know he has spent some time here in the other place, but he has been here here for long enough to know that this is a very important Bill. I am not sure whether it is right that the Government should take a different approach from that which they have taken over the question of the finance of the National Health Service. That is not the right way to deal with it. One could say that the Government should adopt an approach which would bring them in touch with the National Health Service. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, has taken part in the debate, and I know that he will do so for many years to come. We had a very good debate on the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, and I should have been glad to hear him again. I should like to make two brief points about the particular provisions of the Bill. First, the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, pointed out that there is a difference between a hospital and a doctor's surgery. The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, is concerned with doctors' surgeries. I should have thought that it was right to stipulate that there should be a doctor's surgeon in every hospital. Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, asked about the treatment of cancer. There is nothing to prevent cancer being considered as a separate condition. If a doctor is suffering from cancer, or if he is dying of cancer, he is entitled to receive treatment according to the circumstances. I am not sure that the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, is dealing with cancer in the same way as it is dealing with those other diseases. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, referred to the difficulty in which doctors find themselves and to the cost of the Bill. I think that is a question for the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree. I should have thought the Bill was dealing with cancer. It is not. I am a little surprised that he referred to the question of the treatment of cancer. It is a question for the House. If the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is unable to accept the Bill—and I am not sure he will be—then I shall, of course, withdraw the amendment.
====================
I am tempted to say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that the problems of the state of the economy are not likely to be solved until they are tackled. But the Government have made a good start and I should have thought that we could have waited until the present time to see what they could do, and the time is now now coming when we can look at the whole situation.
====================
I am sorry if I missed the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, who is not here at the moment but I shall read his remarks with interest. I need not remind him that the reference to his own speech is to the speech of my noble friend Lord Wilson of Langside. He referred to the "unintelligible" speech which my noble friend Lord Wilson of Langside made on 3rd March. I have tried to put the exact words of my noble friend's speech in order so that he may see them for the benefit of your Lordships and which will enable him to make his own speech later.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I am not going to attempt to answer the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, but I do not want to make an argument on the substance of the remarks he has made. I do not think I can do so. What I do want to do is to point out that the fact that this matter is before the House at all is to be welcomed. It has been an open and honest debate and I do not think that the remarks made are very effective. I have read the debate in Hansard and I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is agitated about the broadcasting licences. It is true that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, was not present at the beginning of the debate, but I do not blame him for that, because he is a very clever man. There have been many debates in your Lordships' House on the matter and I do not think anyone has disputed the fact that the House is entitled to know the reasons for the Government's decision. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, asked me to speak to the issue of what will happen in two years' time. The position is that a decision was taken by the then Minister of the day, Sir Robert Cotton, and the then Government. In the event, the Radio Times came to an agreement with Channel 4 to broadcast only one evening a week. The Government were in a position of absolute control, and the matter was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, at the time. The Government were handed over to Channel 4 in 1979 by a Conservative Government and took over in 1979. But it was not until 1980, when the Conservatives were in opposition, that the matter was raised again by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I have listened to the speeches made today. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has made any case for the continuation of the present arrangement. It is because I know much better than the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that I feel that I need not repeat the arguments which were put by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said that all the parties were agreed on the right of free and independent television. I do not think that that is the right way to put it. It means that the Channel 4 decision was taken by the then Minister, Sir Robert Cotton, as a result of an agreement made with Channel 4, and no one else was involved. It is the same as if the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, or the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, had said the same thing. It means that the Channel 4 decision was taken by the then Minister, Sir Robert Cotton, as a result of an agreement between Channel 4 and Channel 3. It means that the agreement was taken by Channel 3 as the result of an agreement between Channel 3 and Channel 6. It means that the agreement was not made by the then Minister, Sir Robert Cotton, as the result of an agreement that was made with Channel 5. It means that only Channel 3 was in any doubt as to what was the right course of action. It means that the agreement was not made by the present Minister, Sir Robert Cotton, as the result of an agreement which he has now broken. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, asked me whether I was aware that Mr. Murdoch, the editor of the British newspaper, was said to be in a state of shock about the decision. I am not aware that he was in a state of shock, but I am aware that he was shocked by the choice being made by the present Minister of the day, Sir Robert Cotton. I do not think that anyone would dispute the fact that Mr. Murdoch, a newspaper owner, has a right to be in a position to criticise the Minister of the day, Mr. Houghton of Sowerby. He is the present Minister of the day, and his choice of Channel 5 was made by the Minister who is now in Opposition, Mr. Houghton of Sowerby. However, I do not think that it need be said that I am aware of the current situation. I am aware that Mr. Murdoch, who is a newspaper owner, has a right to criticise the Minister. He has a right to criticise any Minister of the day. He has a right to criticise the decision being made and to argue the case for change. He has a right to argue the case for change. He has a right to criticise the decision being made. It is not necessary to remind our noble friend that he wrote on page 8 of his book that he did not believe that the present Government were in a position to make a decision which would affect the future of broadcasting. I turn now to the decision of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that correction. I have mis-understood the rules. I am asking whether I should be allowed to read the notice to the House. I shall be most grateful if the House can help me.
