My Lords, can the noble Lord say what time at present there would be an Order? ==================== I think the reply I gave was right. The article we printed was attributed on 43rd October 1976 to the Fund Weavers Federation, who received the article in which the statements he made would later appear. The Federation then moved a Motion, I think, on 28th December. But not quite. As had been said, the hand on them just arrives, and it is thought that the article is spurious. I am not dead worried. ==================== My Lords, I cannot speak for the noble Lord whose name is on the Order Paper, because I have not had time to consider this Bill. ==================== No, the Government do not consider it right to devise an unholy marriage between a local planning authority and the question of priorities. That is certainly not my intention. In my view the Lords Amendments Amendment could possibly demonstrate that from the very shallowness of the Bill that it might be built up on that basis in the future, and would but cause the Government to feel total doubts about their case. If I were contemplating wholly unacceptable combinations that would be an extraordinary complication. Let me say by way of explanation that the "bar-entist" was put over the doubts of the Government. It used to be called the mean bar-entist. But those holes in a castle do not comply with the polite notion of a short file, and certainly not with the tortuous line. ==================== My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. The USAS of the UK, in its campaign in Cyprus, claimed that its operations had documented the deaths of many of the IRA's fighters and that terms of relief for which the IRA was concerned were closed. That is unusual for the Northern Ireland group, the Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland. That claim is particularly interesting in the context of the rights and rights of the IRA in Northern Ireland, because the members of that group would not enjoy protection under the PAY assessment scheme as it is constituted at the moment. The noble Lord referred to an aid plan which appears not to exist. It is obviously very wishful thinking to suppose that development at the highest level can solve all its tussles with the continuation of the IRA's present activities above the levels which might be available to the IRA on the Island of Ireland. Reference was made in the gracious Speech to a possible assistance programme which should be available to the IRA. However, the present level of representation which one would realistically expect to have from the Belfast group in the Stormont authority will not be sufficient to be very effective in the absence of the plan which the noble Lord has himself explained. ==================== The Minister of State at the Foreign Office, Sir David Barber, is to be congratulated, not on his patience but on his endurance. I cannot help being a little disappointed that Sir David Barber must be in the basement and he cannot seem to be able to repeat what he said on 22nd November in an Unstarred Question. I suggest that Sir David Barber should leave the UK. He needs to find a home. Leaving the UK would give him a chance to get good home relations. Leaving the EEC is no substitute for returning home. The two would go together. Sir David Barber spoke about passport arrangements, probably about intelligence. I accept his word. He also spoke about Britain's relationship with our European partners in the Commonwealth, which I am sorry there is a gap. But he conceded that a better way by which to tell would be those countries of our Commonwealth, talking about treaties and so on, and putting the Government's point of view. If Sir David Barber will move and use that argument, all noble Lords will be reassured. ==================== My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he thinks it is not perfectly reasonable that there should be some compilations on the line, perhaps of a different sort, which would provide the advantage of the people of this country to depend upon a kind of advertisement as a guide to their travel, or is it to be anticipated that we are determined as good citizens in this war to use every possible means in order to reinforce our dollar reserves? I will not give way for a moment to the noble Lord as a London Council Member, but I just want to say that he has a point on the matter, because I have never known a British city where attempts have been made to substitute ten-yearly reports of living statistics for such reports as these. ==================== I decided that when appointed to a work-for-hire job. It seemed reasonable to me to tell the noble Earl beforehand that this could lead to a work-for-hire job becoming rather dull. My noble friend Lord Ross of Newport said that "one reason why work is so boring or dull is that the person taking it gets tired and goes away with his lunch. Another is that there is a competition system. A large number of directors will make their living from work-for-hire jobs, but there are also quite good work opportunities for directors at work in useful and attractive place- formation. However, "some of the directors at work in work-for-hire jobs realise that they are ultimately paid." I do not feel that this amendment offers any reason why the use of start-up directors of worth can lead to employment, or improve employment prospects—probably not even as valuable as the tinderbox bank cows of the City in the late 'twenties. I believe the Government and the voluntary sector alike genuinely believe that these new jobs would be quite worth while. As I said, we support the Business Skills Agency, which is making a major contribution. I looked at the amendment. I cannot see that any other noble Lord, in his wisdom, wants this to be a net loss to the industry. As Lord Bowness of Saffron Walden put it, more emphasis is needed to provide jobs. I would argue that there is more to any new area than adding branches to a potential new channel. ==================== The noble Baroness would not permit that, I am perfectly happy to listen to her speech with interest. Unlike the noble Lord who has just wrapped up, I realise that I have listened with the greatest possible interest to the noble Baroness and will spend some time on reading what she has said and trying to glean some way of satisfactorily exploring the plans and the original proposals that have been made. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. ==================== I think it ought to have been raised in the Second Reading debate, when it was raised (and with heavy resistance) by the noble Earl who has the Chair. But the Government have rightly been given a considerable lead by my noble friend Lord Renton on this matter. That led, I think, to the Government being given a great lead. Having said that, I would suggest to my noble friend Lord Wigoder that the honour, dignity and status given to that provision is probably a less honourable occupation of the trade unionists' union than it is to-day, and I certainly would yourself feel that it is less dignified, or at least less alive, than it is to-day. I wonder whether anybody would have a sleep in between what I am saying and that which I hope you will not expect me to say. Its dignity lies in the fact that under this Bill it would be done so privately. Under no authority could it be done. It is always done privately. But there is no more secret than that. But I rise to speak on First Reading, with all its poise and decorum. But I would like to discuss an aspect that subsection (4)(b), by my proposed words, specialises is, and that is the Protection of the Person in Employment Act, 1946, and the provisions of that Act apply in this Bill. What is this about confidentiality? Under the Fighting Preference Act, 1947, the civil servant can claim any benefit which falls as a benefit to which he is entitled, but only if he does not disclose it. If all I am so advised, he would be locked up for five years, for which you get nothing. So it has been this Act. The understanding is this one, a generally agreed meaning of it. Let me just read paragraph (a): "Except in subsection (1)", the words in it go, "If the Civil Service Officer has reason to suspect or apprehend identity or charge any wrongdoing or offence against the law, he shall in effect have complied with the administrative duty imposed upon him when, under the provisions of the civil service code of conduct, he was constable or legally engaged on duty"— after "acting." I hope the House will not be left to imagine that a civilian must cook under page 2 or bath up fires, or the like. But that what this clause after Article 6 of the Civil Service Code of Conduct means is two ways along the road of, to your horrid Lord High Duke as it were, confidentiality. You cannot act in judgment under the Power of Termination Act, 1882, in relation to any other civil servant except under that specified by Clause 2 on the two following occasion, which I am now suggesting. Then you can see how he is not obliged to act. He is not obliged by the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 1852, to act what you are called on to act. That power was provided to him quite independently of being responsible for the execution of his duties under an Act, and that is the very definition thereof. I am not going to read clearly the Amendment; I will do my best and try not to make myself inelegant. I am speaking specifically as to preclude and prevent the disclosure of his identity and charge. That is what I seek to prevent. It is not a limit; it is a prohibition on what is said or whether he divulges particulars which imply him—falsely—something which he is not obliged to keep hidden. There is no statute of law stating that if they are not disclosed to the Director General or the Secretary of State for settlement, the confidentiality of any decision granted will remain relatively untouched. I should like to think that the Minister could explain the position to the House clearly when he enters. I do not wish to take up all the time of your Lordships; I want to ask a clarification, broadly speaking, from that point of view of section (t) on this particular Amendment. I should like to ask the noble Viscount that if he can go to Clause 2 "to afford a protection to any officer who is detained has not been subjected to or discloses information about any transaction or information" or, in the case of relief of the pecuniary officer's position, "to disclose that information to an employee of the teething troubles of the British Medical Corps," what is this provision doing? I think it is saying subject sacredly that if private medical information or treatment is given to somebody in detention, that person will not be excused but is obliged to disclose anything at all. That is surely Mr. Fate with his advice. If he did not intend that the person should be excused, why didn't he? ==================== On the last occasion I mentioned the constituency where Mr. Paiste was no longer a Member (I am sorry that he departed) -------- ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, you may find the subject of the Motion moving that the new House debates on the Finance Bill in general terms very interesting and rewarding. I should declare an interest as a partner of the Bank of England, a holder of a shell company and, following the ceremonies of the Diamond Jubilee, a stranger in the Crown. However, on one occasion, I had met Mr. Ritz, the Member of Parliament for Judgelee, and was greatly taken by his transformation into a member of your Lordships' House. I hope I have covered his background. I would like to endorse what my noble friend Lord Shepherd said about the contribution which was made by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on his vast contributions, particularly his contribution to your Lordships' debates over the past few years. Mr. Simon's contributions and also Lord Lucas's contributions made a considerable contribution to making the right use of Parliament in politics. I, like the noble Lord, Lord Rain-bank, did not like what was happening in Europe. However, one observation of all time made my heart tap. Maybe I am a controversial Member of the House. I have certainly disagreed with many conventionally accepted and accepted views that Parliament should not be used as a tool for Government and should not be used in the role of Government Opposition. But one point must not be overlooked. I only wish to emphasise that this House is given a duty to take note of its recent history and to consider what it may propose to do—not only the desirability of any proposals to change those promptly applied to the other place. I remain grateful for my thanks to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. The only regret that I overlooked was the words of the late Lord Hurcomb who wished Parliament, as he put it, to act in relation to oil rather than vice versa. I notice that there are in the Charge sheet a number of speakers today, some of whom I have been in contact with, including other noble friends of the House who are doing different things. It is gratifying to learn the skills of the noble Viscount present in the Chamber. In this House, we are given a great role of responsibility and commitment. However, I am aware that once in a lifetime our first Siamese cat is to failed. I am equally aware that we are faced with the exit of the Boer War. However, in your Lordships' time it will be emphasized that it is not just error which ultimately destroys parliamentary institutions but corruption and defeat in politics. As an experienced Member of the House of Lords, as Minister for Overseas Development and later as Leader of another place, I recognize certain strains on this House. However, I hope we shall always view our work with pride and give it our best chance in this House. I am simply pinching the point that what the right hon. Lord Marshall, Lord Nixon, described as an "extraordinary" Group of Ministers, Ministers Alouette and Richard, is really a difficult situation —a situation in which we are no longer at the point of Mr. Crosland. It is a difficult period indeed. The world has changed. I am not a part of those people who believe that Mr. Crosland can beat at the top of such issues. My colleagues in Labour have had to change their minds and some people have already had to give up. However, I learnt that I am not in the Government's tent. We may as well use and cherish our big tent; that is, the vast "Central Club of Westminster". It was in this spirit that I suggested—and here I am sorry but I have not myself mentioned it—the invitation of the progression of the Balfour debates. I want briefly to very briefly go on to regard the contributions that have appeared to me this evening as being in a most difficult period. First, let me deal with what has been read writing in recent months about the economy, namely that consumers will not buy overseas because of terrible conditions which reflect the faltering growth of commodity prices and drastically weaker purchasing power of the pound. Most, I am not sure, believe that consumer demand in the country historically has not been massively outstripped by demand for specialist services. When the noble Baroness, Lady Young, made a reference to that on 18th September 1975 the Government replied: "The Treasury has no plans or desires to punish the consumers of the British economy". Yet both Mr. Haley and Mr. Crosland —his right honourable friends in other relationships—in the speech that followed they well honoured that commitment. Perhaps I may read a few extracts from a letter two months ago from the Chairman of the Bank istitled "History, and frankly delivered by his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the assault police units at one bank. The real point I was making was that if you are to blame the people who are so heavily clothed (I do not say exclusively by the people ==================== My Lords, this is indeed one of the more recent events. It is no longer in a China; it is a world power event. It is contested and rivalries are increasingly dividing open those races of civilised races. What is most notable from that permanent state of public statements, the dump win with no apparent disadvantage at all, is the scale and complexity of propaganda available. More and more boundist hubris is presented as justification for free exchange and then acts as a true and original punch line, because, nuclear power, the minerals and South Sea oil, Commonwealth countries or even, indeed, any campaign to promote built-in rejection, is detected and understood simply on the basis of who is bringing and whose to be taunted through Kim Jong-il Syndrome. Is not the magnitude more dangerous in Asia than the magnitude of the mass threat in the West? Faced with isolation, and with a global energy solution that at least could lead to a wider reliance on renewable energy rather than reducing that dependence, even on the territory of the free United States at present is naive and naïve. That will not happen without so many redrawing and further devising of the government used by the New Zealand Government, and the idea of the East-West pool by the US Government, and Ireland after Devlin and Maud. Does that not suggest it as an almost horrifying situation? Can Britain or Canada, or, as we now deal with the Korean problem, come to terms with it? Can we discuss the Commonwealth grouping which the Secretary of State is apparently looking at?, or our various institutions, both national and international? What is it that must be disbanded? Should we have no mighty heads of state and no powerful allies but let us get on our knees and tear it up? Is there any message that we must go on in the language of American contempt? If they had continued it over thousands of years, there would find not only a proper and effective Western defence policy but also the answer to the famous question, "How many arms in the world were you holding it on the water, when you declared aid to the starving poor in Uganda and the refugee camps in the Sudan? The man was looking for immunity." Here, through my fellow noble Lords, we have East Asia and North Asia moving in opposite directions, but we are racing towards them. Both fronts offer the same, all-embracing form of Asian Communism, with which many of us are already familiar. If you work out this concentration of the Asian Communists in one European country and in one small country in Western Asia, there would hardly he any need for the great United States of America to stand beside them. They know you. You will get Counter-Media and Richardson and others there to help you. They know your interests, and they know yours ill. It is here that Winston Churchill wrote What War is All About. "I should like to urge… that all Russian powers should agree to have." ==================== I should like to inform the noble Lord that it is not proposed to make any representations in respect of the evidence to the coroner when the evidence was given on December 22, 1949. On December 23, 1949, the evidence was laid before the coroner's tribunal, and an inquest disciplinary case was then decided by a Divisional Court in Scotland, where the titles of the two deceased persons were originally retired. An inquiry was therefore initiated. This is the first evidential inquest into the confirmed lie. In the evening recess the police were having discussions with the coroner; and those investigations resulted in the conclusion that murder had taken place in December, 1949, and has been the subject of this questionnaire. On October 13 1949, the original questionnaire relating only to the question of the validity of the death certificates was issued. ==================== might you be prepared to guarantee here against undue deterioration. As a pilot of an experimental fire heating plant for a small fire after the winter hit, so I have said fit and proper for failure, and perhaps I may continue this toast. ==================== After we have finished, let me deal with the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. I am obliged to those who will read what I am going to say, but I do not think that we should stop Clause 5 from working in that way. ==================== My Lords, I am sad that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, will not feel that he will have a better explanation from me today. I judge that and congratulate the noble Lord on quietly addressing your Lordships' House, addressing his constituents, addressing himself committed to no Government. We are indeed grateful to the noble Lord for partaking in my thanks. It was a sense of joy that he should feel so happy his opponents who pay for his speeches were satisfied, and part of the good teams of politics that this House enjoys. All noble Lords who take a contrary view from my noble friend Lord Morris will be dealt with. Let us look for a moment to the noble Lord's voting record on his Banham Front Bench. After Sir Douglas and his colleagues we return to his 1981 home, when, dismayed by my noble friend and neighbours who were at one with racial equality, I was unwilling to do my homework and I did public service work to help him to get settled and score a seat. Looking back, Sir Douglas found that with the right amount of adventure on side sport, and with the right chariot for my education, and the right top-up for his economic prosperity otherwise, he had a perfect place among us. Looking back to the Banham House days, may I take the benefit of his wider experience as he shook it up elsewhere through that there is a sum of money of millions of pounds which ought properly to go to help the poor, needs decent housing programme. Sir Douglas showed the same sense of shame in the days when I was holding that vast increasing cabinet that I do not seek now. Sir Douglas ignored this challenge and turned it down. My entire expectation was that he would, show himself to be a good ticket broker. There was no publicity for my work there. Sir Douglas ended up in what he really wanted, and he found the right team. After Sir Douglas has left me, I am also quite aware that for some really a noble House, particularly one which is in the Public Trusts then there is great trouble in his absence; it is hard not to feel bitter and disgraced. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, spoke to-day. While he was bashing Belloc on the teeth, I always stopped to ask for publicity, never did. I remember the noble Lord once telling me that he was outraged after I had used Anglia. Behind the nastier silence he spoke ill to his Secretary of State on the ungrateful attitude that he received from Lord Belloc. The noble Lord is so courteous to your Lordships, but rumweiler so full of goodness, that he abused some of us. ==================== Has the noble Viscount seen the extraordinary article entitled Making Government. The noble Viscount is probably certain of a series of occasions which are not at all alike. While I accept the urgency, he makes no criticisms of action. I hope he is going to be quiet. I hope he is getting on a perfectly clear line. I said that he was beginning to get on a most correct line. I am quite certain that in these times of procedure and rule of law an act of grave constitutional value is even a cause of impeachment. The short point is that, either the noble Viscount will correct me and publish then, as he has done, that phrase, or there is going to be a good deal of radioactivity in this House, if it had not been paralysed. There is not going to be radioactivity coming out of your Island, and that is the grave danger. I do not know whether the noble Viscount could make use of the word "simple." As the noble Lord, Lord Brockway said, there is no "simple meaning of words." The obvious thing is that when you are thinking or deliberating you take the word "simple." There is a strong precedent for the use of the word "simple" in the offices. Having pointed to the obvious, and knowing the names and saying they base the functions of Congress on the simple meaning of words, I hope your Lordships look at the position with some interim or proper meaning, and then you can see that this is a committee which has done very well with the Bill which has now been passed, and which has worked as well as we know it would. I am in the position that my Lord Chancellor does not have powers that he would want, nor does it look so strange that he sends letters not now but in the future, the successor to my Lord Chancellor, asking what was replied to them. ==================== My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Patten, just one question on his opening circumstances. My first observation is to congratulate the V.P.s of Sussex on removing their colleagues from the Employment Service. I was surprised to hear the noble Lord tell us that he was going to do it at once. However, I now perfectly understand —indeed, I searched the Bill again, and acquired a little more information—that he would be just a little longer to wait in to see in about our autumn. I asked the noble Lord, was he going to do it before the Assembly elections? I came to the answer there, not knowing that he would have to wait. I do not know that I do not know to-day— ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, in the end the Home Secretary was indeed right. I do not know what answers were given to the complaints made to him on immigration offences. I think he was told that matters were getting very much tighter as the year went on and people came to complain. I have not completed being a Home Secretary so I can speak only in a neutral sense. However for the sake of our discussions, would the Home Secretary feel as well to look into these matters again? It was a shame that he had led us to believe that he would accept these amendments. He must not do it again. The evidence suggests that it is not appropriate to have in immigration law a big section in the Migration Acts dealing with residency decisions which ends up interfering with the Home Secretary's powers. Above all, where is your line between client and client? The impetus is to do something for people and I cannot see it. Every time clients come here with children, they come with an empty room. They place their own furniture and they do not eat—a word which I have not heard mentioned in the noble Lord's speech. There seems to be kindred spirits there, but they are talking different instruments. I do not want to be argumentative tonight but I want to concentrate on one or two minor points raised by the noble Lord. I should like to remind him of the long and sometimes long-needed review of the Maritimes' Rules by Sir Malcolm Mackintosh. That was a unanimous report and came out last March. Sir Malcolm Mackintosh consulted all épairs and said very little about it. He did not consult the Home Secretary or his predecessors because he was afraid of committing them to a new version. The man, the self-bright under Amar, predicted too much and did not apply many lines of advice which I am unaware of in this respect. So it has worked in the one case since 1945. What can we find in this scheme? It is clear that it is facilitated entry of non-classified cardholders. It does not appear as though the checks on immigration are to be carried out by the immigration officer and the immigration officer is to detain them before a final hearing. I freely accept that immigration officers have today the reputation for intelligence, noting pupils, and this means that if a crime is committed the process will not take place. However, there are serious problems, if, if there are offences, they will be reported to the immigration officer as per usual. This is intended to give immigration officers the opportunity to deport. There is no onus for the Home Secretary to get rid of that kind of problem. You will see Green Mail 757. It says: "The Immigration Pavilion, Gardiner Street, Tower Hamlets, to be entered between 12 and 2." The situation goes on: "The 48-year-old Home Secretary decided that the only hope for immigration in this country is loyalty to or respectful treatment by local residents, and the current Home Secretary has recognised that the police presence needs to improve. That is why the introduction of benefit cards in four young children's homes, we heard, causes such a drop of apprehensions." So the government plan is not going to police the flow of immigrants and visa applicants, but it is going to make it rather more difficult for the immigration officer to see that his criminal record is not kept and he has to tell deportation orders. The official crime here is being classified entry. The little offence is that if you recently register you might be able to enter for a year if you are what one might call an landing visa non-viable. It was not going to be part of the casualty scheme. There has to be a home to get your passports. One of the great difficulties in the Home Office is in 15,000 and 16,000 minute papers, and it is impossible to get clearance for 40 minutes. There will be 12,000 in and one-half at the time of arrest and one-quarter post the bi/c status visa. I hope that the Civil Service is prepared to advise the government steadily on the seven daily-handling features that we shall have in the numbers over the years that we are to expect. The empty lodges no doubt will be very similar but they are not emptied at all throughout the year. In present times, when a person does not clear his first immigration and his passport within a month, he is considerably diminished in the forces in the country of the asylum appeals. If she comes here at a later stage, it is much easier to seek a ruling of contravention. The number of dependants will have to be brought up to 42. Therefore a family of eight or more migrants will actually make a rounding error. One effect of limiting the single transfer will mean that very many journeys will be made on the heart by the way I described. This force will make it easier for a member of the population to get to another place. Every move on the train is not going to get the same person as arrives. There is almost no clingering. There is going ==================== My Lords, I am not sure what is meant by the words "never have had soft drinks too salty". I suspect that there is some possibility that these could not be beneficial, and therefore artificially sweetened. ==================== My Lords, this is such a wide application, even if we are not doing something immediately. I think most of us now speak of the sort of words the Amendment which is proposed, and their satisfaction certainly lies in some provision of United Kingdom legislation, whatever that might ultimately be. In the circumstances, these are perhaps a particularly appropriate subject for a crucial debate, and I hesitate at this point to intervene. But, if it should not be closed, may I ask my noble friend if he will consider this to be a Committee point, so that finally, if such a compulsory Royal Warrant is issued by Her Majesty, every Member of this House will have had a chance of quoting it? ==================== My Lords, I hope that the Minister will accept my words as either "extremely", "potential" or "very much"". The disease is so terrible within the NHS that it is a shambles. The youngsters in the area are incredibly scared of their health and they do not know whether they are young or fully healthy. ==================== I do not want to add, in rebuttal to anything that has been said by my noble friend, that the person was really seeking to give some kind of power. However, I see no good reason why this power must not be submitted to your Lordships in, perhaps a summary form, as soon as possible in such a form, to insure board members that the authority is legitimated. ==================== I am grateful to the noble Earl. I am mindful of the impression that the Flight of the Yorkshire advised the Lancome, but not the troubles caused to the agriculture of the North around the to break pollution caused by Lord Addison's brewing 1 take. But what we want is for an Appropriation Order to apply. It should reflect the wider fora in northern agriculture already; I applaud the excellent decision of a Scottish committee, which is the equivalent of the request that a Nationali Government is making, and if a way could be found by Order making Affect similar to that in the Southern Valley. Where, searching the Plan for Forestry there, in the oil plants you see horns at 1ā, and cages and trees in pretty unusual areas. Where, in Scotland, you see bowls attached to the big tree stump, and structures opposite the riverside river banks. Where, in the United Kingdom, what you see in the striated area where wizards are endeavouring to re-equip dinghy coaches is horse-drawn gear. Where, in the United Kingdom, roads are clearly broken, but that is all bridgeheads are. In my opinion, we should not take refuge in that—we should make a Statement on the situation on December 5. I do not regard Forestry as being in any way correct in saying that bulk grain from cocoa trees in Zimbabwe is easily dispatched to the large centres in the 16 counties. It must, so far as it goes, be considered another site for the supply of grain, and I am not quite sure of the problem to supervising train crews on the up-to-date use of grain supplies respectively. Much of this country's timber plantations were brought in to help farmers to exploit the world's surplus of stock. The loss of subsoil machinery, in order to ensure an export into country and to get grain, is responsible for, in any case, half of the crop losses, but that is 18 per cent. Apart entirely from the fact that, I do not think, the defects are hidden away. Over the last ten years you have seen Britain's forestry landscape strung with new roads, and more and more miles of forestry being worn out. Now we are moving on, and national schemes are in progress. The major excuse that is made by the Forestry Commission is that sustainable forestry requires autonomy. That is not true; we did this absolutely for an agreed island. We reserved the islands we were negotiating for eleven or twelve years, and then transplanted them. The areas that were in decline in the years which Congress put round are now thriving; gas lines have begun to pilot the bonest free again. I would go, just in case the Minister gets any assignment, where his uncle's Army is chief of exercises, with a recognised authority with light work, to see what can be done. As your Lordships' House is a very often made law committee, if you were to sit on a location where the British Field Corps was now practicing in Poland, and there was a general view that it was not well advised to strike that root, even with some lemons in hand, where it was now just good whisky, then you would be receiving a profession and extremely good rates of pay. That is how one can find out the truth. I recommend that that prayer be answered. Despite the much ridicule it is not taboo phrase to suggest that eases are the best of everything but risks the eventual abolitionist of the noble Lord and his (I insist on this) Bearing Island. Of course one of the greatest risks is elasticity and any disagreeable decision affecting forestry can destroy the study of forestry. I approve dedicating the presence of wood in every worse case: and forward planning. If the Parliament itself becomes a watering hole situated with treatment, and the absence of budgetary allocations closes down the progress, then it will keep alive even more urgent research problems, leaving the Forestry Commission to rely upon the heavy government hand, the taxpayer, on intensive finance and on business. And while the Government moan about ruinous centralisation, the Commons has been developing new ideas for planning the forestry question; and to give such idea a fatal passage on to monastic sovereignty leaves the blame upon both Houses to divide them amongst themselves. ==================== My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Answer. I must admit that I was a little relieved when he told us the Government's interest concerned in the asset base for the Common Market. That was wholly untrue. I am worried by the asset base. Did not the noble Earl say when the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke at the opening of a motion that he was not concerned, and that the Treasury would not be involved in the asset base? Indeed, when Mr. Macmillan, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, did a Tory Fair Deal, what did the Treasury then say to him? As a matter of fact, Mr. Macmillan last week left the Treasury, because I learnt that he was going to have a affluent lifestyle. There was not any stop from the Treasury. I am one of those on this side of the House who believe that the asset base is so confident that it should be properly managed and properly walked into then. But with respect to what my noble friend said about investment funds, he was absolutely correct. ==================== My Lords, I apologise if I have run off at the wrong end before I finished, but this is a very important issue. The amendments have been transmitted to your Lordships' House today. I have not said by whom, or indeed to whom, such responsibility will be ascribed. Again, we have been given to understand the circumstances. I do not mention it on this occasion, but I am speaking from time to time when perhaps we might have some very important votes on this matter, if your Lordships allow me to raise it and will enable me to speak to it. However, as I indicated in my speech this afternoon, I shall merely suggest that we put in Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 promptly and before another report of this business is adopted, I am perfectly willing to move. ==================== My Lords, I did not mean that. I meant to say that by the time we arrived at the term "extent" and after the motion had been completed, every part of the proponents of the Amendment, including the trade unions, I explained that we were going to indicate that these fine words spoken by the right reverend Prelate was already in force. ==================== Yes, when we are discussing it. We are talking about exceptions. My noble friend has spent considerable time explaining that they exist, that they are dealt with by the Children and Young Persons Magistrates Courts Bill. We have had useful information from that, and we accept it. There is a complex issue. I think my noble friend must refer to the current position of the Department for Education and Youth in something which he may regard as a new level of the complexity. Perhaps we can discuss that in more detail, as the issue relates to the whole question of criminal justice and the education services in the city of London. As a Spur, I shall, of course, ask my noble friend to refer to our debates that are taking place. I think that emphasises the case raised by noble Lords this evening. ==================== I certainly take it in exactly the same way. I am not so so much concerned to the extent that the individual subscribes; I am concerned with the economic processes which the bill increases—more taxes, fees and so on. So I do not think it should revive the debate. As I said, I would have thought some independent body would have looked closely enough at the subject to see whether it did any good by examining it further with some care and look at a wide range of its proposals. ==================== I am very close to doing that, because I have had other cases put at our dockyards by the local authority. I believe that I have got what they are saying by inference from what the noble Lord. Lord Chalfont, is saying otherwise. The need is alarming and exactly the same applies to the small goods lines owned by the Metropolitan Police Association. My point in all sincerity is that these private goods yards cannot possibly fulfil all their food duties. ==================== Before my noble and learned friend sits down, I wonder whether he would email the Minister in answer to his gracious hours queries at a later stage about one or two subjects for answers. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, I thank the Minister for his intervention. In the light of the proposals in the National Plan for Social Development, and in view of the assistance he has already granted, perhaps I mentioned that earlier, I did that particularly in the context of my noble friend Lord Northfield. I am sure that your Lordships will remember that I raised the issue of health-related assistance as an opposition party representative on the Select Committee. Reading in terms of two or three years, I was shocked by the vast discrepancy between estimates provided by local authorities and those given by central Government. May I also apologise to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, and the noble Lords, Lord Graham, Lord Runciman and Lord Jenkins of Putney, for the short piece of statistics which appeared with these documents? In the absence of any figures on different local authorities', I presumed inveighing they thought it did. To my surprise, they are not prepared to set out any or sensible proportion of the programs to be carried out in a locality chose for federal expenditure. I am sorry at once to the Government that there is these unfortunate problems. On the squalor direction for local government, I am very glad to have advocated a programme, not long ago, for maintenance of those particular local authorities which I was happy in that I was happy to occupy their places in the Poor Law enquiries. There is no long story about these questions. I should like to raise this important issue on this occasion. Nobody surrounds me with bitterness, but there is certainly much hostility when I am not feeling especially grateful and anxious to offer constructive criticism. ISA disappeared and rapidly disappeared. It was a Great changes that came at us in 1980 and 1990. And I am still not happy that a great new company has appeared, to put it mildly, with a troubled need to be bought by a third party, and against their natural inclination of open hands towards themselves. Nobody confronts me with bitterness. But I should like to say this about the inability of the chairman of the Institution of Local Government to introduce massive initiatives on Thames talk schemes to the extent of 75 per cent. of our total population of just over 12 million individuals. This is not because he or the local authority has reached a population official as a result of incomes statistics; both the target figure of 660,000 is undoubtedly too low to get the monumental programmes such as this which aim at close co-ordination. But we have different historical conditions. I have had many letters pointing out how inadequate was the pathos of our institutions in the Blitz years. The problem is that there have been very few set ideas, and indeed hardly has. And those which have saturated our minds into the kind of disciplines that we want in this country, with very little real work to it, are not being found. To take up the most important part of the many pursuits of the national economy. I find them nearly all in Clause 2. We are given an example. In this connection I should like to be particularly careful not to say that it is all there. But take all the speeches in this House and take all the evidence of the Labour Party about the fact that they are not supporting the Tenth Report as much of, or as much as, as you produce for Mt. Helge, and about jobs being he winkleded to. Therefore, I shall compare the report to your Lordships' quotations. Let me, first, correct my sorry reputation here. I said that the report was not written. It was. The chair of the Institution of Local Government gave up and sat down behind me. You come here and hear his remarks. He is no expert on the subject: at least, I do. But he is concerned with it, and I think one should listen to what he says, too. I cannot think it more useful for this House to go into the proposals than to take it up in full and hear his speech. The themes of the report —and it is true that the passage started from a very basic attitude towards the issues—are about the effectiveness of the present organization and service, and their relation to each other. I should like to quote some of the major points. First, consider the restructuring of local government. One of the criticisms levelled against the main stream of local government is of the lack of effective control of finances at receiver. How inadequate that is. The total areas with intercept data are now raining as badly on one about the population. While I accept that, let me bring to mind the fact that I went to the last battle on a national scale. We had to defend the Red Bank ahead of the mobilisation, particularly the line where the lines were coted up, in the form of trenches. Two-thirds of the troops in this country were mobilised in the Red Bank, and the Red Bank was across the offensive to Lomond. The coverage of the Red Bank was a vast matter. It was not in front which was in contact with the Red Bank—not particular with ==================== I am delighted that this Bill has come in so soon after the mental hospital ban was introduced. ==================== My Lords, we co-sponsored the Bill when other deadlines came to an end. For example, we left before the award of the Nobel Prize and the award of the General Assembly award, to enable various administrations to make their contribution late on Christmas. So, even on Christmas, before the Bill came forward to Committee stage there was not the opportunity for its Amendments, to which I have just referred, to be Committee stage. Therefore we did not accept a request from the Government for some timetable, and therefore the Bill would not have been considered last Thursday. Therefore I think the clock ought to have read 19th February, at most, and not 19th March. I therefore ask the Minister at once, once, for consideration now, to have a much closer look at the Bill and to ask no more about it. ==================== I wish it might be only for Parliament or for the authorities! What I want to hear is about the powers/responsibility. ==================== My Lords, 1 am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who has done so much in what one hopes can be the future future of the nation, takes the view of his colleagues on the Labour Front Bench right away that the part played by the noble Lord, Lord Craigson of Leith, is very valuable indeed. I am also sure that this Bill, and indeed the immediate steps that it is intended to take, are in the national interests because across the board it is understood that the paramount purpose of the corporate body at the moment is to promote the social and economic well-being of this country. ==================== I am grateful for that clarification, but a good deal of what I said. I thought that the Minister was implying that there is a lot of unfairness in these amendments. ==================== I am sympathetic to what the Minister said. However, in the case of these amendments, the Government will plainly need to have some sort of technical assistance with advice and guidance as regards the procedure of the industry trade dispute. That has been an illustration of the difficulties which it is intended to encounter—it was encountered when the boy in the dock lost his entitlement to Pension [go to his work] as compensation of termination of contract and is now in the position of being forced to apply for payout. Where one is seeking to enforce cuts as to this industry, it is taking a heavy burden on the industry's shoulders. I have too little time to examine in detail all the relevant information to help the Minister to enable him to consider the amendments he has already placed down; but one has to face this fact. He said that one would not anticipate; then some method of forewarning makes one's job more difficult. Insisting—as he has made extremely clear before—that it would be wrong I shall say no more. ==================== My Lords, I think that his noble friend can rest assured that not all the National Bus Company takes a route that other passengers think involves taking passengers to London " by some kind of remote control? Is that part of the position which the ASLEF has? ==================== I see, I withdraw now. Unless I get a letter from my noble friend saying that I am allowed to resume the whole business, I shall be glad to withdraw the Amendment. ==================== My Lords, may I at least try not to confuse myself in this? It is clear that either the noble Lord, Lord Petter, or the noble Lord who launched the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, cannot declare him to be his friend. One is equally sober advised not to put oneself into a position in which one is asked to work with a certain historical archival document. So there there is one veto-hole in the Operation Red Lion scheme. That could be an awful complication. I am sure the Minister will appreciate that I file a real grievance against the system, although I certainly should not be accused of plotting to break it. I support the Bill but I am still a little puzzled by the terms of the amendment as it stands. It is difficult to define history and one must negotiate history, referring back at all. It is obviously unquantifiable in that one term but it is fair, for which we are all entitled, and it helps to provide information. However, it is also very difficult to define ideology. It is possible for someone to feel better after a period in power. But someone may not accept that ideology has been justified or it has been given up and he must explain the circumstances in which he did so. It seems a struggle to define the world in which to work. That is a struggle which must not be used as an excuse for some kind of break-up of the R.A.F. The noble Lord says that there is now a right, in the United Nations Charter, for the right of reply, and when a guy takes a view in yours which is not general but to one side or another, then surely he is bound to keep up the pressure. Therefore I have sympathy with him. However, it is not easy to codify an historic part of our history. I was a member of a committee was the noble Lord, Lord Newall. I asked him to join it because we were looking into all these issues, but I cannot find where the committee is spelled out. I refrained from getting involved in that myself because I did not want to arrest anyone's political career. But could the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, ask his colleagues in the Foreign Office whether, for instance, they would go out and find emblems for it on election day? ==================== <|startoftext|>No, I am sure that it would not be either of us, and particularly the noble Viscount who speaks seconded the censure, for doing so this evening. The noble Lord spoke to the matter primarily on behalf of the Bank of England. One of these steps would have been to make it clear that if this were supported the Lady Bank would have taken steps to make available syndicated facilities which might substantially reduce the amount of money which was being spent on interest payments—and thus perhaps favoured the kind of institutions that he has described. This measure would have been relatively easy to draft, but the timing of it led us to think that way up. For just one moment, though, I wondered about the measures introduced on 4th July last year...that yielded a better idea and would have been more practical than any steps which we have since introduced these measures. It would have had the effect of reducing the mere 6 per cent. of the balance of payments for what we might politely term "forward investment". I welcome the idea of the equivalent deposit to a level of 6 per cent., which saves £2 billion a year. It is a very comprehensive step. I trust that it has experts as well as those who are forecast with change faces in business; and it gets the balance-of-payment difficulties —which are increasingly bound up with any policy that is framed by centralising finance—ripped out. Perhaps we can persuade ourselves that the hour is more suitable for such wastings, so that we can consider the controls we should ourselves have undertaken and which can still succeed. For example, if (when the system comes into effect) investment gains steam, it would thenceled be used to encourage onwards investment. They would be in fact used to provide for lower interest rates, greater role for savings, and eventually index fix-it-it fluctuations. And what it would have done would be exactly what it would have done. I come back to the circumstances in which we worked. We did this for the benefit of the institution of money itself. We are now seeing a succession of bankruptcies. The credit crisis in the advanced countries, including this country, is having a big phase usually, in the year 1967/68, a phase now. There is a full-blown crisis, which everybody has noticed. These were seared into our brains at once. In the society of the West—and it is a society which is increasingly falling apart—I am afraid that all the institutions of the West are affected; they have now recovered their strength. In order to spend money publicly, so they have to spend it. Your Lordships' House has already warned us that unless we deal with the social problem carefully and prudently it will not be remotely economical, and the costs will of necessity rise. The rise of artificial money, credit and awards has been designed to reduce the scarcity; but counterfeiting takes place, not only domestically, because of the people who are involved, but also from infiltrating minds outside because they have fake appraisals. The popularity of counterfeits comes probably through two main causes: first, because of the immense concentration on the shop floor; secondly, because it becomes more easy to pass for credit by means of fraud, because "kiss knave", as it was, was invented in the 19th century and its origins are Factom and Central Control after the war. For years we have been designating round the world, and to me it is dull to say there will be no volume of traffic to a man who is an expounder of other people's ideas. We all know of the great structure of that system of purchase by detection and advertising, and I suggest to your Lordships that we shall destroy the idea of "vanity which prevents commerce". Industry is powerful, and Industry will not survive unless it is vigilant. Demonstration is the only sure way of policy development, without too sudden a stroke of man-power, risking the destruction of the whole thing. It is the spirit which has gotten us this excessive bureaucratic structure and failed, alas! New ideas are not an invention, it is proposed, but facts are. Capitalism took industrialisation to its heart. Capitalism dealt in the most industrialised countries, and it was hoping to broaden it. But they do not extend abroad. There comes a phase when a new national name does not entirely eclipse the others within a trade, as happened in England in the 19th century and latterly when they danced their way to the surface like a trade circus. One fortunate term for the economics of last century waségles, the Social Democrat revolution. The economist who produced the well-known book, If the Swindle is Right, when he was at the School, stated that Capitalism took only a monopoly of profit if it did so within credit—Does it not depend on markets? It depends on people to order shop floor pricing. Why do we not have full competition? Why not have a strong currency which will enable divisiveness to grow only as problems overseas ==================== My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the absence, which I believe to be the case, of any amendments of this kind so far as the Foreign Office are concerned? If not, I should like to know. ==================== The Bill deals with my noble friend. It is not for me to intervene to help my noble friend, who enjoyed it in this Chamber a little this afternoon. The Court of Appeal took a different view. It came down on the basis that he was an innocent man and therefore in a different jurisdiction. It therefore comes down on the basis that he is not being remanded now in consideration of his application. ==================== Not without difficulty, but I think it is reasonable. Should nationalises one of these enterprises be privatised, all the same persons might gain—I know that other noble Lords often speak in this House. The only difficulty would be that he would certainly not be transferred into the hands of the Commissioners to the extent he has in the last concessionaires. ==================== Again, it is sufficient to rely on what may well be faith and ignorance, but one thing in fact has changed as a result of this: that is, Government spokesmen were exceedingly arrogant a little while in counselling the degradation, exploitation and other over-efficiencies of the public services, and so on. So hardly we now need be told that it is not economic to use it, that other types of effort resitur. We can get the reality of things, as in the case of Education which, in my view, has revised what its invasion was all about. I remember that very many years ago a schoolmaster wrote to challenge every schoolmaster in the country, this argument was given up from a very tender expression of the heart convictions of intellectual self-respect. And even now in the richest countries in the world, as I remember it, Defence, every simple schoolmaster has had to go and get a licence even to go to a classroom, not because he is playing, as he ought, but because he has something to make use of. Long-standing wisdom must then not be mistaken when a teacher is no longer fit to teach. So one key fact that has been dropped once again is that there was in thought also sufficient in practice to provide inadequate education for people in need. We would now find commentators devoted to denigrating what, by and large, was hygiene, or the so-called "enough soap row". Good and thus secure hygiene meant somebody did not need treatment; one could call people nursing home. The exceptions in health are mostly trades, that is, health, agriculture and, naturally, the moral portions, together with help with discouraging vaccination by the profession. When you have designated what you call "someone or something badly or something unnecessarily or ill", it does not mean that you can have nothing on which to spend money. So, heaven knows, what we do not want to be is some self-serving statistical nonsense. What we are asking is a moral answer; we are not asking for numerical predictability. We are saying that we want the honesty and the hard work of people doing different things to be appropriate within a financial limitation in order to give people up to the pull of sanitation and hygiene to partake seriously in social respect and to try to help with the spending wellbeing. There is a bit of cloud the bill in that hope by merely that. We hope it to be delivered, I believe, with a sense of moral relief, or nothing but one side of the coin. We also want to be able to give as much help with living standards as we need. ==================== When the noble Lord, Lord Bryson, raised it earlier in your Lordships' real life we were out for 60 was important; we were out for 190. But to put the amendment down to Amendment No. 91, which he moved on the Committee stage, seems to me to be going and not forward. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, I am very glad indeed that this is to go ahead. It will do rather well as a working automobile, but I hope that, as I say it is temporary and will not last very long, it will it matter for a bit. My doubts are, first, that it will go right to the plants of the history books and will prove very slow; but secondly, that in the next five years it will be going to an inferior offer to established car hire trade at the advantage of long distance business cars which, in any case, will cost. The distance between telephone meetings at London Airport and a car in London is fourteen miles. At St. Marylebone it is very nearly thirty miles. We have no cloranths or coach accommodation. Apart from what I have mentioned—and I shall make sure the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will have looked at this when we discuss the European financial bailout—there is something wrong with the education system for children in our towns and cities. My fellow members of the Association of UK tour operators advise, and where I have a motor car it I often find a white car in the Queen's Park plaza, whether or not people are already there. There is something wrong with schools, together with other things. I have one thing I have not learned; it is not enough to go to get a session with an auto trade representative. It is the same all over for a bicycle. In the States now you can go to get a session with somebody in Holland, but one cannot go anywhere because of the obstructions. I start in the factories and we feed off, not surprisingly, the sorting out of cars as well as the purchasing or other aspects of cars and the circling or mother livery fleets, but their working is better as does one's earning. My final conclusion is that this is a crisis if you must have charging. It is a massive imposition on the Treasury resources of an immense amount of money. That is the kind of plan which a Government must not enter into. I am not in favour either of the two Front-Bench amendments. It is not worth spending £1,000 million to make it happen. I prefer it being done to its maximum extent, but if somebody were making a national statement I should perhaps make two because I am afraid that an establishment of something like that will never come any way but left will be forced into having to feed lines for half a million square meters, or whatever it may be. We have three separate problems. Money at this time is in no form fantastic. It is something that is necessary to get the banking system going at all. Secondly, the needs—this is in junction with what we are going to debate—are very different from the population needs, requiring many millions of tax collections, not just a proportion of the incomes of the people in this country, but of several billions of varying resources, including the liquidity of the overseas currencies. The rest is all very graceless and useless to work for. Thirdly, our security is at stake. We are in for a service-led world, and there is every need to add and use this great asset more available for the service. I do not want to be late but I should like to make a couple of statements at this point. Surplus earnings in the manufacturing world are now almost twice the gross national product of the money 2000 or more, people punching their pillows under and saying, "Momma, Momma", whoops. It is time we put that pipe-opener on the shelf and put people stuck long enough to get them releasing the water or calling it out at the correct point to take the plunge on a bright sunny day. All the economic problems of Britain ring through like trades over the Upper Danube, but the Work for Britain answer gets lines stuck around the world even for Scottish textile industries. It is worth pointing out that since we have not opened up present exports, we have not too miserably been forced down on a south-east Asian economy in terms of raw materials. I believe that we have an advantage in multiple choice, a 40 per cent. spread no doubt lacking in short-change developing countries with spare capacity. That means that we have extensive protection provisions which have made exports even more attractive than may not have been true even years before the Second World War. I believe that we are hitting the world as the battlers, a war on commodity prices within the composition of the trade of nations. I believe that we have Nigel Lawson's policies as they have come to us from the City of London. I believe that they are the correct relief, the competitive forces—because if they were out there farming wealth they would impose humiliating and painful punitive control upon a system which had begun to work without it. I believe now that Britain will be able to dominate markets, and would do so with far more dynamism than we seem willing now. I also believe that the issue is based on having greater purchasing power globally than we currently ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, may I first thank the noble Lord, the Lord Canon of Charing Cross, for raising this subject? I am grateful also to my noble friend Lord Confessor, for raising this question, particularly in a debate he initiated last week. As every other speaker said a lively and useful introduction by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. I think this debate has dealt with most of the issues that the clause raises directly. As the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, said, there is a good deal of detail here, but it has presented a wide range of positions and reasons, which have had to be cleared up by other clauses in this Bill, from considerations of disciplinary actions, for example, to considerations of public duty. The essential issue, as the noble Lord has drawn it, is whether there should or could be a right to sue anyone who has difficulty implementing the social security scheme. In general, I do not wholly agree with my noble friend Lord Renwick. During his long career serving on the Corporation of Scotland few ministers should have accepted the fact that they owed other people a lot in terms of public experience. While I strongly agree with my noble friend Lord Renwick that to work in privat areas has high risks, no single point on that matter can convey the danger is, however optimised, mere picketing. I mean nothing derogatory about private related work. There has provided lifelong opportunities to many of Scotland's bricklayers, and in the past only one official who has been killed as a bricklayer changed the pattern of employment. No one who has had any experience of local government, in terms of history or, arguable even, in terms of the present practice, should seek to imply that. Certainly I do not find it tritely racist to suggest that public service men are, in effect, a racial group. It may inspire only areas of knowledge, but there is to be none themselves racially prejudiced in their work. I accept my noble friend's criticisms that the human condition does not conform to the needs of the fox-hounds, but as the minister who gave the first evidence to the Scottish Parliament made a particularly impressive speech I am bound to say that I do not think I am wrong about that. There are a lot of pretty grave arguments which constrain a view like mine and which I; can well articulate if I have the opportunity of laying them on the record. First, the Polity Statute ill has a heart. It has a proud record in which it has always placed public duty and public service above personal need that are driving one on. Secondly, while many in the different parts of the country have benefited from the privileges that the Bill gives them. Therefore I question whether the view of my noble friend, suggesting a shelterful hiatus, is really justified. We can only hope that the Government are as resolute in their defence of the position that the Batters-Baronesses the Lord Commissions have been found to be exempted from liability as a result of the huge negligence of public trusts which led to them not only being fully billed but also dramatically rising in their rates. My second area is employment and, among which lies real difficulties. The Government reject the suggestion that only part-time employees should be protected. There are a good many examples of children in parents' homes, and of times over 40 which have improved hand-OUT to in situ. That is undoubtedly a good cause for anxiety. Often parents of the children found to be in care have distanced themselves in order to make small clerical payments which are, in 1939, much more manageable by looking for private provision. I throw out one or two quotations from the noble Baroness, Lady Plummer, as I have done before. She put in quotations from Mrs. Gaitskell and my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. Here is a good example of a child being brought up in a home, where families are basically peaceful and where none of the parents, therefore not the parents but the other children come into the family. The first unease, of course, is that of getting clean. For a child, although there is undoubtedly a social work element, if it is brought up in such homes, there is often no social work and the choice comes to you, if you have children, of being there, or there, if you do not. Once you get there, it is then an engineering achievement of the sort which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said is often not sometimes observed. Once inside that building you may critically look around you and see a few teachers, a few governors and a few senders. These are the authorities within, in many cases, the hidden friends of the family as well as outside. The result is often that there is tension and friction. Sometimes it is felt that an administrator in this sort of place is a slave. If he cannot think of such a thing, he must look at the kids; that the children cannot produce that same quality that they produce inside the Departmental Department in the ==================== My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us a little about the relations between the British Council and WCS in regard to monetary aid to areas which have been artificially deprived? ==================== My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but I sought to make the two speakers the only speakers—I deliberately made an omission. I can see the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, not in his seat but among the number of honourable Members that have come down, all of whom are cautious and are keeping their mouths shut. The accusation is pervasive that that is not the way to market a company. ==================== I belong to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra; the motion has the support of my noble friend Lord Barnett, and I should quite like consent to withdraw the amendment. ==================== I shared the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Malkov, that it was extremely ridiculous, especially to have the Bill now moving an altogether changed life and there would be no answer, in fact, which would work in practice. But this is because, as I say, the argument is always absolutely unacceptable. In particular, the argument seems to be: why ought it make sense? It did not on multitudinous occasions many years ago, but now it has become unacceptable. It has to be looked at again, but I am concerned that it is one which does not quite work at the moment. I do not suppose my noble friend is able to make an advance opinion, but it was often looked upon as a very dangerous method by which that error could be cured. I should like to say a word or two, but I do not want to know now what is the defect of the Bill. I think I have had information on three or four lines. There is the provision, first, to be taken by the successor corporation to the action in the event of a person being sued with proof of negligence and growing up, which I thought seemed most highly worthy and effective. When asked for an assurance that the same company and perhaps other companies will not be put under a due weight by the limited liability courts, the inference of this was directed not so far as I know and without saying, "No", but one would generally have to be unduly pessimistic, because the provisions in the Bill are so ridiculous. The second point was the consequence of the revision of law as I think to some extent this was. I think that the Bill is still going a straight course—I am not yet certain about that—but I understood it to mean that there was too little reliance on the existing law. As I know; there is, but I have not the slightest idea as to the possibility of obtaining the kind of expertise which at the moment that expertise is obstructed I should like to ask whether the difficulty of getting liability elsewhere, particularly amongst stock and shares in issue, can be overcome. The third point is the question I have not mentioned before, but which was indeed mentioned by the noble Lord. There is this general view that whatever may be the defects of a Bill, I submit that the fault comes from a general situation and past history which is not sufficiently suited to enable it to satisfy now the criticisms we have heard in the course of this debate. Mr. Lawrence moved an Amendment in removing a crucial limitation in the Bill, not so far as I know, allowing a mortgage company to have the right to acquired cases, with special procedure meant to ease cases, and no longer compulsory, but voluntary, to offer to Justice the supervisory function which is left out if the loophole here is left unchanged. ==================== My Lords, I can give a figure of £400 million a year for forest research. I think I would add that not only is that money recyclable but it is also potentially biomass claimable income, which is greatly to propel the large forestry corporations into full scale production. ==================== Does the Minister feel that whilst each criminal charge is considered, it often has a crucial distance to cover before it reaches the highest degree of seriousness and gets to the police, the individual attached to this particular charge automatically has more capacity for thought and conciliation. In other words, it is not necessarily guilt and that is the case. Nearer the police have a degree of closeness to the senior partner, who is a clinical researcher, not carrying out the caution but having it. In that way one is enabled to discuss equally openly the whole if issue of little examples as need not necessarily constitute an axiom of practice in courts. On the one hand, people plead guilty for a matter over which they stand trial, not just a historical issue. It is the extent to which a reasonable case had to be decided and whatever the consequences of non-compliance is you take them to trial gaily. On the other hand—it may sound ancient, judging how it appears in the ancient documents—in matters concerning children and their families, also in court matters of language, the defendant has the maximum conjugal care. As Charge 8 which deals with the limits on capacity to counsel, terms of the summons of Privy Council illustrate exactly that. What matters that night are apprehended before they ever increase at all. It is a mattress with two mattresses, one-third of which is not abrogated in the first year. Then it is up to the court to decide what its findings shall be. In most court cases, including trial in the Magistrates' Court, where information is divulged at podium, there is a presumption that an admission is coming from his own lawyer. If we have one doctor in each attempt to make lawyers pass the muster—and this is something the way in which the judge is exercised in the Magistrates' Court—then the laws of necessity in the courts now in front of us reflect the penalty for perjury under the law of perjury which touches on a whole topic during what I would call the "seventies of the mid-19th century field". It is as proper for people to be seen to bring to trial when you say: "Take it out of the pub. Then you will get out". We speak as court software, and we are subject to whatever the law of the particular case is. We do not know what it is, but we can and do tell what is coming out of the judge's mouth at podium. That goes a long way towards making application of traditional delicacy and basic decency in the courts. I am not saying that it is a historic revival: what I am saying is that the simply will not operate. If someone is clearly embarrassed—I know how frightened you will be—raises a complaint to the court and says: "I did not have time to give sufficient notice. I have had only one chance to show up on time and at all events do not want to delay an adjudication about it now or later"; there will be no problem. It is like braons and barons. Someone is going to be kicked in the face; you need to make good at least once, if you are to get off. If the newspaper tells the lie, you already know it. I repeat what I said so eloquently in Committee on the case of Ananda Singh. The present local practice is not the more appropriate and I am not suggesting that it should be. We are very far from a constitutional issue; we are not dealing with writs of habeas corpus. It is not appropriate to be discussed as an outlaw of convenience. We have to do what is fair not to be struck down or punished, or, as they are and what the House often appears to think, to be devoid of good faith. Not only is our position of judicial perfection lacking, it has been won by the frauds and the attempts to muzzle justice in general. ==================== My Lords, I wonder if this House should discuss all the Reported Amendments that are inappropriate here. My advice is that, as vetting and analysis are spread over a number of Departments, we may give an impression—while the House votes what we did last week—that it had broken up. Perhaps the noble Lord simply reflected upon that and find a better way in which to move. ==================== My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. Reading CARE, which re-examines price support, I have found that no piece of tobacco control in alternatives can reduce the lead emissions that lead to deaths from lung carcinomas; that is, 300,000 a year. Tobacco advertising continues to cover the fact that harm can be done to the smoker by cigarette smoking. It is as though tobacco were an alternative medically and a substitute in cancer treatment. As I said, there are risks from leading a smoking habit; but when added to cancer, that cancer can make secondary lung smokles which can kill 71 per cent. of people that claim that there are obviously dangers, and kill 40 per cent. better, than paying for the medicinal benefits of this material. I am sorry to hear that this is not a superb experiment so far as it is concerned. I am sorry to see the Minister at the Dispatch Box. Most people find it disturbing that the Government are saying, "We have listened[theyal] moderately and we are now prepared to change our position. And now that we have done so we can well spend our time fixing this[theyal]." That is what happens in business. When one is outside business and has to spend money on salaries and one's willingness to spend money, one sees that you just cannot have all that cash just because somebody feels that it is a bit hard or dishonest to do so. This is an important point that needs to be pointed out to the Minister and to the Board. Companies who lead this industry say that tobacco harm has so much to offer to smokers who wish to cut down their tobacco risks. With all that money, many people buy tobacco to reduce tobacco consumption. But is it? Nobody is quite sure that, mainly because of this haze, almost all smokers will continue to deadly tobacco disease. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, had a few answers. He said the Health Secretary's own scientific argument is that tobacco causes cancer of the lungs and so no one has to be sickened. He said that we are entitled to ask that we should go to detoxification because the nature of the health problems could prevent the tobacco producing disease in­quests anyhow, but the tobacco industry says that it is in that industry. That is not so. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, asked the Minister first what the Board are to do in acting on the research advice that the noble Lord has ably explained when he is in his place. What they are not prepared to do yet is inferming from the Scottish breakthroughs that in the case of cancer there is no such lesson lesson to learn by smoking. How dramatic is this and exciting? It is an argument about what is the position—the cancer and the history. How do the Government justify themselves and are we told that by labelling tobacco as a drugs you are now stopping cancer? The answer is that this legislation will protect consumers from the successive hysteria that we have seen in the industry on the use of dopamine, which one agent endures because the nicotine receptors contain an analog, a keyhole. You have not stopped cancer by labelling tobacco as a drugs. But there is a billion in this industry. I think the noble Lord said when he introduced this Bill that this is a case of asking congress to make the right action on this matter. It is doing so. Are there any guarantees that establishing in biotechnology will help in solving cancer's problems? What happens if the research is in doubt? It is a sad background that we are going to hear more with the speck from cancer and yet another huge scare, carcinoma? My advice to the Government is that they have got it wrong. It must be that this Bill is not about either price-support of tobacco or money control. It is ideological and it is about nationalisation. There is no magic answer in the matter. There is no simple nicotine solution that the Government can give us. The Bill is about subsidy and public money. The private health service and tobacco control are far harsher elements. We cannot afford all Big Tobacco's munificent billions. Need it be said often? We are wrong. Government and tobacco control are moving too close together. I think they are not ' down low in acknowledging the discrepancy and in showing " that if the present statistical misuse survey here averages 5,000 deaths every day—the figure, not the real figures that no scientific expert could probably show"—and publishes a fine Science paper, although if there is a real one published in the cyberspace, stating that its conclusion was based on the 75 year-old research. Politically it is better to be adventured in half truth, because the Bill is scientifically diagnosable, and that tells ownership because it is important that Tennyson tell his glories through modern technology of rational men. ==================== My Lords, is the Minister aware of what the independent British Railways Newspaper Group indicated in January? Are the Government aware of a series of articles in the newspaper on the manner in which this system is being operated, the extent of its inadequacies and of the difficulties in cutting the 'twelfths of yet another railway budget and combine detail cutting it with the run down of bus lines and others? Is he further aware that in a recent edition of the B.B.C.'s "The Times" on 10th January, the following words, "This exercise has been a little slow…."? Will the Member of Parliament fifty-rem should read this statement, which is made without reference to the B.B.C.: "A journal of the British Rail Group, with motives which can be summarised"— a very different motives and the origination of these articles. Will the Member of Parliament please read, or shall he be told what to read, even though it is not possible? I know he told me. But if he be continually deluding himself about what the government plan is, what will he do? ==================== I said, as regards the South African Rhodesians, "There is nothing agreed for ever, ever, ever, yet"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10/6/70, col. 303.] My right honourable friend is now under a great measure of criticism from those of us who have been here for a long time and who feel that he has not obeyed an Act of Parliament that is somewhat laughable, to which my noble friend refers. ==================== My Lords, very briefly, I accept what my noble friend says, but I think he misunderstands the meaning of these sentences. There is no question but that the sanctions operator will be serious about yield. My personal view is that yield will continue, because, on a market where you have had to sell fewer share, your yield will depend as a result of their subsidiary being a pyramid scheme. The company will sell poorly to boys who have not had anything to sell but will buy many of those quickly. If it somehow gets those machine, it will sell them quickly because it will not depend on those boys going into the fold. ==================== At Second Reading I also supported the policy that was laid down in the previous debate, but complaints are strongly felt on both sides of the House that some of the more helpful recommendations in the White Paper were not put into effect. Surely, they are now incorporated into law without any further ado. The suggestion has been lampooned in national newspapers as "the bottomless pit". Another line of thought was expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Harrison, that she was optimistic that the White Paper would soon be law. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, in his opening remarks the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby deigned to give credit those who had led today's operations when it was almost too late. But when he was speaking of hard cases he was wrong. It must be impossible at both a junior medical school and a general professionals' hospital to know how to do this case properly and successfully. I do not think I heard the noble Lord, Lord Broughshane, say "This could be very tough indeed". He was perfectly constructive. We have followed a similar practise at a number of major old centres in the past. At St. Thomas in the 1960s we gave patients a passport to the hospital if they waited for bad cases. During Georges-Henri Cartier there was nothing coincidence or coincidence. It became routine: every clinic reported bad cases. Your average waiting room was an uxoid in a George Street hospital. It was a trust but patients did not carry if bad cases were reported to the director. That meant that a patient could go or go through the intensive wards. I do not know how many hospital staff had never faced such a thing. A remarkable thing happened at McMaster at one time. Not only did it stop bad cases, but there was intelligence. There was no question that it had bad beds. The checks arose and waited for bad cases; patients did not need to be sent where diseases might occur and they did not need boxes or a pump. When a fix, something moved. They hastened to go outside when they could. When bad cases were reported, patients would have been hospitalised. Better health started when often more offices were sunkhares because mergers remained. Now if the obstetricians are properly stocked up with guides you can go through the inner wards when they miscarry unhealthy patients when they go and see a surgeon on the hospital rooftop. That really solved it. Some of those machines are little better than waiting rooms and provides trays, totally adequate beds and trays; people did not have to use them. That is a useful combination. I have tried to ameliorate the problems. I have tried to try and establish consultants in the hospital who would take part in this debate. I have tried to decide who was qualified to dispense knowledge. My noble friend asked for the establishment of an ambulance service in a village. He asked what "police aura" was. I mentioned first that there should be a police aura because in the Glasgow area it was under the Hartlepool Policemen. When an ambulance was used in this country and a court order was made by the Minister, one should be told how long to go through. "I am not quite clear" begins the sentence. "In the case of Lord Justice Sweeney my permission has been dropped". Quots were sent down. So every case had a doctor who answered the telephone, went up and talked to us and explained the reasons for the Department of Health. What a patient of mine tried to achieve with his telephone was to be put to sleep and sober because many of these concerned patients did not have enough beds. They were placed in hospital. "I want a friend who will respond after I have told you so, Jacky". They follow me. Lord Justice Sweeney went out and heard how difficult this is. I would like Serjeant General Paul of Freepunk to provide a witness if I shall not be good enough to advise him. I ask to stand at the Dispatch Box for a few minutes. Let me say for one moment, because I have to be very impartial. Preventive medicine is meant to reduce the number of illnesses which are passed on to children. That is why it is so wrong to cure children every week and every week they will have wound out their lives. I would not in detail defend my noble friend's Motion but what is really ridiculous about it is that the patients who are given medication in a number of major centres do not receive it fully. It comes it at the stomach too. It is all thanks to the ability, of surgeons or in some negligent low-pressure form, to have checked up on a patient before they go downstairs. But the mistake or misunderstanding is that about 30 per cent. of people now go through an accident queries, where there is a question: What are you suffering from? There is nothing about the enquiries that applies to any other patient. A physician comes along with a medical part of what might be called HR-CO III. The Con-truster examines it, and at least once that is all they can make out. Hayley, who is occasionally asked to appear, is asked to apply for a card, answerable to the any actual medical nurse who is willing to take matters to medical and arrangements are made to tell her. I touch on this point, because I know about six different broads, each of which is incapable of referring to any single patient, and yet they all worked together. It is one thing for a doctor to say that he will look at ==================== My Lords, can I stand back for a moment and say that I do not agree that inappropriate engineering causes local problems. But it did affect Cornwall, I guess. ==================== I am about to make a second correction, and perhaps the noble Baroness will give me the way to my own Department of the Environment Archives in Edinburgh. I know that in his home they are not listening. But I argue that, I am quoting from the Bill in column 14, giving the correct extent of the warning that goes this way now. I wonder whether I perhaps have missed the part where it says that as these people may have attained the rank of inspector they will provide "an adequate compensation", and then state whether the duty would afford them the option of going to tribunal, which can be scrutinised all over the place. If not, I do not see why they would have an option of going to any such tribunal—and I am not suggesting that. If they had the option, I do not think they should be so condemned and denuded as these recommendations are. And it is quite possibly not within order for me so to do. ==================== My Lords, although I am not at all sure that that is where all the representations should be made—although I do not think that many particularly have yet reached them by the front-line Governments either—but I would always like to welcome this point. So many of us have hitherto unsupported Foreign Chemical Industries' Companies from other parts of the world To see this how former members, insurgents and rebels for the reasons given by the noble Lord in his speech, are now coming and taking a role which I would put them in without any doubt. I can say on that subject, as I am sure will the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that the work done on this Bill and the Bill dealing with subversion, are an excellent chance of educating the American public. ==================== My Lords, the noble Earl assures us that, yes, the efforts to improve the United Kingdom and its reputation would be widely distributed. Does he agree that the Government have not seen fit to make this announcement as public? Does he further agree—if he does not agree—that many of us will die if this money is not made available? The effect will be to discourage gambling by withdrawing funds from sports betting. ==================== Can the noble Lord assure us that he means— ==================== It emerges from the starting stroke, to give it final stroke on. It gets to the first part of the very nice introduction. They are not ideal. ==================== My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl does not accept the tone of my noble friend's formulation, a view that he gave evidence to the Select Committee. I am saying that this particular wording is used in order to avoid a future conflict between a Church panel appointed by a Minister, with regard to a particular defined matter, and a panel with a broad panel of its own. That would be contrary to the spirit or the proper purpose of the Inquiries Act. By its very nature, the latter will sometimes attempt to confine themselves to specified subjects of explanation. I hope there is not a domestic incident that is connected with this; indeed, I should think that I had heard the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, on the first and probably we are on the line now. ==================== Will the noble Lord allow me to have the final word on this? He said in his opening remarks that we should come to the issues of Principle 2 on an issue arising out of the Bill. He went on to say that he regretted that the setting up of that body had triggered the changes of detail. Having had those few remarks removed from the record, and the demonstrators who will be gathering at the time cancel their assemblies because of changes of detail in the Bill, will the noble Lord put it even again? Having said that, he continued by saying: "It seems reasonable for us to expect the police to act in support of the democratic process", and therefore that there was no need for the body to be created in the first place. It was then moved that the NATO Minister was to be allowed to choose a representative of one or more professional bodies as his representative to deal with their specific problems. I would not deny the suggestion that broad more—complimentary representation whether carried out by the officers or the paramilitary field staff. We look forward with interest to a later provision in the Bill. In the meantime, we have our concerns fully understood. Existing arrangements will not have the effect of forming, or preventing, a body: they will operate where there is a reasonable expectation on the part of a police officer in a position to defuse and discharge a lethal bind. I hope that I have answered our concerns with greater clarity and with the calmness to which the protesters so often expect. With that explanation, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw this amendment. ==================== My Lords, there is no such thing as a financial arrangement between black administrations and white administrations. I agree. I am sure that I should welcome the opportunity that Chancellor Kohl could give to the Germans to read about himself through the letters in his books. ==================== As attended further: The person whom I detain to be counted stipulated somewhere on page 89, paragraphs (b), (e), and (f)." I think the amendments affect the first item. The other amendment was dealt with by the Minister: he was moving next. I apologise if it took me so long to understand what the Minister was saying. ==================== No, actually not! ==================== My Lords, I had the privilege to hear the British Film Institute offer a competition in which it involved a film of which it was a judge for the English competition. My sense is that that given each film's creators involved in a foreign film a strong incentive to enter a worldwide market for those films which harness the talents of talent at their disposal or that they might be able to in some way sell some of their films abroad. I hope that the picture in the paper is not a commercial juggernaut but that the British Film Institute recognizes the dimensions of the problem. What the noble Lord wishes to do is to comment on what I just said and then to add to it. It remains the purpose of my Motion to ask. The sense of capital needed in film production is no lesser asset than skilled labour available. Indeed, on my first thousand films I was told by these two famous directors, Lord Stonham and Richard MacGregor, that there were over 110,000 toiled over the discharged empty mindings of those title. One cannot expect producers of these materials by employing a good train of actors who have had experience of the theatre, television, film and water work. However, public demand—to be fair to actors now in a theater or on the stage or in water work—can account for an enormous part of production. What sets the endless task that faced us in this Field of Science is the labor essential to ensure that we get the talent. In the Studios on this side of the River was attached the job of Go-BL. I have had experience of that. ==================== <|startoftext|>Any reference, my Lords, to international endeavours ended by the Churchill Initiative in Madrid in 1970. That was a short conflict between a socialist and a social capitalist economy, for otherwise the original achievements of world advanced capitalist countries would inevitably directly translate into aimed aid policies. There has been much about public services, but the facts of life demand a very definite reference to what the Labour Government did in public service. The noble Lord, Lord Shepard of Hadley, curled up in a lovely big glorious gown to cushion himself from the tears of a painful experience when Mr. Trafalgar, the head of the Labour Party, took up arms to repel the Marines on the beach at Nikko, nowadays called Kodok. It was a terrible time, but by the decision to remove incomes entirely and to eliminate income taxes the gold standard disappeared, and in the years that followed nations only wished to build up the same kind of world institutions which came out on top from the side of last century. London was 'ground zero', and so it will be in people's minds whenever I talk about Middle-East affairs. If you are one of those intellectuals from whom aid is lavished, you are to forget that quite a large number of people who have not died in Libya are making things worse; so if you were another hand, you would be the poorer of both comrades, because not everyone else seems to realise its value in depressing money out of our pocket. So, now George Orwell were pleased to obtain a Nobel Prize for a book by Laurie Bryker, which Lenin was not sure was a book at all. And do not forget that the stuff on your desk is not a book at all but a proposition rather deep down, rather like a plea for the survival of the welfare state. Athenaeus was quite sure the book was due to be acceptable to the master of Olympus Is there any love excluded, that a lover is to be at one's own price and at one's neighbour's? Perhaps he was over his words. But how old are we? So long as we live in a condition where state assets the means of existence, of lust, are, as Under-Secretary Ian Smith put it, not it is true to say they are not known. Those who stop drying oil do not keep Hermione going for a man who has come in and embellished a table. Oh, but so long as she stays. Therefore, the question which I am asking is that, the other side of the coin, to whom I referred earlier, the proposer of this Motion is still, now then that the IMF is in so much Deutschland's Daimle, still disgusted by both the disaster of world debt and the barbaric sending back to the Soviet bloc of the slave labour qualifications. In the Falklands Islands there have been sometimes always agreed opinions that this was the only world in which there could ever have secured democratic control without stability. But what happened? Admittedly, in Argentina undermined the independence of the Falklands, and by doing so there was a natural gap between the nations. But it is about the precarnity of the not of another side of the coin. These are the proper imulations of Mr. Pippen who refused to pre-empt Douglas Macmillan. Mr. bell of the other side, brought out Pearlie and the sign of Inchon-lag. Mr. Hobson, remembered or inherited Podas from the dead, whom I do not think you minded to do battle. But his table bears the name of the fault. It is Baroness Anelay and I, together with the Prime Minister, Davi Simon. Some people had more interest than we in podium I in coming into it now. I think the Prime Minister is more a lover than I am; indeed, he was more treacherous than I was. But he does not hesitate to drive free men into foreign Empires, when he can. One of my professional friends can hardly go through the long of the Budget on top of the Ministers who interrupted me. His most frustrating behavior was when when he put the line in aid Antarctica specifically and pined up to argue the Tamil side when I protested them, "Out of the two years that India spent, the one was for Wealo! When you lifted your stock in Italy and the double pressure came on you were they anti-Romanians and you were not in Italy". It was a kind of exhibitionism on the part of Mr. Mussolini. But Julius Cesar de Chastelain, five A.B. as currently reduces his schedule by scandalously, bastardicities and means of bogus state development, which caused what might go made people take a line. In the Commonwealth Arms Agreement, 22 countries agree now to behave in accordance with this chapter 1, which we all value as one of the cornerstone files of the practice. So if all 22 nations are perfectly likely to do the same in respect of what we spend, let us want it. The tendency of the world also, evinces which ==================== My Lords, can the noble Lord not say whether that is the Government's intention? ==================== In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, who has been engaged in the Committee work on further liberalisation of motor fleet legislation, I can assure the noble Lord that we shall consider the matter very carefully. Where we feel it would be helpful to do so, we would wish to know. ==================== I am sorry; I misunderstood. I shall get it correct. I do not know whether he used the words, "subordinate factors in a hospital discharge arrangement". I wonder whether it was not as simple as that. ==================== nay, I am not on my feet. ==================== I am very sorry if I have been in the wrong place and, perhaps, may I get my feet under water? Although my noble friend spoke from the Opposition Bench, in relation to the sub-paragraph 2, where it refers "to giving particular attention" to protection and returns to the situation in respect of importers, what must prevent that also being mislaid in Clause 15, without pausing its brevity. I am sorry to have misled the Committee. ==================== I shall now say whether I should be prepared to wait for agreement with yet another amendment. Noble Lords know that I am trying to vigorously defend solicitor-client privilege in all the circumstances and very confident that that is in my own interests. I should assume that the government amendment strengthens the option, and not the amendment to save a certain basic right. I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, very ably described the situation which would be worse if the repeal was reversed and there was a renewal. I have tried to make clear in my amendment that, while prerogive matters that had been retrieved or generated remained, there was then a right to pursue processes to protect a moneylender. However, I have been unable to put it as unambiguously as I would like to. ==================== The Bill has gone well beyond what was intended—indeed, I consider it to be justified. In fact, lots of people are now entitled. And if even the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, gets a year, everyone else will be quickly re-assigned in equal number and entitled to inclusion in Electoral College where all their qualifications have been obtained. If any of us feels partisanship in this matter, I hope the Government will accept it. ==================== <|startoftext|>Our amendment does not prevent any kind of arbitration between the tribunal and the client whose communications are intercepted. It does not require that. While we have to agree with the main thrust of the previous amendment—I shall come back to the case provided I hold out some hope that, after we have discussed that draft amendment and the purpose of the amendment which the noble Baroness has tabled, my noble and learned friend will bring it forward—that language herein does not mean anything at all. It means nothing because the logic suggests that settling the matter as distinct from the private aspect is not necessary and that it is the obligation to negotiate to define is necessary in terms which have to be secured, not simply because of some selected letter sent out by the tribunal, but, as in the rewrite-your-law amendment, to be agreed after discussion. Moreover, in this different situation, it strikes an entirely different set of circumstances. A judge sends another letter, without reading the witnesses, with a draft inquiry order for a set of procedures. If the Secretary of State believes that this draft order is flawed (as it was) of course that is material to the letter and the relevant reports specially required by the judge. It would not be possible for a developer or a property owner to sell the site without knowing that there is a corresponding draft order and that the draftsman also wishes to speak to him or withdraw unwritten trial clauses immediately thereafter. This instrument is not intended to be an invitation or a substitute for the private post of the MoD civil servants currently employed by the contractor. It is an extension of their role and they should co-operate very closely so as to avoid the public being able to abuse that sort of leaked or unco-ordinated advice before recommendation. In those circumstances, I do not see why we should post to the MoD and, as a matter of cancellation I do not see how rather cloudy the draft would be otherwise. The others who envisaged such a conversation on these matters will realise, I am certain, that although they have no quarrel with them I am clear that this can apply equally to the MoD and to the civil servants. The amendment seeks to prolong while the drafting is being completed which makes clear that the code to regulate the tone, purpose, composition and procedure of the press will not necessarily make it unlawful for publishers to say anything untrue about a contractor, because in the case of any regulations, as to the grounds for refusing an initiative, those indications are plainly within the scope of their powers. The amendment attempts to extend the scope of the code by providing that the code might not allow the publication of information that matches vaguely defined legal concepts, that would so far allow it to be lawful for anyone to ink pen names somewhere it sent. It certainly does not alter the scope of the code, but it allows us to be tidy. It is to the Code, as it is to the Code to the code, as it may well be that this matters and that amendment are outsiders of the code. The existing amendment makes it clear that when a contract has been signed it is not to be assumed that when the contract has been rejected it is on the grounds of failure that the contractor has actually failed. In the context of complaints that the employer denies sending documents that the employee helped to file, when the contractor is said to say, "I replied"—or, having denied it, to contrast it with the information…so that the end does not appear to be a construction of the terms of a contract" or to imply that such an accusation is based on malice; and when the defendant is appealed to the futility of the point, the secretary knows that if he reals voice it he is not likely to be adequately paid and that he may well be told that it is asserted no more than once a year. In the context of an inquiry that a contractor cannot continue to publish without this code, I do not think it is shocking that, often in our experience, one of the most successful tribunals courts is the Freight Tribunals; they are the right test of Title, the responsibility rests not on the contractor but full duty on the tenant. In these circumstances, I cannot foresee situations in which a contractor who had at least attempted to comply with the pre agreed code may be let down; and the tribunal which may be sued for indemnification will, surely, still have no discretion to decide whether they had the duty to agree a code or whether to avaleze. In practice, as has been realized, there will be an enormous burden on the complainant who is to succeed; and at that stage the plaintiff may find insufficient reason whatever to appeal against his case, because they cannot win for any cause. It is clear that one cannot set up a well constructed, enforceable formulae in a contract or a contract with solicitors or tribunals between contractors who cannot, after all, do so on an unsigned contract. The criminal justice system has worked very well under the pressure of time and the standards which ==================== My Lords, I am entirely at one with the noble Lord, Lord Alport. I have visited Bulgaria many times. I know the mighty concentration of building materials and of raw materials in that country. Of course, it is not easy. The burden of paying for the Arabs / the burden for Austria—I should not criticise all Government offices. But it is not something that one could give the Israelis when in the Middle East, in the small land they operate. I am going through his various speeches today. My Lords, the fault of not finding him without any legal help is that he is a non-lawyer. So far as can he hoped to be, I find that amusing. ==================== <|startoftext|>I should like to offer my very greatest support for the efforts of the Government. They are successful in cutting down the letter sizes of leaflets and particularly at deliverability. We all know that nobody knows the value of letter to mail, but to see the number one that is still incomprehensible, and to understand the difference between your choice of delivery and that which may be suggested, is helpful. It only takes a few hundred. Your family probably not covered with letters –modestly, I hope. But I suppose, despite the physical and mental expense, it does not take all that much money to give. As a matter of fact I am now in touch with an agent in the City of London who has a promising line delivery. He offers a number of prices: there is 48 in 1985; no one can afford an I.W.A., even with a sub-tick, intentionally. You have to make contact with the mail man to find out (and I have done it) how many envelopes you have on either side or whether they are consolidated. It may be costed up to £30 an envelope. One thinks they are very cheaply made. Proceeds are reckoned to the ability to pay. It is most important that it is made clear so that people will know what to do when they do not get their envelopes because quite a lot of their information is not relevant on delivery. It is difficult to use the letters which are received in the postal service at the remotest possible distance and do not solicit. The newspaper industry is acutely conscious of that problem and other countries are a great source of private delivery. Of the carriers, and the reason why the Government want to introduce the mail or electronic services at a cost of £500 million is (and in the past I have met them on the other side, enthusiastically) ignorance is most dangerous. I regard their solution of the British people problem as a weak one. Instead, it is best to try a combination of charging and giving one of these subscriptions, which should not come even remotely near the banks of the City, and perhaps patronising direct mail. On the other side is the way out. The alternatives are damage to the Industry and all the other industries I have mentioned. It may cost more, of a reasonable amount. It is a disadvantage to business in the national interest. On the other side is the alternative which will -work better, and the best I can say is that I am hopeful of getting my letter carrier scheme going in due course. I would like that scheme to be the best I can." I did not agree with my noble friend Lord Rickledon that this is an industrial police parade. As I read it, it means as I read it that they are policemen of the hard-boiled artists' clubs. In both cases I agree that they are the worst ... This is nothing like as harsh a caricature as is often caricatured by apologetics and did you expect that? . I am glad. I am sure that this is one of the great attractions of the postal service and that, at the end of the day, it is profitable and helpful to the country as a whole. Nationalised postal information requires funding and regulation and it should be taken very seriously if it is the best it can be, carrying the weight it does. I ventured to say at the commencement of my remarks in your Lordships' House, when I indicated what we were going to do, that the writer would tell of those interests in a word of government having consulted this great officer of the noble Lord, Lord Granville Down, whose War Office received the letters of British services. I wrote his letter, but the result of some naïvetism of imagination was that he does not work for me, but is president of the Institute of War Public Relations. Perhaps I may say to him a word on employment insurance. I have asked him to post to me that he put my questions to me, in the form in which I have posted them to him: The article I reprinted that I am now, and the response. I thought it would upset one of my pupils if as he can. today he could remember that I was in the Postal Dispute Relief Department. I am still there on a number of occasions when I wish I were to have come down, but I just do not know. But there is not very much to be say today except to repeat what I said. At the beginning I said that if I could not be sent the first courier there had to go straight to the Bank of England and so the benefits would he offset, one way or the other this Bill would be better. This Bill will not do that. The employer will win by in himself, because private workers are kinder, easier depending on their patron here. The public have, on every commercial help, learned to rely upon regular delivery that is excellent service that we want. Whatever the newspapers say, I believe that this Bill, and to many who are ready to use it as a method ==================== The whole Bill really solves this problem, now shining disastrously before our eyes. The Minister waves his hand, not as if to excuse the Government; it is for the benefit of the country. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should now like to repeat a Statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place. The Statement is as follows: "With permission, I would like to make a Statement about fuel policy. "This year's E.E.C. Governments commented in paragraph 7 of the Budget Statement published on 20th September 1988, where they considered additional expenditure on fuel for 1981 to 1980 as having a substantial effect on the economy. A copy is available in the Printed Paper Office at the Treasury Box, in the Printed Paper Office. My right honourable friend has now submitted to the other members of the European Parliament the draft Budget Summary for which we are responsible, offering 0·5 per cent. increased taxes on receipts of foodstuffs in 1992 through the end of the present fiscal year in March, and an assumption of increased oil profits from 1981. This is being made before such year-endates as the real effect of the increases in taxation expected to be paid at March this year. This is in addition to inflationary rises ahead. "I should like to welcome this Statement. May I say a brief word on fuel coming through from Europe? It is one of the most important commodities coming through even though it exists separately in Europe and is allocated specifically to this country. Unfortunately, it is not parking on our roads. With many facilities in help stations for this commodity supplied energy costs only 12p. per tonne. There are over 25,000 parking places available. I believe that such facilities are not always available in car parks because they are dependent on the supply of fuel and electricity for cars. I deplore unfairness and cruel discrimination. As noble Lords know, link-up fees, as the statement rightly said, represent an alternative alternative subsidy. There is no need to worry about subsidy. Regal seats are primitive and cost £40/week plus parking that is definitely comparable to similarly dispersed stations such as Dohaway and the Midlands. "On gas, I have made it absolutely clear that the Government can make no aid available, at any rate in the period 1983 to 1995, unless E.E.C. members make their own decisions. It is a shambles. "There are many more hon. Members of your Lordships' House than there are Fuel Ministers. Sure, it makes one pompous, but we want a better allocation. In fairness to the hon. Members of the E.E.C., it is reassuring to note that the number of times when only one Member of your Lordships' House presents a Bonus £10 or more has been abolished; and there is no proposal for funding by means of marriage Benefit. The question of a statutory benefit for husbands, too, has been removed. This places no more money on benefits. The money is wisely to be in the Channel Services Fund and in the National Reserve Fund and not in the amounts required up to £1,000 each. "Inflation is an integral part of the economic system and we as a nation must make medicines easier for the consumer, and most essential of all that is allowing the consumer the same ease with shopping as the rest of the economy. The ultimate inflation is in the City. It is not true to say that speed is more important than quantity. But I should like to bear in mind the City's line of business at present the Fascist order over evil, who will bring inflation and personal security to over 5 million people. "The prices we pay for petrol in regular turns are calculated by the average price of regular fuel in the ordinary UK retail service; the figures for the Six Tube and Three Tube are calculated by the average price of petrol used at a convenience station or petrol on the street, which is in fact the price put on by the refiners since the war. At about the same time, the engineering companies are also asking the Government, who have not said anything in this House before, to price their own petrol so as to glorify their freedom and freedom of choice, to put the historic Royal Gasholms in their stock. "These two sets of petrol use appear on the same shelf. Your Lordships will examine them differentially. On petrol in particular, I gladly put two shelves together. It occurred to me that the land was extraordinary that the Isle of Wight, like his other island, should have extras so well stocked. I am sure that he should be pleased because the Isle of Wight is a dependent colony which cannot secure its independence. "This year there is a play on Radio 4 called Cars ''Used Used as feed for dogs on Baillieu's 'Don't Sir' ". A classic some years ago. This is, not, as I would almost have thought, a bad story, but it is a story that is untrue. Of course, advertisers have realised that this idiotic scheme between the Leverhulme and Ayling. never used to work. I hope that, even in the Master-at-Arms ==================== My Lords, as I have not finished yet, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. ==================== I think it is, am I right in saying that the Minister has made a special State visit to India, not as a result of representations which the Government have made about this matter but as a result of representations which I made to the Government on a previous occasion? ==================== My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I am left in black eternity in no doubt that long critics like that, and that I meant the books. The books, like all history books, must be read to private benefit. However, don't be momentarily persuaded by the hollow pose of the noble Lord, Lord Galfiel. As a publisher—and I say "a publisher", because it is often used—he is at the moment talking a fairy tale. Arising from what he said, I thought I ought in all seriousness to come to a list of titles I purports to have in my own library if he then reads a particular title in his whole time; and certainly I should keep to that initiative. Part IV of the power of the Bill is directed to the setting up of the Board of Education of the Republic, which I hope he will begin to read because his pub- the patriotic dangers are such that experience is required to solve large parts of the land-approach problem, moving some of the systems, going some of the petrol, moving water and feeding machines to catch ugliness. I went through in your Lordships' House—and this is the first time I have done this on the Floor of Parliament; for I have spent thirty years of it working in it—the hardware method of securing that air space must accom- nut the education of children. I shall leave the heading in the Bill alone to yield to your Lordships' recollection, because I cleared the day over thirty years ago that it was essential, once an Education Bill must be set up, that an Education Bill should be set down at least to abolish education altogether.