====================
My Lords, may I say that I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, should have been absent from the House? I am very sorry that he was not here to-day, because I was in a hurry to get up to my foot, and it was quite impossible to get through the list of speakers on that day. I am glad to say that he is now here.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the speeches of my noble friends Lord Chalfont and Lord Skelmersdale and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I am bound to say that I was greatly impressed by the speech of my noble friend Lord Chalfont. I am sure that we all listen with the same interest to his speech. He has been a distinguished lawyer for many years. He is absolutely right about the present situation. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, will forgive me if I repeat my comments. The present position is very serious. I refer to the number of people who are now serving in Northern Ireland. I believe that it is a disgrace that there should be more than the number of years of service. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred to the mistreatment of the British Army and the lack of British support in Northern Ireland. I did not remember the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, about the treatment of the British Army. I think that there can be no dispute about that. I believe that the British Army is doing a very good job. My noble friend Lord Chalfont referred to the general question of the situation. I do not think that any member of this House would doubt the support of the British Army in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, mentioned this. I was interested in hearing him when he was the Minister of Defence and he referred to the Royal Corps of the Royal Irish Rangers. I agree with him that the Royal Corps of the Royal Irish Rangers is doing a good job. He referred to the re-equipment of the Royal Irish Rangers. As I said, I have no doubt about the feeling of my noble friend Lord Chalfont. It is a disgrace that there should have been more than the number of years of service. My noble friend Lord Thomas referred to the feeling of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. I was interested in hearing him. It is a disgrace. It is a disgrace that there should have been more than the number of years of service. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred to the situation as a disgrace. I say to him that the British Army is doing a very good job, and I am sure that it will continue doing so. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred to the mistreatment of the British Army. I must say that I do not think that that was a question that was asked by my noble friend Lord Chalfont, but it is a question which has been raised by many of your Lordships on both sides of the House. I am sure that many of your Lordships feel that the present situation is a disgrace. I do not think that it is a question which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, asked the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I think that it is a question of the British Army. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred to the good will of the British Army. I do not think that the British Army has good will. It is not the personal will of the British Army that determines what the British Army is doing. It is the will of the British Army to do the job. I am sure that the Minister will correct the record in this regard. I am sure that he will correct the record in the use of the word "British". I do not think that it was the purpose of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, to suggest that the British Army should be used as a force in Northern Ireland. I was surprised by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Chalfont. I cannot pretend that I did not hear his speech. I listened with a great measure of interest to his speech. I must admit that I did not hear it with great interest. I very much hope that I shall be able to hear him again. One of the very great strengths of the British Army is that it is prepared to serve in Northern Ireland and I think that it is necessary that it should do so. I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, felt that the British Army should be used as a force in Northern Ireland. I should not like to imagine that we should use the British Army as a force in Northern Ireland. But I take the view that it is wrong for that to happen because there is a very real possibility that it might be used as a force in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred to the need for a British Army in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that there is any question about that. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred to the importance of the role of the British Army in Northern Ireland. I think that it is a serious weakness of the British Army that it should be used as a force in Northern Ireland. I do not think that there is any possibility of the British Army in Northern Ireland being used as a force in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred to the difficulties and the fears of the British Army. I
====================
My Lords, the answer to the first question is, Yes. In answer to the second; yes, the money is coming from the National Loans Fund and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is making available for the benefit of the students in the National Loans Fund.
====================
It is not so much the case that is in argument at all, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is right in saying that the minority of the larger landlords are bound to be the ones who will complain if they refuse to give the tenants a copy of their accounts. It is not the case at all. The tenants are entitled to a copy of the accounts of the landlord and the landlord will have the right to ask for it. Nor is it the case that the tenants can do another person's job. On the other hand, because I believe the other tenant is not entitled to ask for a copy of the account, the landlord has the right, under Section 4 of the Act, to ask for it. My Lords, it is not the case that the tenant cannot do another job. On the contrary, because the other tenant —I am referring to the other tenant, the next tenant—has the right to ask for the account, the other tenant has the right to ask for it. I suggest that that is what the Court of Appeal is saying. I do not know whether it has been suggested that a tenant should not ask for a copy of a copy of the relevant accounts. All I can say is that there is no right on the landlord or tenant to refuse it. They have the right to refuse it. I do not know whether it has been suggested that the landlord or tenant should not have the right to ask for a copy of a copy of the relevant accounts. I am not very familiar with the law of England but I have a little experience in that respect. It is the tenant who has the right to ask for a copy of a copy of the accounts. So I suggest that it is not the case that the tenant has the right to refuse it.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I am grateful to him for introducing the Motion. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, for his intervention on the subject. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Reay, for his intervention on the Motion. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, is a man with which I am associated and I am greatly indebted to him for his remarks. I agree that he is a very able and good-natured person who has had an interesting career in the House. However, I must say that his views on the one side are slightly different from those of my noble friend Lord Reay. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Reay, for his intervention.
====================
My Lords, I am in a *very sorry mood. I am not sure whether I should have been here at the beginning of this debate. I am not here to try to do my job. I am here to try to help the Minister. I regret that I am not here to listen to the Minister, because I do not know what he is saying. It seems to me that what the Minister is saying is that he is not trying to do his job; he is trying to do his job only of a subordinate nature. He is trying to do his job only of a subordinate nature, and I do not think that he is doing a role of a secondary nature at all. It is a very important matter. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, would be here. I do not think that he would be here at this time of night. As a matter of fact, I do not think he is here at all. He is here because he is suffering from an affliction which he is suffering from. I want to know what the Minister is saying. What he is saying is that he is trying to do his job; but I have never heard him say it. I do not want to hear the Minister say it, and I am not sure whether he is trying to do a job or not. I do not want to hear him say that because it is not true. It may be that the Minister is trying to do his job; but if he is trying to do it, and if he is doing it in a subordinate nature, then I do not think that he is doing it at all.
====================
My Lords, I am not sure whether I understood the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, correctly. He has not said that any of the points which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, have been fully considered and discussed.
====================
My Lords, I am sorry if I have offended the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. I am not sure whether I was in his place, but I thought he was moving the Motion. I am sorry if I interrupted him. I was not asking him to move the Motion. I was merely making a point.
====================
I should like to have an answer to that. I am sorry that I did not hear earlier the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester, who led the charge for the necessity of not inflicting ever upon the elderly the unnecessary burden of caring for the sick, the infirm and the infirm. I congratulate him on his maiden speech and I hope that we shall hear him often in your Lordships' House. I hope that he will make many more. It is very important that we should not allow the elderly to suffer unnecessarily. I hope he will feel that we are serious about this subject. I hope that he will feel that we do not want to make any silly provision which may be an embarrassment to them.
====================
My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will explain the answer that was given to me by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, although I understand that he did not hear the precise answer. Does he really expect me to take that from me, or does he expect me to take it from him?
====================
My Lords, I am sorry if I did not say I had not done so, but I certainly did not mean that. I said that I would be in the main in favour of it.
====================
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement on the general economic situation in relation to the United Kingdom. The Statement is as follows: "With permission, I should like to make a Statement on the general economic position in the United Kingdom. "With permission, I should like to make a Statement on the nature of the problems facing the United Kingdom. I have just returned from a visit to Scotland, and I should like to add my message of welcome to the welcome given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in his visit to Edinburgh last week. I am glad to be able to announce that I have agreed to meet my right honourable friend for this visit, and I am glad to tell him I am also the Member of Parliament for Stirling. "I want to make the statement that I have just made to the House, and I should like to emphasise the urgent need for a free trade area in the whole of the European Community, with the aim of ensuring that the culture, aspirations and interests of our people are safeguarded. "The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, made a very interesting speech in his unrivalled capacity this afternoon, in which he demonstrated that he is so important as to have his own voice. I was very much impressed by the speech of my noble friend Lord Carrington, and I am especially pleased to hear that he is now the spokesman for the Treasury. I am grateful for his opening speech, which was thoughtful and important, for he made it clear that we are not advocating the creation of a free trade area in this country; nor are we on that side of the Atlantic. But I think he was right in saying that those who were not in favour of a free trade area in this country should try to make a convincing case for a free trade area in the rest of the Community. I will say a word about that later. "I am glad to say that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, made his maiden speech on the economic situation in this country. I am sure the House is grateful to him for the way he introduced it. "I have to say a word about the freer trade area in the EEC. It is worth keeping in mind that it is not included in the Treaty of Rome and is an orifice of that kind which is not yet part of the Treaty of Rome. It is, of course, the duty of the EEC to serve the interests of the economic members of the Community, and it is the duty of the EEC to give the Member States' economic conditions and to give them the necessary resources to make the necessary trade arrangements. Those are the very terms of the Treaty of Rome. But many people in this country are not in favour of a free trade area, and it is a fact that trade is not one of the matters to which the Treaty of Rome refers. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that we do not seek to impose such a free trade area on to the Community. I do not think it would be right to impose a free trade area upon the Community, which is a free trade area. I would agree with him in that respect. "I hope the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, will not press his Motion this afternoon, but I think he will find that I have made my position quite clear. I am aware, and I hope he will accept it, that there is a free trade area, and that it would be a course to adopt. It is a most important matter." My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
====================
My Lords, I should like to be on one side of the argument in relation to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I understand that the noble Lord has a right to have a vote, which is the other side. As the noble Lord was seeking to prevent my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter taking part in the debate, I hope he will withdraw the amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that. In the early days of this Government we were told to regard the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, as an ex-Minister of State for Transport, and he was not. I was a Minister of one of the original departments that we had in this country, the Civil Service. I think the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, was a very wise Minister in that department. The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, was always a very hard worker and was extremely good at it. I am sorry that he was not present to hear the debate today. I had hoped that he would have been here to hear the speech, but I am sorry to say that he has not, and I am sorry that he had not taken part in the debate. I hope that the noble Lord who leads the Opposition will find it hard to find time to speak again. I hope that he will have the opportunity to do it, and that he will accept my apology for not having taken part in the debate today. I shall speak briefly now. The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, has raised a point which is of great importance and which we should consider very carefully. The noble Lord raised the question of priority, and I think that we ought to consider it very carefully. In the case of the railways, we have a great advantage over the railways of this country. Our railways are not on a total United Kingdom basis. They are on a very different basis from the rest of the country. They are on a basis of a different Government, and the level of our transport system depends upon that. The noble Lord raised the question of control, and I think that we ought to consider this very carefully. When a Bill of Rights is passed in this House, one of the important things that it will do is to lay down a system of control. It is a system which is complete, and one which will operate and operate with ease. It is a system which will enable the people of this country to train for their jobs, to be able to get their services, and to get their jobs. I am going to try and say that I do not think we shall ever have such a system as exists in this country, and I do not think it is the way that we should be able to train a system of control.
====================
My Lords, can the Minister say at what stage the Government will decide whether or not the RAF will be a member of the security council?
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his Answer. Obviously, the Government recognise the concerns of farmers about the impact of some of the closures. The Minister indicated that in his response to the letter from the National Farmers' Union in July 1999. If not, I am not quite sure which of the two responses he gave. Does he recall that the Government were criticised in this House and elsewhere for their response? Does he also recall that before the letter was written it was said that the Government were not clear about the implementation of the directive? Does he further recall that the letter was written in this House and therefore the Government are in complete ignorance of the legislation? Does he further recall that the letter states that the Government are unaware of the directive?
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I can only say that I am glad that the Bill is going forward on the basis that it is being introduced at all, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has put his name down to speak on the Government's behalf. I very much hope that he will do so. One of the considerations that I have in mind is that, as in the case of the Citizens Advice Bureaux, there is a strong case for a similar arrangement to be made in the case of the National Health Service.
====================
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for raising this matter. I do not know whether he has in mind the future, as I hope I am not, the old but rather old practice of the abolition of the patronymics. But I think that the present practice of the patronymics is a little different from the old practice of the abolition of the patronymics. I am not quite sure whether the patronymics are now abolished, but they are not used in any way to cover the expenses of the House in this House; they are used to cover the expenses of the House in another place, and I do not think that they are used in this House. But I am certain that they are used in this House. I am not at all sure whether the patronymics are abolished as a result of the abolition of the patronymics and not as a result of the abolition of the patronymics in the other place. I am not sure whether the patronymics are abolished as a result of the repeal of the patronymics, or whether the patronymics are abolished as a result of the repeal of the patronymics in the other place. I am not a lawyer, but I have seen the repeal of the patronymics in the other place. I do not know whether the patronymics are abolished, or whether they are abolished as a result of the repeal of the patronymics in the other place, and I am not quite sure whether the patronymics are abolished as a result of the repeal of the patronymics in the other place. I am not quite sure whether the patronymics are abolished as a result of the repeal of the patronymics in the other place; but I think the patronymics are abolished as a result of the repeal of the patronymics in the other place. I am not sure whether the patronymics are abolished as a result of the repeal of the patronymics in the other place and not as a result of the repeal of the patronymics in the other place. I am not quite sure whether the patronymics are abolished as a result of the repeal of the patronymics in the other place and not as a result of the repeal of the patronymics in the other place.
====================
My Lords, can the Minister clarify this point for the benefit of the House? It seems to me that as it is the case now, and as a result of the enquiries that have taken place, a lot of the legitimate complaints that have been made to the Press Office have been dealt with. Can the Minister clarify this point? May I ask the noble Lord whether he will reply to the Question on the Order Paper?