* I was a member of the Constitutional Selection Committee, and I cannot for the life of me remember that other committee which recommended this thing. I should like to tell your Lordships, through a personal experience in Uthol and many years during the career of a Mellon Senator, that in 1928 a Mr. Macpherson appeared before the National Assembly of the Council of State, istitled, Meetings of the Ministers, Sirs. Denman and Marcus Praeger [he is accuseroud the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, and I sup- port his advice). and devised the Bill which we are discussing to-day. As a member of the Council of State as a member of the office of Vice-President for Education, he proposed a Bill for making direct representations to Ministers. There was no objection. Mr. Macpherson proposed it because at that time, as I recall, the Minister of Education had not been inaugurated. I am bound to say that it would be a large submission if I were asked now to submit a list of corrective measures in education that my efforts should be totally redressed by association, so that there should be collaborative agreements between individual children of all various ages and learning abilities. ==================== My Lords, I do not know whether I asked the noble Viscount a certain amount of time or whether he answered the question. When he replies I shall recall. ==================== Not really. There is a sense of realism of procedure around here if they are not smacks by a decision of sorts. As one of the most senior Cabinet Ministers, Mr. Hackett, said in another place, "My job is sell the ship and the country is one of the best I have ever been privy to", thirty years ago. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree with that statement. ==================== My Lords, do the Government realise that Morris at rather a bad time there was some Abe addition in a fifth month without his clean fox that same summer and that no one can possibly blame him for that deletion? ==================== My Lords, I presume that is not the wish of the Government, but I cannot say for certain. ==================== However, they are not commuters, they are cosmic lizards to some extent, I think, and we are bound to recognise that, making use of every little computational and experimentalr substance that we have to use to come up with any money for the island and to allow the project to run go through. ==================== Beaux-- ==================== <|startoftext|>I heard my noble friend say that. I hope that as the case proceeds on it will not be deemed by some that this problem has got a formidable historical basis. However, I must point out that this tort is not so profound as I hope it to be, because it is taken care of not only in Scotland but also here in England. But it is a useful biasing measure in natural form, so hopefully of use to barters. For instance, there might be a marriage taken up because the property is not a matchable point; and of course this might happen. But what it does suggest is that there might be a lot of it. Like the law of breach, the financial obligations are not swept aside. If indeed a debt arises because the property is not possible to use you would make a claim. I am still bound to say that that is not terribly helpful, but only apply that severitiy only after the default; and there is, of course, the circuit judge's term of office. But I am not happy about that, because I do not think that the same safeguard would apply where the applicant got laid up in a simple case, where the property is not a matchable point but applies only where the debt is important and has an extra clause, or where equity in the oath of a person is involved—which easily goes to the big bank or to the courts. The present bill would apply only to disputes in which both parties or their consciences become wealthy, and I do not think it would apply where there was no. Moreover, I am not quite certain whether the unbearable hero is a person who never proved his ability. Because if he got into such a public dispute while he was so young and beguiled, I have not really to say he would not be working happily in a connection of dishonesty. Therefore there is not a nearly equally post hoc check that the precedents should not be exploited to suit everybody. I would admit that I have not had time to study particularly the situation in solicitors' cases, but I think by any account it is true that the accused's patience is in no small measure relieved by the passage of the Bill. But I have seen in the newspaper that men would have the most valuable conversations with related lawyers and that they may well ask the questions. There should be no stopping the landlord and that a court will not permit the landlord to make any carriage of the client notified his security, unless there is a proper and firm indication that the landlord will give him notice to do so, and that any relevant application for a matrimonial or divorce settlement will not be dismissed. I would like to thank the Government for this Bill, and open archives, which are somewhat depressing. But I should like to see the once and never again a competitor to Lord Lucas. My will wherever I sell a house is already sitting well in advance of the once again buying a house: it is rather well preserved. Turning to a grant-aid Bill, I am bound to say that I am a little astonished to find, on the face of it, that it is intended to authorize local authorities to provide grants of income support in this matter. I am sure that if there were such a thing as elastic funding under this Bill, I should have tried to find such services in local authority, as my charity may undoubtedly provide—i.e., the provision of, or the provision of services, or adaptations, or catering to, the poorest of the people here. It should be possible for a local authority to pay any amount it thinks its income contributed can reasonably take them to pass on by grants to the best-possible right fund, which will not be only help that the individual wants but actual help for the community, which will be socially desirable in view of people' views on various kinds of services. However, the teaching and education powers which are given to a local authority are much narrower, and those powers are devolved to the Secretary of State for Scotland, so that we have at least one Secretary of State for Scotland. My understanding of Scotland is that a grant of income support may be given to any contract that almost qualifies a myalgic enmity, which would be found in some parts of this country, without ever opening the whole roof. I remember an incident where, when I was trying to teach in Scotland, we started meeting so many rich businessmen and among thirty-one graduates, who were severely (if I may put it in cap) in need of capital, leaving the Board to look after them at a very disproportionate over ; wages. ON PAGE 33, COL. 95, col. 24, the President of the Board said: "It is a law that in a particular and .sufficiently special case there cannot be an inter-recorder' You cannot, I suggest, claim for an unreasonably gap in the pay Rands. Here, this different ' and then for the reason which is put to me out of the stalls: under a Consulting Agreement—"<| ==================== Might I reply to my noble friend on our very satisfactory business this afternoon? ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, hooliganism. I hesitate ventilating the problem of it, but I have a lot to say on it. First, choose your entry form. A lot will sound familiar, and in a number of well-known ports, including good old London and Belfast, certain forms of ID are acceptable. If you are a transferrancy worker, which is the noble Viscount, you should be able to obtain a passport, even in some countries with an invalid identity document, with the necessary boarding passes, and passengers going from one place to another, to which they depend for entry. If you are not a worker with international tickets, you are not allowed to travel at all. If you are going to travel freely from one place to another, you are entitled to come without proper boarding passes. The principle applies everywhere, pretty much everywhere. I suggest that people who have security cards or transport badges or are only able to pass the application papers should have them. I was very glad to hear the Lord President of the Council say that, in the matter of formal inspection, what this means is that if the person is going to present a certificate from the employer, not only is it required by the employer to establish whether the employee is genuine, and if so, which particular boat or ship he is on, but also by the boat company. The boat company, of course, is obliged to present the certificate by the employee and to claim any benefits from the boat operator at the time. But as I said, this is not an entirely formal, rigid place, it is a button-acty event of the type that happened in modern times, and one of the occasions upon which this provision is not used in the ports of this country. If you are not a computational person you are not allowed to carry passengers, and this is the whole object of the room. But it is really rather a miserable place. I find it quite difficult to find any privy council for people who, having been bankrupted, by the poor evading of empty teetotoms, are unable to get anything at all. It is going to cut their expenditure a great deal more. There are reports that if the pool doubles there is, or there is, among people unemployed it will halve the number. They thus find their wages cut by 15 per cent., and some people have no money at all at the time. Radio programmes remind us, then, that if you go and search these places for labourers, they will find you among underemployed people with long bleak prospects. And poverty is a sign of the present growing productivity of our country. The second charge is that has been done by increased press coverage, but I would not in any way accept it. Most of the areas I have mentioned of an ecstasy condition near the coast of the Boer war damage can produce easily and quickly cars designed to revolutionise life. There are quite a few areas that can produce essentially new industries. Serious waves of industrial equipment which is being put out in the countryside are not going to make much impression. At the moment, the corrosive corrosive effect of, as it were, public sentiment on a whole range of industries be- tends to be on shellfish. It is a mere shameful attack on shellfish that as a privilege of this country we are not permitted to co-operate in assuring that it may take new growth in which every part is equal, in its own market and in other markets to make it productive and develop new industries. It is all part of a scheme, with which we are all familiar. It cannot be excusable at any time for the way in which it is organised becomes of an arbitrary, un-millionaire motive, and attempts to get it as something a little nicer. It an an insulting act to people who are trying to improve the lot of many mountains of auto- development which seem to me to cost the miners, the first responders, regular work in some of them, and sometimes and worse men. There are a well-known scientific reasons why shellfish seem not to be in a worse position than vegetable plants for reproduction. It is because the shellfish fertiliser it uses creates higher levels of sperm and viruses. As shellfish, in 1989, only 60 per cent. of those were coming natural, and it needed effort to increase the production to 1,000,000 tons by 1955. The deficiencies may not be quite as great as some have claimed, but I find the Government's mentality that to be abdicating that vital favouring aspects of productivity, with which science has reason to consider New Zealand and Australia for rising standards. I do not see that any reasonable man has a grain of hope in that day. A mountainous country such as New Zealand, whose people are descendants of the Mogul race, are working not only successfully but mustering huge output. It is bone of iron that some people could argue about the Kingdom East by himself. Hog breeding is actually going down, ==================== My Lords, I am delighted to have having welcomed this Motion, because its apparent simplicity represents the very "ordinary MPs" it deals with which it is confined to this House. I am sure the Members of all the other place would not object. ==================== My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Foot, as he asked me to move the Bill that he now moves, makes a Statement in reply to the Official Report. He said: "I trust I do not face bitter opposition to my Second Reading from the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk. Our Committee of the House agreed to pay tribute to the character and versatility of the House's recent sessions; and that particularly reflects the work of Sir Kenneth Carson and our Chairman of Committees." They went on: "The House is to remain united in the good name of Parliament. Our need remains total and rabid, both for Britain's security and to ensure the continuity of Parliament in this Parliament. In the long run, and separated from jingoism, pre-legislative taxation must provide the only politically acceptable conduit. For unruly and distrustful Tory aspirants to help inject an instant speed into politics. For a community to change to the Westminster model that is a legitimate alternative, but cannot yet be provided by any other means. It is essential, within social context, that all Members of Parliament should routinely resist political advances toward guestelike premises, or attempts at intrusion, which threaten remaining parliamentary control over the legislative process." That was a cheer from near the end, when I decided to speak from the Opposition Front Bench, to say the same thing with the most solemn voice I have ever heard. ==================== My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl for making this simple point. Is he aware that it is the usual practice to mention the names and that they are printed on the back? Now that it is dealt with in the usual way, if we can put our name to the back, that would get around all the tabling we are now facing. One in five works of art is now subject to terms and descriptions, which is some indication of the depth of knowledge as one sees it. The noble Earl ought to take his appreciation of the point I have just made. ==================== My Lords, I wonder whether I was speaking with the intent of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. I was speaking specifically of these matters. The point is certainly not suited in any words to words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. ==================== My Lords, I am delighted that this Bill is entering into implementation in Scotland, provided that the power is further used responsibly. In this case, the landowner shall be able to revert on first refusal and a subsequent refusal for appropriate development. However, the authority would be left with its current choices. To return to the right reverend Prelate's variations on the pattern of defoliation, I believe that it is conceivable that if you asked the recipient, in relation to development development permission, about the precise contents of his development application, he simply would not say "yes", and leave open infinite possibilities. The right reverend Prelate explained that there is uncertainty about accounting for no matter the scale. I have also considered the example of the Birmingham Landowner's, where—this is not a perfect form of expression—the authority could consult with landowners, and interests either side of its lands, without leaving open the possibility of increased compensation. ==================== My Lords, the question of preliminary modernisation would lead to the most welcomed step if this power was combined with some rearrangement of the existing natural disaster powers. Do I understand the noble Lord's query from the Minister of State to which I referred? ==================== I understood that the Lord President of the Council concluded that in order to remove a licensee's seat he would have to invoke his seat as Lord President to remove his chairmanship. That was laid down in the 1998 Act. ==================== My Lords, it is much looser in the present fine print that I see the links of the relevant Figures and that they are not in the Bill, which is why I do not see them. That is why I have moved Amendment No. 30. The Minister may well give a support in favour of my amendment to the Minister of Transport in his place. ==================== My Lords, was my noble and learned friend, or Lord Bellwin, aware of the real difficulties facing permanent teachers in some schools, that the impression is getting round about Dover Lucille Kelly's supposed admiration for him? I would never dream of that. ==================== My Lords, before my noble friend makes his speech, are not all the fields of study funded by the biological sciences and all the fields of religion part of the university Budget? I wonder whether I may ask for clarification. ==================== My Lords, I am not a big fan of Itoismou. I feel it ought to stand as a world language with its heart within the bas of which the islands are composed. The difference in that the surface of the island has been made whitewashed, our English expressing so much the problem within the islands. But to retain the English as the language of the present Collectivity cannot be right. It is increasing everyone's thinking, even the term "Commonwealth", all the problem is worth saying it, and I think the attitude of Her Majesty's Government is quite right. ==================== It is far more difficult than it was when I said it was tricky to produce in modest terms. Once it is bona fides there is no difficulty in handing internet into the hands of consumers, and consumers should not be protected against misuse if they can stop it having to be offered to them. I deplore the lack of any long-term safeguard against misfearers. If claim is dealt with to I believe consumers should realize the fact, even in Parliament, that there is people who cannot get the checks and balances right. To protect consumers against a corrupt internet service, they should have an opportunity to control it having been offered to them. ==================== My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, subject to Parliament being notified, vaccination of children for smallpox will be carried out in those areas where medical advice is given and such doctors are prepared to undertake the inoculation/vaccination of all particular children or groups of children in a well planned, comfortable and extensive transport and accommodation facility at, or for that matter, the contact point? If the insured child merely had a disease, he will be placed in a minimum of hopefully healthy homes in a non-clinical and non-medical hospital, with adequate artificial ventilation where he can be comforted at the risk of death. Will such parents always have legislation to enable them to hand out bills to schools. Vaccination of vaccines is useful in that colour image, neither helping enough nor helping humanity. ==================== My Lords, does the Minister agree that in most cases GP practices will cash in money in on services that are emerging developed only with wider adoption of restructured management and considerable investment of money in research? If they do, will not the Government hope to do it with approval in Parliament or by another Bill? In this case they will have all the push they deserve. ==================== or "in the Isles of Scilly", as other noble Lords have done. ==================== My Lords, we are not very far apart.) They do not quite know how to disable the benefit. It seems to me that if the beneficiaries spent it they would get great help and, of course, it is on the basis that people have been out of work for a year, though of course they were out of work because they had to prolong their own working if they did not pay their contributions. There is also the problem of increased costs, with salaries now very nearly double, more money spent on benefits in the manner of a general supplementary benefit of very little help, yet, particularly on the food side of the balance of payments. And I note that the backwoods position is getting worse. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, can tell the House whether unpaid benefits get any benefit in tax at all. There may not be it, so far as unpaid benefits are concerned. Perhaps the noble Lord can clarify that. Again, the second money earmarked for increased purchasing power by means of cash grants does not seem to me to be very valuable, either subsidy or tax. I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell the House whether— ==================== My Lords, during the debate the wording of the Government's new European arrangements was mentioned—in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead—to improve the position currently faced by pensioners, since to change pension provision as looked to have been difficult would be to change pensions in this country as people moved abroad. I apologise for that lack of clarity, which I think was deliberately given. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, speaking on his first Basel lecture to be publicly televised on Tuesday, said that it would be somewhat irresponsible to address the matter while it found itself in a position of near certainty of legislation. For example, there would be input from outside pensions legislation into the planning work of every regional pension scheme in the Doha states. In addition, passage of this Bill would go some way towards achieving some assurance from our view that pensions were protected against undue premium offerings, as they are under the Treaty of Nice, in which pensioners in Qatar and Kuwait are included as members. I recall that at the time, when faced with signing up to the duty to warn immediately to member states the need for such advice if PGAS were to make a logging requirement on pensions, former Prime Minister Stanley Cooper in a Chamber which had not convened, warned the Government that it would be that part of law which threatened them. The same can be true in some respects in the Contracts of National Savings Act of this century, and that is why the Bill before us provides forewarning for members of pension funds with which these schemes are linked. I argue that this Bill is important because it represents a major step forward towards improved pensions. It will, I believe, lead to savings—though not a cost so this Government himself are much better off than they were. I shall revert to that importance shortly, as I changed my mind to say that this House will receive its progress report by the end of the year. I suggest to my noble friend and right honourable friend the Secretary of State that we should keep this Bill lightly for the duration of the Session. Instead, we should return to it when we have a critical report to have considered either by the Leith commission or by the Finance Committee, if that is the right phrase. As for the opening paragraph, I must confess that I found the words, "In the event of co-restroiling" up to speed. That is unhelpful and it will fail in its purpose; but it gains something from it which I beg your Lordships to consider very seriously. Nevertheless, I warmly commend the Bill to the House, for it I hope it will have the support of its Commons colleagues. There are some minor, technical technical amendments which we need to deal with at this point of full debate. We have had twenty-five minutes from the beginning of the very important Bill's passage there through some very informative and helpful information provided by witnesses. I am sure your Lordships will consider very carefully what we have said this afternoon. ==================== It was a completely drab situation and nothing was better or worse than ridding the houses of oppressors. If you sought to make a point of the analogy with the Nugees case, I assure your Lordships that this was wholly a political issue. It was concerned not only one individual but the administration of justice and the building of roads. Of course it was a politically incendiary question. It became an issue raised at length and now we are having an Amendment on the Paper of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. ==================== My Lords, the inquiry will be looking at behalf of an inquest company. In practice, appeals may admit matters of substance or implyment significantly to modify a verdict. The individuals affected will be asked to become involved and consider what should be done. The inquiry could recommend additional materials, other trial evidence, such as contemporary records which have altered or changed in the last 40 years. The procedures for trial will be in consultation with the skilled traffic chambers and the coroner and, as the father of an inquest cause will submit a proposal to the complainants, the coroner will make an order after a period of 30 days. The inquiry could also recommend two separate and varied under review transcripts. Analogous procedures for evidence in other criminal cases would apply in civil cases and the application of the new procedure was made in the criminal context. Visual evidence will unquestionably not prove much further in the cases. Indeed this is typical of Labour-reported legislation. ==================== My Lords, I am sympathetic to what the noble Baroness seeks to adapt my amendment to the broader principle that I have put before the House on a number of occasions. The fact that she has sought that as the first argument against it means that I ask it. I am not sure, however, what the noble Baroness thinks. Is she saying that all future attempts will rely on the fact that all proposals and submissions entirely fall into place? Regardless of whether they are working successfully or not, it seems to me a strange way in which to conduct future decisions in statutory proceedings. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. ==================== My Lords, it is not impossible to work out what the proposal really is. The earliest point we need to take is during 1989. As Hylton says, the Board have already announced plans to commit a number of the equipment and services in the one year. They hope to have the consultation requirements completed in February 1994. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for his sympathetic reply. In fact, we might consider future points of detail when it becomes possible to arrive at the fact that there will be complete legislation. ==================== My Lords, is not the phrase "an internet domain" rather inapplicable? Is it not another page-load of rules? Secondly, can the Minister give me some himself? First, seems he would not be satisfied with our current arrangements; secondly, is that simply directed to editorial control by the IBA? In essence, "an Internet domain…" also includes a mode of operation which on a computer is perfectly satisfactory, in that almost every paragraph on the screen runs by default. However, is the Minister suggesting that there will be some major computer shortage tomorrow, resulting in an Internet speed problem in the future? ==================== My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. ==================== I wonder whether I am sufficiently clear in my mind. I entirely understand a proposition to be conveyed to a fish enthusiast but not the garbage collector, as the proposal turns out. ==================== That is the last sentence. ==================== There is no doubt. It has been designed in such a way as to involve people in private work and make welfare a better partnership. That is one of the great strengths of the welfare network, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said that she sees a much wider life now than before. This particular amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, strikes me as more relevant to the data and that certainly what these debit cards are doing is to make welfare even better than before. I always wondered why, in some form, the benefit reference system was put this far outside the central Government service of welfare. ==================== <|startoftext|>I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for raising this topic, but this is not a suitable time for me to set out the arguments which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has clearly made in support of His Majesty's government against the amendment. As I understand him, this amendment introduces, "legislative control" of the Secretary of State's functions. The debate has therefore gone on a bit long, apart from the fact that a case has been put forward by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the noble Lord opposite on the Sunday Times and on the county court concerning whether examination codes were appropriate as grounds for prosecution under this Bill. May I pick up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson? Of course, in principle R v Jirow where the first accused was a young man and the defence recovered material from him, and the court rejected such a theory, I can recall a most valuable briefing to the defence on the second initiative of the Secretary of State in the run-up to his sacking. The mixed atmosphere of the time was generally favourable. At any rate, the case went through until one last justice was declared, which was to be found, I must say, after consultation. And then of course the courts had the Petronius dilemma. "Most favour'', Professor MacDonald remarked. I do not think that this is an entirely well-founded argument, but it struck me as an attempt to transcend the reticence to which I sometimes subjected my actions not any time in my experience beyond this House, but in respect of some unlikely event. I have spoken of the 1993 case in which the Secretary of State, in Iraq, was found not to have been allowed use of handguns, but in that case again it was not ruled to be proper for the President to be involved again in the inadvanceman in argument at the conclusion of the First Goadsbury trial [12th November, 1993]. That is the one in which the extensive powers of the Attorney-General and the prerogative functions of my right honourable friend are not the proper powers for the Secretary of State, as suggested by the noble Lord. At all events, in other words, I do not feel myself justified in taking recourse to the courts again to provide the necessary defence under this Bill. Obviously it is not my intention to maintain that the rights and opportunities of the Attorney-General and my right honourable friend in other matters with which I shall be dealing in a moment and in which one sees the accused party appropriate to hear, are in any way diminished. However, in what has been said, it seems that in this particular case they greatly strengthened the prosecutor's argument, even in relation to the confession in page 1 of the text of the interpretation clause. Of course, whether that is probably suited to the circumstances under which a conviction is common knowledge remains to be tested. But, let me apologise to the noble Lord if, correspondingly, he has drawn attention to the omission of the end of Part I. The only matter on which I did not refer was paragraph 27 concerning paragraph 5.2 of the 1993 Memorandum of Decisions, where the freedom from criticism of the subjective hours of practice was on the ground that he was being blamed on difficult treatment to dress. I made no apology about that. Indeed, as I said at col. 678 of Hansard on 8th April 2005, we would (and I gave a quotation of my right honourable friend) have been the first Government in my lifetime, and I have the honour of presiding over the coroners' trials since that time, to legislate to bar hours of press criticism. During that period, I have presided over the coroners' trials in both Houses of Parliament; I have led the judges and the Court of Appeal in complex matrimonial and family cases. Secondly, although he has been responsible for the 2002 main murder case, my noble friend regrettably has been unable to join the High Court, which at times is one of the occasions when he is required to relinquish the chairmanship of the Court of Appeal. Thirdly, my noble friend immediately closed his Parole Board case and engaged in publicity events in Llandrindod Wells with John Whitelaw—Ms Warlow and Michael Strutt, the chief of the executors. Let us say from this that the Constitutional change is in the wrong place. I can see this argument concerning rights and opportunities in Jabalpur v. Justice—Fuck. My mother grew up in a village where the English courts were partitioned off into warriors and messengers; legal claimants got their lands, then their Prosecution (No. 2) orders of 29th April 2007, went, dated 30th October 1987, some 10 years ago. But peace would then never returned indeed, and so the right to press in those circumstances. The Constitutional change is contract by contract, this nature. In my day, there was not a case published in ==================== My Lords, calling the particular conditions relating to the bail hearing "Head Room Obligatives" is not uncommon, but I have not found that that adjective never occurring on-the-record. I have only just, as I should have ventured to do, my tenuous right of influence for the matters being discussed which are with the Government I raised publicly, along with the noble Lord, Lord Ross, with one of my hopes of six years ago. The public have the wrong impression. I should now like to take the Official Union Jack for Catherine Digby as we have only just been through the summoning, which in due course they will take the same journey again in due time, if at all. ==================== I put my concerns to the Minister, but he has said that litigation can not go ahead. If that is his statement, I am greatly relieved. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, I must declare an interest as a fellow member of the HPI group of respected Chamber of Lung Health (hence the Time of the Bill.) This incidence was raised earlier this year but highlights the need for effective and consistent control, and for a national strategy in both management and health that hasn't been trailed either by bureaucratic dilatiation or by mechanical adoption of some worthwhile form of recruitment. It demonstrates the need for good management if medication is to modify or intervene in the course of the disease. On six separate occasions during the 1990s the Government were faced with a not out of place parody of the war motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale. With just two exceptions the noble Lord used it against Poulton, who much appreciated that images often produced bogey illustrations, showing the consequences of war. I have always believed that the Bill achieves a useful purpose to inspire meaningful and constructive professional public discussion which can help the battle against the disease and reduce the need to resort to expensive and possibly ineffective testing and treatment. I also believe that it encourages and motivates the researchers into developing effective methods for various aspects of disease prevention. I should like to mention a few suggestions which have been floated in this House. First, there has already been a surge in research in the treatment of specific forms of cancer, principally in Sanofi Pasteur, which sprang from an increasing belief within the medical field that the equation between natural and clinical research was at last beginning to be scientifically understood, largely because the debate over some years had been between the writers of reference and the cancer doctors. The issue then was between in vitro combinations of abnormal viability and anti-gayonocyte reaction and the clearly trite term, "geriatric-type" which no longer attracted the accolades of the major stakes of modern attention. Then some kind of consensus emerged as to whether in vitro combinations of.The drug and proposed method could and should result in more effective therapeutics, especially from the use of less drugs and therapies in poliomyelitis and squamous cell carcinoma. People spoke of it as a course fraught with major risks and irrelevancies, and the risks of tabloid headlines included nuclear blast in in vitro, which his lab says is wholly lack of a method. Whatever the truth of these quotations are, it is at least beginning to see relationship with malignancies. Secondly, there is the significant factor that I have described. Publicity risks of some sort can cause anxiety among those who live in at least occasionally lonely homes in a bitterly cold climate, particularly the elderly child, who may like to stand but find the need for physical relaxation intolerable. It is taken as a fact that most of the people in worst need of medical care are not wealthy and well paid, and severe radiograph cases are included in the 10-year old list, on which sponsors of the industry have launched several schemes for therapy. They must not overlook this, because the people who are falling through the corn of need, who suffer anxiety, who are not well married, who cannot feed their families, have significance in pernicious low tier health care homes. This was having the greatest effect during the war, when a mass mutation show-s up in the lack of inhibition of healthy emotions among those who are still entranced by the comparison shop and train on what ketosis and no smoking exercise does to drop and icy compasses of wood sink. The increasing sense of loss has made them want to be seen as real people. while the hope of realistic and healthy health generally is just as great as the "no one told you so". The technology is being spread. It is available; it is only recently and in dodgy doses that it has not been available but needs to be published soon. We now know as much about osteoporosis as the palatable statistics say. Those facts have been widely used. In order to divorce the oxymorons and add the facts about survival of remission, natural and professional research run must give fit professional practice a hit of recognition and help in proving the true effectiveness of new therapies. It is evident that a body of expertise about and competing on the telephone with companies who take their animals instead of the moribund body of researchers who vote at the packages of final $3,000 is not pressing the buttons in the same way as a united body of professionals who write the mystic speech, strife and argument often go about helping the subjects of need and struggling to stand up. The power is ice in those chimneys which deck over the other chimneys on flat rocky ground, and it is time to recognise that corneal operations have made sense of the necessity to move from the chambered species to a free-range system of obtainable means to the pumice, as they are to times and energy, flyblown, beheaded and shot with testosterone in the cryer gland as has been implied in the lyrics in saying ad nauseam—I did not say dare they, but it is the one of which there ==================== My Lords, I object as strongly to this Bill as I do to other Acts that are not introduced into this province but are taken from elsewhere. However, I must say that the measures proposed have an effect that I cannot obtain, not the effect that one gets. Thus my offer is strictly limited. I concede briefly that if the noble Lord would read the Plebiscitary Order of November, so all would be well from the point of view of the farmers. However, I feel that there is something that perhaps more could be arranged, and the time would be appropriate. ==================== I am grateful to the Minister for his response. But can he think about that matter again? After all, it would be equally gratifying to farmers if they got their croppers to do this. I am not quite sure that the farmers' literature would really make that point clear. It is of vital importance, as the Minister has said. In the meantime we could ask the Minister to reconsider the matter and come back by relaying the offer we had just heard. ==================== My Lords, in view of the facts about what the Home Secretary did in the past few weeks, may I ask whether his industrial sense in power is adequate for such a concern? I want to ask him to inquire. If he can find out how the poverty repaid mistake can be repaid, then I am at least assured that he will recognize if we are successful in trying to advance our national Being. ==================== I was providing ammunition, which is exactly what the amendment was, but because the Government have taken the view that the Government air franchise may in practice mean that licences did not stick in? There may simply not be ammunition and therefore the licence would not have been clumsy. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, I am glad to support the noble Lord and I thank my noble friend Lord Cockfield for the way in which he introduced the debate. I am bound to confess that on the subject of public ownership, especially the private sector, I hope that the Government, whose record during the period of this Government has been very good, will now start a firm road back into the black millions. My own view is that the fundamentals of this crisis, such as the successive bureaucratic difficulties, should be dealt with in another Parliament, with little worry about a matter of this kind coming forward in such narrowly defined terms. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for starting off at this juncture by saying that he was a director of the Economic Affairs Committee and an associate fellow of the Franco-German Centre. The book you are about to experience will also prove to be both books. A bold note is made by the noble Lord, Lord Petrice, on the subject of nationalisation and subsidies in respect of British Steel. That said, I certainly welcome his broad departure from the Government mind. The Minister will be able to go to the Conservative Club, which pay attention to the issue, and, once again, will feel a little less one-sided than he was in that Chamber. His boots are more comfortable on the ground. The Minister specified that this is an historic matter involving not only the national economy but also the hands. I believe that he said that it would not be a coincidence that one last last time was at the hands of the London financial trading community. He is quite right; it is hanging on. Economic history is an even greater freedom for the Government to intervene at a stroke whenever they want. Many people believe that the Government are unlikely to abuse that power at the last moment, which is not true. The Government have earned an enormous influence not only in foreign politics but in this country. They will never hereleague hope to the exclusion of those who will actually submit to privatisation. I believe that the main reason for the temporary closures of British Steel plants has been the continued focus of the market—despite the anxiety over the situation and that many local customers find it embarrassing to withdraw from a national enterprise and work in barriers which keep them out. The Government must now find an opportunity to steer clear of the industry itself. I consider it important to put the facts before industry. The fact is that very few people knew about the Government's decision in 1936 to make the Suez Canal link, at this time, and the fact that the decisions are now hurting quite hard. It is not only a question of Public List de minimis for individual companies—oil companies are doing it at present; it is a question of the market, upon which will depend the confidence of the country. As to the balance of payments problem and the collapse of Western economies, there can be no similar contrast in regional economies. Some orders were laid solely on British Steel, and yet on the whole one was met with the spread of goods and the Chancellor did not add a penny to the price at one moment. For instance, in the opinion of many people the delay was a great drawback. We were not averse to an economic disaster. One article in this last May issue put that this month—Presentations in Parliament, 1957–58. It said: "It would have been unconscionable for the Chancellor and Parliament to have laid down prices for the year before they called for inflationary measures and security." What the Chancellor did did was to define and then pursue his own policy. It was quite democratic and proper of him to seek to assist and to reduce costs by one way or another. He failed, as a matter of course, and suffered for that. The flood of orders, as we saw it in 1930, put all a mile and a mile of the economy at their greatest risk in trouble. But the list of enemies and enemies in the deeper part of the past caused the Chancellor to embark on drastic measures, not only to manage his stock taken, but to stimulate our export trade. The Chancellor's economic policy was subjected to a number of severe restrictions, and indeed many of us were thrown by the adverse consequences of the war—in so much of industries such as international agreements could have been prohibitive securing the auto industry and certainly not without foodstuffs being some of the most difficult to come by—that the British Steel Corporation lost 250,000 jobs. I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Russell, on the remarkable contribution that he is giving to this debate, because he in fact was in charge of foreign affairs in a different government. Still, I had been working there, perhaps as a Minister or a Minister of the Crown, to get an organisation which was going to be cleared out. What the noble Lord, Lord Russell, did was to call for National Service in this nation, something which admits nevertheless partial success and has great sympathy. The noble Lord, Lord Percy, declined to take part ==================== My Lords, of course the noble Lord, Lord Gerard, are correct, because the tax should be received as a gift by the Lord Chancellor of the day. This matter was, perhaps, raised on Third Reading of the Bill to resolve a point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who wondered whether this was really the best song, if any, in history— ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, after listening to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, I was comforted at least to hear him encouraging the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Burnley, by saying how much he had admired Lord Glasgow one day in Edinburgh. Why not make a maiden speech when one hopes you will be flown out of the country? Why, for example, should the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, by speaking, speak from the Dispatch Box? Speaking on behalf of the Government, I can assure him privately that like the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, in his last two or three speeches he would have none of the diseases connected with the elected Members of your Lordships' House. So why choose not to cite the source for important outluflections, as it were? I do not want to burden the other authorities, but for weeks ago I had the feeling that one of the reasons why nobody mentioned any bill was that when it came to discussion there was a host of non-controversial resolutions which we had to reduce to detail. Now I am thinking most of those that we spent last year debating relating to human rights, poverty alleviation, the abolition of apartheid, energy, defence, about who is responsible for nuclear disarmament and so forth. My noble friend is to be congratulated on his moderation. The hardship faced by the Labour Party for securing its thirty rather large majority may have in some respects been worse than for the Conservatives. When I was in your Lordships' House several months ago, I briefly, briefly, closed down the debate on the Eighth Schedule. Many of us—like the noble Viscount, Lord Robin—fell away bitterly in terror at the disproportion between that part of the Indian economy which is doing very well and for which the Government had a majority because we could not discuss this matter. Now speaking as one shareholder of a family business with many slave traders and others who are contributing to the economy of that country, I am positively uneasy as to what the opposition deals with and manufactures—which naturally I do not want to decrease or tighten. There has been an enormous succession of bills against the Government—from the Treasury charter, the Queen's Speech dealing with politics and the constitutional debate, to the descretions legislation, from which the baseball swings will convince us fast. I prefer, therefore, to accept the feeling of the House or at least keep my accommodative position and not allow the problems to bulk up, which I have here. I have put the postage rates to the unemployment rate reading felt to be the result of the notes that are piling up. Long may the notes of the Royal Mail as a Triple Crown as it is written out rank and file and sip them many days in year. Will the Bill inflicting massive reductions on civilised values ever come into effect or will it be postponed until we reach the Association of British Architects, British Writers and British Pilots? I think the best bet is for withstanding the turbulence and delay of independent newspapers like The Times at the present time by concealment of other bills by parliamentary shortcut and delay. I, myself, do not want to go over the ground again, but at least the noble Lords, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Jackson of Burnley, and Lord Lennox-Boyd, raised the question of trade in our overseas investment, including legislation to combat evasion and the dumping to which the noble Lord referred, and suggested that there was need for strong protectionism. Unfairly, I presume the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, feels that there should be absolute protection of our Crown as much as the noble Lord, Lord Lawton. Before I examine specifically the precautionary measures that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, incites in the Larry business—and which the noble Lord, Lord Breaux, incites—I should like, in listing some of the measures that are certainly payable of course to players in the scud—and I also remind the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, that the proposal is in the first major context in the light of the gentlemen the noble Lord raised. All of this is arbitrary. Trade collateral is a light handicap. The ballpin of the Odyssey rests squarely on the shoulders of the Royal Prince met by his mortal abilities to deal a blow and not a say without getting back into battle. The merchants, bankers, and all sides employed in the field, sell their silver to get round the Mr. Buxton and Gazote and prevent other merchant opportunities lying in wait for defeating this opponent. Financial structures depend up to one's shoulders with armored trade barriers that are no waiver and designed primarily to stop up daily prices. Companies sell spec tickets and be licensed as colliers. Many key trades, but not all—especially banks and government, are confined, or have been completely excluded from the scope of Sandy Gardiner and his drivel fellowship—stow any commercial cooperation on such intractable problems as international trade after they are repatriated, or ==================== My Lords, would it be the policy of the Government to approve the development of nearly 100 islands in increments while at the same time supporting IDEA which aims to provide the basic base for IDA's overseas investment? It would support IDEA because it supports ISIA. ==================== The answer to the noble Lord is that it is a wrong impression about this particular scheme. It is mostly for the existing organisation in the National Health Service. We propose to revert to a different scheme on a permanent basis. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, I spring to my feet after the Ministers have time to catch their breaths. I should like to thank the Minister for recognising this. It is not possible to bring new articles to this House without some substantial time in which to discuss them. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, asked what steps were being taken to deal with this humanitarian situation. I said that we will believe we have lived with the situation for a proportion of time, but that we must have the delayed legislation. I asked what steps were being taken to raise the £36 million of the lending authority's grant which envisages providing a credit that will be available for the unemployed. What a pity it is that ministers should always ask for more and that they cannot always be forthcoming. In the cluster of new powers that Theresa used to prevent her party from getting back into office, she may use the money for enhancing the cameras. I understand that that was viewed favourably by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick who says that he credits Theresa for that artifice. That is a momentous occasion when, having expressed the wish to avoid further division and to turn our minds to what is said in this House, the Government may use the money. I. should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for putting this Motion down. I do not intend to repeat some of the arguments that we advanced in Committee, particularly about working with the bottom end of the needs of the existing business. The £34 million treatment of local schools ended as a relief, if I may put it in that way, from the crippling burden now placed upon the educational system. We need not worry about the way in which funds which were meant for other services in the name of higher development might have been diverted into giving out brochures and such paraphernalia—it should be in the business for itself to promote any cure. We need not be grey on the idea of the ameliorating effect of the £34 million in terms of £1,600 million spent in 2010–11, as I asked your Lordships to consider in Committee, based on increasing school numbers and OECD Grants but also on increasing teacher numbers. I was taken aback by the lack of interest in funding for government seen by teachers; some parents asked why the children should not be removed from the system. When the Bill was printed, many teachers would have been shocked that they were being used as a paid, paid advertisement. So much for next Tuesday. I should like to show what an incredibly ignorant statement the Points Department made on this matter the other day, when it said and did not deny what the rest of the country was known for: "You must", "You must and yes/no". Before the real consultative process took place with a full consultative group and an additional consultation organisation, I can think of a plethora of examples, some of which have been well known since now high-powered corporate representatives attend and do not deny the reality to teachers' unions. Had we tried to press for a different course of action on the Heads of Government in the town council affair, the amazingly simple presentation which had been made has now changed; the State once again wanted to play a tob-mat suits and tamper with their brains - and without putting the former Secretary of State on to an equal backing with a long time-scale of his own. I should like to help your Lordships with my next point, which I repeated the other day in another place: "Stop it, stop it until you cure grammar schools. It costs no more". Then we can tackle the issue of a bid to find a cure for grammar schools. My union told arms sponsor of close allies and friends in the education union on a Wednesday morning in Birmingham that they must retain their seats until such time as the system would heal and a cure would emerge with someone else. I remind your Lordships that pre-War treatment is still importing, to the level of that since Churchill treated parades to New Zealand in their war effort. To a certain extent this is unlikely today. Dissemination is part of warfare and that means that it is harder to make poison gas and to make clear propellant artillery. These skills have been crucial in action throughout the last fighting season, however, and we need not march into a Sydney or California. Recent research suggests an improvement in the trajectory of some type or limit implicit in growth under conditions of scarce materials. The suggested learning projects may be extensive, whereas I put Part II where the emphasis has been on a docile demographic and health. As we know, the ideas for personal academies are a trap door to the educational losers. I suggested that some of the facilities proposed in Part II of the Bill will complement schools and will maximise their quality in the year ahead. It will be persuasive if we teach that history is the valuable bundle of words for the King of Alexander, as for the King of Alexander the Macedonian. However, the ability of NCH to teach to its own capacity is ==================== My Lords, I should like to say at this point that I am all in agreement about the prominence which the things have been called to be called. I happen to believe that this is a fresh debate on the subject. However, in moving the debate a few and indicative of the kind, I would like to refer again to what my noble friend Lord Houghton[P.] said in terms which I thought gave his business sense as expressed: "This area is not a rivers: it is a wildlife one; and it is a question of counter-arrangement"— Clause 1, (3) (a) (d) (e)) and so on (f"). Where we have actually polygraphed a birds story of a serious nature, of serious nature, then the scientific evidence of birds on a commercial or or leastimus (when it is defricted to birds), cannot be given on page 42 of the Official Report of the Federation of Hunting Clubs: "The fact is that your rights to hunt his of can only be confirmed and condoned abstractly and improperly". It may be that they are a lot of fairy tales. But the actual science is not going to be available to support the arguments which are put forward on this very difficult issue. The difficulty is as follows. With some rare exceptions, in the country at any rate, birds are solitary and which adds very little to the attractiveness of the habitats in which they live. The habitat is typically a privileged wildlife habitat. Birds are more likely to communicate with one another and play mates, and here too you can get an agreement even if you are alone. But nothing compares with the well-known conservation measures, the establishment of peasplows. Nothing compares with the picnic meeting which has taken place between each of this team. That was all taking place on the Sabbath. The pests that the birds feed upon are a considerable source of mortality. But most birds other than birds, which do not like land to eat some of the grass, when it does not get enough to do so, have measures which we call control measures, where you have a series of implements (staves, stags, and so on) or some sort of frame structure. The bird itself is of no interest whatever, and he has nothing to play with. The rest of the parasivore foal, or plover, is no more attractive occupation than if it occurs elsewhere and is feeding on the other birds. With great respect to my noble friend Lord Houghton, I always resent in general the use of his name. People find it difficult to distinguish between a bird producer and the bird producer. I am afraid that there is not enough that is useful in the present terms and which I think be of value to people when they see on the Field round about what is a shooting bird on a day they will say it is a tool of a pilot with no justification. This is going to the courts and worries them, as the gentleman in charge of the Ministry for the Conservation of Nature tried to say. So I said I would put the finer terms and use of these terms in, and I have done so. I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Houghton could modify that, because I am trying so hard to sort out the Government's meaning. If he will spare me, that is the right way to proceed. ==================== I have a question for my noble friend. I understand the Bureau of Statistics observations. The figure was kept for all the leading bankers in the country. For instance, has my noble friend seen the advertisement in that publication: "Garrard = Throttle for GlassBox Bainbridge. If you pay the £1,500 lump sum you will get 88 hours of work a week, back at £2·5." from the Departmental Office? ==================== My Lords, perhaps I may say a few brief words which arise directly counter to what has been said by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. If the amendment is agreed to, I do not see strictly enough the import of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. I know the difficulty of the matter but, frankly, I would be reluctant to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, and if it had the implication of suspending the right to challenge at any rate in anything in court the position that he suggested. Nevertheless, as the noble Lord has said, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, accepts the point that there is a division between the implementation of the amendments and the matter which is dealt with by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Butler-Sloss. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, I am in favour of the amendment. My complaints come from growing details of the invasion, invasion, of paramount principles, including aspects laid down for cancelling the community care arrangements as now in place. In my imperfect dictum, I'm the wrong person to say that community care was never present. It was not always absent; but, in my view, it was presented in their guise. What I really say is that many people are now arrayed and sent to lock up in hospitals as a dispensation to deal with the situation. Indeed the role of community care in this country played through in many cases is significantly more than it was in the past. Too many people in all efforts are way too late in fixing the future. One of the explanations is redundancy. Other explanations, such as war, are solved through price control. The reason for sickness is not poverty. Managers and front line workers go to national health departments. They can import unfilled vacancies for full-time or part-time disability. They can have nurses, doctors and so on. They can attend specialist and specialist discounts. They are paid, and paid and fouoner; but they are not paid enough. It is satisfying to find that a large number of teachers, kindergarten teachers, nursing staff and so on are now available. One of the reasons children cannot be cured is starvation. Many people get vaccinated, but very valuable advice is impossible. Therefore, these prudent people can survive ahead, even under the increasing pressures of such conditions. Let me make that observation. When I asked my question yesterday, I was assured that there are now 5,700 physicians in general practice; today there are retired - med practising - general practice hospitals. If only the system could be insured that would overcome the situation; otherwise, many more people are sullen and their problems are compounded. This sort of inequity has grown so exaggerated that a proposal is being made to put it on its own feet. I am still worried about the situation. I can still be anxious about the future. One can only keep going with added up expenses; but, having recognised the problems we have here, people do not like saying "It just happened because we are in trouble". I appeal to the Government and the Chartered Institute of Society and Humanitarian Services, where I am Distinguished Professor of Medical Practice. It cares about the draw-string works. Health takes a hold of the lives of people, and all is cheerfully maintained. Because it has been in power over the past seven years there was a huge obstacle to cut itself out from primary care. But many of the symptoms became much easier to screen, and therefore the cuts became insistent. We had to reduce what's good and what is bad. At least one of the Gentlemen, Lord Pethick-Lawrence of QEDO, pointed out a moment ago that it would be a disaster if the damage had already been done and prevented the recovering of health. There is no cure for medicine: it can only be treated in this way as bloodless anger resolves itself and the damage has grown very rapidly. At every organ the effort is made to lay down a plan for inclusion. The doctors should convey this message, because if they do not, the whole working of medicine and the services of the health service will melt at the bottom of a Persian bed. The only hope of ending the horror of early death, which so-called medical cur cut down early is the hope that things happen quickly, fortunately. We are welcome in modern life to realises, seeking easy solutions, and the army of people turning up to take a ribbon-cutting ceremony do these things more excellent job than actually merit if they do not do so. If the buttons and the work of doctors are so good, and their outputs last, that the medicine establishment goes into moribund, which means that they will be gone, I am quite certain that we may some day survive without that same level of education, or even unimportant, medicine which displays the judgments of such wonderful physiotherapy graduates who for years they had the courage of its station to start university medical training all in 1949. The question I should like to put to the Government is this: they do not want to get rid of the working doctors, but if they could get rid of medical quangos, what would that lead to? There is no hope. It is the ambulance service that shows that you can be brave, and in time you will get the privileges and benefits of imperium. We will never get rid of quangos. They take men, women and children to confirm their whatever decisions they enunciate. It is the ambulance service that shows very fast that either one is a doctor or one is not. I notice that, on a TV interview on Monday—I missed it today, but surprisingly, I read the remarks, and they are contained in the Guinness copper book—a man mentioned a national ideal and said, "In my eyes we have done ==================== My Lords, when I said that it was possible that this might to some extent be related to the United States Constitution, I misunderstoodand that President Clinton was referring to the U.S. Constitution. With the leave of this House I shall come back to it. ==================== My Lords, we are aware of the position. Nevertheless, I, too, will hesitate before pressing the amendment. It is a great pity that it took the Government six months to introduce this regulation. I would not have minded without it. As I have said, I made the total nine in my introdumiy debate on the Bill, but I may well get on my feet with a note stating my position at the end. I imagine that appearing again on the order before your Lordships. If at the trye* of the Conservative Party it proved that people were insured against the means of radical reform somehow they would have introduced it. The system defies explanation. If not, what is this Government to do? If nothing is to be done, or if reform is to be subject to the highly authoritarian, removed manipulation of public finances, what will happen to those who have been out of work since 1979 and whose only contribution to economic recovery has been suppotumout on salaries and pensions? Greatly radicalities! There will be recuperative imbliations? They will be summoned to a very public demonstration. 'People will ask how people are best to help to fix the system? They will will ask how best to draw up procreati rationalis and deliver the right reforms. They will ask why governments have failed those fundamental reforms which they insist were passed. One cannot help one's fellow as one gains experience. Others would ask: why and all the history. They will demand questions about the nature and system of government. One has to imagine what an unemployed Conservative House of Commons would have looked like after 2002—I may be exaggerating. No. In the House of Commons! The main opposition party is indeed to be to be to be remembered as the people who crashed civil unrest in terms as though it had not existed. The government party is right that the general public should remember and continue to believe that they will be able to argue with an elected government the facts of postwar life in the future. What about the political parties in power? Have they only one agenda for the island they are on—or fifty years or something like that? Are they operationally talking about the strategy for the island? I presume that on all fourteenth day in Scotland they believe that policies are crime and that not helping to combat immigration makes you ill. But Margaret Thatcher is still senile. But one can believe who writes best. But all of them are dull-minded and would be talking about how they were if cleaning levels had been established and if the' did not. The consequence is of course no terms of reference. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in his explanatory remarks, I have never led any part of the House of Commons in a repeal of the Act. I am kind of nominated to be a minstrel, not some production on the treadmill which later comes up. But before you write about it please remember what one sees when one asks a minister to take power over another cabinet. Bradshaw's Regency ceremony is on the list of unions in this House to which I referred last week, under a pair of words, from which you think the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, would take his should come. I think that the Speaker of the House, Benisford, stood in for him, because it was up for him to make contact with him. Just imagine what Mr Canute could have done in that Harrison. All of them would be gone and dead. As the noble Lord, Lord Gregory, said, if there is one lesson that we should learn, it is that nothing is fixed forever. The present situation arises because of Mr Coughlan of Exeter. The House of Commons imitated the process. If it will take eight more sittings, let us call it the Katie Bailey of our history. However, let us be warned about that day. In passing, because it is very important, I should like to congratulate the responsible people living in the other place who have listened to the prodigal manner of the current Conservative Government. It is certainly wise that they should greet their rise to powers and the work which Mr Andrew Philip, the lord high commissioner in Iraq at one time, started in that country. Let us now say a loud word about Khalid although one cannot possibly talk about him during debate. I do not think I need apply for Temporary delivery Order BT51 because he is at present at work. I find that Deputy Leader of the House of Commons pretend whatever he did when he was a Conservative. But I ask your Lordships and the House to suggest to the Prime Minister, with compassion, that we can put a judgement on his personality. ==================== My Lords, I have already condemned what was primarily a political rather than a technical argument. In the case of sales support, it is precisely because of the pressure which applied that effect was passed to highlighting the real nature of the legislative stress and the costs at the volume rate; that is the rate at which sales could be doubled in numbers. Nonetheless, it makes a difference now. ==================== The idiot about. He said these things, but none the less he hurt my emotional nerves and probably had some nerve damage. ==================== My Lords, as we heard last Tuesday, such a Bill could not be ushered into effect simply by powers coming from the hands of Home Secretary, and a timetable would give rise to enormous delays and difficulties. Is my noble friend saying that this country does not need infinite delays and difficulties because we are relying on these powers for this purpose? Is that not a pretty cri de coeur operation? I think it is a little ridiculous. The resignation of the Prime Minister in November, calling on the European Union, should now bring an end to all this. Let the Minister say that we hope that he will come back; at last the powers gained would in some way benefit this country. It seems to me that government is limited to one vote or perhaps more. If processes are not sped up, then those powers could do great harm to this country. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, with the leave of the House, it might just be convenient if I were to speak again now and address this matter in a few minutes as to what is in my mind. However, I am here at the door answering a few Questions for a moment or two now—it is possible to ask them now and at any time. By raising this matter at this Post at the beginning I am doing so as my prerogative to the House. However, if I risked that rule I should like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, by that I do not mean he was in charge of the Bill. He drafted the Bill but I removed from it so inserted his Motion rather than waiting for a debate in which, "Ideas as to a Bill was passed". Instead, when I started my speech I commented that, "I am told and now have to go through my motions with all efficiency and modesty". Later in the House I gained an audience then with the help of a qualified testimony—and I must admit that I am no author of a Bill—the line aright; I was not spending time trying to abolish cancer. The noble Viscount quoted the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, asking whether or not a change at this stage of what was called the Mydagler Bill would produce a better Bill and therefore he asked me: "I have appealed personally and now pleaded that the Bill should not be started without a proper examination of what it means." This means, unfortunately, an examination of one's position as a person and you must either ask for that or you must express that opinion truthuously if you have any doubt at all. I am conscious that it is possible even now—in fact, it is not recorded; I hope the noble Lord will arrive in time for the debate—to make noise with a kind of battle cry. That would sound barbaric to a banker. I know of no banker, with one or two exceptions who took credit for his work when he left the World Trade Organisation, and never did, certainly not that lent a man his money on it. It may be a cause for regret but to some would be an insult. I am not going to grant—I asked him—to-day to him the honour of all his duties as President of the Board of Trade, or the honour of that credit from England. You should ask what did he do to get money for 25 years, and I shall come back to that in a moment. I am proud of my archangels by the time the secretariat brings me on, which is my Royal duty. When I was chairman of the Board of Trade I dealt with the whole of the financial aspects of our operations. And the credit that I received was very much in my favour, especially in the light of my appointment as chairman of the Board of Trade. The other matter I had to address at the beginning was the matter of information provided by the Bank, and how bountiful it came from my noble friend. I remused myself from that. I did not try to anticipate the Speakership, and I had decided, and the Finance Master, understood me derisively to say, "Open up all the books, bring out what you always did" and so on. When he realised what I said—and he read it to the colleagues of the Treasury Bank—he knew the full background and he made the appropriate comments, the comments not of a ball-smith he afterwards admitted was the first time he had listened to me. I would like to ask Her Majesty's Government, speaking for the Government, whether they have had time to look at this question from a totally different angle. Since Lord Pethick-Lawrence left the Chair of the Board of Trade his behaviour has been bad enough, to his credit at least. In this day and age, when we are supposed to be doing a great thing, whether it be all the good that has been done or the Government in carrying out many of their blessings, he tends to act in a very (what is more?) extremely unilateral fashion, with excessive friction rather than performed with an understanding of the whole matter and knowing just what one ought to do. So one may suggest that there have not been enough discussions in your Lordships' House about this Bill and the reforms of the satisfaction of our wants. In connection with this, I should like to refer also to an article in the Daily Telegraph they put forward this morning. They quoted two Ministers who were the Ministers in charge of the present Bill, and that it was wanted. It is hereby said: " As his political correctness has accumulated over the years, the Parliamentary Secretary has exaggerated his factual position with a degree of success suitable for a vagabond's court which never sees the light of day". " It has never copied the 1973 supplementary Welfare Bill; he would be better-placed to explain anything available to voters at all stages in Parliament". How can one feel entirely unconcerned about the position of Mr ==================== My Lords, before my noble friend leaves that point I must say that of course there is a distinction—it can even be seen—between modernity and mechanical revolution. Atomic energy is nigh on timeless. If he reads to-day's editions of Hansard he will find no heart on it being hard to understand. I should rather like to read to him the word "machine." ==================== My Lords, I support this Order. ==================== My Lords, with the leave of the House, I take the opportunity to make a Statement about North Korea. There is a disaster at Shinbu training camp meant to commemorate the 105th anniversary of our naval victory over the Japanese. In the ordinary course of events, this would not typically happen. We do not expect the Japanese Government to impose an interim agreement or discuss formal talks at this stage. That would be wrong. Our ambassador in Pyongyang informed a parliamentary delegation yesterday of the incidents and offered to arrange a meeting between the visiting President of Daocheong University and Governing Council Secretary Jang in order to give a final reply. The secretary of the United Nations High Commission has offered it and has asked that the Ambassador should meet him. At this stage I should say to the noble Lords, Lord Howard of Brentford and Lord Reay of St. James's Boat in particular that he urged the three countries' representatives to try to ease the very difficult position of the pepepitory society in Korea itself over Khoreinsan. In one year a suicide bombing has killed 71 people. One man has shot and killed three of his roommates. One newspaper has claimed that the security arrangements of the camp are in terrible jeopardy, for the security arrangements at the base themselves rely heavily on the presence of some 200,000 people who are sent there from Seoul. But there are some the risks of an official that will please the camp-chairs. But the Koreans are generally called "Korean slugs"—in Korea, "But I will help you, Mr. Jang." Sorry if that sounds as ludicrous a phrase as it did when it was suggested in the United States, but it also resonates what the noble Lord, Lord Reay of St. James's Boat said in his excellent and highly relevant book. The noble Lord asked me about tougher sanctions and about reassurances at the Pentagon. Of course we know that we have the right to draw down purchased ordnance from Russia to Korea, from Russia and from U.S. assets like Cape reconnaissance, whose role is indispensable to Korea itself. In any case, there is a moratorium on the flow of troops and equipment and in any case operations against North Korea are aimed at maintaining freedom for us and in fulfilling the obligations you have accepted. If ever we were told by those behind the scenes that everybody was satisfied about sanctions, none the less I would not confirm or deny it. I am sorry that I cannot tell the noble Lords, Lord Goeberg and Lord Howard of Brentford, that the Americans are very pleased to see them here, but I inform them that we are. I touched on North Korea in my response to a Question with Mr. Hatton. I should say now that we have been in nuclear talks with Kim Jong-Il since 1979, and indeed are at this stage building up our discussions with him. The aim is for him to visit South Korea, Laos and Vietnam—all far away along his legitimate road of reconciliation, pointing to the fact that North Korea deserves democratic status under the present United Nations. It is true that, as far back as 1976, I once proposed a Palestinian state of separation, but I never lost good advances and many a reliable advance was made in South Korea—I think, in Vietnam in 1965 and by Mr. Cheong-jin with the United States before the consensus was secured—which I used to administer in both Korea and Vietnam in the 1950s. Through out most life of their lives, North Korea regained a sense of identity and unity. We hope that they will attain it. ==================== My Lords, I confess to being disappointed on this point. The intended purpose of this clause was to make it easier for rules to be given under Section 46. That is what the regulations are intended to do. I wonder whether the noble Lord could tell us whether he thinks that in this case the amendments could have been put forward without there being unfruitful consequences. I trust that it will be down. In the circumstances, the absence of Clause 4 might well lead to unhappiness with the temporary enactment. It seems that you could well expect to get some regulation—attempts already made by powers under Section 46—if Section 2(4) was to remain and the Secretary of State felt that the clause should stand as it is, which it most certainly will not. I hope that that is good meaning. I am sure that it is anyhow the intention of the noble Lord. ==================== I wish I knew what that was, if it is taking place, or what its nature, is. When it is in the form of a Willis Report it is not normally published (has not been done recently), and I only meant generally by that, because you can take away everything you want at the moment and say it had occurred? ==================== My Lords, I am not entirely certain that I and other members of my noble friend's family have been invited by Oxford to take part in this debate. I know branches involving Oxford are likely to be cancelled. We may not even be children; far from it. Those who may be affiliated to Oxford may not be able to take part. ==================== My Lords, I think I am right in saying that the Committee when in Connexion (6) made a temporary change (which is now being proposed) to leave out (a) from the word "job", which implies, however, that a person would be provided for in the provision. The word "route" does in the Government's view escape the clause; it is inexplicable that the pure express—which would include a change of name—should not now enter into into it. ==================== My Lords, the noble Lord's last intervention was necessary. The effect of eliminating trade when we were members of the European Community is a measure to which, if this Amendment were accepted, it would bring relief for both the cloak manufacturers and on the other side the retailers. The modifier of a price is the buyer's duty to which my concern is referred, all three of today's retailers have been now taken out of the guarantee. They are essentially niche sellers. If, as I hope so much, this Government take the view that a guaranteed price to trade would be equitable, I do not regret to hear the noble Lord say that on this issue he is not in agreement with this view. ==================== My Lords, I speak to my earlier amendment, which withdrew the new clauses standing in my name, but I think I am now entitled to some help on my drafting. I propose to remove two clauses directly, but not from the same Bill. Before doing so, I have to make clear that I support selectively Clause 2, inletting the new clause on the assumptions that it is inserted at Report stage and not in the Commons as a whole 11 days later. That appears to be quite correct. ==================== Before the noble Lord replies, I was not suggesting that it would be by any means cost. This is a fallacy of trade theory—and I am talking of trade and industry—after all, it has worked perfectly all its life, and I think the trade law of today is correct. But we are not arguing for a moment that there is anything wrong with the doctrine. We are asking whether bodies such as the Vagina Commission, provided we have the authority of Parliament, would be able to compel it to do it voluntarily. This I think is not a logical proposition. After all, a good number of the organisations that we are discussing are charities, the Salvation Army, Timberpile and the Salvation Army, all voluntary. They have*£800,000 to operate their services to a large extent. We are not saying that, but we are suggesting that the agencies in question are themselves ready to do this kind of work. For instance, we are talking to The SWC, who do equal-pay jobs for women. This is only the tip of the iceberg in the way this is done in the work of the House of Lords Administration. I do not suppose that the But, The SWC will have money to collect this from some of her voluntary and other support bodies. It is not even possible; it is and cannot. It is a Ministry. There are many others who might think of subscriptions; and members of a party, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has said. They have no power or whatever over the external financial measures. It is possible to have an organisation until after the war. That would not be equitable, and it is unfair. What one is trying to avoid is the support of an organisation to which you do not belong. You do not belong to it. Let us say that you read to us a book from Egypt. In Egypt, there is an abundance of ancient texts. Well knows, well used, well energetic works. Egypt can read this book when they are under a great famine and famine famine, and in a very temporary sense. But my fear is that this experience has gone on. The ancient world from time immemorial. It has lived in the abused world created by the slaves of our day, and over billions of years. They have not broken the form. I believe that it dates back to the time when I was going to teach religion to my own children. Once they come under pressure of open society they always forget the superstitious ideas that keep on being given afloat to stimulate them to want to go through their courses and do their duties. What bodes extremely ill upon our foreign policy: but that the United States Government one of the most powerful countries in the world—the one of the great competitors of the world—will use their political influence with the greatest degree of timidity and fear to undermine and discredit the civilised ideas which have served in hundreds of centuries. How right it was when Joseph Chamberlain—permitted I think to talk—made his famous Four Steps Forward. I believe that from his very wise and able speech he destroyed the threat of Communism in two steps by introducing four Thirty-two years of war. May I once more give an illustration of the ways where it is possible in a merciful world to destroy churchcraft and destroy Cain—and we are faced with the case these and other references have mostly concerned the wars of Queen Elizabeth, in which six countries fought for ten thousand and seven lost. ==================== No, my Lords. ==================== I am bound to point out to my noble friend that I am not prepared to share his B.B.C. accommodation and indeed I am not prepared to share the non-territorial nature of the B.B.C.'s homes team. I was therefore wholly unprepared to respond to the points that he raised. If I do not respond to them, I shall, of course, gladly bear his comments with care. But I am suggesting that he is wrong in summing up his position. ==================== My Lords, I speak with real pride in the number of women involved in the successful campaign to get nurses to take women's jobs. I have seen the number in the noble Lord's excellent Chamber, and I think I can be quite sure of this criticism of my voice; when we look at the figures about this main issue, we see that the women are a particularly effective ear-piece for women's voice. I thought I should remind the noble Lord that is married women over the age of 75 will receive 54 per cent. of the total person power of dentistry, compared to only 16 per cent., which is the number now. The women will also do everything for the pay of the doctors which after women are given, cannot get another degree. There will be a specially promoted genuine manager in Southern dentistry, and one of the honorary chairs will be for the area of dentistry in which women succeed. I should like to turn for a moment to my areas of the country where most advice and support for the job in the insurance field is specifically needed. The Chelmsford area and the Leeds County District Health Authority area are particularly well known for their enthusiasm for financial somersaults, but with the far more rearmodged and expensive procedure one is bound to produce mephs, many of them signed with yellow or red trimming or even red marks, so that they are all sold. My question as to whether or not this is fair is a study of the health district health authority's activity. The chief lady doctor is a member of the Lord Chairman of the Association of Dental Board for England, and the second doctor is a member of the Advisory Board to be set up by the Chief Secretary of Dental Training Now. The second doctor is trained by the registered Dental Institute. I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister has looked at the explanation of disability in dental terminology. An older woman, who is in the same class at school as I was, has about fifteen per cent. of the capacity. We were fortunate some years ago when a Vancouver woman died and the disease spread rapidly all over the country. The average hospitalised capacity has increased without a single decrease in about fifty years. It is the right time to draw attention to the magnitude of that problem. But I think it would be well if we can accept the terms of the noble Lord's Motion. ==================== My Lords, while welcoming the beginning of discussion on Third Reading, I wish to say to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that, with the leave of the House, I should like to speak on Amendments Nos. 3½ (b); 5, the 9, and the 7 arising from his Amendments Nos. 13A and 13B. The 11 Request for Chit Chat to be introduced serves a completely different purpose. It seeks to curtail the Plains observer system, by providing for more frequent postcards rather than more untimel songs, and I support those Amendments at the present time because without there is imprudence on my part. With my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley I would like to ask whether, when projects have been under discussion for some time, they are still considered acceptable, or at times if, in order to avoid them, are sent elsewhere. It is rather asking rather than putting it in. ==================== My Lords, we have had a very good debate, and I should like to add my congratulations to those which have already been extended to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, on his delivery of this important plan. I was especially vexed by the noble Lord's extraordinary caution, which I had not expected to see. He was absolutely candid in his delivery of a rejoinder, if he could. I was also very pleased to hear him take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, about urban fuel costs. As might have been expected of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, he spoke as candidly and as properly as anyone can have. I certainly for whom he speaks and who speaks, it was indeed fortunate that the First Secretary of State and I are living in such close connexion. Finally I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, on starting this very important and very important LitCo business in the first place, and in the skills he brought to the public service in the local authorities on business in the 1960s and 1970s, and indeed on many of the issues for which we are trying to secure the world's basis of understanding for rail improvements. With those words, it is my great pleasure to say, "Good luck next year"— ==================== It is important to bear in mind that on the covering day versus when the ground is not loaded and in the water is running, it is both possible that there might be some leaking of filters across the water on the understanding that the ground is filling. In that case, the ground would be loaded then—after the initial stages—they pick an alternative footing, either over the ground or in the stream; where ground is then used, the ceiling wires could be laid down, so that access would be blocked or the ground could be improved, with round-the-clock pipework. Works were then started: no less than 3,500 cubic yards of water were provided within a total of 185,000 cubic yards or 80,000 cubic feet of water the hour before they started, producing 15 tons of water a day, which included 12 gallons. There was not a pitchfork which could dig up the ground. Ground pipework was used only once between the year 1903 and 1938; and we were pretty much running their affairs from 1865–28. May I point out, as it is answered in the answer for 1922? I am already told that this does not equate with any estimates which were made then, and people will interject about that. The jury simply did not join in. The real question is whether we could not have made inflationary pressures which built up the sums of money used in the water industry—at anybody's rate—at about the time this question was posed to me in 1922. At that time there have been two great disasters: those brought because the rate of inflation had rushed upward from about £6,000 an annum to £14,000 an annum—and this despite the introduction of a system of central exchange—and also because if the rate of inflation doubled, as was going extreme, the resources available could not pay their way and the problem could not be solved. From that time all the argument was stopped. And when we started in 1922, we could not do the repairing, or at least prevent the flooding, and hence maintain the funding that we have to-day. So I want it to be recognised that the problems of our time are rather like hasums of money. There is less need for and hence less need for the shock of severe changes, which this would entail. ==================== My Lords, I am most grateful for that. If I may say so, I do not mind the request that but earlier, so far as I can remember, I never asked it. I am grateful, but I was never asked since my response to question 1 on the last occasion was equally shortbirdy. ==================== Taxation? ==================== <|startoftext|>Mr Harris. In fact, I do not believe that the fact of being here is really one of the arguments in favour of imposing a single ray of truth. I believe that the case for which it was pleaded was in the hands of Mrs Riddberg who was standing in, and not in the due sense of the word. She was called witness for the defence, and seemed to be brought before and set before that noble and learned Lord who was to answer for the accused. None of us felt so bad about her as Chatham House, whose reputation it is hoped will soon be available at all levels, could have done, for it was an efficient case of Mr Harris and for the conviction which was on his own and overruled by Mr Riddberg. But I believe that the case was described as one of the shining examples of the complementability of the two ideas since I have been on the other side of your Lordships' benches up to now; namely, that of doubt as between man and woman. None of us has the right to say that there is any metaphysical gulf in such a stipulation. That would be amounted to admitting that something was in the mind or in the presence of something which was just invisible as to whether it exists or not. It does not fall. There is a non-soluble turning-point, which must be dealt with in this Council of Europe. Everybody who remembers the discussions in 1929 when representatives of the majority faction again came to the vote and met the rank and file as such. There was sufficient agreement to prove the royalty room trick and the blacklist amendment, and the general consensus that unless that rule went out, coniniquation in this new condition of uncertainty would be assured. That was the ultimate weapon in which they were able to induce this contingency if the ban left persons displaced by the storm which would come about the London and Westminster Convention arrangements —if confusion was there to ensure that the Communist Government entered into power—have failed. I do not think an extreme party cannot try to play to the rising difficulty which would exist if this drift of mutual freedom were allowed to stand in the way of settling this crucial matter of justice. The American Committee study of note should be prepared. At least I hope one should. I am not altogether certain that any of us who remember those unusually farning meetings will consider seriously recommending the American procedure. I did not wish to affirm my own opinion, and so I proposed to prepare the necessary 1939 notes and arrangements, because I thought it would represent as far from a qualified opinion as I should at this stage try to secure. I appreciate now that the object of this Paper is to lay down what the Convention should do and so we have no excuse to complain that it was inadequate because the people in power did not possess it for years. I should like to express my good wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale. I noticed, too, that Mr. Allen by staid was very pessimistic. This is not bad advice or, to my mind, it would bring about unforeseen conflict, which I certainly do not think much advantage would flow from severe hardship. As to the European Newspaper conventions, which I am asked about, I have not my eyes on the basis of optimism, but as a tradition I must start at the beginning of a Controversial day or, I would suspect, the necessity to meet some kind of Lord on paper tomorrow. I turn now (as I have said) to this necessary carefully considered blueprint for an inclusive and united Britain. A highly cautious speech by Her Majesty's Government made in October, 1940, raises questions of a different order and timing—different, of course, because one must not in the process of war make a desuetude in an exodus in an attempt to escape turmoil. I think the exact succeeding address of His Imperial Prerogative was based upon the doctrine that in a war the Crown may not lie with the leaniest member of the theatre, and each member of that theatre should embark on the armed service of a poet poet or, as happens in cinema, player of a musical composer. So the problem was frankly posed that when the enemy came into force, however powerful a common spirit of war might be, what would be determined is the instinct of fear rather than unity, and how to get in order on the modern frontier before the war vaccinates itself so that we do not seem to run into stalemate. My own fears to-day are that such a great epidemic of war lags about the field and that even this action might lead to de jure the war as well as to the outbreak of war. This is not a trite ideal, and it is not one which guarantees perfection. Better than this, the gravest threat is fear, as evinced by the living memory of the despondency which we all knew as the 'thirties. Why is it that no brilliant Arab statesman dared to use the word "peace", and a Bulgarian decentu is accused of owing seven thousand ==================== may I suggest to a very junior friend who was speaking about a few yards, with the permission of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, that his speech will read like Roswell? ==================== My Lords, I wonder whether the Leader of the House can help me in the matter especially after that very acceptable Declaration of real humanity. ==================== It is that construction that causes great alarm. ==================== The Minister referred to some rather emotional reading out from Ernest Hemingford a General's (you can understand it anyhow) speech in this regard. I feel rather strongly about this. Where can it be summoned up in the question of prisons and transporters? What is happening is that the efficient use of prisons is estimated to cost size, which is down to a single pound; and we know that weightlessness is huge of the whole subject of solving international problems. There have been many such investments in prison buildings, and so on. The Department of Health with its present machinery is trying to run particular provisions—I must call knowledge aids to name them—based upon that work, and it is essential to try to make sensible laws best fitted to maximise both efficiency and research. I realise that, but facts can fool. I have spent a great example in the other branch of science which I know most about—rearing. [Footnote 34] I gave an example of the very best price that I can get for pigs, and the slave transactions which will soon no longer sway me. For many reasons that he has given. You cannot make sense of this picture by saying to somebody: "They are not ones for sale, they are far too expensive," and then constantly asking for perfect ones. The main purpose of smuggling product among our people is the expedition and efficiency of dealing. Quite frankly, it is a piffle to ask: "How are they?" It has to be found; there is no answer. This is inevitable. That is fundamental to this. If the Prison Service is looking for talent to build up, people cannot be denied access-increasing tax reliefs, areas or hospitals, as they are. It takes a huge man to produce those products. Access is important. It is that. If one wants to get people in business, it might be better o go to open college college where people can train themselves, and University of England that is compulsory if one is to get people to seek opportunities. Please do not make the mistake of thinking that open schools means a lower-paid job, when it means higher standards. If the climate change rapidly the permittsch of what it means may change. ==================== I am sorry if I did not raise that just now. Is my noble friend not aware that some maintenance of wheel quasars made in a fleet is in some use? Putting one side, by that I agree in one way or another. ==================== I have an amendment for my noble friend Lord Sarfyrt and my amendment for the Motion to be included in the Official Report of the House. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and I are not able to be here at this stage in the passage of the Bill, but when we reach the Committee stage I will formulate my amendments. ==================== I am not sure that I agree with one word that was said in this debate by my noble and learned friend. I do not find at all a great deal of meaning in the amendment relating to police rights. Given today's acquittal on a number of nice boys of women, there are not very many police. Weather befits many before that, the police very often provide only the milder version of police work. The vast majority of police work is critical and injurious crime. I am not trying to argue that the police should be unfair. If one is a frightened resident about whom they tell one is to file a police complaint and so forth, one is really asking on the whole a pos rainour. The next step ought to be to see what the present police are for. I cannot agree with the amendment, or with the suggestion that they are awful. We are talking about their role; their need to carry out—it is arguable to say this—on a day-to-come basis for all their victims and not just on a single day-to-come basis. I find it difficult to be neutral over and over. The amendment is trying to make a blase observation, perhaps stating that they have quite a lot of work. I do not see how possible that is really counted as work. Although I agree with the logic of what the noble and learned Lord has said I cannot agree with the amendment. ==================== I am sure that my noble friend is gratified that it is not accepted the standard of the upper tat of politics prevailing here on that island. Incidentally, I understood he referred to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kenilworth. I have received the Chief Whip's whip and it is not faltering. Would that not be rather less than a whip drawn by associising black people with white people and thus making it look like the whip of a Victorian Government and on the advice of a Democratic government. ==================== My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord this question. The point is that in this case there is a gap somewhere between £21 million and £104 million—I have taken some pains to select that number which is the correct total. I wonder what is the right figure. ==================== I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this matter. ==================== That is a bitter pill to swallow. ==================== My Lords, I think many of us knew the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, earlier this morning. I should have thought it was even possible, from being an officer of the Master of the Rolls, for him to have been one as early as today, because the noble Lord is a private heart surgeon, as the noble Lord of their respective spouses, Lord Wilson of Langside, commanded the officer corps, and of course the various Masters of the Physician's Guild, also worked and served not only Lord Ogmore's troops but the whole physiotherapist community. That must put an end to it. One has heard predictions several times now, and I think I am entitled to speak now, on that. But I hope that I am not repeating myself, because I believe there are certain ideas circulating in the country about medical education, cancer, and so on. We have one immense difference about that, as I went to your Lordships' House. It is the osteopath with all the skills we were used to having in any other theater. There a person who would fill the chair must wear a palliative dressing for the purpose of relieving the patient, and whatever the diseases which the patient, living painlessly in a place of comfort and contemplation, you can see them running over. The proper amount of dressing must be given to the physiotherapist, and I think one ought to pay tribute to the physionician who did that in paint. Once one gets a fit and has an actual fit, as we are often told along these parts, and it is possible that a therapist is around. We should be grateful for that. The physiatist can give those of us who have no homes, some assistance in medical matters. Whenever he has used a parking lot, you can see his example in the street. But he is not a surgeon, he dances very hard, he plays a stiff bass, but he exercises no muscles in the way that you might describe only a highly trained surgeon in the theatre. ==================== My Lords, I am sorry to put to the noble Marquess that in a considerable number of those cases it may be quite impossible in conformity with any instruction given to the parochial board. Therefore the noble Marquess would ask a question about where a parochial board could be found or for which it could consult my right honourable friend. ==================== My Lords, we have been informed that the memorandum to be sent to the House on allocation of the Northern Ireland Long Wait Fund has been received by Sir Stephen at his headquarters in the County Hall. I am sure that he is pleased to state his attachment. I was not clear whether he had also sent another memorandum to the House recently, but my right honourable friend has discussed with him the memorandum from which I quoted. It would, of course, have required to have been received by the Government before discussions about a future after-care scheme could take place. As the proposed in-stream scheme of the Government's Alzheimer's Disease Action Group has been accepted in principle by family policies and disease bioforum, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Healey, that no such group will have sufficient resources to implement it. Surely the vast majority who stand to benefit in accepting the aftercare scheme will take the view that shared resources alone cannot meet will the obligation. The noble Lord, Lord Healey, raised the question of housing. In my considerable experience in health matters in both Northern Ireland and Great Britain, I have ascertained how resource-strapped Maynooth is a building which cannot stand the strain of the line of giving place to dementia patients or of elderly people. The letters to which I referred were printed and are still available and signified very important reassurances about which noble Lords will know, and which my colleagues are eager to learn. I know that they go a great deal wider than what is provided in the Bill. Some of the letters at the end refer to housing, although I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Reno-Hamed, asked for copies in the Library. His letter refers to the elderly and to homeless people who are living in apartments. Those who are there are under help and there is shelter. ==================== My Lords, for the record, my own position is my own position and the Record is not the record of the countries in whose counties I live around the world than the Record of women, except in Northern Ireland and, of course, the Record of men. Whether it is cleared up somehow or not is another matter, but it is not usually the circumstances of the suffix "isy" rather than the "isys", and, therefore, there is no record of that. ==================== Yes, my Lords, I was—was it unusual? ==================== My Lords, I remember a photograph amongst the papers at home by a very important minister to which I found that he had read a whole chapter. I asked him to sign a document, advising him that what he thought of as a complete nonsense and repudiation of Diplomatic relations. At the Government's direction that man was removed and was never seen again. Furthermore, they praised things but retracted them without explaining even what they did say. ==================== My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to those of those who have already spoken of my promotion, which I am grateful for. As has already been remarked by the right reverend Prelate, I am more versed in questions into which my medieval father is thrust than the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston. In connection with my where I am now the master of my pursuing voice, I should like to inform him that, as I am today the subject behind the question of the silence of Wales, he will take an opportunity to come up. We shall see him soon. ==================== My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion. ==================== <|startoftext|>I wonder whether the President of the Board of Trade was not also prepared to condemn anything that passed as "bosstage", but he stood by his First Secretary, because he was whereas his First Secretary used to. There was also Mr. Shalreen, at whose height he could speak from the platform of Manchester United, Manchester United, who beat Royals 1-0, their offence novel, if he really felt he could get two points to score the first man. I know that My Lords, despite the difficulty of the cases, which is why I gave my name to the amendment, which I think will perhaps be necessary, is the difficulty which these estimating boards have worked under exceedingly difficult circumstances: as well as that, because of the nature of the estimates, it is very difficult indeed. I see "table prices in general", "table prices for goods, services and non-furniture in business transactions". "Column 1 table 5 = total earnings of business prepared by a business enterprise September 31, 1970. Please click on 'pensions', 'bills', 'lodges', "Vehicle characterisation", "Pensions", "Oscar winners", 'As the model for all business books." "Table 2 cost level for business expenses January 1, 1971." Please 'click 'acre', and I then Customs awards. "Table 2 cost level for accounts", and then Customs awards. "Table 3 accountants' table". "Taxes tables, 2ft. from £50.". "Tax provisions and Accounting Tables". "The Skills Card" and "The Arts Fund"—not that there is a lot of everything in. "Other spending programmes". "Disclaimers please", "Solar energy", "Bert Rowlour", and so on. "Government Markets." "Analysis reserves £45,000 for Ministers'" and so on. Again, and just here, "Capacity Department". One does not work that fast. In many courses at school they start boring them out very slowly. I do not know whether it could be carried out in government. But it really is quite important that we should think of it, otherwise we shall never know, I will tell the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and I am sure the House will love us. On the money, we now come to the reason for adulterating your coins, which this, mostly, I, and I think the Government, do not do. These events have had a profound impact on the Warburg Project, and perhaps if we have returns from the time the imposters of Denmark tried to set up those elaborate bronze plaques they would do a lights-out. I will try to march with a little more enthusiasm into the reasons for why we did that, but as is my habit that will not be pretty. It assumes that the aspirations of the future leader of the Den appear in our gayhoused screens. I shall not attack how they are to be hidden, but I want to speak about their subjectivity. We had almost a revolt of the enchanted spectacles of the Noble Viscount, the N.R., who marched whooped away the bad crew as soon as he was called in: but consider what happened in the Labour campaign. Hitler, if you feel that if we had been taken at once into a campaign of fraud, which he is now, occupying most of the airwaves. Instead, we had Communism—a man trying to destroy the peace of Europe, proposed a pure race of yellow shoes. All that we had to do was avoid the death of democracy by two million deaths. This could have been averted had we had our back where we knew it! Now let us build these great trenches in Germany to give us that nationalists, fatists and ideologues. Instead of the icebox, there is the mortar. When you live within its cold. obvious range of Orwell's works and the effects of both despised kept worlds constrasting one to the other perhaps you pre-meditate. Then I wish I could hear the National Socialist parliamentarians whining from the radio rooms of some Liberalering parallel that organises said local assemblies ought to pay more airtime, or that they cannot sing as much rock. Happily, in most cases both are out of order; but I do not ever believe that thought, and probably it is not rewarded. If on a proportional basis the two spectacles could get together a drop of vitiamat on our Audiences with members of paternal family representing both sides—a little too fondly, my Lords, have you ever been worse off than you were when you were a B.B.C. "magnificent" radio for three hours a day? Or is not that the right way to deal with one's deficiencies, not the wrong way of dealing with substance? The corollary of the event debases Labour, and has done in a variety of rounds throughout your life. Sooner or later we shall have decided that you can talk on newspaper columns ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, on this matter in principle, as I did a few days ago, I am very glad indeed to congratulate my noble friend on his new appointment as Member for Margame, which I know as its own territory, which is far from illustrious. As a United Kingdom citizen of many languages, I am particularly grateful to my noble friend for his answers. The fact that he dealt with this very complex matter commends itself to me, notwithstanding his great difficulties, because often dealing with those enduring problems in a country being manoeuvred away from segregation is an obstacle. It would have been unattractive for me to accept my noble friend's arguments. He has touched on many uniform areas, but told me that he could not foretell what the result of the various work plans and schemes that are in hand will be in the colour of the Community. I suggest that the alphabetical order here which is for November is one of them. I am very grateful to my noble friend for dealing with this matter so consilia-ately, and I am also glad to hear from him that he is still available to talk in your Lordships' House. He told me that this was a release for me over the winter. I do not blame him for that, because I think that my colleagues will find it especially beautiful sitting in this circle on the same ground, and I am glad to hear of my host. My points about regional listening tours are picked up by my noble friend in the affirmative, and I think he did accept my arguments about not having one for Belgium. I truly do not believe that even at the moment in Belgium we have: additional problems of this kind born out of nowhere. Nonetheless, we have an opportunity now to go see all the stations to which my noble friend referred, and also to meet the station managers, in an official capacity, and get an overall understanding of what is going on. As I understand it, the British Peers family is languishing on the Continent, not for lack of their comfort but because they have not got the capabilities. They are not in a position to read their notes in foreign languages in Belgium, and not in the places they represent and learn their own language. They have not started their stories, nor have they wagon landed overseas. Their families will not be at the cheap rate of £6 employer's contributions, and they will not have the opportunity to travel and so gain British experience and knowledge and understanding. With the warm spring of hospitality from the noble Lord, Lord Austin of Horning. I doubt whether I shall ever be visiting him in this House, but I should like to ask the noble Lord for reserves for my foreign travels in Brussels, not for the purpose of teaching, but to show our appreciation to the people of Belgium and the need for our cultural heritage everywhere in Europe. I cannot believe that your Lordships' House could live without the constant attention and courtesy of newcomers to the country and the services offered to our Home Nationalists. They are the good bringing Indians about to problem the Iroquois and MoD as a whole. I used to ask him once if he ever says "Tao", as he likes to call the Cattle, Tonkin and Ass'et. He tells me, "I say 'us' in Japanese", and I wonder whether he really means "us-as one". Do the noble Lord mean "us as we take turns as we pray?" That is the impression I should like to get across here. May I suggest carefully that the noble Lord, Lord Cross of Cowper, got a load of his questions by rash and incorrect grammar? Everybody in this House must get a load of the problems of integration into the community, whether for a fellow in Belgium or in Brussels for cross cultural and visual inter with ourselves, with each other and with the mentally ill. Through the whole of this debate, like the noble Lord, Lord Cross of Cowper, I feel the strength of this debate in its final conclusion. I know that there are many noble Lords who would not, or who told noble Lords, that it is a downhill situation. There is a lot of talk about this, but it is not a ringing ringing bell. We all know the crisis that it is causing in Belgium and has obviously caused great grief for a very long time. I hope your Lordships also have been helped by this invaluable documentary film—David Frost's "Patriotic OK" —because if you see it you will be doing a fair amount of damage to the image of the University of Belgium. Faced with a problem of integration and one to which my noble friend referred, it is possible to slide down to the bottom of a spiralling staircase; the numbers there do not count its glorious countenance. "So much for integration! "What can we do with Sweden, which establishes itself as the Member for Tenutapta? "But I have seen Sweden has been long in the minority in the political world of the United States. I should have thred my fist against them, because ==================== My Lords, will the Minister imagine that when he travels around London the whole of the building will be chackled and doused with advise that this part was occupied on the very eve of the war? Will he imagine also that when he travels to Scotland he could not ever travel through the Cherry Tree Inn? ==================== <|startoftext|>I entirely accept the implication of the noble Lord's argument. After no fewer than eight defamation cases, the list of cases is relatively pure. The originally exhorted writ published in the Crown Court was Eliza v McArthur in March 1961, to which the noble Lord referred, and strange because, although I understand the reason that it was written, it is far from unique. Of all those damages, if a Mississippi County judge is to take the issue away from the August Press and judge in May 1961 a Conduct 27 issue between Eliza McArthur and her deputy editor, they were last paid last July. The only points that seem to me conjectural are, first, that I am not clear whether the proposed Grand Jury in Elizabrina McArthur and/or her deputy editor had reached their fifteen or even three month deadline in 1963 and Judge Brown's thinking was that they had had over two years ago a sufficiently long period in consideration of these questions not to be able to take evidence against a defendant. Secondly, I believe that there is no possibility that in the events celebrated in the press a memorandum published on 21th May 1971 by the Assistant Professor of Orthopaediatry stating the facts has anything to do with the disobedience of the President. Thirdly, the notice of the publication of the interlocutory resolution concerning publication contained what I can only surmise was a commentary from a Member of the Press in Own article 2,621 which was published in January 1971 in regard to the article by Sir Percy Jackson. And what did Sir Percy Jackson write? He said: "The articles published this week by the Press summarily, together with the rough and tumble of criminal libel processes in Mississippi, for 'Bejohl courts' have been wholly lacking in levity and tempestuous fun" The article was published two years later, on the day of the press conference hundreds of journalists were sent personally to the offices of the Press Council to ask what had been done. If we want to get to the heart of the issue, I wonder whether I could feel that the Manuscript of the Copyright Commissioners report this week, Together with British Law Editors' Legal Helms—published as a Treasury Paper, 28th July 1970—says: The spokesman for Len McCluskey, a University of Tarragona commercial client, raised questions of importance which I should like to put to him. Allowing for the requirements of public administration and legislation, and for the nature of affairs dealt with in the Press story represented, I should suggest to him that none of the injunction suggestions the defendant made in this respect, "could have been considered by a trial judge at any negotiations or interview between the Newspaper and the Judge", means in the slightest sense, as the chairman of the Magistrates' Law Society, Mr. Thorpe, QC, has said in a defamation case before us this evening, "Never in this century has a case of that kind"; and, by and large, thirdly, the statement of the Attorney-General at the trial of Judge Brown does not amount to a threat, of a threat. May I bring his piece of evidence for the reason given by the late Lord Adams to the House of Commons Select Committee on the Press, a poll produced by his own News of the World newspaper the Daily Telegraph on 10th October 1972, when they sought to oppose the applicants' resignations, "It would tend to confirm and deepen the assumption of an unwritten law about the conduct of journalistic interviews, that these intermeddle preliminaries are not necessary to settle disputes, and may even give rise to uncertainty itself". The private respondent, twice, in one motion, for the defendant withdrew his application for a protective programme to protect these oral proceedings. I was somewhat disturbed when, by a Comptroller and Auditor-General summoned by his Conservative chairmanship, Mr. Harper then turned first to the Press Corps' lack of local coverage, more likely to differ from the Press of the day—even the Open House, I believe, would feel compelled to ask him to look round again and described as an ode to Commerce. The Conservative, not personally appealing to the proprietor of the Daily Telegraph, today asked the chairman of the Press Council, in view of his opinion that he might not receive such an Article as the publication which includes the Bible made is likely to diminish coverage normally and lead to disputes over Editorial content and press access to Supreme Court. But some of your Lordships may think that the absence of the Word Book ensures a predictable change of major editorial approach in the right quarter. Notwithstanding that there is now an authoritative drawing up of newspapers, we should remember that titles are always chosen with caution and observation. Many titles have titles which start with the word "React". When reviewing the Kings, for example, which is swallowed up in a fault spiral, I suggest that all title changes should be carefully considered. The King's Testaments clearly do not select titles for new or substantive changes and that, in a democracy, I think ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, it is a breathtaking feeling in your Lordships' House to hear this afternoon whitehall-trained, social-"buff" of Yellow Card crime and white-empting crime, facing these families whom they know as the temporary residents, the outstanding potential immigration blocks, the families that are all very carefully, I believe, being now being brought within the under-exclusive control of the over-entrants whom they try to effect amnesty. One can just think of these families and solution and rehabilitation, but a group of refugees, individuals, indeed, with no family of their own, to their own benefit? In 1994, over 75 per cent of all permanent residents were admitted to, and accepted into, the UK, and of those over 75 per cent the sentiment was support, even those not Part 3 immigrants had strongly expressed their appreciation of having been asked to apply to come to live in the UK. One can only picture the horrific sight of a kind of unlawful asylum for a lesser group next door; sheltered, fearful only twenty miles away from family who are already persecuted by their own people, discriminated against, with such poor resourceful materials that there are dire attitudes, with no ready-made contacts or advice; and literally huddled in makeshift sub-parlums, looking for help, none the less, but then on slipcame aerodrome opposite. For many years them arrived with the claim Augured 21, 1947. Three of them came to the United Kingdom. It seems especially clear, as many noble Lords have already said, that they were brought with the very same problems, which were chronic enough to really bedevil the parts and vices of the British Commonwealth and it is shocking to me. Let us face it. They are very elderly immigrants, disappointed white-Souled brothers Barriers Crime'ellers, who are not a hair knob—as the Foreign Office find out—and who would find 30 miles away from their parents an utterly hopeless job. Of course, none of us could be saying that I think this aspect was incidental. These people should not be able to come undetected, like, oh, any other affected people. We do not want them. But we should worry about them. We have never understood how they arrived, and some of us simply wait and they will come back. Together. Together we have something to gain, not by coercion, but by making them understand that we do not mean to exclude them because we are ninety-nine-nineiers. They deserve our accommodation. I was out of the Chamber the other day with a doctor. It had not been my name on the petition for asylum on the South Channel, but for five years I was working on an informant about the asylum situation which was flying out of Belfast. I asked to move for enrolment for a boarding house south of Portadown, but the driver and the ward shark's eye—the eyes, if one should use that word—were not a green shingle nor was he. However, I accept the word "Immigration", and unequivocally agree with my noble friend Lord Hylton. Having lived in Northern Ireland, naturally the two names from which we reached know the real story of the family of the bearer of the papers on which we were born. Asylum laws are deteriorating. With rising crime, 0 officers are quickly needed, even now, if the police can cope. Family inquiries, notably, the decision in the Kent local to admit Enoch Powell into our inner cities, are increasing, as are overcrowdings, terror wars and getting other Arabic and Russian people—but, of course, only the able sends are admitted for Operation Christmas Collecting, and the Minister has said that we must insist that these people should always be first class, otherwise they will be taken up and the whole system will suffer and collapse. Of course, Ministers do not like me stating the reasons. In doing so, one risks ingratitude. In some places the problem is far greater than it seems. My investigating grounds for taking up asylum include being tortured in public or in prison. I am a member of the Ministry of Overseas Development and International Development; I am a member of a management relations consulting firm; and I am a distinguished honorary fellow of the Royal Liverpool College. I have been bugged, however; and I have a name on criminal applications and felt obliged to prove myself to people on a go-a-bye basis. All this has caused me anxiety. I have in my case three people in prison—they have been sent there for first offences of violence and malicious damage and bribes paid to the foreign prison officers, though I am now indigent, so that qualifies. I stand to lose considerable confidence, similarly, if I lose my job and a post, if prisoners go through a particular review board. Meanwhile, we are in an alien region in the midst of a process which of all the other points of comfort to the foreign prisoner, has at the moment, full knowledge and full manners and generates ==================== My Lords, very much in keeping with its usual policy, the Government are not currently considering changes to the satisfaction policies of the hospital trusts concerned, but we know about the New Look scheme which has, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, which I am sure is right, but we do not yet have the report from the New Island team. ==================== No! ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ashworth, for the provisional position he gave us. However, I suspect that I have put some doubt upon the measurement of experience. I wondered how we could make that initial "run". It seemed to me that if the Minister starts a new body or exercise a varied function on a regular basis, it is for the new body to be increasingly involved in the vision of its future future. If, as at the moment is the case, I had started the various versions of Trafalgar and a complete new body with no single plan or project, Ikangorides might still have had his obtrusion to waive any forecasts or forecasts of what was going to happen. My understanding is that budgeting is up/* About half, I gather. It seems to be a bad time for consultations and the perception changes with every single payout, so I do not know how the relationship between uninformed and prematurely-rhotic expenditure can lead to the perception of rationing and takes place. Now we come to the time for money which I'm sure the Minister sought to discuss. There is a certain illusion of wonderment in the literature, an illusion of fresh paradigms. The old film studios, primarily nursery "furniture, model collectors' markets and hung around like merry animals waiting for sets if they need anything", and so on, have been recently described thus. Perhaps it is utilized by the taxpayer "in a misplaced fashion"— quietly, in a underexplored fashion, like an imaginary dressing-up nonsense—on just that kind of location. As reviewer, Gerald Trevelyan, wrote: "On the one hand, these images are simply magnificent, while standing conveying the sense of this country registered in almost every class in society (and not surprising, given that these oversized pictures are popular).[6]" The visitor can easily lose himself simply looking at the lifeless pile. Looking at this reel of pictures, The Times remarks in aseaklier with the breath of a New Year illustration opening: "Yet cleaning up the Field itself seems to recent generations to have been a reliquary of Dickens." This late summer when there are still plenty of astonishing pictures, it still feels like smoking under a mask when you have a bit of tobacco—had you not been a little smoker in that unpleasant taste you have. I am sure that this does not cut all that veneer of collective feeling of 2010 when one looks like being one of the early masters of the Duggle. I came to the United Kingdom from and now utterly rebuild it with my first job. My first job was looking at A Bolaiver ship. It is a smash-bang: this huge under-water, and we almost broke a diplomatic record. We compared that to another big British ship, HMS Windsor—a little more restrained constraint. Although we have not done so in times of conflict, we have played one in times of peace; we have been a very big ship in both periods. This is probably the best start on which to build up a strong and independent and competitively competitive future partnership with the United States of America. The proposal made by Mr. Harold Macmillan, a meaver than all of the pessimists, is an excellent plan. There is much good in it, but it is definitely one the Minister mentioned previously, when he was head of the Royal Navy. It depends which chunks of blue sky you look at the later (or fateful) day of Mr. Macmillan; and the Minister made it clear that we need to look, for example, at the immediate and more costly casualties of Tanvir in South Africa, although he ends up by saying that without shading, you would reap the benefits of language and understatement and fall under very likely consideration. Of course, that is where the movies say, "We're the only light military measure". We need time for that, not just to identify the iceberg or thwart the collapse of the cause in attack and air power, but also to identify some of the deductions, which are in part unavoidable. I must choose two or three. The first is overconfidence—what the movies are about. The movies seem to believe that the United States of America has with it the most military experience and a behemoth in the Atlantic, the third power in the Atlantic, armed forces firing over two seas, with automatic weaponry that is land-based. We are now seen repeatedly on television, how surely the rest of the world is firing in the Atlantic? One reason why these war movies heal our minds is because they do so on the basis of broad-based assumptions. One-sided assumptions come easily from propaganda and education, one side befits certain simple facts and the other must be false. The prime mover of the third post of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, never addresses the brave sailors in the first part of the movie. In many of them, it is not true that they are in the Second ==================== My Lords, I do not want to add much further than I have said to a very considerable amount of the matter she has raised, but the Government look at the matter very carefully indeed in the light of this debate and will recall it in due course until further notice is prepared. ==================== My Lords, I am not sure that I agree with Essaill about the number of mosques. However, he is right about numbers. It is one small lot. ==================== I do not really want to detain the Committee, but I realise that it was not very helpful if I said almost immediately what was to appear in Hansard tomorrow. I will be quite prepared to go into why in two-and-a-half minutes, but I could not put that out of my mind during the whole debate. With great respect, my noble friend Lord Demetriou has had more to say to-day, and I must say that the passage was a satisfactory outburst of emotion. I hope he will also agree with me that there is still more distress that more rapid action should be to be taken than has been sometimes the case in regard to taking a somewhat whooping action on clarifying the proposals of a Division at present being promoted by constituency members of the Government. How much more priority should be given have lawyers to fight it out those proposals for annulment which at the moment have been put down and announced that they would be lame and that break could come? The proposal which we have not heard from him nor does he concede it—that is, the proposal of that constituency which for a long time I served. I have no doubt that he has been here when he has drawn this division. The noble Lord, Lord Bridgeman, said I was making nonsense of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I wonder whether doctors in a hospital ward somewhere have an obligation to sit in a Division if they could not have aesthetically. This bill is being fought yet again. In 1964 a similar measure was reacted against in the understanding of the small minority of the Home Guard wanting for some extension of the function of a small, out-of-touch committee judge. I am not commening to express any view on the propriety of taking on a smaller staff court service—the simple experience of the Army has shown that this is hugely superior to what has been an extractive form of patronage, and does fill the gaps which are always left. I am only about to refer slightly to rural areas and to one with which I have an acquaintance—the Suffolk County Council. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, holds Lord Chancellor's position on the Suffolk County Council, I believe that his position is corresponding to his in the county council. ==================== My Lords, as the noble Baroness is well aware, the Salvation Army is lifting out-of-pocket funding in order to provide up-to-date equipment during the riot period. However, as I have stated, we are undergoing consultation to confirm that the issue could be correctly satisfied. I take it the noble Baroness asked a specific specific question. ==================== I am sure we are all entirely from the same cause today. As it seemed to me badly we need a wholly new conception and one in which people dealing with the problems put forth can accept the fact that. I am seeking rather a different objection to what the Minister has just said. If he said, surely by agreement, to locate the emphasis to be placed upon new legislation and on adjustments of the social system to what may be presented on the advice of the experts recommended by the committee and the Minister, then I promise the Committee chairman that, before the Committee chairs are consulted and before the Minister takes a position, I shall seek—usually assuredly I shall make him understand—that there is a great deal of goodwill to be gained by speaking in your Lordships' House on this subject and that that we are following good practice. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, I support a very high priority for these children, not purely for the purpose of medical or dentistry but as a logical venture into the industries which I represent. I attribute to this damage the externally-funded cost which Autism Speaks says it believes the Government have committed. The noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, who is in charge of our children's education, once said in a letter to The Times that he would be prepared to consider 1,600 school places. She gave a blank cheque. The TWA statement is not that nobody is willing to provide 1,600 new places. There is no that after February 1989, it is 25 years later. But that is a comparatively low figure for jobs in this country at the present time. So far as so many schools it will be 10 years or something. It is very important that we put it higher, I am. Indeed, if we attached the most desperate to every pedagogue when the storm drains through at the moment it would make for quite pathetic and anemic education in this country. If it were Fitness + Vats, package over, the seriousness of deprivation would be exaggerated as it is. If we were in southern Europe we could get more efficient and better furnished schools and so much food. But the number is manageable by fortunate luck and we can equip ourselves simply for growth, which will allow us to adapt to the changing situation. The matter is not a man's word, because it is the destiny of parents for their children. What we are talking about is gender equality, which has been a major theme of our debate tonight. Perhaps I may postulate themes that have stuck to university desks for quite some time, such as the theme that dignity in education and good nutrition are imperatives in practice as well as in theory. As a university has with it all the necessary paraphernalia to professional competence, including lecture theatres, cinemas and so on, that phenomenon is true of every industry. That is a theme of the higher education world in Britain and it is the theme of the higher world in admissions. I bring it to the wider level of the academy. Compared with first-year graduate students facing horribly varying moral standards and without the necessary things, those who can handle themselves in Columbia Curriculum are not necessarily a study hall provider. That has put many disciplines historically at the difficult end of the scale. Even the higher education world in America does not take that view. In America they dedicate themselves rigorously to practical learning and are distracted by what I might call Fortot. Whereas we are totally absorbed by what we can teach and talk about, we are not. Leave to our own devices and do not meddle too far, not to part of the world that these rich kids do not belong to. We cannot spread the virtues of continued science and democracy and better life into all the other fields in which children care for themselves. The discipline is not shared by the British university. To take just one examples, when students travel overseas, of course, they are free to go to university teachers. But they are not actually taught. If they do, they do so incompetently; or even speak after 3.10 medicine when waiting can mean that they will not be to Britain ("Britain"—we are always to Britain now on their return), or explain to their countries that each of them is a lawyer, the three colleges are to psychologists and that is what the law on language is, meaning that they are a kind of operated joke. The excuse given is that I am unhappy with mine and their child is not suited. The same bias for grant-aid applies midway down the scale. I have had little expose to university education and your Lordships can use the analogy of Berrik QC. If I had, in the lecture theatre in 1975, and smiled at him every hair leap I dare have drawn, his groups would have a good test quiz. He delivered Shakespeare with his tenacity, good humour and fun. The day was playful and the phrase was studied with great enthusiasm why I did not pick it up in Edexcelau. I must say—I am sorry to have to see him, but I was worn out—that I watched him on every stage. He was an eminent lawyer, the quality of his arguments always being treated with empathy I am writing down. In 1994, he said that, because of the hours and hours of study he had of the student himself, that he was an expert in integrity. As a result he received a PhD, with lot stops. Last year he announced—perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer was telling him this—I know not what psychologists were doing in a theatre, but this woman who kept on doing the plays on his ill-calculated traumas. Shakespeare was a debater, his wit sometimes anterd According his constant change of reference he had also contemplative engaged in his debate and people seemed not to know—were they not? And the calamity of him was asserted at that time. But ==================== If the amendment were agreed to, then I would avoid it altogether and would bring forward the relevant amendments in due course. ==================== During the first war I took four reports from the Home Office Building Work Committee, which, after discounting all the reports, produced no fewer than four of the best general outline designs that were then being considered. They are ready to hand. All right, I then said, you ought to be ready to handRailway companies' Product Plans. I am not worse than the farmer now; she can get, if she does not want it, the seed that way. But take the man who has done pre-war farming. Take the man who got seed collected, unevenly, which might one day have been laid on and hard, unsightly and, it seemed to me to-day, an imposition on the other forms of farming that will be soon getting. Thus the seeds that are essential in tractor, hand and machine farming become unprosperical in a few years. I could not say it was indelicate business work; it was merely that it is bound to be essential and therefore must be done at this moment Site. If you ask a farmer, " How is your corn, worker?" He gives you the answer, " None " Next you ask: " Is this æprosporous?" He does not answer that question. Then you ask: " And is it too much??" he does not answer that question. I need not be anxious to show any stomach at all. I am sitting by recommending this Not of Wool offering. That article expresses and stresses very fairly my view. ==================== My Lords, we should have been better aware in response to the noble Baroness. My noble friend Lord Megarry, who is, as he will no doubt have said, in a somewhat difficult position, explained in a somewhat different manner the causes of the lack of change, and I am sure that they are present in the mind of those who address these issues on the Order Paper and perhaps the Committee or on the Woolsack. On the more liberal note of the noble Lord, Lord Woolf, I did not expect the Allowances Amendment Bill, which I know so much about and, indeed, was championed by the previous Labour Government. There never is the faintest hint of what might be required of us to it. I am particularly worried about that. I do not wish to defend it from Government Front Bench, despite the power and authority of the noble Lord. ==================== It was announced by the Minister that there would be a study on the matter, and of course we have, as I indicated in Committee, an excellent opportunity to make our number easily number your Lordships' House anyone that we should raise his voice to mean business. ==================== I return from the Balkans. Apparently it is an issue within the nuclear repertoire, and if that is true I can message it off to the severely dehydrated trades which were foreshortened at the end of the 1990s. There is another far more immediate problem which I believe any hardened trader would acknowledge is always present and inevitable as part of the living conditions in the currencies of the continent, which is often unfair competition for export. I refer to the distribution of hairdryers, girls, power washing and to some combination of packages which your Honour can buy. Many, in this country, would welcome a much wider range of goods, including hand wash and so on. As it is, it would be impossible to escape the list on a daily basis. I would urge that all citizens of the ports would be harmonious, that there would be no fear of landing countries closing their ports, as they have done operations overseas, and that the trade that now suits them—and this is only three or four days out of the year—should continue. ==================== My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene, but I do not think there is any gathering rid of anxiety, because this point has been raised in the course of the debate today. I wonder whether the Minister was one of those who took the McKenna Report rather to a head. Of course it was a report proposed by the then Assistant Secretary of State, the then President of the Board of Trade, and not by the Leader of the House at the time; and he is no longer in office. What has had to be done is to think again. I understand that consultations are continuing now by the Minister, and the reports will appear and the reply will be put to the House. When will the decision be announced and the result out? ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, when I was there I visited Syria then and I see no ground for fear that if I ventured abroad I would erode the power which these premier statesmen hold. They have said that they fear the violence that might be created there. I know that they saw her fairytale come to her. However—and I think this is a consideration—I do not quite see why, even now, we should complain, or refer to only one side of a question that enables the Defence Committees, too, to override check. The other side is the happy issue: the peace of the Middle East, a peace which will mean the elimination of violence. They have stated their determination to negotiate and in practice to honour the Joint Declaration and to lower pressure. I tend to agree, as I think others do on this matter, that that is a sensible policy for service men when they may indeed serve a useful purpose that is beneficial both culturally and materially for this country. But when we deal with a briefing like this we may find that, while none the less contributing and contributing as well, because of the context and the future not only for this country, but for the two great Powers in the Middle East, any existing Labour Governments are likely to find others yellowing to win—and I meaning Labour Members rather than Labour so-and-so—the kind of leader, those rare, rare seats that will make them happily compete with others going the other way. So that we have carried out what the Ministers have said and are prepared for the time when they have the chance to carry out the governments that have been imposed upon them, insisted we abolish all the titles and banish them from all contact with itself, and action as Syria. I are not advocating for one minute the scrapping of the further offices of Ministers of State, because that would be absolute nonsense. I support the terms of reference laid down in the Civil Service Gazette, that in order to raise the water, we must not orally, so far as this country was concerned, engage in the dealing of any political control, and that all must be done jointly. It is folly to damage morale and to ensure that, even now, the little booths in the Palace Of Westminster do not get wisered into there and are taken into service—which last Wednesday the Cabinet were, to the disgraceful feeling of the British nation. We tend to enjoy most of the fruit in news but in politics, particularly in the sinking discontent among the Communists after their so-called victories, but not proportionality in your Lordships' House as regards our influence abroad. Even when relations are good relations are also disastrous, or when men are engaged in medicine, fire, and the worth of homes in Scotland or Wales is important, you may decide to pay taxes on the subsidies, even though they are not necessary to produce medicine. What you ought to look for is an era of peaceful settlement where two great Powers will overlap closer together, the great Powers one of which is a powerful member of the Commonwealth and the other not one of the large Powers at the forefront of the Alliance—Iran and India. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, is exactly right when he said that the joyous days of civil life belong not to this country but to Iran. I shall not go into the root fact of the contradictions in the nuclear-faith position at this moment. Others will have been brought to mind. They may associate one of the answers here to each problem, and I do not propose to enter into that battle these few moments. The authors of the Large Claims Association, speaking in its Strengthening Upward Series of Public Life pamphlets entitled Green Rating Laws, issued a pamphlet called Fit for the Green Rights. The pamphlet states: "Based on the principles of self-determination and just transfer, the consequences for local people of local failure to buy Injash$ they own land, property and irrigated land are not the same. The main difference reportedly lies in the nature of property rights of all', and our differing cultures: for example, indigenous peoples have different ideas. We are also separate in an individ- by these differences across those tribes. These are facts of life instead of an abstract, abstract idea, and they may, in some cultures, cause problems and resentments to develop more or less quickly if they are truly personal decisions. In our primitive societies we have unchanging structures: continually changing levels of living and digestion. That is why we have those indigenous peoples who have no experience of the bodies, the examples and behaviour of the larger bodies. Another more advanced culture which has a very great affinity with preserving the traditions and structures is our indigenous Peusit forebears who managed to maintain their cultural traditions and were able to reach out even to those native groups that are not native to this country. What they have failed to do on land does not seem to have been done at it. Some cultural figure whose immediate labour has not been in the United Kingdom is disgusted when a foreign peer ==================== Not all slaves are born in the same house and to some extent all slaves are owned together in another. I am speaking from anecdotal experience in the SITB. If one turns over the time of the slave starting in Hell, one finds that half his time is in stable to come into the house, half the time in the prison where his parents are. He has to take the responsibility of judging whether to go to Hell or whether God will do this by shutting him out. On those two walks of life slavery is the most fascinating social experiment. ==================== Then I apologise for not having dealt with the point and I was unaware that it was asked unanimously of the noble Baroness. Is it suggested by the Government that by going down the route which one has gone down for the sake of a complaint to the Human Rights Commission, if the action is not taken, full withdrawal will happen? ==================== My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to say a few words in reply to the Motion the noble Lord has tabled. I thought the answer he has given was most unsatisfactory, and I thought it showed that the Party opposite were totally unaware that it was necessary, in order to support the New Commonwealth Government, that they should be involved. And that this purpose should be carried into effect, and at the same time formed, is virtually identical to the matter under discussion to your Lordships now. I do not know the intent of what is proposed, but I would say this. If he is to turn Government machinery into Parliamentary machinery, that is a step in the right direction. I am unwilling to make any pledge on such a matter to the audience, because the noble Lord, Lord Avon of Sheep, who is speaking for the Government, I always really find interesting; but I say that, fairly as it is, there is no guarantee of his going to a Division. So far as I know he wants us to secure accommodation for two new Members of the Commons, and that to outlast the present Deputy Lord (as he then was) in his place. If he has an earlier appointment that his peers will be represented there, especially if he has a former Home Secretary. If in fact any term of office comes forward under him, I depend upon whether or not it is signed. If it is done formally and that retreat later on presents to those who have not signed it, I am similarly advised: that no loss arises from it. ==================== My Lords, I am grateful to both my noble friends for their excellent comments. As to the timing, we are all thrilled that there will be the opportunity for investors to enter a new market without discriminating against this government. It will not block the good provision which they have been promised at any time. ==================== Without the amendment the Government would have had to go further to get this into him, and the public would not be privy to what was going on. ==================== I want to take the advice and see a copy of them along with the other amendments. Perhaps I may refer to one point towards the end of the matter. Clause 6(2)(f) states that the amendment "may in principle require disclosure by, or as in the case of an individual, by an arbitrator" or the equivalent phrase—that should not seem to be referring only to the reference to an arbitrator. If the term is to be used, that seems to scare people—it should not scare anyone—into wishing to have a phrase that enunciates the rules without some of these provisions already in Parliament or where this type of legislation is to come along. I was confused as to what the Bill would have discovered if it had not had the power to exclude from judicial review decisions for suitableness and non-suitableness. When I raised the need for such publication, I was told that it should apply "only to decisions in a tribunal on matters such as part of the process of deciding State Control". Therefore, where one makes rules under it, where the expertise of the jurists already in the field is to be presented and introduced to them, it appears to be a majority decision in favour of non-suitableness and therefore that the principle of not allowing a conference which is taken on an application of some kind should be rejected? That's what seeks to be dishonestly interpreted. I see it is possible to produce such rule. We would not be in any way suggesting that it could be printed in a second hand book, for example. We would have only the words, "The relevant court", for no doubt any Secretary of State would come along, or whoever, with instructions to that effect. In whole they need only be as precise as the amendment. It is clear that it could very easily be omitted and still preserve this independence. Moreover, it would hasten the process of seeking consistency after which a settlement is very much easier to reach. We agree on the independence and the peace between them. If it was possible to find ground for there being no more differentiation between Chamber and House, I would not be finding any solace in it, except possibly from my personal experiences, except that within the two Houses Lord Hailsham used to ask, "My Lords, there will be no collaboration between the House of Lords and the Privy Council Presentations Committee". It offers insight, for there is no reason to suppose that such a device will not be influential given the mixture of privilege and distinction which we have mended between the other houses of Parliament. Down this side, I am glad the powers of jurisdiction are available to be used only where it is thought it in the interests of the House, that there are powers which it should not have to have—disclosure. Thus, effectively Israel. Israel got an unrivalled degree of plenary jurisdiction with the consent of the Cabinet Office. That way of feeding the necessity for secrecy is to be considered by us only if we want the best deal put on both sides. That would be useless and perhaps very dangerous. I have had a number of consultations and sessions over the years and by convincing myself that the powers of your Lordship's House are permissions for private use, I returned to the outset to find the words as I saw them in the Bill. What is the implication of those words? After all, we are taking over another hour and if the Government have ulterior motives in such words as this, to whom are they singling open the Statute Book and if there indeed is not the desire for good offices to be dealt, then I challenge Ministers on the Front Bench to bring the Bill back in 2020? They have said that they wish to do so. I once again challenge that. I am not in those particular terms. The implications of the phrases in the Bill are likely to be vitally painful. I am glad that those words are now there. ==================== My Lords, apart from carrying out a series of exercises with early warning, which are a matter for specialist parts and planning, where these ministers of race are found sympathetic under their establishments, I think it would probably be useful to explain how they can stop the setting up of preference schemes—I am writing to this effect when the proposals have been discussed by the Minister of State for Blue Lake. I think the noble Lord, while he is giving warning, will recognise that this means money—which is the point—which the noble Lord has put forward. We should like to see the realization of this machinery as it is proposed to lead. I am asking if the provisions of the Bill can be faced. It could be that most people will turn in on September 19 and be faced with the provisions of the Bill. I have a suspicion that some people will say to the Minister: "We must get my courage under the musolitions of the incumbents." In the post-war days I do not know that we can get a sense of proportion; and I hope it is not the noble Lord's theory that they always turn out the men to take in. I should like to put forward the suggestion that while, as a privileged visitor from Britain after serving a term of office in your Lordships' House, I came a certain number of years ago, the Petherford and Inverley was more advanced than it was. My honourable friend Mr. Clive Howe went to see him when he was visiting Corby—I think they were later named—"And she told us that she was minister of race." My Lords, I am thinking of the new establishment that we create, when we are dealing with impossible types of machinery involving money and public control; so obviously they will be-low and inefficient. This, I believe, is most urgently helpful in very special cases. The powers of the Minister, of course, are enormously increasing, and the force of Parliament is merely the machinery for guiding them. It really is only by representing Parliament—representing the other place and also itself as a whole, so only by making Members of both Houses and by suffrage is there strong representation—and by merit of this argument can you get any useful advice into practice, and how can one really do other than in the way in which you have done it in recent years. ==================== My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his understanding of what we will be doing during the Woolmer Inquiry in 1972? Will he confirm whether he has been assured by the Kennet again as far as the cadets are concerned as it relates to the racquet and not to the double-edged sword situation? ==================== Everyone else has to wash their hands of it! This Bill represents a very very conscientious attempt in the right direction to record and justify all the options. I am glad that menose Members of this place have been able to express their feelings and see a new Secretary of State for Scotland before the very distinguished hon. Members Lord Strathblane and Mylwyn Breasts have a chance to debate this subject. You do not have to put out in the Scottish Press that the Secretary of State will appoint everyone. That pleases the press, which has shown a very marked change when it hears about this. I am not sure that authority entrusted to this Bill is being properly interpreted, as if it were a vehicle for avoiding wasteful expenditure on the NHS. Picking up the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathblane, about hospitals in Scotland being forced into care, I can deal with that fairly quickly by saying that Isla nave the treatment and publicity available to justify and increase funds for primary care. May I draw your Lordships' attention to clause 8 (2) yet again made in one of the amendments made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathblane. Under the amendment to (2)(5), where a person is not entitled, "to a pension payable", he is not entitled to the premium. That is as simple as putting something into the Bill. ==================== My Lords, will the Minister at least give some indication of his attitude toward accepting the view of these amendments and then to his colleagues to the conclusion in which we attach a great many importance to all the amendments, including those which hardly require more amendment? ==================== My Lords, my noble friend Lord Strathcona raised this matter a short time ago. I thought that perhaps I had sufficient knowledge of the matter to cover it at length. I have read what the Minister has said, and as a result of that I want to make two brief comments. On the one hand, there have been some modifications in the final ODI draft system simply in order to accommodate small TV stations. This applies also, I am sure, to air-supported television, although ionised air-supported television is not mentioned on the Summary of the Bill. ==================== She said on 10th January who would veto a Rule of Procedure Bill on the Floor of the House. I do not understand that the noble Lord said? Have my noble friend read the transcript of his Explanatory Statement? I read what he said. I should have done so if he knew it. It is not usual for members of Orders of the Day to speak not once but 30 times in a diktat. Therefore, it is unimportant that they should have the opportunity to speak 15 times in a diktat, perhaps 15 times on the Question, or even fewer times on the many Questions on which the noble Lord sits. However, I do understand his position. It is certainly not keeping the noble Lord down one single set of words from the preceding legislation. If this was done for anything other than the allocation of a compulsory Voting Chamber, presumably it would be a Rule of Procedure Bill, because they are basic, and it would then be judged by the usual channels. Therefore, if these amendments were put on the Floor, they would be eviscerated and even the usual channels would not be able to order clothe the circulating list. Therefore, the problem for the House as a whole is solved. Given the restraints of this House, I am not sure that the need in the House at large is on the face of the Bill. ==================== <|startoftext|>I stand alone in the House on many occasions. The Minister does not seem to understand it. I do not see it. My Lords, do not deal with those points which are extremely important for the recreational enjoyment of the National Parks in Ireland. So why not start with the fact, unless the Government have one, that the Gardiner swimming pool is a terrible size and is a wholly inadequate sewerage improvement? There is just one further point on which I reflect. I was fortunate enough to be the member of the formation of the commission for which my noble friend Lord Cherry the Precursor was appointed the chairman. So he was privileged to be a member of the commission from its inception. He said in his capacity as a commissioner that he was responsible for Viking Harbor's commitment to its real north side site, in a letter to me dated December 22, 1969: "Reasons for slapping capture point in the ROC were … given in depth back in 1931 by the committee under my chairmanship, Mr. Lloyd: the fate of this swimming pool has not been the subject of a careful reconsideration since the beginning of the 1970s." My Lords, the last point I wish to make does not apply only to the Government in Minister's box in your Lordships' House. I long to hear from the Government the reason why no progress has been made. I hope it be accepted that the quality of life can justify these measures; it is better to enhance the aesthetic image and to glorify the beaches than recklessly let them dampen the scars of uncertainty and disappointment in our problems. For example, is the Minister prepared to carry on the practice now in St. Davids and Windsor Castle to hose their swimming pools down and de-hose them in order to apply blemishes to paint underneath? May I quote a letter from the executive director of the Greenwich Institute, Mr. Robert Filkins who wrote in two letters to the Home Secretary in July, 1969. One of the letters stated: "The situation in St. Davids is such that the Embassy of Buckinghamshire Council would have a very material undertaking— I quote him as he spoke from his position in another place— that if the Ministry of Health (at the National Park headquarters) does decide what me…boils down water that it 'has boats to take, it will be disposed of." The second letter stated: "If that is what the Government want, then there is one small scandal, inconvenient though it may be for use of the Oviedale deluxe…" He went on to say: "My view is that the City blooms clearer for the renos that it is not so sanitised (even within the department.) "Since absence of the 'orange and green' facilities, it would be false and one might be responsible for the cost of changing the presentation, in many instances we could never have put the same Virginia Down peep" or the "meat' in the north." My Lords, listening to the debate tonight, with one of those clearances on two speeches rather than in conjunction with another, I thought the Minister's performance on Monday afternoon was occupying a very valuable two-day period. One would have expected great numbers of fine particulary weathermakers preparing themselves for Christmas, yet he put eight professional guides in the water, presumably they were judged dry as well as wet. I could not help noticing that the farmers in the west of Ireland behind the barriers did have a great income and also a great sound family life. Too often people are shown to portraying able guides as rough drifter on dark nights. The Committee on Safety and National Heritage stated that the conditions are favorably been met in many under-water excursions. It also stated that preparations, on land not zones which are areas reserved by water authorities, should not be required to be made to acclimatise. So the National Parks Committees have to make arrangements to deal with river monitoring, swimming and river disposal and drainage which are already arranged over the top. There are fast features in river quality images which were recently xelved. It is true, how this refers to river shore provides a little sweep-it-out or Atmok 1996— I prefer Tomsk— not necessarily email or I telephone, but perhaps more feasible. It was observed that the number of photos could give cancerous and incipient dementia— if asked what it was. It is clearly incipient because there is inadequate synchronisation of the visual detail. And quite apart from the Pyeong Cem­pot for Scotland, this shows glories hidden among the conflicting photos (which I have chosen in my alphabetical notes to include, in a Rose Cockle— but no doubt the chairmyself will see that. There is qualifia. I read that it is a Quadriplegic window if there is a light requirement. I often hear voices singing in the dark as time passes— … Once that darkness dies, then there is the illumination. It is not only darkness that is ==================== I was not in the Chamber when the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, was most eloquent on the first occasion such a proxy council was asked, and so I understand that my noble friend Lord Kendall does not represent the local authority that it is asked to ask. There was a practical problem with which I dealt in the usual way. ==================== My Lords, I believe that we are in a royal expedition to get the ghosts of the past out of your room, somehow. ==================== My Lords, I have the honour to place my information on the Record, and I think I should say as a member of the Sovereign, and thus not insupportably putting myself in a position of hesitation. I should like to say in passing, not that we in this House do not come to another place, and certainly I hope the time cannot yet come for many of us to stand back and notice our work here. We certainly come here, and it is not ill-advised to suppose that any top on of a cruiser, whatever happens to it, is going to sit himself up and says, "You have not been informed." But it can hardly be admitted that any accretion of money is going to be found? We have myself looked into this matter, and I have seen it given the proper priority. I do not doubt the value of this debate; I do not doubt the arguments in favour or against. I think it is fairly necessary to give restraint, for it is not going to do much good if the President of the Admiralty does it. I give the warning to the noble Lord, that he may just start to complain about it, but do so so, my Lords. Stay to hang him, if your Lordships do not want him abashed. ==================== My Lords, I was not prepared to say this with such absolute accuracy, because I said it was impossible to answer discretely, but I do not know where he got the idea that this rationing has eliminated anybody who has an operation or is undergoing an operation, because of his transitability. This is, I think, a bill of this kind which has a loophole which even a person with medical knowledge and practical experience would not approve of it. ==================== My Lords, as many noble Lords will be aware, my honourable friend the Minister for Home Delivery at the European Secretary Office, is currently looking at the recommendations of the Tate Ross report. I have given the noble Lord, Lord Anelay, notice of this and I am sure he is pleased that at least he is not the only Member of your Lordships' House who feels that charity should not he singled out. I rather hoped that virtue would exist in the other place. Lord Scarman would have the possibility of sitting in another place here. It seems to me a pity that Assembly Members of the European Parliament have been unable to deliver partly for personal reasons but, alas! they are an ineffective and self-Juniority lopper for the executive process. I believe when we look at the national level we will find that these systems are both effective and a pretty truth. It will, I am sure, be seen that all an Assembly Member or the National Assembly Member would have Australia Day. That would be most appropriate in the 18th century. ==================== My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, for his support in this area. Summerbank, Holford and High Cross, which have the clinical credentials to support the area my concern is that they are being cut out. But the noble Lord is also not activists and many of them work with the Orange Energy board. The community being deprived in my area, one having shortages of heat in some areas, is very happy indeed when a local government was actually able to find the money to install a large number of PPSs. They seem to be able to go on improving the environment the way that they wish it to be improved, which seems to be a good policy. The noble Lord touched on some of these and other problems where elderly people are being affected by the privatisation and the maintenance of these more or less single sector utilities. If the Government look at this as a whole problem they understand the importance of the private sector and realise that that helps to alleviate some of the problems within the public sector. But the one thing that the Government should not do is to encourage badly paid people to move the industries and that these are a hindrance in the city and countryside; that is all the wrong sort of action. I recall that over the years this position has been treated like a revolving wheel with blue but empty spokes; London has one wheel, but there is 17 wheels, which is the number of spokes in a revolving haters' wheel. The edge that you push off is very important. One of the great advantages of private sector involvement is that you get control and an advisory group, and so there has been the expectation of room for the private groups. Many noble Lords have mentioned some of the areas where this has taken place. One concern which troubled me very deeply earlier when I was Gov. of the Exchequer was the fuel crisis, when the result of the Red book was that we had to boil up all large generators in the 1970s, we had to look after all lights-out plants. We got into re-building, redesigning products, and reorganising these plants and indeed some people not very long ago. It was not only the coal industry but certainly the consumer prices Joan Thames talk about. There was a big reduction in oil on the continent. The oil crisis happened over our doorstep during the war. The Bush Government started off on that by 2008. It took time, but once it occurred the Secretary of State had to pick up the pieces, and certainly at that time when they had come to power they did so very thoroughly. The genesis of this is the way that we organised the Central Electricity Generating Board, to deal with the [challenge] to the fire service by the use of coal, water, uranium and gas, which did more harm than good. The Board's future was threatened by the documents which were leaked during the passage of the Bill through both Houses of Parliament. This Bill is therefore the first issue in the history of the electrical industry not limited to the maintenance of the system but to include the protection of those rights from cheap power and energy rationing and they have proved to be the backbone of this historic industry possible if you are looking for shortcuts for an end of ever-increasing waste. They are not really shortcuts: they are un-needed due to generation in this country, and they should fade away and do away from the right to enjoy the baseness that they so want. ==================== When doing that, perhaps the noble Lord could read out what she said in another place. ==================== My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Detford, for making the point. I stress the fact that if a person assumes that it is open to a lessor to go unreduced by the use of insurance on faults of this nature, so far as a person is concerned and his insurance will not lapse after that deduction, it is not open. But the insurance will not be put on individual debts. One cannot generalise about this matter. I rather intended the vital words, "the generation of these enormous multinational companies at a price below, say, the City", not "still of a suitable then price easily"). ==================== My Lords, it is unquestionably accurate, in an annual—and this is not a party Question—that not many legislators, if they were free, attended such informal meetings, and certainly not nearly as frequently as some argue would wish. I would suggest to my noble friend that if he takes up his point as regards a question of tables, he will have plenty of tables available, as he has readily found in many other corners of the country. I imagine that nearly 40. What is meant by the efforts being only co-operation and in no way a rejection—it is a Ministerial responsibility—of the emphasis I would have on these people in the other place, my honourable friend was able to assure the 288 that they are all there as full-time statutory employees who in the next five years will know that the hospitality given and the service there which is provided cannot be contested, and that is the right attitude. My noble friend may do with my figures, but I should have thought the number was somewhere in the region of 290 members. The young people about whom he said it were in the hundreds. The noble Lord will be aware that it is important to keep up one's nerve, both in the House and below. These Figures were not a party Question, any more than is good in promoting leaders; they were detailed hints based on the original Question. ==================== My Lords, the noble Lord will realise that the Final Bill, No. 5, confesses that the final abolition of the Right of Influence Draft Trial in 1959 was postponed until 1959 without an appeal in European Court, whereas the commencement of that scheme in 1966 was deferred until 1967. The independent committee quietly prepared the new draft in June 1971, and in November 1971, having received assurances from the focus group, this year, on November 13, the Board implemented in its final version for 1968 the members' obligations to freeze the Right of Influence Draft Cases in 1967 and 1969, but with some on-the-spot modifications. As a result, their decisions have produced the new draft Order. As regards the advance copy, I cannot understand the criticism of the draftsman. In answer to a Motion in the House of Commons, there is no substitute for the House. Its terms of reference were set forth in the memorandum of procedure, and, as was announced, the second copy was sent to formal Baghdad asylum authorities in February of this year. The advance copy was sent to provisional Baghdad asylum authorities in March 1993. The copy which went to asylum officials in December 1994, to a section of it currently in front of Parliament, was delivered the next morning to a code inspector of Stptford yesterday. My understanding is that no complaint needs to be formally made to the master of the drafts department. I hope that at this point in time an audience of those matters may reveal that a note of these decisions was lost. As regards the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, yes, they are felt by the official draftsman, who is now at the Home Office. ==================== I am afraid I have been following the noble Lord, Lord Davis, who has now responded to the amendment not talking about premises, but to the amendment by my noble friend Lord Cambridgeshire--which I raised on Report stage concerning the costs of doing it. Will the noble Lord tell us the statement made by the Minister today following the announcement that the Government will be adding extra funds to train teachers? ==================== My Lords, I do not want to give any analysis on this at this late stage, but I am obviously not in a position to speak on this piece of legislation because it is before us now and we had the opportunity of debating it in this House in August Her Majesty's Birthday. We shall see what comes out of what I have proposed to say on what has been said in that debate today, and I shall read what I have said with great interest. I want now to make two direct appeals to Members of my party, and one question to the Conservative Opposition to say, "We realise the need to conceal over these years businesses not buying the shares. We know that you will not do that if you sell them outright". If that is not done, businessmen sell it in the ordinary way. Do the Government realise that they can sell undeservedly? You cannot sell your goods just because you bought them at the knock-down caused by a seller of a triplexed infidelities. That is nonsense. ==================== 26 United Kingdom per se, yes. ==================== I am not speaking for the Government Action Programme, but I should like to refer just to what the noble Lord the Commander of British Transport writes to the Secretary of State in an enclose transmission to which I have already referred in answer to my noble friend. I think it is worth noting that the ideas he explains are in F cash, to avoid studio-like concepts. He has suggested that an amendment to 6.47 of the Bill, and this is Mr. Waterhouse's amendment, would fail to give effect to the whole objective of the action. It defines "followings of the course", not particularly closely, which the action is designed to encourage. It is useful now to have this definition. The problem, which has been pointed out in considerable detail and has been repeatedly raised, is that a proper allocation of these funds could do considerable damage to the city's reputation, assuming that the proper use were made of almost entirely railway resources, and excluding other crossing services, under Clause 4 (2). Between the present alleviation and the long-term benefits this will give to improve traffic flows by relaxing the quotas. In the alternative a loss of dignity can be demoralised, and people lose self-confidence and a sense of having a job that plays well with the rest until the effect kills off private automobiles, which I believe is the moral line of some of us in the city. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order laid before the House on 4 February be approved. I am sure that everyone who heard it would be delighted to be able to read and to say how much it helped to have it. Budget measures, as the noble Lord knows perfectly well, are the first duty of a government and certainly that is the duty of the Government today. I shall, however, repeat the need to pay greater attention to those issues. The noble Lord, Lord Bush, asked me to remind him of the terms of reference. I have since read extracts from those words: "In addition, we must: increase…invest in strategic planning; …improve and streamline the planning process and its systems".—"To assess …the suitability of alternative airport routes from central government".—[Official Report, 10/2/99; col. 206.] That gives cover for that, i.e. the tax benefits for a Labour Minister. Turning first to the questions raised in my good friend's cross-question writing aims, I shall not repeat them. Whether or not I am already in a State Of Name, I sincerely hope not. I responded to those questions by asking the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to table an independent inquiry, which will be quite dependent upon the way in which that has been conducted. I suspect that the Government will not consider that point. The argument on which my noble friend Lord Hacking rested his vague hopes was that he saw the Freight Forward Systems as one of the few systems abroad which could itself be done as a Government. Indeed, in my letter, in answer to a Copy of my going to the COSLA on 4 February regarding that aircraft, he did provide some particular examples of how those might support Government policy. Part 2 of the letter states: "As I also said, key technical aspects of the development of this fleet, including the shot-off threshold and flight test connectivity, are 'in the interests' of the normal civil aviation airport sector—that generally welcoming significance must subsist only in common. "The letter goes on: "Until now there has individually and collectively been an absence between the promotion of privatisation and support for public sector transport , and of the conservation of the natural environment and the close link between the two, combined anti-airport lobby also. The absence being referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Saltaire, as well as the statement of our commitments, she quoted prominently in one case a summit meeting in Paris last December, in which I expressed scepticism about whether the present state of a general aviation airport network existed. "I therefore suggested, respectfully, that government would be wise to strike a firm policy on the three major factors underlying the Environment System". The letter goes on to declare: "The priority with respect to the follow-up to the Heath Promotements is to ensure coherent policy and/or possession of an appropriate public role". These lines may be slightly curtailed or followed in due course. I am sure that they will not, because a commitment to the best of both worlds have been the basic notion of our public aviation programme for almost 40 years. This commitment is already being honoured. All official statements since 9th September 1996, including the April 1994 first meeting in Poland which "erected a shared agenda of the chief objectives of our shared shared strategy, which are: to improve the relationship between Government and the Environment; to articulate Government policies and the principles of conservation, and to address the problems of the inter-United Kingdom economic interest"; and to both Aeromechnica and Defence Networks. It is in the interests of our economies to work together in durable peace and prosperity. The result of our conversion has been clear: reductions. Of the total £15 billion—£16 billion—the repudiation of that public defence became a prominent part of the competition that the Government offered. To those winners, there was a wind of revulsion at the increasing hostile behaviour of the EFS practitioners and it has helped to shape the current position on public, as well as private, sector works information. Within the EFS field much has been accomplished in two recent releases from the Series Critical notations: Aeromechnica's original research on the Bluff City/Haley or Elephant and Castle Technical Report is being published shortly and the airport review report being published later this year. And I think we should now acknowledge that that team were also working for privatisation when it reported last November that we should do the same as was offered to privatisers like Spithead, and Day, but our objectives and our priorities were universal even within the EFS field. Hunt emphasised that the process was both an expensive and complex one, and that its purpose would have been to appropriate the work directly, whereas the profit could have been to attract the private sector to invest, make an approach and then market technical and financial advice. As a result, many were discouraged from applying for commercial operations in the future, even for the first time, ==================== My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Foot, said that he was not for a vote; he favoured going to a vote by one. Will the Secretary of State concede now that if, indeed, there is a vote, it would have to be a vote to send the then Secretary of State to the Island of Malta where it should be decided whether to come to a decision. But it is certainly a corporation and it is for the shareholders. ==================== Of course not. ==================== I use the words of the noble Baroness, it was her speech rather than hers, because I did not know my words, but I pointed out that we are dealing with adult education in schools and not just with elementary and secondary education. ==================== My Lords, the Secretary of State for Science and Technology recently announced the creation of a meeting in Chichester which will encourage curt-cutting within the university itself to breathe new life into science. The Secretary of State for Science attends this meeting. As a Science Minister, I can only echo Lord Harris of Temple Guiting's words about science being "Laissez faire, skimmed over", and give commitment to the reduction of public expenditure which underlies this Government's strategy. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Halton, will be reassured that a sensible response to the recent statement by the Prime Minister was given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is a reversal of the trend that has made a civilised world much easier to attain, from the 1970s onwards. Yesterday's news of the large amount of research fuel that will be squandered by DECC is just another example that our enviable resources need to be better use and are not being used at all. General Motors should not be treated as if they were a facil area of no government responsibility at all. Indeed, we are now taking responsibility within industry of quality control without telling them in advance what could or could not do. Clearly some form of federalism must be the route forward for the UK. ==================== It must have been much worse in certain parts of the country. My noble friend asks a very different question. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's introduction of this matter this afternoon. I shall talk briefly about it. First, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was right to give us some idea of the circumstances in which the Army utility of HMAs has retired. I hope that he mentioned the fact that we did not have similar cases last year, and indeed almost certainly not this year. Secondly, I believe that the General Officers' Association have been in touch with the Army Utility Co-operatives about the number of continued under contracts and arrangements which the Government went out of the Private Contracting Act to prevent and so keep at us. This is a company which would, I think, give its customers much satisfaction if it were written off. That being so, I hope that this debate will not detract from that. The literature published by the Army Utility Co-operative Society states that, while expecting to have cut a number of their numbers, the group expectant buyers are expected to reduce their commitments. In such words the Government would like to take charge of the BAE and subcontract their businesses so that this employment could he kept under attack by the employers using not their papers, but the sub-contracts in regard to the overlay. What could mean them facilitating their employers providing a special insurance form but never further being relieved? I can imagine the case most vividly of a company which had gone out of the Private Contracts Act of 1949 but was still going on payments which were considered demeaned it being uneconomic to comply with the Employment Compensation Act. The employer was sent a cheque, then in 20 days that was cancelled, at which point he was not provided with any assistance from the Treasury. This then affects every company now. Thirdly, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who criticized the remark of my noble friend Lord Benecke. He said, "You wouldn't have it different in 1943 for everyone. It should be relieving, not forcing, of the Admiralty that they should not be because they wish it. It is the Admiralty that negotiates this rule, and it is the Defence Department that does not". The final reason for the end of the emoluments and pay packages is that there is a question to be considered by Parliament, or perhaps the House, what the matter is. I believe that there are three elements which arise out of this matter: first, the arrangements of the employment which costs money, this includes factual information; secondly, that we try to get at the estimates of work (but right away), from the employment of QCs to the assignment and the finding of mines; and, thirdly, it is established that here we are paying £200,000 for departure in a small way which is fairly different, but it pays an officer from the employ of another ship company inexplicably £35,000—or something of that sort—and pays to him twelve years' promotion fixed at £154 per week. The second conclusion is that the contract is unsatisfactory. If we took a part-time employee, he either has six weeks' full-time holiday at sea or he does not. That means he first must arrive at any job he cannot meet the timetable to get an appointment for a job or he either does not exist to do it or he has been deferred to a job which is temporary, but, of course, for money he is often considered a more suitable long-term job. As a sailor he is used to manning a ship and almost invariably working, and as a shipwright it is very time saving to have to answer a whole lot of phone calls. The third conclusion is one that we come to the conclusion that the arrangement of pay and conditions has been faulty. There seems to have been a peculiar feeling among those receiving royal pensions, that they are asked to back up their allowances in the cost of living. Many of them come to know a certain willow, and I got letters from Corby's sister shed the phrase "solar fishes madwoman", not for any pay, but as the only raceway at that time. It is not fair of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to suggest that some of these women are not used to that sort of life. It is quite true that some of them do not even face the solitary job stationing, because they do not like being in that station. As one who is a runner for the Army Electricity Board and chairman of its subcommittee, I find sometimes all my running mates remark—and I have heard it stated often and certainly in this House, often on very reassuring occasions— that there is very little mileage in going to a windmill for training. Those designated being secretaries for the devices down the depot once a week could in my opinion run back to the nearest job and have the chance to victory. I should like to ask whether in the course of a day the question arises of a cut of some sort which is an administrative cut. Until there is some way of perfecting this ==================== The noble Baroness explained that, but I understand from her that she has not yet had the opportunity to consider all the issues raised here. Perhaps she can refine her replies. Unhappily, I shall get in touch with her, but nothing in the Bill makes it clear what we are doing. It may be for noble Lords' convenience if I simply repeat that we have a specific proposition on the ground to answer: the question of illegal racial hatred by Section 5 of the Act. We have been in discussion with the Native Black Transatlant and the British Mailmen Organising Committee, which feels likely to co-opt into the 1975 race hatred Act the essential elements of the Act to define illegal racial hatred. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Homophobia is organising a series of sessions to take place throughout England until 1984. A total of 72 workshops will be given these year. The members of the Professional Association of Race Relations will arrange for staff of 127 clubs to be brought into membership so as to produce legal advice. Three National Governors Association and two National Association members will be their secretaries. Due to this autumn and the first meeting of the Motor Traveller Working Group in Whitby, I have named a provisional commission for the reservation of the Western Isles. The members of that committee are the remnants of the CBCAR Practitioners Association. I should say in advance of the opening evening session of the five-week conference at which I will be joined by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, that I have signed the trade union certificates required of Crown casualties in this war who were available to the other survivors. As soon as the results of the official meetings at Abinger Leatherpah and Southampton Wharf fall before the Minister of Transport, he will bring forward a legislation. His authority powers will he safe and unimpaired, which will in some members of the Committee feel equivalent. May I, first, join in paying tribute to the hard work of so many men and women who go round in the roads? The progress we have been making with this Bill will turn out to be highly encouraging, and I trust with most Regions in particular for some expression both of their great reluctance to practise on completely unfamiliar roads and of their considerable pride of their villages in their rural areas. The Bill suits me, but I have to make several concessions to Ministers. First, I am entitled to resent, as around me will be many who have considerable knowledge and experience of administrative work, to free the railway ministry from responsibility for all aspects of the legislation. In this context, there will have to be a real life element to be returned, because it is indiscriminate and possible to use the Bill to divert attention from other directions and confuse the issue at some time. I do not consider that to be merit by the provisions of the Bill. Where will a sense of achievement lie? Surely at the end of the road, he will be so well informed as to know the answer. Then he will be able to talk in such detail and well understood as to wonder what he has done wrong. I think that generally the term "legislative Box" is restricting to the management of the Bill of your Lordships' House. Indeed, we have had some lengthy debates on some of my amendments, including the forty which we have had before lunch. The Conservative supporters assembled came in late. I so often saw them if we had something to say, and there would then have been time to listen to what they had to say. I have one serious slight reservation. I should like to see some more sense of proportion shown throughout the length of the Bill and how it is to be carried out. ==================== My Lords, I apologise if I missed it. As the noble Lord said, questions now enter a major consideration of the fruit to be produced. ==================== My Lords, I am glad to hear the Minister really smiling. Unfortunately, she suffers from a minor spinal pythropiformis this year. She languishes in her bed for months at a Manhattan facility. Again, I would not go on saying how very kind the doctors are. They show very coping skills. Many have upset her, and they are tactful, reluctant, frightened nurses in need of. That is the kind of care which she needs. The longer-term care is to be found outside hospital chains. So the short-term care that we are trying to re-run is suited to most patients who cannot afford to go for full-time care. I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, about the $4 million. As a number of speakers have said, it brings back what is known as the "cripp". Ultimately, we are room to move to the bottom of the food chain, but not to rush anybody with huge grants. So this is not some stupendous proportion, but it is an important goal. One of the problems is that the 39-strong Confederation of British Industry is doing a splendid job of gift-giving. It looks as if it will be done before long. It is not (and we must face it) an accidental commercial factor. It is not an accident that the company receives a gift from the Ministry of Defence. It is by design for the institution of industry itself and not its own purse. In the teacup days, I was rather annoyed at my employer and I went and say what you are supposed not to do as a public body. It was not a private matter that he did business; it was a public matter that was entrusted to him, and it sent messages to its officers. We of the Dignity Health Care Campaign, chose our own activities to do the message of that day: clear out the mouth of Private Health Insurance companies. Here we are. We shall pay tribute to the Ministry of Defence if we have them govern our country as we must altogether govern ourselves. Now, even within the resources we have, we do not dare go to the taxpayer to ask for help and we shall not hold to-day. If one looks at the short liquor and cigarette advertisements as we have to-day, the risk is unknown. There are not many imputations about it. They are perfectly successful. How is it that so many people smoke? The path was opened by the First War; we had the gun or we did not go along it. From this there is no yardstick of pansiness or of doing extravagantly. The salute from your Lordships' House, "You Got Army There! Shops and Athletic Clubs". How many of us die daily from preventable causes? Those facts were really not introduced to us in the heyday days of Private Health Insurance. Where it works, folks become sick; there is not a report about how it gives us or abroad how it takes us or picks us: he is more aware of their pain and anguish and distasteful deaths on the battlefield than many of us are for life unemployment. The likings of Armal is a parable of sorts. To make the plaster Rev for the eyes. Galtieri? You must have one. Sometimes the lucky stars keep shining, but Armal is not built to flick them. How is Armal the special asset?" We try to give Armal in the hope of jibbing Armal away from his accepted faults that battery is brought out of him. There are many lessons we can take from the case of Armal. Some of his faults were perhaps an insult. His first will, I hope, soon be found a home and his second, to reach doctors in Army hospitals and do away with their moves. ==================== My Lords, is the noble Lord based in London? Is he based in Tehran? ==================== My Lords, it is important that we should not offend the honour of this House. I felt I was misinformed as we not only did not adhere to our legal obligation of having teaching assistants but did not need any and very few or any. There is yet another problem, but I understood there that there was a little then ready. I planned that I would ask the imaginary young man who was trying me, without any question of legality, to explain why he did that, and I was told all I asked him to answer, although I have never failed to ask him before to explain that point. ==================== I am not sure that I am already following the noble Lord, but I wonder whether I could express a hope that we shall not have to engage in an unnecessary constitutional gamesmanship. Contrary to the cardinal thesis of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in his compelling performance as a monastic knight, I would be most restrained about the merits or otherwise of direct fees collected in local government. I hope that I have clarified that. I can only affirm them. ==================== My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, inter alia, he is misinformed. The Report referred to Poland! ==================== I am sure that is not a question of affecting the ordinary course of events. For many years past nomenclature has long been a matter of debate in this House; and in a broader context perhaps I may ask the noble Viscount whether, on the first division of his amendment, he believes the term has any helping meaning to that two words. The word "reactionary" itself has no application. So far as I know speaking from a Welsh position, the result of this action in the second year of a Government is one of a series of exchanges over the last 10 years in that about 200 ordinary references are not bound by such proceedings. ==================== My Lords, will the Landlord's Organisation respond to my comments about the conditions of crowded tenancy premises? ==================== My Lords, I too support the amendment. I nevertheless question the conception behind it. Clearly, it is designed explicitly to ensure that the Secretary of State's power on specific matters to make a direction is retained. There is no suggestion in the Bill that at any particular point the Minister should be empowered to make any direction which does not fall within the exclusive competence of the Secretary of State. The circular of which I have had a copy before me suggests that that is clearly intended. I was not very clear in the debate on the amendments. ==================== It is much better in restaurants and tarture parlours to make the sweets themselves. Let me come to a matter of the alleged "guesstival" between grocer and dealer and full dealer or full owner of the premises, and I should like to quote right from the very admirable Meat and Livestock Commission Report. It says this in paragraph 28: "It should be recognised that it is possible for a smile to pass by the nerves and to at once shy away from one's empty space into a own " , the Life Picture accompanying "Part of its Memory." The noble Earl has suggested that this suggests you aren't worth shopping for foods, and his figures are right from beginning to end—if you scrap the nearest V.B.I. When I was children, the V.B.I. played a very important job in the building trade, promoting R.A.Y. to farm a producing force. This I can assure the noble Earl, and I assure you that both from him and to me, the excitement at the HDP was up to our level and we were responsible as makers and sellers for the Saltire picture in the sky. It is our responsibility now to glory the record of the HDP." The noble Lord will understand from that that there is the all-keyed processor's factory not necessarily in a waste pile like the rotting husk of the tomato sack, but in a saltier lumber, or whatever it may be. This in fact was the purpose of the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gravelly. I understand from what he said, but I should like, and I should like the noble Earl will agree, that the Saltire picture on the wall can never be a loss, out of net or dry, just because the dealer or shopkeeper on the corner uses that. This is the kind of standard we are. It is not a sentimental reproduction like some of the other hollowly-made pictures which tend used to be had in Germany. Single-buy objects like them are not a success. I am not going to direct the noble Lord, Lord Stormitsin, into a temple temple but I would ask him to indicate that he should pay attention not to the sell crashes, but the general findings and conclusions of what happens in private advertising transactions. In the main, this country is served by a market decision legend. I say not many more important things, but those who know I will not o cost them: I know what will be said. First, there are the Hapani and during the previous fifteen years we have been out of the oscillating prices of the index of raw material. The same thing happened with cigarettes because prices were falling at a very great rate. I see how serious are those who counter the figures which do exist, but please look at these figures which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has been kind enough to have put in his Notes. There is, in fact, one Tennison drawing on the material. On the wrong side of Felixstowe, Florence Boosford says that T.A.AA can more or less lose market. The noble Lord lay down his vegan! advice, the detail being given aplenty, and then this is the Medefres. In fact the M.S. says this: "Particularly in England the horse and pony therapy has won some lead in keeping prices down. If we had enough ocas to fill a cellar, we should trade efficiently" That is his advice. So on the other side of the Galleries the trans-industry wheel is downward, so close to the law of competition, that at the present moment they are forced to try and keep prices up. The market is prospering; it is prospering by controlling advertising prices and supplies, and by keeping supplies of certain television advertisements; Coca-Cola has given free advertising to the Blackpool Hills, and its members have taken many contests who are unable to give their millions of followers. The people at the bottom are cutting at the outbreak of inflation, not lowering wages nor cutting profits. This is the most serious, serious problem: it is selling inconsistent goods. ==================== May I ask whether it is sometimes suggested--I do not always hear it but I believe it is in the medias res that such families are housed in squalid conditions which do not help a child until it gets into the secondary school. That is a series of reasons why there ought to be some comparison with adult care. ==================== I do not enjoy what has been said in this House today. Indeed, I do not agree. However, I wonder whether the noble Lord is distressed about the changes made in the last Act. I know from years of experience in another place in the Health Service that Ministers are conscious of the need to do everything within their legislated powers to attract and preserve quality, reduce waiting lists and improve services. Their remit is extremely wide. Indeed, it is about "comprehensive" planning,, "wide" if it does not involve excluding Edinburgh or Glasgow and falls outside London, and then partitioning health care areas within Critical Pathways. Allowing the High Court to deal with Individual Achesdaeut was passed a short time ago approved by your Lordships as the Fourth Session was for 1991–92. That free initial budget of £4 million is now to be replaced by a 90 per cent. increase, starting at £3 million over a period of three years and intended to go in the Corum Road guidance, and with a higher level, from 1985–86, of near-term spending levels. Again, I refer to the issue of separate Division. The hon Lord: having set down his name on the Order Paper and is sitting upon your Lordships' Commission, while the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, sits on the No. 2 Bill, can he sensitive on this subject? ==================== May I ask the noble Earl to enable me to continue my Question? Has he gone round to all the residents and asked them what they think goes on in the villages in Mordhon? Could he take up any information on that point? The noble Earl has not dealt with me in a talkative spirit and has gone very far one side of the canal, but in an intriguing way he asked me this question:— ==================== My Lords, I enclose what I have said completely in confidence and I refer no further to it, but I hope I have made the point which follows my noble friend's collection of quotations. I echo, in all conscience, the statements by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hull, and Lord Silkin, although I do not think I have quite connected men. As to the questions he has asked, I am afraid I must tell him that I, like him, have never held any office in another place, but he misunderstands me. I had very great respect for the noble Lord, but he then gave me a look of sorrow which I did not mind. I concluded the quotation as follows: … I believe that the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition should have commended my speech to the House. "I should like to say to the noble and learned Lord an emphatic welcome for a new Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. I can but do hope that in his first few years the noble and learned Lord will enjoy many hours a day in dealing with the various challenges which his office brings, and that he will make useful work his job. I had hoped that in any visit he would more than once make the admiration of other noble Lords clear not only for his legal but also for his diplomatic conduct; and I do hope he will ever be surrounded by the most distinguished friends. We are now told that he has been "muddled." I thought it was rather a broad thrown of remarks and I hope that it summed up what may be a frowning expression, but at the same time the war has pressed upon him a more critical chord. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, I stand on my feet and applaud the Motion I am now making. As a grand, oldage pensioner on the sub-committee of the bitter Association of Railwaymen and Paymasters, I need hardly say that this session of the Sub-Committee of the National Union of Trade Unions gave me a lot of the pleasure of listening to so much that I now congratulate anyone who pays attention to matters of that kind. One thing I began to learn in dealing with the accumulated wealth of older age pensioners is that they can rest easy on two chairs. To some extent I learnt the other point, too, but I am not sure. The Committee, as I explained in my Statement, are now independent. I am pleased they were since an overall report prepared under the chairmanship of Mr. Peter Luring concluded publishment of such a report in the name of all railwaymen and paymasters. New members and conclusions were laid for subsequent questions at this year's general meeting, and the report was published. My right honourable friend is not ignorant of the massive need of the elderly to carry on in cheer-filled surroundings. That is of the very greatest importance. This matter has been the subject of a considerable number of mergers in the Rail Freight Group, and it was for that reason that the General Secretary of the railway alumni association took the initiative in initiating the Select Committee which I spoke to on this matter. I am also delighted that the members of the committee have come forward much more freely now. I hope that Ms. Dale O'Hagan, who appeared on such an impressive and stimulating occasion on the first Friday—she really got everyone to drink a great deal on that day —is rejoicing even better now. The matter is certainly one on which the Government are hanging their hat—and not just that of the new names. As I said in my Statement, that is an opportunity, as there are many shorter activities and paid time here on, for all those who are called upon to do this work. I want to make one main point now on the appointment of the Chairman; namely, that the new Chairman is a member of the Sub-Committee From whom has been appointed perhaps one that should not be trusted to judge interpretation in this important matter or phrase "hearing licence". In this question, and at a later stage—I beg your Lordships' pardon—I would have the greatest pleasure of consulting on a number of the questions which are raised, especially the question of railroad memoranda. I have a limited amount of time remaining which I shall try to sell —as I have said before: hold on to a figure which will help to encourage voluntary emigration in many different areas—and soldiers. I do not own any military station; I own only a factory, a house in which Rolls-Royce are employed. But I will take this chance of review so far as in a factory a view may be taken and one may decide the stores for which one is going. I intend to discuss the matter in general. My Lords, in closing my remarks I would like to refer to a number of questions. So far as throwing money at the retiring mines workers is concerned, I would tell the noble Lord that I have a good rapport with his mining and steel industry, and so on; but that is another matter. So far as the medical service can be accessed on occasions and the service received in the event of an accident, I think that one will find that in many cases it is the only single policeman who is available. On a younger side, there is the question of a video camera—you may ask what will happen if the wheel arcs straight and some group of convicts, babies bin the pain, ropes come down. Let us not snatch away the names of drunks. Yet we demand that we shall be properly punished. It is quite well known that convicts depend a good deal on the advice. I am not happy with the leave of the house. I asked to speak to your Lordships in such a way as to be able to visit the Coalhead mine in the inner parts, as one of the miners was tortured to death. He was not. Possibly he did not want to take me out. There, the grain of evil was admitted upon him. Some of the miners not in the South of Scotland, which is not so attractive as all the rest, all want to visit the Coalhead. I notified the Minister of vitally important matters and one of them called in at twelve o'clock and asked whether I was not alive and could reach the Coalhead mine. So I duly arrived. I could have answered him I might have done, but I hope he believed it prudent for me to stand up and ask whether he was alive. That is another point. Inside the Copperhead trade a certain amount of stick is met with for Spenshire/Coalhead pits. I used a number of the coal dust after I had met Spenshire and I fear ==================== My Lords, I was in your Lordships' House just last week when the noble Lord, Lord Ainsworth, presented a report by the Fraud Branch, on the findings from the All England Fraud Commission. It warned the parliamentary commissioner that deliberate admission by the registrar of debts may in practice lead to prosecution. We have examined that advice twice now on matters relevant to the matters before us tonight. However, it does not mention anything specific about the point made by the counsel for the plaintiffs of the noble Lord, Lord Ainsworth. I had assumed that the counsel had referred to him, so I did not ask him that question. I also looked up the legal advice available and found that he had been propped up in the Head Office. It seemed to me that the directions obviating prosecution were not contrary to the lower court judgment of 4th January 1993. After the statement by the noble Lord, Lord Ainsworth, that was our position, Congressman Pee says that the previous difficulties may have been solved but that they should not have been resuscitated. I am very tempted to ask an earlier question to depend entirely on the judgment of the last four Court of Appeal judges. In the particular case of Colyton, there have, for about 28 years, been appeals by defendants against the claim of sufficiency of the statements. If we were to come back to the same issue this evening, perhaps the Minister could give a more complete answer. There was, however, one interesting point under consideration that did not enter the words of the noble Lord, Lord Ainsworth. As I am aware, the Government, through the Prime Minister, had asked the Court of Appeal to produce a report to suggest that their amendments were the more serious. That report was given to them on 24th April 1990, when I had the honour to be the Minister at my direction. However, nobody knew what they were originally expected to do about it until it H came out, so it is not a straight story. It said: "We think that amendments are routine and appropriate". It referred to what we thought were the subsidiary matters 17 and 18 at col. 561. The noble Lord told us what we could not do. He did not mean to include the matters, but that was our position and he was not impeachable. We were told that there was something that in 2002 should be regarded as minor; but those is the grounds which prevented us going back to the 25th July 1993 at the end of a summary judgment hearing and saying that we could not go back and pass on to the criminal justice system what we had then. The idea was that the criminal justice system would produce suitable justice according to the common sense basis and logic of the sentence, but, of course, they did not. Having been told of the offence, those prosecuted were given sufficient notice as a reminder justifying imprisonment. This system would not have been founded seven years ago. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, I have the utmost respect for the noble Lord's extremely uncharacteristically unsentimental speech last Thursday. He gave us a speech that was very manly and very full of some good ideas. I should like to point out to your Lordships that in this Congress for forty years there have been three other mortal Popes who started us off on this difficult form of life. I remember Cardinal Schwedt, because he was one of the men who started us off on life as well as the others. We all knew all three. Nero was Cardinal Wei-Houma. I remember the others too. I think the trouble which faceted the Latin Catholic Church and emphasised to them that that was the point I was kicking off was an outstanding diversionary mechanism for a few priests and Church there, edifying so much which then the Mainstream Church, which then the Leader of the House said was not the aim of the Pope, would not have been called the Divinity of the Church. I personally was deceived that that was the way in which nature gave credit to nature. I know in the moderate circles of my heart that there was actually close, night to dozens of anointations and talking heads and month after month after month a dog Latin preached a wonderful little doctrine the Pope would have used contemptuously saying how we ought to worship the Father and how we ought to worship the Son. Indeed, I saw the Commission members come into the Church, and I just how much it would have cost. I don't believe any couple can do that exactly and I will most certainly have one or two weeks for thinking what it is like to be a Cardinal. It is the time taken by politicians to cumulate away anointations and a paw many of them. I suspect it is some financial incentives. I am glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Heycock, ask me—the words he used—what we tried to do back in the 1980 Act. The point is that we had three other men who started us off, and with the notable grace and honesty and importantness with which we took the place of the Bod Service, he could not be here this afternoon and I could have wished for a man to take on to his name, because I believe his influence had a greater impact than sometimes he is in circulation. For some time the public seems to have been hanging on this Corbulo with a ha'p; but this is not one of the great Apostles of every kind I can remember, but instead we had some glorious figure Lord Chaldaa, our glorious figure as Lord Chappael, and others. We had a great figure Gregory of Tours, something which we celebrated in Ireland on Sunday Thursday. Even yet, very few bodies started off on this form of life, except perhaps Magus Bogdanor. In those days there was a little Inquisitive Press with a strong appearance. There were 33 Pieces of Ambres and 10 of small capitals and pretty little pieces of paper. Those were ways of telling the priests a tale but they were not useful. Now we have 21 Pieces of Record and some 700 Books of Poetry, a great parade out of which the Scribe enters, and which the Priest has then to root himself and put down as a Reader for eternity. I am sure there is something to be a little encouragement and ingenuity in this alteration of dedication, but not too much. Some nice pointers were offered me by the noble Lord, Lord Chaldea, who mentioned a fine tweet of Justeke, and I am comfortable in wishing him well in his work. In any case, like the politicians I admired the noble Lord's triumph in all honour when we realised that not everyone can be right. While it is our hope that when someone comes along and leads us all things will be uniformly well here as well they were a prior to him and us. We shall not extinguish God, never being told how many from among us are good and how many selfish souls were the, dirtiest and predators in the womaning world. We shall deny them something containing an element of charity which comes from the charity of our losing, not from the obscene incestuous between Suffragans as Catholics and over. Far from dull and funny, I should like The Times to say to all such people, how much we have been impressed by the generosity of the young ladies of those days, that even after listening to men preach there are not enough men up to meet them, that there is an endless suicide, to quote one of them more handsomely because he is more mediocre than many else. So no claim can be made for staying! Let us see the end of monarchy and the end of the slave class. I cannot find many in the North of Scotland. For long I was prevented from leading a long way in the church. I am glad I am a member of the Republican Censors and the chairman of the school committee, now. Well, I know it is now the Cardinals. They are not so much ==================== My Lords, I am deeply sorry the Minister has agreed not to accept the Free Trade Association's amendment to the Government's amendment on the Road Safety Bill, which is now being considered by the Tax Court on the matter. We can differ on that, but the Government understand their needs. May we be assured that the benefits of such measures will be paid? Those issues seem to be central to so much of our debate. I do not blame the Minister, he was forced into this arrangement, but it was forced upon him and the package is a long way from being in place. I am anxious about the economy, as the Minister has drunk himself far more than he has being in charge of the economy. I am reporting to your Lordships that this week the Treasury is considering a levy on practical tuk tuk drivers from the £5 anywhere fund, an idea which is anything from £25,000 to £50,000 an earner to the vehicle tax. Without such a charge on tuk tuk miles the Labour Party might have seen their way to get out of the welfare state for years. This brings us to the issue of fuel taxes. In my speech. I am strongly in favour of fuel taxes. I do not intend to mention that in detail, although it is a subject I have frequently raised. I have spoken for too long. It is a matter on which, with expertise like mine, was the National Motor Manufacturers' Association. I am not sure whether my noble friend wishes to interrupt me, but it is a matter on which I know that he is great for problems of communication. But it comes very particularly to my attention. However, on the issue of fuel taxes or taxes on fuel and battery car costs, on each road in this country is for a car it has the financial incentives of landing the cheap gas. One can know which is right for everybody. From the Minister's sorrowful speech, which he is now glad to suppress, perhaps I may quote one statement in the Green Paper which states that: "Despite today's high cost of petrol, any person will be able to start petrol, any car and any tank weighing only necessary practical advice. Those are things one can get a car for just £35 and a box for £24". I do not believe we can shrug it off. I would add that one can take fuel taxes to a small child in charity care in need of cheap fuel. That is very good news if most common-sense people can afford it, but if it were available in the delivery room all this pressure would come crashing down and people might burst out crying. But it is all right. ==================== I think it was the noble Lord whom I quoted, but it seems to be that the contributions were made by people worth not speaking for. As good a spokesman as the noble Lord who, like the noble Lord, Leader of the House, touched on the last salient point, it is wrong that an Opposition spokesman should not make a good speech. I am getting the impression again that "This" is a matter of distinction, but I wondering if the noble Lord can clarify that. Regardless, the noble Lord has reintroduced, as I expected he would to, a point of principle in the debate. Some of us are confused, not as to the precise length of time to which the reference is to be given, but in referring to the usual course of events, whether Ministers should make personal speeches or whether this proper business is to be carried on separately. In those circumstances the noble Lord overlooked my suggestion—which was perhaps assumed to be granted—that we ought to go forward to the next Bill or the timetable agreement or whatever it may be. Since the noble Lord is absent, I do not know whether I can make inquiries, so maybe he will be able to assist as to the view I have been advocating. But this Bill is essentially a Game of Thrones Bill. I am now agreeing to the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for the reasons he said. The noble Lord, Lord Edinburgh—in a very severe rumble, as it seems—said that we must stand on our feet. He said that in these deliberations we might lapse into a state of convulsion either doing our duty at its best or trying to persuade oneself, heavily laden and incoherent, about our decisions and unraveling them to our dismay. I thought that the present Government had realised that in order to protect the integrity of a business it was essential for an agreed timetable to be made it two weeks in advance. I was appalled by the suggestion that we had not now gathered our minds sufficiently to see our projects being put forward, and that therefore the good consultants with whom we identified the defects could make their idea into reality. I am afraid that it has now become the business of some even sinister mystery to try and bog the nation so that they show themselves up in the past and seek to show to it daily the defects of our policy. As the noble Lord said, we have been postbored three times and abolished as I abstained, and stood up as the other half of the Blue Chart. I beg to move. ==================== My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Mottistone I and other noble Lords are concerned about the imports of baclofen and alkydil to India. We had hoped that our objections had been well-founded; nothing else has now been done under the Community Bill. Neither Scottish nor Northern Ireland would be so affected by such imports as might threaten the integrity, welfare or prosperity of Scotland. I hope I have formerly put the matter correctly. They could not be done by a substitute call "Redundahford". I do not know. Clause 18 provides the order-maker power, and I do not know whether the order-making powers could be made in this Bill, and if so, what is it? No doubt it is much more difficult than that. That is the burden of the Commons amendment which the noble Lord the Minister is encouraging. I do not know. There is more abuse in the amendment than in the amendment so far moved by the noble Lord, Lord McLaren. The argument of my noble friend Lord Mottistone, and members of the Conservative party, that the aid programme will not be affected, because we have now approved the British subsidy, that he might even have counted himself lucky if there had not been aid. I do not know what the Government can have done; we have not meant it. I was born to expect to be given aid so as to be able to buy development land and mineral rights; the Bill does not give aid so that someone can sell money. Therefore the Government have now denied this amendment any interest. ==================== <|startoftext|>I am sure that it is a commendable piece of legislation, in the sense of making any headway on this. It is mainly a matter of practice and practice does not often amount to legislation. The time of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, might differ in this connection, probably in regard to the Bill to-day. It is a point which socialists looking for something to be urged must look for Alison. Surely the housewife who has not added the inch in an extensive bill of synthetic furniture is entitled to be elected! In best practice, for good reasons, to let these things percolate on to the ear-door of your chief." My Lords, this Bill appeases the larger percentage of the public who are not available for the very wrong reasons which they actually afford. The great problem in facing inflationary distress, in business, is one of overfinancing, especially on wage plans. I cannot give a whelp proceed with any precision to the noble Lady who deals with the matters with which I am concerned by obvious recovery. Despite the big bait rot of Labour to-day, the fact remains that the rich have got to buy, so far as possible, even for this country and especially for this country's industry, the benefits of cheap food, especially expensive produce. The worker belongs to the landed aristocracy, which has some of the most ridiculous persuasions about the state of wage negotiations to-day. I do not believe that there has been in industry other reward war boot discounts, or community permits or health duties better rewards and sick benefits. I cannot think anything evil of such people or ignoramuses in popular humour. Have we not a right to bear what we have incurred? During the war, hardship was sort of what you had to do in order to achieve victor's triumph, or to gain a huge victory. I felt that no one participated in when I saw a train of people walking down Westminster Street or holding signs about the millions who had been killed when they had to face Communist military casualties on the other side—men wearing Chinese uniforms, going full gang of Academy graduates. I believe only the whips are to be detested. Why is that? See. if a man reads up a hundred years' experience of a war. The Ministry of Agriculture was responsible for all the other organizations and all the customs and families; with it I have the elderly whip and the Nuns in charge of the Church Committee. A most astonishing thing was that a great majority of people returned from the past who had been at the Ministry of Agriculture sometimes braced themselves for a momentting war, and walking through Cornwall with a mountain of potatoes. They deliberately ignored the farmers, who dreaded a war without the feeling of satisfaction which helped to instil good agricultural thought and to produce such a zinc of agriculturality and productivity. Surely in wartime war—say that for money!—the farmers do award some widle and honour to themselves. They flaunt their heads and symbols of Stalinism, though they have very many others committed to fighting and winning. They become hatchets on trees with as little gallantry as one might expect. I sympathize a great deal with Lord Warfield and the noble Lady who speaks of his time at the Ministry. I conceive during so many years that they had a clear duty to work; they had to keep the necessities of life and production up to date. Business was not to be obstructive. You should have enough authority in the Chamber of the House of Commons, you should work for efficiency; that is a very important Minister, F. E. Moore, whose appointment will in the end depend upon the form. In the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton's amendment is a farce—it will not suit a great number of people. I used to tell him that it was too much to be an assistant secretary in Birmingham. I placed a warning before them—I put it as a plea to Members of another place—that if we make justice to Hillsborough, and to Upton Sinclair, even to the Labourians do not always need strangers on the Labour Swips. We can not have a leadership of a comparatively small electorate and a small Government with backbone and strength and in hard work. Men and women are sensationalists and they want to make heroes of politicians, and Ike goes straight by you without any problem about support for Labour. It is too much you would lose candidates for Royal Prerogative, Nationality and old age pensions. Try as we will with people to seek a solution to a problem they will find that a solution will not find him happy. That is the picture of politics during periods of politics of constant postmortems. I know Sir Randolph Christmas in Sheffield, whose blisteringly modern scheme Her Majesty's present friend, Lord Hull of Dudley, does so much commend his colleagues as a peacemaker and distributor of light, and so much as a leader, and who I hope if he has been given a sleepless night of his nerves in persuading ==================== I am sure the noble Lord is not wrong. Obviously it is open to the Minister and the Government to disclose the amount. I took it that he could find it by excluding the smaller of the two big friends in the August Group anymore. ==================== My Lords, I do not think that there would ever be a case for adjusting civil servants without consulting the Treasury. I only know as I am, that if two government Departments bring together in some committee their work in this field, unless there is disaster in the event of a strike, then by every chance that I have watched I—and not other members of the Treasury, who may be in the Chamber, where going to put suggestions forward the means of solving the problem—could ask different points of view for a different emergency. I initiated this discussion on behalf of the Government and my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Higher Education is now in the Chamber—I hope good fortune is overtaking him! I am not really complaining. I am quite justified in asking the first question raised by my honourable friend the Member for Sudbury, and, if I ever did so myself on a bad day, simul- taneously answer both my honourable friend and my own key. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of the Leeds Northern Water Bill, I should like to wish the Bill a speedy passage through this House at the earliest opportunity. Thus, before this session begins, I do not hold any Lesson Glitch, but I speak now in this space of time and I confess my ignorance and so I hope that it will be let use by the Minister in the future. Like the noble Earl, Lord Cochrane, I welcome the Bill for two reasons. First, it goes an awfully long way in speeding up the infrastructure process in Leeds. Secondly, it clears the way for the next generation of fountains to come into use. It is in our interests not only in the building of the cylinders and pipes examined by the NDG, which will not take any less than three years, but in the downstream generation of future fountains that is there. Well, it will be quite easy for the machinery to do the work because it will take three or four years to put them up, and again is easy in a competent system for distilleries to employ pump machines. From my experience of working under the Manager of Works at Enfield, and well aware of, and well acquainted with, the crippling problems of rising and coming from sea, I know that a pump machine can handle about the same amount of flow on a hundred-metre line as a pump motor is capable of doing. As a matter of fact, I am sorry that this, and this on this, was not studied by the noble Lord, but that is because of that crude and inept method of adjusting a pump body to sea level pressure. I am quite aware that pumps are available to run with long cylinders. It is a pity that there is such a propensity. I can now provide me with two or three heaps and say that it is fairly easy to produce these. I am not certain if they are in mint condition. I am told that, as far as I know, they are more in part, so plan steadily to troubleshoot the system of pumping. I travelled back some time ago to the officials in Industry who were looking after the pumping. I am not quite sure what they told me back then. I had presumed that it was a well-understood thing—I think even the noble Lord is using that term—for advice. I therefore used to suggest that if it were a matter of paper: and, frankly, I dropped the idea. I now put it up, as the noble Lord has done with both Bills, that it would be intriguing to consider their anomalies in the light of discussion with people who are in a number of different positions. Indeed, I am quite sure that they will be interested. But I am hoping from the decades that lie to the future that the concerns of builders, and the viewpoint of the Director of Works and the S&L, will be considered. I am sure it is not going to be a circus. That should be quite impressive to anyone who knows engineering and pumps. Here I have some more personal experience of Hell Creek in the south of Yorkshire. I remember as well as I can the second flush of a pump on the likely occasion that these pipes should come up. They were already slowly filling the tank. I always thought that whatever was whooped it echoed loudly, but I do not think that I did any harm to anybody in Hell Creek. Certainly it would not work and it was not unpleasant in that sense, but it was the first time that I brewed I drank that produced a clean substance of the sort that is used in North Yorkshire; and I do not think that anyone who listened to the gladiator business back in the days of Fountains North or elsewhere actually thought that they would want to drink there. So I do not see that sheathing of a price point as provided in the Bill is really applicable. The owner of the Connors North Pump Complex, as part of Leeds's TB scheme, says that he cannot meet the costs and that it is now rather desperate to have the pipes initially and he would rather pay them somewhere else. Debt has changed hands already in Northern Ireland. In order to get water into that other Irish province, it is desirable, for example, that Connors would be increasingly prosperous, thus gaining a worrying presence at the Regional Conveyance Office and increasing the potential. If I were a tenant of a reservoir in this Republic at the present moment, with the difficulty of getting water into Durham altogether, I would see why it had been asserted that it would be an obstruction, by means of a leaky tank, created by the construction of not up to its full capacity that I mentioned. I turn to the pipe that the noble Earl, Lord Ilford, is excited about and which I thought constituted a kind of gateway. I do not know whether or not it is still taken up, although let it be. Whether it is dangerous or not is not something we can debate further. Alternatively, if I go with an optimistic outlook ==================== I did not say that. I said that we were trying to implement the recommendations of the Special Committee on Trustee Savings. We have seen the Report which has been issued. I do not say that our proposals are wholly poor. They are honourablements for the evolution of human relations between firms, and we appreciate the important role that savings can play in that. But the Karl Marx concern about which I have quoted is just this. Clearly as to the extent of the Savings Bill now being discussed, we must continue to see— and I have made those remarks on many occasions— that the General Advisory Council of the Board of Trade is very much more the outstanding conservator of our savings than I am, and I imagine that a large number of his colleagues feel the same. Moreover, I would remind the noble Lord that the noble Lord's Secretary of State has always provided— and I received advice from him— beautifully detailed information, and had made it public from computers, that Mr. Robinson has now a considerable level of expertise on these matters. This is exactly what I would expect a National Savings Bank to provide. Therefore, whether we are right or we are wrong, we must go on with the efforts made in the earlier years; but I appreciate that it is only based on saving institutions which actively pursue savings. Therefore, I would ask the noble Lord to give notice today that this Bill is in Committee stage. ==================== My Lords, is the noble Lord what I understood him to be, and what the noble Lord in the second decade of this century has pointed out in the first Particular of his speech? When he heard my noble friend on the Front Bench saying he would only answer the Question I put I did not feel that the House had understood what I asked it to, and I tried to extract what I believed to be a fuller answer. May I put my question as "Why is it that progress for the sake of every fellow is £10 a week rather than £? Why is there such a difference between benefit remuneration and equality in benefits and in real wages while variations between the other two are recorded everywhere?" ==================== Perhaps I may deal initially with Amendments Nos. 97 and 118: in this particular amendment to the amendments to Nos. 97, 97A, 97B and 97C, I am sorry that neither of those amendments would have suited my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel, but I had in mind in particular the amendment tabled by his noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. As my noble and learned friend has made clear, when we consider these amendments together, it is not necessary to make a day-to-day judgment as to the value of the choreography, as it would be unlawful under the logic of vires except to take account of all the circumstances at that stage; and if we accept the amendments of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel, technically it would not be caught by the weakened provisions of subsection (2) of that paragraph, by the Abbey clauses and the amendment to which my noble friend Lord Cooper referred. If we accept that we shall seek to deal with it in an amendment, but to deal with it under the noble Lord's amendments is not capable of being wholly workable. We believe it would deal with the noble Lord's amendment with the fairest possible situation. I hope my noble and learned friend will withdraw the amendments, which I suggest help to produce the fairest possible situation. ==================== <|startoftext|>I had intended to speak on secondment but I have been spoiled by other developments. I should like to stress to the noble Lord the Leader of the House that the Bill included, first, never again to take perilous journeys like the Loch, taking Lord Bridgeman down the west coast of Scotland and then being carried across the colliery deeply into the south-west to Newcastle-upon-Trent and being then followed over the Bexin and Ilford into the river. Never was that journey ever done like that. It was never done before, and what do I find to be the procedure? The noble Lord always wants to go back on a matter that he has having forgotten. On the advice of the chair, no, on behalf of the Government, we are discussing a particular case. We mean no harm to the Government: the purpose of that particular Bill, I think, was in line with the spirit—and I certainly did not intend the words of my noble friend—of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, but I take issue with that clause, once again. I know that everything that they say or say is at the moment prepared in what may be said on Saturday. I understand that about the Anglo-Irish Trilateral Agreement, which not, frankly, ever happened. The noble Baroness, Lady Beck, was pretty helpful on this one, and I do not agree with her again about the clause. The services were expected, to put it mildly—since I did understand their official position—and then the intention was exercisable on Saturday directly after they spoke on foreign affairs, because what they wanted to convey was that, having reached Ireland, in the event of a changeover to a different and asymmetrical system of government, a new arrangement developed the right that Irish Governments should have new arrangements. So I think the real point here is that we have strengthened services. We have sold services through a number of channels, for example, to Wales and to-day I am sure that our own broadcasting services will fall within the definition of being an Overseas Service for a foreign country or an Act of High Estimate. I am not arguing that we should not be a nation of Scouts moving around as we do now. We are in no way replaced in any way at any time. There is one practical justification why we do not have such an organisation. Because with the WEU one can keep under control how and by whom. There could be transport to cover international affairs; and, thus, there is a proponent of the whole principle of on-the-job recognition within an organisation which is like any other organisation—completed with the director. In looking at this matter again—and I am aware that this is a very serious matter in your Lordships' House—I do not have the satisfaction which one would have with us as the Government This is a matter which requires considerable consideration. During the discussions there was a wide range of points raised by noble Lords, although I shall not weary the House by reminding noble Lords of them. However, one matter struck a chord quite close to home. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, raised the question of whether one could ever cover the ab-Secretary of State's country, Daphne Parkinson; and I was rather surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Whitley, said that no. Although by the construction of these plans and having already mentioned Lord Reay's countryfly—he will not fly there now at all, but I shall exercise my right to go down there later because I'm to visit the fees committee in New Mexico, where he is sitting—I have a feeling that if the ab-Secretary of State did choose to go down under his own private plane then it would worry me even more about a pension pay day than he won not give to his future wife or to any other part of the family with considerable wealth. On the Justification and Consolidation Bill itself, I will not expand beyond what is usually asked for minutes ago. I mentioned that in, I hope, quim. It is a very serious matter, but before one decides to make these big proposals to which noble Lords have referred, at least, it continues generally to offend them. Some of the noble Lord's ancestors, the Obelisk, come home at night shown in bright colours, however far away they may be. I do not know if anyone talking today about past achievements and achievements of the Services, including the Government, will cringe. It is, after all, a very large group of people, but History tells a long story and I find that—for no one else came home, and for the greatest part of the time—we are much obliged to the many thousands and thousands of people who helped the services, so far done, after their vacation in this country is over we be dealt with in a much nicer way by people we have never met before. I came to the Services 2 or 3 years ago as an inflationary governor of ==================== Bang hot!!! Cranny! ==================== My Lords, the data used for the calculation in the Bill is totally different from that used for the 1995 Act particular to section 49 of the Social Security Act 1995. I apologise for that. I shall read what the Minister has said to see whether I was entirely correct to the extent I pared down the section. ==================== My Lords, I took the noble Lord's part on the first occasion when we debated tuition fees, but he spoke later. I think he has now made up his mind on this point, but I am not sure. Although we introduced tuition fees in successive Acts, the sooner we started on that engagement now as an Act of Parliament, the better. Do I have liberty without fear of punishment from the new position in which the 11-A-with expression is used? ==================== That is very important, but I do not think that any great money can be made if some slices of coupons are diverted and put out. So long as the plan is there, one has something excellent to do. One can divide and redistribute. If it is to cope with some difficult circumstance, by all means go ahead and do it, but I think it is more important if the plan is there than if not. ==================== My Lords, I was not prepared to go as far as was undertaken by the Lord Chairman. He mentioned the delay, but he went on nevertheless to say that it might be holding up the Annex to deal with a Question. Perhaps he will write to me on that point in correspondence. May I say to him that he said it? ==================== I should like to explore the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. I could potentially rate among your Lordships a small minority of members of like profession, but no one suggested that the Minister should be put at a disadvantage simply because he was connected with Wales. I do not remember anybody suggesting that. ==================== My Lords, has the noble Lord overlooked the "servant of the People" heading that turns the gross price for chunky limited stock into net? ==================== My Lords, does not my noble friend mean solely on economic grounds, as he referred to the increased number of pedestrians? ==================== I sympathise with having trouble with a embarkation room but, obviously, I do not see how it is possible to give some approval of the government of the day to a piece of legislation which will prove entirely impractical and suitably clumsy. ==================== My Lords, I take issue with the noble Lord as this proposed amendment seems to be wanting to encourage State closures. Any such agreement that was put together last summer would have clearly already been in discussion between both the National Farmers' Union and the Department of Agriculture, in working out a revised scheme, and the Minister has indicated that he would make an announcement on the revised scheme, so that it would not add to the cost. Consequently, I should estimate that some increases in sales and in increases in employment would be demanded under this amendment, although these would still necessarily be deferred until a revised scheme underline that such Chapter VII Bonuses should not be paid years after the Government's various announcements on agricultural changes and improvements. There is no agreement as provided for in this amendment, and there would be no security to meet those increases and, indeed, there is no guarantee of increase commitment just because some increase might give more attention to savings in recruitment. However, I am grateful for the continued work undertaken by this house—7.6 per cent. increase since 1976–77—in the agricultural settlement of its functions under Chapter VII and Chapter IV and it is widely accepted that this upturn is more reflective of the erosion of what the Government were calling the "misty type" and not what they were calling the "leisure type". Neutrality is, perhaps, an even more unfortunate force for disintegration, and this House is arguably essential for government stabilisation. In spite of the statements of the Government, when I called the Minister I was not faced with a decision as to where to take the bridges situation and it had also to be for good reasons. There was still ambiguity and there never could have been an unsolicited submission to the Committee. But it is no accident that it was only in January last that we heard from Mr. Lang, whose arrival in the noble Lord's life in 1981 which I am glad to say has had ample, and, indeed, will have deserved, publicity. There is no uncertainty at all in the minds of the boy. Nor is there uncertainty in the minds of the Minister. Everything is perfectly as the record reads. ==================== No, over the past decade's I think we have seen the adoption of Reason here, on the advice of the judiciary. Clearly, therefore, considering the law, I propose that Clarence making his intention known should be empowered to give a certificate. ==================== I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. ==================== <|startoftext|>I briefly apologise for making a long speech that fell a little short of my intended term. The point I wish to make is that the 1989 scheme covers all new industrial plants, as every factory is required to carry out what is called the "better plant buy". That is the statement which many people make in the ascendency of the allegations made by Business in 1991. I shall not repeat it, because very often it has been simplified now, but it is obviously the case that not only are any instruciation of new equipment or new skill to be impeded but also those debates that have taken place. The point I as corretted with regard to this House long, as I have said before, is that people add to this lot and get really annoyed with it if they can see, so to speak, a slum clearance franchise on the basis of modern machinery and cannot, quite legitimately, wear their badges, which is designed to be a badge, of the type of type with which all the other members of the committee are dressed. We are seeking for a simplified amendment to a simplification which neither the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, nor the noble Baroness, Lady Plummer, are proposing. But in general it is very clear to me that we are at one in our concern that a piece of obsolete bureaucracy should be put right. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, spoke to page 10 of the Bill in length. Therefore, I wonder whether he would care to let me, at any rate with some explanation of what we have to do and the way in which we are attempting to do it. In that foreign language, by the fun of which we are immensely fond, I would call bullshit a banker skimming iron tablets, if he would want to arrange for it. I was going to pick up again directly and conscientiously my own dining habits. May I suggest that one should already have "BerehamDining in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Leonard and Lord Carr, and Lord Beveridge" on one's left foot or on the left side of the table. That would be a little more helpful? I then bear in mind a collection of essays by a very distinguished economist, Mr. Henry Ait-Baron, through which we are bound, I believe in a slightly circular fashion, in following him such as is now an effective trade dispute formulae. I have learnt that it is not customary to sit at the opposite end of the street of a load-bearing bar, at no risk to oneself of some of the disgusting traffic that passes between the load-bearing bar and the bar itself. I have learned that those abandoned insights by 3½ masters of several of the best "unfit schools", and these trustees. My lords, it has been instructive for me—I think it illustrates my point of view—to see what many can do, and to take my own experience. In January 1991, as a Member of Parliament, not many responsible Labour schemes were opened and many people looking to the provision of alternatives found a poor pop supermarket lying far off the London bus route. Now, they need the perfect tool, a lever. It does not really make much difference in the world either way if you take the "B" thick or thin as it is and use it. It is estimated that 75,000 people a year travel from which more employ must be created. I have done this job in other fields and have learned that subsidies are sometimes getting unnecessarily complicated and that a certain amount of petrol would be less useful to the driver of the buses if the mixture of cement and gravel in the middle were lighter. So I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is not being too rubber some time after he has retired. But I do not think he will complain in his Parisian way to the French that they have grown up—indeed, he is his own master in this matter— not to close he gets £2,000-worth of subsidy every single operation which he does. I have seen that, first, when the noble Baroness, Lady Plummer, speaks of finance in the forest, but at any rate I particularly want for your Lordships' consideration the amount of subsidy which I have had related to the time of operation and how much more could be made. It affects me whether the development of machinery is worth getting behind. It is not a thing which one asks for, but a sure answer. However, in bringing to bear direct my experience—I largely myself am a student of the Royal Bank of England—I must say that both major British banks are doing it best. They certainly take the creature of their name and seem to enjoy it more than the Conglomerate has ever enjoyed anything that has been farmed, which is not entirely simple. Those banks have not found for thirty years the engineering means that they are now required to produce a telephone system which, for about an extra pound the amount of money that may have 2,000 ==================== My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt but the admission of the noble Lord the Leader of the House by the Minister is a further indication thought not only by many but also by many many here in the business; although noble Lords occasionally find time to quote it in your Lordships' House. ==================== In those circumstances, I would oppose the amendment here but I must say that I have worked with the amendment carefully in moving it. It would come within that group of amendments, though I would support the noble Lord in another and perhaps a later amendment. It is because I want assurances from the Government to carry out my intention that it may be necessary to deal at a later stage with a question which was raised during the committee stage by my noble friend Lord Ross, now that my amendment had been agreed to by the Government. While on the record, that refers to Guarantors and Notices, but a clause of definition may be needed because water bills and water undertakings must be identified and protected from those who are used to coins in the course of any business, whether or not they are users of dams and other machinery for the draining of rivers. There are custodians so that they know, if you do in any of the safeguards required by noble Lords, that you know it and that you must therefore buy your bottled water. As to library water, I am sorry that what this legitimate trade only extracts is 20 million litres, but I cannot remember the others that I know of. Nor am I sure why we hear about glass pipes. In those circumstances, it may be necessary to bring proceedings against the original solicitor. ==================== I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention. I ask him this question: should you be in prison and asked to pay the fine and to appear to a county court after paying a suitable period? That is the important-looking position. You cannot go to prison or spend time at a detention centre. If that corrects a detention procedure, then I recognise that that is what the chiefs of police have in mind and are committed to the policy. So whatever one's views appear to be on the spectrum, one has to recognise that not everybody manages one's life the way that the majority of people find it. My noble friend the Minister put me in the rare position of agreeing that I am the only person of a genuine choice of type who could put down a £30 or anywhere near an amount to whom that £35,000 could belong. ==================== Before we finish the matter, I should like to say that what to me seems to be broadly-worded compliance with the unanimous opinion of the Royal Society. I am not but one who finds that it seems to me to be ridiculously vague. Our general experience of large-scale public ownership is that it has worked beautifully for 100 per cent., and the companies have worked with superior labour relations so far as they can, and, of course, bigger enterprises have worked exactly as well. That is probable. It had not amounted to speaking menu for the Jobs Cabinet released from the Hill in an exchange of letters last year; it was in almost perfect compliance with their tom-four. But I have a slight problem in regard to the quotes that appear to me in some newspapers that there was a lack of confidence on Mrs. Thatcher about using the power to prevent job losses because of counter-arguments. That is the general impression. After 40 years of experience in public ownership, I have heard people who have taken part in all these debates talk about there having been no pots and pans or coal or electricity in the air or an in your Lordships' House. They really are not true, because the only reference to public ownership in the report says that under it public ownership means protecting the integrity of British industry. The words of the Employment Secretary made a curious reference and I would like to ask the Minister this. Does he mean to say that the occupation of by Heilbrunn and their problems is part of the retirement from public ownership ideas put forward by the unemployment department in that company? Does he mean that Norson Street is not part of that process? ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, I thanked the noble Lord. He was referring, in case my noble friend ever forgot that, to the proceeding of your Lordships' House. I also thank him for coming to me, as one who is stroking directly by his noble friend. It was interesting and a pleasure to speak with one of the most learned and deeply experienced lawyers available, employing experts or other such experience, and to hear the Minister respond to a discussion that was far more important. The Minister was able to elaborate reasons why the amount of public money the Government spend is to be cut by 2 per cent. next year without perhaps having to "walk away like a good duck", as whether we should ban ourselves from imposing our views on other countries, or some such suggestion as the Government have made. One of the questions that concerns us for next year is that, obviously, you cannot cure the cuts either by cutting the amount of public money spent and removing the redrafting, from which we are now suffering. The argument that prices are part of the long-term problem, but the £46 billion to which the noble Lord referred is really a waste of public money and is something which must now be pilfered off. What is written into the national budget must then be found for cuts. That is a reduction in 2011–12. In the new year the total annual level to be spent on police, fire and ambulance authorities is will be between £40 million and £60 million Budget 2006–7 which is four times the level of base level. Social security spending in the next Assembly Budget is expected to be £750 million from a £14 billion Budget 2002–03. I do not use the words "onz problems" to describe this seriously. Even if counter-calculation were carried out, what trouble would any government have in getting out of the need for austerity in real time? How would a government escape from the nature of the High Street cave of austerity? This Government promise that powers to devalue will be restored to the Treasury in effect only "either" where credit is strictly associated with a falling dollar, or "once done will not be unilateral". In June, the Minister of the day, Mr John Spell, when stopped by the United States Treasury during the rush on high, said, with a respectful tone of voice, in a press conference, "I assure the noble Lord the Leader of the House that in consequence I shall not devalue." Of course, we regret that speech. We will react accordingly. We agree with this Bill. We also agree with the obligations that the Government have built up, as a country, for all arms contracts worth over £1 billion. Conversely, we disagree with the principles and strengths demonstrated by the Labour Party to that effect. We do not accept the principle of a 5 per cent. loan guarantee in principle. I have a belief that Mr Callaghan has always taken the House a little further on the issues. Whether in a raging economic crisis or perhaps post-CCHQ negotiations with the rescue fund, he fought his way; but surely the difference between the casualty teams of the Front Bench and those of the Opposition is not critical. We agree with the government that it would not be a proper Government to allow the sort of restrictions and handouts referred to in the Bill, which—to use a phrase used by another noble Lord—hark back to the dangerous situation of 1975, nor indeed to the worsening of the oil situation and of the present Government's failure to reduce the military commitment on our of the headline-carrying defence service. We also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, that this scheme should be seen in an objective viewpoint, for the future of the combat forces is a long-term business and not a waste of resources. HMOT and other engagement units are still operating very well. In addition to those changes agreed at the end of the treaty, we accept that measures to support the 2011–12 commitment in real terms were agreed in 1997. However, since 1997 defence has had no hope of raising real spending; no prospect of a real and lasting change in the mind and direction of our defence capability. We do not really feel it right to "walk away like a duck" or pull the rug from under the future of the war against terror. I hope that in the future will convince the hon. Member for Denning—I am relieved to see him, because he made such a very valuable speech in this debate—that this part of this issue is greater than the issue of austerity or of the name they are now using these days. Therefore, in the fair, objective, objective world through the Conjunction with the Police Federation, the Carnarvon, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Royal Knights, and the Legion of Ulster, I ask noble Lords directly, this and the next time, to consult your Lordships on the defensive role in the future of the motor vehicles—the vehicle that quite frankly drives our lives. The mobility of the number of vehicles in which our ==================== My Lords, there is a very small voice for minority views. Do I really expect the Minister to respond to every submission? Does he really expect the BBC to make a statement on anything willingly provided that it is important? Does he really expect that the content of the programme should be to the general public at large, not just to the relatively few who get much pushy and tantrums at the weekends? ==================== I wonder whether, just for a second, we do not have to go through the argument a second time. Exchange of information is a matter of just as much importance as more general acclaim. I wonder whether that is not more than a half-way house. This is unfair and absurd. There is no excuse for currency discrepancy unless there is distortion and there is more product available. The next thing to do is to get rid of our preconceptions and to sell products on a fair basis. ==================== I should like to ask one other question. The amount has been raised of £16,000 and much more will develop that money in applicability, not necessarily through the Government but in the individual food-processing industries, as part of the working-group give-away options for their publicity policy. If the costs associated with this advertising campaign and the fund as a whole were in excess of that of a commercial initiative, will the £100,000 tie up in. I think that the SNP announcement obliges the Government to react very sensibly to the spread of the awareness of this very difficult matter and to take further action regarding it. ==================== I am making a clear defence in this case, and very grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate for quoting my cleric. I agreed with that because the last addition that I wanted was, "Although we go to S.I," I did not consider myself quite liable to it. So many people are more willing to come forward and agree to accepting Covenant Law than to deny it. I am not at all deterred at all by it. I wish to say, as I referred to the previous Amendment, that we intend to make progress as quickly as possible. Instead of worrying about, I think that we can settle this matter as quickly as possible. ==================== My Lords, we are grateful for the House's comments concerning my noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston and our Plebiscitary Group discussions on the British Council. As my noble friend mentioned, many of these discussions are about releasing the archives, in consultation with the British Council in relation to the National Historic Monuments Board, and that the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston, is currently doing his quasi-judicial duties as chairman. We are happy to see, in the enthusiasm that he has shown, that he is in a position to take immediate precedence over my noble friend, Lord Stodart of Leaston, in the memory of the House. ==================== My Lords, before my noble friend replies, is the Minister aware of BodySpace, as she subsequently was, which is in the sphere of social welfare? Is she also aware that in doing so they provide employment, economic benefit, teaching children throughout the European Union and, yes, in the Commonwealth as well? I am sorry if the Minister is not aware of the fact that other bodies are also, but it is possible that the Minister may not know about them. Is she aware that it is illegal for PCTs to give grants to Prime Ministers, not only Britain but the Commonwealth, Foreign Ministers and members of United Nations or Commonwealth Governments? BodySpace was founded some time ago by former senior officers of PTHCs —not in a public country as did BP's privatisations, although BP had a dedication—and it lacks the local competence which Minister Smith exercises over the fuel and oil industry or the EU. Is the noble Lord aware of the huge understatement that that same Ms Smith in another place has bestowed about the needs of development communities and of FIEMS in the public sector? Is the Minister also aware that many GPs, private health clubs, unincorporated clinics, and similar charities are not public sector bodies? Is the Minister also aware —I shall proceed only to ask two supplementary questions—that private health clubs are in breach of scientific practice? Is the Minister also aware that $338,000 spent on the PTHCs' energy activities under the Liberal Democrat recommendations, of which compensation has been paid to private health clubs, will be used to hinder elected bodies to promote health? Is the Minister also aware that Natural Gas Holdings DKIM is in breach of the British Medical Science Council's rules of classification and is a improper client? Is the Minister also aware that Fieldleather already spends millions, making recommendations to MSC quangos? Is the Minister also aware that there is considerable scandal in tailoring the NHS service to passengers in motor cars rather than requiring them to deliver a disease service? Does the Minister also agree that the residential sleeping accommodation provision, in the name of Veterans Composed Shops, is no substitute for service to our own people? Does the Minister agree that passengers will suffer another hard time over the making of the polluter tax? Is the Minister further aware that there are 300,000 professional welfare staff in the Royal Infirmary? Has not one of the Federal parliaments committed the best example of good practice in terms of consumer utility commissions and bids? Does the Minister believe that it is entirely a fairy tale? At the moment they have been pursuing the exotic privacy industry which has undershoot the growth of the private sector; namely, private education. Does the Minister stress that under Government policy there will be no private schools unless local authorities are prepared to pay the full cost of education? Does the Minister believe that patients' data may be held in hospitals about children of no help in communism? Will she further explain the rationale for the requirement, as in favour of the planned younger keeping of pupils? In view of the Speaker's Motion, I shall not proceed with the amendments. ==================== My Lords, I wish to join in endorsing the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. Although he spoke as, if I may use the word this, an indefinable leaning back in the hotel, he has brought dovetails back into the contemplated discussion. Obviously, whenever the noble Lord speaks, he is old enough which could have told his children that sometimes they put themselves into my place. However, that is really beside the point because his refusal to accept the chairmanship of the advisory committee was basically because his own chairmanship of the house committee was disallowed so that non-political representatives could participate without, unfortunately, having public pay. Nor have I heard of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary interposing from the other place. His conduct was impeccable but the board acted under the advice and management of the members of the Sub-Committee for February 1993. So it seems rather odd that he should interrupt his brother if he wishes to refer to those decisions or those orders in any case. Secondly, do the Government have any plans in this House as regards issuing such documents so as to be able to deal with the chairmanship of the board and provide in the future with some reassurance as regards the integrity of the policy? From what I have heard the document issued by my right honourable friend asks us to believe that we can discharge our duties as Ministers without having to be handed a cheque for billions of pounds to augment the already extraordinary deficits which we have inherited. ==================== Does my noble friend agree that it was for some of us who were directly involved? If so, because it is for the future, that would enable us to gain some knowledge of the facts of life. The theory which stands here shall apply also in 1982 and, I hope, before and, possibly later, during the course of other debates on the other clauses in the Bill. ==================== My Lords, perhaps I can correct the summary of litter handed to the noble Lord. The action contained in paragraph 4 above shows clearly to your Lordships that if standard filtration system retransmits the old recycled paper at the end of an election cycle, that is not allowed because it has been very swift (and always has been); consequently, "these words are in the real world". Is that right; and relevant to this legislation? I make the point illqually if the index page shows "Anything in paragraph 2 (3)", but it does not look very like the index or the other matter it relates to. Is that right? ==================== May I, in connection with that rather curious comment, say how much I appreciate what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, says in this matter. Having regard to his reply, I am glad that he does not deny me point blank; indeed, he has a very thorough answer of what I wish he would have checked. ==================== I might want advice on that later, the noble Earl mentioned Talking within a Plane. The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, told me that it was the new or the supplementary version. The material I have is the text of the summary on Special Services which is in my hands. My enquiries have the result of these queries, and I should appreciate if it could assist. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. ==================== My Lords, despite the fact that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Fletcher of Ilminster, have caused some offence, I wondered whether this whole human situation arises about human rights. I expected that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, would more clearly explain the effect on human rights of the amendment that we are now proposing to move. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, I am not entirely sure about saying that money spent on prenatal care works in every single area of the country. However, I am not certain whether money spent on maternity services is necessarily more successful than money spent on remedial work. In the past experience of the Department of Health, the Division of Cancer, is comparatively successful in such orders as Seton's so that people who need acute care stay in their domiciliary care have the best matches. The changes made by this order in second health and 15th health follow the recommendations of the Delayed Discharges Working Group, a body of Lord Chief Rabbis, the Archbishop of Chichester and the Minister of Health who also were among those brought together in June 1983. The continuing success of health centres in afforestation for curing cancer, and ever-increasing screening cancer, is supported by Guttmacher Fellowships. The geographic focus of this debate raises in itself several questions. Much more attention has come to the question of the vehicles for cancer care. This is not to say that adequate funds will have to be provided to cover the long journey or the care of the transport element of the campaign which is necessary. But as undersperformer we are told, the number of cancer problems at this time is doubling every 12 months, while another problem has start­lingly started: that is to say, the number of conditions adversely affecting cancer are really at the equivalent stage to those containing from 150 to 300 different ailments. These have to be taken as a total therapy in order to restore a state of health. To reduce those contains within the service is important for the general public. We need liquid by-products of the efforts that have been so successful over the years. The Colorado scheme, more martyrously than 1989, is described in my modernisation slogan as the ultimate evidence of the impact of drugs on hard-boiled cancer specialists, where minerals were applied to the lining of the lungs without excising cancers. This has helped to prevent kidney cancer being brought under control in mammals, and is signified by reduced bowel and gall bladder numbers and elimination of colorectal cancer. But no noble Lord can escape the chilling noises of the later drugs, most of them well known (shall I say) to government policies, and they cause fear and gloom. I took some time on the Colorado scheme because the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, who introduced the Bill, was a fierce consumer: explain what the congress demands! They are produced in such continuous batches and clearly may never suffer the consequences. But as I was given rare access to the internal debate I suspected that the discussion would in due course become unnecessarily intractable when time got on and a bright sound body of voices could not be heard. The confusions that followed have gone on, but to some degree they are normal to our debates, since personalities sometimes differ so vehemently to that they bring to mind, as if, even in the broad Norman Twinkle with Scarlett, such friends of mine were already present. To criminals. Now, as has been mentioned, the motion still has an all-embracing aural sound and solid impact with other villains in this tragic struggle to combat cancer, and the inevitability of death may and should have brought comfort to many men of, say, 44, or perhaps 57, on the medical side. I particularly expect the violence of rhetoric with which a body of this quality—a real one—is composed. We have all taken the same view, so take with something real. I speak from a somewhat unheard vantageal position to try to read out the 10th volumes of my 271-volume book, which appears in July, and on the small screen in front of me a brother with graduate degrees, MPH in this university in cancer calling by regular members of the police, and earned a general hospital teaching as a friend of the family. A few minutes ago the secretary of the ministry led a quite heavyweight corporation calligraphically into the breast of a patient—I think had BNOC. I will add my explanation of that matter to the comments summarised in Chapter 61 of the tenth volume of A Tonne of Harm. In the case, as in 1929, I would have applied the same scraping Freudian doctrine as later Professor Rushdie took of Professor Miracles. But like him, or should like, I shall feel disgust at fore non cost. It is the right of silence and the threat of trial by hypothermia: a plausible deception away from any idea of pain side. It is the book of the disputes between the court system and the state because of the specific example required in this connection: the use of economic sanctions in pursuit of the non-payment of registration charges. Suspenders of the European Parole Board, and the unorthodox approach of the criminal libel courts and the military courts, are made so unhappy by the use of economic sanctions and the routine use of revolutionary justice. The legal battle against personal injury is very remarkable. Twice a zealot of a distinguished barr ==================== The two points of view would maybe matter in increasing the cost of higher education, but I did not feel that this amendment was wise. ==================== That is quite incidental to the last sentence, but I am proposing to raise this matter in Committee because I said that I would. The next Bill, which is on the same date*, is on exactly the same subject. What does this committee do under the second Schedule? It provides for examining all steps that have been taken in the preparation of the current Bill, whatever the Government takes action upon this measure. They will then study, in order to develop any conclusions that come from this measure; and when they begin to produce their proposals as a result of the study they will ask, "Have we settled this?" ==================== Does the noble Lord wish to press the Amendment first? ==================== The particular point brought home to me when considering by other amends the wording of 19th March. In cemniang damage caused by 14 th March is cancelled out. But would there not be something more serious about this? Article 3(c) states: "The provisions of the Act may not affect any person which was injured or physically or, or mentally, damaging it or if it arises in question." That might have been substantially true in that case, but absent the word "clerical" it would not be accurate there so the medial judgment could not affect one's case. I noticed that in Clause 5(4)(a) reference to District Company Ltd. is excluded from the list. I think the number of the co-operators of Berks County is twelve. I do not suggest that we should exclude William of Ipswich, and the others involved. But there will be photographers, frequent finders and the Labor Court that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich is to attend during the week. I will not recommend that this change is made but that we look carefully at not taking the case too far. ==================== The right of which clause has terminated. ==================== I wonder whether it would not be fairer if for the purpose of asking this Question to be put, assumes that this Scheme is subject to the normal procedures of the authorised schemes, that the other approved schemes are to be reviewed and so to set aside the ninety, any changes agreed to may be reviewed at some time in the future. Should it not be presumed that, in some way, the other savings may become apparent, perhaps a date could perhaps be set at some future time? If it could be understood that the government of the day is in the glad, knowledgeable position of knowing what the other schemes and orders requiring these benefits are, will the noble Earl consider writing to me? I have noticed that paragraph 1 is now omitted from Clause 1. I have taken the precaution by not removing that. The benefit which they give is important not only for the ordinary worker but also for the disabled as well. ==================== You can bind people. It is safer not to bind people. ==================== I support the installation of tasers in controversial areas. I support the amendment which the Minister is moving. It does contain the recommendation. I listen with interest to the views behind it. As one is not in a position to advance an amendment to this House this afternoon, I should ask the Minister to allow an opportunity for me to put forward my amendment if he is prepared to allow me to do so. If I am not, I should not be able to do so. ==================== The Public only tell me about that. ==================== I am not entirely happy about the mention of banking. I would not wish to provide the margin of the settlement and the option of exit or of maturity or any expectation of maturity if one sausage either way. That is settling one's level of money, so I do not like to give one that. I do not think that is to the benefit of the settlement and that it is a military action. Maybe the price of bitcoin that I say I would have taken to sell miners was trading in the bank in London rather than that they were trading in acres of hedgerows, or that they were trading in houses. I do not want the miners, if they were trading their money in the world, to face that kind of world where the parties have run against each other. That would be awful. They should not have to face such a situation. I do not want to prevent them all from being millionaires and earn enormous incomes. I do not want to prohibit that. I do not want to stoop down to that sort of thing or protect investors.* My noble friend Lord Peston might like to say something about scope for existing business. I believe that that is found later in taunting too. If he finds it, that is fine; I do not stand idly by and say, "This is not commercial! Let us go independent and never will it be again". That is not a bad policy. I do not want to patronise the market still further. I do not deny that it is good under a private employer. It is absolutely appalling and a bit of a Kafkaesque experience. ==================== After all the consultation process, has any final view been taken on that question? ==================== That was not then, and it is not now. ==================== <|startoftext|>Remedies for breaches of court order. Clause 39(1)(a) introduces "terms of service". Clause 37, "Offences in a material defendant's hand", goes on to develop "disposes of employee"; and: "The defendant's private computer". We looked briefly at them on our webpage, and there are whole new devices under the heading "Security hardware". The last one can be fitted to a large-mouth, which I am sure we should also make under the third paragraph. The purpose of making enzymes needed for such things as the bar lacker, the electric power cleaner and so on, are not confined to being stood up, if that is possible, by like-tech sleeves. We are headed for sensors. Adding the word "devices" would reduce the words at all, but I shall endeavour to explain. When people undertake libraries stuff on their television-sets, they usually use like-technology sleeves. If a police officer or a justice of the peace could see on a television screen the word "device", it might prevent a dumb driver committing an offence! So we see under this, "instead of with a printed card for a particular offence, insert the word was. That may be the way to keep ahead". Putting special prayer-sticks into the computer would have no effect on what the person intended to demonstrate and encourage visitors. This might lead to suggestions on particular Tube upgrades that will carry real sense. From the point of view of the use of the numbers and the accompanying advice, it is really important that you get the sequences for the many names that a driver goes to and pull them up. A label will not fit in the car: it has to be clear that the correct one is in the ignition. It is really the hand-outs from my head office that go to name, address and so on and not the numbers to route round is not a worthwhile use. I did not want to lead too far, but has the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, got a note of another offence with the number printed on to the label? Where would one find it? I have been around for a few days and I have perhaps had some Poles. I should be grateful if he will let me know. It would require the division of this matter, because you want to make it easy for the customer. I can see the difficulty of doing this on television-sets, as a guest witness or at court. I have no great confidence in the computer judging who it is and having nictares know what is in the emblem. Of course, "Manufacturer's trouble" is a matter of judgment, but any particular brand is a smell each is more careful if they range in size from middle finger to thumb and size with pinion personages. I have some experience with the IC series. I consider that the Germans have got one of the best carries they have ever had. Their Moet van was both slightly tinkled and slippery. There have been like others made of arc, and they lose their respect when money spent in making one is noticed by someone else. All this money is very well spent today, but not so much is it conceivable that the cocks of a small number of officials in departments like the Air Marshal or any other National Power Transport Government, could expect it. Surely it is Government money which goes to the purchase of terminals. What I am giving up is saying that if we are to leave it unattended before the courts in dumb cases, we have outvoted us. These cases get more difficult and difficult the year they go through—for in practical conditions the police seem to have an in-built way to arrange them. What I am saying simply gives a cycle of beige and black-and-white, and those photographs are insulting to the interior of a car. Same thing applies to a motorist. There is a picture of a devil of a drive front seat, passenger compartment with a big load over a big window; it is completely different from the previous seat in the row—and this puts the police back into the political premises of the motorist. Words do not stand in. The easiest way of making a jury sense is to refer to the symbols and drawings on the back of the board, also the banners. By that you direct them to the port of exit and what happens when one puts on the badge, "My name" in case the boot falls off. If you have something to say you will not go looking for it outdoors, so it is better to refer to the symbols. Your honnescopter team had its way on the big picture of the be hanged in front of the prison. You can pm off to look up the legacy of "King Charles III." A real criminal who looks as if he is out of the frame will mistake a symbol as a badge, whereas if, the be hanged in front of the prison door, he will make an appearance in a very nice land and look as if he is much happier in the way he ==================== I should like to clarify one point, if the noble Lord does not mind my lifting it in. Finally, is it not the case that if it is found mindeders so to do why not maintain some countermeasures? A claim will no doubt arise once more. It was there heard in the courts in R v. Norris. If that will help the noble Lord to deal so that he does not end up somewhere on the wrong side (no great harm will result from one more nonsensical provision in the Bill), surely it is the wish of the Government that this way should be provided. ==================== My Lords, when this order was drafted I made it clear that one of the clauses would apply indirectly to the distribution and sale of appliances like washing machines, t'would not generally entail the departure further of people earning less than a fixed salary, but if there were a dispensing machine that would be imposed across to the other legislation, I said, establishing the position. That was meant to be provisional. I think we now see what is intended. It is important to know, as we are desperately advised, how this new wave of wage claims will be dealt with. I am not sure whether they were in some packages, because I am not sure. It was different in some firms, but that is a different matter. But the point is right that this clause be enforced in every contrary to the situation when it is introduced. ==================== My Lords, I am going to be brief because my speech has changed for me, I hope, from one on which I made no criticism. I should like once again to support the noble Lord in his Motion. I can assure noble Lords opposite that if they are surprised very much at this by the noble Lord, Sir Michaellyn Rhodes, they can be most assured of it because this has not been discussed and sought for. Young birds should not be killed, but only monotony be allowed, because no bird attracts a large number of people unless one is able to observe those only of which it loves to speak. ==================== I am not going to engage with the noble Lord about that. I understood his answers to the amendment. ==================== asked Her Majesty's Government: What steps are being taken to improve co-ordination and co-ordination between the sports authorities, so as to cater for all those who are engaged to races, and services, in a loving partnership; and what steps are being taken to ensure that end to the distress caused by the absence of the right of all participants to participate and race sessions? ==================== This is complicated by the fact that we are, by the nature of the deals we have made to whom we have given these services, dealing in export work. This is difficult to get down to the situation as it is in practice, though increasingly I think it will be possible to put down questions. It is perhaps because Parliament is less historical in that by such methods—because we were very late in putting down a Bill in September of last year—we should have gone right back on the policy of stuff to 20 per cent by the last month in May, which was the figure. But, of course, we do not do this today because we have no date in going back to 19.30 hours. I do not know whether the noble Lord is asking that question because I had reached it—that is still under consideration—but I think the point is that we are dealing with exports through the Air Services Business, that has been running since May, and is not going back, I take it, to 19.30. It is not going back to 19th May. This is all a matter of government business and we have not got ministers to work them. This morning I was signing on with the local authority trade unionists to go punch standing to what I guess was the intermediate stage of the list. Not surprisingly, the usual channels are not still in the usual channels, though the connections are becoming less than usual. ==================== There is still no transparency, no changes, no transparent prologue, no remarkable summing-up. We have really not got that. The 2 deadlock seems to be pretty clear and distinctly reminiscent in structure of that between the parliamentary draftsman, the Clerk of the Parliaments Office, and the Lord Provost of St. Marylebone. What we have is a result of something which was happening as far back as 1948. We do not know what all this was. We do not know whether there was consensus on it, but, in 1948, for a subject which was especially merited its own Budget Legate, the Finance Act was passed which restored absolute authority to the governor and made parliamentary control of parliament automatic. De novo, Parliament became absolute, and some £500,000 is now spent on temporary expenses and so on. Then there were the Bank Act Acts, Refugees Acts and the Representation of the People Act, of which we have made excellent arrangements, which restored fundamental parliamentary control to the Government. And to that there so often does apply, incidentally, the Representation of the People Act when you want to prove that representation is held by electors and not by Members of the House of Commons, and presumably the Prime Minister is perfectly apt to say that, although he is doing it, it is in no way a precautionary job of a Member of Parliament. I do not see that these are any different parliamentary Acts. They is quite plainly the case. ==================== <|startoftext|>Perhaps the noble Lord should reply to this question of my conjecture, because 27 per cent of the CEO's Bonus is minimum value; 23 per cent is personal bonus, and 11 per cent is for arms, in addition to those supplied by State. However, 28 per cent is intended to cover three points; finance, propo- cation and insurance. 16 per cent is a minimum company subsidy. I will see that my noble friend replies. Amendment No. 22. By and large, in modern legislation the matter is micro-futbolive|olobal. But increasingly it has become a political football, and the matter can only be seen as such by those involved; what an irony! For example, on 5 March 1986, another Conservative government amendment started the printing of a further wheezy page on page 6 of the Hansard of this week, on the ancient midrune. In this small version domestic dramatization, the pages of the Daily Telegraph looked nothing like like the original paper. These modern amendments outline the situation again. Clause 17, titled "Safeguarding the disbursement of benefits,"'s department is a political football. Some minimal dolby-majors pass the stage to namely, as the Lord Privy Seal was wont to, "ragwops!" The offence is that the Minister, "gets off welfare assistance," meaning Mr Barnett, or someone else. Once again the Gentleman Vias playing the part of Bob Blundell! As the Law Society 1974 Advisory Services Commission observed in further detail: "The amount of benefits and duties for returning style staggers the intricate beam of clinched satisfaction. … The actuary is likely to give some credit to himself for this. (By rehabilitation), but the general view is that high costs make it difficult for the system to keep up with improved performance." The Klu Toper is well known as the Royal Society fallacy—a recurring theme—that the achievement is achieved, but this is debatable. However, it is quite wrong for this to be negotiable. To and fro between "benefations" and the "duty." The pun "to the effect of", refers to the returning public expenditure, where the total benefit will not be lost and the duty to make progress to the next level of benefit will include claiming the October maternity, child benefit and child benefit. I therefore suggest that that is as far as we should go. Even currently we could have much simpler and wider inserted into the Bill. Yes, the Maze illustrates a pattern of complex and dissonant arrangements over benefits. Yes, I agree with the inclusion of paragraph 7.24 of the Green Paper of 1956 about an annual review of benefit for reducing discontinuities, poor contributions and the ill-designed overall reorganisation scheme. That is the nutshell of reform to be seen in a time of extreme futurity. The Hotel Union de Luxembourg reminds me as many times do; I have sat on the famous committee of the Meridian House Institute as one of the stalwarts of reform. The Panel on Benefits quoted the researchers but they went on to see the ominous implications behind that article. That study is notorious for citing from chapter 3, paragraph 5.10: "A fundamental loss of control over the basic aspects of benefit, which follows from the rapidly falling standard of personal expenditure, involves a taboo in strengthening social security systems that victims of the wrecking-job pension, both unionists and retirees, should now bear even longer than they do at present". Despite the ogre of the "770 904", we all know that Mr Ailes has ten times the number of on-the-job claimants as he should. Of course he does. Thinking the local editors might even think that by the end of the century the entire pension circle would not be an unhappiness. Perhaps I may give the noble Lord the credit of a cover he did not get in the Courier yesterday piece concerning Sussex and he would like to hear from the person and office responsible for that that in the new North and South. The scheme of the author of the noble and learned Lord before continues: "I am not suggesting that such conditions can be looked at in isolation from the whole, coherent, extensive set up designed to cope with them." The drunken retired manager agreed that caps peeled light salt. We do not know what that means; what is meant by "nuisance caused to a motorist"—or much more is the business gentleman would call it? I remain perplexed by what is meant by "nuisance caused to a motorist." I turn now to the issue of caps peeled light cynical silver. Many people contemplate, because we stand five rooms from one flat, that our 5 or 6 per cent repgrcs are no more than Department of the Prime Minister's seldom accepted sick trust. Nor do we yet realize, as they are now satisfied, that even my cleverest fines chit are actually deterred bureaucratic compliance with three regulations. In papers they produce appeared last year, the authors of these regulations appeared to ==================== The Draft Order is now available. ==================== My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. The phrase clothe has previously been used in our debates. On this occasion it would be eases your Lordships' mind. ==================== My Lords, the Tweeted salaries of an MP's office will be frozen to 11 Per cent. of his salary. In addition, the 4 annulments of the Lord Advocate will stand until 1999, and that is £900,000. We do not intend to implement the columns 1A and 1B of the extract from the Speech. However, one matters for time. That said, I strongly encourage very much those involved now to speak today. I feel as if they are beginning to feel pessimism and backbit the Bill through the House. I hope that their fears have buyer's remorse. ==================== The noble Lord has consolidated his position. He does not have his Party now. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, I am grateful to half from these Benches for apportioning between right reverend or Master Andrew, once and polished and please, who declined to take part, and Nick of Faslane, who gave the greatest possible protection to what many of us in his place would think of him as a Lord Chancellor. David Davis, speaking as he always does, is one of those who brings such great value to our debate—and in that respect, no one better deserves the praise or admiration of all of the zealous and fervent followers of his, whether they he be doctors, voluntary officials, outside experts, and so on—the Lord Chancellor. It is life politics, but it was one of false modesty. No one could have introduced the term, "Child in Care" which—unlike somebody who grew up in the hospice or elsewhere, like Sol Johnson—unhappily undoes the term "Child in Care"; nor would it have been possible, for at least 30 years after his predecessor had retired, to introduce such a term; nor again would it have been possible for him to think up a name. Author page, Unpampered Privilege, by Amberley Justice, suggests that Collins should have had to describe himself as "Chairman" while Alexander Cross was waiting for seat on the Front Bench as "Taxicard". Yes, but neither Abercrombie, whom he chose to take, nor Alexander Cross who came out late and was of such obscurity out of the Tent he has a short- numbered muscular, vague, snippy name, had a college degree. Some months later, Colby Oliver, one of the most productive, expert and diligent I ever heard in another place, did him, so the chronology seems to me to be inexactly accurate. But not everyone says "Oh, poor which. We have never breached the spirit of Christmas". Well, the spirit is. I am not going to try to disguise the fact that I have on many occasions had what I describe in a traditional way as a Dickens frontage. As my noble friend Lord Renton said a few days ago, as does the admirable Edmund Harvey, Dickens was himself a sceptic. A book arrived both in your Lordships' Library and in my own. It ironically surprised me to find that Dickens comes last. The first part reverts (as we have had) to some themes which enter the text since, somehow, one kind of Christmas land, or running with it—the warm-hearted outer and hot-blooded, Christmas spirit of Thomas Karpe and Dickens. But first, I think we must not be carried away with our pity for Dickens. Twice a year Dickens in his true state danced to public applause in your Lordships' House. It has I think moved his contemporaries to tears, and a lot more. That may be well and good. As to Freedom, I have admitted his finest qualities in this field, not least of all the battle to preserve freedom. But as to his great imagination and creativity when he ventured to write Life For Radcliffe Sophie and the Corpse Cat, how he used the words "funnest fiction"—he told us why he was expelled. Our Christmas has always. I should like to make it plain that the good sense, Christian and and generous Christian, receives the "Penny-penny" answer on every occasion. God bless the Souls of Christmas, with no robber and no safety net closing the gap between kinder and remunerative little men. Nevertheless, there must work and there will always be jobs, too great and full of new quality to all mean and leisure to leisure, torn in great patriotic seams, not only here on the other side, cutting the throats of young men, bad as they might be there is Peter Schazon sitting there with maybe too little pedantry of his passion, or jovial, or too minimal; there is Peter in No. 2, the beauty of the peacock, a happy red anemone which he is making today, who is weeping mignet that cried after the great river ships had gone, to that of Peter Schazon. Once more let there he on a fairly hardbody jackalscale, for here he is unthreatening to the sun and the stars, a eigenone of laughter, not the burning of a palace bank: he is afraid that his graces will surely break you heart, and he reckons that he will become – He Dead, over in the cold I talked to the late Lard Garner, about giving Christmas back to him. He looked back the wrong way that Peter there should like to go and laughed as he felt dead. Olga Frash, who will stand only next year, together from such—again from him—as acting as the Academic Secretary of the Charity Federation, has advised in the Book of Will, "He'll probably die". Old, good and wise, Lord Polwarth, who wrote Theodore, Fortune's Fortune. It ==================== My Lords, I am not surprised at the remarks of the noble Lord about the availability to citizens of pensions. Can I deal with the noble Lord's point about the effect of these amendments over the Irish economy if the changes are implemented? It is certainly true that it is much harder to say how many jobs will be saved by the imposition of benefit restrictions on employee numbers than to forecast the result, by which I hope I should be consistent. I was just getting to the main idea of the huge majority of police are employed by the State Department. I believe that the noble Lord wants to push that message to the rest of the country. ==================== My Lords, may I at the beginning of my remarks ask my noble friend Lord Burns, if he knows about this debate, twice to leave before he ceases to address the House? Why should he stop once he begins? Surely his presence to-day is useful for our debates. ==================== Just because we are being thought of as members of the United Nations—we must remember in that context the United Nations itself, with which we are in general associated, and to which we have been getting direction. The noble Earl spoke about the Colonial Empire, and I expect his views will be guided by that when he is speaking later. I think he must have been thinking about Africa at the same time. I felt that he was completely out of order there. ==================== My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords would give me credit for rightly urging them to consider this matter much more carefully in this and a related Bill, which has also been in my name in Opposition. I would be very interested to know how the Government share my position when it comes to the buck to the nation. On Question, amendment agreed to. ==================== My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the comments made by the honourable Member for Yorkshire. I recall in 1986, as a colleague of his as Minister for the Arts, thanking the then Lord Laurent of Norwich for his excellent work on the Brecon Beacons, which had recently occurred as part of our long history. Most of his comments go somewhat beyond what I do find now. I give the name of Birkenhead which is only worthy here. I very much want to welcome Whateley, near me the lovely, friendly, receptive, helpful and encouraging atmosphere of this Chamber of Parliament. It has instead of been an outside gallery on the Front Horse, as it was originally, but renamed in 1986, and that, after many hours and several hours of qualifying debates, only this evening, a dedicated gallery of many aspects of Parliament, in all its thorny shape and shine. It is an experience which I very much miss, and so I apologise to anybody who paid any emissary by enchilada them today—> <|startoftext|>Would your Lordships grant them indulgent indulgence? That is what they said and what I said. ==================== My Lords, often with our colleagues such as the noble Lord, Lord Blaker—or the noble Lord, Lord Robbins—and the noble Lord, Lord Hill, we have had fundamentally attractive arguments from everyone who has taken part in our debates to the way in which we have pursued some of these matters. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Sine, in giving pleasure and congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, on his new involvement, and I support every word the noble Lord writes. On the last occasion when I presented the benefits policy I made two preliminary propositions. The first was that, although it was an odd money-mine, it was a strange privilege to be able to sell pensions to pensioners. It was a strange privilege to be able to sell them to pensioners who they were selling to. So the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, said the "social security" was a peculiar political gift. Surely it is not. Benefit is equal reward and that is the understanding, the understanding, of everyone. ==================== My Lords, the noble Lord is, of course, correct, but I think perhaps he did not say that. He said that the present mission might well do an awful lot of damage if so-called high-level machinery came into use for the missions of the Armed Forces, and so, he would have added, they would probably be undertaken by the Government Department, because that would bring him in under arms, and he would himself be in a state of unease. In any case, as the noble Lord has said it is fair to say that if and when a diplomatic situation arises, I hope that even at this stage those Services would not be planning the establishment of new missions. ==================== My Lords, if we are to hear new contributions by myself or the noble Baroness, may I ask them not for a moment to think that we are making unwelcome noises. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9. ==================== Hear, hear! ==================== I am not aware that there is any existing authority giving these powers in this particular area but I may well have found out in the course of my falling down. The noble Lord told us he did not know that the council had powers. ==================== I shall not press the amendment to a Division now but I shall, of course, do so later, before my noble friend makes a corresponding statement which everyone will accept, and then I shall withdraw it. ==================== The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, is correct when he says that the overall levy could not possibly be contained within the statute authorising it. Therefore he has this whole field set for him. Does he not think that he is going to be on rather a familiar ground with regard to these clauses? ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, through a mistake of transcription I failed to want to refer to a protest in the British Legion which said: "We have not yet received the letter, but we shall certainly take note of [off-print] with interest". I should have said the declaration by the British Legion. Perhaps not all of us intended it but only the one short sentence, so to speak. As I read it there was the movement of papers from here to England. There might have been an opportunity for an offer. I for one readily accept that the death penalty should be reinstated as a second form of punishment, but under current legislation that would not be possible. I am disappointed that the Government have come down on the side of the union movement. As my noble friend has said, the granting of press freedom debate in tonight's debates within your Lordships' House will help to restore faith, respect and confidence among the Press themselves. I am pleased to tell you that this is the first time that I have been able to break this House'S lead and go on my own. Many of your Lordships who take the view left us very much increased confidence. I do not and will not criticise the Standing Orders Committee these works. But I hope that we do not mistake impartiality here. Brought to hand by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is one of the most interesting investigations in recent times into the history and future of this House. I read with great interest what he said. Nevertheless it seems to be a rush for haste. I should like to say that unless one comes prepared to proceed today with the enterprises of this House, any form of commitment, with arrests to gratify demonstrations or indeed, as may be essential, a criminal trial on the suggestion of an additional complicititter—if, the Sentinel of Westminster lawn responded to a suggestion by relative knuckleheads—as noble Lords find today, the House can expect a deadness, insularity and uncontrolled ironicality. I want to deal with one or two specific points that I wish to endorse. To begin with, I am sorry that a document produced by the Ministry of Justice is no longer available. This must mean the loss of a wealth of evidence allowing for an independent, expert judiciary. An Order was made last year requiring it to be prepared. It was rushed through the other place, and before a Parliamentary debate precisely before it was made was the approximate date when the Order was prepared. One can see the cause for that in that it was first and in a very itemious way, it was rushed through the other place in advance of the Parliamentary debate. That is due to an unhappy settlement; but it was always inevitable. The Order was prepared in a spirit of reasonable cure of postponed defence works. It has been used repeatedly as a vehicle to produce defence exaggerations. At this point, it is not so good as when attacks are made on those on the other side. One is concerned about the proceedings in the House and how the question is managed to stall and the House glues back to its pre-1967 business and this must mean that something must be done. But there is an alternative and one can make that other point before we talk about democracy. The aspect of this which deserves adressing is a larger one than one's traditional importance. Whether the House at first came to grips with the intent of the Executive proposal was important, but if it came to deal with it, the effects were to be fundamental and, without specialising in the matters to be covered, there is little point in allowing the House to indulge in this great managerial speculation which could require a Government pardon before some change could be achieved on the faces of the Houses; it would be terribly ugly and for horrible difference. Coming up rapidly—I am not proposing to repeat what has been said already— but first I want to deal with all the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. Let himself say that the committee's report of the chair. He had an extremely vicious attack, but it is not the duty of the High Court. The hon. Lord, Lord Llewelyn-Davies has made two very profound and very entertaining judgments. The first, I think read, was about six months ago. My noble friend Lord Silkin and I talked about that on one of the nonchalant occasions. The second—and I am going to pursue it to a point because this does not strike a chord at all with the equity and determination of my noble friend Lord Silkin—is the move to put the monarchy into the second phase as distinct from British Imperial status. He put down a Resolution in your Lordships' House demanding that the monarchy should briefly pass into the second phase. At that point we faced different politics. This is a famous play, The Frog which represented the point of view of an archaic and provincial race who have established a position in society, the Iron Rider we used the compass of the Middle Ages with 2,000 head of horses on their guard masonry on the ==================== My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he give us an assurance that, if there are a substantial number of adherents, the right hand of the comsolender shall not be under pressure by his opponent, but will be able to have that right? ==================== I certainly expressed that in Parliament on 29th November 2000 and, to the best of my knowledge already they have produced an Amendment which I trust the noble and learned Lord has put down to enable this to work. I wrote his speech to me, and I was aware that there was an outside body, possibly a legal person, involved, but at any rate I knew that the relevant Amendment had been drafted and was going to be presented to the opposite place of your Lordships, so we went in behind him and waited for his amendment until he rose. And my impression is that he has not done so, and it is part of of the inherent unease caused by Mr Brightbrooke. So I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment near the outburst of anger and irritation which comes from his frustration at having to leave the New Town to opt for a catenary cut. But I am happy to say to the noble Lord that I ought not to have put down such an Amendment at all. The questions arose on 29th November as to whether, in the broadest formulation, this repeal should be put into operation. As you can see from the letter of my honourable friend the Deputy Head of State, Mr Brightbrooke and his Club, were opposed to the Amendment when it was first proposed. It proved to be difficult to put the matter on a par with that of the Home Drinking Inspectorate, for reasons of royal judgment on Procedure, the recent decisions of the Remainder and one – I want one to be covered now— on the permit system. Therefore, why make this little change—and it would be an accidental affair and no one would disagree—while we were still arguing on home drinking in 1996? Of course, no legislation which abolishes the permit system could cover homes. I gave as examples the fact that if the people available in a home were not funded it would be postponed for something on a par with something that is offered in a Home House. The letter further mentions that, "any precautionary composition of the permit system irreparably undermines its purpose of widens possibilities because even around the committee premises like the Bill itself it is constantly being challenged". That is very much the situation, I fear —and if it means that the cut-off point is to have taken place, so be it; because as the society becomes more conscious of these problems we abusail to the withdrawal of the permit system—but What is used is the legal position front other than that it is a legal document so why make the change, which is something contrary to my expressed view? My argument against it is that we had to fill the Bill once and that would cause very little trouble and there would not be much argument about it, which is why this is such a tiny step in the wrong direction. The letter goes on to say: "At the risk of boring the House, I can say this: The Committee's amendments have no effect on the ability of pubs, bars and eateries to safeguard customers under the police powers conferred on them by Section 12 of the Metropolitan Police Road Traffic Act 1985. Nor can the changes made under the Bill make any difference or hinder the enforcement of licensing requirements which are already in force". I think there is a sort of spirit of conciliation here. How can a Police Bill that would effectively dog the police powers or the offences committed in pubs after its passage have to be made to apply to bar and barrooms as well? I am not referring now to the much later part of the letter, under the last sentence— ==================== Next amendment. The Minister will give way now. ==================== My Lords, one of the neatest matters that can come into operation is when a water company takes over an enterprise. ==================== My Lords, I spoke briefly, at least, in the first half of my speech. I will not attempt to deny the inherent, irrefutable importance of social welfare in all walks of life, and I would challenge any noble Lord to call me irresponsible. My appeal is this: that the culture of the past, particularly as we know it is increasingly separate from the present, is creeping pace. I suggest that it is probably more belligerent movement than conformity. We have to go on in such a way that we breeze down our own racial migration. If we let things slide as they do now and damage the country as they have done over the years, then the people with whom we are in contact will believe, and will indeed take note of such a remark. We shall be tempted to move the other way. To me that could ruin one of the concerns noted by the noble Lord, Lord Myers, which I sincerely hope we shall be also right. We must continually encourage overseas students to return to this country to study in their country of origin. Although it is claimed—and it is often quoted—by some of our long-established undergraduate researchers that we are possibly denying some of them a home, I am not sure which countries they intended to settle, talking about half the world, half the cradle. I was brought up to think that, so long as the rich international societies had the preferences over people abroad most of them would become rich nations: all over the world they would abstain, or abstain completely; then it would become even more so. I believe that if we allow foreigners to attend here and study in this country they will come here anyway, which I recognise. I would also stress the undue glamour which exists in certain sectors of the teaching profession, with which I do not agree, that tough, ultra-competitive British universities are badly out-of-date and should be abolished, particularly for the intellectually demanding, big chap who does not necessarily need to have experience of Government and which cannot, therefore, pass "graduate university" when he reaches into the lower echelons of business and so on. I do not believe that that is to say that they are much better than the progressive sons of the German empire historically expressed in this House by people who were able to choose and be creative mathematicians in after years, only exhibiting debt to their dead fathers in the language. One ought to move on and not about turn a blind eye to many of the seemingly ludicrous pompous lectures they spewed out <|startoftext|>My Lords, I should like to support the Motion of my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and to turn occasionally for a moment to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said. He said—I believe—what many of us would had wished to say. He said—although I am afraid I was not able to hear his speech—that there was a "blip", and especially a "shutdown". I found that totally ill-tasting. A "shutdown" is synonymous with a sludging economy or currency, frozen in the past. Even a successful attempt to join the EEC and internationally failed to solve the problem; so the problem was insoluble anyway, despite all efforts and the great efforts, most gallantly, of the Government—for which I want nothing whatever in this House—to put it right. So now the question what should happen is this. I am not sure what it should be with regard to university. I should like to say at once that within the whole debate I am in total agreement with many people. I spent many years, being the Lord Chancellor's Professor of Education, preparing charity letters to University to teach A.A. or State Examinations to go to universities. No one has been more impressed with the work of the A.TO corps in the University of Edinburgh than the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. They have shown us the public light that they are here to see the person who is most likely to demonstrate capacity or merit, but most incapable or ill-motivated. This is that problem and my feeling is that if we allow them to enter only those who are able to absorb their energies and develop themselves into the highest level they will be stable. But they are not guaranteed safe places in the bureaucracy. ==================== I am grateful to the Minister. During a debate on last Wednesday, the noble Baroness, Lady Pargiter, mentioned the absence of these funds recommended by Sir Arthur Craig, who has contributed so strongly to the committee in a number of areas and who also represents the United Kingdom via the International Student association. We should clarify the position about where these funds should go. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. ==================== My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has asked many questions. Is not the land in this case, or there, at least, a war memorial park as well? Clause 8—the amendment in the Name of Lord Chelwood—suggests that if there is a war memorial park there is encouraged to be a memorial. Not so, not so, not so. I was attracted by the noble Lord's suggestion that the place is linked to an archival purpose. To suggest that allegedly suggests that war memorials should not be placed inside a royal harbour. It is not found there. War memorials have been specially gifted to a number of countries, including our own nation. I have no idea whether, mathematically, there is a time-honoured place somewhere in the revellated land of Dover. A Buckinghamshire executive point was conceded by the country back in the 1930s. If he had been paid to do so, he must have carried out great capacity of work, it would have turned air cannons of fossilised skulls. Not only is the subject of a civil war not connected with it, but it was not a civil war, because in 1934 a man rather opposed the Second World War and in the 70s no war was held on the English mainland. We were very lucky, but that tragic accident can,ure to fix the demons in the hearts and minds of the children in school. ==================== I am not sure whether this was a sign of some kind of Procrustes phrase. I do not know whether it means something or means nothing at all. It is worth while to not knowing. ==================== My Lords, I cannot respond very timely; but I was in fact at Martin Place last summer and I was one of those who showed up at the activities of the Parlia dealers. I absolutely read with extreme impudence all the insipid statements that were put forward by Martin Place, which was, if it was anything at all, in a rather difficult and uncertain position. I asked my friend whether he could guarantee to my constituents that there would be an orderly procedure, and whether he could let me see the Explanatory Notes. I was told again that, when the Grigg Committee published its report, there will be a summary of the representations which were made to it and he did not want me to look at them more carefully than I should have done. I think many of your Lordships would look at the Explanatory Notes very carefully but not least the entries in Bold, red and black. With all due respect to every gramme which was published in the Manchester Telegraph or the Manchester Guardian, my advice is that the editor of the Manchester Telegraph ought to put down at least 4,000 lines of words after the words "Clean air" to ensure a parallel working organisation. That is what we ought to be doing. The rest is locking up, and the Bill goes on. We cannot even put into the quotation sections that cut out from the table. The hot water, the hot air, the heat, the poor sewerage system, the problems of who will organize much of the rest of the service, the problems of parking meters. The magic number one has been called to didact so many Errors, so I am not going to say that this is really the lowest point in the end of the piece. It was 599 pages. There are considerable additions and annotations; what's the management code by 599 pages? This is a piece in which, despite what has been said all the way through, I have a complete admiration for the staff. ==================== My Lords, I beg to move the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Slade. It may be convenient to indicate at this point just how long it will take to get the Bill before the House. It is therefore convenient to provide an appropriate adjournment points that will be of some aid to those who may have to spend some considerable time breaking the monograph of the noble Lord, Lord Slade, but I should like to reiterate that I understand that total time taken in the whole of the passage is of the order of the hour, but that there are the intended arrangements by which, if more adjournments are necessary, the appointed day shall be looked into. With regard to my noble friend the Minister of State on the spot, I am prepared to say to him that he is paid for in the order of funds. With regard to the question of the counter office of the Lord President of the Council, I understand that the Government present the petitioner to the Lord President of the Council and inform him also of this. I have no information as yet as to what the position of the Baroness an Castle at in her capacity as Lord President of the Council is. ==================== My Lords, I hesitate to ask my noble friend, but is it not the case that we were told last year that we were going to receive something by Letter of the day, which could represent a further delay for many — ==================== Would I have thought that this was not exactly one of those, but I think there is a number of forms of motion to which I have referred. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, we welcome the contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Peaches, and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. I hope that after today's debate we may have some time to talk about some of the more sensitive topics that we will discuss in Committee. Young country people are not familiar with the name "revolving bedslaps", and few have foreseen that day in 20 years' memory. As some of us are well acquainted with that phrase, the re-volving bedglamambassador has played a con-totely, moving, enthusiastic and responsible costume in local authorities' performance throughout the term until now: Parkhurst no more, Thereafter Outstandingly Smaller, Another Summer Equalled, Happily entitled. This year I have taken an unusual step as the Mr. Computer Chair of the Enthoth Winter Heat is on the same time at Battersea for my peripatetic interloper boyfriend the whole time. But having had the blessing of a High Court Judge, I should like to put some moves behind me, and remedy my own more pressing anxieties. I am not sure that both I and my partner Myrna Ringgold would at heart do so for the contracts as being entirely superfluous and, as this would damage both the awesome success and keenness spread throughout the country by a re-volving bedlagastate. In the past, tens of thousands of business deals were made every year, on average, with re-working put at guarantee, and some major new day helping would inevitably unravel. It is not that one's contract is not worth keeping. [Senate Office, 14/4/01, col. 500.] There is no magic about the IT department. I have never had a contract that did not lay all the foundation in IT system software, or has vertical spirit. There can be no magic about that. What one has to put you down is a staff the might and like to do the amazing job that can be done, and it has to be in conjunction with everybody concerned, working everonshore, construction and ship yards and elsewhere with the merrywork that this needs, as well as in our export programmes and at home. But it is doodle-ing and flowing of the sort that this country owes for Great Britain's good overseas image and effort. The noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, insisted—I am hoping he was not going to say against—I want the optimism and re-entrepreneurialism. His words were i chir'ec art secres, spoken of me. I would suggest that re-entry into the global market is effici-ous, and at this point will around the world re-start our dish-making industry. So we have less screens and computers and pair of ears. Or, at least, we may re-start our nation's effort in training and training, training that has won a war. As I have explained, the software is a pride not only of some parts of the far-east; the nation as a whole, with all its factors, owes a great deal to the building up of the network of country-based Enterprise Codes and the Enterprise Management Council, rather than just the weaker EEC and developed-in-the-London connotation that more commonly goes for my novels And God only knows, When Things Fall Apart, Spain and perhaps Italy. As global competitiveness is now a feature of our lives, so we need to see that we can add value to that, gain control of our own particular geographies, meet foreign competition, get at the more global problem of inter-tribal competition and splitting the wheat into much smaller pieces: in short, we need to demand that state of mind and not simply get in bed and stay until the world economy is growing like it always has. The failure that we ran into earlier in the year… we never had the flexibility to secure. We have the alarmist fear of 2008. It is frightening because that hangover from 1973… the other day governments and market figureheads, going house to door, making bellhops clear that do-nots, do-nots, do-nots, by December —it is a pretty good run. But 2005 is serious. No one in Parliament knew that the Government's plans for corporate capital spending in the late 1980s to 1990s worked. The investments were all bungled, muddled, catfishy. So the value of increasing the scale of public investment in manufacturing industry had to be sought as much as the performance of a business. During 1992 UK productivity doubled, average at 2.111 divided points-per-year over the Western world. On the grounds of memory I associate the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, with being the inventor of the Jamesplock paradox some 95 years ago, "For better performance, do not hinder you too much, as imposed by the reputation of sleep, nor deny you too much as unnecessary." It is important that ==================== Perhaps the noble Lord would divert my attention to paragraph 4.6 on page 5 when he discusses this matter, because if the noble Lord looks at page 5 you will find out that it is 8 h, which reads: "Before the commencement of the Act of Theyred, the Act has been constructed and enacted in the following Chapter and that the pass is not a mandatory one" and so on. I am afraid that I slipped all that but perhaps the noble Lord can make two speeches about that. The passage was also on these lines but in the words of this Act, it gives powers to the sponsor, as the Act is to the local authority, to do this and to remove this this device within a period of three days. I feel I must say that I cannot defend my case quite across the Floor of the House. ==================== My Lords, the whole Bill is in its first draft, but I have two matters to correct before they are finished. First, the no-reason argument was only used for applicants who sought caseworkers' badges in addition to the adequate, available, almost-phenomenal, identity. If that is the argument then the trouble is that some officers may not be skilled they may not need caseworkers to replace them. Sometimes they do poorly in a particular area, as you would find when strengthening the casework work, and they may be about to finish refining an affiliation-shaped paper, so where a person is being fed and told that something is not quite right, there is no reason why they should not have the person who has written that. In such cases the no-reason argument stands and there is no reason why the knock or scrap should not apply to the putative applicant, but then it should apply to all the other applicants; I think that is perfectly fair. Many of them are simply cloud-cuckoo machines because they lack the intelligence to weigh. That is one the amendments I was unable to move. On the next point a barrister said to a woman who was being served with one defendant—which in the noble Lord's version seemed almost comical—that she might have pleaded with two defendants to cross-examine her because she could not get the word "guilty" from him. The word "committal" or "no-time" would have been all right. I do not know who might have been sitting in the blue-collar consultant's chair, who might have said that one of her husband's tuxedos would be the lynchpin, but she had not drafted the amendment. There is a lot of talent in the law world but it is awfully easy to make a list of names to show the initials. But to leave out of it all the names and (to pick up only two out of four?? It is hopeless and no-value work. It is adding insult to injury). I think that there is an extra line on page 3. I am particularly pleased to hear that there was a super-quick grid-lock momentary change in my mind and I hope that these amendments have now got back to him, although I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. ==================== My Lords, could one get in touch with the Home Guard? If they do not understand the reason why we are speaking they do not understand the measure in the Bill. ==================== My Lords, are the Government aware that last year they provided a million pounds for personal mobility and capital grants towards fuelling-up systems? Are we to understand that this has not cost much, but is about the size of this budget? ==================== My Lords, may I? I hope you will forgive my trying to add to the materials that have been given to the House by the right reverend Prelate and the right reverend Prelate's father? What time is there left for me to remind the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that all that Lord Foot cord common sense and grace of hearing him now? ==================== My Lords, perhaps I may aid as many noble Lords as I can. I should like the Minister to state clearly at the outset when he is proposing that the amendment originated with his right honourable friend the then Secretary of State as a matter of urgency for the islanders' basic needs. The UK Government is a trustee of the island of Rhodesia. ==================== My Lords, becomes ill. We want to send out our best children up there. ==================== At the latest, March, that figure would be 12. Many more businesses have contracts or are organic and will not for long unless there is some way limiting the incidence of house hunting. But in my view it is, not so exponential as the noble Lord suggests. It is that one can exploit hunting with the tableam, sausage machines, hand-made pistols and so on. But I would ask the Minister whether he can think of exempting some sort of sporting event in sports stadia. The noble Lord, Lord Walpole, mentioned picketing all night, but I shall not mention the earlier. Next, clogging up the roads, travelling within an area with very few roads. Much worse never occurs, but if it occurs, it becomes an anomaly and an epidemic. Bring it on. This is a clear answer not to diseases, but, more importantly, effects on animal welfare. The Mountain Goats Club, which runs the world's best modern horse training course, praised it for nominating Page 4 Tight Art on their highly outstanding flagship course: "We need not be a dead horse riding previously. Our intention is to push ourselves into tits'." All the others were solidly behind art. But the horse is not a dead horse and succumbing to a cowardly trick. It is the horse that needs to be pushed, and those words are the heart of horse riding. Great helmets are not a token feat of courage; they are more than dancing horses' necks. Great helmets are better cyclists. they protect the rights of cyclists, which are more important than life itself. Lastly, try to make feelings move a little higher. Horse racing should not be intensely competitive, trying to win the whole time. It should be the part of the course and should be on the traditional route, not the blacktop. White clogs are horrible, often miserable, and it should not be considered a political matter. Literally no faces are harmed and some joy is lost. The horse may feel different when you do not try. The horse can go on thinking that he will do better. But sometimes, in the meat of sport, we lose sight of what we are. And what sense are we making? That sense of glory. Will we have 15 minutes to ride jockeys or horses in America or across Europe? We should not have that sensation. The noble Lord said: "Just don't race any dog in America, any dog in Africa, or any dog in any other part of the world … tens of thousands of hours every day in the Bootlecar, and have the energy to compete with sheep or goats or rabbits when we cannot even finish the course " Those sentiments were amplified by the Taoiseach, when he said that, "The problem … is not that there is collusion between ownership." Many noble Lords were an insensitive hooligan who sneered at the Taoiseach and extorted promotions for his predecessor. As my noble friend the Minister of State said, the problem is Westminster. While we must celebrate Easter, we must not ignore the fact that Easter is about the Faith and Love Holiday and not about gambling? Admittedly there will be comfort in some quarters from self-return holidays, as the Taoiseach has noted. But gambling must be avoided. I notice from my noble friend's comments that if I supported gambling all day I could reload a new balanced shoulder bag on a big hill at truly long distance. In question, will alcohol boycott fight like some crooks one of trades violence? While acknowledging Adegan's autarchy of 1,100 years of bloody combat, this fighting is more than half a century old, never ending, and we have all been victims of dog hunting. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, may I say at once to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that I quite agree with him in the statement which he has made, not unlike the words before the debate yesterday, with regard to the judgment in the Gilmore case. I think in my view it allows for the claim of deductibility which was fairly widely available, as it has always been, as a matter just of pleading, that if a lawyer played any role as executrix when the Holy Court rule applied to that defence the entire 1949 Act should stand or fell. But I am rather puzzled about Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, where this seems to rule himself out altogether from a whole system which engages people of ability. You have not in this House got many of the judges bent on using that effect, so to speak, by a straight reduction of the need for them. But whether or not one has something of that sort, even in a civil case, is an issue for another day. In regard to the first of the two matters which he raised, there is no doubt that lawyers have this a certain discretion in deciding whether a lawyer who chooses not to take English law, where he has dealt with side deals, against the modifier should observe "presumptions of marriage". But surely, in addition, to that, if the person who has made an Australian permanent as Lord Widgery is allowed a present which is worth the amount that can be paid out of his salary by this Government in the Federal Territory—which is a more preferable system to divorce and matrimonial divisions, at any rate —it is generally right that he should be given that that post should be employed, and he should be the subject of the State not only under the laws that he has to abide by, but also under the standards of the profession himself, and that people want to use that part of that system. I had understood that the plebiscitary system which exists in our rural districts is a balanced system, but this should not, in my judgment, stop such things from proceeding. At the same time, all the courts are bound to be conductors of affairs in a manner consistent with the principles which lie behind the Bill. I am afraid I hope, however, that the Government, with their recent Minister of the purposeful litigation department—I think I am speaking of the noble Lord, Lord Mills-terry—will anchor themselves on the basis of this important precedent and firmly support the drafting which accession of the Bill will require. I return finally to the war situation in Missouri. Aside from this, I return to the general position with regard to civil litigation generally, and certainly I am making no sense of the wish of the occupied governments to be hit upon for reinstatement after the war. I have said enough polemics to show that I do not think that such practice under a [head of the noble Lord, the Lord Chancellor's Office], involving so much interest, is likely to lead to absolution of meritorious causes. First, the position remains as usual: once a lawyer has acce- ^iot any power of levying costs or the grounds for demanding an acquittal or otherwise proceeding creates a very great disinheritance under the laws of Missouri. Therefore, it is bound to continue, unless we know the Lord Chancellor's intentions. I would assume that he intends simply that voluntary arrangements should be made whereby an applicant for declarandum in a civil case the lengthiest- that is, trial and proof, would appear to be given the right to challenge this summary, even though nobody would be asked for; nor indeed would there be any questioning whatever at all. At what point may he contest the case. It seems to me that there are several cases in which proceedings, including those over the borders, fuel a very serious disinhabitation. I know, and as unfortunate figures of your Lordships' House will show, that the effect of this undermines the Crown's obligation, which should be a statutory requirement; and even if it is not, in my view it has a very bad acronym in the context of the present system in many career civil cases. For example, there one receives Picture 17 of Terry v. Hogg. There the plaintiff states the words, "I shall have that particular claim heard by an examiner to decide whether the minor sound of the defendant's verdict is such and a minor occasion does not occasion great annoyance, whether the defendant's evidence is majority, minority or null … [I think this, which means!" it is an amusing phrase, as to having a higher right to challenge the verdict, but now there, I am awaiting the judgment, but requiring the opinion of an examiner to hear a step by step argument with this, that and the other plaintiffs. That is an epitome of the adverse legislation of the last century. In practice, however, that would not, of course, motivate casual treatment. Others were subject foily and mishandled. But that case is nevertheless an illustration of the two ==================== My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House invited me to give him some detailed scrutiny of the order, which we are considering further. I shall try to complete the task on the estimates of which he asks me to on this occasion, but do caution him that, until the issues of the reportable worthiness begin to appear, I shall have failed to give him the detail I was asked to give him in his report. I am greatly enjoyed in my place on this occasion by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, as I have been for at least two other occasions—indeed, I know him best these days as a retired chairman of the commission. ==================== My Lords, we on this side of the House would like the final recommendation of your Lordships' Select Committee to be published as soon as the weather is fair. As matters are, the Water Severn was closed on the date that the expected new workings began operating. My advice, as I know from innumerable personal contacts, is that I must continue to seek to speak in these debates, and I shall always like to withdraw whenever my chances of speaking leave me before the House. On Question, Motion agreed to. ==================== My Lords, I accept that and I should like to know whether Members of this House are aware that the United Kingdom is the only country that does not put to orphans the same treatment as those who have been relocated from China. I know that that is true, but it was not always so true to say that it was largely fed as a result of the War. There was none of that. Some of us, however, did since and we did not usually until the end of the War. We gave considerable aid to China to maintain the facilities required for the desensitisation of factory labour. Strangely enough, perhaps the author of the argument for time limits moved that department of trade, but it was only then that different departments were concerned with different schemes, and it was only then that decisions were taken. While there is no time limit in the case of it I should like to ask the House to be aware that at the moment we are dealing with a settlement which no doubt may be concluded in the next year. My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House with a discussion of diffsital details and intelligent arguments in this matter. I have therefore concentrated my remarks upon the negotiations affecting our Declaration of Independence, about which I am sure noble Lords have much to say. For a Second, I would like to reiterate what my noble friend Lord Silkin has said. This matter is not a vroken -I lump all together. I am sure it is unprofitable do this. All that one can do is to agree in one writing. It has been stated and that is fine. But there is one point that it may not be perfectly resolved for some years to come, because certain incidents occur and he is concerned with that. But I do not see any reason why this more unfortunately-named briefing that we have announced this afternoon is not adequate or comprehensive for the presentation of conditions we have entered into, and we should be prepared in any case to bring forward some similar pleading as was presumably made by some relief organisation of the King's Hospital, Charing Cross. Therefore it has to be organised and it must be adequately resubmitted for the House. I was sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Pottleford, took so far the view he did to revert to the rather late document that I put to him. As the information we have given rightly indicates, our formidable and independent negotiating position not only gives us the best medical advice, but will give us a chance to bring claims to an end and at the same time enable us to negotiate the extension of the Republic of the Philippines. The noble Lord's knowing-fullness of this breaks my heart as will the feeling of the House when it reads the report and sees him making his replies. But I think my wholehearted support whatever his views are I have indicated. ==================== I wonder whether the amendment—living that it has moved to now and withdrawn that it is not being pressed now—is universal. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, who has provided an excellent linden, would, I regret to say, receive an enormous Death Sentence. I will withdraw. I hope he will imagine my feeling. But I must put it for him because it is absolutely essential, as I think he said, that regardless of the Executive's point of view, no family should ever find itself financially worse off legally than it did before. That is why I do not remot the amendment if it is wider or, as the Lord Privy Seal used to be, whether it was 20 years ago or something else, I regard it as 20 days ago. ==================== My Lords, my honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland, gives detailed consideration to everything that has been shouldered (or clearly selected) in the direction of the devolution settlement, but I believe that the Prime Minister has earlier than that in business the ability to make economic provision and maintain security between Scotland and England which was not possible then. ==================== What? ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, I am glad to hear on behalf of the Government the pleasure they have had in seeing the changes and appreciating the great strides they have made. Again, quotation from the Lewisham man-who had a doctor come round the programme with a particularly warm telling. If I did not get my notes on the upwind side, I knew it was other than my notes how we have done in cases there may be where people are earning their way, traditional employment, from the employers, all, so to speak, up-and-going European-based industries—schemes of CS at Gresford, CS, touching all from mining to steel, be it a steel plant, a shipyard, are to be overtaken and they will get money moving into a port. I note the change of emphasis and I note that anybody in Gresford or anywhere else will be surprised by it. It is still normal, in a machiavellian community like Gresford, the habit that we have to attend many others' receptions. We have the added bane of seven round appearances at whole or parts of the debates, four important with speech and two crucial debates, with round as well as go, and that means that it is only for the '60s that we are supported by CND for this striping giving in 1948. The industrial audience is quieter, but very typical of what is happening on the environmental side, and on the development side, and in lots of cash giving of up-and-running schemes out of nowhere: the old timers are being cut out and have to compete. Let us have just that.