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, we have had an interesting debate. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, came to us, and I am sure that all the other noble Lords who have taken part will have congratulated him on his maiden speech. I fear that I could not have had a better introduction to this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is undoubtedly the most experienced business man alive. He was Chairman of the Finance Committee of the then Bank of England and is still Chairman of the Bank of England. I am sure that he will be the one who will take the credit for the four months of the last seven years or more—I can remember much of that time—in the Bank of England. I am glad that he took the lead on the Bank of England, because I believe that in the past six years or so that has been the part of his life which he will continue to play. I am glad that he took the lead on the Bank of England, because I believe that he is still, in the words of Lord Underhill, a "pro-rata" man. I am glad that he took the lead on the Bank of England, because I believe that he is still a "pro-rata" man. I am glad that he took the lead on the Bank of England, because I believe that he is still a "pro-rata" man. There is a great deal to be said about that in this debate. It is not too much to say that the decision which was taken in the last Finance Bill was right. It was a wise act on the part of both Houses of Parliament. One of the matters that we have been discussing today is the question of the cost of the Bank of England. I am not going to say that one should not be prepared to ask the Government whether they can show me a figure of the cost of five years' work in the Bank of England. I am going to ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether he can show me some figure—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, will be able to answer that question—of the cost to the taxpayer of five years' work in the Bank of England. I do not wish to ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether he can show me a figure of the cost of ten years. I only ask the noble Lord whether he can show me a figure of the cost of fifteen years—if he can show me one—of the cost of thirty years. I only ask the noble Lord whether he can show me a figure of the cost of fifty years, or the cost of sixty years, or whatever it may be. I am not asking the noble Lord a figure of the cost of fifty years, because I believe that in the case of the present Bank of England, which is about to have a new central bank—indeed the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has spoken of the new Bank of England—there will be a different body in the next Parliament and in the case of the Bank of England, which is about to have a new central bank, the cost of the Bank of England will be much less than the cost of the Bank of England—indeed the cost of the Bank is about to have been reduced—and we shall be left with the new Bank of England. I want to ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether he can show me a figure of the cost of fifty years, or of sixty years. I notice that he has not included anything in the Estimates for the next year. I do not know what the cost of fifty years will be, but I believe that the cost of sixty years will be very much greater. Of course, if the cost of the Bank of England increases, and leave the Treasury to decide what the cost of fifty years is, then the cost of sixty years will go up as well. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, will take this point. I do not know whether he can show me a figure of what the cost will be. When he does I shall be most grateful. It will be very expensive. I do not know whether he can show me the cost of fifty years. I know that he will be able to show me a figure of fifteen years of his cost. I want to ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether he can show me the cost of thirty years. I do not know whether he can show me the cost of thirty years. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has shown me a figure of five years' work in the Bank of England. I do not know whether he can show me a figure of thirty years. I do not know whether he can show me a figure of five years' work in the Bank of England. I do not know whether he can show me a figure of five years' work in the Bank of England as a whole. I do not know whether the noble Lord
====================
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention. I do not suppose the point he was making was lost. I am sure he is right in this regard. The point I was trying to make was that we have to look at the amendment very carefully. I think it is the right choice of the Government. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
====================
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am not sure whether he is referring to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, or the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who asked a similar question.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I am still not clear as to where he is, because the phrase appears in the Ministry of Defence Act, which does not apply to Scotland. I wonder whether he could help me. It is much easier to find out where the word "fishing" is applied.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. I am sure that he has gone a long way to reassure me that this is not a matter that will be put through to the Minister of State. On the question of the United Nations, the noble Lord told us that it is intended to get together the heads of the eleven Governments to discuss the question of the West African question. I wonder whether the noble Lord could say whether there will be any suitable meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government in London to discuss this matter. The noble Lord put forward the suggestion that it might be arranged that the head of the Commonwealth would be our Minister of State for Africa. Is this not a short-term measure to prevent anyone from appearing in the House of Commons and from being bought and sold, because there is no chance that he will ever be able to be bought or sold? Secondly, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, could ask his right honourable friend the Minister of State for Africa to ask the African Premier of Kenya, Mr. Nelson, to come to London to meet him to discuss the problem and the proposal to get together the African Heads of Government in the hope of getting some agreement from them. I should have thought that it would be the best of all to have a meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government in London, and possibly discuss the question of the West African question, to get the idea across. In any case, if the noble Lord can tell the House that they will have a meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government in London, I also should be delighted to hear that.
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I know what the answer is, but I know that it is not true. Therefore, I do not know what authority does. The one that I know is the body that we have. The other is the one that the Minister has not mentioned.
====================
My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord has not yet answered the question which I asked him in the last debate. He said that he would not answer it now because it would be better to examine it in Hansard. However, I shall put it down after the debate.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. The Bill was introduced into Parliament in May 1999 and reached its second Reading in another place on 8th July 1999. The foundation of the Bill is the principle of personal liability. The idea of personal liability is the right to a reasonable degree of security. The right to a reasonable degree of security is a common feature in both private and public health schemes. Many people would argue that the Bill does not provide for the rights that people have, but it provides a framework for personal liability, not the right to a reasonable degree of security. The Bill is an essential part of the National Health Service. It will increase flexibility and access, and will improve the health services. We had earlier today a debate on business and the health service. The Bill was introduced into Parliament in May 1999 and has been widely welcomed. It has been widely welcomed. It is now the third Bill introduced into Parliament in a row. A number of problems have to be sorted out before the Bill goes to the other place. Today we are discussing the effects of the Bill being introduced into Parliament. We are in a state of uncertainty about the Bill. Even those in Parliament are aware that the Bill is coming into effect. The Bill will increase freedom of information, but it will not change the law. It will result in greater freedom of information and more transparency. It will increase accountability and protect patient interests, but it will not provide for the rights of patients. It will not provide for the right of people to hold a reasonable degree of security, but it will not provide for the rights of people to possess a reasonable degree of security. It will not provide for the right of people to own a reasonable degree of security, but it will not provide for the right of people to hold a reasonable degree of security. It will not provide for the right of people to make reasonable demands, but it will not provide for the right of people to make unreasonable demands. It will not provide for the right of people to seek medical advice, but it will not provide for the right of people to refuse medical advice and the right of people to refuse treatment. It will not provide for the right of people to be discharged from hospital, but it will not provide for the right of people to be discharged from hospital. It will not provide for the right of people to be in their own homes, but it will not provide for the right of people to live in their own homes. It sets out the principles of personal liability, and it sets out the legal framework for personal liability. It sets out the legal framework for personal liability. It sets out the legal framework for personal liability. I want to address the issue of the right to a reasonable degree of safety. We are not talking about a right to a reasonable degree of security, or a right to a reasonable degree of security. That is the right to a reasonable degree of security. I agree that it is right to have a reasonable degree of security, and that we should not impose on small people the right to a reasonable degree of security. However, I would like to refer to the right to a reasonable degree of security. That is the right to a reasonable degree of security. I was a little surprised to hear a speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who has a long experience in law. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, did not say that it was not a right to a reasonable degree of security, but I am not sure that it is right to a reasonable degree of security. I want to focus on the right to a reasonable degree of security. The right to a reasonable degree of security is a common feature of both private and public health schemes. In private health schemes, it is not required, and it is not required in public health schemes. The Bill sets out the right to a reasonable degree of security. CWH 7 The Bill provides that the right to a reasonable degree of security must include the right to privacy, which is the right to be able to do what one wishes without being subject to the risk of disclosure. The right to a reasonable degree of security should include the right to confidentiality. The right to privacy is important because many people have a personal privacy which is not always well protected. The Bill will give that right to a reasonable degree of security, which is the right to privacy. I therefore believe that the Bill has the merit of providing for what many people want; namely, to have the right to privacy. I also believe that the Bill will provide a framework for the rights of people to make reasonable demands. The Bill gives a framework of rights for people to make reasonable demands. The Bill gives a framework of rights for the people to make reasonable demands. I am not sure that the Bill will provide a framework for the right of people to refuse treatment. It seems to me that the right of people to refuse treatment is not always demonstrated. So I am not sure that the right of people to refuse treatment is shown.
====================
My Lords, I am sure that the House will wish me to repeat the assurance given in the Statement that on the passage of the Bill we would expect to consider the way the Bill might be drafted. I have made it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Tisdall, that we shall certainly take account of the views he has expressed. I hope therefore that I have assured him that the Government will be prepared to consider his views as a matter of urgency.
====================
My Lords, the noble Lord has not really answered my Question about the general duty of the Government to promote the development and improvement of the welfare services. I am not asking for specific details but for the general duty laid down in a motion by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton.
====================
I am not sure that the principle of the amendment is right. I can see no reason why the Government should not be prepared to explain their intentions to the House and take it back. I hope I shall not be misunderstood about that. It is not a question of whether or not it is a question of the law as it is. It is a question of whether or not we are going to deal with it in the way it is or whether we are going to publish it. It is not a question of whether or not we are going to have a writ of habeas corpus. It is a question whether or not we are going to have an expedition for the sake of our country. The lawyers give the answer that we are not going to do that. The noble and learned Lord has said that we are not going to put it on the face of the Bill. I do not know whether that is right. I am not sure that I should put it on the face of the Bill, as I think that it would be a great mistake for us to do so. I am not sure that it is right that we should put it on the face of the Bill in a way which would be damaging to the Bill. I am not sure that it is right to put it on the face of the Bill because it would be damaging to the Bill. I do not think the amendment is right because the Government are in the hands of the House and they can decide what it is they are going to do. I think it is wrong that we should put it on the face of the Bill. We must look at the matter again. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will reconsider the matter and then come forward with a good solution.
====================
The noble Viscount is now asking me to say that he has read the clause, and I am sure he will find that it is not only in the right place, but in the right place. I put it forward to the noble Viscount, and I am sure he will accept it.
====================
I am more concerned that I should not have been discharged, but it would not be impossible. I was happy to note the noble Lord's speech.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Thatcher for allowing me to intervene to ask a question from the Cross Benches. It seems to me odd that the Government should be having to reply to a Question on such a sensitive matter. I have been assured by the Prime Minister that the matter has been discussed with the CBI and other interested parties. I have no reason to doubt that, but it seems to me that the Government's reluctance to answer the matter on this matter is not supported by evidence of a demand from a Conservative Government. It is not a demand from a Liberal Government, but a Conservative one. I take it that the Government have had no discussions with the CBI or with any other body. I have just had a letter from my noble friend, saying that he is prepared, without a demand from a Conservative Government, to answer it. It seems to me that the Government are blocking a procedure which has been used for many years in this country. While I agree that it is not a "custodial" procedure, I do not understand the logic of the Government's refusal to do so.
====================
My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, has introduced this Question. I have been particularly struck by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has been here for so long and so much longer than I have. He has been here for so many years and so much longer than I have. He has brought more wisdom to the House. He has brought experience and wisdom to the House. It is a very good thing that he should have come, and I am sure that the House appreciates that. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, is to be congratulated on his appointment. It is not an easy job. He has served so long on some of these committees and I am sure that he will take very good care of his work. I am not sure that I should go through the motions of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, but I have to say this. There is one committee which I think has been very well advised and that is the one which dealt with the welfare of the black community. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has been away for a long time, but I am sure that we should all support him, and hope that he will come back. I am not sure about the noble Lord, Lord Annan, but I hope he will come back. For my part, I hope that he will come back. I hope he will come back. I do not think that he will come back. I hope he comes back, because I am sure that we are all grateful for his services in the past. But I think that he will be a great help in the future. I am sure that he will come back.
====================
I am sure the Minister will not accept the Amendment, but may I ask him, in regard to Clause 25, to look at the clause, and see whether he can find a provision in it which reads as follows: "For the purposes of this section, the definition of 'fee' is to include a fee paid by a solicitor in respect of an appeal, and the terms and conditions of the fee shall include a fee of not less than 2 per cent. for the period of the appeal". I think there is another difficulty here, and that is the difficulty of putting the word "fee" in the clause, because, on the one hand, it seems to us that the solicitor is not usually going to say to his client, "I am willing to represent you in an appeal and, if you want to know at once whether the judgment of the court is to be upheld or whether I am to be required to pay the fee", and that, as I said, it is not always the case that the client will be able to obtain a sum in a private capacity. I cannot quite see the point of putting in that expression the words, "and the terms and conditions of the fee shall include a fee of not less than 2 per cent." I should have thought it was quite easy to say what that meant, without putting the words "and the terms and conditions of the fee" in the Bill.
====================
My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, is saying that he is not saying that he is not saying that he is not saying that he is not saying that he is not saying that he is not saying, and I am not saying that he is not saying it. He is saying that he is not saying that he is not saying that he is not saying that.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is he aware of the fact that the British Airports Authority has said that they have no intention of a suitable service, but as a matter of practicality they will have to take account of this new situation? Is he further aware that when an air route is sold to the British Airports Authority it will be bound by a contract which will last for the life of the contract, and the British Airports Authority will have to sell it for the life of the contract?
====================
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I am not sure whether he actually said that, but I thought he did.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for his Answer to this Question. I can only say that I shall study it with interest. It is not my intention to press this matter to a Division. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Answer. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
====================
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for saying that she was not in her seat when she moved the amendment. I shall not lie down and listen to her explanation, but I hope she will bear with me until I have reached the end of my remarks. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, for raising the issue of the licensing of the medical schools, and for the point that he made about the way in which they are financed. I am aware of the concerns of the medical schools, and I am grateful to him for raising them in this House. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Reay of Guildford, for raising the issue of what is called the "concern factor" in the Bill. I have not had the opportunity to study what he said, but I know that the noble Lord is right in what he says. There is a concern factor. I hope that that is not misunderstood. It is a concern which I have heard expressed in the House, and it has been referred to the Select Committee. I believe that it is such a concern that I put in a note, so that the noble Lord will be able to refer to it, in which I say that the issue of the concerns expressed by the medical schools is being considered. I can assure the noble Lord that the medical schools will be given every opportunity to study the concerns expressed by the noble Lord. I know that the noble Lord feels that the Bill has been drafted in a way which is not appropriate to the medical schools. I am grateful to him for raising the point, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Reay of Guildford, for raising it in the first place. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for raising the issue of the content of the Bill. I do not think that I can give the noble Lord a definitive reply to that in writing. I have no intention of writing to him. I shall not expect him to reply to the letter that I have sent to him. It is therefore a matter for him to consider. I shall leave the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, to discuss the letter on the matter with his usual courtesy. I hope that he will allow me to say that I am not prepared to reply to that letter now. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Reay of Guildford, for raising the issue of the questions raised by the medical schools. I am grateful to him for raising the issue again in your Lordships' House. It is a matter for the noble Lord to discuss the letter. I have not made it clear to him that I have the confidence of the medical schools and I hope that the noble Lord will continue to raise the issue.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, I shall ask the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, a question to which I shall refer later. He referred to the case of a single mother with two children. He asked me whether a single mother was entitled to a job at the age of 18. I said, "No, my child is too young." He asked me whether between the ages of 18 and 20 a single mother could be employed without a job. I said, "I cannot, my child is too young." He asked me whether a single mother with two children, with two children, can be employed without a job. I said, "No, my child is too young." He asked me whether a single mother with two children, with two children, can be employed without a job. I said, "No, my child is too young." That was the first one. Then I asked him whether I could give him a more detailed answer. He asked me whether I could give him a more detailed answer of the kind that I have given to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. I said, "I do not know." He asked me whether I could give him a more detailed answer, or whether he would like me to give him one. I said, "I will do my best." Then he asked me whether I could give him a more detailed answer of the kind that I have given to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. I said, "I do not know." He asked me whether I could give him a more detailed answer of the kind he asked me. I said, "I do not know." Then he asked me whether I could give him a more detailed answer. I said, "I cannot, my child is too young." Then he asked me whether I could give him a more detailed answer of the kind he asked me. I said, "I cannot, my child is too young." He asked me whether I could give him a more detailed answer. I said, "I can't." Then he asked me whether I could give him a more detailed answer of the kind he asked me. I said, "I cannot." He asked me whether I could give him a more detailed answer of the kind he asked me. I said, "I cannot." He asked me whether I could give him a more detailed answer, as he asked me. I said, "I cannot." He asked me whether the Government could pick out single-parent families from the register to be taken away from the family credit system and told to go and work with the parents in order to get a job. I said, "I cannot." He asked me whether the Government could pick out single-parent families and tell them to go and work with the parents. I said, "I can't." Then he asked me whether I could give him a more detailed answer. I said, "I can't." Then he asked me whether I could give him a more detailed one. I said, "I cannot." Then he asked me whether I could give him a more detailed answer of the kind he asked me. I said, "I can't." Then he asked me whether I could give him a more detailed answer, as he asked me. I said, "I can't." Then he asked me whether I could give him a more detailed answer, or whether he would like me to give it. I said, "I don't know." Then he asked me whether I could give him a more detailed one. I said, "I can't." Then he asked me whether I could give him a more detailed one. I said, "I can't." Then he asked me whether I could give him a more detailed one. I said, "I cannot." Then he asked me whether I could give him a more detailed answer than I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. He said, "I can't." I said, "I will try." He asked me whether I could give him a more detailed answer than I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. I said, "I can't." Then he asked me whether I could give him a more detailed answer than I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. I said, "I cannot." Then he asked me how I could give him a more detailed answer to the question he asked me. I told him that I had given him a more detailed answer than he asked me to give. I said that I did not know." Then he asked me whether I could give him a more detailed answer than I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. I said, "I can't." Then he asked me whether I could give him a more detailed answer than I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. I said, "I cannot." Then he asked me whether I could give him a more detailed answer than I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. I said, "I can't." Then he asked me whether I
====================
My Lords, I am grateful for that. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
====================
My Lords, I rise to say a word of support for the Motion which my noble friend Lord Brockway has put down. I too should like to support it and to offer my strong support to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. I recall that on the last occasion on which we discussed the Motion in your Lordships' House, I was at the foot of the stairs and my noble friend was not here. I said, "What's up, boy? Let's get going!" I am not sure whether he was in the same position. I thought he was. He was not. I do not know what the position was. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that he should express himself to the House on this Motion. Thus we can see what we are doing. I do not know what the position is, but I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he would explain to us what he means. Is he saying that he can get rid of the words, "the making of such an order"; he can get rid of it, but that it will be put to us, or is he saying that it can be put to us that we can get rid of it, or that it must be continued, or that its making shall be continued? I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he says that it is possible to make a Motion in this House which says that the making of such an order shall be continued or that the making of such an order is now to be refused—or, perhaps, that it is to be reconsidered by the House. I have occasion to say, in this House, that I have never had the opportunity to consider a Motion asking for an Order to be made, and I have never had the privilege of discussing such a Motion. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he can explain these words to us; and whether he can explain them to the House.
====================
My Lords, I rise to speak in this debate because I am a trustee of the National Union of Students' Federation for the Overseas Service. It is an organisation which, at this late stage, is the only voluntary body that represents members of the staff of the Ministry of Defence. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Ludford, who has just spoken, that we are most grateful for the interest he has taken in the proposals of the Government, but we are still considering whether or not the proposals which are now before us can be balanced with the provisions of the Bill. But I am glad to say that the Government have accepted the recommendation of the NUJ, which is a great move in the right direction. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, for what he said about the Government's decision to terminate the present service, and also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ludford, for his support of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, introduced the Bill in another place. The Government have been faced with an unprecedented situation. The present service of the Overseas Service has been made an official and national service by the Ministry of Defence, and has been referred to the National Union of Students' Federation for Overseas Service. The Government will now be in a position to deal with the matter in the way the NUJ has been dealt with. The NUJ has taken the view that it is essential to preserve the Overseas Service and to retain and improve it. The National Union of Students' Federation for Overseas Service has taken a different view. It has been agreed now that the Overseas Service should continue to be maintained. To take the position that the Overseas Service should continue, it is clear that the NUJ believes that the present service will be available to the staff of the Ministry, and we are all grateful for that. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, asked a number of questions. I am advised that they are not answered. He asked me about the future of the Overseas Service, and I have no doubt that he will understand that I am not able to answer that question. He asked me about the future of the Overseas Service, and I am afraid that I cannot answer that question. He asked about the personnel of the Overseas Service, and I cannot answer that question. He asked about the future of the Overseas Service. There is one important question which I cannot answer, but I shall certainly put it to him. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, asked me about the future of the Overseas Service. We are not, as I understand it, going to divide the Overseas Service personnel into two parts. I am afraid that I cannot answer that question without notice. The noble Lord asked about the future of the Overseas Service. There is a good deal of confusion in the minds of people. I do not think that if one looks at the matter from the point of view of the Overseas Service the matter is clear. There is a good deal of confusion both in the minds of people and in the minds of those who are in charge of the Overseas Service. I would point out that the Overseas Service is a voluntary organisation and there is nothing to prevent the staff of the Ministry from coming into contact with the NUJ. It is very difficult to put it into a separate organisation. It would be an enormous error if the Overseas Service were to be separated into two parts, because as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, has said, it is a voluntary organisation. The noble Lord asked me about the position of the Overseas Service in the future. I am afraid that I cannot answer that question without notice. He asked me about the future of the Overseas Service, but I cannot answer that question without notice. He asked me whether the Government were in a position to deal with the matter. I am afraid that, because of the situation, there is nothing that I can do. The noble Lord asked me about the Overseas Service. It is true that there is no requirement for a separate organisation. The noble Lord asked me whether the Overseas Service could be maintained. That is a question for the NUJ, but this is a very difficult question to answer. The noble Lord asked me whether I could give further answers to the questions he raised.
====================
My Lords, I am a little disappointed by the noble Lord's words—I thought that he said it was a good idea to have a new system of education in the country. The idea of the whole education system having to be changed seems to be a very dangerous idea. The one thing to keep in mind is that there is a great deal of untentiment if one changes one's mind, and the answer of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, was that they were not to have any such system in the future. But the whole question is a little difficult. One has to have some experience of the system in order to know how to change it when one is wrong. I have made inquiries into its operation, and I am informed that it is quite difficult to get any system which does not break down. There is no such thing as a perfect system.
====================
<|startoftext|>I am very sorry. I appeared to be the only one who dared to speak in this debate. I am somewhat surprised by the number of people who have criticised me, but I am not surprised by the fact that I am now in the minority. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, mentioned that he is one of the few speakers who is not an industrialist. I do not know who is the other. I had not thought about it. I am a member of the MFA. It is quite reasonable to discuss matters such as the degree of unemployment, the extent of the need, the degree of the degree of the trade deficit, or even the degree of the need in particular industries. If there is to be a debate on this matter, it should be limited to the consideration of the problems which face the Government. I am not interested in the issues of inflation or too much unemployment. I am interested in the quality of life; I am not interested in the level of unemployment. I am interested in the quality of life. I am not interested in the needs of the nation. I am interested in the quality of life. I am not interested in the need for an economic miracle, or a social miracle, or an even greater thing. I am not interested in the need for a single solution, but in the need for the best possible economic structure. I am not interested in the need for a single solution. This is the kind of debate that I have to face. People will say, "Oh, we really do not know anything about this". But I say to them, "Look at the problem, as I have just said. What do we know? Look at the area. Look at the areas that I have just visited and see what is going on in the world. It is the problems that we face. We are not at the top of the world. We are not making the best economic choices. This is a problem that is not energy; it is not the issue of the oil crisis; it is the problems of the world. We are not at the top of the world. We are in the middle of the world. We are going into Europe. We are in a different part of the world, not in the middle of the Atlantic. We are not at the top of the Atlantic. That is why we are at the bottom of the Atlantic. That is why the fact that we are at the bottom of the Atlantic is also important. We are not in a proper position to discuss these issues. We are not in Washington. We are in the middle of the Atlantic. We are not in a proper position to discuss the problems. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Brown, was here, or whether I was. That is what I was doing. I was trying to show that that was not the case. I am not interested in the question of whether we are in a proper position to debate the problems of the world. I am interested in the problem of whether the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brown, is true or not. I think it is. I do not think that if the noble Lord is right, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brown, is true. I am not interested in it. I am interested in the problem of the world. I am interested in the problems of the world. I am interested in the problems of the world. I am interested in the problems of the world. We are all interested in the problems of the world. I am not interested in the issues of unemployment, of the balance of payments deficit, or of the problems of the Government. I am interested in the problems of the world. I am an optimist. I am not an anxious pessimist. I am not an impatient pessimist. I am interested in the problems of the world. I am interested in the problems of the world. I am interested in the problems of the world. I am interested in the problems of the world. I am interested in the problems of the world. I am interested in the problems of the world. I am interested in the problems of the world. I am interested in the problems of the world. I am interested in the problems of the world. I am interested in the problems of the world. I am interested in the problems of the world. I am a great optimist. I am a great pessimist. I am not a great anxious pessimist. I am not an impatient pessimist. I am interested in the problems of the world. I am interested in the problems of the world. I am interested in the problems of the world. I am interested in the problems of the world. I am interested in the problems of the world. I am interested in the problems of the world. I am an optimist. I am not an anxious pessimist. I am an anxious pessimist. I am interested in the problems of the world. I am interested in the problems of the world. I am
====================
My Lords, I shall not detain you by repeating the same argument over and over again. I have already made a number of points, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is not here, but I am sure he will not accept my argument. On the point of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, with whom I always have the good fortune to be in the Chamber, I cannot see how one can put a Bill of this nature in a Bill of this clause. I believe there is a distinction in this matter. I am not aware that the clause is a Bill of this clause. It is not a Bill that deals with the powers of the Secretary of State or with the powers of the Secretary of State for the Cabinet or with the Secretary of State for the Cabinet. It is a Bill with which this clause deals. I cannot see what it does. It deals with ordinary business. I know that it deals with ordinary business, but it is a Bill that deals with the powers of the Secretary of State and the Cabinet and the power of the Secretary of State for the Cabinet. I am quite certain that under this clause, as it is now, one would be dealing with ordinary business.
====================
<|startoftext|>My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ryder, is a very good friend of mine. I am sorry he is not here, but I do not believe he would have been here at the beginning of his remarks. I believe he would have said that I had been a good friend of mine and I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to have this debate. I hope that I have said enough to satisfy your Lordships' House that I have had the good fortune to be the chairman of Select Committees and to be an expert in the field. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ward, for the opportunity he has taken to enlarge on the scope and nature of the difficulties of the modern world. I have spent a good deal of time in your Lordships' House and I have a number of distinguished political figures who have come and spoken. I would like to say a word about the future of the House, but first I must apologise to my noble friend Lord Ryder. I must apologise to him for the fact that I was not in my place when he began his speech. I had a very urgent need to attend an urgent call-up. I have already discussed this with the noble Lord, Lord Ryder, and I hope he will forgive me if I refer to it again. I regret that I was not able to attend the first debate in the House today. Today's debate is about the future of the House. It is about the future of the House. It is about the future of the House. It is about the future of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Ryder, has made a most valuable contribution to our debate today. He is of course a distinguished member of the House of Lords and is the chairman of the Select Committees of your Lordships' House. He is also a former Member of Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Ward, has joined the House of Lords. I am glad to say that he is no longer in that House. I am glad that he is no longer in that House. I am glad that he is no longer in the House of Commons. I am glad that he is no longer in the House of Commons. I am glad that he has been transferred to the House of Commons. I am sure that he understands the difficulties of the House. I have known him for a long time. He is a good friend of mine. I am sure that he will be glad to know that I am not a member of his House. I am not. I am very sorry, but I must apologise to him for the fact that I was not here to hear his speech. I was away at the House of Lords and I had to attend an urgent call-up. If I had been here, I could have made my contribution, but I was away. I was very busy elsewhere. I hope that I am not alone in that and that I am not alone in the House of Lords. I have had a good deal of useful advice on the subject. I am glad of it and I am glad to hear that it is a good thing. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ryder for a most useful contribution to our debate today. I hope he will forgive me if I refer to the question of the future of the House. I have mentioned that many times today. I am not not asking for an immediate solution; I am asking for an opportunity for a debate in which there will be a constructive contribution. I am asking for a constructive discussion about the future of the House. I am asking for a constructive-minded debate which will not be a one-sided debate. It will not be a debate which says, "No, we have got to do this and that". We should be constructive. We should be constructive on the basis that the House of Lords has a proper responsibility in its membership and that the House of Commons has a proper responsibility in its representation. I ask your Lordships to consider that point of view. As I have said, I have been in the House of Lords for many years. I was an Member of Parliament from 1949 to 1951. I was the Member of Parliament for the House of Commons and I was also the Member of Parliament for the House of Commons. I was the Member of Parliament for the House of Commons and I was also the Member of Parliament for the House of Commons. I am not a member of your Lordships' House. I am a former member of the House of Commons. I am a former Member of Parliament for the House of Commons. I am not a member of your Lordships' House. I am a former Member of Parliament for the House of Commons and I was the Member of Parliament for the House of Commons. I am still a Member of Parliament for the House of Commons and I am a Member of Parliament for the House of Commons. In that House I had the honour of sitting on the Select Committee which wrote the report on the selection of the members of the House of Lords. I was not a member of that Select Committee.
====================
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. I think that it is a matter of public record that the Basic Human Rights Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has been the subject of an Unstarred Question in your Lordships' House. I was grateful for the opportunity to put my case to your Lordships in a way that is familiar to all. When I first was introduced to this Bill, I had no idea about the issues which were raised in the House during its passage through another place. Therefore, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord on his excellent maiden speech. I think that the Government have done a very good job in bringing the Bill to this House. I would like to make a personal appeal to the noble Lord. I am sure that he will appreciate that I am not the only Member of your Lordships' House, although there are many other Members of your Lordships' House, as well as Members of another place, who have had experience in the House. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he can assure your Lordships that this Bill is being regarded with the seriousness it deserves. I have the greatest admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I found him to be an extremely courteous and considerate man. I am sure that the noble Lord will accept the fact that I am not the only Member of your Lordships' House who has had the experience of the House. I am sure that all your Lordships will wish the noble Lord well in his future in this House. I should like to support the Second Reading of the Bill.
====================
My Lords, I am delighted to be the first to accept that the Bill does not go far enough. My noble friend will recognise that the reason is not that we want to restrict the powers of the Secretary of State. It is that he has not yet been prepared to introduce some restrictions on the powers of the Secretary of State. He is proposing to give more scope to the Secretary of State to deal with those matters in the way he has done in the past. The question that I have to ask my noble friend is whether the Government have any plans to bring forward such a Bill.
====================
My Lords, I am disappointed by the Minister's response. I quote what he said in reply to the original Question. I am anxious that the information should be made available to the public. However, I am not sure that it should be made available to the public and made public. I do not want to press the matter because I am not sure what the response will be. I hope that when the Minister replies he will tell us what the Government have in mind.
====================
I do not think that that is an appropriate advantage. The fact is that only two of the five boroughs have a police force. The others—the police authority in London and the police authority in London County—have no power. Are they to have powers? They do not have. Are they to monitor? I do not know anything about that. Do they have powers? They do not. Are they to have any accountability? They do not have any accountability. They have no right to be consulted. They are not to have any accountability. Are they to have any right to have any powers? They do not have any powers. These powers were given to the boroughs by the secretary of the boroughs commission in July 1978, and the boroughs were given the powers to monitor and to inspect in July 1981. The boroughs have not had any of those powers since then. If there is a failure by boroughs to live up to their responsibilities, that failure is dealt with at the election next year. The boroughs are not to have any accountability.
====================
My Lords, does my noble friend the Leader of the House agree that it is essential to be able to deal effectively with this issue and with the problems of the manner in which it has been handled by the Government?
====================
My Lords, I am not talking about the legal aspects of the matter. I am talking about the issues that are raised in the amendments. I am not talking about the issues that have been passed on to us by the Legal Aid Association and others, but I am talking about the issues that are raised in this House.
====================
My Lords, as this is a Committee stage, I shall not detain your Lordships for long but I would like to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, whether, if she were, she could deal with the point of principle behind the amendment for which I put down a noble and learned friend, which was dealt with in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in the course of the Second Reading debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has spoken about the length of the Bill. It is a very difficult problem to assess how it will work, because it involves the development of new and less important offences. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has said that the Bill is a very difficult problem. I hope that the Minister will give a sympathetic reply. I should like to raise one point about a particular offence. On page 2 of the Bill, at end of "Motive 1" the word "electrocution" is used. I find that that is a very clear indication of what is meant by the word "electrocuted". It is very interesting that it is not used. The word "electrocuted" does not appear on the face of the Bill unless the offence is punishable by death. What is meant by that? I do not know. I should like to know.
====================