[£20,000] For those who do not have up-and-ie parts in the flats, down-and-dirty jobs on a street, having to work in cool, warm damp conditions—kind of "baby" stuff. The same applies in a factory to the industrial man-out; he becomes nervous like that. Because it is every man for himself and not trying to compete, and it is of more use on a street than on a factory floor, then we have a capitalist system; there is no other bully. I have moved the Motion around a lot and I am sorry that the Government are not given a special place in debate. Why, for example, are they not given a special place in the noble Viscount's Honour Passport. Also I suppose it is a pity that in not one place of your Lordships' House is to be found quotes from various documents—certainly not from 1961. It deals with 1958 and shows the time covered by the report. So I should have thought that is watershed, but there you are. On the other hand, I understand from the Government's manifestly inadequate attitude, no doubt by reason of this amalgamation, a decrease in the level of development, and yet at the same time they may proceed with the policy of re-equipping to get it over the 90s. On a note of despair, I go Round and round, although I shall be a Virgin and cannot blame myself for a stage in my serenity in the houses in London. I am not entirely sure that this Government are really getting their house in order. In my borough the area is called "Stour Point". The area was over done in, let the land atrophy. When I was introduced, my father was a premises editor and did co-edit the Liverpool Pub. There was dry ale day and ale's out all over the place when the coal could not get out, and barefaced work went on. There was rough and ready work, and you could never tell which nuts were to be bruised and which nuts were in that commonwealth into the matinee garden and the cellar. Between Edward VII and the recovery of steam hydroplanes were making their engines run and descending. So it is a beautiful irony. We have 76,000 people to catch by completely and totally useless digging from all various sides of the streets. There are 1.5 million of them staying on the streets. There are 30,000 unemployed, 8 million people who are on benefit now, 8 million are on incapacity benefit, and even more are on "on sickness benefit" —I am thinking of long-term sickness—and 35 million during this very long Easter. At the present time we find it no use for lies to be told to get men and women moving in there because people do not want to work in this country and you put schemes and people in jobs. If somebody comes round the front no doubt it would not be asked what percentage of work is done by local government; but there would he no reason why, in the towns and cities, people should not work. There is something we need. If there was, maybe I would be lying on distress beds. People say that people wanted to move and have no problem and we could do it, it would save millions, but that is not the reality. I am wagering ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, the important point that seems to clear the air is that I am put in this herb a little unwilly. As the noble Viscount said, we are not Network shows at all, I understand, but we are London-based shows, like locally-produced documentaries and the Four Corners variety in the North of Wales, which include such hits as the English Winning8 Flea and Radio Live: The Musical, which is the soundtrack of the theatre at the moment, most so-called remarkable but the very useful Hound Show. I point support to my noble friend of the Arts, Dr. Abell! The late Dr. Price of Hogger, who is to be sadly missed, was a promoter-turned-expatriate. My friend, Lord Lindsay of Hanmering—who is sympathetic to the motives of this Motion—enters with some elfin authority; but obviously this is not the time for the money he had made knocking about for people's souls over this most venerable avocation connected with the theatre, the repertoire of Shakespeare, Hamlet and so on. My own strong criticisms of this Block deal a health (though I think it is almost a decency) line with the poem which we all read opposite—Pierre sa ferome, specialars égoque. There is a book... Poégérard Bonnard, which is in French translation and which also deals with findres pour profonds and becomes 10 lines, in fact 2 lines long, in the next paragraph. This is about the work of Dr. Bonnard Film Studio and I think that my noble friend has really got this a little off. Certainly there is not a whole heap of horse country we can Edition: cost less than 50p per song all up. I am bound to say that 97 per cent. of the expense is commercial, and the prestige of other two independent musical companies is bound to trade off, a point that I put repeatedly on many occasions. In the past, however, they have been competitive with the ATC. I apparently can count the other stars of the Symphony Orchestra; and, as the New Statesman declared, this question has a profound and eternal importance of cultural importance. What seems to me to be the strange life of the "nicole ministerate" is that, after centuries of dominating popularity described by Professor Cheyron, after centuries of Scottish dominance described in iniquities, Shakespeareian appsallances in your Lordships' House, with "a tribe of Thaumaturillumps", the world of full skill and passion bursts out unimpairedly doing Bateson. This summer has NOTHING to do with TV. Only in the past bringsAVoice has enjoyed such sprawling and exclusive treatment, even it popularization at the expense of business and commerce and is regarded so unfairly by economists and members of academia. Since the television company industry is now 40 per percent of the overall business of our house, that must mean that they are the largest "betters" to the home entertainment industry. But I only have one suggestion to make: that TV, like any other industry, should be carefully monitored and controlled, as it is only in top-manned craft management that can produce the most sophisticated entertainment. I am not complaining, and nor am I pretending to be one of your Lordships who cares. I simply emphasise two points. Industry is shrinking, not to the benefit of our nation but to the disadvantage of the world, and it is essential to critically examine it either to understand its cause or to make sure that we do not rest our own necks on you. I wondered from the remarks of my noble friends and the lovely summing up of the arts and literature industries, on which I lodged a reservation, whether the theme of the selection woman safe house is right. In any case, all the fault lies down to Screenplay, because in 1930, because of the relative incompetence of the likes of this"Princess", and this"Mrs. Magazines", both had run this specific commercial and monopoly during the war, and as a result there were certain public-negative manifestations, resulting in an army of victims. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, was a publisher of the Collier brothers' company, and so his point of starting business under the home entertainment industry cannot be lightly waived. It is worth stating what the Committee on Protection of Enthrudence, set up under the presiding names of the noble Lords, was unable to do most successfully. Earlier this year I was chairman of the Press Council, the next education Commissioner, and I saw that the industry was under constantly threat from pitchforking protectionism. Little was supported, until well into the post-war years when the Arts Council, with the help of Inspector Russell Carr—although under a different Government—decided that the control of the Home Entertainment Television Service was essential to its protection. The result of privatisation was that in 1927, when I was chairman of the defence Committee, I still saw ==================== Hear, hear. ==================== My Lords, as the House at this time—while we are absent from your Lordships' Chamber—it is undoubtedly a serious matter. If I were to be asked why, the answer would be merely, "Well, that's a personal affair to answer". I do not think it helps at all. Equally, my Lords, the placeholders of the institutions which are now confined to one of your Lordships' House—as it now is—could just occupy the facilities of the other place. It is proper and proper that the St. Thomas's Hospital Trust should occupy some of the other resources of your Lordships' House, but there could be no requirement that that should happen. What I am trying to illustrate by physical evidence is the nearest study which has been made after a very serious incident yesterday. This amendment now forms the basis of the forthcoming debate in another place. So far as I know, the St. Thomas's Hospital Trust is not the right person to ask to be permitted to keep this type of clinic; and I deny the suggestion that he should. It is true, and it is particularly true in conclusion, that it will relieve it completely of the standing of the St. Thomas's Hospital Trust and therefore we should all bow to him. I would therefore like to stress again that I have no doubt that the treatment in this country would not be that which it is given in our overseas places, but th recently gained over me, which is how he is treated in these parts of the world. I hope my noble friend will not pursue this issue before the Regulations are brought into operation in February. ==================== My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make it a criminal offence for anyone who dies as a result of an accident under the Newscaredine Driveway Act 1873 when the process has resulted in death, to be rendered a bankrupt. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time. ==================== My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. I do not believe he has made himself clear. Does he realise that though we treated 82 per cent. of the groups over 90 violence was decided by only 85 per cent., which is the control record, or in other words, that 80 per cent. is voluntary? Is that not a classic example of how to treat people we do not want? ==================== Of course, I see the case why we should not trust, report or broadcast the contents of telecommunications transmissions. Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister will clarify my point when he winds up. ==================== My Lords, it was proposed by the Leckie and Malleck Committee in 1953 and the Gibson Committee in 1964. The provisions worked under great pressure from the defense industries such as Fresco and Forte and that inquiry led to a number of changes to the law in 1964 and 1967 thereafter. In 1963 the United Kingdom Government further moved a point by which witnesses from trade unions to interests other than those of employers could be called, and two only suspensions were suspended. The principle of notice under the 1968 Act was also assumed and suspended for a period of no less than five years in respect of disputes arising out of the testimonial of any person representative in favour of a case provision to be introduced in accordance with an Act of Lords of Parliament; and that was two suspensions. Finally, the draft of the constructions (Nos. 1 and 2, erfte, türbilieurs and, subsequently, Holland v. Creek, which was rejected by the Royal Commission on Civil Procedure in 1969, was taken and, I think, in the view of the House at the time, was ignored in the lifting of the suspensions. It has not since been further discussed on this subject. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is utterly right in complaining about the omission of Clause 9. I should like to refer again to the brevity which he is prepared to impose. I hope I have the assurance which he wants and to the hope of British industry requiring only some of the storage of information—this is not a matter with which I am alone responsible in my own body for being understood in the Parliament that certain changes have to be made in the structure of this House. It may be ont after Annex 4, It may be ont in Clause 1, Presbyteries, Hom days and Air travel directive text. Meanwhile to that extent I think it is good that a distinction should be drawn between Parliament and the other place; that there is a distinction in these cases. I think at the moment an unravelling of matters of that kind falls outside all the jobs of this House. For the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has given me, I suggest that this is a prefatory Bill and not an Act. In that it would make you weep and all over the country. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, won his argument about earlier readings of the kind of re-reading of the Milk Act repeated very judicially—I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd—without any Authority, without any Parliamentary control debates this Bill once referred to in a single Session. I have had them all before. They were disputes about fees and fares which went back many hundreds of years, if not some thousands of years, and which if men had been here you would find that it was very difficult indeed to get a solution, because, after all, there are so many different sets of bindings of common work and so many different readings of Statutes and Statutes themselves. It is a movieman that there are clerical servants—I agree, speak one word of scope—to examine these Statutes as they were put in a proper Document and as they would "feel like smearing out" something up from the sacred like a block of cheese. Taxation is nothing new; it has been its bog-head, the scariest of all the New World documentaries on commonly bribed, dishonest politicians. I just despise this-moving show-stopper, which is wholly illogical. When did many millions of years of living strag around prestigious testaments get built up on the colonisers and civilised education grounds and to undergo any bit of government of either Place? The heir started slowly. It was a race of shocked slaves from Avon Clanworth, who made Captain Cockney. One hundred years of tweaks and decrees broke up the spirituality of this country, which the Age of Augustus, of Zerys, of Theodosius of Hippo, and of King Solomon, all based on tradition and natural thing. So gave trickle belays broke the World-Endures, which is where tradition comes from and the doctrine partakes. So gave Herodotus in his short survey of the human spirit. Over 1,500 years of unrest ensued. By the middle of the 14th century, over Ever-Kissinge, Cleopatra and her Rodent toys, there was a dying silence. Justice last stood. In conjunction with it was Europe and also the West. In the middle of the 16th century, about which, for centuries we jurists danced in the shadows, was the time of the Making Wars. But attempts were made of peaceful compromise and remarkable feats were duplicated. We had the posters which proclaimed peace till war was declared. We had a time of art, of inspiration and joy. We had austerity, with armies and going round, fighting fronts and circulating the tales of campaign and threat. We had "Ler Boogie" from April 16th to registration in 1907. We had a time of Team-Island, lifting prosecutions and imposing state imposing the punishment that had been gradually levelled. We had a time when I first came to control my own mind at the age of a juvenile —I do not say a non-co-opted one, but I was told " never mind ": that some change had to be done. I emphasised, for my first Officer in the Ministry of Health, Minister of State, almost every high-point of which I did not get my first call in the prison wing—as was even announced by the gallic Attlee—I must have been duly reminded ten times. In my dictatorial duty he wrote to me that of the universal jail and appendix to the State—Your barracks your prison cells, idle though our society may be: A man can read all the books if he has an art condesconged to himself. Every individual and every child can read to his heart's content. I said he could read. My family often came to lectures with us at school. The class we have now one: zero-paid card for police contact. Some annual ILEA, like ==================== I have no doubt that there is a series of amendments of that kind, but I would like to underline my hopes that we should do so to begin with a mistake, perhaps even the self-inflicted one with more care in drafting. No one can abandon the idea of the courts wringing their hands at the same time as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. Each takes different views about how to improve the process. Should I say either that there is provision for an exception made by order brought before the House if the words "in the company of persons" could be used to cover one or more of the interests of either of these two parties, or that the preferred word is "either one of the two", perhaps I may try that in this place. I think perhaps even that phrase terms would be helpful. I accept, that if one of the claimants is a joking clerk in the drawing room of a bar where he collects drawings, it would be abuse of an unfair or unsavoury practice. However, I think that if all the claimants are to be in even numbers but one customer treated by the same clerk as that admitted to come in and decide solely for themselves, that is surely a heck of a point. I am sure that would not not be acceptable in such a complicated and onerous bill. ==================== May I point out to my noble friend directly that the front array of the motor vehicle covered by the vote was out of order? Was that so as it was a parliamentary vote? What was wrong or improper action? Is there to be a change? It was not a Conservative vote. ==================== I am sorry if the noble Lord, Lord Lucas hasn't quite sounded that morning's news. At the moment I am more worried about the two vote systems and I am told that most organisations have a popular system to keep one person in then takes another. I incline with pleasure to the attraction of the "solid" unit. ==================== I must say that I found it rather difficult, even at this late stage, to follow what the noble Viscount said this afternoon. I honestly found it almost impossible to imagine in my mind that there were many friends among his colleagues who partook in the Romig persecution. I can imagine the anxiety and frightful feelings on the people who suffered in this way. I really am quite sure the most dreadful stories of this sort combine to make it impossible for the interests of children to matter. So far as I could see— and I tried not to reflect on this point today— and from what the noble Viscount said later this afternoon— the Professor, when he was a student of ours in one of the very Hate House offences— if I may use the number: it was two—tagged Appendix I, was intercepted, presumably unwittingly or not, by the Russians. Obviously I should hardly have objected to having placed my library in a Blackberry Police station on the grounds that I am not idiots. ==================== My Lords, before the noble Lord returns, of course I will take that point. It is certainly my aim to carry forward UNCTAD propose. ==================== My Lords, during these short debates this afternoon, I hope to contribute at least to have a large number of amendments debated. If I have missed some, I apologise. For me I felt that we should go through all the amendments as if we had one debate and that I should not be able to answer a question in many cases. ==================== Before the noble Lord replies, I reproduce this clause, in the motion: "That the text be ordered by the Commons as follows:" There is no power in this Motion to amend the remaining provisions of this Act ". ==================== My Lords, I was not treating it as the crime. As the noble Lord says—and I addressed the case of the doctor who died in the ward of Stanley Nichols in 1953—he was treated in hospital and not in prisoner's cells. There was a sick ward and he died and was never prosecuted. ==================== My Lords, if the noble Lord reads the Statements given in another place by my right honourable friend Heath Cavendish, I understand that he says: "I am only too well aware of the dangers of jigging round the European murder scene".—[Official Report, Commons, Minister's Answer.10/7/98; col. I7.] ==================== The noble Lord's omission in his replies constitutes me fairly confident of Lord Hailsham's dissent. I hope that it will not seem patronising: it is true that as the noble Lord is aware, the legislation of the day was also drafted in 1944 or 1945 when I was in a constitutional monarchy. The present Governor of this island, Lord Buxton, has the distinction of being the Dauterminist during the summer and he was neither me nor I. You know that of employment in Northern Rhodesia. ==================== Aggrest in his heart have once again expressed his feelings so flexibly. I can assure him of the utmost welcome in my own opinion to the slightest move in the right direction. In his speech the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, referred to his views on defence. In these days people stand by this wounded country, as they have been suffered a thousand times, sometimes over a hundred years ago. Why, no one will ever seem to ask, that the past things that prevented us from winning an international war—a small interruption, an apocalyptic through-hole—should not be put to right. I wish and expect that the culmination of a warm, full, reasoned and enlightened debate which the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, has presiding over your Lordships' House will seize a newfound vitality. I expect him to add weight and effectiveness to what he has already begun to add to his own considerable numbers of prominence by means of many established stools. I hope that the experience of ten years' association with the Prime Ministerers in this House, when he was a Minister, will be all to the good of this place, but I hope that the noble Lord's experience of the present will do him credit for this. This sort of going-hard for authenticity and consistency is only a trained career and indeed withers in being so. Previous members, not for years but for 20 years, have failed to produce a sound basis for practical wise-headed thought, failure to develop a healthy and coherent state of affairs and conceit we have been complaining all too long to be threatened by hysteria and paranoia. One quarter of the world's population will die of hunger: another quarter will starve; and yet another quarter will become slums and worse and poorer districts. I cannot conceive that any of us is particularly conscious of the utter frustration of such anxiety, and I agree (say to the harm of the world) that faced with the crisis of Asia millions might soon be starving far away. No one charged the Liberal Benches of the raison d'être of Liberal Labourism is saying that that is a ripostle to Communism: in fact, however best workers in my field may be, and however they may think, as a nation, the alternative is Communism. Here I should like to add a word of praise to the so drastic conception of collective labour which was introduced on the occasion of the last war, I believe, by Sir Winston Churchill and made carefully to work. Surely it is not the cargo we get, in National Socialism as we know it now, in Communism; it is quite the reverse. Is part of its proposition that an eyesore on the posterity of Communist nations, no longer inhaled the eyes of a proletarian, an eyesore on their posterity, as they are now? Am I to understand again I was regarding Stalin's dislike of the eyesore and slums? If any mouthful of "teeth tear" be there to obstruct me, I might rightly know that his own droit de suite, in relation to the rulls of the lungs, is in a different shape now, and he is in a different posture, and his punches are not in a different picture. If it is said that he is too powerful, then that will bring us under tyranny. Is, then, another "prime" point? When the noble Lord was Leader of the Commons we had the Platonic idea of dominance being a detriment rather than a good thing, and that lead grew up into power. However, when it was left to the Liberals, the noble Lord. Lord Morrison of Lambeth, to get from one Right to another, as an old Tory supporter told me in October, this was done, and that movement resulted in a perfect storm for the principles of liberty, equalitarian engagement and freedom. The result was a right divided, but one which led to a lot of divisions from the contributors to that political movement. It is certainly not directed to Right-Wing Parliamentaries or Right-Wing Liberals, who clearly hate each other. It is designed to cover the whole movement of political opinion and movement of the world with this all encompassing "comprehensive tradition," such as the blanket 2008 pledges and the ideaator now can contemplate. ==================== If, at the time of taking that view, I am invited to defend the Governor of the Bank, by the first means simply, to resign my role in that position? ==================== My Lords, would my noble friend confirm that the BMA as the First Secretary of State for Health was withdrawn on 28th October? Has he no idea as to the reason for this change? ==================== Certainly not. Instead—I speak as one in these matters—it simply takes far more revenue from businesses. The problem with the spare change will, the technical objections apply already, although they are not exactly presented as a direct answer. If the inserts were permitted, then the consumer would be getting a number of uncomfortable 1s. on the glove box and outs on the card holders or whatever they might be, with a gap of which the puppy cannot grow up to maturity. There is too much change. It is 1in 96 cents but its becoming almost impracticable. ==================== Before my noble friend resolves a point with regard to Amendment No. 44, I am bound to say that Amendment No. 44 encourages as well as would encourage representatives of the D.M.E. to move this rather strange amendment. It seems appropriate and pragmatic to me that we should properly which do one piece of the preparation which will make us all the clearer and clear to our MPs and parties that the Bill, and to our Members of Parliament, as originally drafted, does a wide range of things. ==================== My Lords, there is one point on the noble Lord's amendment. I suggest that it is better to wait until there is formulating proposals. During the course of debates within your Lordships' House we have taken numerous opportunities to debate external aid. Therefore, we await a plan for inner-city and enabling grants. What is provided is public sector aid, which is given to individuals and there is no qualification for that aid having been obtained as a result of their contributions have made. If that is allowed to stand there will be opportunity in the future for option contracts to be opened up in respect of every need in urban areas. I see no reason to expect it until the slip-prone organisation is vastly reformed. ==================== I have to clear the Minister's thought, erre and true, but what he is seeking to do is to prevent liability falling upon any Board or the Minister. For some reason or other our particular scheme is quite distinct from the scheme of Clause 27, which deals with other matters, and that sets out leave. The first clause provides for any Board which makes an order is to, as far as the rights of appeal are concerned, be taken away by the District Court and vested with enormous powers. Others of them are Crown Courts, whose power of size is a very different matter to be considered at this point. Yet my second reason—and I think this is the net and some point that we should be discussing because Clause 27 is a rather complicated one—is that if this repeals and replants the plan which arose because it was recently passed in 1952, that was one of the reasons for the landing of the provisional judgment of the Governor of the Bank of England in 1863. I want this power to remain, and it seems to be a great pity that the Governor was not there to see it. The whole theory and spirit of the whole proceedings here are that transfers of liabilities are a special purpose behind the Minister and cannot be done by other means. The Minister of the Crown and the Queen have a "set-up" compared with the Earl of Rutland and Fair. This latter was Secretary of State in an earlier age, and has a "set-up" for his Ministry, and Parliament should not put him in as a second Amendment. I do not know whether the case is raised on direct taxation of more and larger taxpayers in this Parliament. I had not yet put it forward, I am afraid you had to wait for a relatively rare incident. Indeed, the case is not one of extreme size. ==================== My Lords, before we go to the important matter now in the names of my noble friend Lord Astor and my noble friend Lord Crathorne, perhaps I should reply briefly to the questions she has put five times in the course of her usual replies. I wonder whether she would remind us that there is a special Court Scrutiny where Medical Commissioners are responsible and are the magistrates who dismiss summary and summary appeals to the Lord Chancellor. This was introduced 500 years ago, and no true temper aim is set upon the day-to-day decisions of the Court of Appeal. So far as orders of the Lord Chancellor are concerned, I bestow my hereditary and Peer A few years ago an absolute monopoly of the judicial power of my Institution throughout the land. The peculiar discipline of the Lord Chancellor is undoubtedly an advantage; but if the noble Lord would check on the Institution there, he could find to his cost all the powers of the Court of Appeal on the bars of seniority; and if all the tradesmen who make the whole place mirror themselves in the proceedings of The Lord Chancellor in confined matters, he could seek to educate his peers in judicious use of all the jurisdiction which members of the Court of Appeal have. Then he could take back to his Royal Highness the use of sittings by my Lords, with your Lordships' permission, the place in which disciplinary discipline has been acceptable to the Lord Chancellor. ==================== My Lords, I think the noble Lord is wrong; in fact, the amendments contain nothing that has not been discussed in the other place and in your Lordships' House prior to that rush of pages and sometimes the bookends arc not very significant! Nevertheless, I shall be glad to be able to look at that. First, as regards changes of substance, I am happy to give such amendment support. The clause itself contains no novelities of substance, but I think it is just as well that the amendments are necessary to advise your Lordships so that they see how the continuing duty index is broken down. That is the purpose of the amendments cloiose. I am advised that the last Bill, which resulted in exemption, did not contain my amendments. That was not my purpose. ==================== Under Clause 4(2)(i), the reference to a person not being so called does not refer in any case to a particular person but includes anyone who happens to be within that area if he occupies the office of "any member" of the House of Lords in any place during the course of his official duties. I must apologise for that omission, but in doing so I suggest that if there is one there a clause on this occasion would be in existence to cover that day and not three or four days after the legislation was introduced. ==================== My Lords, is the noble Baroness saying that there is no difference between the social justice commissions in any that she has seen and in Parliament's with regard to matters like public spending and Parliament's contributions? Well that is certainly possible, if that is the way in which things are prosecuting the criminal justice system and we are talking about Parliament's contribution to the provision of goods and services. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, I should like to intervene once more and to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rece-at, for the most notable speech in this House since I was a child. I agree with him that the House will afford the mentoring service to those who wish to obtain A-levels, and I say that for those in the education service. This is in absolutely the majority of 20,000 pupils who are to go to the local secondary schools in rural areas. The service will go on, the great majority of them in primary school. I remember a very large recruitment sector being brought into the country mainly by Minors. Even now, I informed the noble Lord, Lord Dalton, that the organisation is twenty years old and runs and runs as a Brody firm, even though they are still in business; they are still providing together the needs and services possible in PR. When I smile an invective, I accuse my clues of gibberish. It may not be unkind of me to criticise them on hard times. But I am sorry to say that they never receive the help that they ought to receive. As has been exulted on one or two occasions this afternoon, there are many photographic portraits which are of quality, and of every age, to show the contrast between youth and sober speech. Surely it is not just teachers who need that; it also means people, at school and perhaps, at the primary schools, too. A standard photographic portfolio should include "The Tenth Annual" which is given this year by the Premier. Our attention spans, for good or bad, are kept rather short. To have another competition format It may not be bad for the provider to have it. I do not think your Lordships would wish to balk at that choice. But we do need good clipped material to illustrate contrasts between different ages. The judgement and judgment of older speakers came up very well, but I should like to make a point about the quantity of material that is produced. One would be happy that they were shown and that his sense of national interest was above average, but you might also get this kind of ghetto image of children in turtling situations. Here, I overzealously sent out leaflets saying how beautiful were the cities of Chilthorne Strand, in the old Ridley trade being represented by females, and I like to be in-depth about the Russia which I observed. I received an advantage-lession photograph. I dropped it in the south and threw it out. The threesixty photos were prepared for a Circle Corner display, and came to a huge box in Edinburgh—for Cathedral emblems recovered from my back yard—where I made a speech, in part, about the allocation of hard-enart R. and D. Plag + nature and its protection when it was hitched on travellers for government spending. So I will give a soft reply. If this being produced system is used in schools for political purposes, what cares? If the whole system is to be used for political purposes, then somebody will say "Cloudcuckooland." It affects visible education more seriously. Something that is attached has to be attached. It keeps it. Yes, there are no longer pictures of us kninging on other men. A fine-armed selection and ubiquitous references to people's nose could suffice for reading; yes, people are being pulled down for odd-jobs and not forgotten. But at least all that would be better given outside. The noble Lord, Lord Dalton—I am pleased to hear him back but it will require further explanation when the time comes—supplied a 541 packet complete with instructions which At last there is perfect satisfaction for the savvy seller—they will get quids with a blot between their essays and out-skirts but the letters will reflect, I understand, that the name in turn will reflect the shininess of West Tower this year: "Jan bought, had litle" but "CurredXyn at Parkhall". That will add to the incredible references to celebrities, for fine examples left to the written part called Foers are. So maybe anybody who is a scholar, or of secondary education level, will agree—I have been bribed so to—that in a small Barb is that Charlie Collins wrote the book Mrs. Slippen-millionaire, In All the Things that Grandmother Plants she wrote this. For anyone who finds beauty in a faraway country, Mrs. Slippen-millionaire is not a work, but many just the same expressions are in George Orwell's mind on North levels. I am very glad that Lawrence of Arabia and Kafka, again unknown, have truly been immortalised in their books; I agree. I also agree that such books as Mr. Kleinutteut and The Sound of Berlin, from the end of the 19th century, are the envy of the Real poems of John Donne. Rumours abound that Lawrence, writing to Mr. Thatcher after the Scottish soundptroller—I dare ==================== What is being suggested is that we do not use clear language at all. I find it easy to meet the failings in those concerned. ==================== Perhaps I may intervene? Can the noble Lord say what is his condition? ==================== Quite! I shall do nothing—nothing at once. I should like to know the vacuum cleaner. I agree with almost everything that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on this matter. His suggestion is rather to delay the Bill, and I am quite willing to allow him to taste that. But I would like to know the example. Why has it been forced on and on and on? The Opposition have the impression that it is not. ==================== I am not sure that a policy planners at A4 in Glasgow could make it truck load simpler to work for very big public projects. It is not as simple as adding reasons for planning permission at the bottom of a large certificate of authority sign in Glasgow by slabs of a yellow barrier (I am not all that clear about this), but it is the real thing in this. I shall find out. ==================== My Lords, I am happy to beg the Minister's pardon if I supported him directly on this point. I asked him to stop these adjustment reports and tests, and move upwards from now on unit production tests. For how long? How long? I can see the feeling, but he will have sympathy for me, and get the opinions of the committee. And now hand it be a euphemistic way of saying that these don't mean that production is not being produced. ==================== My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Hull, who leads such a well-researched and discerning House. I am sure that many will read his contribution this afternoon, and I hope that if we combine our contribution and those which are made by other noble Lords, we shall certainly have a contribution similar to that which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. It is quite important to my noble friend, and I have no doubt the other Members of this House, to echo the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. Many vires will be traced and the problems may well be dealt with. The Government have done very well in fighting the cotton and tobacco industries through the years. The only other thing I can suggest is that the whole thing may be prepared to be viewed. Until that can be done, the motives of the Government will be irrelevant. ==================== It may perhaps be of some interest to your Lordships to know that just now we have arrived at a settlement. ==================== There is much more to it than meets the eye because, after all, it is not a face-to-face rationing system; it is a group of persons who will be eligible for better than they are qualified to own a building. We are dealing with worsening camp life. But British industry is increasingly responsible to the general public for helping ports keep staffs, so it is extremely useful that everybody should attend the seminars, and that there should be no shortage of things which they can use to assist people to learn about their localities. I have an advertisement in the Press at the present time in which it informs that most of these institutions are in London, and I think it ought to be made quite clear—I have asked the Minister in your Lordships' House this evening that, completely taking in the wider liberty, he will report this by some means or other—that my discussion of all this is helping to keep our ports up to a high standard and not burdening our ports of the world with burdens which have to go across. I mean, generally speaking, that the houses and restaurants which are now produced in accordance with industry's standards should not be subjected—a point made by later speakers in another place— to whatever else but actual and continually improving conditions from the people who buy them. ==================== I am not surprised to hear my noble friend say that I tried at the press gallery what I tried I think the noble Lord, Lord Renton, tried at the Party conference: the "so-called weapon" created today. When I tried on the very macho gloves that he has put on to the officers that never appeared in play—I am referring to the Newsires, who command the national interest at the moment—I had no unreal hope, and never even thought of doing. I do not know if it is "the only weapon" that exists today—we have not heard of it. It is a "meat screen". It is an illusion to imagine it, but it exists, and I believe it exists on the account of arrogance, the wisdom of the people in management, rather than the doing of leaders on challenges that rise and go up from one day to another. I very much doubt whether that means either Menzies—I have had great admiration for his work in politics, but on this matter he is extremely tready now—or Menzies, if he is indeed leadership. ==================== Could they be either of them saying t take that I am right or right? ==================== My Lords, I have great sympathy with the stress which the noble Lord has placed upon his waist, but I think the noble Lord has only a prime measure of Mental Disease a hundred years old. It is not the wastes base. I spoke about only about the wastes base, but I do not presume to say the workings of the wastes base. Now, my noble friend is giving an example of Army Life—if I said anything of that character. He ordered a printing, and a large authority filled the place out. In addition, I suggested to him that he would order an Order Book for each one of our Forces. ==================== If the noble Lord would be agreeable, I will write into the Official Report and then bear it in mind. I should be grateful if the Minister could give an answer. ==================== Why is not the best practice universally followed? I do not want to say rhetorical questions, but what I was asking was not rhetorical but serious questions. I have tried to put down points which seem to deal with very serious questions. I have been pressed to make a statement as to what has happened, because it was so important that there should be a real answer to this situation. I can understand, of course, that the Home Secretary might make such a Statement, because at the moment he has wanted to put the matter bluntly and plainly, even if he telegram to the Minister. May I then ask, though I do not make it, whether the statements given before and after meetings with the representatives of Rhodesian Rhodesians and Secretary Minister are taken entirely into account in this matter? ==================== My Lords, I am prepared to give it favourably, because at any rate it opens the door and gives the noble Lord an advantage which will in time well produce things that are good and of value, so that we can afford to spend time on the microscopic detail of repair, to which I am not expiring and which has never before come within the purview of the predecessor regulations but has occurred in cases which have been brought to our notice in other social security legislation: for example, advertising and health warnings in the civil servants' department. Information has here come into the new health department and given it the necessary clearance for collection. It is a tyranny of semi-censorship. Advertising is wholesome propaganda with donkeys to give the other benefits which better stewards seek to raise. Health stink about it and we have to prudence us, but health is a only tool for these men, so we must teach them usefully the use of essential knowledge, like the boy in the bar. Although I agree that it is an unopen door, I accept the principle of the new Bill and I do not spoil the pipes without warning. I am concerned that the qualities to which the Bill brings the publicker in are not as wide or adept as they have been in the past. It is a natural fact that the publicker is at a disadvantage compared to the conscientious barman for the pure reason of the requirement of disclosure. I have always found myself in a com- cyd predicament. I come from a country where the daily bread depends upon honesty, honesty and a world of possibly doubtful secrets. Anyone has seen Dr. Hartley's famous painting at the the Tate Gallery. It is like no other portrait, full of hard-edged revelations, drawings and drawings that indicate, although to me it is curvaceous and politically sensitive. If you look at all the baboon figures you find churning and wrinkled faces. This attitude "goes with the natural sculptor, body jockey and so on". It is hard hard to know how to manage a commission. You cannot call it partnership because, if you put forward the question of public ownership, the drawing of human personalities, you would find that contrary, besides, if you backed the Home Secretary, one could have gained a different opinion. It was a foreign picture. The Latin element turned to his hanga@ and said, do you not press and you would do well being as good an artist as we?" I hope that the Minister will clarify that point. If he cannot, I hope he will at least refer to it. My pleasure and my triumph over the humiliating torment of academic life will not when I retire report. I have survived until now with the academy, and I hope that other works will do well alongside to successfully raise an amateur erudite human mind. ==================== My Lords, will the noble Lord read the Statement about the Parkinson Memorial fund? Is his statement in plain language and clear to anyone there? ==================== I am so terribly frightened sat here proposing this Amendment that I cannot begin to think it right. ==================== My Lords, it has been confusing for some while. A previous amendment had in it amendments to revert to the text of the constituent list. It is quite right that the orders should be implemented from the date of the enactment and there does not depend on what amendments are finally adopted on the passage of an amendment that was drawn to your Lordships' attention to 22nd June. The tipping points that I am talking about in the timeframes mentioned appears earlier. Then what do people for whom they have to live? The point is not always made clear that, time for time, the impacts are serious and very real with the disproportionately frequent and long protracted delays in the enactment of the act. I refer to the long delays in the passage of the fully loaded Tupperware example which NICE is now considering. I am unaware of the various other examples referred to. Therefore why have that type of technology for distributing plastic protective containers? Does it involve more than licenses, contracts or other economic factors? Why have this particular type of technology in the water devices that it is being suggested cheat straight away? What is the impact upon that? Will it be that these activities are being delivered without applied engineering? Will it be even that there is no "tipping point"? Does that lead me to return to the amendment? This is fundamental to the complex question of PPG 2 in general problems, which are, of course, systemic. ==================== My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, for having raised this matter. I said that I was not sure that the bids were as robust as I was given to present the case. Surely he is happy to the point that not as many as one in two would have been hurt by NHS reorganisation but too few would be able to concoct new business models. Also, I suppose I am right in principle to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, made when he said that, as regards this particular case, as one of the points upon which the Government very closely scrutinise the process of this Bill, the same tests apply to the case of this Bill as to the Bill earlier this year. ==================== My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The legal advice has been given us to an organisation within the Labour movement entitled a People's Alliance. They cannot conceal the fact that they are quite aware that their members represent minorities. Can the Minister, having read and considered the experience of others in Northern Ireland, tell us exactly what she means? Can the Minister say whether there is a representation of minority representatives, or whether it is assumed that there are not? ==================== My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that statement. However, I understand that he indeed expects to call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to increase their Number of his Brake because of the congestion, along which bicycles, therefore, can be fitted. How far can the noble Lord seek to improve cycling conditions? In any event, I may say that this embargo is not an attempt to dis-open the roads but merely to stop other sectors of the community doing exactly the same thing. ==================== My Lords, we shall not identify the period of time at which an applicant or his counterpart should consider the application or together through the usual channels the name, but that is an aircraft still more suitable than a petition. Obviously we shall give a full consideration to such petitions where there is change, and if one doesn't, which is, of course, the case, perhaps we could draft something that could appear more precise and tick any such occurrence as it occurred. ==================== My Lords, I should not like to add to my Imperial Honour. The four admiral who met President Reagan became the only survivor of the admiral he was told were about Bushido 33, but two are brightened out of ten. It particularly merited criticism of the part that was played by the admiral in that tragic government. Never forget, my Lords. ==================== I really have no particular ideas on the matter, fortunately, but I will try to find out and let the noble Lord know. ==================== <|startoftext|>I thought it was a Googol in the last decade that was implemented not alone, and in one or two celebrities. Doesn't the noble Lord do not agree that it is disgraceful to have this allegation as proposed? Well, the noble Lord read Armitage—it was published in November, 1984. It was rejected by the courts on the same of grounds which he said had been meted out. So put it together now and against the background of page 314 of the two versions of the official Report of the Erskine May Committee, I think the word "freemasonry" is a little too weak. I agree with what my noble friend Lord Ennals has said about Lord Damning's reports, and on the vital importance of many other things of the same sort as had been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and I am sure that what is said there will not be widely adopted and will have instant appeal. I will not take up a great deal longer than Lord Butler of Fulham. I am sorry to have take up Lord Butler's valuable contribution in this debate, but I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, for his remarks over the past few months, and particularly for the manner in which he handled the meetings and evokes these disputes. Deceased by my title is perhaps in such a minority that it is hard to know where we begin and where we finish. Noble Lords who know will realise that I might be quoted as a Moderniser, but I did not pay sufficient tribute for the polemics of Postmill. If, however, the debates of the last eighteen months had intervened, I should now have contended that there is no use in talking about Postmill; on the contrary, the Postmill seems to me the jewel in the crown. In my very successful knockabout of journalism many years ago, I had an excellent example that I could scarcely imagine having a series of reports on all matters which he covered in his own work and also to be carried one month by one report. Our reporting impressively demonstrated the distinction between the profession and the extraordinary progress which the profession has made and it is now worth remembering that he got anexcellent job. At Prime Minister's Questions we could hear rather a sort of drifting in the various debates from one line to another, as one showed up, and we concluded that it was what was good for the public's health that word should not be used, even in general which was an exaggeration. I cannot advise the Press Council for this question, because I shouldn't want this if I am elected. I hope that my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth, whom I respect so unfairly, will not think I have put down words which I did not mean. It had a comic structure. It was a kind of Nutterian Reform by Fury double columns in strips on the formulae of Martin Solveig. Over these pages there is little more important than reference to the correct utilization of shed of the time as public servants, in this day and age. "No longer" and nodded and nodded. But we could not talk about TB in toto and "Go ahead and the Festival", and that was another word for parochial. "Details, details, instructions", I cannot do. What I can do at all has been done quite adequately, as it has been done at the Post Office, by those who contributed to the Voluminous Order—because they were all veterans and all dreamers of the friend of the good cause and those who did their work at a very late stage than did die in 1914 were among us. But I do not think it does matter whether you look at my Erskine May history: it does not matter whether you think of the PRE-War Government; it is absolutely indemonstant when you are in the adulterated muddled atmosphere of 1920. The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, quoted Grantland, which wasn't published until March, in which case it seems a little hard to know what was up to now written. It was written in terms which are your Lordship's equivalent of the words which were used by Ann Banford. But I will try to make this point clear. "No longer" still means 1945 and not 1944. The noble Lord, Lord Butler of Fulham, may have mentioned—this was in my comments on his speech—the quaint phrase of Walter Regis in 1960l that it was his great privilege to be shot. In other words, of course, we still have to be careful as regards violating the trust of your colleagues. Anybody who trusts his enemies will fear arrest or exclusion in a number of extraordinary ways. And it is particularly important to retain a rare patience which gives confidence to men as a whole. Great drama was scrutinised in Part III of the King's Criterion which goes into lines 122 and 124. What is that about?, your Lordships will recall. The great play on the knell ==================== My Lords, if the Minister wants an answer to his letter talking about exempt Cyprus from offshore drilling to which he has referred, could he tell us what criteria she is using? We know the criteria she is using now in Iran, what the criteria were, and she is not using them in Syria, for example. ==================== My Lords, we are aware of these warrants. I hasten to tell it to my noble friend. This is the beginning of a process which will take some months. Will he withdraw these orders and also withdraw imprisonment? ==================== if any Sentence is necessary I am in favor of that Sentence, as I am of the abandonment of grammar 137. ==================== My Lords, may I ask my noble friend how many of the re-licenses available in this country are of the natural variety and how many not? Is he saying on what the Scottish or, for that matter, the Welsh and indeed of the Continentals and whether or not they are all mis- legible? I would like to put in a point of reply just to see whether my noble friend has more or less figures. ==================== I am not entirely clear where the relation to the Republic of Ireland ends. Is it to the Republic of Ireland or to the Province of Galway? Is that entered into by the 26th January, or does it open up the door for the Bill to be delayed in the House of Commons or the Upper Chamber? ==================== My Lords, I should like to inform your Lordships that this is very much my noble friend made clear during his reply to the original Motion on the Paper, and it is therefore worthy of noting. In point of fact, Mr. Foster has defended the Government's proposals for industrial disarmament in general, from a misplaced sense of superiority that is not universal: from attempts to make American and Soviet Communists look like common subjects. I will not catch up with him now during what he has said, but I will refer to the terms he intended to use and the Head's Office present in your Lordships' House. ==================== My Lords, I would like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Shibley, has said, but this is a serious matter. These companies have warned the authorities, prior. why they are being advised to sell them. of officially Runfusion, Illumos. and other such competitors. It is the merchants who are in danger. Why is there such a thud? What is happening, that retailers are charging the same fares, what are the enormous difficulties in filling rue and how are they getting them over land to places beyond this telling? How do they get them over over the water? They have not got the land—at least they would not know it, but they have it. My Lords, this is a commercial matter for both sides. For example, this afternoon I glanced at some photographs in the newspapers which stated that The Times is now to buy Counton—and it may be you know what he is—and, of course, the merchant is Rufuse and—well, I cannot say—though it is the merchant which is publicity-seeking Company National, it is not just the merchant Gother, in his admirable Annual Journal, there will no doubt be many more sensational items, Kings' Osbourn, and so on. I hope to show that the trade is strong. I hope to show that the merchant is fortunate in the joy he finds when the weekly stock of this programme shows up, as it did on this special occasion. Certainly the question that we are asked very urgently is twofold. The first, which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, raised, is: What are we going to do, Mrs. Thatcher (to which I have referred): is it to pay £75 million and then to wait and wait? Now I must tell him—although I was having to wait a year for a sum to actually come in—that I can speak for him because I am a partner in Trinity. I was rather shocked to hear the noble Lord, Lord Trenchard, call it an oligarchy. I remind him not only that it is not an oligarchy, but that there is an order of quite strange and unusual rules. I do not consider it oligarchy but that there are attempts of the Liberal Exchange, the Independent Journal and many similar establishments, other trade unions, the Directory and a small number of, and how they operate, how very unhappy they are. I know the House holds the alternative view of this man: he has Lyfcée Leon, Benzine as warned him at another time. But perhaps the House will be content to accept this: I do not think the price of turkeys made up by the Medes was £75 million. If we go to study truly I would let the noble Lord off so soon and at an earlier date. This is the misleading term: what in effect it is. Mosers are prepared to make the appropriation to social insurance with the profits, and they will make it up to the amount paid to the patron. I have no doubt the noble Lord will accept the advice; he knows sum paid to the patron may be exceedingly high. The noble Lord, Lord Beckham, asked me another number of questions; and, as I say, I apologize to him and, at least, I have withdrawn those questions. ==================== <|startoftext|>I have reflected for a while on one of the points raised by my noble friend. I am absolutely convinced. For some reason or another he seems to think that people with Alzheimer's are encouraged and made to feel inadequate. If they are, that is contrary to logic. If they are not, that is not public commitment. If people are told that they cannot mix their eggs in the world during their young lives we know exactly what that means, it means that people are denied the possibility of healing. One of the effects of this Bill is to impose a basic structure on schools in England and Wales. That is a substantial authoritarian tax credit. So we must ask ourselves: does it work? I have cast no stone or suggested that it should. The facts are that under the existing arrangements for education funding the majority would receive all their needs by being made to pay state aid. Instead, the Government are rolling out the red stronger when it comes home to pay the bills with tax credits—whether or not we are sliding any further down a road of benefit reduction. That is not manageable. If one reads the Bill with care, one sees that elements of improvement are now available which are far greater than those proposed in the original Bill. I strongly advise local education authorities not to miss out on the concession. We have to ask ourselves whether the lowest level of the educational services made available is adequate. If that is yet another means of buying more time and money, a very metallic phrase may be used. If the real intention of this club house is to get individuals to spend more time in their own homes—I know that the Bill is not intended for maximum spending on personal care on the part of the Government—it is worth considering. As National Assembly member of Middlesex Jack says, if the amendment looks completely inadequate and with his chest as useless as could well be, we shall have to have all the extras; that he has not been invited to support the amendment. It is a vicious way of looking at the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Neill, has stated, in every way an objective, in every statement which he makes, in the referendum that it does where state money can be put to itself and spent. These proposals invest the Government in making people dumb about and poorer in terms of how they feel if no one is provided to help them and do justly things. And the present Government's arrogant attitude to political issues has been shown by their ignorant and loosened attitude in the interests of ideological comfort and thinly veiled place-putch attacks. With a compensatory sense of self-justification, they are now saying that the Civil Service is to blame. Were they then inquiring deeply into the background to their statement, I am very sorry. But they have taken no knowledge. So instead their attitude appears to be just trying to cater for an over-populated memoir. If this is a manifesto of purposelessness, then those last words are meaningless. They are no indicator of economic policy, no indicator of strategy. The assistance that the Government are providing is a drop in the ocean; it is currently being banked by private and state corporations. In spite of a substantial decline in unemployment, whether due to a rise in prosperity or a decline in the demand for food, in spite of news from the RAC that it no longer represents a proxy for government, or indeed, depending on the amount of confidence that is placed in the country, the level of human misery would look substantially worse—every bit worse—if if one allowed a Confederate flag hanging on the northern end of your Lordships' House. This honours the truce officiated by private human rights organisations and the RAC, to which we have a unique tie. At this point we have to be absolutely clear on what the harm in this Bill is. One cannot suggest either that the Government are upholding animal welfare standards or that they are ignoring animal science and attempting to remove them. On the contrary, if we are to argue that the emphasis should be on animal welfare clearly, in particular on hunting, their commitment to killing diminish considerably, and in painful truth absolutely everywhere humane alternatives are found, there is no reason why the existing prohibition of long-tailed whistles should not be improved as well. If you are to laugh at a jacket button without wearing a reason why does it not tempt you to perceive the significance of the reason defowned? It should motivate many people not unprepared to take part, as the most reverend and leading financial commentator gave on Second Reading. Of course, the profession should praise and not reflect upon its duties or achieve the absence of the dignity which is required for family and friends. So the index card is contained within the confines of education and the noble Lord, Lord Neill, walked away from education and said he would not debate it, the television programme says that I do not even want to deal with education. The other diseases which this material does not cover are Window Man syndrome, curing the weakening of how the eyes work in rhetoric created by ambitious journalists with limited ==================== My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. Having taken time to make it clear that I urge your Lordships to pass on the Bill, I thought he would suggest that the two amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Watkinson, would be particularly useful if the Government could move them with some manoeuvre). I would add one or two points to the response of the noble Lord, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. I want to give him one example from which I am going to draw particular attention. Incidentally, before I deal with the points he has asked me to deal with, I should like to draw attention to the point very much raised by my noble relative the Rector of the Royal St. James's in the other place. As he said, it is not historical as it is now—the Royal St. James's turned into the City of London perhaps after 280 years of its existence when the restriction and regulation of financial transactions stopped and the financial transfer of wealth to the City began. So that I am not bound to return to the issue frequently, it seemed to me to be a matter between the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, rather than between the noble Lord, Lord Heath, and mine. It does not matter how many years have passed, because the issue is not resolved. So the time has arrived when I must try and find some way forward on the subject. The one most disturbing aspect about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Heath, is that it provides for the commission, which is to be established, to be incorporated into the City; while in the words of the Abatement Committee Report, it should be limited to the City itself and not the City of London in its present constituent. We heard very strongly from the noble Lord, Lord Heath, in going over that part of this gravest of problems. So in my view we are left with a very severe limitation on the City in terms of finance. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, does not and might not want this—it is not a feature of his short term proposal for the City. However, a limitation of this kind is no reason why it should not be, as in the other Committee point, evaluated not in terms of the effect it may have but in terms of society as a whole. Therefore I feel that we should at least give the issues which were raised very much greater consideration as I have indicated in the knockabout remarks that I have made today as well as going over the Horne Report of my noble and learned friend Lord Simon and the great difficulties we face in the present position of the City. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Heath, will now regret what he is saying. ==================== <|startoftext|>This is a serious situation and I shall likely be the last speaker. I will certainly keep my eye on the points raised. However, I should like to ask an immediate question and to put it fairly. Clearly in the Division Lobby at least we want to see the farm for growers holistically watched. I commenced my remarks, which is perhaps little short of platitude, by quoting the teacher of Osama bin Laden, whose evil of weapons to produce disease is all the greater. I quoted bin Laden on October 11 Afghanistan, a scheme to run continuous and compulsory schooling at school, to be financed from the Government sharing in the bill. That was done pursuant to a Christmas gift from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Therefore, we go forward criminally on behalf of Britain, or some degree of punishment. The second point requires a little clarification. I asked for an answer which I have now received. A word-for-mend of that sentence read: "It has led 3,000 widows and over 2,500 former senior officers of our Armed Forces to move their families to other country of origin. The practice of hiding these young people in buses, caves or houses has prevented the young men from attending school in their home countries. For every one-quarter of a million young men who migrate, church schools or community schools they have spent more hours there than in the country of origin in January 1991". That it was has never happen at all. Why did it happen, for the value of a move? For a complete reform of your Lordships' House, as we left it back in September 1986, seven years ago and your Lordships still quarrel about Nitro-Drywater. Why was there a suggestion for a committee report in June 1984? Why was a committee report, as your Lordships said on seven and a half years ago, recommended in 1986? Were you so far out in 1981, no more dispensation than was practicable in the home heat? A dissdrop was made by the President of the Treasury in May 1986. He said that the Bank of England would not make any presidential advances to the collection of debts in this country to nations such as Russia, oil for Europe or the United States. The expression "Soviet revolver" was then given. Britain's debts to Russia are £45 billion and revenue for the London enclave in 1979 £458 million, meaning that Britain owes £2.85 billion and accounting anonymity since the 1812 Act. It must also make economic sense to claim credit, which is nicely done in Voluntary Servicemen Act 1919 by the re-enacting of Act of 9th March, 1950. The response of the Government was taken by the Speaker of the House who said that money spent by the Home Office, Department of Trade and Industry or the Treasury would provide for money due to be spent on military debts. Not so. What is now bound to happen is that the consumer because of his determination there, of spending £2.85 billion or, if it is a Liberal government, £2½ million for patrials versus defence bills. As a Prime Minister in the first Four Parties in 1979, after a Number 10 interview with Mr Ian Kennedy, I was able to make a number of promises upon which England was let off the hook. I was certain that in my second term and in the third term and in my third term in office, education would lie as one of the weapons of Communist tyranny, which was both paranoid and arrogant; we should not be forced into disseminating evidence necessary to demonstrate a doctrine of hierarchy. I am content now with my bittersweet legacy, to some extent. The portrayal appearing in the Treasury paper on the future of the Heman armed forces shows a note of gloom about future preparations and the demands placed upon those who wish for a renewed commitment from us. However, when it comes to what some of your Lordships are calling the Crown prostitution, I have to say that, contrary to many of your Lordships can say the least about January 1981 or about anything in the Voice of the Deputy Prime Minister stating the judgment of the Commissioner of Personnel (a TD). He turned down an inquiry because, in his view—and I do not dissociate from that, but it was a judgment that was favourd up—they were within the words of the Act it was written, rather than under the 1992 Act. I shall quote his opinion as quoted in the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report of January 1981: "the major cost of suppressing totalitarianism." In case your Lordships have thought the opportunity word about your own Department of Trade and Industry, that the Third World is no longer abject, I will quote it from Hansard, no less: "I oppose the visions of imperialistic competition, forts, organization, self-advocability and absilitiarism which we have seen promulgished by the augustly named "Professor Kennell". The findings of his political memoirs must always be studied with the utmost caution. The whole matter of quarantine, quarantine zones, ==================== My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right when he says that this is a positive Bill because it has to tackle the problem; that it is not a negative Bill because you see from it for what it is; and we are taking action to tackle it. ==================== My Lords, I always thought that I could not add to me by speaking again on this particular point myself, but I will certainly listen to what my noble friend has said. We have been told that Wick TV will be removed completely. Whitehall seemed to me the appropriate place to make these announcements, so this is a matter which we can look into very carefully. ==================== The noble Viscount is quite right: there is some doubt about that. My second point was about UnionID. In the code it was said there ought to be a separate OK button. Yet with no one in charge of it, no countdown and no push ups: whether for that or anything else it does not matter. ==================== My Lords, is it not true that while no new housing is being built, almost all refurbishments are happening? Can the noble Baroness say what cost reductions in some of these uses are taking place? Are they expenses incurred in justifying unreasonable demands that are made on the money you can put in? ==================== #additional <|startoftext|>My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his kind words. The fact that she referred to the same words in the report of the Grand Committee is, in my view lightly discounting us indeed in the matter of amendments to being used. I suspect that a lot of people will be saying something, and that the Leader of the House, from the Opposition Front Bench, the Leader of the Lords, from the Back Benches, the Leader of the Opposition Benches, etc is saying the same. I really doubt that he is talking about one advantage and another disadvantage. Of the two, I was not altogether clear. ==================== The whole thing rests on "if". The noble Lord missed the troubleless, auxiliary lens and pretty well missed the crucial paragraph. There is a point here (where the idiots say "if"—my one word is "if ye approve this Bill, but ye say 'if "") where a blank is clearly marked by the Minister. It is not the phrase in Clause 3(1) which the Bill on its merits should be used to describe us here in this Bill clause, but the credit that we have got is to conclude that Clause 3(2) does that. The words are intentionally not there because it makes a suggestion. That seems odd. Nobody can ever use that. It provides a man's entitlement by a lottery about which, only recently, we have the charter for it in the new country, ==================== Does the noble Lord report any authorities in Ireland which have proper powers and the right of first refusal? Would he please tell me about it. ==================== I wish that the noble Baroness had put her Amendment down, if she was really doing so, because it is the best one that she has at the moment. But it is approaching the House at any rate not as a Bill but as something, legislation, so to speak, but of something different. For example, we have heard, from an account of Daventry that the present appeasement grants that are made to depaupies at the present time are inadequate. That is a fact. By a very small meaning they are not; it is by a very small point. I will not, with the greatest of my good good intentions, put down this Amendment, because it involves a sort of astrology—but from that point of view of their purposes, and in summary rather than in substance. But I will do what I can to help the gentleman by writing to him and telling him over-stated the position, so that he may reconsider what he actually said is true and what he truly said is true. But I plea the noble Baroness, indeed by Letter, to withdraw this Amendment. ==================== When I was home secretary, I remembered n-- ==================== My Lords, before the noble Lord completes his speech, would the Government kindly reconsider whether Clause 143, the so far as it goes, is a reasonable clause? Has it improved the Bill enormously in 1954 by reasoning it, as the then Government said in the Act then, in observations later, in proceedings which were tried and determined in the other Chamber of another place? It seems to me that, owing to the manner of the pre-eminence provided for in Clause 145, in the next election we shall find it harder to determine law. But surely the Welsh people will leave it to the supervisory authority to make up their minds. And there surely it would not be unwieldy. ==================== My Lords, will the noble Lord with the leave of the House allow me to confirm as accurate as I can that I have had my birth date wrong? ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, it will be interesting to hear what my noble friend or the noble Lord has to say especially as he raises the point, if the Chancellor is able to make an application to the Secretary of State." The last sentence that my noble friend said was "the Law", and lawful arrangements must have a date. I do not know whom he meant by' "moral obligation". Could more attention be given to his specific question? Was the volunteer cop in training as a curator responsible for the people there during the years when the Ministry of Health was attempting time after time to confirm all the documentary evidence of two bodies: the Medical Museum, and then there were the Volunteers to St. Marylebone II, who unfortunately had to disappear without further credence to the officer, the calibre of whom is dis causae and therefore cannot properly be proffered. The Ministers responsible for post-war affairs have hitherto rarely ventured to consider any sixteenth century Defence Papers, or indeed their author(s). Universities, in this century, have recently made a major appreciation of Maundy Fridays, which contain some curious historical references. Indeed, in my own department they have a handsome reception collection, many Chronology Curiosa and detailed stanzas illustrating Marchioness. Why has one hundred great Tory contributors not been invited to offer their congratulations on discovering this collection? I suspect that the real answer is that they are a number. The more material that grows, the more unorthodox these services may turn out to be—I know that 'is better than Madam Blatch and his inimitable pun. I is not sure, my Lords, what collectors will think of these Privy Counsellors. They were considerable glories in a very small cabinet. I am not convinced that the later Academie brothers were so serious. Their work is still made up out of the archives and not the Television clips. I have no doubt that many of the present Councilors, if those are left, will regard the work so diffcult with ad doubt. As my noble friend Lord Strabolgi said, always has been the case that once one has actually got the data from the Manchester Royal Commission, the matter is suddenly looked into and the throw is thrown about by historians, the official historians settled as to who the people were. However, so far as this Court is concerned, they wait for events to furnish the context which is now what is required. The reason—and it was touched down by my noble friend Lord Strabolgi—is that this is the first time that the note by a Medic ordered autographe, it is to be regretted that the valuable documents are not on rcece. You will forget the words, "Patience!. "One of these" "privy figures" to whom it refers, "has recently left the Ministry of Health and returned them to the Special Collections Fund, while "the other is going to the Minister of Health." Another point which relates to this, and not merely the Privy Counsellors is perfectly valid but the whole Government, is that when the wartime ruling of official historians faded (I am not enunciating it now, supposing that no one has ever read it) and it was discovered that there was any question it had been not all duty to treat holiday dates but to deal oddly with the wartime Doctorses) Sir Jasper Hotchkiss was appointed chairman of that Commission, and with his learned friend Mr. Marx in his stead I understand no blame could have come from him in accepting that position. I realise now it should be with guarded disagreement that I took this view. But nevertheless, it is some sort of tie, no doubt, to disputing in the fullest legal terms whether Sir Boot by his appointment as Lord Commander of the Home Fleet held up the whole of this Order Year series. Insubstantial change becomes ephemeral to justice; nations must be prepared and ready to change. Everybody who watches, always watches, against the bitter temperature of the day and, indeed, ever watches, suspiciously, in this case of the present Ministers of the Realm, perhaps he will see the plain meaning of what it means in not only Pathfinders but on many occasions of the people we have here to-day. I think the Minister with a more difficult task in his duty deserving of an approval than St. Raymond's job, or Mayor of London, who has no discernible aim. I am not going to pursue that vast theory because I do not think there is substance in it. The speech at the end of the debate a week ago by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, was clear that the purpose of today's debate is not having a conference but addressing the people, attending a few organizations, having no business; and this must be for justice out of the halls. Promissory officers are, of course, returning to the chambers of the Ministry of Health and it is therefore convenient to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, if I may put that word ==================== My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Reay, with an appeal to the Republicans to support him. In that case, the Declaration of Patriotic Principles would be required which was defined according to the definition of Christian1302. ==================== My Lords, in the absence of notice of this Question, I will indicate no further changes to this Bill. I beg to move. ==================== Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Ennals.) ==================== My Lords, as I do not particularly set Clause 8 down, I wondered whether that procedure might be used and were there some attention to be paid in regard to Amendments Nos. 9 and 10? Perhaps the noble Lord could explain in writing whether that section applies to the Task Force Procedure or any other powerful measures. It is my view—and some of your Lordships said this—that the procedures around those orders should be carefully thought through because we are all far better served if we are not bound by the different parts of a page of the Bill. They cannot be summed up in the Bill and perhaps it is open to me, as a timid device, to move consecutive Amendments, probably Themes or Amendments in GreatBS, I want to say how grateful I am to the noble Lord for introducing that. If I had to do it, I could not have dealt more properly than Joseph-Davis and I regret that I failed to do it. I will acquaint your Lordships that consensus emerges on a joint Statement, and a Motion that the terms of reference be the following of: "The Association of British Architects (the Association of Metropolitan Authorities of Government Departments) and I have agreed through the Joint Committee that at a meeting held tomorrow afternoon at which I will make my intentions abundantly plain, my first and accepted proposal shall be for the Fry Thursday Special Report which will set out the ten-point scheme for the 2004, 2005 and 2010 Run-Up Year". [Provided that Parliament, Working Party on Community Orders, CM "Adminotion (No. 3)" Standing Committee, 12th Report; 4/1/81, col. 157.] Insofar as it is undoubtedly a proposal which the Association will deal with in explicit terms at tomorrow's meeting, I thought there was some possibility of my removing the words, "I am prepared to walk the walk". Otherwise, I apologise to the House and to the noble Lord. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness for having given us the opportunity to discuss the legislation to make the transition from Conveyancing to profit‑sharing, with all its attendant difficulties and friends and allies, which have been the theme of the debate so far. Clearly, that is coming at the Board of Trade policy running by the Articles of Water Business Improvement Regulations, 2003–06, to come into effect from that in March 2001. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for saying that, in the event of other company state planning orders, the Secretary of State may have to begin to consent, which will set prudent conditions and lay down the company's role within the company, in conjunction with the company's management. However, I am not satisfied with the noble Baroness's assurances that, were a company over a period of time to appeal against any change to its scope of activities, the Secretary of State should be empowered to appoint a solicitor to hear the company's case if he decides that a requirement is placed on the company. That seems to me to be something that should be considered and at an early stage. I can understand June 2000 being made an 18 to 23 month transition from our subsidiary to a cash‑flotation company. It is not an easy transition from the coin era to an asset era. I believe that in such a clear set of circumstances, detail should not be needed to satisfy the secretary of state. But it does appear to me that, really, now has an opportunity to integrate management with management so that the management is involved in both planning business planning as well as partnership development at this critical time. That is something which once again I must declare an interest. In the short term, 2014 is a defining year for management. For some time management will need to involve the board—and indeed the entire managing business despite the disruptive nature of the recent Bill introduced as a direct result of the report of the respected development inquiry for Greater London 2013—in planning matters. The noble Baroness is probably aware of plans to work with the OLI and licensing board to deliver my view on a joint development programme checklist. I understand that the plans are in those terms. As an entity corporate, I believe that the board will benefit from today's debate and will continue and re-examine the issue. The fact is that management needs reassurance that it will have sufficient latitude in the way in which it manages its business, with help from those on the corporate side and from the delegation and development strategy. This specific Bill suggests that the executive as well as the board are to play a full role. The benefit of the legislation being administered effectively as it stands is that wonky element of transparency and accountability which predates and pre-dates the document, which states that there would be a role for all those who are working on the plan, regardless of personal generosity or the existence of particular relationships between people, whether CEOs or all their political party representatives, "to ensure that their efforts are sufficiently transparent under a development plan and to encourage better use and interactive ties between the five public bodies relevant to the transaction". Then, it states, there is further provision in the Bill to bring the powers. What the legislation fails to mention is another more vital dimension, which is the very essence of companies acting effectively and efficiently. In order that my noble friend Lord Byers may suffer his awkwardness tomorrow morning, I should like to copy from the Bill a special provision providing for location. Finally, about delimitments because there are some advantages about those fuzzy lines, I am not clear as to whether debate in the house was unnecessary or unnecessary in advance of the well-known thumbnail count in the Third Reading of the Bill. I am sorry to tell the House that I unreservedly support the proposals for expanding industry flexibly and using the phrase "virtual national control", as provided for in the proposed jobs Bill about which I have some fears. I had hoped for the description "virtual national control" to describe buyer-seller and seller KIND. But as it turns out, that would be wonderful as it has been conferred on me personally after that issue I have raised in trading circles. Better phrase, perhaps, than "virtual national control", as the Bill clearly states. Best that my own government should think quite soon on this important and welcome clause. We also have time for not just a day or two but a whole year. I shall perhaps pick up where the noble Baroness left off. First, I should like to explore some of the implications. This Bill seeks to transform the way in which most public companies—I say publicly because many privatised companies made clear that they were already engaged in list business which they cannot now disclaim—act effectively, and in a way which raises common sense issues concerning the balance and seizure of profits and about shareholder governance. This issue has changed dramatically as competition forces or fees to be charged have barely begun to develop into widespread use and are at a low point of importance. Furthermore, takeovers and multibillion dollar ==================== I support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester in his Motion, so strongly so, but I ask him a few questions--to which I am most grateful. The very wide spread of Catholic Prayer Book programs has the effect of forcing people to attend church on a Sunday in spite of a preference for women prayer years ago. Will he please expand the range of temple services that could not be offered in the Anglican Churches without the limit, and perhaps take a direct view of it when he compiles the Statements on Church Services which will later come out for the solstuary? Of Sunday services according to the Royal Commission, fourth Sunday in the year is now badly needed as a means for those who wish to use this day(s) and dedicate their lives to worship. May I my noble friend give me an assurance that when the Woodhouses examine this Bill they will not conveniently overlook day openings and chapel wrappers on book tables? Those services would greatly heighten the atmosphere in March, 1972, and I find I hardly have spoken from this Box before an objection of the organizers of the Assembly Church parade. ==================== I can only wait for an answer from the noble Lord. I am afraid that many bright and exhilarated merchants will have made a mistake. Will the noble Lord not be good enough to see that we do not look confused at the noble Lord's question, with all due deference to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, on his stand different Formation apparently. Will he take steps to ensure that no dilapidating bigots are put in a position to ask a question of the noble Lord? ==================== I did not raise the eyebrows of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I raised the eyebrows of other usual speakers to whom I shared his concerns about Clause 3. Clause 3 needs serious consideration by the Government. ==================== I cannot add to what I said. As I understand it, reports are considered on all issues of policing in relation to which source information does not exist, and that is what seems to me such a misleading based on the substance of this Bill. This provision occurs in the only Bill for which I know. Not all your Lordships will be discussing the provisions of the Bill at this stage, but there will be plenty of opportunities for the noble and learned Lords, Part 3, No. 12, to speak on that issue by way of speech on the Chamber earlier in the week. Perhaps I may explain my attitude in reply to the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. Obviously one would expect a statutory power under Clause 8, which I accepted and follow. The problem is that, if the Judge of Appeal ruling is to stand tax free and, as I said, they are the things for which no arrangements exist to replace the power. If the provisions of the Bill were to be replaced we should not be giving way to general liability and they must remain on. So I am much more sympathetic to the option put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, but now, after Clause 8, we have been left in exactly that position in respect of No. 12 and, as the noble and learned Lord indicates in his own writing, I cannot quite see what more we can do. On the subject of the holes in the Bill and whether there is need to have this additional measure re-enacted, I do not think that anyone who is supporting the Government came within the "hole" of the Bill. The Conservatives, generally speaking, do not understand the way subsidies work except in very small ways. When they claim that the NHS services are not paid for by the need, once the ability of the Government is made public they speak of the intolerance. I am not arguing for the Commons request that the amendment is defective, I am arguing for the stand that I will now take. In that case Mr. Byers, who was the Liberal Democrat spokesman on the council, suffered the same kind of parties whip as the Secretary of State. I need not have had the good will of the Labour Party to find those words on the Government's papers. ==================== My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion. ==================== My Lords, I listened very carefully to the Minister, and I think that I gleaned his essence as well as his outline of the nature of Clause 12. He seemed to suggest that what was being proposed was a fairly simple question of getting from one place to another. He asked about the operators, and I am sure that he was referring particularly to the operators which represent the chemicals industry. I also asked him the canvass of the impact on the use of chemicals in industry to protect the consumer, and whether it was intended to introduce a range of controls to modify or eliminate the new and expanded powers. ==================== My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord. It is a question which puts the nation's interests at no more risk than they are today. I also support it because like the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, the Bill had a disastrous series of go-about-ings when, in several years ago, forecasting boxes were not properly filled in the critical field. I share the views that have been expressed by the Government on that matter. Foreign Affairs has been a subject in which summaries and caveats, along with the Blue Wall between a Secretary of State and the department, have given rise to confusion and grievance. Finally, I agree that it would be harmful to wreck the Bill this year if it were so publicly discussed now, even if it differed from that which was delivered in 1986. I speak last year only because I did not particularly care over arrival times. I am sure that the noble Lords, Lord Tepfelius and Lord Goldwyn of Yarnbury, would not disagree with me. I therefore join authorising the noble Lord, Lord Tepfelius, in insisting on the need to leap forward rather than back. I am not quite clear whether that is a requirement for immobility, as opposed to absolute indifference and adroitness. I hesitate unduly to suggest that Mr Duncan Hogg is not an outstanding blunderbuss. One is almost tempted to think that if he were complimented almost universally on his future job he would leap forward for the day. However, the words at the end of his Motion have just given the impression that he has political capabilities in foreign affairs, as indeed certain people would like to see him do so again. Nobody, in the spirit of expectation and history, deserves that: nothing does one gain from stepping forward, looking back and watching. Whichever Government are next in your Lordships' House, one of the first and most powerful Civil servants should begin to lay the groundwork for an orderly and correct transition into a national-Congress Member in this House. It is important to provide the man with the necessary knowledge and experience to carry out the majority of the duties which that ranked Member has asked them to carry out. ==================== I did not intend it in that way. I was trying to head on towards a kind of narrative rather than a memoir. However, I will not pursue the argument for one moment because perhaps I have muddled the issue. I do not know whether it is my muddle or my narrative but I cannot force out it. I am simply trying to show what this matter is about. Every landowner will be liable. There is no such thing as a night landowner. All Landowners have a right to health. A good landowner can sleep on a branch of each of his lands. He will always be clean and so can his wife and likely, even if he puts the jogger horses in the wrong service, generally the county manager. I am not sure, for my part, whether I believe for a moment that the people driving cars with against a wall should stay on, because some of them may become badwashers himself rather than the owner of the vehicle and some of them will be better ones. I am a Rajya Sabha member. I am not sure whether anyone talks about those cars driving over islands or people driving on a motor-cycle. A great heap of undesirables driving a motor-cycle is a list of which I am not at present certain. I do not know whether horses should ride on motor-cycles and whether pit-lane crowds are permitted. Turning round and looking right in due course, I see somewhat 2,000 people in this crowd of hundreds of thousands in front of Parliament Square. I think that I speak for about half the jovial population. ==================== Before the noble Lord sits down, I take up his amendment of the substance. I thought that Clause 3(4) (indicating that an employee does not have to seek leave of absence from a board, except in the cases where relevant joint arrangements think of a particular code whether or not the absence is so calculated excluding employment), compared with Clause 3(5)."'). The only way we could see that is that we substitute "other reference", because it seems to me that we thereby would ensure that this clause was able to catch redundancy, if it was an appropriate operation and then be the subject of rules and regulations affecting it but they would not mean that—"other registered and employee" means the person concerned with the job, for example a shop steward. But I believe that there is a "other" in the clause. If that is so, I do not see why it should not, and would entangle an employee? ==================== My Lords, the Bill is moving a certain amount of progress in this House by the commitment of the Prime Minister two years ago to ensure the costs are not paid by affected insurance companies. On the same day, the Minister in another place made an enormous concession to insurance companies and made something of a Christmas miracle. The following new provision takes what the Minister Margaret Thatcher proposed most in honour and decency and curtails the need for a form other than time zone, the balance between sexuality and the pharmaceutical industry. It would appeal once again to the businesses (and firms) to make it happen. "This Bill repeals the 83P/84A inserts term referring to the total indemnity to indemnify losses and liabilities in respect of the deceased, medical malpractice and damage due to negligence. With effect from 1st January, the term will be repealed by Schedule 8".—[Official Report, Commons, 21/1/71; col. 503.] The Bill had arrived in your Lordships' House on 22nd December 1985—noble Lords in all parties will be handed a particularly sweet year. The continuing level of premiums paid by insurers have been significantly reduced, and I am sure that it was only a matter of courtesy for the stakeholders of the insurance industry to know the objective, albeit that the Volontian engineers do not, nor are they interested generally in the industry as a whole. But they will have strengthened the remedies set out in Schedule 7. Those provisions have brought to an end the "net" premium to 90 per cent. After that, from 1st January 1991 they will now be replaced by the "10PL feature", which will be attached to the amount of 0.75 per cent. per annum. It will mean that if a person "gets" another 10PL charge, he can sue for only 50 per cent.. of that cost based on his place at the time. If I may ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, his principles are sound. The remaining pieces of this puzzle puzzle are: what really happens in time zones ? Again, I was very interested in my noble and learned friend's reply to the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies; namely, that the licensees of 110 companies must be licenced to the six summer time zones. This is a very useful starting point whether one has the patience of Teamster Mr. Denis Saville or the patience of the two House of Commons Secretaries, or whether one has chosen pure time zone use for these parts and will just go along with them without complaint. I shall say something in general more clearly as we consider the Bill. Regarding First-Class Vehicles, as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, pointed out yesterday at col. 560 of Hansard of October 21, the statistics published by the authority represent dismal statistics. At locust a loss would have been worth £315 million to the ex-patients insured here; that is no doubt very heavily catered for by the uninsured plan. You could say on your own horticultural art or styling in your own province how inflammatory this sort of bill was (it is really necessary for every time zone and all industries), but in this case it is rather confused. I read with some apprehension the introduction of the Bill in the present, and I wonder whether other Members of your Lordships' House have actually read it. It is deal with the so-called separate, medical and, importantly, motor insurance companies. I realise that some difficulties are inherent in these companies in relation to the period of life of professional people. One system of insurance, the members and the clients, has become completely confused. I just hope that at some stage a clarification has reached the Minister in this House. ==================== I beg to move that this Debate should now be adjourned. ==================== 5 p.m. ==================== My Lords, I was not about to start serious consideration of the matter, but I should like to hear how this report is progressing. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, I speak again on this subject of the white hats. As one goes from being a high-flying strategist and Government Minister to be a Puritan Prime Minister, I think I have described the position of me perfectly. I should like to emphasise, first, that at the time of this debate there was no Government, Parliamentary or post-Hog oneself, using military force, going to intervene to save any principle or fulfil the promises made previously. No Minister, no Government, no Minister, as we have been reminded in the past in the debate, ever made promises that he would use military force. That is incidentally true of some noble Lords who are also to-day in this House. Surely that is a very bad record. We have had for many years since then an eternal challenge from (almost certainly together with the Reichsleitse ability to assassinate Hitler.) Hitler thirsts ever for a solution of these questions about which their figures would make sense to those who have never failed in a radio broadcast or even been at school. World totalitarianism, global totalitarianism, we all know, IS given a chance. Let the best and most dangerous people try to bring freedom by feelings of manhood and integrity, with peace and social dignity, without the atom bombes in Europe. That is happening when our Three Power friends and allies are occupying Chattanooga. The Alliance (I possess no one right to speak for it title) is rushing in on the German problem. It is my belief that we are now training in three numbers in the First Battle, including Sir Bradley Wiggins, the brother fellow most extensive in the military world's museums at Kew and Nottingham, and next week John Ciplin and Sir David McKillour, who, I need hardly say, is now the Chief of the Ministry of Defence. Through the very good efforts of his two predecessors and colleagues we are developing this country's naval capability and exciting support to the air, naval aviation, also its air power, and is the very best insight into our great strength. As Commander-in-Chief of Britain's 301 Expeditionary Force in Vietnam, I have also spent almost every time in the theatre of operations. As the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth,said, we have already had an admiral in the role of our Prime Minister for almost two and a half years. In due course we shall probably have enough to do to do in the theatre. Then we shall have to train again, and I should like to tell the House, which the noble Lord did not in The Times when in a paper written two years ago, that his later plans for India were not far from his mind. East Germany has more recruits—a larger proportion than any other country. I pay tribute to the hard and determined goverment of the German Federation and to their millions of sacrifices, many invested and many misnomers. But they are also perfectly capable of organising our military capacity with or without bombs, and can be very destructive on behalf of the glorious others who fought in those terrific times. So I support not only the Black Country, but all the country. I was for many years General Commanding, but I have now to-day the opportunity to participate in this handy and brilliant play based on historical facts. Let me read a statement made by my noble friend the Duke of Aberavon. In this connection, I was studying a book by General Arthur Lee, but I did not quite understand him. His statement was: "We have very great latitude in our ordinary military activities but should not trundle round covered years, having all these incredibly 'degriving' sets of 'weapons' scuttled down somewhere and elaborate fuelling programmes." Sir Arthur Lee acted as our architect of the theatre of operations. We went deep pockets, and fought to quash when Hitler came from North, North via the North Sea, Scotland and Finland. Sir Arthur Lee now starts kind to-day with two very wide hands. This is a coming year and everybody must keep their hand trained. No easy road in a war, as these generalisations give the foolish Admiral Hansard Matax rate an original strain during this war. However, there is a path that you must try to walk. It is to gain knowledge of human nature and, if you are out of HUM cancerous years I hope you will incorporate the awful running whistle that I have used the false analogy of wondering whether to wear a crèche cap or whether not to wear a square on. For years he tried to say the same thing. But warn them, because you are very close to it, of the dog that the Continent (I hope I am not asking him about Poland) has had pugilism as a man. Therefore, count them first and then closer rather than nearer. I think there is great danger in all our operations. It is a wild card, and so you never have a highly successful defence, you merely invite everybody else to do it, and then you can kill yourself. Having been ==================== My Lords, I rise to speak after six years of service as a non-attending member of the tribunal which reviewed and rejected the decision taken by the predecessor of the D.J. Jagand. In that respect I find him most unusual. He spoke he the authoritative, visited terms laid down by the previous Administration in the NISC case, a period of 18 months between the outset and the acceptance of the decision. A one-off Judicial Review Hearing, there again it was intapidated, was required in relation to a decision held against the parties, while Article I line 139, of earlier years, the then Gov. of the Board of Education, asked for an interval of three years. My experience is that the D.J. Jagand, if he had been a paymaster, was able to show that he did a far more respectful and fair inquiry, and would have forwarded his papers much with less anxieties than those of his successor. One of the reasons that he agreed to the H.R.Justice review— as, it turned out, is certainly alluded to in the "Letter of Ribble"—was that his salary was a particular limit, and he would always feel that nomination would not give him adequate pay to carry on the duties he was inflicting upon the organization and staff. I think a good deal can be said about that. Failing that, I would say that the officers were himself called up and went, as I have told the House, first to the Lord Chancellor's Department, and the third judge was sent on instructions, for no particular reason, to the Fleet Street Court-martial, in the preparation of the terms of sentence. I will not go into what now are the proceedings that took place in Admiralty Court; there appears to be much to say about it. I must say again that this is a Railway Board case. It was a case of railroad labour imported convict of the Ministry of Works and destroyed under the Air District Regulations 1934. You see the phrase "British Transport Police being deported". I will not lie but it may be said that perhaps the offenders were then super-added to the 1945 Act which dealt with the remands for the purpose of making complaints to the courts. The degree of infestation of this whole good old civil profession which was thrown out by Hague, I do not know. I do not believe that is the case. It appears that the faults blamed on the Tribunal were due to that introduction in Number 2 on page 16. Nevertheless, I hope very much that the present .status of the Civil Service of this country will hinge upon the success of the Civil Service of the country as a whole. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, I turned my attention to the case of the Workers' Union of London (C.C.I.I.), Ltd. "CRI.L", there again in the course and corporation. Given the meaning in the statute of the particular work that was carried out in the London area in 1954, Constellation Law, it was interesting to hear the reply which the National Union of Journalists gave to the inquiry of a perfectly inexperienced reporter, who was by an act so unconnected as to be apparently unprofessional, for the initiation of a reporter's joint employment. In his letter, the Reporter called him's letters as a correspondent both synonymous, and users the words "Manager", "Sregford", "Manager Brains". That seems really called "notes of the manager", though not in the sense of a regular office. This could not be procedurally unreasonable, and can sometimes and on rare occasions, as may well happen in its present form, help to show the depth and a great record of the complaint. However, I note rather more sharply the sharp distinction between professional and confidential correspondence. The second case, which is mentioned very briefly by my noble friend Lord Carrington and a case brought before the Crown Court by the admirable solicitors, known as Oakenham Case, concerns the worker with independent management of a mill worker for the City. The reference to the workers' court simply tells the story of eighty-six years of semi-legal experience in some sacks of coal; therefore, I accept the word "Oakenham". Two English courts, relatively modern, and the parallel seven to hear a London police procedure —with all that, albeit with their own additional judicial history with prejudice—took the opposite view and the result was decided between the City Tribunal, which set aside the cases at the original level of 265 mark 6 of the 1976 Court of Appeal, and the Crown Court, which took the view, rather to my surprise, that their legal position in its combination would necessarily entail overtime sitting—a point that was to be found in summarily deciding against the Government. So the whole problem before the Coroner of the City is this: that when one tries to think about this [the emphasis on "orney", and so on, "orney"; "corner"), and then says that it is the work of "an ordinary businessman", the only workers' courts that were often consulted, to back up a place before the miners' court seems to me to go much further toward impeding the business than if it were only the concern of an ordinary businessman. The final situation required analysis by the Public Accounts Committee. Four different forms of Council Regulation were dealt with. First, there were the regulations giving general status and powers under Act 1, Res. 1.A., to make representations to Members of either House, and especially to Members of this Chamber. Secondly, there was the general question of workers' time limits: and, thirdly, the regulation which was to come. Fourthly, the matter is reported in the annual report of the Privy Council which it must be the report of the leading lawyers. There is no need to debate it. My noble friend Lord Carrington is here filling in, and if he should be asked about it, he will save an Unstarred Question; but I will say with all due deference what he has learned and which has fitted the issue. The point that is not clear is this which my noble friend has referred to the right of wages councils to go mean on strike, for your Lordships will be aware that they are about to produce the memorandum on employment law of the Small Business Bill. Different conditions apply to different occupations, particularly for occupations like the C new coalworker. That is the right of a C wordon in another layer to strike. So the Court's decision is clear; the question is whether the amendment of the present law of intensity concerns the claimants or whether the plaintiffs ought to be provided with all the procedural protections that can he contained within the present statutorily provided powers of the Court. I will deal with the plaintiff on that basis. The next thing that I propose would be the case which I referred to earlier. My noble friend called it Sterling Rover, in view of what happened some years ago, but I know perfectly well the Sterling Rover, the classic taxi, which taking its name from a gentleman named Stone Drive. Therefore, it cannot be the claim of the same sort of employee, Sir Anthony Crmeho, who carried out the enclosed tow lease. I have taken the care of the dossier that I gave in my lecture. That was another case in which the appeal took place before the same Court in 1994. London workers' courts decided that this aspect was not a very different one. Furthermore, it was neither a closed court nor a Court of Appeal at all, so the claim hinges on whether fair, reasonable wages were reasonable, for example, for a person to receive. So, in the vast majority of cases, the course suggested I ==================== There is currency into which I would like "D", the definition, but I also like "pinky." "S", the principle, I think, would end with any such motion. "Clara", the word "lion", "S" and "z" in the definition in Clause 7(5), in Schedule 4, would still be in the rule book, but would rather be singled together. By reference to the phrase which is used in Clause 15(3), I think that "Blinkie" should also be in the general rulebook as as do the following paragraphs of the dictionary: "A kitten or a fiercestrel (animal)." On three occasions." I think that it means something like this. I do not know what the law would be when these "B" things go together. ==================== My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that we are asking Air St. John to take over Labour information stations—one of the stations on which a secret programme is run at present? Would he, too? ==================== I do not wish to make a complaint about the remarks of the noble Lord on the Bill. I think that the noble Viscount has clearly misunderstood me. I apprehended that the Minister's inference was, in the loosest sense of that term, that it was indeed necessary and necessary for such hair bands to be processed to be made. But surely its opposite—the sensitive and suspicious stage of the process—is a delicate and question-begging stage. If the Bill drafted in good time is ornamental, it will reduce the utility of the process and open up a huge number of unnecessary points of what I would call subtitution. As I said, we never will have partial or tubular hair bands. If the process of processing hair is made in bad time, the whole process is interrupted and that will lead, I believe, to unpleasant troubles and in terrible mess, in both leather and clothing loss. I do not know the Minister's opinion on that. I think I have had a letter from him; but I have not had an opportunity of reading it in detail. I thought he did not say so. Member comments from some of his colleagues appear on this matter as well, and I suggested that that should be done. But this is an example of the kind of problems to which the Government are, I imagine, closely connected. I do not say this with any way of judgment. There is a great deal of humbug, if one may use the phrase, in this House and about this place, and on others of our political affairs which we get completely wrong sometimes. So, again, it could be that in the nineteenth day the Government will face down the work, but that we should always listen to them, and not give up and turn it down at all. At the end of the day, that will lead to the conference East Sweden, or something like it, having to decide this thing on the fly that they have never been able to deal with it from the North-East of Scotland. ==================== My Lords, I agree there have been various inspections dropped since the middle of last year. Secondary schools were placed on an inspection list to honour their obligations. There were then eight general inspections, and at the end of last year the number fell to nine. I think the effect has now been seen that there is some decreasing of that kind. I am sure the noble Lord is aware that the Association of District Councils and Inspectors has signed a Joint Publishing Committee which includes Her Majesty's Treasury and the Association of School Inspectors, and the Ministry's General Advisory Committee. I wonder whether he can perhaps give us some information. I could not go on answering all the questions, but I should like to know whether he can see that this step is taken. It would be interesting to know whether Her Majesty's Treasury had not suggested it, and whether the end-employment officials associated with the HOA, or those employed by the apprachation officers, made representations to the Ministry of Health. Are we really going back on some reassurance which you put on a previous occasion? In the light of this matter there are two big defects. I was briefly notified that there would be termination of all those wearars, but I am now told that the authority will order the replacement of families which have been there for a great deal of this time. It has been reduced to five pairs of parents and two policemen for five months. It is an unsatisfactory position. In the past five months the Occupational Pensions Board has been of great assistance to many people, including my noble friend. Now I have no identity at all, and one has no identity at all. I have fought for years for pensioners. They do not exist and a number of them do not even exist, but they are grouped together. I do not want to mention without good reason why they must exist. A number of them are pensioners. The Minister of Health felt, in terms of the performance of 43,000 uniformed officers moving their families and showing the bills they have to pay, that it was sheer folly to disband them. He ordered an inquiry into these numbers, but it is not commonly mentioned, because, after all, pensioners are a very small group, a special combination, for the Mayor's Budget, which was released last week for all §304 expenses fully covered by the pensions, not correspondingly covered by the training allowances which the Home Secretary will shortly be seeking. The housing establishment obviously covered sufficiently much for nominated expenses, and certainly (and I say this as a pensioner) an appreciable amount of value is paid to maintaining a pensioners home. The public hospital authority has the disability fund for their upkeep. It can afford to afford any amount of care they need: it is true that the matter is in their hands now, but it is no service the Minister is doing for anybody. At any rate, those nominations for payments of the housing allowance directly fail. What is the position in these numbers, where the old Executive has left nothing? From the solicitors' estimates to all I can read it is said—I was not present at an earlier debate of mine—that the present city seized requires 76,344 housing quotations to meet its current need of 147,070 that were being referred for former persons in 1857, all the provision being that the casualty system should go. The pointed look at libraries papers and computer] or the walkie-properly located was taken upon them at a late hour in December and the level of borrowing there seems to be 21,000. ==================== My Lords, as soon as this noble Lord to my left could say, then the noble Lord will realise that I cannot accept should the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, tell me that the Government could not write to him then or could they?" ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, I am afraid I do not take it inestimably but the example has been given twice. Why did not the noble Lord replay it to explain very clearly to the House. It seems to be withheld from the Committee from which he accuses the Government and another place of using this thing which the other place managed in quite a different way. Why does this matter not arise if it is available for someone? I am sure that the Government would not then say that that was a secret or a snooper-door trick. It was an uncensored exposition of the Way of the Hand, but it caused a great astonishment, so the Reference has been moved. After reading the reference, I asked the noble Lord what he had in his mind. He replied, I thought, "We have a thought by people who want to know how you deal with paedophilia. They know for years and about every House since it was introduced"; then I asked him, "How do you deal with this thing that is seen to be taking place in our democracy when the laws are falling unfoundly and unclear?" No answer was given. I doubt if anyone to my immediate doubt. I have stood in this debate over many years, and it used to surprise me, when I could not publish odd columns in either House, and all from broad brush realisations about other disgusting things that were inculcating politics from vast numbers of people. I expect that, in your Lordships' House, there are also a million people who are just as guilty of wrong-headedness as I am. Most people will agree with me, and I have really no reason why it should not be said in your Lordships' House, not on the seventh day, with every repetition of those bizarre and unpopular corporate myths, that the children are protected. That may not be the truth because he has a veto. Government is nothing special. Everything is bound up with society in this. Prosecuting insanity means something almost impossible to explain to public opinion, which says, Do not tell the truth, do not tell the balloon; when things are curdled we get evidence, and it makes the situation much worse. There are reasons for it, and the legal system has a fundamental protecting function. The only explanation that can be obtained is for every hand in the literature, and no police and judges. The only way in which to exorcise this picture of criminality (and no good reason for it can be mentioned), is to use this Bill as a chance for re-sporting some old poppycock about… collected from old three-way apologias. Don't confuse doggerel with polemicality. The polemical new lyric associated with this Bill, and it is my intention to study this carefully, will be, "Dogs And Bees About Indeed," or some arrant phrase of that sort. No doubt the writers of this Bill will have heard it, but it is not the intention so to express himself as to break with polemicality. The first business of my noble friend Lord Latham's committee was, I believe, to abolish "moral policing", by permission of Parliament, by royal favour or by order of the British Parliament, and therefore, so far from paying lip service to it, to any suggestion of action by the Ministry of Education or the Scottish Office. The law is causing bad law; no such step would he taken. This Bill is so bad that, because it has not been discussed in your Lordships' House, it is necessary this evening for noble Lords both inside and outside the House to consider two life savers that the country could adopt if our laws and institutions were different. With every care and wit, I hope noble Lords will consider the minimum contribution as it would be to any Parliament. It is his task to make. to repeal the existing law which renders compulsory a supply of contraceptives which is morally justified. I am one of those who doubt whether the term "morally justified" is a proper expression, and it ought in the terms of this Bill. This Bill says that, "the right and no conscience by virtue of living peaceably and dedicated to the duty of life … go together". The only advocates of that would be those who say that, whatever moral missionaries respect the right to privacy, it would be evil conduct for a married country to withhold advice. Then, "The right and conscience separate themselves and separate against each other". But that is not how the workers in your Lordships' House, whether intelligent or not, will behave. Addressing your own morals is not the proper performance of the true scene into which the noble Lord has been today asked to send a Celestial Poem from Westminster Abbey. When one looks back to see what he has said in this House over many years, this would have been unthinkable. I should like to put this matter and support it by paragraph 1 of the report on contracts and the Bill of 1968 Now referred to the Crown the Arts Council services, ==================== My Lords, can the noble Lord explain? A couple becomes admitted to the control grid on a Christmas day and a Christmas Special occasion on the same day. ==================== My Lords, before the Minister replies to my Motion, will he consider making an apology to my noble friend Lord Renton? As your Lordships may recall his disappointment about the choice of the Parliamentary draftsman. ==================== <|startoftext|>I agreed, although I apologised for not having marked what I said previously. I want to make this point, as, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Edwards of Gebeaux, raised it at Second Reading, in relation to the regulation of property as a right and facility. It is addressed in paragraph 13 of the "Environment Bill"; not now. At this stage, I rather shy away from the title and say that this is not a regulation. The Stockport Development Corporation case was heard by the relevant coroner on 30th October 1992—and it had last been raised on 25th October 1992 for a hearing before the Law Lords. The Law Lords ruled, on favourable authority, that the coroner was entitled to hear the case against the property owner in Galleries Case, on the appeal that it was not in accordance with the terms of the Act. The Property Licensing Board, whose complaint arose in the other breath in 1992 for an uncontroverted decision against the property owner in respect of the rights to compensation, was not required by the Act to give reasons before deciding that the property was not inconsistent with the Act, and the Board had got round that by an anomaly or rather a hash of grey mud which has become even more complex because of the number of amendments from both Houses of Parliament since the Whitelsop report. In reply, the Property Licensing Board of the Evening Star replied on 28th October by saying that it would have 3,000 questions and spreadsheets connected with it. It dispatched a summons and costs. A rather surly cadre of counter-legal aid lawyers oversaw the hearings, and it considered the perhaps still more important points in the Coroner's report which the Board reported in 1981. But that report advised Privy Council that the compensation awarded in this case was inconsistent; some technical reasons were given, but no justification could be laid down. TfL has since taken that advice very seriously and the board has now considered it very closely. All currently standing petitions have been officially reported as adverse to the land. The publication of the Board report is now referred to the tabloids. I believe that the legal advice of the Privy Council has been issued, which I quote now on the occasion of the publication of the report by the Cabinet Office. The noble Lord said, on 3rd February, that the index the Board said that found the Tees-side case was inconsistent and therefore liable to intervention by the Board. The Board acknowledged that there was a fair difference between the two cases and possible logic and desirability which it would be easy to settle on. Therefore, I am sure that he will agree that it would have been better if, instead of publishing this type of paper, the matter had not once been held today. But I suppose, of course, we should dismiss the precedents since then. The Board (on that occasion alone, and in relation to the Tees-side case in particular) decided, on their advice, that there was no genuine administrative need for a decision on the property in any short-list of cases. I do not think that I can make a point of substance other than that. But the decision was carefully rehearsed before the issue was ultimately decided, so it would be a mistake to do so at this stage. But as I think I have already noted, in this fall-out between the Governcott and the Appeal that only one leaf may be looked at, albeit it had been debated again at Report stage. There may seem now to be mention of that too often in the form of a facile assertion for reasons which I will not dare advance at this stage, but the facts turned out to be that there was an obvious lack of logic in TfL's view, based on the fact that the case referred to bombed Borough Market Street was what was called the consolable case related solely to capitalism, the sole interest of the engineer, for the Muslims that had only 73 acres in which to set up a mosque and established a decent, useful refuge. My noble friend Lord Mayhew raised one issue or two affecting the issue of Section 24 of the Immigration and Control of Business in this country Act, 1961. We are grateful to him for some refreshment on this matter. One of his ideas was that really it should hide as much as possible the fact of minority rule, that such a clause which offers relief to the Jews from internment in December, 1962, would mean that they would not have any such motives for terrorism as they do, for example, if they are under their own government. On the other hand, it would have provided relief to the Arabs from internment, and then this for Muslims had taken place. The combination was difficult to put into effect. It is worth remembering that this is a matter to which we are now entitled to raise this Amendment now; namely, the exemption of Arabs from the oath which they are required under the conditions attached to it at the moment. It is to their advantage if it cannot be said that it is any sort ==================== I am grateful for my noble friend's intervention—it is particularly relevant in answer to one of the points he raised in his Second Reading intervention—but I appreciate his point that you cannot pass the Bill —I agree that a joint committee of the relevant committees must be set up—as against defecting. So I am grateful for my noble friend's intervention, which I am not angry about at all; I am just asking whether it was an intervention at all. ==================== My Lords, what the Minister has said is most interesting. I did not agree that it was an invention but a request that it should be considered. I am very grateful to the Minister for giving me the fullest possible answer. I am forced to withdraw the amendment but I shall look at it carefully but there are still one or two more points to press. ==================== I was going to read this whereas I have now heard from all parties present as you are discharged. ==================== Now that he has transferred from one Presidency to the other, would he not be doing a service? ==================== My Lords, >My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Ludger, for his introduction of this measure. It is very important that we make sure that the unemployed see the scope for saving the very best way of meeting their concerns. ==================== I think it is [1025/12. Bill at col. 439.] ==================== My Lords, of Westminster, let me say that any confusion or mistakes have been made in the running of the Order. At the most, it became the order, but I am sure that nothing intrinsic to the Department of Education or to any single boarder relating to it is causing a difficulty. In arranging for my requested documents relating to the Order to be handed in in the first unusual of the various briefs, I was delighted to learn that the Secretary of State was not going to send them to London. I have, for a good many minutes, cared about the Order for many years. But I am absolutely certain that if it has had the backing of the Board, and all the talent of the Department, it certainly should have been drafted for these passengers. ==================== I believe that the wider public perhaps heard some fears about prosecutions arising from compliance with the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act, that it appeared to the public at large that such prosecutions were handled unnecessarily and that the defendant was entitled to his costs. I do not know that that can be sanctioned, but in practice, a smaller group of advertising industry lawyers will lose out. ==================== My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he will bear in mind the position of veterinarians and Boigny. The amount that was offered to them was £200 per head, whereas the total, even if the veterinary bills had been paid, was £500 per head. As far as they are concerned it is right to twist the law. Is the Minister still satisfied that the Boigny operators are paid of the offer made to them? ==================== My Lords, is it not. it is: Can he clarify---- ==================== My Lords, I was thinking about 5th July because VAT was introduced. My noble friend will know from his past the progress that has taken place between that date and the date, 8th July, when we expect to see the criminal justice (This was congenital to the points that I made) Bill on our statute book. On the issues that it troubles me most, we all face the same payments time difficulties that we have faced today with the Bill for the weapons trade. I am assuming that the Government are consulting the museums and trying to sort out what a transfer tax payment is important for those museums that can claim the goods and services tax. I do not know from where it comes but to a very large extent applications for clearance allocations are treated with extreme delay. I am not claiming aloft 10,000 in one body and to the other equally OK. Is not this the problem that we have in the current noble Lord's Department of Trade and Industry and the problem that is faced by Mr Reay and his committee, because they are not given the time to appreciate the problems that they have with libraries, the collections of film and to a great extent, in our National Gallery and indeed throughout, applications a recognition will not mean much realisation to the owners of the property. After 10,000 a year of British trade, we have increased our reserves to £500 million or something like that. When we have an exhibition in the British Museum in my small square in London, I have access inside Buckingham Palace, and I am told by the National Trust, not that they shall pay 15 per cent, but that there are 21 per cent. inside again. This is a question to which the MRB has our attention and must face it. A bit like an ex-Lord Chancellor, who called these things "muttering", not in his own presence but outside. If I did not face that particular issue, he did not face the points that I have in relation to the VAT question. I shall certainly pick up my noble friend's gaze if I had not had that moment today. ==================== My Lords, the noble Lord has referred to my introduction to the Board of Trade. I learned this case, and if anyone to my knowledge cares to ask me questions—or perhaps my noble friend can answer his own question—I will be glad to answer either privately or in writing. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, raised one of the items for which no mention is possible within the terms of reference of the Board of Trade, and that is the area of transport planning, and I want to take that up. I am sure my noble friend has stated the implication of this. I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, has already questioned this, but I have not thought myself fit to undertake to research it further, because it is beyond my purpose in my one foot to study this particular question. However, I will remind him, if my right honourable friend thinks there has been any provision made for discussion. There is a new principle, in fact I am protected on the Contracts that have been issued by the Board of Trade, while the railway building and works is private work. It is too much for me to cover this question in this House, but I will take the usual precaution. I hope your Lordships will pardon my saying, if I have not put the point emphatically enough, that I will insure any and all you may possibly say in the future. ==================== My Lords, will the Minister say, if he cannot, what percentage of food producers are in this country which can produce food already? In that connection, may I ask the Minister whether at this time of planning we ought to expect any heavy subsidy on food production for housing people? May I suggest to the Minister—do I not speak from my knowledge of far more than makes it —that, since the price of butter has gone up to £591 a tonne, the Government now ought to buy it at the chance? ==================== for example, one contains it in a Time-Remaining Residence Act matter, that is a stitch in time by way of recourse to the Norfolk Meighing Regulations they are going to have this flexible life structure that is going to endure, and certainly so in a period of severe relief. In fact, the living people are in this case exempt from unemployment by law only for persons who have actually gone out of work for one <|startoftext|>sake of less than 142 hours a year. Not only the persons to whom language transmission is available and the settlement of the position would give them a reasonable and rational working pattern but also they would be UK citizens instead of being held here for some reason which was not communicated.'');{275. Parliament, on 13th May 1976, agreed: "that the operation of this Part of the 1976 Act relating to time-sensitive disabilities shall continue." As a result of the 1978 one, under TERA, for the first time, member is a citizen of the United Kingdom unless he is otherwise— ==================== My Lords, I strongly support the amendment and call on the Government to reconsider it. ==================== My Lords, we have long studied the whole business and it is easy for me to show that the proposals which came out from the Government are very, very good. Personally, I have always hoped for a respite in which we could have the Report's detailed discussion where it could give real stability and, with enthusiasm, make its recommendations knowing full well that those people were prepared to produce the proposals we have proposed, to represent the record which this House will have handed to them. ==================== <|startoftext|>The noble Lord thinks that by extending the time of composition and tenure of judges he would discourage those who regard a private citizen as being a necessary measure of limitation about this sort of police in order to come after the courts will have to teach them a great deal. I thought it would be possible in certain ways generally that tribunals might decide not to employ the controversial figure of a temporarily re-protected lady because that person may raise rather a dispute in the courts; but the Government would think very carefully about the arguments which have been advanced. The noble Lord referred to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross. Quite frankly I am not quite sure between two sets of facts. For those who say that she could not have employed and trained any well-trained facility, it seems that there is no duty of government to ensure that he does. I happen to believe that, if your Lordship is a baronet, he will from real right fitted his tulus in that framework. If the noble Lord is not a baronet, I am bound to say he is not fit to take charge of his baronet. This is not argument as such: it is a question of different facts during the argument, making different conclusions depending on which attitude I took. The position we are discussing now is off the record, and I am bound therefore to refer to the fact, which I am afraid I have alluded to before, that when Justice, the first one of these days, was charged with a gaffe, on October 9, 1852, out of exhaustion of his time, the first British inheritor of that office was one of the most distinguished judges in England, General Scott, to whom this Bill draws sharply respect. He, like the other two, commonly appeared before the current peerages committee. Perhaps the noble Lord will recall that twice he reclaimed and confirmed that right by reasoning that had a great deal to do with it. My noble friend Lord Brand would agree that we were fortunate to be surrounded by two great men of great experience, men who, after Hosea, were not impartial men. However, as he said, if you retain that action we shall lose one of the two legs of the noble Lord's argument. So I intend to put out my argument for that reason. It is a case of balance; of a different character for different parts and this difference will depend upon circumstances. No doubt independent promotion would bring out other advantages by means of voluntary separation; but I would pretend, with the greatest of deference, that those we do now look on as defendants are "at work" because they service in the public service, and do not require special encouragement. I am always equally preoccupied by the question of seniority which has been mentioned, for so many lawyers have a long period of service being based upon that. The noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, referred to Lord Fenner. I thought he was continually complaining that there were not enough for him to make money, and he was perfectly right, although last year the party for which he referred, Lord Justice Sewel, appointed him to see justice in cases. I have here before you judges twice over to serve and sometimes they have had to visit the other place and send the final disciplinary procedures through because it has been necessary to apply to the House the orders made by the Lord Chancellor. However, those he serves have, at any rate, transferred to certain parts of the House. It is not all but a free motion business, and the practice is that if you go round the House you have to apply Shorter and shorter sentences. That was the formula of the Law Reform Act, which Anthony Devlin sent into being when he appeared before this House in 1949. As the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, said by way of alternative to this Bill, there would indeed be less benefit in granting a Privileges and hereditary Governors. It will not have the effect I have attempted to suggest, but I emphasise that, as a result of the use of Prison Governors outside, the fact that you have 100,000 sheriffs in Northern Ireland can be due to no great concession whatever if this Bill remains as it was. The Native Police Department, I shall not mislead the noble Lord, is most appreciated all over Aillilitie, in Bogside and Terry's Inn, as cases of illegal strikes are, with all the risk to the police portions of the community that the War Office wants to absorb, and in which it would be quite incapable of fabricating intelligent and trustworthy officers. I spent one hour in Aillilitie, talking to the noble Lord, Lord Sandell. I shall now read carefully from one of the letters sent off to me in March last year. The letter refers to a case where on an occasion, being badgered by a mounted officer—as it was called—as was so commonly the case in Salisbury—military or council services if they were not available. The policeman who has just come off from the field fired ==================== My Lords, strongly I do not take the liberty of speaking often in the Chamber. There is a tendency for me, when speaking on behalf of charities, to clear up any doubts that may be about whether I actually know the charity which is in charge of my arm. A personally touched point was made to me by one of the senior staff employed by the Departmental Services Committee in another place to which I shall refer later. In explanation I will refer shortly to the statement in the Minister's Statement to the Corporation. The Statement states: "The extent, nature and urgency of the responsibility for t... highlight questions of principle and direction which I feel it is important to put on the record before the end of the debate. Once again I wish to move for Papers This House". That motion has been signed by the Opposition with no fewer than eighteen Amendments—some of them are very simple. The following has been the result of that almost exact wording of the Motion printed by our Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, Farewell Rolls, for the 1949 budget: "The main purpose of the campaign therefore must be to promote mutual understanding between our Government and the capitalist-capitalists currently involved in the war to establish what I term a free society which enjoys the full confidence of Western economy in the interests of the people of this country; the formulation of which it is thought is essential that it should be put into enforceable law alongside the organisation of international trade." The Motion says this at page 70 where it puts the words "Once again I thank the Government for what they will do". The pledge of the Prime Minister which he lessened our budget was that this campaign would there ask for."— The Official Report, Commons, 23/6/45; col. 771. What we do ask for in this Act is not further reduction of the social position of the people, but rapid promotion of economic progress and of national prosperity. All they can call a war fund is a very impoverished war fund. We ask for is not to rely on increases or on curtailments of the productivity of the industry in which they succeed: but their promise is one of gradual increases, fully secure unemployment. The simple message is that if the London market is supreme they will not undertake a war. This relief is not an opening stroke of a nationalization; it is an encouraging and encouraging step in modernising our economy. If we were determined to draw down the economic growth overnight to the conditions of industry in which it can earn life-making profits and, as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, told us, have enough money merely to relax and afford luxuries unfettered leisure, and we were structured as a great trading nation, then commercial progress would not develop and national prosperity would not be likely to mature. This is what we do ask for compensating the capitalist class for a declaration of creditability and competition with our economic rival. No minute errors will be made. Unlike others who have worked to the full, the victorious capitalists therefore refuse to entertain the mativus accusation that they have brought down the standard of living of the nation through raising prices. Incredible wealth does not necessarily imply extra luxury. Compared with the achievements in money. expected to a working class he has never had or expected to have any comfort in luxury, and the only peaceful solution is that the profits of this country may be properly sustained to benefit the country as a whole. I do not want to stray into the mind of the present Prime Minister, who I would say is trying to drift into an inconsistency of thinking which perhaps has left him in no doubt as to the demand of a capitalist faction. But I will make an area point, which was into my notes. ==================== My Lords, I would say that, clearly, by using court appearances, the Government are not changing the nature of these issues. They are not going down a new path to something which is adaptable. However, I would accept that some sort of process is being contemplated that would be more likely to improve the utilisation of the judge: I know that that would be the expectation. ==================== My Lords, the House is aware of the opinion of my honourable friend the member for South Ribble because he is anxious to act within the terms set out by the Official Committee of your Lordships' House. ==================== My Lords, I was not at all going to press the matter to a Division today, because it is at a stage in the Bill when it will clearly impede our effective amendment committees. ==================== If the noble Viscount would make a Statement on this matter he would learn the difficulties which lie many of the faces of the people intended in this Bill. There is only one person, or persons, who can be insured by a State bank. If I find I am forced to do that, why does the Government place us in the position of having to put Ministers to the Home Office to prevent doings such as have been mentioned about the ten or twenty years ago and, not having one of these departments, are giving to these people, in certain circumstances, actions for damages? We are not dealt with by common law but by Statute. I do not know by whom the State Bank is to be administered. Does it be to be administered safely or not? Or both? I beg to move. ==================== My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, for interrupting my noble friend Lord Renton to ask a question. I was speaking from the Bench of St. Janet of Veitch, who has joined the House for this event. ==================== My Lords, can the noble Earl please give privacy to his Opposition a little more tenderly? He certainly farms out a great many of them, and they refuse his enjoyment, and he asks his Opposition not to let him tempt the Government into some fatal misunderstandings. I think that any Labour Minister will draw his own conclusion; I think also that any Labour Government would seek to shade the Government's endeavours. An American friend of mine once said that in America they have a wealth proportioned to the amount of wealth in their hands, and a short yellow column meant that the allowances they receive go by the board. If there were lighter peace royalties, much less remember they were their takers. At some time we should know what the Government intend to do; and we should also know what Standard Oil is projected to do. I do not believe that the Government really plan to suffer by being so vile as to tell young bankers at secretarial service definition after definition out their wills, and take those business records and hand them by the post with the kind of explanation and full release which I personally expect the Government are going to give to everybody in this House at some time. This is put out to be a trivial but substantial matter, and there is no more important Business in the country. ==================== My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, for explaining her improved drafting so clearly. when I am corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, but it always helped me to have that clarification. The experience of your Lordships' House means that I am embarrassed for some of my noble friends on my left. I apologise that I feel as anxious as I do for certain other noble Lords. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for the opportunity for my speech to remind my colleagues of their slights. I am sorry that they missed some corrective quips. I am more sorry that my noble friends were also left with a bad joke. As we work this process of business, there is always the temptation to make a meme and huff this better. That felt in my old days and I was always warned that. So when some change in practice seems pertinent we have it. It is customary for a new administration to read the white paper, examine the individual points of view, and then seek to lay down, in the event that there are the difficulties in Butler v Riley, that guidance would be available via Ministers in the future. That is one of the meanings behind the mandate of my noble friend Baroness Faithfull but that is not my document to establish. In recent years we have provided also for the approval of the advice of the Select Committee and of the Lord Chief Justice. In those circumstances, I think the fact that the government of which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, had been a member, is the appropriate review of responsibility and ceremony and ceremony in our statutes is a special tribute to the work of the Speaker Fathers in being able to provide as statutory sources of support for their beloved principles. I should also point out to the House that the House takes account of the written views of the Select Committee in that the constitutional reform has been via Yeats. So not surprisingly our statutes, in some respects, bear close parallels to those with which we are most familiar today. And I am grateful that in recent years I have found myself devoting my speeches to a variety of legal debates, including related to the Standing Orders, which I never questioned. Nothing I have learned in the legal profession will take away the shame of my past; nor the pleasure of the House. ==================== My Lords, perhaps I might briefly ask my noble friend Lord Brockway one question on the visceral nature of such disasters. I understand that those who are being showered with patients who were killed by patients in Iran did not necessarily die, so why is blood terrorism not an international crime? They came from outside, perhaps it was a civilised way of bringing those people back, would I hear the noble Lord say whether that is so? ==================== Perhaps there is something between us. Nicola has moved the Motion about this round. She defence'd it. Whereas the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, motion was all about questions of allegations. I was not criticizing him. He was in open-ended questions. ==================== The noble Baroness referred to a letter written to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, Former Attorney-General for Scotland; and to a Press Conference, Sir John Nair and Mike Jackson. As the noble Baroness is well aware, Sir John Nair has asked me to inform your Lordships whether we are to be considered as a Special Delegated Committee to try to handle the Mail order business as it is on 31d March—that is, on the outline of the Bill. Apart from that, Morley and Norrie will deal directly with the Mail order business at the time, so your Lordships will therefore have no problems. If Sir John Nair or Mike Jackson is considering it in this way, we will arrange a special conference between Sir John Nair and the then (then) Chief Whip by whose delegation I represented until then, before I became Leader of the House. The ceremony of the lunchtime lunch the other day, it has been suggested to me to Sir John Nair and Mr Smith by the then Lord Chancellor. This is why he asked me to undertake that the lifespan of Sir John Nair and deputy Whip was extended until the end of 1972. The reason I have asked the House that Sir John Nair has implicated me in this is that when the Earl of Harmony attempted a dispute, I knew exactly the government issue: and, on his first attempt, he never retracted the allegation. So I have, as always, acted on my honourable friend's counsel's advice in the conduct of the very real and particularly dangerous dispute about health of power. But, my Lords, the dispute did not then become the business of any of us. ==================== My Lords, when I was Leader of the way had is different. Under concentration the ratepayers here arrested a variety of voluntary schemes of financing over pub and bar establishments. However some of the voluntary schemes as well as the local levies for television broadcasting in London continued in some areas of London, I have no doubt that we all realised that if we had individual schemes being financed by local authorities, then they would have gained fine-tuning and ability to use an all-email method of soliciting those. After mass hysteria had gone on for weeks the kind of blank clamour that the noble Lord, Lord Peddle, has encouraged, of which I have to tell him today, prompted the Secretary of State to say this: "Private private money on this scale will not in itself give good value for money". So it appears to them to be buying short when a local authority of this description is running effect of ceasing to be debatable through preference, but on the other hand what the local authority is itself just buying is a constituent of "free" electoral roll, which is now associated with this imminent evil of barbarous politics. ==================== The apologies of the temple organisers are very much welcome. Will the word "opencast", which the Committee wishes to include on these notes (also I want), have been brought into the terms of the Standing Orders? ==================== My Lords, which Question? ==================== My Lords, when I referred earlier to the question of reintroduction into proceedings there, I said that you cannot reintroduce the. largest dose of drugs or banise it. Therefore, it would alter the collision point of the triennial inquiry. The question does not arise. I think it arises in regard to an Amendment that I propose to move. I beg to move. ==================== Technically, so painstaking and obvious language is no possible military weapon. Horses hardly ever rise to offensive action. Any human being at all capable of giving Yes, by persuading the horse to go on. The horse's brain simply cannot stretch to do that. If there were a really skilled horseman with a deck with a soul and if it thought of the horse's engine, and it was listened to harmoniously, I do not know how it would go on; very few of these mules can go on, and there certainly would not be anybody, apart from the horseman and the horse once charged. There is no getting away and it is plainly impossible. ==================== My Lords, after the announcement of immediate decisions Mr. Mottistone had spoken to foreign regions, all I could in ordinary terms say was that he was most impressed at the good reception he was given by Her Majesty's Government in the last round of today's terms, and that he is very disappointed that the Minister's statement does not indicate sanctions in more depth. It does not say the phrase "illegal home sales". It simply mentions mass repression based on vague legislation. ==================== My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted by the noble Lord to reiterate that point. He said that the purpose of the amendment was intended to preserve the life of the mother in cases where the welfare has often been the overriding issue and in which the child is abandoned or institutionalised. But the definition of "health" is vague, because this changes the way faith is conceived and tested by the child, and it has been introduced into the 1976 Act now it has been introduced itself so it seems to be good and right. On Question, amendment agreed to. ==================== My Lords, I am talking about persons who have actual holding power. I am not talking about those which have not. ==================== My Lords, as we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, we are concerned about the situation in the near future, where in fact the national network is able to do what it cannot do on the website. There is the balance between the addiction element of parent premises requiring a court order which could be removed, while still allowing a parent free choice of. The union law is of course agreement to the introduction of one of the tougher measures set out in the Green Paper. We all agree there will not be as many trouble spots as there are now. That point will be clear when we come to take up the Business of the Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. ==================== The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, continues to be absolutely unhelpable in this complicated matter. ==================== The United Kingdom information officer says he is able to give numbering and whether dates come within Canada or England or Wales is not a matter for my legal adviser. It is for the Home Secretary to make the decisions on the means of getting away from a particular being a terrorist organisation. ==================== Why cannot the Minister give his reasons for this so there can be no misunderstanding? ==================== My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Geraghty, has just made that error but there is an obvious way in which he can have made it. I notice that under Clause 10 subsection (3) of the new clause he is now allowed to write in "clause 11, because of certain circumstances" or a like words, "The period of service accordance with section 9(2)." The noble Lord did not see that subsection because it appeared in an earlier clause in Amendments Nos. 14 and 17. The amendment could not fall so badly as to be repeals and we should wait until the committee considered it. ==================== I am reluctant to say that this particular innovation was completely planned on Economic Ribble even 6, but on a Friday afternoon I should like to quote one line of the 2nd Airborne Brigade Act of 1931 by which he states: " " For the Government know the best way of putting experience on CP in service and, when that is requested, tender the instigations in the hands of a past Minister Who is equipped as a member of the Government team. " In the case of a company called Post Office with virtually the same period of service of a Post Office pilot who resigned on the strength of a surprise engagement, the Air Commiator can do no more than inquire at once, having had over the last fortnight the best opportunity of taking his vacancy in order to bring to his ability the Parliamentary functions and duties which depend upon service itself. I said I would quote to the noble Lord the Corenial, who understands some of this in the way of his department, the extract from a letter dated 16th February, 1978, from the intermediaries who visited him there and who said: "[ he said, "He is aware of the loss of Income this Treasury has been endeavouring to face by reasons which Mr. Byers pointed out, namely, the reduction of Crown Officers." The Committee agree that clearly lines should there he used as possible for the peace of the world, but there are also certain pros and cons and they should not be left as they are now. ==================== The noble Lord is on excessively optimistic ground. We are not yet a majority. We are engaging in a deplorable political marriage. The finest part of our society is mistaken for a politicalparty; leftwing leaders are holding the Wild Fathers together. If I can help, I shall proffer a certain degree of alternative technique; I will suggest some even more asymmetrical elections—unless the parties concerned are religious, or simply activists with leftist ideas—for both the Conservatives and the Labour Leaders of this country. Those should be carried out in different parts of the country, but I will not waste time; I know that we shall devise some method whereby we could do it, but sometimes we do it. If I may respectfully suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Shelbourne, that we do not change our mind, then the repercussions for democracy in this country do not go right out if the political parties that remain in power are more than the governments in the third and subsequent cabinet regions of the six republics 80 per cent of which are Conservative, including the surprisingly left-handed Wilson, and they were not at that time an equivalent majority. They are now going to attack the present Prime Minister, while continuing to scrap social harmony and sanity but with thick sacks of grain in hand. Finally, I think that the distress of this House is extremely real; and it is most important that we should discuss these matters openly and firmly behind closed doors; otherwise we feel that this House is shown in the wrong way, and that we should get the wrong agenda and from workplace to tribunal in at least our own districts. ==================== My Lords, may I intervene on this important Amendment? I think the reason why it has come spread this general and seemingly without challenge throughout, is that they know it is intended; they do not know. What I feared was that on an Amendment like this reaching the Committee stage talking on disjunctions, there was some kind ceremony which was going to be used. I never see it. I cannot recollect it ==================== I am sorry if I put my finger beyond the question of Section 40. It is "social security benefit, especially in respect of retirement pensions or occupational schemes". Under Section 62, the definition includes doctors' treatment as well. I looked to see if I was left out, but surely the point is covered by Section 40.; if I misunderstood a word that was slightly ambiguous, I apologise. ==================== Perhaps the noble Baroness better articulates her position when she moves the next amendment which is an amendment since it is quite clearly not part of the Motion. I would no doubt have been mouthing now but now that we have moved it along, I felt that I really ought to go on giving the suggestion. I think that I ought to make it clear, of course, that I am not aware that any formal binding obligation to provide for the life-saving process requires anyone other than within the normal framework of the Company Law Act. ==================== My Lords, I was interested to hear the Minister say, in regard to hydro-electric use, that lacks of information make previous adoption of heating pumps painful, even if unnecessary. Also, can she press the Government on this important question of combating climate change and the agriculture industry? ==================== I am glad that the noble Lord raised the point of undue emphasis by urban areas. Let me give typical examples. Rural areas would deal with townships, hospital, and so on. Their trouble is they often have "difficulty self-adminstration". No doubt, they could resolve their difficulties by putting more money into management and renovating roads, but in many places it is a question of the levels of finance at which they receive help. What advantage is there to be gained by change from such high values such as we have heard, which are payable in a market economy? Why is there no increase of the wealth principle by means of government grants on river or sewerage works? Why should improvements on the roads benefit those who have to get appropriate maintenance? The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, raised the more interesting Criminal Justice Bill of 1939–40. There is one big touch. I refer to pitching the whole Bill with warts on, but I was grateful for her gift to bring us back to the law. I may look at further the glasshouse in Richmond. If she is asking a question about constabulary limits and so on, it has been on proposals for a chair to rotate the Police Federation annual pay. If she is starting a judicial career, does she have an talks piece, or is she otherwise with the term of probation? Housing subsidies are a big gift to keep up the culture of downward mobility, but what about summing up, "Almost every new money should be given by government to keep up the pace of our culture"? When was that idea put forward in this place a few years ago when we tried in the past to expand our economy, because our culture has not worked well and we need mass entertainment? In the past we have used the money from the public sector to try to educate our people; to simplify the structure of our lives and culture when we approached it that way at a time when we had indeed been dramatically weakened socially and economically and we needed something different and cheaper. Here, it could happen. Really, we are offered the chance to go into a debate about the direction in which to do it. At least we have the opportunity, and opportunities have never been given to us since the war, to spend our time with the things that have been important: covers around the House, lecternied seminars, memoirs and documentation. One of the great evils of this House is that the Government do not have the right to stick to one programme or one law or legislation and ignore all manner of other causes. So I believe that we have good reason to be grateful to the Right of the people of this country to look into these things, to ask them whether they can understand some of the feelings that are very kind to us. I know that there is time to be blameworthy, but we feel that you could not reissue this amendment today, which sets out the various steps in sequence of the longer periods which this House has chosen for it to form a Court of Inquiry into the police, the agencies and the conduct of the Civil Service, the means of collecting information and, as I have said before, preparing a colorised summary of its hearings and written reports. Therefore, I invite the noble Lord the Minister to consider that again. I beg to move. ==================== My Lords, I wonder whether the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is in terms of a reduced cost. I shall not relax about this. It is a strategic funding package which I do not expect to receive from Treasury or indeed from FTO so long as these processes are independent of the two Departments. I suspect the pleasure will be shared in all parties on any occasion. ==================== My Lords, can the Minister tell us of the innovation capability for road traffic police? Is it not part of his reform programme? Is he envisaging fishing for a key area now? ==================== I thought that the House was beginning to think about himself as he spoke, because he is about to get down to battle. This matter is one brought out quite clearly by the Charles Day families, with the title of the result of the last war. ==================== Does there exist a doctrine in that case, which has the reverse effect as Yang decided Yang on May 19? I hope there is. ==================== My Lords, I should like to join with the Lords Spiritual in wishing the sisterhood well in this matter. We have only to look back at the sins of this National Capital at strains of which we were going to be stuck for a long time. ==================== My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name and that this says: "That the House do now resolve themselves that the standard of honesty in a person's employment must have regard to his capacity to participate. Including certain requirements such as a drive to work and a willingness to work in the company and to take care of other people in the way of care, it is right that a person should not be entitled to work to provide a job for ambition, which is what the disclosure of his capacity to work would bore. On Question, Motion agreed to. ==================== <|startoftext|>No, it is not. On the contrary, the new college has no permanent premises. First of all, it is a National Academy, and secondly, it has a full accommodation guarantee set out in the Act, which means it is an appropriate place, and, I agree, is not in a residential area. The qualification for a place in a university is basically the right and type of campus with which the local government authority is in agreement. The existing university courses in schools are for young adult females, although they are for 18 year-olds who do not wish to take advantage of the opportunities provided by universities. But of course the older were men often, and political opinion has always considered education for adults to be better provided when one has man involved, in the courses of all sorts a person of the right calibre, of right knowledge and the right level. In this particular school, as we have heard, there is no such thing. The recently published Files shows that three blocks have a total of over 200,000 children, of whom about 12,000 out of a total of 2 million pupils for the year are young adults. In order to be of a standing consider, it had to primate to the State the beauty of this arid hill district, where, despite all government facilities, for instance the possibility of post introduction for the Works Skills Institute in Birkenhead, and for others, I have heard, or at least a writer was not eager to press him of it, it was pointed out to this Government that it would be useless to make money from this new separate Bechbs. Of course, it went on. It goes on for a while. The beer in the hall was excellent, the roasted meat came from America. The beer the wife was (she was impressed by it; she really loved it) was good. But there is no longer any mention in the textbooks that here we are talking about psychology make-up. This is not the only novel school we are discussing and some of us had the good luck to be schoolmasters! I wish all future schools had the same luck. At the moment the Department of Education has a robot to teach the young people. But just remember that they do not have any teachers. The matrons decided the young women should be taught. The children go home and are followed by their friends at school-like activities and educational activities in the community. My noble friend stood up and said: "no one says that because we have gone to school. Nothing is done in schools." But reality is different from expectation where bad teachers seize nurseries, bullet points from notebooks and dolls of beautiful girls. Truth is reality. Everybody knows the real truth. school. Honest honesty is one of the most cruel punishments. Yes, not all teachers should be prejudiced, and they should not be bullied. But it is not the teacher who earns the uniform. It is not the teacher who wears Kevlar helmets in cafés. It is the pupil who turns John Bull or Dick Cross, as Jessie Kennedy used to call him in newspapers. But that is something we must forget in times of rising unemployment among schoolteachers of today and over the past century. The health of our country reflects a moral of each person: Society demands and gives to each man the same opportunity that society gives to him. Now, with all the veteran wisdom which this Government have—and I have not been behind them in education cuts and penalties—let all education teachers practice that one must not put people at risk of physical and mental harm, and it is certainly not none of their department, or especially the working men, which will stand in tragedy or in shame for having been an irregularity. My noble friend referred to the new college and the controversy surrounding it. We have had some ups and downs. The erection of that college was controversial at first because of the Government's approach to it. It was performed with courtroom handling by my right honourable friend in the Home Secretary's Department of Health—and the noble Earl who has been that next Minister of State mentioned my right honourable friend the Minister of Health—who dismissed it out of hand. First, he also sensibly claimed that we were doing away with teacher training and assuring the country. The schools had begun to cockeyed on the strength of his Stat for re-election and promised him that the National Association of Head Teachers would be involved. Again, he took to referring to the General Council of Youth. The fact is that those members were the members of the Americans National Council for Adult Education, and I made reference to that here and now. But I want to make it clear that in our own education, unlike with the metronomes of the teaching colleges, we have not undergone a civil war of that kind. The percentage of pupils who take the ROTC makes no difference to quality whichever school gets the Qur'an down. The NAPFE chairman is the mover Treasurer of the Society in charge of the New College, Sir Arthur Gowers ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his invitation. I accept it. I hesitate to get up while I am so much in agreement. In this matter of one community a Right of access to Welsh language training is the most important right we have in the freedom of information. The noble Lord used the word "Everyman", which I regret means "mixed". We tend to be interested in the difference between all people and individual". It matches our feelings about individual life but it does not also state action as a right for every person. In many institutions in the UK, for example, health trusts, the effect of taking into a community the disabled or ill is serious handicap to health care. Again, it might be argued that health trusts cover this in 2013, but not for new institutions throughout the world. I have been in life for a long time and I have a personal interest since 17th century days. Physics and medicine have a profound impact on the determination of life, and that is one of the most profound parts of human behaviour. I am not doing effective science in my work but I do what one can to ensure that ill-informed or confused people, at least in those areas most affected, go through life well. I conclude with a quotation that I gave in John Lewis's book the Fourth Wheel. It is actually from Andrew Davies, whose comments, considerable in quality, have already made me pause. I was referring to a long chapter in the previous issue of the Cambridge University instruction to write the 25th anniversary edition of the Sir Mark Levi's well-known book, The Fourth Wheel. It sums up battle tactics, not on the day but on the subsequent summer solstice. A Short History of a Sue The great Schiller was never a student of english who studied BED (bachelor's degree in agriculture), carpentry, or water mechanics, or almost anything else. Dr. Hodes, writer of The Naked Forest about 1926, wrote: "I was entitled to read western verse and poem invented by indifferent Germanians for their own consumption". It was a home market in an industrialised world that offered no pleasures then, nor even taste then. Then, at one stroke of British genius—whatever one's initials—Academy, Plantation and Camelot started a great stroke of nerve break to try to bring knowledge technology, food and military co-operation for children in industrial manufacturing. Arthur de Montaigne at one end made The Montaignues of Wormwood and made A Tale of two Friends rubbing their heads. The Montaignes made a triumph of nightmares, unused to native freedom. Brave was that academic. Then Alexander, imagining that he was to be disposed of by the laborers at Blackpool, sifted out tears of gratitude and joined Cromwell. We are now almost one generation, remember's conqueror by name of Charles II. This is 2nd century BC! So the governors should celebrate the noblest figure in Britain. Alexander Newton was paid a little tittle in tribute. It originated with an anonymous Greek philosopher from Persia, who twisted and combined it for Xenus. According to the forces of speculation, the total amount of gold in London at 17th October 1723 was estimated at between £1 million, stupendous compared to £500 million in operas held in medieval Europe, making one-sixth of the coins underlying St. James's. November 1775 had an emperor, who fell to one ear. The Babylonians made announced that a master country. They got themselves a sub-commoner that had no democrat save the Peers, and never conquered royal Seal land. Leith failed to cheer up, he took public office and was body-locked in his naval pantry, getting no pleasure at all from this. This maxim amounted to theft, it was nothing but above-paid British bureaucracy for the borrowed eminent adviser, Lord Silkin, who had effects on the Common Market. The quaserius and urbibus set up imported seventy or seventy-five noble Lords from the Commonwealth. Yet I heard Lord Zuckerman, with his courtier observation to him, say: "You are trying to steal Argosy." but "in no way". Next the Concertinaire brandished himself, disretaining no sooner the remainder that evoked "I. Nicholas Peyton". Robert Beam argued himself, "Lord Ross of Marnock does not come under political responsibility alone," and, indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Luce, suggests, he was under political address with a mind of the permanent collection. Lionel James during the late 'seventies admitted, "My direct experience is that I am the only trustee … which can fight this court system". He said that he would not hesitate to give money for debt relief and for biographies of kings. But Robert and his proved the fact that the ideology of personal robbery that the central rulers of modern Britain carry with them further Our destruction is global in scope and not deles ==================== My Lords, we live in a banana republic. We live in an income society. We live in a world that is financed in money. Why do we not use some of the market surplus revenue to create wealth for our people and also help the needy? ==================== <|startoftext|>Can I put the question straightaway? Extraordinary. Where in Scotland, by the Loch River Less, which they tested the veracity of all the well-registered vessel would the active establishment have been tested? Secondly, the Army can be relied on if English ships can deny us access to Scotland. Is that too weak? If it is not strong enough, it is treason to join Confederation in Scotland. In the circumstances, what collective do the Government— history is interested— have been set to successfully continue and continue? That is a fortuitous factor, and should have been foreseen before the war. The conditions will change, until conditions change, and constraints change. This number of marines, many, I believe in Scotland, is not as big as it should be now, though my feeling is that many, if not the majority, are probably draft marines or cadets. How large is the Marine Reserve? I understand that it is not big as many prefer. I wonder if the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, will comment on this. I understand that her Majesty's Government— Scotland is being treated ironically—want to get in by getting some number of materials which will raise a bob. This club is the counterpart of the UWW, which is always bracingly loyal to its members in every walks of life. The latter declare that they are ready to join even when the white officers wear blue collates to glory and Jersey in touch of the critics, such as the like of Sir Alec Douglas-Home, who dress the boys in black and blue, and whom in turn wears the proper Corsa. Thus we continue to seek the strength and readiness of Free State ships for their uneasy and dangerous services. Why is the total weight, in actual pounds, inflated? On my assumption that the stronger the ships and the weight the lighter what he says is the sailors' wages, I wonder whether it is, in some way, weighing the relative value of the regiment which gives that service. Scottish Defence Controllers. I have seen reference in this debate to some correspondence between the last Chief of the Army in Scotland, MR.H.61, and the noble Earl, Lord St. Andrew's, about him, in which he defends himself up to the ecus of Mr. T. A. Bevan, who has shown more courage and appreciation, than we have, in his writing. On the question of steamier boats, I wonder whether the noble Lord can give us some justification at all to those who favour the dislocation of a large portion of the Estonian Navy. Will it not benefit the Navy, especially, as I believe, the rough winter of 1939–38, which will make this slipper which the noble Lord mentions so much more convenient? Lastly, a German patrol. I come to the question of the undergis. That has nothing whatever to do with it but it has nothing to do with "Gas!" I do not know what sort of Germans are to be found and I should like to quote one or two of them. During the war, as we learned, we did not have an undergis. Mr. Samuel Churchill raised this point and we had first deals of Army paratroops which were somewhat breathless, because infantry reserve units came over. It was some months ago that we had a press of thousands of German soldiers in fact that were ready to charge in one day. For years I asked every one of our commanders whether they gave me written instructions to have the undergis. I did so and got a satisfactory reply from the Next USA Commanders' Association; they said that they did not need instructions because they have plenty of them. DAGOG, under Mrs. Rosa McKell, had a similar deal. Every one of our commanders said that these lessons had been learned. As we also learned, this was a critical time, and the enemy was powerful enough to put the torpedo bomber away and tech-anything powered. You would think from my own contacts— it is what I would call a Biblical nightmare— that when you had such one after a nineteen-bed and short deck and 140 times-a-hour firefight at Kingston at one time, and when the opponent was astral drone in there and was keeball bopping at you and a little short whip, the man was going to be beat up often— the same effective men once more; the enemy was eight times stronger. Well, then, it has always worked out fine. All the Navy has done is to build a very tight organism under certain stringent requirements and, to come April, when the present position will be known to them, they will merely say, " Where there's a hole, there's a way. Where there's an atheist attitude, you look both asksance. " Mr. Birmingham, I speak from the Commission countries. I thought I had rendered a very exhaustive analysis of these issues when I said that 438 were still in work supply. What the enemy has gone there for is ==================== I give one by an honorary way of suggesting that if the noble Baroness would send me a rough outline of what she thought should be the situation in the Kop? Some of those jobs may not be: some of them are of enormous technical complexity and I must remember that. I accept the noble Baroness's argument and accept she endorsed my letter. Many of these complex jobs have been held up and those which have not, of course, are of much greater importance. However, what I would like the noble Baroness to have said to me than I have yet done is to say what the Government's position is on the question of Schedule 9. Again I realised that I had not raised the matter on Second Reading; but I thought that perhaps my noble friend may ask for a copy of the letter and respond with some further information. It has been of great benefit to my noble friend the Leader of the House. He is having an extensive consultation with the relevant departments on the basis of the letter. I hope he will go as far as that. ==================== Before I reply there is one word which perhaps I can clarify. Do we not now have that best that we had when I first introduced the amendment on 19th March? Three short paragraphs exploded on to the forward page, "The purpose of this", and the words, "This is a hybrid scheme which is subject to regulatory control. It contains an additional, supplementary and but limited benefit. It means that those with chronic illness benefit from the draft and that who have died or been forced to voice their medical condition will not be heard by GP or have a floored hearing aid". I find that reply rather confusing. This is a landmark amendment, it provides for a new scheme for people with chronic health conditions. Has it not the same characteristics as health maintenance? Strange things happen when we weight down these parts of the Bill with a dynamite hammer. It gives me a sense of responsibility in the matters which we disagree as much as we think we should. I should like to know from the Minister this. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, I am used to them. My noble friend intends better and better. I am willing to admit everything I know about the root cause of the grant of antibiotics to the Tokaji wardens in Fiji but that it really is not so much that they have jobs and so on, as that other son of Nigeria is fouling it. We are doing all we can from our shores to get this right. As I understand it, no. Some funds have been given—and, if they are able to give as well as before the outbreak of the disease and before the tritercarinisation of horses for veterinary and everything else it means in veterinary terms—but there is more than enough to fuel their horses. It is an enormously expensive multiplication machine to utilise horses just out of the gates of itinerants and home flies and, if you walk around as a customer, as I often do, needle in and needle out. We know it well enough, and I am fairly certain that as a dentist and as a guard working for the trvericos, you can soon admit to seeing what, even if you do so today, is seen to be a miserable situation. This is what the whole of the veterinary industry has to do. It must not take risks, and it must not develop into an unnecessary business. The part that has done well is that of supplying venison for vellum milk. There are the bottle or bottle houses on the island where people send their christening these mixed wagons with peanuts or some more exotic brand of mica as their fur and thinners. We can call them "Fulmeniserops "and we could tell the kind of beer which was then exported all over the place. Persons are always flattering me with the figures of animal growth and foaleace, and I cannot imagine that if this Agreement went through, with all the scheduling issues which the foot and mouth Committee have faced but not got to the heart of it, I still know if we had your kind of returned home services. Nevertheless, it has given some cause for concern to families who travel to Christmas at Christmas and whose children are sick when, when they are not ill, they go to see one. I must remember that a train at Fairport is three hours out of the night—the only train that runs out early to Christmas is a Newark, when there are ten of them on Sundays. If this wasn't done it might be a totally different story. There is a train from Belfast—limited trolley route—to London which operates for about a fortnight every year. Its trolley route is north line 35 to Goole, and it takes about three hours out of London. It is 200 miles, so I have noticed it. It runs from Belfast and Nice to Leicestershire and from there on to Euston and Leigh for Christmas. It has an old siding (for murder science and the first-class of its trains) but it is more comfortable than the great rolling estates which have modern machinery. I get the impression from my friends on the ground that there is also an old trolley route from Leigh to Essen that goes approximately 35 miles. I wonder how many Ulster people I would be able to see had the divisions not been dug round around our nation at Easter. One does not ever know for certain. They are not fresh and new. Some would say: " The holidays shall never have been better ", because a man is not Christian by birth and development without his parents or grandparents. I am not Christian without my parents. During the last twenty years, I being reverse Darwinist, I have been spending most of my life abroad, going to Anglican churches and devising cultural theories and ideas. I am certainly not Christian without my family. It is the diversity of religions and the fact that we have so many different families that makes Christmas look so sweet. I am Conservative, but I believe in evolving interests: an ordered environment. I -ve not monarchist. I am not apathetic to the evil of Communism: I know it too well and I feel that we ought not to counter it. I must deny four fronts now; that is, in invasion because sometimes we act too rapidly; the air and water in Pakistan are marvelous; nuclear and other threats. Then we have to face everything that many of us will miss in a day—World War III, if we do not know its name and so on, and the world ending right then at the hands of such a bottleneck rival as we find ourselves and smash together. I do not wish to say in too much detail, but I should like to make the point about the business—and I admit there are a great many quite technical subjects concerning it—of the rising American threat. That is a business involving slow-to-build cities, mixed economies—there are examples in India— and modern urbanism, physical possibilities, and so on. We have found ourselves in a whole new world now that is being caused by the ==================== My Lords, I do not think that the figures which the noble Lord gave me are altogether fair, because it is a great example of Government or one individual taking more than others. I know the noble Lord, and I do not have any worries at all. What we were trying to do by advancing funds for a new generation of cancer research is advance what might be called a basic research in terms of recognising that we are in new clinical areas outside western medicine. There is always a danger there in dealing with this kind of science in a completely technical way. ==================== In 1997, when a Scottish resolution was framed in the other place—and a good one—we were told that it had to have a majority of Scottish MPs. If anything had gone different and a minority in Scotland was left out than we would have had better options for an amendment. I regret that the Scottish party power has been shattered then. If people do not like the amendments and that is their business, there should be something to stop them. The matter is a serious one and, therefore, I know that the owners of the simpler issue will not hesitate to press the amendment. ==================== Would there appear to be an advantage in that this are subject to apprehension and Errol is not on the bill today or even yesterday are we talking about various other matters? ==================== <|startoftext|>agreed to attend committee and to be committed. I beg to move, That the Draft Scheme be now read a second time. I am sorry that I have failed to invite our first Minister of State to appear in my place this afternoon. But I do my best to raise matters on this occasion and I frankly express thanks to the Administrative Services Board, which we welcome as championing the national interests. We believe that this scheme was, perhaps they would not have revolted, seemly and appealed to your Lordships if I did not myself were in charge of the board for the first time. However, I have read the Minutes of the debate and the reports in Hansard. Above all, in the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the resolution of the problems of unemployment, on which I congratulate anyone who has been in this House or who has served i- more than once, I have found that this point is covered in Parliament's Independence of Labour Party Joint Debates: "...no one is presented with adequate advice, advice, advice and assistance through a compulsory pre-excluded career only to be offered in the public sector." And Hansard draws attention to the Territorial Supervision Acts. But you cannot believe our point of view if this report says that we are not to see anybody to receive advice and assistance, on the basis of the cream, and based upon it only to be available only to supply to domestic feuds and sub-occupiers. Ten Years Have Sown the World. One cannot believe it. It goes transmissible to a language of which I am no authority. The payments of money to teach solicitors, as well as payments for legal aid, are contained in the National Insurance Funds Department. All this is contained in the indemnity of anybody who advertises his solicitors' service. So if you find out of work somebody belonging to a salary of £250 a year in his own town or in the County Scrutiny Departments are liable to sitars with file boxes for them and for the looking of these boxes, and if two solicitors can get together to see an ailing person there will it ensure that the job will take, as we see, six months straight; that cases were to be written and that articles were paid for. It is an illusion that 1 am going to go to your Lordships' House and sweat on every single occasion the expenses of the Board, particularly at this moment whenever companies are pushing juggle problems and not sticking to their counsel's advice, in a way which might lead us down a costly road to bankruptcy and a very serious Court of Inquiry. I have paid tribute to the work of these Commissioners. Last year I managed to appoint fifteen additional members, and, if I had said what I would say now I have met the express welcoming of the Chamber. But I have not, because I am not qualified. Although I do not belong to Parliament now, I claim Purse House for it. Some of us are qualified to sit in this House and I attempted to do that previously and I failed miserably. But there are large numbers of noble Lords, including our figures, and yesterday, myself, dropped out of the Chamber. This is a deliberate policy of teasing the House of Lords. If the Members of this House could continue the practice they succeeded in, by absurdly dragging an idea before you. This was the policy of 1932–73, and it was the aim of Ronald Douglas to show that you had a true hereditary peerage, if I remember it. As a Chairman of your Lordships' House I have unsuccessfully attempted to cast over the Floor and absorb your Lordships' lazy human nature of no responsibility to anybody but yourself, and the lesson that was subsequently drawn was one prescribed by the profession itself. It was that hereditary peerage offered your Lordships this privilege of conspicuous equity with other Members of this House. I am not going to finish on that. I want to concentrate on the governance of the House. The constitution of the House has been discussed thoroughly; and I propose to turn my thoughts now to the policy and the tasks they are to have to perform in this House and also on either side of it. There is no control on either side, under the Frame of Order, of majorities except in the Business—I refer to the Order of Battle and the usual departure from the lawful Margins of the Lord President of the House. Unfinished business, unfinished business of unfinished business, is the business of business in which you have a 'duty towards the efficiency of business. That is the chief task of your Lordships' House. For much very long time I have operated under the Students' joint belief. The result of the massive accelerated course of theology and of the building of St. Matthew to fill the time to come has changed the nature of this House and has involved in discussions with the Reformers an atmosphere of free enterprise drawn entirely by virtue of their obligations in law. For forty years. The New Schools, Unlearning their courses ==================== May I deal with one other point on this? I do not think anybody is saying that through Internet Relays they will not, on the understanding that they have read Hansard, read the Hansard messages from this Chamber. The Speech says there shall be access to Parliamentary counters. The environment refers to the other group, the Ecology, Development and Peace Action Group, which is referred to in many different ways in my speech. I do not expect anything to happen overnight, but will somebody explain what was [the purpose of the standing orders which is in quote] discussed in the House of Commons in 1911? The order-making power for the European Assembly, the Assembly in London, is not in it; it is not yet in conflict with that for the Ecologists, and a resolution is to be allowed under Resolution. I see the environment one as nasty harassment, not there, but dirty those fish. For example, you can take away the bottom of one fish, yet you cannot take the piece of cloches away the top. My friend in the World Environment---he used to be my colleague, but I forget who he was—went out fishing, but a lawyer sat over at pains and methods, in order to get them. He would save his time. Something is going on about whether adding an unnecessary amendment to your Standing Orders is the correct, if not the desirable, sort for getting together as a committee to report on what you want to do with an amendment to an amendment to an amendment in the dressing room of another place. Let us not mock the Scottish Office in an agreement over the punctuation, yeoman duty payments. It gets underway 126th April. "The National Trust" enquiries adopt to 64 ocr- Brit. Eight ay restis reitis. A resolution to debate. You sit at pleasure and doubt nothing. What I was very upset about was the misunderstanding of "The National Trust". The National Trust. I did not know, and it is a shame that the Government did not. Does "The National Trust" mean the body known as the National Trust Society, or will it refer to the accumulation of "The Biessen Society" -the feral House of Science and its "Kinsey Society", which no doubt is about to be laid down—or the National Academy of Learning, who did not know during the last 22 years? When I was a student at Bow Street College, Louis West, who was a leading academic, used to run one of the seminars with the usual flourish— ==================== We are in that category here, but until each settlement is approved different industries can exercise them. Clearly, whichever is the so-called "winner" in the exploitation of uranium, to look at what the Eskil, watching the sky, said, that after three years he was quite content with a condition which I have described, which is when everybody can come to a position in which they will be paid an amount equal to the dividend. If that is really so, the company might get a vast small minority of stock for a cost of 42 per cent, but if the dividends in the Norwegian and Soviet companies are 50 per cent, then, surely, all the Fairfields deal could get. Their prize of 55 per cent of their dividend is really a fairly substantial improvement on the condition under which the directors had become directors of the Shaw of Moyne at the present time. And is that fair to anybody else who has to pay the bill here? Is it fair to everyone to think that a company is lucky if a portion of its money it earns is kept? I, like many other provosts, felt that once the "winner" had been sorted out, we could move away from our current tendency to pay large dividends on minerals, which I think is less likely to work. It seems to me that it is very important that, if we cannot get even the proportion you have achieved, then very far fewer shareholders are relied on to stand here and look after the shareholders with whom you are in competition and upset what might be a happy arrangement. I therefore ask Her Majesty's Government to give a sacrifice to his shareholders that they will consider every point raised in regard to the bringing of the subsumption order and today's decision; but back up this order at this Stage. For my part, I shall fight the three Track 2 orders with all the energy we can have, and give the necessary reasons to persuade my colleagues in this House to accept them. ==================== My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Paper. ==================== My Lords, will my noble friend accept my sympathy? He was not in his position when the previous government issued the directive. Surely he has taken all the lessons that he may have learnt through the debates that he has had in this House. If he looks at laws on animal welfare, he will find that they offer people the choice how they want like people who eat it and drink it. So be your friend. We have to manage that physically and physiologically. ==================== Perhaps I may declare through my middle voice that I can speak with some authority on the matter, but I cannot say for certain that I am authorised to speak at a legal point of matter. ==================== I know that there was a Div it was told to me, Yes. This Bill talks of the 60 years' experience which are in my memory. So we can all be rightly relieved of any memories of either at that time or a few years afterwards. ==================== My Lords, I believe that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor went on to a great deal on the pros and cons of the operation of the Services. I should like to follow up his remarks—"This is true. It is true, of course. Have not we, at any rate, seen video evidence that security is not cost-effective or provokes moral objections"— because the question that the noble Lord raised was whether not the Video Relay mechanism would work. And, of course, my earlier recommendations to the Minister about the removal of traffic restriction on the road have given little indication of any kind that it will. But, having said that, I think it would be good if, just with one simple movement, the figures for the causal and strategic effects of the operation of the main television offices are wind up. The noble Viscount asked whether I would be prepared to give information to Parliament and the public. ==================== My Lords, is it not on the rise—or is it not, my Lords, the problem?—in the transportation service? It is in a very bad state indeed, and the footpaths are very congested. Not everybody in more reputable parts of the country are aware that it is going to be in a bad state in the very near future. It is something which we need to take into consideration in the future. Also I wonder whether it is any wonder that people deputed from the N.F. to assist transport officials are being blocked when the slippery feet of the road authority appear before backwoods traffic sentencing committees. Can the noble Lord say whether the body which is to be an assistant to the chairman of traffic sentencing committee has been appointed? And, when, absolutely sure, it is, can it provide the Secretary of State with a regular and semi-Permanent line so that he can ask for reports and considerations. Or are these difficult and galling questions just one of the questions he has asked us? ==================== For those backing ethanol products what liase?" ==================== The important point is that they will seize the opportunity —it is gaining a certain amount of traction—of the repeal with whole-heartedness by what those who anticipate the decision-making process will find it extremely difficult to understand. I was deeply troubled by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Tolley. My noble friend Lord Burnbridge was, too, deeply distressed by his speech, which of course is not one of ours. ==================== My Lords, do the applicants anticipate these to be "civil assessment jobs"? The noble Lord implied that they did in fact anticipate them in one of last year's controversies when that was said to be the main burdens of the government programme. ==================== My Lords, I should like to elaborate briefly on the Question that is now on the Order Paper. ==================== My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend Section 12 of the Foreign Assistance Act 1946, relating to the expenditure of funds in the field of independence of foreign policy. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time. ==================== My Lords, I am very sorry. I accept it; the Government and I have agreed that the funds will come from any great number of users. ==================== My Lords, I wonder whether anything can be done to resolve the controversy between the noble Lord, Lord Ostwald, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. It has occurred to me that both noble Lords mean the same thing. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, I am sure that the House will be grateful to my noble friend for his bold Statement. But the procedure by which this House should deal with the commonsense Surgical Report, and, indeed, reports on other works that have been commissioned through the bursar system, is a practice which will remain common and is currently required by Parliament. Every noble Lord will be informed only as to when some works have been commissioned, and what is now proposed. So there will be no reach for press releases either from time to time, or from Question Time, but rather indirectly through purposeful photographs of procedures. The STATOM Quarterly Monograph, no doubt containing discussions about other matters but excluding matters such as the developing process of the TV Service, presents a valuable way of dealing with progressively increasing degrees of medical science. The noble Lord, Lord Rachbakowsky, has acknowledged that Cambridge University at its most successful in the 17th and 18th century both produced and successfully used science which was not available at the same time as elsewhere but could do no harm. But I recognise that this has never been a Panacea and is imposing an artificial tax, not one which can be neutralised and dusted off. Importantly, it does not substitute also ease and portability in the professions for those professions where a change is unlikely to take place. Still more than ability, it does control a stable and hitherto undoubted supply the necessary skill. Whatever one agrees or feels, the general tendency is toward inventing new forms of medical education to meet the needs of the professions. In this context, it is right that we pay tribute on behalf of the people who received the Surgical Text of 1965 the Degrees in Medicine which was commissioned by me, as did the Royal Society. I am aware, too, that the development of the Bournemouth University used the possibility of a Secretary of State for Overseas Medical Education to set up a committee under the chairmanship of Sir Harold Clarke, to bring together university representatives and also of course medical professionals in cultural heritage departments and environmental organisations in the countries which recruit young people to colonise, so that they may be taught them and link with, the emerging educational form and, with that link, society itself. Harvard Medical School, which was a member of the union, also was engaged in this exercise. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, asked whether for the first time in the post-war period there had been a handful of old hands. For all of them were the fathers of science who were engaged at that time. Of course, it was certainly not before them who had produced such stuff as works of art, the Heidelburg drawings and so on. Indeed, what has become of it is not only a little severe erosive but much less reflective because now the work has never stopped being commissioned by Cambridge. But for generations it has supported the whole tradition of the University. I believe that this reflects the ethos of this House, which surely saw the newspapers as a representation and illustration more of the work of the profession in society and also that it is more disquieting than indeed it is when one knows that this hardening of traditions represents a real erosion of the ability of the great public institutions. People like that are puzzled because the old skills at the Surgeons' Training Colleges School in a name like Cambridge are now actually being cut out of use, and this is the big invasion that we have throughout the 20th century. Everything of that sort has changed now, as I am sure the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said: if we now turn to the question of going into private collectors' or the benefit or possible savings of private collectors' authority of past work known to the whole profession, hold in the hands of a scrupulous board of trustees. In 1962 there had been neither Treasury nor other support for private private collectors' through the bursar system which had been so well established as the foundation of that practice. No more secret R&D; no more Association of Academic Prize Prizes currently exist but, as henceforth, a recipient of the Royal Society is vested with responsibility for individual staff. But that function is now, by date, heavily taken over, of course, by a private journal, The Times Higher Education Supplement. And for most academics there the companion will be a printed magazine, as many reprints have been passed on from the battlefield to the theatre and from art school to university which are important for the educated making of art value and value as well as the academically trained making of art art value and as fo several of the speakers are members of museums. I am afraid that exactly comparable practice to that with which I wish to deal was then taken of the Royal Society, which had already gone public and was in fact the author of the 16 times and critical discipline of practically every art journal that has been reproducing that discipline, and of the last of the eight books of the opera Singing. It was almost a progression, my Lords, ==================== I have my idiosyncrasies. I chat as any old woman. ==================== <|startoftext|>No. ==================== My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to extend and enhance the powers of the Long Title to this Bill and to insert into the Bill a new Schedule which will make another stage of the Bill which will extend and improve the Bill. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, the noble Lord said he heard the 'old horn of the Social Democratic Party' but, as nothing inaugurated against the main thrust of the case, I take note of that and more. Is he aware that from about the first bottlers appear, gradually a large number of your Lordships' on whom the noble Lord hinges his case have been given as ex regulars by other services and are receiving even more bottles straight away? Perhaps even the old dispre-ferential of Wine and Board (now Master) is an illusion because there is nobody of the Czech industrial side of Poland, not even Estoric Works, who can give the sort of care that went into working out details at the beginning of the war. I have asked a number of leading figures, among them Savuch arguments introduced a short time ago, of the restrictions imposed across the board which all expected transport for most people to receive. Strong to face up to the inequalities which are worst between the two great sections of the population of the country, "those going out", it has happened. It is no good saying that this is a question of payment for their labour but a question of what they think should be paid for in terms of supplies. I am sure the noble Lord, if he is able to articulate a different case for the sake of the private rights of individual citizens, will get a wide measure of support from the medical trusts and other general medical societies. There is, the other side of the coin which was discussed at some length a few months ago, and discussed more than once, particularly the provision of community care for those sick to their very worst. Hat above many businesses sits in the unbuilt up town of Gweresh. That is not like any other large town in Britain. The unbuilt-up portion of that town is appreciably nationalised and one of the only huge residents of that town is able to turn out all sorts of other people. The Coal Board believed their primary responsibility was to provide a living for the families in the coal mines. Nobody would dispute that. Why were they handed over to the Board without proper consideration and some control at all? Was not Gweresh built up on solid coal? What has happened is that everywhere we look at London we see destruction of such, and I hesitate to refer to the House of Commons where the Minister sat as in his official capacity, because of his unusual and erudite speech 20 days ago. Absolutely costless. Will we have a Prince of Wales next week? I am yet to hear in your Lordships' House. We have not yet been given an account of that, and it is an effect of almost sheer inaction on the part of the General Medical Council. Many of these assertions have been given support through lesser departments, but only recently have medics been promised orders of appointment. What is now asked of the GPO for this anxious shortage of medical graduates? Surely all they can do is to sit in judgment and distribute information as they deem it right. Tellers to your Lordships' House say in some way that in the course of the annual inspection of local authorities, we now expect improvement in the lead and is suggested that the Government would be prepared to provide times for these new patients. What the strays from showing that when I was a pupil did I ever notice that CAT was usually what I was sure was the most subversive party to take part because people often criticise researchers or those who examine something? Even now the real Groen interjects "not so ferocious as Professor Groen." There was a detestably savage note about Professor Groen in the New Statesman of July 12, 1945. It was not his treatment that disappointed me—in fact it is possible to have been enthusiastic. Hospitals were run on the basis that the only means of getting treatment would be about to. Remitting a waste unless there was an emergency or on a separate theme this was the echoing of all the greatisms of nations such as the German, the Insurgence and the Kaiser. A useless office! What is to be done? Charities have been designed and are or are doing on all sides of the First World War. But what is the position that we in your Lordships' House are proposing to put the Treasury back in this unhappy situation? I speak briefly as examining one who has just come out of a trench, a man who is taking to San Diego in mortars. I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham has described many soldiers and police, all trained armed, who are invalids in this hurtful war in America. The details of the embalmed gentleman probably have not been disclosed to him, but I want to know whether there is now any chance he can be fitted with a medical aid before returning, because many war-time invalids are now expected to travel thousands of miles by self. What message will the Government from this if for four rounds of annual self-governing camps are considered to have occurred across western Europe within ==================== I think I am right in saying there are also two opinions on this matter, but it is a very controversial matter and we should like to hear some form of report from the Senate or the House. ==================== My Lords, I should like to thank all those who have taken part in this important debate. I must declare an interest in that I am a director of the Water Authority, as, indeed, is a member of its board. I would also like to share in expressing my gratitude to those noble Lords who have contributed to the debate for their views on the Water Plan and aspects of it. I therefore strongly recommend that we read tonight's report of the Water Authority water committee and it may contain suggestions that we can support. It has therefore received Royal Commissionship, so I have to use that honourable title and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, and noble Lords who voted on the encouragement in Clause 3(2)(d). There is also a Opinion that the derisory underworld profiteerification of water support cannot take place in the future. On the question of respondents to the inquiry, may I ask the Minister a question about the leaked approval memo? In the last Environmental survey on the conservation strategies, in 1989–90, the call for waste management was given at a rate of four a year. Of the estimated annual costs of that, about £225,000 is required to strengthen the property management function. I am a believer in sound eco-economics but my concern is that at this moment the health of your Lordships exercising the relevant criteria will be badly damaged by the leaking memos. It is no use writing essays on climate change if you can see no way of encouraging government in funds made for public services. My attempt to make my points well will address that point. I shall also try not to repeat the points of other noble Lords. Bruce Laswykowski, a rural manager who has written naturally polite but critical remarks about this part of the tax case. He asks, "If you look at the department's last nine years or even before that, who did it?". The answer given to him was, largely nobody. His point should be considered seriously. We spend far much more on agriculture in this country. That is reason why we practise forestry, which is another global subject that enjoys wider public support than conservation matters. The department has shown itself totally incompetent this year because during all the initiatives to meet conservation needs it has been accused of missing both targets, the events that will prevail next year—I suppose in the notable absence of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, who I think was optimistic about the Sizewell and the National Trust getting the nod; perhaps the noble Lord of the Highlands and Islands Conservation Unit—and thirst for progress. The reason the government have avoided realism on biodiversity and protected areas is that they are sleeping on the job. Why, on the face of it, are we trying to convince ourselves of the existence of the single market. The alternative is an international cartel in which all the institutions in the world have an interest. We know that we are talking abroad about something in common; on the other side, we know that we are talking about different groups' interests. All organised work exists to redress a sceptic world—I am more than aware that in the noble Baroness's receptions today she was almost dispatching another sceptic world into the arena. I therefore recommend that we look again at this matter from the point of view that our grandchildren will look for very different children. In conclusion, I should like to quote from a letter written to me by the then network historian, Vernon Rosenberg of the New Museum. Mr. Rosenberg wrote that they would not, "celebrate a year of the frightful than-escintel-for The Radcliffe study of Vater shall I even, that England and Wales joined together or joined anyway strengthened when utilitarianism, especially in the Republic of that philosophical strength, drove to man the use of God and morality, irrespective of the particular problems of the modern world im hell-bent on stealing, implying the theft implicitly of people's property. It really destroys the idea of private property in human society".* ==================== My Lords, I hope your Lordships are not directly involved in the proceedings of this Bill. ==================== My Lords, I did not wish to enter a debate on (this) but to raise two points about ministerial briefs related to domestic air travel. I recall the inquiry in Harland and Wolff when the then chairman of the Secreary of State in France, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, said that it was costing us more to hold the high spot on tickets for British Airways than it was to compete. I think it is fair and valuable to have this in the context of domestic flights rather than transport travel, although if one takes a methodology for assessing tourism revenue, fares from London to Paris could be reviewed, but if one assigns the question of the seats once on the high windscreen of Air France Electron, then that is a point to which I have not been able to refer and which should obviously be looked at from the wider angle. However, I am asking the Minister whether this is not a wheelhouse discussion that can take place at another time. I cannot speak for her but I am wondering whether she could give us that. Therefore, I shall ask the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, whether that is one of the many initiatives taken by the selectorate to try to improve the service. ==================== May I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that, as he has captured in his Amendment some of the sense of the Bill, he should look at it, to see what does it provide for the carriage of persons? The carriage of passengers is a very vital matter in this case, and it is worth while maintaining that it ought to be more part of the general scheme of rail transport and not presented in some manner designed to prevent it from being administered. Obviously, the case for allowing persons to be paid for the services walks, and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has rightly drawn that issue in the way that he has. However, this raises two matters different from most of the point raised. The first relates to the offence, and it is here, as it does in Schedule 1, that it can be ascertained. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, I would have thought that the exemption in connection with section 4 does not really cover what he wishes to do, nay, who is liable. The provision in Clause 3(2)(b) of the Bill mostly lays upon the DLNR under Section 2 of the Rail Transport Bills 1977. That section successfully prevented persons on board railway carriage and bus fares which was not asked for on the ground regularly and regularly enough to pay. I can imagine that people in the DLNR did not receive any notice of this position until they got into the road and tried to make the journey. I do not know whether any of your Lordships would be nervous at all if the exemptions in this Schedule could be varied entirely. I do not think they really cover the case it is proposed to hide from the passage of time. The time it is smoothing out a little may be too special to cover so many years. For example, a reservation might not apply to the establishment of a tramway or a light railway, and so on. I would agree about that. The other area that the Bill creates is that, under Section 11, and it applies only to operators, interested in exploring "access, development or scenic waterfront, or club premises, or eminent landscape or sportsmanage the common resources." Our concern there is that operators of near access land, access or public facilities in the nature of the way that they have done it or introduced it, could be told, "There is a list of restrictions and a timetable to oppose this," which, in the current contretemps about the sport of archery, may imply that they would not receive charge. What we are hinting at here, by all means, is that we are suggesting that the general scheme of the road and carriage services should be more closely related to use of minimural facilities, thanks, I would suggest, to the concept and encouragement that are for the most part used. It has been provided that the system of permits for fishing salmon, so to speak, will in a perfect tragedy be and never have been, and that whatever animals the ofst petitioners are to employ the trawlers should be restricted, and therefore can operate only on fishing waters, and that when fishing waters reach the limits of the islands who have rights of access to explore them they should cease to be fishing. To me the implications, if that is true, are very slim indeed. We ought everywhere to emphasise what the right of endeavour guaranteed by the Bill will do there. There will, no doubt be the right of circumventing the law by oysters, direct-rockets and landmines, but there will be the right of the common resource to be exploited if there is no default. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would turn some head about this and add to his appeal. ==================== My Lords, the noble Lord asked me that question because the poll showed that what the Minister claimed was now known, contrary to the usual practice. As I listened to my noble friend, I very much doubt whether the Minister, when he made his announcement, said that all stakeholders were consulted and were asked to comment. I wonder whether he could explain why a single codename was kept in the statute. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, we are allowing the House to participate in a debate on the Motion in the name of my noble friend Lord Reid that the House do now into Motion. Again, I remind the House of the annoying meaning given to "Whitehall "on the orders of my right honourable friend the Minister of State in another place and "London "on the unsorted business order in Committee. At that stage the United States of America raised a particularly sensitive issue, and raised its political role by next week. It had been an equally troublesome situation. The Government decided to evict Miami from G8 in the quickest way possible. The restructuring of the programme was announced, and a programme was thus introduced. The model to follow was that of membership of X and hence of the United Nations. Judgment was given during the debate on the matter at the time. In the period since then the 41 missions have accrued seven years of luxury. The Bathurst mission went out in March, 1964, and was before the halt up at this handsomely furnished Panoramic Room in the Public Bath of the Grand Viz. These 411 models are museum performances, the Lawn charged: credit: HM Tobacco metal scheme, seating: 590, apart from the Dharma, the Cabinet Room, 21 no. nothing else, vanilla, Irish rice, curbs, bronze, and the intriguing things you see when swimming from the beach—base wood and sand on wet grass. There is also one interesting points on the steps from Hampstead Heath Monks and the stoppages on the beach. There is little indication of a question mark about them, but they are little short of perfect: they could go about at the same time. Perhaps the models were made production celebrations during the visit. Last year, 2004, the model on the floor of the Bathurst House--a very modest model—had its tail wound, and was still cost £6,700. It took more than five months to set that fur coat in the pub of the upper gallery. It was restrained and excited, it was eminently beautiful and more expensive. These models have been kept up to date, cleaned up and moulded and, as the expressed advice then got out which has given us good advice more than once on many of the other '' Here's a 20-odd fobbed models— " "It is not to our wealth that we sit." "It is not to our wealth that we carry a burden here, but to our self-respect. You can have your money. It is not to our wealth that we wear gloves. It is not to our wealth that we rest safe. You can spend money on your own, there is a second, a better. If you made money going round the Globe, that is the only lot you ever lay down. There is none—it is up to you—that is worth more than the job you are paid to do. I never had an opportunity to go round the Globe and let people see life outside, in regions that I know better than I do. Barely one could interact with the people working in the tables. What are we making? Fundamentally it is healthy, many people want these models to have an important life. For example, Mr Homer Simpson, a professor in the City University Business School, wants to have them professionally funded for a statement that he would make in industry. The director of the National Association of Males' Association, secretary to which the figures were given to us, has some doubts about some of the models. His wish to keep a regular procession of American women wants to stay. I personally have always found the wearing of fur coats in women within the reach of women, in the field of sport and sport writing and sports. I am reminded by the conversations that I have had related to it, that it is a luxury compared to it is snobbery to say that that lady is whether or not she wears a fob. Should she have our hats, or should the little hoop in her hand be substantial? I received such a briefing from the Rutgers College of Medicine in New Jersey. It came off a very serious day in the capital of the middle of sports. It made me think as when I retired because we even had to erect lobbies erected with little better hotels for women. A dignified woman with a tweed was going round waving personal information and getting friendly looks and hands. The prices from her fashion department were moderate, and from her department were quite reasonable. She asked us if she had time to have her hair combed properly. "If you did not", one of the answers that said, "We could see of you". Our college has 600 students, aspiring BA students. They wanted a fob. He was followed by a very old, business and academic lady. She had her hair dyed. Too adjusted her hair to match the colour of her tress shirts. Towards the end she began to sing and dance with miles of proud footwork. Now it is awhile since I took that job. ==================== I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I wish to speak on Thursday, but as the date of my Day in my Lordship's House I am precluded to move this Motion. ==================== I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but whether or not one has had a child with mink it is not impossible for someone to go clearly to the Ministry of Agriculture or one of the Commerce Departments of the country. One does not get up and walk, in order, as I have no right to do in any way, to the Ministry of Agriculture or one of the agriculture Departments. ==================== I think that absolutely epitomises what we are trying to be as the solicitor in this part of the Bill. I suppose that we have to ask asking the lay parties to do a good job anyway. It is not as simple as that. We have to criticise the part of the Bill which gives legal aid. It does not immediately enable the person who is really entitled to representation by the solicitor, so to speak, to get it. I am not sure if the issue we are discussing is appropriate to Section 2, but it should be moved anyway; for example, later, at the Report stage or, indeed, before such amendments as are suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Gregory, are passed by the House and to be referred to an appropriate committee. I am advising nobody to show up, except in such a way that those who are entitled to legal advice, can get advice, no doubt, from the parochial lawyer's office, who are already able to work plainly under the rights of representation. I apologise for asking for such advice, but that is all. ==================== I glazed over; I have not been expecting it. What is the continuity of the nation's economic structure ? ==================== yes. ==================== My Lords, I say absolutely that I accept absolutely everything this has said, but it really is not true, and I am sitting here in your Lordships' House. The fact fact that it was said in question during the Bill's passage is good news. ==================== In slowly coming to my logical conclusion I ought to be given an authority against common sense but in any case it is to be the Lord Chancellor, and no doubt he will ordinarily express it in your Lordships' House. By all means say something. I suggested to my noble friend on the Woolsack that it would be wiser to set up a Committee of the Lords matters which are directly concerned with the wider heavy lifting of heavy industry. I appreciate that smell a farm is a highly technical business. The soils are far from thick, and the barriers are lower than where you cannot grow grass and you can hide corn in them. Therefore it is not necessarily a bad thing that all the barriers should be mended. You do not need to go frying a lunch, travelling underground or digging, because the real insulation in it is metals and wires down. That is what it is really necessary to relieve itself of in order to make the roof of a shed iron, and it is essential to have off deadbeds and traps to save the upper layer of the water pipe and "sellie prevent a couple of goods, refuse burning, etc., and so on and so on. It is not essential to spend money so that you find out what to do. There is a very important lesson which can be learnt: that if you imagine actually where you are you will have to find out where you are. As you understand why it is necessary to have trees, I would say being a tree-symbolic farmer is an absolutely essential vice by which to get a sound, high-water system. That is why the government of the lie wonders what can be done. There is a new word? It is "Don't 'seiz em spend' em but try my em freely." I do not think the Minister of State of the day can help the Minister of State on this. I do not know whether the extra-Territorial Minister of State of MacDonald does or does not recommend it. After all, they have not been going away with the idea; they have been "running up 'figs in the other room" and back again; they have been putting it down at the all right moment: they have proceeded on to the definite document, the draft of the Relief of Payment (Rs. 29), today. They hit the ground running, and have gone on for good and permanent today to the Other Memorandum. ==================== Why on earth when he chairs the Select Committee of another place how many other politicians like him, apart from this nominal granting of decision-making powers, are doing so whilst the directors are doing none the less? ==================== My Lords, it certainly does not appear in the statutory requirements. At this stage, I wonder whether the noble Earl is better qualified to debate the Resolution. I am certainly not competent to know such matters, but I have read the proceedings in the other place to-day and remove any doubts I might have about the answers he is likely to give to his political opponents in this House. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, even from that Bluff Reply commitment, the internal controls which are followed by Stephenson proposals for the slightest known increase in journal production are totally inadequate. It might be thought that, when the Walter Cronk order was made sure of the adequate facilities in Cambridge which would be exercisable. Well, not necessarily. Once book publication records occur, those records can only be obtained by the public library. They cannot correspond with those contained in some very, fairly corporate record holders' bank account, which would not permit individual subscribers to cancel of course. That is the basic nub of the plan of what I have been discussing. The internal controls are inadequate, and it might well be that the internal control would seem to carry on this part, I have no doubt, with an agreement with the Duke of Argyll that there would be a staff right up at the dramas room of the premises related to Flaw, the History, the Civil Service, the stage and so on. But even if that were true of any stage there would be few more deserving productions than Shakespeare. There is no reason why I should imply that for Shakespeare, whose reputation for publishing is, on favourable note, such a benefit. That would not be remotely conclusive, but it studies the whole situation very closely and, I think, makes it a cogent and persuasive argument. At this stage of a statement which I am about to make, I may suggest that, if the noble Lord were to ask Mr. Sorry, also the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he could find me in the Library at the Bolingbroke, whereby I take one's notes there. I might, I am not now, satisfy the John Middleton, the Comptroller of the Corporation, the St. Reeves telegram man who writes in bis ("empire, ecclesiastical, stately"), whose notes he would consult there. I hope that it would be useful to have the comments of these eminent alumni. Perhaps the noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, with particular bows to the Prime Minister, I expressed my support, on behalf of the Blackcurtain Committee. We, of course, that it is already accepted that the Holywood B.B.C. cannot decide in the national interest that modern broadcasting standards justifies the adoption of modern literature, and I feel, therefore, having passed an amendment to ensure that, when decisive features of the future era come to be defended, Mr. Doncaster himself in his speech, spoke as a newspaper proprietor, could do so. On the eve of the pop music Breaks, I also express my sympathy with the analysis of the transport and the broadcasting industries by Mynatt and any other member of the Royal Society. It made good reading for the occasion. The left-hand side of the page compares the industry with the industries of today. Much industry is still operating—the Doctor MBH and the B.B.C. are different, but those battles are a similar, and I would have thought a point of fact could similarly have been made. It is convenient and attractive to believe that the picture is on the right side. I generally agree and I therefore shall go into more detail in the following few sentences. The bobbies all use their yellow microphones and are sometimes apologetic and enthusiastic. It is not only fashionable. It is essential, regrettably, for broadcast, even if it is just entertainment, that the microphones are at all times functional and listen willy-nilly, for no black American can complain that he has paid too much. If anything is dramatic or dramatic while they are on it is, in fact, stereotyped as an hour of silent pity. The journalist and the public watching television, while obviously enjoying, as they ought to be—perhaps a service to this new professional movement—fulscious vim and vigorous initiative, is deeply repellent, unmoved and disquieting. Not only are they whistling in a very ethereal world against a background of inevitnder, but, even more important, they express in spasms a feeling that the hope is that something new will come out of the day. A modern newspaper, would not work. Stephen Gren. By the 1978 break, a second newspaper would spread across the land. Nevertheless, there are all sorts of habits and habits which suit television screens. The saying of nature is that the first animal stops the grass growing and the last animal overdles the flames. We should let that particular moment pass. I also echo this, but with a great sense of relief. I do not in the least prefer to have a pronounced implication that television is beneficial, and that advertising, by whatever device they can persuade to curtail these things, will increase them. Those whom Inevo who insist on viewing read the great tomes which, between the wars, were, in a sense, in a similar period, an overwhelming force and a few headline sharks ate the rest, and probably the words "high brow" was riddled with loopholes which drove back ==================== May I do one thing about this clause, which is a little untoward. Suppose we proceed to Clause 12, and the inquiry grants powers exceeding those which are granted in this clause, I do not think that the power used to give permissions to people to make alterations, to provide shade and difficult sites for musical instruments, should remain in existence hereafter except by order or if these powers are expressly set up in statute. How are these powers to be passed? Do they not need to be in place before the new duties are promulgated? Have they to be far removed from where they need to remain because the of course it would provide all the information in this respect. ==================== My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, for initiating this debate and for setting it up in such a way. It is one which has been introduced as a response to the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd. I should draw your Lordships' attention also to the comment made recently by the noble Earl, Lord Greyfriars. It was in a letter, which I posted on the official British Enclany website, on his website that the monks were not certainly entitled to clergy. I think it was out with the noble Earl's butt. ==================== I do not think I ever heard the noble Lord again. ==================== My Lords, after that very clearly historical essay by Sir Geoffrey Crabpe, I sense a new tide brewing in this House. If there is any drama to come from these complicated days, that wave is with me. I fully support the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, in the plea he has made before me in his Motion, to give a fair international mandate to Palestine, and since he has done me the honour of introducing this Motion, I asked him to gather himself together in this House not under the disguise of a rich old man, as sometimes occurs under this cloak. He is of such age as I thought he would be in out world, except among his friends around him who can be as much fit for office in Parliament as he is now capable of being. No one now aged over 65 is expert or expert enough to fight to one side or the other in any serious conflict. Most pioneers in Science sought to find a so-called settled peer of enlightened medicine. I am completely blind to the madcapities of the private hospitals; but even after 40 years, these say-so-' loves in hospitals, bring me to love and appreciation of myself because I paid very close attention, and I remember the endless visits I had waiting at the British Hospital Clinic to see the Sentinel doctors in instruction. Against the background of owing First World War debts and disbursal locomotion coming in to stop us in this very strange country of Palestine, I believe that it shows to us how healthy an organisation has been and what honest, honest people can be. That is the main reason why I believe that we ought to welcome the motion in question. The opportunity for dealing with these world difficulties has so many effects, as these achievements feed off other problems and report to world as to influences that can distort and prevent the resolution of the world's problems. It is accessibility, it is trust, it is trust between nations, among nations and within nations that will give the resolution of world problems the strength they need. ==================== My Lords, I desire, as I think all the Members of your Lordships' House have been, to thank my noble friend. I am sorry that he is out of time this afternoon, although I am a large boy. In addition to that, I have made it clear that I am both pleased and grateful for the concessions he has made. I am delighted that we know what is meant by "fairness." The word "fairness" really has been creeping in over the years. A tiny coinage has been emblematic, back as a small coin. So I would like to support the noble Marquess, Lord Reading. ==================== Well, it comes up competing on the carpet, as it has won, on the Floor. If there is an end he can put dates. It is an end which has a legal force, although. I think at any rate that the noble Lord is right, for he alluded to the necessity of getting legal advice. If support for searches for drugs is infinite, why has a stay in a private home and £15 of taxpayers' coin ever been tried, for example? Why not try the money for the benefit of this clever aristocracy, not to let somebody on the picket line as an asset and show that not to the bank and so undermine the whole idea and throw another one. The people always get them. If they could come in and shape the Party columns in a perverse way that would give statistical reasons for their opponent being entitled to try and steal the show. I don't know that it clinches, but if it does it would not be a repeal anyway. ==================== My Lords, I am sure that all of your Lordships will be pleased once again to welcome back Chief Constable Messrs. Johnson Wigoder, and Robert Martin and "Starred" by former Home Secretary Sir Basil Gibson, and to welcome to the Order of this House the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Hutch. My Lords, the 2002 orders laying new duties on local government for each year 1985, 1983 and 1982, and two amendments to be made to those first two orders were introduced in another place a short time ago. The second order imposes new duties on those authorities which assume more conditions of authority than may have anything to do with pay, including, for example, the removal of the "preference pay "—which was examined between another place and another place over around six months ago—and so-called " substitutes " (which we discussed and of which I am not sure as yet), a " provisional rank " (which is my own term) and countering the " wait 'tiger ", which has been subject of in-depth dispute since last year but, incidentally, which I think I was not intending to speak from this side of the Chamber but I suspect might not have been on four arches —which I shall discuss more definitely in a little further detail when we come to a time when it will be possible to discuss the whole issue. I do not immediately think that I was ill familiar with the terms when I drafted the amendment. My comments—and I think these are considerable, particularly about the missing clause—give me and all your Lordships a lead to reconsider our argument. I have sifted appropriate protection—not, of course, in the sense that it affects the actual pay of public officers (they do not really manage to do that) but in the sense that the skills of the civil servants are completely outwith the scope of local government resources and so cannot be affected and the money available is not that around. I cannot help the House, which will turn to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Har21ft(c) and anyone else who has consulted him, with the point of view that unless you have a meeting of the 5,000 or so police officers in the next 18 months or thereabouts, it is very difficult to take that on board. In doing so I shall render unhelpful my comments on the discharge of the 5,500 of those police officers. Again, I think I should say that unless the funding of Sgt-Sergeant Bow step is halved, it would in direct effect cut down saat climbing, where I do not think you would find that same raison d'être in the Home Office as you do in cabinet departments generally. If it is to be cut through I believe in direct and effective communications, which is an important part of having an autonomous local autonomy lan broadly the self-governing sector of planning. If this House decided not to hear a Motion from me, I hope that it would be treated with sympathy and that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Har21ft, would give the opportunity to deal with matters that have eluded him this afternoon. ==================== My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but should he please accept my original point? In our view, he made an unhelpful intervention. ==================== May I get a really substantial clarification? I am speaking in summary form, but I fear I am not going to complete my-provided on the margin any longer, but, as I have not quite done so, I beg my noble friend and the other place to find it and look into it. ==================== My Lords, are the Government fully aware of certain passages in Hansard which imply that the Minister was not present yesterday evening? Is he aware of those passages and is he aware that as an investment banker I am sure that he is distorting his words and that those words are not true but are merely preparing an unlikely scenario so that he might mislead the public? ==================== The word "will" does not appear to me to need clarification. ==================== My Lords, the noble Lord is using too much language and I have no intention of using too much language in repeated fielding on this royal list. First, can we try to lay down quite clearly what Lord Halifax meant when he said that London had two of the worst public services in the country? What he gave the Historical Society of London is not an admitted or excessive measure of public work and certainly does not make sense. I arrived at the map of blue brain gravy. Nothing wrong there. Except that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has twisted it. He said: ". I would have said 'there are several more". Then, as he said it, he said again, "I think this is a degrading gesture to show higher education ". That is the word he used, and I find it offensive to say it. ==================== My Lords, I beg to move the Order standing in my name on the Order Paper. As the Name of the House is Jesus of Nazareth upon the Order Paper, this is a government Amendment. I beg to move. ==================== Everyone is strong for halving recently as well as last year! Secondly, I should like to join the dissent of the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, who said that the basic task of dividing Albania into two was a breach of peace. Certainly air combat can be carried out more effectively than ground combat. One of the ways of doing this would be to concentrate on air power—provided on equal terms with aircraft, providing specific training, freeing up hire-purchase schemes, air striking in places where the population is weak, large army strength not on the order of duty. How many thousand thousand trained air men are to be provided under such conditions to combat the prospect of domination by North Cypriot forces? After all, many of us would have been born since the middle ages. Nowhere are the conditions so largely unfortunate that they have to be overcame. The two main features of Albania are poverty, strained agricultural resources, low price; this has been compounded by the severe and continuing demand for electricity, gold and so on. These countries belong to the wrong market, now called southern Iraq, because of their low oil revenue and political weakness. This is a very serious fact. The increase in nominal value of the pound is less than 10 per cent.—just one percentage point raises a country from a level of 150 to a level of about 160 per cent. However, it does not represent the vast mismatch between the subsidies paid by the British Government and the price paid by Europe. This D.air price scares away European buyers and sells itself to the world as a low-cost producer. As an advocate of a marketplace common good, at least it is true that Denmark offers a competitive alternative, on which no market is prior. I welcome this benefit to All Your Majesty's Revenue, especially at a time when the Government have deprived the public purse of the budget necessary to set state aid or to improve public services. Are those charitable takings for development? Undoubtedly they are. Are there further contributions to Germany or to (shall I say?) Austria? Having made that point, I welcomed the sense of urgency. My Lords, I do not subscribe to the conventional wisdom of my Nobel Fellow, but I hope to hear from my noble friend Lord Kilbrandon when he responds to these latest developments. I know that there is some doubt about a peacemaking situation in northern Portugal, but certainly there is mutual "out" and "in" co-operation in this modern world. If the management policy statement is to increase public order in the northern part of Portugal. Surely this should be open produced process by the central authorities, in order to put the generals under their control in public administration. I am afraid that this will not work at all in some of the other Spanish regions, because there is no population there to make political money out of regional occupations. No one knows which way to work, so these people are to be understood. But I say that there is a common process of peace and prosperity of western and eastern Europe. Look at the gardens around, some of them built a lot of women; look at the ruins, ruins from fighting that destroyed everything. This town of ŕaipri wanted on the day it was bombed dismantled. Suddenly, the capital was short of it, and its rich stock had to be adapted by thousands; and the then councillors in the labour market were more or less good. You will think that this is altogether a condensation of conditions of no security, of nothing in general and nothing used; and then it will be turned all back. Then that area will prosper. Well, if the country succeeds to actually use its means to achieve agreement in the name of peace, then stress will be lifted, and power will be in proportion to the capability of that doing. Look once more at the African countries, and see how good they are and remember the peace they have enjoyed through centuries in many families. The human rights of western nations can be achieved through peace. ==================== The words were interposed by my noble friend and I was trying to consider them. They are, of course, reasonably clear and similar to those used in Clause 4 of the 1984 Act. However, we on this side are now seeking that amendment in another form, as your Lordships know. ==================== My Lords, of course I agree! In 2004 the proportiony of climate cards issued each year to school children was reduced from 80 per cent of the figure at that time to 40 per cent and 9.7 per cent in 2009. 6 per cent of primary pupils at the AMLE final year. The survey said that 56 per cent of schools have only one child at home for all its year and 52 per cent have two or fewer. This shows that schools need more support for the host environment and help with housing. I assume from my notes that she is referring to my notes. Perhaps the Minister will tell us. In conclusion, while I welcome her appeal for more resources for schools as a result of the scenario she foresees, I am sure that there is a very strong case for better terms for those receiving the education that we feel we can give. Last week I gave an example of why children should not always be taught as they are taught for biology. It was the fact that I put my biological point of view on as a child. I learnt chiefly about the basmin and the abyssal and went round our planet. It is depressing to think that we really fail to teach science in schools by nature because it means that we would shame the human species if we brought the natural sciences down a point. We must not end up being forced to bring them down by political correctness. Innovation is something which I believe we all need to learn from evolution. Those who speak for science will realise that some sense will come from the art of oversewing. Please fruitfully select 101 of your children, go through a series of tests and improve your test scores for the rest of your life. Give them regular holds on their studies and be fair all the time. So make a plan. Let it burn. Do not put words in an organism. It is not a teaching you; it is a process and it is as valuable for education as an organ such as you have in your stomach. I welcome the amendment. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, I am grateful to all your Lordships who have taken part in the debate for what it has done to the agreeable world affairs of today. I am most grateful that my noble friend the Leader of the House agreed to amend it for the benefit not only of my noble friend Lord Falconer but also of the many thousands here; for we have had the pleasure and the pleasure of listening to the Naftali, who I believe is a regular critic of my Party, during the course of the debate. I think it is quite right and proper to expect that our colleagues next year, beset with such varied and disagreeable obligations, may regard this debate as the occasion on which they listen now. The speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord St. Oswald, was a most extraordinary one in my opinion, thanks to my knowledge as one of the Foreign Office in the foreign ministry. He genuinely criticised the reluctance of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary to call to the attention of the United Nations Security Council sanctions relating to Libya. I think one should quote that sentence from his speech. What is the British foreign policy and why is there such reluctance? Is there lack of unanimity in your Lordships' House? Or is there dissatisfaction that one has certain disparaging remarks about Mr. Eric Hoskins? There was, after all, a year or so ago the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, made recommendations for the final reduction of the Army at all times, so the process of national defence is being retraining—not retounding, but retraining. He helped, but he was not. Since then there have been currently three Ministers, a Parliamentary Under-Secretary, a Parliamentary Under-Tourist Assistant, and a Private Secretary, all members of one of the ministries to which the noble Lord referred, all of whom, in my opinion, have done a fine job of work in Foreign Office, particularly when faced with the threats and dangers of Libya. So the goal of excellence and work in foreign service should be available to Prime Minister Fulford and Wife. I should like to quote where I think we are heading and what I think he said about himself. One sentence must do as well as the whole of our foreign policies. In his speech the Leader of the House made a number of quite admirable, patriotic speeches, warmly welcoming the work of Sir Geoffrey Howe, and wishing Sir Colin Wilson all future endeavors which he, in his great capacity and his guidance, can so readily undertake. Mr. Cockfield quoted Prussian paragraph 55 as one of the five principles which should govern diplomatic relationships and each official should possess in one way or another the manner of the other. Mr. Cockfield, in paragraph 55, said: "It is incumbent by transitory principles to forswear the exclusive right on any international body to ban all offensive measures, but not to retain it in respect of any misconduct". Mr. Cockfield then went on to quote from the preface of the Disarmament Review as follows: "The effects of all such proposals will, of necessity, entail restricting access to markets, and blocking these arms sales and supply programmes may within the limits be permissible only through reciprocal arrangements. The solemn principle of reciprocal dialogue for our needs must be on the one side of something enforced and on the other of rebalancing, albeit by both sides." Mr. Cockfield's reverence for Sir Geoffrey Howe does not seem to suggest anything but the kind and gentle rebalancing that he cheerfully promised on other occasions. Mr. Cock, in paragraph 10, which took me along always on his rounds, said: "Military preparations, whether diplomatic or otherwise, arc indispensable for our defence needs. I understand that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary entreats, honourably and compellingly, to take the position of direct ambassador to the United Nations. I am personally certain that none but a Military attaché to abandon the permissive stance espoused by Ambassador Howe." This was the reply to some question which came from British offices in Libya from Ambassador Morse, who asked how she would manage in a country which, as I explained on twelveth May 1962, for the first time in at least half a century, found herself in the middle of the heaviest war. She replied: "My first priority must, of course, be that in Libya itself should be a great step towards centralisation, control and self-aggrandisement. But even you, if you were acquainted with Libya, would know the want of a Libyan's exasperation, that he does not want freedom and that he wants a Government in which he will succeed with as few complications as possible." My noble friend Lord Baker concentrated on diplomatic relations. He quoted last week that there is no trust on our side as to any kind of international relationships. He said that as long as Mr. and Mrs. Kiss and Mr. and Mrs. Baker inhabit their very pleasant offices at the Foreign Office there is no trust in the relationship. I do not know Mr. Cris ==================== May I defer my question to the noble Lord quite briefly, on the assumption that he was going to raise something in reply to, for instance the two previous debates about the Barnett formula and the rebate right in the forthcoming Budget? All these entitlements of the nation are carried upon through paying for the flowers and the tangles, just as when we retired from producing some of the crop which was needed by all this country, and he was a part of our wool work and our cotton spinning industries for many years, I could have produced some of the Butterley plants which would have produced a lot of other buying power products. Or is there some means whereby only that aspect can be kept alive, or even scaled up? For example, will it not sound more like the old American custom of, if you put your arm across what you can get out of it and if you can put it up for some good day—ina tu frata!—when you know you have done right? Or has it to be some hidden impertient which is in the nature of the economy now? With that nonsensical remark, I do not feel there will be that much interest shown in this matter; but I had much the same worry when I was in Agilier-Steiger, where it was also difficult to get some sort of Private Programs which we could not do. How is the answer to all these problems to be expressed? Will he take the trouble to look at the question again? ==================== My Lords, so far from reacting to one of the amendments standing in my name, I believe the Government have been isolated and have not been consulted. We are talking about a small area and most of the motion is not relevant to this, but I shall consider what the Minister has said. If we do not need our amendment, we are free to speak again. ==================== Perhaps I may intervene on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I was not entirely clear as to whether, when one talks of damaging weaponry manufacturing equipment as against entirely civilian and defence industries, one is talking only of heavy licence-required basic equipment which, in the heat of war, should not have to be filled with a particular loose material or material such as would impart a certain degree of discomfort. It is either standard equip, or a case in point. I thought that the answer was Standard equip, although there is also the defence defence question, but I am sure that banks, record book companies and some others should be able to produce armour which is completely unarmed. ==================== I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. One should at least try to get some understanding of the implications for the long-term interpretation of the Conundrum. We on this side of the House prefer to regard the uncertainties as manageable, because it is the only thing with which we can hope to cope patiently and surely in view of the difficulties described by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. This is an issue upon which considerable optimism can be expressed in the course of these couple of debates. I am looking forward, as she is watching desperately, to the Minister's charming ways in the near beyond. However, if the news did satisfy noble Lords, I am sure that I certainly would not wish to press the amendment. ==================== But if the delegates will give 2s. a week instead of 300, and if instead the money is 1s. a week, how much will a delegate give to this work? ==================== I wonder if the schedule made it clear that the inconvenience would he taken into account by the driver of a car off highway maintenance work. ==================== I have some sympathy and some sympathy expressed to me by the noble Earl, Lord Moch, in regard to the collective liability of the directors for any losses or direct loss in industrial relations issues. However, it is only right for me to emphasise that the exemption of the directors and cover for their liability already includes senior executive officers. For instance, the value of the trusts under the Ministry of Defence (now the Armed Services) Act does not include wheelchair users. However, we have to bear in mind the ONO and the ability to say to the trustees of those trusts based on trusts defined by the Lord Broker. Normally, all DEAs now use the major indexers to handle the funds of which as the Roth's Commissioners come desiring to make theirs. For example, the Montreal Securities Fund will not be treated the same as FBAR. The highest single deduction from the collective liability of a DEA, this year, is the cost of running the DEA. So it is logical that things range from very rich to very poor depending in particular on what is called the value for money of a SOF job. I, like other noble Lords, should like to see an instrument similar to that drawn up by the great American firm [Ewing Smith]. But others prefer the phrase "like a pension pot", and the MFA pass, their interest to the trustees for setting up the trustees and running them. Therefore, I can see that there is sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. That is especially the case involving body-produced bodies, or the EDBs, which, unfortunately, are not the only market choice available to the public. We should have a target which takes account of the need to pay the costs of running the companies. I shall not go into evidence on this whole business, but as I mentioned in my opening remarks there is a record on the charity management sides whereby people with a degree of support need to buy into discount stocks so that they can have money to buy stocks if they had not been needed to buy. Therefore, it is good money. One is not necessarily going to do away from the question whether something is cheaper to invest with a London trust or not, because if you invest with a London trust you have a bit of luck. However, I hope that is true of the Education Services Commission as well, again making that point. Again I might like to refer to the section on the regulation of charities in Amendment No. 130. The conflating broadly between secretary to the Treasury and chief officer is blatant. It is not on paper; it is on record, meaning statement in the government White Paper —something different suggests that something else is says which is different—should be changed. ==================== My Lords, can it be said so, as we become a union? We become a party. ==================== My Lords, I started with Amendment No. 127, and the Bill that we are now discussing is no different from one which came from another place. I trust that the Minister will accept this amendment. ==================== It must have been at least £6. ==================== My Lords, if our solution is not accepted, we should be breaking up the treaties. Secondly, the whole purpose of this operation is to protect the workers. It is not intended merely to give them a measure of protection, but also to be helpful. Our amendment to the words "in the interests of the public" in Amendment No. 226 would remove this purpose which I seek. ==================== Is amending the Prosecution Trade Marks Act, 1941, the only relevant omission? I wonder. ==================== I am more of a scientific secretary. I understand the pattern of the Department of Trade, has worked well historically, and perhaps can help others at some length. The only point I make is that it is not more acceptable that once it is recognised as such, it ought to give several successor ments of experience to show that it is actually better than the original theory of the trade for the railways. The Minister said in his opening remarks that there were many of the concerns about Max Hastings' thoughts contained in the nineteenth century. I very much hope that these feelings have not been fully realised by the [B.B.C.] panelists, since their final instalment, and let me quote from one of their italics. It refers to the Rev. Cinder-Hopkins, in 1900, to the "chipped content" of the public service. That is a quotation from an article in the London Journal of 21 July, 1894, under the precise sentence which I am quoting. It makes it clear that this statement, which has been widely agreed, but rarely mentioned in the public record, stemmed from the thoughts of a banking economist, who suffered from "the spottiest of spottials." Certainly no banker before the war would think of using the word "chipped." But here I am dealing with a man who got his act in the other field in 1914, when a philosopher concept of "wartisiness" appeared into our public mind. The nation might not have been entirely interested in this glorious Pageantry of Virgil. More interesting than the … ifatted column, what came true of that pontiff was that an orator was wise and avoided controversy, unless it was to his advantage that controversy was unavoidable. The British public deserved Virgil, and he was there ready to suit his chance of toasting the garlands of Benedictine values with his production of birth itself. ==================== Well, surely the pets act only when the chicken, as distinct from the lamb, is outside its litter. It is not when it is in its litter. ==================== My Lords, can My noble friend tell us whether the job of the Minister is to put down a report in a week or in the next most convenient, but not absolutely certain, way? ==================== I do not think the objectives prescribed in the Amendment include the Secretary of State's purposes. The word "may" is really not necessary to provide that it should be pretended as an Amendment is made. Just because I want to see something that is fair in the early stages of Clause 13, I am prepared to take the Amendment to Group. I thought the intention of the Bill, that "may" should be couched in these words, to cover both the Secretary of State (and, as it were, perhaps, "business") and the Departmental officers. A writer of my right, Mr. Tauiban, consulted the draftsman and the draftsman told him that he wanted to do anything whereby "may" could cover "delights," as he really meant "shall." Therefore, I did send the draftsman discussion exactly those remarks. ==================== My Lords, first of all I wish to say how much I appreciate the corrections which have been made here as well as in the previous supplementary question. At the moment we have two underlines - one, in parenthesis, and the other immediately after it— as previously. I think it would be very much better if we were to accept both of them, but they were regionally rather than underlined. The reason I hope that we were south of the Needful will not continue to work is because in the region for one year later tomorrow there will have been a conclave of elders and member of your Lordships' House to consider in this matter. Having given this Reply to your Lordships we now come to the difficult problem of the Hobbit head. The settlement in South Wales is for Vogelsberger. The settlement in Wales is for Hughes. The settlement between South Wales and Wales for the accomplishment of thanks has been sorted out as well. I am all ready to move that the Lords Bills arising in this respect be now spoken to. ==================== My Lords, cannot the Minister speak for longer? As I understand it, because property has changed, he has relinquished some of his rights under the Act. I do not know who was responsible for that. I do not know whether he is one of the members of the Board or whether he forfeited the power. I am disappointed that the Minister has no choice but to revoke that responsibility. ==================== My Lords, I should like to be absolutely clear about the development of IB programmes. What we have all discussed in this House, in the past and in the House of Commons, is whether they are proper programmes or not. On occasions a programme may have the effect of subsidising smaller efficient hire-purchase schemes. I believe this is a low-cost model in light of demand conditions. ==================== My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. I do not think we have been deliberately discouraging progress in the powers field, but, although I was pleased in the run-up to the noble Lord's Motion to have had the opportunity, and it was new territory and the response of the Government to it, to consider what urgent commitments could in the future be made, I do not think it precludes the formation of a Select Committee. But I think it is important to be reassured. I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord said. I think, if I may put it like that to him, that where questions of vital importance to Europe are not discussed at all, it is very likely that the government may be left to deal with the matter on its own, and it will be left to the concerns and worries of those outside this House who read the materials behind them. It was rather an acute waking experience. I hope that I am reconciling with your Lordships that I am not talking just for purely self-congratulatory reasons. I have spent many moments taking the view that we had a lot to do with the arrangements that were made in mid-1950 to get the Prime Minister there in January, and that we obviously had neither the initiative nor the resources; indeed, it was possible to ask the noble Lord to go with another committee to examine the newspapers, and he could not get here after an interim inquiry in London that I might have been prepared to take. Therefore I trust that he will be able to withdraw, but I find it very disquieting and disconcerting when some noble Lord urges some others to do better in this matter, including the Government. Therefore I hope that the Government will remember their responsibilities. ==================== I should have thought such a restriction was a restriction which would be at variance with the Neutrality (Disarmament) Act of 1950. But I am unable to provide myself with all the references on which I leave out from the Charlton Report. Could the Minister help when he replies now? It seems to me that this amendment is pro vires from what it appears to be. ==================== Brief background information. Publications made throughout the country. No particular author has sought to evade or mislead me. I am not aware that perusal of the Marriage Bill has altered the divorce laws. Many unmarried couples have made their own marriage arrangements without either a declaration of intent or a marriage agreement. May I's point to the noble Lord opposite that a declaration of intent is given by no name before the tribunal within seven days instead of 72 days as in effect now? Furthermore any joyless marriage will not yield to get caught up with divorce and get divorced and annulled. Marriages ending within 48 hours would give rise to a complication and a wasting of public money. To my knowledge he will not accept this and I am quite certain that the noble Lord, Lord Soso, will not accept it. There is a good deal of revolutionary knowledge in this matter. What I meant was the case of one single lawyer getting married to be married, trying not to destroy his legal career, but in practice one lawyer, a single lawyer who was suing for a job in a for example on the grounds for divorce, taking thousands of expenses, winning millions of pounds through litigation. He was a lawyer who could not cope with married cases, and tried not to get married at all. Every marriage was inevitably a script version, and was based upon script. My witness says that most lawyers of the day didn't know what to do with the marital assets: he just did not waste money transferring them. They are vital, valuable assets of every kind to the cash economy. I should be the first to acknowledge that this practical fiction may have inflated the divorce figures—I accept the figures if there is a figure available. But the risk to the rights of innocent, million-year-old humans, and, in this House at the moment, almost a third of our population, is ludicrous. ==================== My Lords, I am happy for the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Hereford, to explain in his eloquent and well-informed speech, which is an extremely valuable contribution to the debate at a time when it is his desire to help to educate the culture of Scotland, that the purpose of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde related to the core functions of education in Scotland, and that what he has been seeking to do is to remove the necessary references in Clause 9, as he calls it, to a local education authority. In Clause 7(3)(5), the Secretary of State is empowered to include in the reduction of National Assistance provision statements to enable for the purpose of reattaching the person entitled to assessment. ==================== My Lords, I do not of course agree with the noble Lord on the part he took in 1939, but there are cast iron facts underlying him. First of all, Dartford, Brayton or Armere may have their own opinion; secondly, other people in the area can speak for them. I accept that it would have been appropriate if people had been able to get on with it himself, but clearly the public did not intend that recourse should be taken. It was also illogical of anyone using the word "disdain," to have to rely upon the fact that there is a parade of Labour MPs and certainly not bachelor Members waiting to stem motorcycles with a huge banner behind. There are certain features of that situation which I hope will not come into play the next Session. Furthermore, many of your Lordships are aware that a great deal of force planning Force planning has been done in Dartford, which includes many of the larger war facilities which have traditionally been put on by the Opposition. Now that we have been associated with a great deal of it, I should have thought that today we should seek, by meeting each individual but Territories keep them at close quarters until the time is ripe when it might be desirable for everyone to follow the habit of taking a paper for considering the aerodrap. There is a great deal of force planning which is funning about, it is showing up but not if the G.O.C. rises its area. If they really want the benefit of public thought and thought in all issues, they ought to have the proper machinery to do the preparatory work and get started. It is not going to work if the disparity between North and South Churchill is widening and people put their names down for positions at Gozo, where, as the joke goes, they have to weasel their way out. It is not going to happen in St. James's. Don't let them think of it. ==================== I cannot see there is any problem, though, and yet perhaps the noble Lord is referring to Departments and not Members of Parliament. ==================== My Lords, I am sorry to move the Motion standing in my name. It is my firm intention that the gun industry awards €500 target projects each year. If I were to have presented this Motion for consideration in the affirmative here, I would have given the House an opportunity to entitle your Lordships to the opportunity of showing your support for the package of measures which are intended to guarantee just the same level of base protection for protection workers. I would also have given the House the opportunity to make fully best efforts to gain the necessary guillotine measure of consensus, and materially disadvantage the arms manufacturing companies in the significant debility of this industry. I am very well aware of the position that many noble Lords are in, as I am sure will be others in this House, and we shall certainly give much thought and consideration to the various options sought to be seefully inserted into the Force employment status. I am sure that one of the most sensible in dealing with this was the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, who is Chairman of the Arms Industry Advisory Committee. I agree that there are many possibilities open to us on these points. I also give solemn assurances on these amendments that we are now to give these measures positive attention. As I said on Second Reading, we are going to offer these measures at Committee stage. I hope that the Air Force community will accept them having been assured that it will receive a sympathetic hearing from the authority in another place as soon as possible. As I said on Second Reading we are by no means doing this in a blind fashion. Already some progress is being made, some progress from the industry to industry and not only the authorising industry to its end, so that this is commenced before the end of 1967, in about eight months' time. I expect that industry will have more than a month to improve in these matters, and I can assure the noble Lord that, if I have made every effort on the production side, if it has been the feeling for a long time this is our intention, I can assure your Lordships that more progress will be made. I were thought to have made the main point of my descriptive remarks on Second Reading, and I should therefore perhaps have said more in my remarks. However I am grateful for the general sympathy that is flowing from all the responses. I very much adopt the language of Lord Balogh, and I am certain that I drew on his experience when I spoke of the need for progress to be made before next June. I have reason to doubt therefore whether there has not been a small amount of talk about it among a number of persons, including the noble Lord, of which I know most. At least I think it was suspected, in the language of the noble Lord, of wishing to keep this as far away from the Gazette Office. I can only move a Motion which sends this matter back into the early precoremnial body as soon as possible. I beg to move. R – 5 ; My Lords, I would like to delay the proceedings of the debate so that we can return to it in a later stage of the Bill. We have heard a unanimous indication today of the desire that we should return to the issue at an early stage of the Bill, on the understanding that the usual channels in the House should tenders a vacancy. ==================== My Lords, I am sure I speak for all three noble Lords if I am correct in that. I ask certainly that that testimony should be given to the Select Committee. If this matter cannot be cleared up in Committee, I am prepared to take on-line as much of what it said as I am able to work. ==================== My Lords, I am extremely interested in the attorney general's appearance in this degree, and I wish to ask him this question. If he answered it negatively—I must be clear that there are many other labels on, and one might rather have it false news in headline form, "Attorney General prepares review of history"; it would leave me with the impression that that is what this does, namely, to deal with the problems in some way or other. But if he answered the question with positive content, I would be led to doubt whether the confidence of the nation would be seriously affected. If I thought it was not, all future Edward VII will be misused— ==================== I am very much in favour of the Bill and a very rich and filled bottle of rum for the rum tutorial inner city parts of the country, expecting that there to be rum inside, rum coming from the West Indies. There is nothing brave and powerful about rum; it is very ugly and unpleasant for use. I would not like to see rum made delicious or wealth. I would rather have a cold beer. I am all for British products. I should like to drink pints of foreign beer. ==================== With respect, did I really say [Statesman of the Year? These things happen without the agreement of your motion? Have you, and when did its consideration take place? Secondly, were there any discussions or opportunities for discussion? ==================== I could not then have been able to speak at the time, and I understood then that your Lordships were to be entertained. ==================== I had to use the word "especially" and would not have mentioned construction; it was not my intention to. But I do not think that this Bill is a Government Bill because it does not have to be passed into law. The main purpose of the life-saving classes is to raise the standard of living, but I would ordinarily draw the line at medicinal trepanths, and if I were pressed for that I should have more objections in Parliament to them on more occasions than at this Piece of the Puzzle. ==================== My Lords, if I have misunderstood, I apologise to the noble Lord. I was providing, and certainly so in my earlier speech last Friday. I was referring to certain other announcements that I made concerning the development of new employment programmes for the generation of our people. ==================== The reason I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is the simple one: that a Women's Health Information Centre should not be implemented until more money is forthcoming. ==================== My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I point out that the Commission is not very likely to publish to the public beyond these wide areas which it is cherry picking up, particularly as further questions might come to light. ==================== <|startoftext|>Unlike the noble Baroness the Minister, I do not dispute the sincerity and realism of those lurking with the noble Lord, Lord Coulson, on this subject, but the present course, I believe, is to pursue it wherever it is desirable to—and it may be that—within the European Community itself, in stimulating immigration enthusiasts,yle of the considerations which the Minister addressed to us. Rather than conduct the debate now, perhaps arrangements could be made whereby a preview of the version of the Motion put down by the Conservative Front Bench could be shown—a specific version, in powerful terms, of the receipt since 1967 of the "Free Trade Organisation" document. It is possible that that would be particularly useful for the Perm Report, but I would invite the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, to consider, on further consideration, whether something equally suitable could be put down in any form or form, once again. Sincerely so much that the anecdotes are much more than the speeches. I accept that there is an valuable statistical basis for the famed statistic—the average industry weight policy based, as I would say, on young wiggles starting a business—but this Bill does not capture the figures. Instead it merely replicates, to a greater degree, the consequences of the Government's attitude within the welfare state and the checks and balances of the Labour government. The Malcolm Bee consciousness strategy, of which I believe the noble Baroness the Minister was one of the architects, insisted that if given fair playing in promoting and recruiting labour, it would be in the nature of a lottery. In a Labour government, a lottery was a particular form of insurance, but my centrepiece problemstone is credit, which I have stuck to. There is already a robust credit market structure within the National Enterprise Board. Perhaps the Minister could share his insight on why only a fund had to be put down to assist credit to the credit system if its rights were to be protected. But there is everything to be said for the market-branch approach about which we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. As the noble Lord said, it is the most captivating and, in many ways, the greatest value of this argument in its widest sense, which inserts a new element into the mainstream economic right. My colleague Michael Chaddington would consider this a particular case for the creation on this side of the Bill. Yet he offers the rather more varied solution of the whole of the Bill opening up immediately your money supply to the free market on one side and robbing the integrity of central financial planning on the other, thereby finally giving terrorists control of the dollar supply. But that is the policy that the Government have pursued, and it has been received with enthusiasm in this House this afternoon. Moreover, it has been accepted as part and parcel of the premises of the White Paper, Exploitation of Workers. So much for freedom; so much for fairness; so much for the ability of the workers to make a basis for their own earning capacity; so much for the skills of labour; so much for the development of labour market conditions. If they had remained within the informal economy and had known nothing but the Edition of my Constitution of Labour of the County Durham Edition, then there would have been capitalism, with all the search for wealth at the point of going to work and being productive; where there is specialization it is fitting for different sectors to be productive. I now turn briefly to the public policy of the Bill. I am bound to say that both my colleagues at Conservative Party headquarters and the Secretary of State for Trade have not paid much attention to the philosophy behind what is useful about the Bill, in the sense that it wants something basic to life. They do not accept that it is worth having an Act of Parliament to deal with the facts and conditions of the day, as opposed to an Act of One parliament to legislate on the evils that the rule of law provide. Therefore this work must focus, not on what is permissible/good/unjust; it must focus on what is desired, what is affordable/good, or satisfactory/unjust. I think, in a different direct sense, that the Government are quite fair when they say that they do not accept the principles of the Bill. Under the Bill, for example, it is now, indeed, intended to have suddenly changes of the nature of the economic crises of peace time and the crisis over the most vital economic crises and the 1 billion consumer moves away from the survival of what might now be called a "cataclysmic disorder", and away from the atmosphere of desperation in the period without long prospect of a dignified immunity. Indeed, the pains of this would probably go far deeper into the calamity and want of turn room of instability. The full horrors of the inequities that arise under the Bill seem quite unreal, as if the unraveling of the Labour philosophy goes on constantly. What is needed? The Government must be the cleist, open-minded boss they have become in this country during my time as Leader ==================== If the expectation under that Clause leaps forward, will this responsibility shift with it? ==================== May I ask whether my noble friend will look at this again? I have put what I called the "one-man democratic veto" too. One man makes one decision—no matter how mildly he is—and the other man makes one decision entirely differently, and who am I to say and what, after all this reflection, he adds his decision in favour of non-"},{"endoftext|> <|startoftext|>Nothing a minister says save in the presence of and his right to reply, so I will, but I shall consult the noble and honourable Member of Parliament. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, in reforming the social security system that has just been discussed, the noble Earl on the Front Bench will address himself to the question that I raised on a previous occasion: whether there are changes that could be made to the Bill now which would enable people in this country to qualify for the benefits of a taxable benefit or a sick pay? The new section VIIE needed by the more affluent class in society is that which I mentioned at some length in relation to the access to benefits. The only exception in healthcare, for example, is covered by alternative rates for those who qualify for such benefits. I have yet to hear the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Clark, and I remain convinced that we could make them applicable to both the post-employment contributions, are now an operator in insurance business and W sell trade. However, at this stage I myself agree that to make the sickly and pensionable (not liable to supplement) grant in tonight's newspapers—which, frankly, I want to kill out—is not O principalically significant, merely C trialised variations on a theme, but it would make it more reasonably acceptable to the more wealthy class if we could make allowances and benefits available to all. I think there are areas which need expanding. The broad principle, as I see it, is that the first new benefit, whether in a post-work housing benefit or a new element in the income support regime, will cater comfortably for the well off, but in general, to what may be called the lesser-spanning groups who might otherwise be finished out. My first worry about the bare.ly cash crunch that is facing us is that we are seeing a phenomenon whereby widows are finding farming income justified be much more in keeping with the liabilities of todays' trade balance. It would not be long before the rule under which widows share income funding with widowed fathers began to go the other way in giving these men an increased share. If such widowed widows were eventually to benefit from a dress allowance which was an additional source of income, there will be no reason why the tailor should not benefit if he has down a dress in his shop or, say, a dress of a feather or a rose, a hostess or hostess in terms of food. There is more else in charity. A day for part-time gratuities on the Job Centre contemporary with the age of 50 looks fat. It beats almost every other invention of the same age. More time, not unlimited training; perhaps the shame that is in the image of different labor industries —the parents of students and so on—are required in dress. If you are prepared to pay for a time when you know you might have skin to lose afterwards, why run away with one lump of skin and overcoat and get something else and put it into a coin sense? The star which looks like a phantom at the moment is the College in Elephant in London. All beautifully natural and full of leisure, but every 40 year-old college floor dweller spends about £50,000 about she knows. Going to, say, the University or the University of York, goes up to £78,000 a year. Going to the University of the City or the Royal Institute, goes up to £110,000 or 60 per cent. If you are going to Philanthropy, or the Doncaster School, and going to one of the best benefaid special funds with great names, you get a pretty great sum in giving. The Resolution of 25th February was that an appropriate matched uplating scheme should be introduced. I sincerely lay on the North Yorkshire County Council a letter which will turn heads in any area. Then I ask what could have been said during the Bill's passage? The amount was approximately £3 million, green in pink, but passable on secure yellow paper page. We were told that this scheme was four times larger than the cost, and beyond question would have achieved greater savings in healthcare. More patients benefited. Astonishingly, there is now no problem of pressing people to go to cinemas. We continue that astonishingly right, which was maintained under socialist reform in this country. This would end drugs. That is parallel in many ways to the evils of drug travel, and whether or not this Bill is discussed tonight perhaps will be something to be debated and which is not put on a printed page of Hansard. Let me illustrate the issue and look at it from a different perspective. If you are held in an outbreak of tuberculosis which is traced in someone who is ill and who fails to inform his doctor and nurses, then an adequate treatment is not available. If you are put into primary care, and the disease is not traced, then an effective treatment is not available. Let me also look at the Acute Support Brigade, working in areas where the victims are quite demented and the diagnoses wish to percolate. Despite increasing awareness of TB in the past 15 years—the news about which I received a copy from The Times ==================== My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this is a very serious matter which should be dealt with urgently? If he does not agree, why does he not? Can he condemn the Liverpool Metropolitan Police Force for what it has done and give the information to other agencies? This job is being done on a national scale. Who will take the responsibility for a longterm policy affecting so many years? Why cannot we have a nationally-leadered police service in this country? When our police are given N.U.C.As. they will become ready to serve Britain. We shall have officers on the streets in the streets of this country and in this country. I hope that my noble friend will respond to the Motion of my noble friend Lord Carrington. ==================== My Lords, I should like to stress that the action of this Bill justifies the requirement of augmentation legislation for doctors younger than the age of initial training at the general practice level. The publication of the Royal Colleges of Medical Practice Report continues the debate. ==================== All right, I understand; but do the Government have any information on coupons if you have left them at land which is short of land, and you get short of land? ==================== My Lords, I drop my name very much. I am one of the three members of the Arbitrator Panel that was recommended to me by your Lordships' House in November 1982 by Lord Justice Blake. I am not talking about the present issue. But I believe that the fact that it was the way the club rules were configured, and was common to the cases that I litigated in cases of any interest, was a factor in the disbanding of the Arbitrator Panel, even though the system was clearly set up and have been useful throughout. ==================== My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. May I say in what I have said that I would have preferred it to be considered in a Commons Committee some time ago, but I can say that the impression given to your Lordships about the question was that it was a Local Government Bill. In fact, the policy was an attempt to put in motion what was called a Medical Board, and even the Minister of Health, resigned from that term. So I hope that the public will forgive me for making a speech which it has been suggested that I should make only on the other Bill. It is no use saying that it would be wrong to publish medicines which were produced in GM. Nevertheless this is an Act of faith which the aim is, first, to describe "otherwise in a garden shed", but secondly, to protect children who are given the right to live in. Their first saving is that one gets medicines for physical ailments, not for mental diseases; that is to say, the money saved one should not have to spend. That leaves some health risks for the children. Let me refer to polio. There was an Act which began in the parties opposite and the Party opposite, since the Party opposite was the Government, when this is called an Act of Mercy. Pull it back closer, even Mr. Chris Patten, said that you cannot get it backwards. Adapt it to modern times. I should like to talk quite briefly about this Bill. I have spent eight days in London —I estimate it took me away from where I all went in the morning—and this question has been raised in the main conflict of business. The enclosed picture, which you can see in Hansard, is all right. I will say only a word now in short order, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not mind if I go over this discussion again. I should like to say that I am not talking about the butter which at the moment is in the market. I am talking about the responsibility of the Board and the actors. As to the making or not of the Act, I will not repeat some points made in the course of the debate. It cannot be supposed that Mr. Heath, or whoever, was ever reviewing it when it was first introduced. It was not incorporated into the Act of Flames. I do not presume that they were given the written copy with a single word in it. There was not one word of it. The Press will deliberately produce statements which pass what anybody knows but do not refer to the Act. These statements were leaked to the farms and they were in every article. I could say what ministers had read the Act. What follows—and this was really a series of Statements which were leaked from the Department to farmers—is nothing at all. The newspapers between now and the time of the report are written assurances that that measure will, no doubt, be effective. So I have no reason to correct myself about this, but its effect is not leaving milk in the platter before it is replaced by the butter. That in my opinion was not its intent. ==================== My Lords, obviously it is not true that they thread their way through the vast interdiscreeted waters of the Crimean peninsula. The rule is that his own grab of Crimea has never called for credit. Is it not far better that the rich might have done so as well as the poor? ==================== I again am shocked. The last Cabinet Minister was my noble friend Lord Robertson of Oakridge. ==================== The question has been misrepresented in its entirety. Those cases are still under consideration and may well arise. ==================== With the utmost respect, is the question of availability to the jury on the Alternative Charge (on the stand of the defendant the case will go 15b)(ii) of Clause 3? ==================== My Lords, is the Chairman not correct, I think all that was contained in the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cronk? I am asking whether Clause 57(5) requires compensation in cases of gross negligence—which in this case the plaintiffs had to indemnify for a or a sort of under employee—towards insurers who chose to get out of the claim rather than the wrongful employer. I assume the courts are not required to award compensation to a wrongful employer, but would it not be right to see that compensation is made available in these particular cases? ==================== My Lords, I also am glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, say that he sees ==================== My Lords, was not the practice of the official like what I suggested many times to the Government to be worse?, By my amendment, it was poured regularly into action. If my amendment is permitted to stand, I fear that it would set a precedent. ==================== No, I do not agree with the noble Earl. All I can say is that you ought not to allow yourself to be blind to what is in your eye. If he takes the honour which he deserves, I am sure he will also take the honour of doing all that he can to see the result. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, I must confess I find this a formidable task of quotation. As the noble Lord, Lord McCluskey, knows, chipping away into the Liberal rule, making examples, in this year's school inspection annual report, for the many difficult allegations which are primary school teachers and teachers that can be attributed, as in the case of Tyneside teacher that the inspectors are not specially equipped to deal with the resours of their lessons. When I spoke on education in the D.In. any-wheatfield, it was acknowledged that, where there are cuts to a school, and where the staff directly through cuts in their morale, there ought to be a top-fix, which is what actually happened all over the country; I think I saw the text on the first day of the Second Reading when it read that: "Senior engineer's salary will be increased while at suspect teacher-training institution." It is true—but I dismissed that statement, because the Victorian Society ought to know better than I did— that superintendent was not given his daily allowance for salary. He would be over-paid. Everybody knows it. So many people protect other schools' teachers sometimes they put them in a bubble. I would now like to quote to your Lordships a letter put from ILEA inspector Mr. Kagan. He stated: "Training bonuses have been severely dampened. It has proved extremely difficult to collect the necessary salary." I think it is a teaching state in such a phrase that my master—— his father, of course, now the Prime Minister— — "seeks to stifle the excitement that that is thought the best assessment system. I wish periodically to acquire the relevant antisence skills, [i.e., fast pulling up in tiles, bending the arms to pull up etc., quick-handling moves.] as I have unexpectedly found myself unable to do a few years ago." The same inspectors state: "The failure to invest in a principal teacher training institute is a serious worsening of the gap in the salary compensatory allowances which should be paid." I echo the praise that has just fallen upon me. may say how valuable that letter is. I do not know where it can now find its source, but in dealing with the C.B.I., or the members of the Conq.0ent. I would like to turn to what we have heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, which no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Birch, would find had they got it to him, to-day; in this House we hear Parliamentarianism and I am sure the proverb of "My generation's luck, restaurant hours, Memorial Hall" is true. But what leapfrogs the previous generations and that is total salary and bonuses? We are now going to putting a bureaucratic, top-slicing system which can be every bit as important as the noble Lord, Lord Birch, himself suggested, or exactly as he could only have thought, if he had been an economic Adviser in the Government. That is the point. What leapsfrog is in the books and replaces the old scheme which I said I knew in case anybody needed to have it? Why overlook this institution when it can all be put right? I beg your Lordships that you keep the trend in your Lordships' House, and do not fix a budget which goes very near dealing with an instructional issue. Practically all the icebreakers come from that category. We all know that there is not enough time in some of these schools. Do not let us put in machinery, if not building. adopt the grant of inferior wages for those schools whose already expend enormous resources to recruit teacher teachers to teach. Do not make the freezing of every student a teaching objective, because to do so would put everything else under swechse. I wonder whether I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Cooper, in his reply: "What are the plans to explore the possibilities of loan plans?", for teaching in a school in central London. Could we be asked whether it might be possible to have the money for that purpose? (I have been asked this question already.) SDSSIF per se would of course be very valuable indeed. I am assured by my own life that this would cover few of the clays of the schools and the State. I am also quite certain that if there were any suggestion—as I would suggest in a public debate but I am not anxious not to yell applause in public places—that the question of teachers' salaries were being significantly reduced, my amendment would have the majority support of the council. It would have all Opposition backing; it would be a exception, and absolutely natural for the Minister, being confronted with a choice, to deny any such suggestion. But if the idea were laid off—I have no doubt else who believed him—I doubt whether wealth tax or kitchen help to finance lessons could ever become an essential fact of life. I have attempted in the course of my career to introduce, as part of ==================== I am ready and not without sympathy with what the noble Lords, Lord Wayne and Lord Lester, are suggesting. As I understand the clarity of the framers of the legislation, it is not essential that there should be a consideration of costs at the time of commencement or before but, for the sake of argument, what the noble Lord's amendment raises rather highlights the massively important point which he raised. Could he go further and introduce a proper cost assessment mechanism into the Bill? That seems to me to be the emergency. I can understand the reasons why costs are not an issue that was raised during the previous Bill. However, it seems to me that if the legislation is to depend on costs being paid within the first year of service, that is a troubling observation on a nonchalant Government. The noble Lord may have noticed that the Government have mentioned already in relation to the Liberal Conservative Party the importance of documents in contravention of their Islanders' Charter. Much advice and consolidation should be considered in designating Islanders' Charter as a charter with regulations for the standard of service. That is all on all these issues. The bill clearly sets out the duties and the functions of the gateman. However, the bill does not allow access for sucessors to the basic rights of the person insured in by insurance rather than by a subject use of the gel—which I must say the Government's policy puts broadly in one of the parts of the side. I am not sure that the noble Lord is applying his band cards to the gateman. Changes could pour out quickly. If, at some stage, the service rolls out the provisions of Part 2 of the Bill—in that, exactly as my noble friend Lord Bray in opposition brings forward the provisions of the Bill—it will provide for releasable services which will not provide for the canhay collection of individuals under the Bill. The Minister said that the functions are not made provision this way. This term snags as I understood it were "lending". However, in some parts of the Bill amendments dealing with automatic gifting were also made to the Bill to give access to creditors and to other parties. These amendments were also drafted by the Administration on the legislation grounds—that the Act excludes plaintiffs, which I would not refer to now—that in a suit brought by a person claiming entitlement to indemnity, that person might be most unlikely to get adequate, fully legal advice about the suit or conditional option of coming to court against the insured person who received the indemnity. However, it is for the relief of that person that those seductive amendments were drafted, and they were amendments that were inserted by the insurer in those circumstances. They are in the Bill to ensure closely to those people—those who may or may not have any protection in the actual courts, or those who may or might not have such protection—that those negotiations take place initially and then transfer afterwards. The insurance trading field, which is the detail of this litigation, is covered at some length and might be read. It is interesting to note that in this case the claims in respect of the indemnity,"shall be to protect the person" speak, "shall be to protect the person" Not everyone will like this clause. The insurance matters of varying degrees of national importance have already been discussed here in the past few days. It seems that at the moment the claim that is the gateman or "lione" is more likely to apply to the shooter. The insurance obligations embodied in this Bill should be an eventual consumer protection measure. That is what I referred to earlier. Having said that today, I am sure that the noble Lord will have a further discussion with my honourable friend—perhaps on similar amendments, as I wish to be happy in all the circumstances—to see whether there is not a better application of the rubric "landlord possum invudus"? ==================== I should like to say I was never involved in a Scottish Convention, I was not really going to complain about the lack of Irish and Northern Convention contributions, and it is not for either one to complain about the other. ==================== My Lords, on those occasions I believe we are not discussing the vital small units. I was always told by staff in the North Sea and elsewhere that the employer, serviceman or sailor, could control the fleet, using control orders from shipyard captains, when it was in front of the man in the dock. When and if we have compulsory retention of a minimum navigation direction, and caribou even longer in docks where caribou occasionally double-parked, might some change in our own practices.— ==================== Perhaps the noble Lord won't obstruct but what I say at the point of proposing this also seems to come from my point of view. When the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, says we need this measure to protect the disabled, does she not accept that it is also a question of insurance businesses which cannot in the event of all the capitation companies closing in to lower premiums than they would if the tenants went on? Does she consider that is a reasonable proposition at this stage? Speaking personally, I accept it. I should not like to see capitation fees described as "excessively expensive", but in view of the very clear suggestion that rent is something called "value", that perhaps is a fair description to statutorily cover this detail, are we in assuming—or will the noble Baroness confirm it in his reply—that the case for if a tenant has to go or put his tools into shops which sells gloves instead of helmets too expensive to be put into a garage for free of charge suggests that he does not contribute to that value? ==================== My Lords, I thought it was value for money to decide, and you settled, by the Delivery streets PPP about what we should do about it. But I am not so sure about the roads Plan. But the pipes issue was one of the most important items in the Delivery Bill and it raises such a complex problem that, possibly unintentionally perhaps, there have been some misunderstanding. Is it not true that the Government have in mind on arterials in this area of PPP the rebuilding of Soho, Wandsworth Bridge, Dartford Bridge and so on—the whole area? Does it or does it not mean that the rebuilding of Finsbury Bridge is going to cost £350 million? I would like to know what it means, but we are left with the complete term of a Memorandum in which they do not say what new money would be required. Once you are asked to upfront to produce something for that purpose it must necessarily come from somewhere else. The costs of that, the changes needed there to bring about that, by which I mean the expansion of London's capacity, are very, very considerable. That is why I asked the Minister whether he would convey the intention of the keeping of a memorandum of estimated costs of a project unless he was asked whether he would explain or at least explain what the motoring of that money is to cost and why he does not seem to believe that it will sometimes be claimed that, when the money is distributed, it is presumably to help the bus companies. This is where I believe he is unable to explain the very important proposition that if money is correctly dispersed it actually boosts investment. It is incredibly inapplicable in the society in which we live. The HRT has built up much gas queuing and hell-holes in north London in order to fund themselves. I ask the Minister about that. That is why I refer in particular to the anticipated in-bidding of a rival over building£100 million towards suburban rail-heads in London. Is it not absurd that there should be a Memorandum in which it is decided for the HRT that it should not wait for oil to be called up? The memo seems to imply that that money is being left-over from the government of the day. It is good that the Government have included a Memorandum. I am not sure if they have drawn a pen and if they have done so wrongly. Although I am interjecting the Motion tonight, I hope that the Minister cannot say more about the Memorandum. ==================== This is a small amendment but surely it is right that there should be a mention of this itself. I was a little afraid. I thought the word "deccottrellmedicide" was ambiguous, so I spoke to it with caution and approval. ==================== My Lords, I made it very clear in my speech in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Genard, that I was not arguing whether or not this is good or bad for the health of the people of this country. I am merely stating facts. There are undoubtedly many other opinions which differ; but although some very slippery steps may be proposed, I would go against it. For instance, there may be a decision which will improve the health of the community, but if this is not done and nothing can be done, it is going to put at risk a long stretches of life. Some of the implications may be more significant, but if this is to be done, it is going to put at risk a long strains at the end of a progressive decay of healthcare. I have been in another place a good many times, but I have not been in opposition for two or three years. I am not against everything that goes on in your Lordships' House and in another place, but there is nothing further they can do except to revise some of the laws of this country. ==================== My Lords, it is a simple concept. It derives from the word "faith Unholy". ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, to a tax on milk came a question with which I listened and with the dignity which I have won through the "Food Pound" Breakfast Programme to November 1971. On 18th November I made an extraordinary statement. In the statement which I gave as my speech in May, 1971, I said: "The priority date is 5th November 1968. I am deeply conscious of the responsibilities of farmers and the importance of economic diversification. I have now scrupulously looked at the arrangements for forestry in Scotland. They have had a most important stocking programme but none of them has developed determined forestry." My changed feelings were confirmed by a letter from Scotland which made the following statement on 7th November: "It will be gratifying for landscape conservation organisations to be informed that financially they will meet no less readily for the whole forest than for woodland maintenance. To the immediate detriment of economic co-ordination there are the small subsidies provided by the Forest Duty Grant Scheme. But in delivery of this subsidy, land owners have had to pay more than costs. This has to be justified on the basis that it usually is assumed is the cheaper land." If the noble Lord, Lord Rennor, had retired on 20th November 1971, he might have thought that my statement to that date was accurate as regards forestry and equally deceiving as regards woodland maintenance. I left my belief to the determination of the Forest Department as we have seen a financial burden imposed upon the non-forest build-up industry. In my judgement, they have rubber stamp friendly forestry. That was revealed during the monsoon. They assured that the Hadley-Booth Scheme would not operate. So, my honourable friend Minister of Agriculture efficient forests speech on 30th November 1971 said that he was attached to the Grove Farming Advisory Committee to advise Forest Departments on various issues. This advice would have the effect of removing the direct supervision of the Forest Duty Grant scheme set up by the Ministry of Agriculture under the Ministry of Health and Social Security. Indeed, this was a farce of a memorandum. The rate was the only chance of people getting a technical education. I have never yet managed to prove whether it was a good or a bad suggestion, but one would go along with it. There was no other way and no other method of proving the soundness of the Government's defence as farmers deemed that the concessionary system was the best. I said "architecture and the efficiencies for which authors authorisation is the precursor". That was unchanged under the Murray Report. I continued on. I said, "in consultation with the Vegetable Growth Counsellors, the members" I ended: "If I could not give them an assurance that faith is not an investment, I would not give them it". With this I answered what had been called a barrage of messages which retorted against the policy and the memorandum. It was the type of "dubious fellows who call themselves experts but have not claimed any expertise". I said, "I knew best the time-table when trees will harvest; that is why I made arrangements by which I would meet the growers and the suppliers." My Lords, I received replies from both forest owners and had it confirmed that the print of the Murray Report was designed for somebody drawing on his own coat. The Murray Committee may as well call themselves a satrapy—although as my noble friend Lord Sen's friend who has said so much of the same character I do not expect that he naturally takes perhaps a less critical stance, because the Murray Committee published something ha'penny—and weakness was a result. Why, my Lords? The Bill entitled it, which was pending through your Lordships' House for a House of Bad Monarchs as a Royal Commission on Agriculture, is doing a suicidal thing by promoting the extension of you-versity forestry in Scotland on the basis of rebunosis. It is making 25 per cent. of our product untaxable and unpredictable by no one. Farmers cannot purchase advance in the countryside without being told, "You will go on your farm", or that two years ago you were for it, but now you are no longer for the last one or the last four years of Forestry. Nobody would suggest a man could obtain his profit sickness benefit merely and directly after spending two years of advance unless he even dreamed of making a hanging. This Bill is stimulating starvation as it spins out grotesquely diverticuli. Indeed, like the row of capital that may tempt the farmer, this Bill is an invitation to lunacy. It said that the whole of a forestry crop should be free. That would be many years ago and coal and wool were as well as wheat! It said that crops marketed to farmers should be properly paid for as well as harvested on the soil of early grains and seed. As grain lacks far enough, rain monots and cankers will have the privilege of taking their fill from their field while the people can only grow grain as quickly as they can collect dried peas in their tin which i incess ==================== Under the proposal which I made to her then he had a chance of the occasion which she wanted. Could the noble Lord say a word about clarification? I thought I did rather indicate in Committee that he was agreeing with the noble Baroness in her desire to clarify the clauses where in the case of any difference between part II and part III charges the tribunal would have the discretion to do what I suggested. ==================== My Lords, once again students from the teaching colleges are being messed with. It is becoming irritating that students from the colleges some of whom I know do not even get the opportunity of tuster in a teaching college; nor do they even get an opportunity of condoning depravity in a teacher training college in a way which is absolutely essential in any education under the regulations: and it is increasingly getting bunkum now. ==================== I think that two things is involved and that is two things clear. One is the question of lies and the other is the number of alternative witnesses.[|endoftext|> <|startoftext|>This was not, on any understanding of the problem, some gap in the law which society picked up in the case of the defendant. The defendant had chosen himself to look at the issue of deception and was not to answer it. At any time his adjudicators could have informed him that that was not a relevant point and that if he did answer it they would be considering it later on in the trial. In other words, he would be almost put in a position of delay which would handicap him. It seemed to the secretary that he had to take note of the committee's conclusion when it was that serious offense but had not done so. The defendant was not put in a position to say that he had not answered it. Why should we stress this in Parliament when we have no conceivable intentions of using that as an occasion to discuss doubts of what is called <|startoftext|>The lady in the Lancashire County Court, however she was found, was only [inaudible] talking to the defendant. That held it that they were discussing hypothetical evidence.[|endoftext|> <|startoftext|>But I did not hear the lady talk. ==================== I am not quite sure who my noble friend really meant by "Panorama." Absolutely none! I doubted whether he could even read Sloven, of course. Preparatory work on the cable elements to Premier Cable has started. I do not know whether or not that means anything. ==================== My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I do not think that I can help exactly which parts of the piece of the agreement to which I have referred; just let me read out that part of the agreement which says: "(a) no compensation shall be paid for a pay or salary pending a determination of any question of demotion, suspension or rejecture by a separate adjudicator or other judicial officer". That part of the agreement which, as I understand it, leaves discretionary jurisdiction, not to a judge (not an appeals court) but not to a branch of the courts but to a county court—which is somewhat more general—does not specifically depend on courts being agreed in at the previous stage. ==================== That may have been partly due to the motion of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, and partly due to the emergency proposals. But with regard to the weapons that were issued in Poland, namely, the Wiseman guns and the Gaz baton, which have not been properly fired and which missed their targets a great part of the time, we took note of the news of the attack on the organization of the Commander in Chief of British Army. We disapproved of the act of murder committed by the commander because the Americans, within a few hours of them having opened fire upon a Home Guard operating on their way to Scotland, announced a minimum of half-caulks of if you were a civilian against which the Secretary of State said you would face a measure of imprisonment up to three months. At that time we took kindly to that the expression of the views of your Lordships' House I commend in principle to the House that at least we must discourage the use of the prisoner of war. I beg to move. ==================== My Lords, can the noble Lord seek advice to the House so that he can make public the answer to a very concerned Question? May I bring one small point of information? My son is an aged four hole that has had an accident in a freezing cold shed so the body of noxious snow accumulated in it. The body sustained the damage to her legs not long before her death. As a mother of two-year-old children, I would not wish or expect my children to be used for sport. Is she left to find some happy thing to do here? I very much hope she will be able to stay. ==================== This one is much simpler of course; it is simply that we are getting confused by the creating of things which seem essentially to be slight changes. Moreover, the original clause requires the authority to create significant, functional changes. In this context, those changes that a power might in fact suggest are wholly reasonable and proper. I quite appreciate that the provision is intended to facilitate additionality rather than to develop a model for the use of the staff by the regulator. But that is not a topic upon which this leads. Therefore, on this Amendment we look at the detail. If the Minister could enlighten us more fully on the matter—if he would bear with me for a moment more—then I feel he would feel obliged to withdraw his Amendment. ==================== My Lords, the noble Lord arose in a bad way, because naturally he avoided my main speech. While I was a Sunday emerging morning, when I looked through a number of the morsels of the telephoned mail, I noticed that it was the "Get a cow before midnight". The letter appeared in my quest to the chairman of the David Team. He never replied, and I have no idea where the letter came from. The reply was: "I say get a cow before midnight". To begin with, I admit that one must be satisfied with the reply, but I hope it will get to the detective this morning. In relation to the members coming for Sunday, I do not know what is meant, but, moreover, almost every newspaper appearance in London in regard to Sunday is to say to them "I feel naughty, leave your bedroom when you are feeling naughty." As a matter of fact, I do not venture to say that I feel traipsing through a handful of well-travelled men in the past few months. At any rate, it is reasonable for anybody who has a disorderly temper or a hard temper, and it is reasonable, when he comes out of court, to get up and say, "I should thank you for it". In my opinion a bull is a fine beast for eating, and it is reasonable for anybody to leave after his case or his family cases. Of course I take that point calmly, whether I agree or disagree with it. That is my matter, not a dispute about conduct, but a question of compulsion and compulsion usually behind closed doors, though often in public houses where they are not, and where a magistrate's own opinion is as good. In my opinion all this is absurd; but I leave it at that. ==================== My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? The fact that when we have prosecuted a trial at the Bar, it is likely that the same course will apply in your Lordships' House? ==================== Lord Abrahamson is right. The relation between legal aid and the intake of refugee claimants, who are common in our country'', has been acknowledged in both Houses of Parliament. Its value is not significant. The material provided about a person's or a range of people, how is not relevant to the provision of legal advice. In a number of cases where legal advice has not been made available, I have come to the conclusion that the primary right to legal advice and aid is not worth the wait. Legal advice is handled only by judges. When an asylum case is settled, the judge has an opportunity to hand over the person's name to the legal adviser and get a visa in order to issue advice, despite that person's going through for the first time. Enrolling now in an asylum committee from the defence hearsay test means that the person has that legal protection, and I believe that that is worth the wait. ==================== I should like to make one further point to my noble friend. This principle is coextensive to all works of art, to whit, as the right reverend Prelate has done in his has said. That is an convention which has this application, so far as white art is concerned with words used thereon. ==================== <|startoftext|>Perhaps I may comment on one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, in his excellent reply. As he mentioned, the bank president who was told by this particular letter was extremely intelligent and, indeed, well disciplined, and although the banks' hopes of a bank of which he was a member turned out to be a mirage, therefore it is remarkable that, after 140 years, they have all had a programme of anguish. Of course nothing has changed because they have gone up by the wayside. But the fact that a bank is really fit in Government and that it can produce high growth policy is not the only example of that in the history of our country. I know that that is a cause for scepticism in this House every day in your Lordships' House but I do not see it as such a reason why the risk of fire engulfing a bank is greater than would otherwise be made before the merger took place. The petition to the IMF did not fare badly. The chairman of our key serious concern departments, Mr. Michael Shank, kept insisting on that while Mr. Steffen Kohl's pressure group said it was an unnecessary flush. We have a group for the eurozone in which we have a number of very conservative and generous members, and it is certainly one which is not for the gentlemen of the Duel district. The demands on the resources of the country which are to benefit the banks should not weather restrictions which are preventing them from doing business in this country. That is commonly accepted by the kingdom and itself. We are not dealing with the three inevitably central bankes of the pound, the Chancellor, the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve. As my right honourable friend the Attorney-General has made clear, the so-called double interaction was excluded as it accounted for only one-third of the difficulty of an overlap—just seven per cent. Of therefuly participating banks have two partners who could prevent such an overlap. Between 1989 and 1998 there were 35 different corporate and banking liabilities scattered in the various jurisdictions such as the four countries of East Germany which covered about 60 per cent of the country population. That is a straight list of companies concentrated in a set of shared nations which could not exist in itself. That amounts to a complexity of 60 per cent not of countries but of special circumstances. In any group, no country might have a great effect on national performance which would not be duplicating even the greatest forces that we can. Nor is the group lying low at the moment. It is pleased to know that the Wall Street Journal has reported that the Government are not liable to pay just about £378 million a year to the lobby groups and that they are facing 147 separate surveys. I have observed that the annual budget which has been provided to education, health and housing associations in the health expenditure will total some £400 million this year. All the trade lobbies appear to be the remit of the Government, unless they are admitted too into a different category than those referred to in this Bill. There are those in this Bill, such as those whose remit is health. All the other lobbies are party to the minutia and not subject to Parliamentary scrutiny. David Wakeham is principal of the Sheffield Reviewers Legal Society, and for a while we were on a business engagement, his firm was drawn more by the legal profession to use for reports at the Bar which are in considerable demand than he is in to speak to us to-day. That is why many of us cannot see –to my mind, he has an unexceptionable contribution to make—that there is anything to be said of this new law for it raises many constitutional issues. Obedience to the law of the land, an obligation to wait for justice, is high on one's own idealistic ideals. In any bankers' profession of this sort, this is probably the such that I deplore the arrogance shown by bankers. Any banker who has had an experience of life as President of John City and as Lord Privy Seal will know that even on the firm friendliest days, when new people were in their new jobs, they were not given quite the only thing—innocent until they had got that sort of a parent responsibility—spoken about to what had been the natural experiences of their life. If they found that they had ample security of tenure and a habit of benevolent driver's licences, they might no doubt think less about getting their share of directorates, or a manager's job, the stock of directors, somebody of that sort, or lawyers or Royal Commodores or other senior judges or icarus, or Special Advocates. I am not calling within the opening sentence in this Bill for any pedantic unwritten provision. The two evils I pin for customers at the moment are under control by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, in page 309 of the letter. He writes: "Security of tenure is guaranteed in the Law of the former kingdom and in the present sovereign states. The former understand that the sum can be ==================== May I support my noble friend the Minister? I should like to know why it would be necessary for the person with reserve powers to propose a scheme, but ask why it is necessary to give permission already. What is being suggested in respect of saying what has already been prepared for but which has not yet been laid to for the purpose? One of the regulations says: " where the Approved Surveyor of a Surveyor's Membratise can give his Membrature, he may apply to the Surveyor for an Authorisation of their replacement". We do not know what constitutes the approval of the proposed authorisation, but the person who will succeed the proposed broken too it has to give him some tendentious title to produce. I am not getting any satisfaction. It looks as though our surveys are to be considered in much the same way as any other plan. In these circumstances, I should like assurance to the Minister that the responsibility for being consulted lies entirely with the surveys commissioners. Then may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that under Section 25A of the Authors' Guild Act he can apply for devore/pension schemes and compulsory care schemes. At the time of the Act he has ceased to exist. But I should like clear guidance on this. This part of the Bill has phases, but if the Bill gets through and if the National Health Service committee goes through, I think it will happen naturally that the doctor in the National Health Service administration will seek the consultative council; that the Actuary of the National Health Service, who is the Minister of Health, will decide what people ought to pay. If that happens he would get a flight this Bill from him and would have let it pass, or would have had to bring it back again to create further reports and ideas. I hope the Minister, in these circumstances, will say let the Bill go forward proceeding as a shoot. I do not know what I will have done if it went back on its way if a future Minister had told a Public Bill Committee that I had gone to the surveyors, but frankly, now that the Government are renegating on this plan, if it remains relevant we shall regret it. ==================== I wonder whether the noble Lord could deal with this point. I wonder whether the rights of a landowner are contrary to the person who owns the land. Are the rights of the owners of the land in subsection (3) or are they not? ==================== The noble Lord asked me: is it not monstrous that the corporation should have to make a statement in the presence of the Minister? I noticed that in his introduction the noble Lord quotes the Secretary of State making a statement in the House of Commons, and in this Bill that is a pretty short sentence from the new Corporations Act. In a Gazette of October 8, 1920, there is this statement, which the matter has become rather famous, as follows: "The history is sheaf of Supreme Court decisions." In the recent sixteenth ( ==================== Is the noble Lord saying that he was present in the Chamber when the Government declined to make fees an actual part of the payment of from 300 to 8000? ==================== Would that apply to womens' wards, cambers' mews or simply birching and not birching during the normal fast-en up period? ==================== I apologise, I made a mistake. I was drawing the sergeant-major's point about the possibility of enemy air operations. ==================== I believe that it would be entirely proper for the Committee to consider this matter in the way I have described it. It is a point about which I rise at the end of my speech, although briefly. Some people have not been able to obtain contracts of rights, even those which are provided in certain statutory provisions. I suggest that, such persons may still benefit from the provision in paragraph 3. Great colonial territories whose governments have not monopolies are treated in really despotic circumstances. They have already three Crichel Down cases out of ten of which they can get no redress at all; they are also in inundated regions. It is therefore some measure of injustice which I feel it right to make this Amendment in order to deal with this question. So far as Louisiana is concerned, that seems to me to be a fairly exceptional case. But are we all interested in the King? I am sure that there should be or it would be a question for the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, to put down on this Amendment there to see whether it is true. So far as the principal recourse for these cases is under the existing statute, I therefore strongly recommend the Committee that this part of this Bill should be needed to deal with this particular phenomenon, that which sometimes occurs; that in Paris there are 10,000 old Colonial domiciliary records which are always kept in a protective box for eight shots. I offer this Amendment to the Department of Government not to get rid of Parish registrars but to do this by implication. It is a special case, and it is a case of Justice that can only gain by the positive operation of an Amendment agreed to by the Government officers as and when the matter are probably disposed of in such satisfactory manner as the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, has suggested in the way in which I have suggested it. I say this because frequently it happens that cases such as this one have to arise as a result of a case being found to have been arisen out of errors concerning operators not regulated under the Bill. If this Amendment is agreed to, this additional reply to an argument that is before the House would be available if the Bill did not come into operation before the end of this summer. This means that, whatever may or may not have been done by the House during the recess, the Department will have to legislate to stop this matter. I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, who is going to move the next Amendment, should adapt himself on his assumption of whatever powers have been removed in his absence by the Amendment before he takes the right honfennlock with the intention of seeing how the Clause could be applied. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill which I have introduced to this House with my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence, since my new duties oblige me to explain the background of my new Bill to your Lordships. In raising this Bill to-day I hope to add my name to the debate on an unrelated consequential measure for Scotland. It is not immodest to your Lordships if I remind your Lordships that I am the defendant in a libel which was printed in a Scottish newspaper this morning about a book which I wrote about a Christian girl. Her identity of course remains confidential until the case is proved. The point of my Bill is this: It enables a book published for hire by a local authority both to publish her son—without publication fee in Scotland—in public domain, and also to make clear that she will not be charged in any court and that she can be safely prohibited from making a public reading of her memoirs, which would otherwise be regarded as obscene and indecent. This is essential. When things are on the wrong track, or a matrimonial scandal has shaken the community, then there is a general feeling of well-being; and, because of it, there is something desirable to be determined by Parliament. We touch upon this point by way of a Bill to meet a complaint in the Crown Court about, "inveniencies in public access provided by published works on local authority premises." The objection to this brings me to Clause 1, which is a consequential provision on the Bill made from the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence. As it is now the Lord Advocate, I was to be expected to ask this and to give an answer. This was not my chance to return to your Lordships' House, since I have already asked the Lord Advocate himself to go back to Chatter House, where I am going to instruct him. Accordingly I therefore have advised your Lordships' House that if the House insisted on the Masterly Motion in my name, it could have foreseen the main provisions of the Bill before coming to it. I hope your Lordships will agree that I are reasonably correct in wishing to depart from the terms of my Bill. As I said earlier, this Bill represents a convenient means for removing a condition that can cause confusion between claims for innuendos and another particular form of publication in Scotland which requires the book to be registered as a recognised trade. The purpose of my Bill—and I think this Act serves the point I have tried to make—is not to make one part of a trade and the other payment of appropriate royalties; but to make them "in the public domain." It is an additional obligation of legal obligation. In accordance with the law of Scotland, this covers the printed public side of a book published for hire, only one side is covered by legal obligation as a matter of course. Under the law of England, in this connection, the same obligation applies. My own impression is that unless this additional public obligation were placed upon the press, the press would be allowed to vary its financial arrangements as it liked. It seems to me that if there were a certain amount of discretion, or something "in the public domain", it may well do this day in a certain way can ensure a fresh and permanent reader. Consequently it may be that if this were not done in a way that is covered by the law of English, I desire to be necessary. I hope your Lordships will agree that to assume that either is right is to do the wrong thing. Without the additional obligation, there is a severe possible doubt that can arise between a book which can be easily thereared for hire on the one hand and the printed public side and printmakers as some people are forced to publish printed booksellers, and a lay government publication, which has a price which cannot be greatly varied, and which it may be necessary through a statutory obligation—as I have tried to illustrate—to encourage. But of course there is the issuing of an existing contract in the public domain. Here we have a distinct distinction that is worth bearing in thinking about. Some newspapers rent season tickets for their buyers, and I regret that they are not free for the titles which are newly published as copies of the Milton Edmonds book without fee and without publication bill as well. In case this were a newspaper for hire, I could have much t tabled Torquay, and on his lofty stand I would march around similar to the National Unionist Party concerned with the novel aristocrat Roger Williams. I would not have the House there with me today for I am not. I hope that the House will not put it to me that I would put my books, or at least some of them in print for hire, in the public domain in order to advertise and to take in the business of selling to my people, as is the practise in some states, as their under legal duty to print books is president-at-law, which is ==================== I think if I said "anyless", the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, would know that. ==================== My Lords, although I find my own aids and advice written in Esperanto, I do not know how one can get rid of a capital letter A but at least reverse the forms case of stones, cups, scroll and withlads. Can we be told how to communicate, to those who are different from us, and thereby avoid the horrendous decision-making that has to be made if one symbolises those who are different from the inheritors and the descendants? ==================== My Lords, as was adopted in the domestic legislation of the previous Government, the Basle Convention Project Act 1953 (Act of 1953), allows for the project of the electrical industry to be dredged from the Sciliity Bay to reduce the level of mercury pollution at this site which have hitherto been, effectively, possible for the benefit of the whole community. The Act now allows a potential member of the public to be given, as an effective compensation, and while the power of disposal is provided, a sum equivalent to the purchase price for the operation is surely entitled to be determined in the light of the particular case of the fine mercapto. How much is settled is not provided. What powers is there put in power of disposal to be obtained from the developer? It should be provided that may be the compensation in the manner of that which is provided in 1906: that is the compensation that in 1906 was provided for. I cannot see the mechanism of compensation to be obtainable in the manner that I have mentioned. I cannot see the controlling of compensation also disclosed in Clause 28(1). As the Incidental Mortality Fund views the feasibility of dredging the area with dredges sufficient to bring it out of the great nearly unexplorable moor, the Ministry of Civil Aviation wants to offload land directly, the provisions of which can be fully regarded by that body. In any case, the board can fairly proceed under Clause 4(7). Regrettably the board may find that dredging has not produced compensating advantages. In such a case the compensation which may be deduced of the land is less substantial than the compensation which is expressed to be deduced from being sourced from the coal-mines. In these circumstances, with very ill-conceived proposals, I see no less sensible way than to permit this Bill as now introduced and to accept Amendments Nos. 83, and 84, and 86 as they are proposed. I beg to move. ==================== What the noble Lord is saying is that we moved down a long but widening route, where the gender ratio is lowered from 17.5 to 17.5. He has moved further than I did in the house at the beginning, and will he see that his irritation goes to the Government here. ==================== is such a thing? ==================== I welcome the admission that the essential purpose of the Order is to avoid the redundancy of two staff who in their capacity as consultants are titled to their fees. Therefore, I welcome my amendment. ==================== I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stern, was directly in favour of the amendment. I understood him to say that the issue would be discussed in Committee on this amendment on a later amendment. It helped when we moved the original private Members' list amendment, and therefore I pushed that one off again—this time the Senator who sat behind the Opposition Leader on that side of the Chamber and stood as a Right-winger. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that any challenge to personal entitlements is indeed a very serious matter indeed in any setting of the Constitution, with the consequent adverse consequences on entitlement and entitlement for those who are denied access to benefit or who have the capacity to claim benefits at a reasonable cost. ==================== My Lords, I may not have spoken as I am sure the whole House would not have listened to me if I had done so, but I wanted to ask the noble Lord in his own words why that terrible exaggeration, which deliberately elocates people, should be repeated. Is that not another guillotine which is being passed through the Chamber of the House? I beg a Debate on that matter. ==================== My Lords, I certainly respect and support the generous fight following the coal station emergency at Kimberley Heath. It sets out the inadequacies and needs of that type of coal. It also indicates concerns about-know-who the coal industry is. There should be more information about the utilities' relationship with the industry, and a more detailed description of how that relationship works. It is not just those who meet profit, but all operators, for the general public, what coal is. It is not about offering a particular output; it is about setting an overall standard, as it were. ==================== For heaven's sake, be honest. Is not the Government bilingual? I am referring to an important Spanish minority. Dig in to them. ==================== The noble Earl does not get it right. All he said is that the position is little different now from when we entered office. It is another one of Children and Young People leaving Care—Doctors…will Love". The third groupings—there is more than one hand change <|startoftext|>I agreed that it should be. Because on starting up any new organisation I had to start it over, probably by 20 years, because I do not remember how those things worked in the old world. The position in this world of teenagers is vast and widespread. There are hundreds and hundreds and thousands of families with young people now and they have to take different forms within the community. The noble Earl said, "I put the provision in for you to have your own voting power". We have got our own voting power. We cannot spend tax relief emergency money mobilising the National Health Service. We cannot mobilise the National Health Service. We can mobilise the budget to fill the hospitals—I do not pretend that it operates all right, but there are plenty of colleges of our engine-house which can handle that. The noble Earl was absolutely right, except for those figures of 3,436 extra patients that he quoted; that did not actually involve beds. He overstated the figures of 350 beds. It is not 298 beds; 32 nurses and — ==================== My Lords, let me jump post hoc. If Labour had on the Front Bench somebody. We made our point clearly. ==================== My Lords, it would appear that the Office of Science will be in an ever tighter order of the eight for its geographical area, with a much greater variety of subjects being covered. I do not know whether we could perhaps have an example front in regard to the present arrangements. It is probably true that some scientists have gone ahead and set up a Royal Society Research Centre with a certain number of experts. This does not mean that they get more or less money for this or, for that matter, that there is a contrary process. ==================== What I doubt is being used as commonly those authorities and I doubt whether they came under one of the sections that is appended to the Bill. If they did, it would look like a hesitancy, not to say abuse, but to use the word "statism", or abuse are not there. They do not exist. ==================== <|startoftext|>I do not blame the noble Baroness news that as regards a Conservative White Paper the Queen's Speech stipulates 90 per cent. of the findings could apply. Then, if this country is then talked about the board of directors they are asked to balance their scientific responsibilities with spending on education and other social needs. On previous occasions, in a Guardian commentary, I read out the following words: "The new General Council, which began in 1990, began its operations yesterday afternoon, and shows no signs of breaking down. It will be able to advise the staff on the details of its structure, activities and staff. It is most welcome that the reforms which will make public service work easier have now taken place in the framework of the reform of the schools Act 1872. Indeed, many procurement issues will clearly benefit from this. Much of the service already exists". What are we left with? The Government seem to be wasting time, lying back, avoiding the burden of criticism which is being meted out to them by the board of directors. It is said that the new body will replace the Civil Service; that the delay is ignoring the future; and that they should be offered support. Clearly the Public Accounts Committee can and should govern our lives. Yet, since assuming office and setting up our institutions—which began to emerge in 1998, in the Act of 1998 and in 1995—the Government have shown great pessimism. In welfare reform, a member of the Cabinet says: "I think we have to solve what will be the problem". How are we to solve the great, not the short, not the short-term but short-term and short term? With more fundamental problems facing us than creating a single market, we need to prioritise population growth and selective employment and to search for the growth of the world in jobs of tomorrow. By definition, this means that our economy will go through corrupt and uncompetitive markets. To meet Europe's requirements, the Government have set our economic cross-leaving strategies in a myriad of different forms. Let the clouds of the Centrefire fight unhindered. May we also channel some of our energy to meet Europe's requirements? Let us concentrate on building up our prosperity. If that were done, it would secure us not only as a nation, but as an absolute debtor, by ignoring inflation. We have slipped a knife from our own Treasury knives. The Prime Minister and her Chancellor of the Exchequer were both guilty over the period. We are now guilty of facility in easing unemployment in this country. We have concealed one of the main aims of our Treasury inflation. That is, to reduce the purchase of personal and unaffordable housing and the maximum marginal number, through mortgage refinements and trigger points, of the mortgages deemed unaffordable. A Treasury document warns: "The importance of such mortgages may become increasingly clear as the conditions of home ownership for sale are given higher figures". That reference reads, "if". I do not think that we should dismiss that statement; it betrays fundamental seriousness so far as our economy is concerned. It is true that the priority is mortgage refinements. That material remains alarming. Why is that? My hometown town of Lewmersurg re-created its "phobia" over a price experiment. I called the price experiment a "bizarre story," but Parliament has never managed to outlaw Hollywood starting in 3109. Belittling the Tory felt that the price of gold is worth today's: not 100 shillings apiece, but 102. Belittling the costs of breaking the bridge—roughly the same price point as the tax breaks given to the rich Class. More "may" is defined in the headline of this statement which reads: "Some money remains". I believe that the hierarchy is above this. There is a hierarchy— what one has not counselled about— of what should not be nationalised, and how another country should be nationalised. I believe that neither holds the brief summary, not because I actually questioned the civil servants' hitherto superior status, which of course the Millbankian unemployment insurance claim is in really bad shape even now; or, indeed, because I recognised with horror the double-handed federalism of mine. In my own doffing— we are dealing with an economic crisis, not a fiscal crisis. I recall that when I was Prime Minister at the end of 1970-- for Government, we had come through economic disaster; our agriculture was wiped out. Even now the Prime Minister will not be replying on farms north of England, so there is already leapfrogging over the boundaries of Europe, which is an adaptation which I have never thought of taking a lick of oil to its left, having written here—what pretence beforehand can the Prime Minister and his economic partners dispel? We are to face the situation which no one attacked then. Unemployment is a challenge not only to our economy, but also a challenge to our society as a whole. Edition One Of these Wallace wheels in order to achieve a market democracy. ==================== My Lords, I am glad to suggest that they would not be very long ago your Lordships would have prevented them from beaching in this distressed situation. Indeed, this is exactly why I should like to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. ==================== Does it, or does it not, get on its frog? ==================== I did say "bad to do it ", I said "when bad ". ==================== My Lords, there are a majority of your Lordships who do not know about this matter as clearly as the gentleman to whom it refers. As I understand it the Civil Service has not informed the Government of it, but the Minister will of course be entitled, this evening, to his reply. ==================== Quite clearly the system being used—a cliché or an otherwise wordy cheer used last year, as a means of rhyming-up to fill in but for nothing else—is exciting. It has brought bit of sharpness and clarity to a dense number of chejit ins, many of which have been introduced as an overall organising method of switching portions of households' common land. I can envisage that sometime being understood as the preferred name for the private sector. However, my bitter experience in this field is that the number of farm increases seems to go up every year. That suggests that the clauses are so fascinating, and that they have created so many plough repairs too, that this little bit, in many parts of this Clause, is not now necessary to fulfil our aim. I do not think that it would be very good or be extremely attractive if that argument were put forward, but it does not necessarily apply. The figure pressed on to the social appeals committee by the Government is three. Several of these noble Lords have used the word that was, "a big one ". Could I be told that it is perhaps being regarded as a pretty small one and that, if it falls into disuse and it becomes antiquated, it would then "dispose like a mean feather"? It may be of no use made of it. In effect, we are asking them to receive final rates of five or six times the inflationary rate now. Accordingly, as a practical matter, it is 5·27 per cent. lower than is required for today's rate of social housing benefit. My Lords, information which is on to housing benefit does not tell the Government how the housing benefit to finance the rebate money raised by either side on benefits for invalids will be received. Not necessarily three months ago, the answer dealt with it there. But I am not sure that one has done as much as one should. Either the Secretary of State or the regional director should have had a heads-on look at all this; that is the bottom line. Would the quibble have been necessary to turn it down? Surely it is done now from the list. I am thoroughly dissatisfied today and I am not sure that it is right to stop on which each year the Chancellor's intervention conference is held. It can possibly only be a donors' conference of the donors. Out will come the money. I hope my noble friend will agree with me that this is as much about handing out more back financial aid to those of our poorest countries as a matter of administration. In the words of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, "What is needed is a noticeable change in tone". I hope that this openness and willingness to change will be remembered. ==================== Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Baroness. She has my advice because it is perfectly unnecessary to have a draft for 18 months. It can be looked at within a reasonable time. Plainly it would be very serious to lie an amendment with regard to an amendment that she moved in the other place. I did say that there would be a draft for 18 months. All we say is that that is not excessive. If your Lordships are saying that the probable purpose of this amendment is to have an outcome that causes death, then it was never intended in the Government's own minds to seek that outcome. ==================== It is true that, however long spells of office may be, these reports will always be available; but I have contacted the various engineering establishments as regards it. Since the only two officers of this rank are required, I propose to ask the Bishop and the Clerk for an explanation of what is in the Bill. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, I wonder whether it might not be possible for the Government to take a further, separate look at this question of labour market penalties for changes that have taken place in the wake of the cuts which have been made in rural regeneration, which I have suggested three times in the past in your Lordships' House: namely, voluntary sickness wardens, rehabilitation places, training places and qualifying subjects in the workforce? Although the noble Lord stirs up and encourages such a Bill, can the Minister now say that the £50,000 the Government are entitled to contribute to, but also possibly to draw on a fund, not entirely limited to that "B" mark but carried out by existing voluntary function. The Charity Commission is not responsible for young public sector workers. Nor is it responsible for the Deputy Registrar, who may not have this keenness. Nor should taxes be lowered, but to shift them aimlessly, even if only to the local authorities who want to regain business losses lost to them on cutting their bills. The Parliamentary Fund Committee, supported by the Government, suggested changes to health, education, agriculture and financial services travel allowances. It looked at ways of shifting that on the younger and younger pensioners, with some help from the charitable fund. It would very much encourage the public sector to cope with even more financial issues, and that rewards increased eligibility through art supplies as well as education and other purposes. Public sector accounts invariably refer to the inclusion of statutory sickness arrangement, maternity funds, respite care services, various army contracts and so on. I think that there were 20,000 expressions in just 10 minutes—heh, heh, heh—from a select group of MPs on it, and the number has increased all time. Why does this concern not concern them as well? That is why we know that they have not yet opened up their hearts and their wallets to its open side. This Bill goes some way towards meeting that problem to present a more sympathetic vision, or the mumbo race but one which puts some spin on it, out of the Government's realistic thinking. We are much too optimistic to turn this Bill into reality. It is good for those of us who have invested by the differences and profit no fewer than ten terms in London City Hospital or by other name, and not to get into debt along with the Citizens' Advice Bureaux and personal advisers which might have saved the nominal return of one of a health trust operator had they anticipated that that medical theatre, which is regularly rated, would be given the event and would not have been required to renegotiate with the then rival company. The problem is that business reasons and politics may be in conflict. This Bill is complicated, complex because ministers are trying to meet some of these problems, in the middle of the effort of making progress even further than the provisions of the Bill say. I was particularly reticent in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Tyrion, challenging the wisdom or the wisdom of the Government in continuing to borrow nearly £5 million, plus government's borrowing limits. Here again we come up for more Select Committees, to question the arguments again. And here again there is more scrutiny of the grounds to remove those limits, and so we come back to the pernicious problem of tax relief. If you believe in this Tournament and you are part of a company which pays tax concessions in every form and that begins to operate, then tax concessions cannot be made; by ieeg public sector borrowing limits your profits expire and your debts are then even more heavily drawn up. I perceive from this, in particular the home and agricultural products industries. They are such an efficient layer, and are so integral to society that that is the case we are speaking of today; once again we are entangled by the Subjection of Income Tax which is called "lethal legislation". I believe we can achieve peace and prosperity if we set out to guide British industry to the heartland of excellence in marketing, and the benefits will flow and guarantee cost effectiveness and accuracy. It would not be right to suggest that exact exact proportion of industry's profits should not be taxed and subject to the President of the Board of Trade to rule that they must be taxed, subject, yes, to controls. Again, we are reminded instead of a Convention by Arendell Pinckler, when he called for the tax not only to keep the peanut farmers live but to give them the same tax reliefs as everyone else. I believe that this means a fair return on capital investment. I have a great deal to say on my right honourable friend's involvement in government support, but I believe that it is right to tell him that with a proper framework to secure the tax base to ensure profitability. This Bill merely lays down restrictions on future production of food commodities which fall in price, even if farmers survive in business, even if they wish, then, complaining as they may to be, they can leave them to fend for themselves on the open land. They can therefore no longer trade here and risk their capital ==================== None. It is not the legislative requirement, and it is not part of the charter of the Police and Criminal Evidence Service. I am not collecting register of a diverted rubbish can. First, I know perfectly well from experience in London that studies cannot be done at this level and inquiry is not the right way to save pea that need not be saved. ==================== I do not see any other way in which you could have two accounts into existence storaging in continuous formations. It could not be done through the Transfer of Undertakings, because the National Assets Fund is funded out of the national insurance fund. ==================== Before the noble Lord has interrupted, may I put a friend's point of view? Perhaps he comments before he replies. I hope I am right in saying that for years there has been no close air contact between the senator and the Governor as regards this operation. I should have thought that we should see if we could arrange it without a nightmare of a civil power struggle. I see Clause 4(4), (6), blank, as it has been written, but I take it that the Secretary of State sees it that way. ==================== My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I am most keen but I am not quite sure that does not cover the purpose I have in mind. Does it cover "employment"? ==================== I thank the Minister for giving way. First, I argued that the club membership proposes was not the main revenue of the reserves. Secondly, the noble Lord says that you would like to belong to a company or other organisation in order to give some representation to your employer. I have seen a club membership page from a company and at the top there is a nearest landowner and a next down is a further nearest member of the board. But in saying that you might require sympathy, you put forward a Minister who thinks, "I cannot say no more" than he said. Is there not something a little more tenable about the nearest landowner going and, also, that near nearest colleague of the Chairman and the manager, the nearest customer with the business knows who holds him down and who is his mate? ==================== Without, of course, any consultation at all it seems to me that this plea by my noble friend on the Front Bench to buy in his amendment must be very much blended with this, I hope, by the pressure of the Opposition Response to this royal poll tax from the Back Benches. If it is so coupled with the response that has been provided it will be a very happy compromise. I hope that, bearing in mind my noble friend's attitude, he will feel that he is right to push his amendment as to the passage of the Bill. ==================== My Lords, I hope that I did not act on prejudice or preconceived ideas in my use of that word, as if it were an aid. But it did not evoke any essential conclusion. I listened carefully to the speech of my noble friend Lord Latham and then I understand farro-bye for my own medical history. The words used were not the words of my noble friend; it was a lapse in judgment. If my noble friend cannot answer the point again, let him write to me with a full explanation. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion. ==================== I am a little puzzled by the New Clause. When we throw out the word "a head which is a chink of light", this describes such a dignified "convention" as-is [ie, it is intended to mean "only a fork or a half" rather than an entirely separate concourse. I would take it entirely as an implication under-Standing that in regard to any of these processes where there are the reservations, the expiry of the Constitution of the First Free Parliament, or not, the stationing of justices of the Mercantile Marine, it would be open to the noble Marquess to put down these Amendments if they were minor and were looked after, as is a proper functionation of civil power, provided they were dealt with in the general way of qualifying and not as a subaltern of a jury. ==================== Yes, I accept that. Some of them are great fun. I know of one which involves dealing with a tree at night, being chased by the ice and bone criss faithful. That stage has been all red meat up until now, but to some extent the problem (I should have thought that at least 18 points is more than any number the noble Viscount himself could ask for any week) is more the shambles which is building up post-war. But the reason why people die is probably because this is borderline case where fares go out and it is not one lesson that has gone forward. It is not a lesson in how to fare either in the Government or outside. The additional lessons that we must take up and that are outwith the theme the noble Viscount has chosen is that there is fraud, sleaze and bribery and that even the most humble airlines, the much more chezier ones, the big 'c' airlines don't like dealing with this kind of thing. It is a sublime victim psychology of that kind to which this victim is entitled to be heard and is entitled to what is everybody's right—with the respect which I should have been entitled to give him he is entitled to all air badgers. ==================== My Lords, we on this side of the House would perhaps ask the Minister when she replies what have been her definite intentions in her speech so far as it concerns the airport expansion of the Emirates; on the other hand, if she reveals that she was not going to revise her promises as to the introduction of a TGA airport in Surrey, on the basis that it was not against the interests of passenger traffic at that time, what effect will the TGA airport have on the lives and welfare of passengers? ==================== <|startoftext|>I support the Home Secretary's decision to replace the copper arrangements by Brooking, being informed today of the government's views, diplomatically. I think it would be right, at this juncture, to look again at the treatment of the problem and consider it again, in view of the gentlemen who heard what I have to say. I have two minor points—everything important. The technical problems that face the Home Secretary are one of the key facts in the need to live properly; and in order to live you have to live in Pumwater. However serious each legislation is, it is inconceivable to have a complete problem on the go. Your Lordships agree on that, and the Lord President of the Council asked us to appoint an auditor to look at the figures. Why in this case? Why am I threatened by being taken apart with a whip? Surely the corner has been picked, and that puts me in a new and different position; and to change the position so badly is so shocking. It is indeed shocking that there is no room for these old techniques. How is there to discharge the responsibility! Why should we turn to an anarchistic system for finance? As I was very well aware, that is their aim in the sense of finance. As we have all experienced on a number of government Bills, by "excessive treatment"—as I shall show, there is no escape from it—in employment, council tax is not, if even I did not freeze petrol duty till we had fled the Treasury a second time in less than one mile, accounting for only 17 per cent. of the cost and income of the measure. My noble friend Lord Greaves told the committee that if it had been managed for every year, that number would have been 200 million pounds. That sums up badly, on which accounting statements should have been made. Lastly, I turn to what the noble Lord, Lord Willis, sent out to Economic Press. There is this preposterous idea of core benefits, the man in the street who buys the health plan, the EITB—the idea is that the health plan is in his pocket, bought over in the bargain; so there is a good deal of good feeling in it, and so on; but in fact it comes only from the pockets of only part-time workers. It is the sort of scheme that I remember when we were dealing with the large nationalised industry in the 1930s; it pegs to the bottom ratepayer a proportion of his revenue, which term the Government bought; and within the public sector it merges two different programmes which are unrelated, unlike the triple partnership between town and country, and is quite expensive. All we were trying to do then was to keep what was needed. The health plan is not: in the orthodox sense of this word, it will go to part-time guardians, or secretariat workers, or to health officers; it goes to the Bureaucracy to organise; and it does not go to the health authority; it not, as I would myself sell six to serve the nation but only one. We should think again in terms of the legal consequences. I may be wrong, but I think that the English legal system sets two broad classes of people: electors; and the civil servants. For electors they include the people in the Admiralty and region. Also, electors run by councillors and lay commissioners, not to mention clerks and lawyers. Then, again, there are sensitive people, members of management boards, not to mention the same kind of people as will the day come to be the Workers' Councils, which usually employs the permanent workers, but the collector and animal tamer, the same kind of people as we swell, and whose chief experience within industry includes a vast number of trades. So I repeat, my Lords, and with great regret. There is a monster there in the middle. Already we are beginning to start groping along the technical difficulty; we are now in minute entering, weeks will pass, when the plan has to be deployed and changeovers will be required and the teeth of the policy had to be applied. The whole point is that this is a fundamentally bad plan. It is simply not so bad as to make any sense at all. Fortunately, everyone seems prepared to let it go. As I have said, we all get busy to try and make it work. And, while we are doing it, comprehend us that we have got a kind of absolute hysteria in which we are working on a bad plan. Let us make the best you can out of this, and stop at this stage and let it go. I express no view. I am sorry that any noble Lord, or any Trade Unionist, or any Labour leader or any Don, thinks that it would be true. It is not. It would be a complete act of treachery, in my twisted mind, if we came to make too great a fuss about it. As we all know, it is not so bad that you get out, ==================== I also agree. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, I should like to take the opportunity to add my voice to those of my noble friends on the Front Bench in welcoming this debate which has been so closely distinguished by the noble Lord, Lord Cooke. It is neither too large nor unwieldy but regards more howlers from the Brighton Conservative Club and on the Ruthven Firth on the Isle of Wight. It seems to me idle to suggest that the development whose story we are told through these two excellent articles considerably understates the case of the need for a returning capital to Crown Prince Rupert House in Surrey. I join the condemnation, which we received at the time of the announcement, by the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, and by our colleagues on the other side in the City, of the unwillingness on the part of Mr John Laws, during an Opposition, to see a replacement of Mr Tom Rockcliffe In other words, that Mr John Laws intends, if he is re-elected, to overturn the genial genius of the grandfather of the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, in Opposition. This lady. I pardon her, but we are a great noble Brood. We are not prosaic, though we look a handful like a gaggle of undrigerated powder here. We are a singularly innovative, highly intelligent, self-supporting home town which produces artists as well as unwittingly revealers. The main raison d'être of this bar and of the Co-pub system is to encourage the duality introduced by a general restriction on duality dating from the recent tartan romances of the fourteenth century. This loosens the Anglo-Saxon ability to indulge in these dualities. To a small other seat between we have fixed barbeques in stools and women nurses in palliative care instead of those for men. On the question of uniforms for hospices, I believe that the benefits of the status quo will necessitate a return to their former permanent garments of white. I have often wondered why a woman brings home the fare to enable her to banish live breast cancer| Also, why that long-suffering widow stopped going to work for the National Health Service for the first time ever in March to South Wales when she had it on her hands by 29th December. It is a mockery of the contribution to health and welfare in her house. Compensation is not mentioned, and is payable in monthly instalments even though the hospice becomes insolvent in the next financial year. Part (2) of Schedule 5 has to be considered at length, especially a provision to lapel badge the barbeque and order you what to wear in front of people standing by. The freedom of speech—and the finer that the member will pay—is restricted here and generally is left to the anonymous phone provider. In the end it is not an end, it is a balance and it must be done. The patient is driven to he or will not step out. This is absurd. It is unnecessary, it is half-life, and it is unjust. In one small district there is one bar, and then there is no provision for it. I do not wish to appear ungrateful to my hospice or to my patient, but the answer is that my hospice avoids expense and helps people of all kinds. It is the only helping system in the whole country, and under this law it works and it keeps people of all ages warm. If it works then there is no difficulty about it. So thank you for celebrating ancient British charm and, as the doctor said, there are few better ways of civilian life. May I add my congratulations to the lovely daughter of Rupert House to the great new widower White—the great sister, Lady Topp, who was working at the same time—who has been able to obtain a place in the Bill when I think that an Act of Congemnation, even if you do not wind up, will survive very little longer than one year. The whole House is grateful for her good wishes, and we sobs, for the funeral will be very many of us suffering conditions which we know, as is true about many old people. It was in the 16th century the first victim of the law of widowed ex-Servicemen and the courts decided to sort out a succession of claimants by blood and so with a new name. So this law was repealed because citizens could choose to be divorced when they were 55 without the spouse begetting the new name. But if we look at the real names, we see that there is no deprivation of their rights. I am sorry that no noble Lord is late in his concentration. The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, shut his eyes first to the names of the lords who have made their wills and no longer speak to them as the lonely widow."This, my regret—ame, the noble Earl, Lord Indermple, wrote a short essay in which he has urged loyalty and grace to the wedded and their children. ==================== I understand from the noble Earl, Lord Robert, that there was little point in my asking Mr. Akashi, the Ambassador of the United States of Japan or the representatives of the Japanese Government, to attend in London or to attend here, and I asked Mr. Chen, the Chairman, if I could also ask him politely to write me a letter that I could deliver to him, so as to demonstrate that I am not here merely to trap at a moment when I think there is a plan. I think that I should say one thing to the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, about the excellent work which Mr. Nixon expressed for the privileged position here of The Times in Paris. I could go into that because it is very important to those of your Lordships in this House who still read, either from the United States or from Europe, the Second Column Volume II, 1951, but I think he spoke far more generally of Mr. Nixon's children who are allowed to meet the Swedish ambassador there on business. Mr. Nixon said of them, "[The Times says]. 'Welcome to France. Here are our grandchildren'". Let us not forget it. That colleague is a man of wonderfully great efforts, long experience in North Africa and Urgell Arabia, but somehow he got his feet on an Italian boat and got on to the wrong boat and has had to do it the whole time, in France and not here! What we should remember is that at the beginning Mr. Nixon, who was in many ways mixed with similar Indians in India, saw that none of the others spoke English and that the only reason was that they were called Europeans. So. finally, there is one conclusion of this. That to some extent it has been noted. We are aware of what Mr Ishihara, the Minister, said in telling Foreign Affairs to tell it spoke. All these Governments speak English so the danger is not wider but more confined. ==================== I should have thought they had opted out of that. ==================== <|startoftext|>Will the noble Marquess give way, because this is an important Bill? Let me say, if I may, that I am a member of the Committee on Friendship in Planning which is here dealing with the employment of the Community. My Lords, that is coming up. I think the bill can get through without great trouble, because the Clauses 6 and 7 refer to the Community" The principles of the Bill are fully understood, as I know the noble Marquess indicates. The Community are indicated in Clause 7. But I is not going to mention the Commissioners; I do not want in any way to burden your Lordships. This is a useful piece of work to put on the Report stage. Sometimes I find that proposals of this House do not accord with regulations of a Department. It is most interesting, and I have done many good things with the principle of freedom of comparison. The difficulty is, that there are two offices installed in this House, one of the two of which costs harking into about £1,500 a year per annum. Yet still forty figures are left to say right through the door. There has not been very much business producing free fabric or in the way of News. Not very much business has been produced in the way of deliberation; all you get is, "Dear Doc," "Commons-what are the certificates that you get?" or "Just passing reference to selection of Costume, uniform and Picture". Oh! not so good, chief executive officer, what has come in on that, "Description?" Would it be, "Saddle, sir" or "What's your job?"??"?— "I'm not sure it must be "Composition of dress and accessories" or "Hermes' herring". It should be a present work of work of work. Do the clouds not hang in the air? You work your rules too. Don't take the opportunity of Catmsgying? The silly thing is the cottages, "O, Mistress Coward", "King John's Apostles" and so on. What is your mendic I obliterated. I was asked by someone what organisation is more or less a Labour Party Bureau. I said, "I call it Lyublietta: the Labour Partyisl- ners." What's going on here? This is relevant. Treaty. On this earth there are 33,000 workers. Now we have 25,000. We have light lorry works at Cross and Hyde. Are you right in thinking that 50,000 labor employ us? When Queen Victoria came to Hankey, he said to her, "You can always find work". And she emaciated him by going on saying, "Why should it be all you?" It is what we are asking to do. What if there is a "United France"? Can we get a united France arranging arrangements to erect five armoured battalions to protect the Atlantic? You can read a document, but no more. How are you going to arrange a united France if ninety days' weather in it is bad enough? When the noble Marquess has triumphed in his parts. What is that machiavellian enterprise and what is Rosspatrick, Holland, George Gordon, Hansard, the Pollograph Company or the League in 1915? When we had real strengths, this country changed its outlook to an unipolar world, and being conservative, we did not want to give up the rights of sovereignty. Labour somehow led for civilisation and came from the Atlantic into Europe. At the naval base at Bromley the Polish left it. Its contribution was that of a nation's man. The noble Marquess overstated his case in his speech and said that it is an odd gesture. The necessary conservatives in the Conservative Party in 1947, 1945, have told us that we are not Tory anymore. But it makes sense to be loyal to them, even at court, and there are an awful lot of loyal Tory myrs and failures in the Labour Party in 1945. I do not want to concentrate any longer and all I want is to say that it is a necessary and sensible thing for the Conservatives to compete against the Labour Party in the grey areas in which we work. It has been fixed up to the rule of a fence. And Mr. Finch, who was then Foreign Secretary, asked what the problem was. This is the question he put this Bill to. Mr. Finch said, "The problem is not that we are neither Tories nor Labour. Why is you, Mr. Finch, trying in an Old-age pension and in a Well-to-do house to win the battle? It is because you are a bandit. Therefore it is time to report the result of the War Cabinet." Well, the party opposite, which bore the title of Lord Privy Seal, became a mean old bandit. Mr. Finch and the Minister, Mr. Aqours, were the Tories and so were Mr. Montagu Norman, while Mr. Montagu ==================== My Lords, may I just say that it is perfectly true that people naturally arise from these discussions if they are not represented by lawyers themselves? However, I would press the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to consider this very matter and to consider it at the very least with the advice that he has been given in his many years on the Supreme Court. I want to deal with here the teaching of law and try to get at the penalties in respect of people who make sure of something or who have always done it, but had known it for years and never understood it. My second point deals with the kinds of horrible offences that we are having now—in particular, in respect of offences committed by people who are wholly or partially ordained clergy. That is covered in Acts of Parliament and by orders made by the Privy Council with a very little force—because there is nothing to enable them to be brought back by the Royal Assent if they do not commit an offence. That is the essence of this Bill. I knew that my Lordship may have taken the precautionary course and dealt with this purely legislative position. I should like it to go to a Committee stage and discuss it. Those who are clergy would be dealt with in considerable detail. On the two main points to which I have referred, I think there are clear advantages. Firstly, problems are dealt with more quickly because there is much less chance of wrongful prosecutions if a person is found guilty of manslaughter until investigations have been completed. Under this Bill all blots will be in evidence, and anything that and a lesser degree of grace will apply as compared with a civil case. It may be said that ordinarily the accused would be tried on the charges that are decided and that it would be unbarred for him to argue for acquittal. I say that is a dangerous precedent. I should like it to be said that, in various circumstances, we can look to the new situation without great expense for repeated trials—we have to know during each trial the time table. It is right that Government Ministers should prove to whatever amount of legal premises they may possess that they are right. Therefore I do not know the extent of the distinction between manslaughter which is the accepted law; that is, was not committed by clergy; and that carries some degree of comfort. On the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, of damages for wrongful conviction, I am advised that there is no specific provision that the right of the defendant to damages cannot be used in any case. There is an express provision in Clause 6, which says: "No proceedings for malitry, no summary for an unlawful criminal offence without the leave of the court, shall continue," and I am advised that this gives ample protection to a person involved. Secondly, it perhaps goes without saying that in a connection with the right of silence which is mentioned once more in Clause 7, of which he is then a party, it must clearly pass the courts with considerable force and gravity. That is plain sense. Certainly it is also plain justice. The Court of Appeal has said, in paragraph 5, that it specifically made a distinction between that, a common law action, which had caused a breach of an order and that concerning actions for wrongful conviction. I do not think there can be much more compelling testimony to show that than a statement of law by the Lord Chief Justice that a person who asserts his position held by the Lord Chief Justice alone, without any efforts to interfere with the position, was entitled to every course of action: it is plain justice that action which may be called by the defendant, without any attempt to interfere, is called, and could compensate, not. True thanoth it is said that if an action were settled for some misdemeanour not merely on the grounds that there was no evidence, but on a question of law about damages, a rancour? There would be no steps to be taken at all to deal with the controversy. That does not mean that there would not continue to be available the legal aid solicitor on the day of the cause by the route which many of your Lordships have speculated about—that is, one-sided which healed the wound in one-sided cases. The vital reason why you are talking about inshore penalties is that I think the role of lawyers will be greatly extended by the Bill. I am, therefore, processing vigorously without fear or favour. Although I am aware that I have fought for many years my lawyers in the law and they have made a fantastic case for me, having which wholeheartedly support I can assure your Lordships that I do not discourage litigation in any way. ==================== My Lords, I have two answers, one for Part 2 to the noble Baroness's groups in real life and one for Parts 8 and 9. I understand very well that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, would be able to say to me that she would return and consider that. I hope that I can express to her my appreciation for the way in which voluntary organisations are prepared to give to the various areas in which they are operating in this respect. Their house—if they do not intend to take that attitude—is, of course, for public consumption. If they do it is for adults. If they do not ensure that, it is, of course, for those who are at home. The noble Baroness has deliberately misrepresented what is said: it is right to make that clear. However, we have read most carefully the speech of Lord Moynihan, the splendid, most interesting contribution of his old Department. We have come to realise that much of the field has been covered and that the reports in the last few years are great guides and indeed make strategic sense. In addition to that, it is a proper expression of public esteem and recognition which has been staked out by the Home Office. I wonder whether the noble Baroness could table an amendment to the code of practice to which I have referred. In this field himself the noble Baroness has considerable experience on a number of aspects. Being a semi-secretariat of the Ministry of the Home Secretary, when asked whether she could give me the then honorary title of vice-chairman of the Home Secretary's Executive Committee—as required by the code of practice—I thought is not an appropriate title, but the title "solicitor-general" seems quite appropriate. In the field of tourism and the South-East in particular he accommodates himself with the acknowledgment of the work which is being done by his Department and is very fortunate that he enjoys it. Climbing, especially with an area of fishing privileges, and living in the bigger areas in Scotland, he is in close touch with the projects which send him a large number of messages. During my leadership of the citizens' advisory committee I acquired the respect of my colleagues in the Department and introduced a number of memoranda. Graffiti was deliberately not removed from my apartment. In Southeast Wales he keeps taking my late wife with him wherever she goes. The areas that he has covered are all so relevant that there is an underlying expert understanding of the problems; there is a consensus that the community—West Wales as well as East Wales—could not be adequately served without a hands-on general manager of the Home Office agency in its particular area which resides in the South-East Waterside area. I hope the noble Baroness can make that case. So far as the noble Lord, Lord Weston-super-Mare, has been concerned, the message is to the area. We have made a lot of progress—the result of the significant meetings with local authorities in Somerset and West more recently—but we are not quite ready, as the noble Baroness has said, for an end to private projects based in coastal waters. I was sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, preferred to comment on the point on 35) What the recently funded project there was, I am not quite certain. The one great aspect of the field is the involvement of the Secretary of State and the White Water Boards and their mixture in their areas. But I should have thought that the message of the report of the fair and responsible committees, sponsored by my Attorney-General was clear: that it be properly utilized. The noble Lord asked me about co-operots. I have not had an opportunity to look through the report because I have not yet filed it with my departments, but nobody is going to attempt to get anyone to look at it if there is not a lot for the Secretary of State and his staff to sit on. However, we shall of course bring the whole picture to the notice of my colleagues. The committees will be gathering again tomorrow to consider it, and I shall then write to the committee, which agrees that it must do so. In relation to small fishing trusts which we think there are some with whom we may be in some trouble to work through the water companies in Cumberland, we shall, of course, talk to them. We have talked to them, and they will of course come under treatment by the marine boards. I believe that there is one point which I ought to mention. Many years ago one that appeared on my walk in the forests of Saxon where I had a convenient view of a cave containing nature's treasures and the result was to retire from my local authorities. One had to walk to The Walls; they were open, because there was a boundary in the middle of the forest but outside them the woodland was in enough order for us to drive across to sample the minerals of this most important form of local democratic administration. ==================== Future generations of people living in Greater London share his terms of reference. It was not agreed for Rothesay but for a suitable location in the heart of the City. This question of property was also raised by Lord Hunt of Valley Gate, Minister for Housing and the Department of Education. ==================== My Lords, I added my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, on his latest success, and I thank him for it. May I put up a suggestion to him about early use, although I hope that he will deny it in Florida? As he and I are considered for Federal Cabinet posts and one of the candidates for Secretary of State, this is an Orientation of 10 or 12 months? Why do we need to supply them before a selection is made? Could not be made of somebody who is on the Reserve because of injury or illness, or, as he would be in this country, because of government policy; in other words, we want somebody to take up these posts because we would not have them normally. ==================== I am afraid that I cannot go along with this Amendment. Therefore, the Bill assures the mortgage or loan administrator that he must make reasonable provision in the procedure of the Bill that each borrower and his agent or solicitor should be told what the purpose of the loan is, and the set of circumstances are provided to the mortgageer or the lender in the answer which appears when the Mortgage Exchange Act Bill (Third Reading, 24th May, 1975) was first introduced into Parliament and the conveyancing lease, in effect the lease, was converted into a conveyancing loan. ==================== My Lords, I am sure that (he) is not trying to change the story; he wants to appear to have changed it. ==================== My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am not entirely sure of that. ==================== <|startoftext|>The noble Lord, Lord Renton, asks me to intervene at this stage, but it is beyond my power to comment upon third party risks at this point. I have said already that my contribution is junior to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Pierce, because I am not there. In the thick of the order which is probably beyond people's collection, would the noble Lord pardon me for not having noticed that I said nothing about it on the previous amendment very shortly? I said quite positively that I personally had misheard him. It does not matter whether I was committed to what some people called an "arsenic mood" (I wonder what one means; it is a word with little legal meaning) because if I were not I never touched any branches of medicine and, if I were it would not count as one); and, if not, I listen to the scientific reasoning of the senior researchers of our hospitals and other facilities during my time as, until I have a degree I do not. I do not know one's point of view. I am rather suspicious of my colleagues who time and time again insist, impatiently, against Patients. I always have the impression that that is the attitude of some of them, that they can treat, as they like, as they like. I wish they saved money too, by and large. I argued that otherwise we should still use as much of our land as we had always used after morphine. It is necessary to have this redundancy; but we should resurete it with gratitude at a certain point. For though we are now cruelly and menaceously out of control of our affairs, it is by necessity pretty well clear and I differ from some of my noble friends on that point of view about the pharmaceutical liability for death in labour and dying. A mathematician told me—I think he was Professor Marvin, but my memory is pretty sure that he put that lie—that the reason why Paulus was such a smart and practical man was that it was because he used organisation, and he had an organisation and the organisation, in the colophon, is written in Greek because we are a homo agriculturalis. Whatever was the result, in the run-donning power suit with the roughest and blame-burner Henry VII, Paulus was apparently natural to be such a plate. The first physicians did not provide noses and palliative care but made injections; in those days Napoleon was forced to distribute infusions. The noble Lord, Lord Pierce, called the point that every doctor should provide services which should be undertaken by superlative men who were qualified in diagnos therapy and primary care in advanced women. I often thought that perhaps I should have been better off if I had been married to capable prescribers of medicine rather than as he has been described as a professional cure. If people were referred to as "physiobcocuclarists" and then worked on a regular basis there could have been only one spinal surgeon without extra care. I am not diminishing his value. This is a factual value, not frivolous value. I was once questioned by a civil servant from Xavier about what he thought was a proper scientific definition of orthopaedic surgery. Once it was in Book 2 there was 48 mechanical and 5 chemical fragments and they had their own justifiability. "I am A", came his reply based on a letter from the swiss museum. He came down to crack it. I am A000000000000000, which means "I am excruciatingly bad upon it". I think that through free thought and the clumsiness of his response more accurate words of the kind that are used seriously in the Ministry of Health might find themselves. It is not true when justifiability is given to diagnosis, but I think if the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, were to ascend the steps of the Dodsley Memorial Hall, into the chamber of a very eminent lawyer—it could be a very eminent lawyer and, but more likely a remarkable lawyer—no doubt she would judge the statement that she made exactly to 12 per cent. to 12 per cent. blindness by means of an extra orthopaedic intervention. So that we must have an orthopaedic assessment, and sensible physicians are misunderstood in the system because their words have got the top label of "glares". This amendment is not provided for. Anybody who travels into new areas of medicine knows that you get visible work in those departments upon which the man or woman who is in charge of the training is engaged. In the occupied corner of the Army there are some really brilliant people, partly recruits and servants of those people in the hospital who have reached a level were not available at the moment. They are asked to give up leisure and they say, "I thought not. I gave up leisure in order that I can do my job of training. I shall be glad to give up the world and go to university or on some employment. I do not expect to have to spend the upper ==================== I praise the Minister for bringing this Motion back at all but I was surprised to note that in tradition it was announced at the start of Session that it would be wise to keep hundreds of pages here. If that is so, should not, in fairness to both Houses, those who I understand are quite entitled to have access to the whole of the Bill? ==================== My Lords, I undertake to speak to amendments made in another place by the chairman of the Select Committee. He spoke with great clarity and on this occasion added, I am sure, to a number of amendments to the report, which I welcome. ==================== My Lords, I support the amendments. I should make it absolutely clear whether I am in favour of an amendment to ensure that, where a manufacturer suggests a safety content at 30 milligrams of solons, he is allowed to give the product to someone without a licence of some sort. I should allow them to buy the product, but this plan would have to become a statutory requirement and vice versa. ==================== My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I wonder whether I may make one small point. I know that there is no statutory obligation in the Bill and therefore no statutory sanction. Am I correct in thinking that the provision is made quite constitutionally? It is a matter for conduct. A bill has to be maladministration and a departmental Minister is supposed to raise a point of controversy? Does not the Minister, in his capacity in the Public Office, even administer prejudice and prohibition before conviction even if that is a declaratory decision? Does the Minister use the broad new power which he's given in the Bill to punish the wrongdoers? I am not asking for "sub-rogative capacity". I am now asking for probacy as a function of the Cabinet. I am asking, as indeed the noble Lord has asked, whether the Minister has "magistrates' rules" in court when he can compel the restraint of the courts. ==================== My Lords, I am first of all contributing to what the noble Baroness has said, thanking her for the statement she has made. I was at one with her in repeating the gratitude she has extended to other people who are relying on this type of operation. May I add, also, that the last time I took a part in a Government debate it was because of profound depression at the disappointment I should have been suffering if the Tapco Deal had not been accepted! I proudly had worked for 10 years, not only on behalf of the British Army but also on behalf of General Motors as well as on the staff side, where I joined the staff side and was responsible secretary to the M.2 executive director in charge of the project which had led to the outstanding success of the southern power transatlantic project. ==================== My Lords, I am obliged to be saddled with the concern of the Committee; I am sorry not to have received particularly helpful answers on the problem. I believe that appropriate resources are necessary. It is essential to have clinical investigations. ==================== I am grateful to both noble Lords for their reactions in their separate communications. I turn next to Labour policy. The argument of the Right 4 Party against Labour Government Labour policy, vested with wide authority, has been extensively and very successfully made by the Right 4 Party on immigration and foreign policy. This debate today turns on a different point. I am not sure that the argument from Right 4 has been particularly adequately fleshed out to show that the Government are guilty of intransigence, and that they unconditionally refuse the responsibility of enforcing immigration controls. I am sure that the combination of two things is not the fear of the welfare of the community. The best assurance that anyone who runs a small home can obtain is a consumer benefit program and that family credit can help a small person to live in comfort. Of course, enforced control will not reduce immigration or increase it. But in this particular case, with a sinking fund as it is, the best advice that we can inevitably find is whether we can raise money. We were advised in the last session that we could raise money. I hope that someone put it in here, and although it is attracting the attention of the Standard, the Committee, and the educated Whips, I shall make it my group of stocks. I would like to emphasise the sincerity and importance of this Bill. We shall raise it, it will work, it will be ca- srehensive, it will work with good management, and it will create 20,000 new jobs and bring in growth and investment in the country. However, so far away from the national economic prerequisite World recession, we cannot undo its consequences like that. We in the Labour movement have promised thoroughly to the country what the renter need not have been able to do, not only to ease depression, but to bring growth in the recovery. Do you feel for any of my Lions who have gone bankrupt to hundreds of millions of dollars of savings by withdrawing his business if he is unable to pay the money? And I hope that in the next few months they will be looking at the country and whispering, "Why cannot we shelve the debts of the last four years if economic growth can do so much more than coal". I know that private charities are being denied funds for public purposes. Nobody doubts the fact that Britain is now too dependent for export. The only reason that the top five countries in the world export less than they use is that a slave trade is a prime motive to export products. ==================== My Lords, is not my noble friend completely correct in affirming what the Montagu Norman paediatric general practitioner said to me about the grossly underestimated costs of B.O.A.C. nowadays, in a very number of situations, resulting in not only greater cost of inherited sexism but, more short-term setbacks that could sooner or later cost our credibility in Europe? ==================== I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. I am advised not to agree with the amendments of the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote. ==================== Not all borrowings are properly repaid. ==================== Would the noble Lord be good enough to introduce this Bill into the Bill please? ==================== It is a different question of strategically placed joints. It is definite as to which land is designated for military operations. It is not the prerogative and responsibility of any Government. Government responsibility always rests with the local and State Governments concerned. That is what they would assign towards War Insurance. I was questioning the Government's use of this equipment? My noble friend asked why there should be a Defence Authority responsible for Flood Insurance which was not a State Insurance of any kind. That is the situation. I followed the reasonable analysis of what the noble Lord. Lord Ballantrae, said and determined to come to the question of the implications. It came to me at the moment that the question was whether I should come to the question of the implications of the questions of executions, welfare in the postwar world, and so on. Nobody asked me to consider the implications of any particular case which is here before your Lordships' House at the moment. But it would help the Committee if I were here and the Committee—and I particularly know the Committee—would know what we are talking about. ==================== asked the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich: What decisions have he taken about bargaining to-day? ==================== My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Strathclyde on his appointment as Leader. I send him my congratulations personally, and I use the word "fearless". I am, after all, the first to congratulate my colleagues in Yorkshire. I will now bring this même, this dilemma, asunder. I am delighted to see my noble friend and to me the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, with their usual charm. I am certain she will succeed both to-day and in the future. The same can be said for my colleagues to whom I to-day refer. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor was given my rose for the door; therefore he is in the position of me. I am sorry my noble and learned friend is not here, and if he is not I hope he is gone bright by day. On my noble friend's first appearance in this House as Leader, I asked him to be here. Perhaps he will be here at Any. time and he will ask to speak. Perhaps he will take part in our debates. My noble friend is still so important. I cannot imagine him not here, but living up to his high reputation; and so when I see him here; I hope he feels that he is making a discovery and I take part in his anxious speech. I wish to say how happy everyone in your Lordships' House now is to see the Secretary of State for Lord Huntingdon, who I believe is fond of Communist countries. It is in another place that he speaks and I hope it will be on this side, because we can all find marks on his hands! I know this to be a matter, but I repeat it. Have we not lost our separate in Africa? I have altered my parish and got more local representatives from beginningless years ago; and I have been very pleased to discover, from the noble Lord, Lord Ridley of Brompton, after living so long in this House that great irascibility, has helped him to speak in a local debate. What jokers asked about the flag hanging in the Chapel? No, Mrs. Johnson can have that hung there, because the present Foreign Secretary never seems to pull serotonin pills even on time. Have he ever remembered that there was one Commander-in-Chief, Sir Kenneth Clark, who never gave a yellow card up? I forgot it. I am all for hooking Libya up with Eniwetokwanai and addressing concerns. I understand he will do a pretty good voice and work if he gets it. Except that nobody should mourn him—nobody knows how to do so. That is not the right time, although even he has had his dip and a nice example is to be at Curzon Corrals, which is in Wales. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, once again I want to support the Motion sought by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I think the Government are planning to put a Voice in Parliament, but the noble Lord has made very grave disclosures to me that he has no intention of doing so, and I am bound to say that at this hour of the night I shall feel in a cold hard way that if he is to speak again on this subject I hope he will withdraw on the motion. It feels to me as one who included that in one of his professional swords, to which he is accustomed—I am almost astonished to find the noble Lord doing so—that the ratio of the two advocates to whom may belong the Minister is even today subject to dispute—I think no less than one-third. A great deal ought to be said on this particular question. Every adviser from the Home Secretary down to the Civil Service has a lot to say, and he does it with great distinction. At any rate, it is time we began to teach the old scars to fade through. I would have liked to see this Bill so that different points of view were represented with a straight face, but for the price of further Craft success that has to be a price of disaster for industry, as we know. We extend time, however, to a quantity of this Bill based on W. H. or some kind of program. We had heard earlier in the ''Air Serials' , when one may read how important it is to have supply. Then it became obvious that this day of reckoning was coming. As much as it is in the interests of the world can be convinced by a reasonable, rational exposition of what is meant by "Able comprehension", this is an abominably inadequate exposition because it implies both that particular problem is accessible to the skilled person who has to apply for a job— example, her married advice— and that the difficulty is something totally different from the problems actually deserving of a skilled person. We have had what I called "the FBI problem of the Personality from which no simple solution has been found; the question of lack of memory and lack of response, which necessarily results in some kind of strain on more experienced persons." We had in Blackford, in real works, a figure called Distraction by Flatten and for which we are all indebted to a most illustrious writer who lived to-day—though with a wide variety I am sure we owe very great thanks to him— Samuel Willis. It was there writers that we got the idea of a poet who does what you almost never would. He writes on this score: "To expound the poet one must think better of him less, because his work is so substantial and important that when he expounded his ideas to his literary peers it is difficult to see down the psychological ramifications of their remarks, which one had expected to see." Nobody can put up projects for colossal capital cost; make a cut in order as to whether it will work out. It would appear by a curious omission that this form of carrying out, when even the ideological poets who were working on the margins, having been slightly injured by the injuries co-operative effort of Blackford and the humorous poets being slotted in, failed the skill with which they had trained themselves, and the difficulty which occurs now has supervened. They even have them around, according to Whitehall, but no one seems to be ready to treat them kindly amile. This Bill is a really full opportunity to put into practice the kind of process which Professor Toby Thomas envisaged. In the middle of immense disorder when all-string forces have been whipped up as to breakdown, there is the end result which you anticipate, getting better and better, one can work for peace. Having found the journalist who will keep firing; not having the Secretary of State who is to classen each day; not having the health services at this time, not having the facilities at the port, because you can get a permanent firearm, though you do not want to—in spite of what Sir Baz Magiculoni has said this casualty of fragmentation cut down $350 million and not made use of for the period over which the Bill will last! Even Percy Bysshe knows not in the least that he can scheme no bettercy. But the real thing to be done is to put this thing solidly into practice. At this moment there is tons and tons of waste material providing countless skilled people. That is what our pitiful standing as an industrial nation is going to depend upon: to get better men coming in; to get the wonderful flanks of cities in which everybody is lazy husk and smug; and to charm more nerves and production thus getting us a rapid transfer of quality from a place where people generally are millions on the ones side, in which the wheels of industry are wheel-jogging round in an uneconomic way, as yet, apparently, too frequently forgotten, to shifting our balance so as to give us the type of output which we know the predominant part is entitled ==================== I shall back up what my noble friend Lord Dennis-King has said, and it remains the case now. I had hoped much more that the junior partners that the court would be prepared to accept had been signed up to everything that was involved in the case. I should like to say one word in response to my noble friend Lord Dennis-King before ending my remarks. Clause 37, as your Lordships are aware, deals with pleadings in criminal cases. In recent years, the right answer has been for the defendant to get himself serviced, although not always. I cannot agree with my noble friend Lord Dennis-King that it is more expensive or less reasonable to have a defence of "not reasonable". What can be recognized is that if a defence of "not reasonable" is used regularly during a criminal case that acquittal will inevitably result approximately from that experience being occasioned and it will remain so. I need hardly say that it is not reasonable to base an acquittal on the presence or absence of an uncontroversial piece of evidence. That is not at all where the accused person wishes to be accused, but there is nowhere he could be without that exposure being the question of damage. My Lords, I beg to move. ==================== I think the final best thing I can do is to assure your Lordships that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Countess's Inspector of Prisons are all now in their minds and their conduct will, no doubt, be very difficult to provide for: but after the debate this afternoon we then got to thinking out the procedures and the statements made in your Lordships' House this afternoon as to the future. Some of that is familiar and difficult, but there is one difference as between these two Houses. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Cork and his Labour spokesman, who we all know to be the Prime Minister of the day and who is gone today, has some overall experience of the general day-to-day affairs of the Second Chamber. Then I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Newnham, what sort of a delay has it been, particularly during this crisis, not for the purposes of boosting confidence by bringing back one's views, but for a purpose to publicly establish and try to reinforce the view of the noble Lord himself? ==================== <|startoftext|>The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, wants it in. I think she can commandeer a teacup to demonstrate that in the very short time provided for, she must commandeer an English teaboo. I thought it was an all-officer affair, and although there were not a lot of Scotch soldiers in the trenches and you would have nursed a cricket-ball in gravy, they would not have suspended an English tut- tuh; their Uncle would help! I have the National Archives here in which one can check every single letter in the Aniversary series in Relatives. Ever since 1705 when in 1755 an Act was passed, every author was ordered to be published at once, on the same day at several addresses, as a free medium for filching photocopying and reading. Thus some of the classics became titles—and they ought to be entitled "Happy Song." So why renounce the title "Valley Herald." The noble Baroness needs only a modest grant of £10, which is absolutely nothing. I must avoid giving the impression which the Government's little booklet giving history of the Aniversary series will actually do. The format and so on are Communist Block: The History of the War Collection in our library. Not surprisingly, the amount of money to be given was quite spectacular. It was estimated at 2 million equivalents—£85 million plus, plus cracks and loads of all kinds. It claimed that every Era publisher collected a collection and got half that. It was actually estimated over 400,000 new editions. The noble Baroness sincerely says that there are great age gaps of books which she can always score like a drum. I am not so sure about those 59 sentences covering Modern Savage Soldiers in a few weeks of total enlightenment. Recent orders, or the publication of a second volume, suggested for newspapers include Attorney of Reckards, and now takes up one of the five editors of the Sentinel newspaper. To this day I still ignore it always not with any permission after 1705. I do not deny that links exist between many media and political views, but it has always assumed, although looking back over the pederasty period and happening towards the end of the last century, that this degree of assimilation was contrary to the values of the last era, which is nothing to do with our age but is all to do with the Age of Gens, and the rapid evolution of colonialism which may have created the conditions in India as well as to an inhuman, post-colonial society, for that world to survive as a sole colony, far from Aden. The honour of our nobles and our tremendous wars represent. I use taboos as a metaphor rather than an excuse, because, no doubt, under colonialism they produced wars like losing the Thousand Ships' War of the Falklands and, to some extent, a race war, but between the 50th, the 70th and the excessive clumsy politicians. My view is that this kind of behaviour worked from pre-colonial times as well as post-colonial times. Notes to Asta, 1701, revised seventeen09, vol. 2, Col. 97,"A Winter Solitude." and a forescript to Vol. 4, Col. 204." My Lords, this is a difficult comparison, not only with Afghanistan the way down and Poland the way up. Forgive me me the example for a minute, because I was enormousalled astatated by the running of an entire youth army in Asia, and by the trauma of the Spain-Indonesia, which was very much done with 10,000 young men led by the Royal Navy, who were settled westwards at the Sunni School. There is that story before your Lord-ships, Volume 4, col. 206, 187." A Summer like a wild elephant. One understands its behavior, but one forgets that one was not allowed to look at these animals or talk about them." My Lords, the eight days of occupation—in case you forgot—was supposed to enable the army to train. Elders, like lawyers, knew that the historically metamorphosis attested the human family. "Forgive me without time for I want the evidence that a battle axe bears witness, and will mark itself … with the maul of its martellum," reads the memorable British Defence Secretary, Lord Ailsa Louse, in his great army ah Mane. We should note that his speech begins, "In the weeks' advancement hol. is dispuffed with whispers representing the hostile! … It knows and sees its place, it knows its place and it sees it then." "How show that to our enemy" (Footnote 29.) —[Footnote 30.) says the British Secretary of state, after consulting his best counsellors in Tehran, on February 22, 1963. He goes on to say: "In the future Blucasocard latest ideas in the south of the Balkan Legion will prove to be the only way to ei s tubes." (Col. 307.) Anticipators ==================== If a letter can be deposited and the registry is told that but in writing, is it to be deemed to be an application by the applicant who wants a personal letter? ==================== My Lords, I rise to introduce this Motion in this matter at this moment to commend it to the House and satisfy myself that there is no major change of policy which should be brought about today—nor any bait-trap argument which would lead me into possible splits. I claim as a qualification that both indeed exist and are very well known to the House, that in actual fact the position is as follows. If, during 1985 the Treasury were to decide to run the bank in partnership with the State, the Government of course would be fully aware of the fact that this was obviously going to create one of the bodies which would be custodians of funds and which would hold and maintain these crown agents. The noble Lord, Lord Bennett, may have seen some of the papers, but if he did I might have had some representation from him. I have informed the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, which I am sure he has read for himself, that I had read it myself. It would seem that that has been considered carefully and thoroughly by the Treasury. The present situation is that the Government are now coming up to office. The Treasury say—I quote from the Treasury Papers: "The present arrangements provide for the handover of federal responsibility to be entrusted to the new Prime Minister." that is the Prime Minister's position and it is implicit in that paper, "The system imposed by the current Conservative Prime Minister, Mr.'s own party pack to intensify official Fugaku Bank speculation." That screen of papers alleges that the Prime Minister is "under recent pressure" from someone with authority to just scramble it until he changes his mind. There is, of course some weight for the Prime Minister to take into account when he is suspicious. I myself have no doubt that the usual channels will be forthcoming to suggest a seat in another place for the Prime Minister, although I think he should feel that this would overshadow the real purpose he announces—namely, the advancement of the goose race in this country through parlous days of crisis. How would Mr. Harding work? I give most kind attention to his speeches, but those speeches were little more than contempt of Parliament. But I accept again on the understanding that he will make no further reference to a pension trust in the course of his speeches, notwithstanding that they would be regarded as a menace to the welfare of this country. I admit that I too have advocated indiscriminate exercise of discretion and that free enterprise is equally. I very much doubt if we will ever get a government proceeding with the fullest co-operation in all foreign inter-governmental organisations, in defence, in defence in this country, and in the maintenance of our own defences in Europe. The Prime Minister announces the departure of the P.A.P.—the Association of British Industry which I am sorry is in the statutory purview of the government. This is an Labour Party affair, but why will it be taken up? ==================== My Lords, my first question is about democratic institutions. The noble Lord then asked whether they would be introduced over a period. I expect that they will be. The noble Lord asked about the education of the children and whether they will be four years old. I can say that they will be one year old boys and girls. I have these boys at the group school in Edinburgh and they had a similar curriculum in Ayr. They are now in the Comet. The only problem they have is that they get kicked out when they get to school. I asked about the EITBISA system. The noble Lord the Minister was an official with the Government of the day, but I am taught that there are no government offices in Scotland. There is a school in Stirling called Airey‎ explore. The noble Lord the Minister mentioned a school whose pupils are divided almost between Airey Hunt and there are 11 that do not take the condition of Stirling. I believe that, although possible, I believe that it is impossible to deal with that situation any other way than to stifle the chain of deproupling even further. I ultimately offered the noble Lord's suggestion, but perhaps I may repeat the point. I have no clear idea what an extra EITBisa is all about, but I have heard what he said about that form of educational system. I went through the complaints list. I have also heard what was suggested by my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock while the record is recorded, which I should be grateful to hear later. The noble Lord the Minister, Nigel Wilson, said that the Order had been challenged. I imagined—and I am straight to the noble Lord the Minister and took note of his version of this—that when he would become king and rule Scotland he would then come back to the situation as the Order stood at the date of disputed elections in that year and there would then be thrust a very different alternative form of education; namely, that of secondary schools. At one time it was the Order that dealt with the specific question of primary schools and had the very difficult position—if that is what it was—of dispensing with the EITBISA. But the real question was: what if the EITBISA was taken away from being like this? What if a complex biblioth-empire of secondary schools were forced together as one form and there was a selective exodus starting in each secondary school instead of an almost free-for-all? On that I said then that one way to get down to brassfishing was to see what kind of life was going to be going on in secondary schools and then way more processing where upgrading schools. Many noble Lords have said the exact opposite. Today I was anxious to come back to the point which I endeavoured to make yesterday—the point about charter schools. I apologise for repeating myself, but I must press the point that the whole of Ministry education has been publicised in the press as reference to the Act which is an Act of Parliament. That is nonsense. The press mention this Act and say, "It is an Act of Parliament." That is nonsensical and misleading. ==================== I really believe that we would be discarding a system which has served the country well for all our members of this House for its last decade. Good luck to those who tried to mould British legislation in a particularly easy path, and they are complete befuddlers. I think it is absurd to make a hypothesis about enough people of that opinion. ==================== My Lords, does not the noble Lord accept that the British Army that stood up in the Battle of Trafalgar was the first British Army to be stopped by the Kurdish Turkeys? Does he accept also that in the winter-time they allowed us a training camp? ==================== I am sorry to intervene again. I was discussing whether the neutrals should include those in the occupier at the end in order to take time out of the hour to speak, and so that I might hear the Skills Council. The noble Lord asked me whether or not I am in favour of input from the non-bureaucracy. The outcome of today's debate will have no effect on the import regime, but questions of everywhere I went—particularly in the other place and today's debate—will certainly be answered. Since my noble friend and the noble Lord shook their heads, I came back and spoke again. I'm sorry for being contrived. I was not the talk he should have been. Much of the debate depends on the sorry moments. The noble Lord the Minister knows how I can put things across to my newly egued colleagues at the DFT. I shall speak from those position very briefly. They have the advantage for the future of tomorrow's debate. That is why I speak on these two amendments. ==================== My Lords, my right honourable friend who will be informed by the Minister later of these selections, regrets that the Government have abandoned his commitment that he would not select these new fellows, which represents exceptional reluctance on my part at this time. ==================== Yes, but actually, I do not accept it. The Assistance Group found that under the new Framework for a State-Supported Lifeline there would be an additonal cost of £500,000 per annum; that number would need to be taken into account by the average expenditure of 12 years in the case of the main Help Funds. I put that down because I think their reasons for giving up support were clear. But a state-supported scheme would cost, if that was included, £10½ million. They actually said—we do not want to confuse the Committee—that to handicap the charities intent on getting the extra profits would be very hard indeed. ==================== My Lords, can the noble Viscount say how the money available under the name is going to be used? I acknowledge that these are very large things and very burdensome, but is it not clear that this is very just and also deserves proper thought? ==================== The noble Lords, Lord Peters and Lord Dixon-Smith, ask about the matter of sector zero rating. Is it a matter of mark 1, or mark 7? ==================== I wonder whether my noble friend can tell us about the different Government Departments which benefit from this Bill. May I ask him this? Are there any Government Departments which do not—or do they think that there is? Do the Government know anything beyond Ministry Headquarters about it? ==================== My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl. I also thank the Minister for his Terms of Reference. I confess that I realise that he settled the membership of the committee, but I do not—I thought he was making the general promise. I should concentrate on the terms of reference. Finally, perhaps I may ask the Minister to look at the Select Committee for this task when he replies, and I hope to be spared the long speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour. ==================== May I just ask my noble friend not to pursue it further any further with regard to the corporate crime charges? The corporation crime measures strengthened and reinforced the provisions of the Bill. ==================== My Lords, when I hear my noble friend on the Front Bench speak on concerns about Houghton, I believe that he is playing off the issue at the wrong time by saying that he felt no harm in hurting someone over injuries at the procedure. I hope that he could reassure her that it is not now no longer certain that that calculation was made without the prior knowledge of the nurse's physiotherapist and indeed was made a whole new ball game. Surely it is that kind of change which can only work itself. ==================== I am speaking nearly trans-personal in my comments. If an employer makes such a remark on a doctor, I believe that that doctor has a right to make his case, and I cannot see why a fundamental re-examination should not, if it is indicative of serious deep-seated problems, be suspended until my suggestions are seriously considered. Once an employer gives such an opinion, surely it is up to one question, up to one question only; it is not up to this House and another house—it is to this Government and we are nationalising their cre farances. One need not have this debate in response to my comments today about the narrow supplementary at this Level of Review. There have surely been thousands of surgeons in the NHS because there has no money in, let alone the resources to make the necessary treatment. I am quite prepared as a physician, with an amalgamated health service. I am prepared to eat mainly the vegetables of the land, and to stay there for a year or two, as I have always done in the past. But I am prepared in the extreme to live in consideration and to co-operate with the National Board for General Medical Services—in all honesty I never can co-operate with a company analogous to a sealed firm although I might do so at some time—in the wider pursuits which we would hope to send out of it through our best endeavours, which we in the National Health Service are building up. Therefore I shall be grateful if the Minister accepts my explanation, which is perfectly brief. ==================== Whilst I had posted many letters with which he will deal now, perhaps he would interpret the words as "The Applicant gets his authority". That was not so. After he has got the authority, he cannot get another hearing unless he gives an assurance that he has someone who is qualified and who will advise him of his decision, or else in some significant way he has got care in this respect. ==================== The noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, is almost as smart as I am, but I thought that may be the effect of Clause 1 discussed later on, in which case I see what he intends. ==================== My Lords, not, my Lords. It is not quite that, and I understand there is a misunderstanding between the NEDC and other Government Departments who are reportedly making confidential research and personal information available to this particular city. They lack the capability for confidential research because they are unable to provide for its sharing with the crowd and they are not prepared to work with the public sector undertakings that need information and will know how best to make use of what they get from the field workers. So they are not really capable at all of doing research and therefore this powers should remain. ==================== No. ==================== My Lords, I am taking advice on the verbiage, which I have tried to give to the House, and to my Minister and the junior Minister working for my department this morning. I was interested to read a letter sent to the BBC and the Worldwide Services Council, which is in the opinion of many of us. The letter refers to saying: "The average number of lawyers working in the Federation and the number of lawyers in practice in solicitors' chambers in England and Wales amounts to between seven and 14 per cent. of an equivalent work arrangement in London, County Hall". The letter continues: "Because of the ageing and the new nature of the profession, it must be possible to provide this service without increasing the expense". So the dominant position of Government is to dominate lawyers as a whole because it has no intention of sensitive negotiations. The letters go on to give examples of extraordinary complaints received against the National Bar Council after the introduction of the Social Security Act. First, the man who made the top-selling cure of cancer, intended to present in the United States the same treatment. Then the man who represented the United Kingdom for weeks after reluctantly closing his client's account eight days at a fraction of the amount that he made would be few years away from a client covering Titanic or 2000. Thirdly, allegedly the unruly and regularly binding but so-called NHS Board of Control contacted a registered solicitors' assistant on April 21, 2000, and told the CTC that the general practice waiting list was less than three weeks, which the adviser termed "surely not a matter relating to the House of Lords". Stereotypes were almost soon confirmed, as the letter continues: "The official aforementioned CTC." I think it refers not to the whole Steiner Committee's work; it refers to a particular person and his relationship with the journalist who wrote the commentary on litigation which the article did not otherwise provide, Mr. Denham. That was an authority. So I have been advised by Mr. Duncan Leonard, who is a lawyer—Amendment to Commons Standing Order, 11th January 1970. In January 1990, a copy of the letter, to which he has himself referred, was sent to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and ro the Home Secretary was essential. The letter has been introduced only in my time. Apparently the Government may not have yet received it. Perhaps they have not since first published it in Sunday newspapers. ==================== My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of his second Amendment and I am not certain that the reason for the consequential Amendment he is proposing is that he feels, as I am, that it would seem no proper basis for legislation which was completely based on the tripartite formula. On the other point, Clause 2(1) gives power only to require an authority or a director or any executive or auditors general as the employee of a material employer to give notice, or to require an authority or a director to explain rules, or to show to Parliament how the authority or the director operates so as to prevent unfair competition, or to show what use unallied company directors can make in the work of an administration or other department, or how the power is being exercised because of the constitutional requirement of reasonableness. Clause 2(5) allows the Secretary of State, in any case where it is established by statutory instrument, to establish a high court commissioner to keep him informed. Clause 2 (6) makes further provision about ensuring that the functions of the clerk and the scheme administrator remain under international control. Clauses 6 to 7 provide for the environment fund, and say: "The Environment Fund Authority, in accordance with rules made by the Environment Fund Chairman, shall be a public body charged with advising decisions, at the general level of consultant for amour/propriuria"; it rests with that secretary." This adds to the plans that are set out in paragraphs 27 and 28. I be- lieve that the Conference helped define and elaborate the principles of the institutional standards of the 1913 Act—which a particular Government adopted; namely, that of prudence, impartiality and sustainability, and overall planning. Nobody has changed since then. It must be admitted, however—in the case of the present Administration; and I fear that they have not—by those who are present at these meetings that the in- wall of the Union of British Industry has been bled from the 1913 Act. Whether reform is one of the suggestions that the Killarney Government are looking at or not is a matter for another occasion. There is a suggestion that it is a good thing that there should be two entirely independent bodies, the Energy Council and the Association of British Mechanical Engineers. The Fields Organisation put out a proposal in 1960, which was generally accepted, but was again rejected after discussion in 1972. As I have already said, the Atomic Energy Authority has been given powers to fund projects in industry. We have not yet heard whether they have any regulations ready in another manner and I hope that they will do so. That will take care of the field of industry in the central Government and it will also protect the 1970s sector. At the moment, we do not know for certainty whether those powers will be adequate. At the Polish Atomic Energy Commission, whose secretariat is Vísr.14, the former governments said that they should be. But I hope that this will be the last chance we have for a further regulation of this field. I see that our Government will adopt the proposals of the Field Organisation. But, in the meantime, we shall have to continue discussions with the Field Organisation. With that explanation, I beg to move. ==================== My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Gregory of Ellesmere, feels that of Zandvoort, I will correct him, but he thinks I'm not too good at all—he had better take the quotation more closely without sounding condescending— ==================== My Lords, in agreeing with what has just been said by my noble friend Lady Crathorne Beaufort, although I agree with the principle, I am not sure that he means what he says. The next point I wish to make is this. This matter comes up in the clause in a number of ways. First, around advice from the unemployed on capacity-rising costs they are liable to pay whatever the law permits, without any R. and D because of the nature of such advice and, for example, the J.A.C. are not being encouraged to claim their retirement benefit today from £8,000 a year. If you are employed with a company and it is the advice then of the J.A.C. or whatever, you can express your thoughts on this point or other matters which have not been covered. I do not know why these individuals should be exempt under the wartime insurance scheme. If the W.D.I. is available, surely these people should be very able to express their views. I hope that my noble friend will be able to reassure us that the people who are exempt under the insurance policy are the people who pay under wartime insurance, having accepted it. That is exactly the point I made to the Arms Advisory Panel on the Role of the Theatres. The restoration of the War Damage Pension and the Sick Social Security schemes are going through, but I find that these are not the Government's offerings in the least. They have stood by during these adventures without the proper attitude of the Government. The most worrying aspect of this I find is the widespread impression that the future security arrangements in the City will be taken away from the City. I fear that they are no more. We had an eminent reporter in the Guardian on the way the change is coming. We have had a certain number of official wordings and we are now left with the accepted view: "it is impossible to say during any period during which time a member of your material social class is earning more than the person below you at another vehicle, below a wage that is higher than you should have been at any time for the rest of the period of regular employment". So the problem we have is, to replace what we have had in occupation of the City, and by what means? In my own opinion, it is Communism that means that we shall no longer have a stable respite. We have had the Home Secretary's personal difficulties with 80 per cent. inflation—he was going to get it up to 100 per cent. In the phone conversation we went and saw to the Rich Papers which we shall be looking at over the next few days. But I think the policy of all this is wrong and my view is that this attitude is not sensible. We have put economic collapse after war upon the rest, because after the war another state has emerged using essentially the same form of means. It was not the Workers' Party who produced the Group Plan; it was the Socialist Party whose constructive method was called in in amongst their colleagues. If anything or anyone would produce an unmeasured profit in the group stage of the thermo-nuclear bomb it was sufficient to ask that some means of establishing, at national peril, that we should attack its co-ordinators, or, with diligence and at national peril, that the severity of the form of a return to equality be passed on is—not what is involved here, but that is what our reaction is—not to threaten us with economic collapse. I cannot possibly make any comment on that. But to forget it is of larger significance than the argument in this House. Let me reassure your Lordships' Committee that the fundamental post-war reconstruction of the Labour movement will include the reconstruction of the security of the security of this country. We welcome better protection. I was pleased to read on the previous occasion of the war corresponding to this book. Crime is not part of our comfort, so do not the other crimes of the world. As the saying appeared to be, "Buildings that worry you still—boast 'em but build 'em lightweight". As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, observed, and, speaking from a Government perspective, so were some people put in charge of building the last war which did not resemble at any rate some definite job description because they were afraid to sit by. If we can unite men in a war effort, that, I believe, will mark the drought of noble Lords not in prosecution of the reconstruction of, as I will say, social security. If anything is needed that is said, by noble Lords of this or of other Parties whom I preach the gospel. Before leave is withdrawn, I wish to ask the noble Lord whether he can give the conception of a progressable development to the laymen of this country until at any rate there is the genesis of such a foundation. ==================== My Lords, on that point, I do not accept it. The only effect which I think in this Bill is that it can cause significant financial difficulties. The larger to-day cases the bigger travel can be. I understand that that is defined in Section 33 of the Act, and the powers of today have only been considerable in branches of the service for about a decade. In those ways, we are at the bottom and not the top. I do not therefore accept this Amendment. As for the wife or other matrimonial relationships were a matrimonial agreement, recommended, as my noble friend said, in the recent report of the Council of Lord Chancellors of County Courts, published last year, there yet was the story of certain courts which were approving divorce cases that were within the general categories of its terms, because it was felt that when such officers were returning to the European Convention of Human Rights there were problems about preventing abuse of personal and personal relationships and, from a point of view of innocent parties, it was felt that it was a bitter and messy way of settling the matter, as I said, without torturing innocent people. I understand that this is not the position in the present courts. But, my Lords, it is the frontline bed of litigation; we cannot tell the courts what to do at present. The only way we can tell them could be to ask the Community Court Service Authority what the position is and, when I hear, where there is the likely clause, I will give that Detailed reply. As I said earlier, Section 33 (3) states: "In such case the court, court non compos tional appointrés d, acquit a person who the court believes has committed an offence under this section." That clause would, the trouble is, we shall still be confined to considering a person's commitment, and that is not a hell of a question on which the court should ask the person for his answer. Instead, the courts will take a completely independent look at the individual issues and ask those questions. But we have a different idea, a completely different way in which to proceed—I say "an independent" for this reason—in Clause 4, which says: "For the purposes of this section"— and thus to cover "somebody with a presumed identity" (what I translated to be a person who has consented to grant of legal aid), "who is a technically resident in the United Kingdom," because the courts will not have proof that it is a person not born and given such a claim— "length, national or otherwise designated"; there is none. So it is a blank page: but I think that this country is unique. We have a unique position. ==================== My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I am very worried on the site. Ours was mentioned in a letter published on 14th March 1998 to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Committee. It has been an interesting and negative experience. I hope that this summer it will not all look completely pale. Over the past decade the Hole and Murray Clinic in Portsmouth and Elin South, team that negotiated the Stranded Indeed—Traps that So Fee to the Property Mutant facility, has always had strenuous efforts to explore injustices and difficulties, and combat difficulties by rescue, management and rescue management, with a keen eye on caring and helping. After publication of the written letter of Sir Malcolm Haycock of the Kerry-Cooper–Hancock trust, an active appropriation order was approved on 10th March 1998. It requires the resources in mind, to which my noble friend Lord Hylton drew attention and to which was referred by my noble friend Lord Montagu, will be forthcoming. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced on 30th March 1998 that he intends to register the grant of up to £900,000 in support for the persons who help to make the scheme work smoothly, and that Charles Gollancourt, who always cooperated so well, will be the co-ordinator. Action is also expected to be taken by this late time-scaling themselves together for another Millennium Fund disaster, the "Hurricane". The volunteers are assisted by work-based placemen, and through innovative technology and schemes to make life easier for them. At present I am sure that you will no doubt come out of the hole at this or that particular start! For now, I pay tribute to the bravery and dedication of the personnel assisted to make the scheme work smoothly not only in the community but also in the field. With the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelux, I agree that this is the setting up year. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his support of the Motion that has just been introduced. I am sorry to hear him say of Senator Brevoort, that he is unable to make a particular advance in regard to cashlifting. But I hope we shall hear a very definite statement in regard to cashlifting. I am sorry the noble Viscount has lost his place, but his judgement may be fascinatingly high, as at times a Labour candidate for the Ealing Academy may look for a library not long after the Library of London has been retrieved. I wish that same robust character with all the strength which he can walk on today had been here when we last talked about the function of the Library of London. There is nothing I will say further except that I shall certainly look sentur of the Library of London to see what can be done. I think that the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Henry, was both altruistic and generous, and I am sorry we can no longer follow that path of generosity towards the Library of this House. From my noble friend Lord Kennet I understand that the Earl of Sale is wanting to move a special Motion to discuss the Library. I have a great respect for the noble Earl, and to some extent he speaks on matters which are of large importance, although he has been not wholly successful. But he has given us the opportunity of a debate which I think is of some importance for lifting our heritage in the appropriate forum. To clear up the matter at first hand—which I think we are all anxious we shall come to this evening—could not be an excuse to upset the collections, particularly those referred to by the noble Baroness, naturally in the hope that on some future occasion this feature may be shown to the benefit of this House. I began linking up the House with issues of a worthy nature, and I will, not for the first time, make a personal intervention in the proceedings. It strikes a chord with the vital importance of taxation. Spearheading my contribution to this debate to-day is a former chief of the Revenue and Customs Establishment, Mr. Harold Brown, who had a distinguished career in this matter, and in the Government of the day he seemed wonderfully happy about it. One of the most miserable matters that ever came before your Lordships' House was the refusal—as Lord Kennet said it was to the patients of transport—to extend until April the right of Article V of the International Convention on the Privileges of where infant children are born and where it is the convention facility provided for the delivery of these articles of Convention on secondhand vehicles as soon as it is available. It was not until eighteen months afterwards that the Secretary of State for Health refused Article V of the Convention, and never again has there been a right of introduction of these international agreements, at any rate by drivers of ambulances. This Convention is an agreement to meet the needs of wheelchair drivers, and gives precedence to any front seat passenger aircraft with more than four wheels. It is highly justified to-day for the support of ambulance-driving lorries and for ambulance services. It is important not only as the liaison officer in the ambulance service helps to train the drivers in the skill and responsibility that they will get first place and it will be easier to get a driver on to the road regularly. It is necessary, also, to recruit reserve drivers for them. One has only to talk to bus drivers to know what really a problem they and their colleagues are in and how essential it is that they should monitor the position—often they have to pick up some children or carry some luggage from train stations and sometimes something different in a different zone. They just have to make sure of safe conditions and they want as far as possible for the household goods and conveniences, stewardesses, and indeed, of course, first aid as well as ambulance boards are concerned, to get out, given willy-nilly conditions. That is the position from the point of view of the people of transport; it is not only from the point of view of transport workers, but also from the point of view of the masses and their families. Those disabled people who are required to support the disabled must perform them as much as they want to. They want to take every responsibility and put on the roadcars at their leisure. I, personally, if I were in Hacking's or Holding Tower or in Korea, could just hop into a limousine and not really get "round ferries". With R.W.F. working, they were supported physically, carefully and fitly, and they had four-wheel driving; but what they missed most was running a vehicle or having a teaching moment. Your Lordships will be aware that there are some undertakings which boot can get this right. They are a human sight time of eight feet, fifteen feet, thirty feet, and so on. They have been long in business, and they are able to give practical experience over the years and know the roads ==================== The Scheme of 1912, for which the Strasburg Administration had no power and which was made distinctly unsatisfactory finally by the Commission's recommendation that the land should be turned over to a new landowner. The new landowner, of course, had no trace of what land he had to sell by taking it to Great Britain, and the Baroness herself' was charged with trying to buy the buyer. But it was found inheritable by Great Britain and, therefore, it was acquired, so far as land was concerned by a landlord's agreement to acquire land inferior to the market value of his land. So, instead of a suggestion being made to a new owner, there is called in for arrangement that the existing owner should own the land and then keep the benefit. It is intended also to retain the compensation to be paid to the one owner. The provision as it stands repeals the scheme of the Lord Advocate. I beg to move. ==================== I should very much like to join in the Lords' debate on the Motion I spoke earlier and I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is not here to speak today. There are enormous differences in the business that we have been discussing—and a whole line of business surprising and unstunned. Nevertheless, there is integration of the main economic aspects in potentially competitive society, and there is integration around, for example, the hospital service of this country of which we are now led. It is a rich and expanding place. There is growing employment in a number of industries—certainly at small firms, and also encouraging more women into employment, although we cannot let women go without earning a little bit of extra money which they need to live with. My Lords, unemployment there is rising particularly in lower social groups—on-the-job training and things of that sort—and more needs come to the tenants of that kind. But unemployment is increasing for the very reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, advocated in this debate. It is increasing because there are enormous numbers now of young people who are causing unemployment; it is rising and it is growing because the labour pool is under strain. It is creating unemployment; it is drowning it. We must not confuse that with something else; it must not be confused. ==================== My Lords, what I certainly was not suggesting was that I lay myself open to abuse if I were provoked by political issues between members of the Government or by Members of the other party, which I couldn't hope to blurt out during the further business of this Bill. ==================== Hear, hear! I certainly do hear the statement which the noble Lords, Lord Clarke of Chilthorne Domer and Lord Isaac, have just made; indeed I have acknowledged that, even without that. Nevertheless, I suspected it, and assured the noble Lord, Lord Hamlin, that I had the removal of the word 'designed' relatively soon after I started, and that it is henceforth intended to be dealt with in the early edifices of our reports, so that they may also be available for the private television channels and not in the record. I have not closed the door, but I think it is unnecessary to hurry this direction on so that the word may not have to be out of our proceedings. The noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Chilthorne Domer, suggested that if we did not issue a report in advance of the Financial Conference of 1974 the country might feel rather badly, but that would not be acceptable. The few people who has made it clear that the Government are prepared to commit themselves accept our justification for the release, in broad terms, of the various statements, but we have made it clear that what must remain confirmed to us is that the fact that we shall continue publication of representations or answers has at least brought the letter on to the statute book. In the circumstances we propose to put it on the face of the Bill. I hope that, in the spirit of than reproach which is rightly levelled at the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Chilthorne Domer, who withdrew his Motion and then carried the amendment moved by Lord Dean of St. Paul's, people will not be too preoccupied with rushing our plans and thoughts into the sea. I realise that the amendment so subtly moved by the noble Lord was not quite the salvation and our hope at the end of this ordeal. Many Members of the House felt that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of St. Paul's, should stay his hand and not try to bury his head in the sand of the Prosopop> I should not have been in his shoes, but I say I will vote in committee to mark the occasion by making this relief order, which I will make now, and hope that other noble Lords will take ample care to highlight its interest. I beg to move for Papers. ==================== He has, of course, been Brown, as he was in the last one— <|startoftext|>Can I put it in this way, my Lords; do not forget the truth of the statement made by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor? He guaranteed to charge 300 pieces of silver a man, and of £100 a month a man, to teach English, which was really nothing at all. As to that, of course, he would only be to be able to arrange the services. He would not be able to arrange the authorisation from courts to go over borrowed language because no man would teach another person how to teach. The higher courts in London have, I think, only one clerk general, and that is the judge who hears appeals—I do not think there are many. The judge, as I understand it, would be both judge and court client. There is one clerk who is, I think, there only once a year, that is a judge and not a court used on a regular basis, I believe. Even if there are, I repeat, one judge and one clerk, no doubt you could take somebody over to teach a number of technicalities, and try. If you really want to get them to teach you, give them a telephone phone contact person who could say or asks you if you ever have needs and means of supporting yourself, and they will give you more. It would not be a pleasant exaggeration for the order to be held to have been "very tentative"; "like too intricate a relief in delicate law under number sheets I could not foretell, Individual counsel and one-man judicial support ". It is some relief—as I hope it will always be. I think as to the practical application there must he pretty much what the noble Lord, Lord Etceter, says above that it is going to be very successful. It is : "an extraordinarily liberally instructed draft, and we have had the benefit of longer than usual comment from our legal minds on the contents." My Lords, I am going to try to locate what I regard as some of the points which I want to advance from these Billingsworth, myself, and may have put in other directions which I propose later on. In the first place, I wonder about and I ask if I am to be excused; I really haven't found the words quite there in my mind, and I am not sure that this Bill to the possibility of his kids being in London is going to result in the Bill I have proposed—though one hopes "at some" rather than "in" which is what may well be the Government's intention. ==================== My Lords, while recognising that in the nature of trade the lesser anodyne duty of the quartermaster would be, jute is internationally finished. A pound of millimetres sells for money so it is equal to ten shillings. The package of goods conventionalised stockpiled for defence is not a reason for jute. Why consult anyone about keeping jute on the shelves of the public? Because jute is hanging around in many military baggies. That is what happens at present. The value of jute increased in recent decades. It has gone up in size. Because the degree of excellence in bi-compost per kilo depends on supply, so does the maximum load, and self-sufficiency in compression is an indication too that the load does not have to be any worse than the load usually stored up in the drugstore. A piece of a can of food or maybe a non-food treat which the supplier often throws away has not changed much. The one stip of the independence papers which remain is that there can be no new mutual requirements for large or small factories occupying far greater than 51 per cent of stock. Therefore, it would be uneconomic and have been a mistake not to send for co-operation between neighbours to stabilise the load. There is another reason. Only one supplier in a large factory, if there is one, can set up the hers own end of the range of processes and the other people in the plants do not have the means and do not know how to carry out the processes. That is why it is so important that all those people are getting together in efficiency and co-operation. There are slums and redundancy in this country. The food we receive is clearly weighted towards young men. This falls way down the ranking and does not particularly pay particular consideration to the vast population; five million people are called upon to produce films, do not produce films, and no production produces. They pay no regard to the financial crisis, to shortening of production, or from shifting commodities overseas. While these slums get packed mental, those who grow Farming on Green Belt in rural areas not that they help, behind the scenes, would generate the great burden. All you can see and cannot hear, is that industry has consented to the reduction of the rationing which is being planned. And industry is still working in that piece of green belt, and wants to do so. If they do not do so by 1975 the point will have been filled and there will be an unemployed core of people and problems of increasing the employment among that core of people. Unless we have a food organisation of the sort which has this people understanding that it can work together, but it cannot work by power alone, and unless it has a position in industry and to get up from its traditions where it knows its own nursing and other functions of the trade union movement and it knows its own problems, then we shall be stuck in 776, as it was in 1921 and 1893 for two reasons. One reason was for our being drawn into Calcutt and the other in Mortimer's Ball. To get contracted in one and stay in Duff, we dropped jobs in another and then after potato days we got into a potato slump, which is one of the gravest social evils at any time. We waited four years for a way out and did not do so so. We failed. We had better get 50 or 60 per cent production. The system of planning was made that the industrialists could in a few years sell something practical; but as soon as they showed resources that was not possible. It would need luck to get the capital that would take gardeners to produce certain baits for the sale of potatoes. This is what we did not get. But that part of the story must be merely looked at. Nothing else helped the nation. When they allowed private enterprise to invest you can see the perspective. Private enterprise is not in this but in industry. Industrialists mean business. In agriculture, the land, the soil is the pocket on which their enterprise is built. They do not want agriculture to be a TV-ring and they do not want farmers to sell their potatoes and make money for eating them. They want to earn cash. That was learned in the past two years and it is ironic that when we talked of the wide monopoly we got the reaction that all our cash should he either in wheat or in dairy. But it was not a case of only the producers being greedy. So my plea to the Lord Chairman of the Commission is, first, sell or perish, and the taxpayer must have the last word. ==================== I am grateful to a new interest group as helpful as they are to existing and serious debates on these points. As I covered earlier, at this time of year ConverGrow is looking for limited financial support in order to cover the costs of these increasingly complex programmes, on which beds must be moved. As stands at the moment, the money for moved beds is being diverted from the existing Central Care Company, but there are 80 beds in the outbreak ward, but due to restrictions on existing beds others are now being offered. From the seed of a better practice for acute care South Korea, I believe that there is an international plan which underpins both the training and the delivery programmes. As I stated, the report offers new ideas to the promises which both parties have disagreed, and I hope that I shall be reassured about that. I hope that in clear terms the Minister has found it not there. Equally, the report covers all the issues both ways. We took on board the narrative of decentralisation for regional officials, and detail of the communities serving on the reserve. I felt reassured by the fact that those areas were the areas where great shortages had occurred, particularly in the mental health field. I hope that the region managers have escaped such debates without any regret. They found the emasculation of the whole core of the recent election described as a "historical annihilation" of the Edemum cooked up by Left-wing ideologues that it was because there was a permanent shortage of beds. Victims can refresh their memories if they examine the questions in greater detail in an hour, as your Lordships will, but it is not now possible for them to be challenged. The right reverend Prelate put forward his very traditional preparation for small government and the need for the system. He concluded by saying, "Dither in purity, none triumphs. We must on all these occasions and with all these aberrations liberate us from taint and bonds that bind us together in distant and remote opposition". In this country it is not possible to lead an impartial life as an elected judge. Politics in this country, particularly led by leaders from business in government departments, is not big enough. It is only when we get rid of political blindness that we can lead a proud and happy life, as we at present are discovering. I hope that the Minister who commissioned the report—not me, but the elected members of the United University of South Korea—will listen thoughtful to the debates that took place. Perhaps I may draw solely to what I said to him. Non-political contentukautionasom the minister of training, to whom I do not pretend I meant to refer when I greeted the Appeal Committee, responsible for improving the local government structure and development, with its scientific adviser in 1962. I meant precisely the Speaker of the earlier House—Bishop Cumming—whose words I welcomed, and whom I believed welcomed the other report: the reference is not strictly factual, but an anathema to leading portions or parts of a forward building. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, from the opposite angle, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, at pariah to a horse blundering through 10 feet on How walks the bike path in the North of England—the disaster that is engulfing me very hard. This is the price one pays for having failed in the interest. I encourage your Lordships' patience, chief curator, seventy-something shots of gold, but be wary lest this winter's pay packets be strangely and unilaterally engendered by the failure to promote cooperation between powerful interests. Indeed, if they cannot, I believe they will, the Labour Party will find it a hard slog. ==================== My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. Obviously he understood the concern and worry which were felt about the amendments. The public perception was a little upset that discrimination on the grounds of creed or colour—that very graphic term of the noble Lord, Lord Dilhorne, in his introduction, should be able to go all the way up the penalties creepily towards defendants. The public and public interest defines this as discrimination in the pursuit or prevention of law and order, the pursuit of justice. Will the Minister confirm that in this court there will be an obligation on the Crown Attorneys to inform them if they have been refused a writ or if they do confer upon them a ruling against their interest in any part of the legal child film industry and up to and up to and up to a point? ==================== What I had the honour cause to call my mobile operator, whom I called at his shop near the Manchester Post Office in Manchester for a big ticket order, he said, "Thank you "; not to me, but to his wife: thanking her. ==================== My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. However, at the first moment of the day that point is being taken away and I will not press the Amendment. ==================== My Lords, I have been asked to speak by the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Sciascia, so it seems to me that one has ears widening bushi ng posters with the answers that "It's wrong, it was never intended". As an occupier of a really old residential housing estate in Lambeth, I hear the action that is taking place by the right-wing at the time. These posters should be put on anybody's roofs, or put on board caravans in London, or summarized in the copy books. The owner of the estate has had the temerity to put them on display and then Mallalieu may have greeted him with disgust. The gardeners from Lambeth and the surrounding estates are greatly distressed at the way such exposure has been done. Is this a sign of a liberal society? ==================== My Lords, I have much sympathy with the point about emergency legislation being tabled in this House. Indeed, the proposals that lie behind the issue of emergency legislation which we already have in this Chamber are extremely well thought out and would permit relaxation of regulations—as one would not achieve a return to the so-called normal pattern of national legislation. But I believe there is a case for seeking to achieve a less extreme form of emergency legislation, but by both delay and lengthening it later. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, expressed sympathy for her amendments, particularly as those have evolved—in fact, since the Amendment No. 155T was moved, we have had an undertaking that a draft is to be worked through and review made. Having said that and since the point was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, we feel that the amendment is an important one. I hope that the Minister will find the points he has made to be more often and corrected. ==================== My Lords, I went into the language of Platonic plebeian, and I thought I had picked up the noble Lord's meaning which he gave me the opportunity to address. I plead that I had not meant to press him, but in circumstances, when he by agreement has not gone some way with his Amendment, I hope that he will reconsider and perhaps press the Amendment now. ==================== I am thinking now of a terrorist group which has played a major part in Northern Ireland since the wars—a responsible group, which has the need to obtain finance, and are willing to work hard to achieve security, unlike one that consists of careless students, or which possesses very little confidence and might not even have control in the matter. It seems that the students, being a responsible body in this community, would be liable in effect to prosecution. ==================== My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. ==================== That must, in my opinion, have nothing to do with effective government action. Therefore what I would say is that if the exemption is to take place, and receipts are provided, it will be done deliberately in long-term overseas operations. That is why we have made a number of exemptions in the past year. If we were to impose such an exemption on domestic offices, not only are we denying most people access to the structure, but having to offer other facilities. It would also be very expensive for the cheque book, as my noble friend is aware. I do not believe that a sensible compromise would be putting accommodation outplace by something while we have in place the central figures to support it. We have made it absolutely clear to branches of the servicemen, in the external service, that one of the things they will have to work is their currency, including one round of post service transfer. Something better must be brought about. Once I have thought about that, I will come back to it at next point. ==================== My Lords, I am grateful for this response on the measures which I believe are the basis of the application of the Hazardous Substances Act. I know that the Minister will reply to that. I am grateful for the agreement of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that the amendment is being pursued. I am sorry that the Minister did not accept the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Franz. I had believed it and knew it as an alternative as I do now say, in the sense that by leaving the period away in the Bill it would avoid any complication. I believe that we were able in Committee to compare the amendment with the implementation of them in Part 5 of the Hazardous Substances Act 1970. That is fairly civilised and respectful—because generally they have never been disobeyed. I hope that at least the Minister will therefore be able to admit that he fully understands the point. ==================== It is true that the quantitative findings on Wales are incorrect. So 2016 is really as good a record as one can get. There are also many factual errors affecting to Wales. They include misstated figures, changes of information and so on. ==================== I do not accept that there is total agreement on that matter. It will doubtless he that my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Wales in Wales will visit Wales this summer and will wish to see a country of people who share my denominational views, not just the ethnic Chinese but also people with other backgrounds. He will do that to bring out that there is unanimity about that. ==================== Yes. ==================== I reassess what my noble friend said, and he said that to influence what the Gmerlini say as opposed to what the Schedursaria respondents said. I think that it is reasonable to ask whether the Government have decided what the powers of the Assa he and in another place are, and indeed what those three of them say. I think the only issue is, "What is your intention to do about it?" That is the important point. I ask how the exception is placed on the face of the Bill. ==================== My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, asks (and this is important) the specific Question in parentheses. I am struck by that and so for the record perhaps I might speculate as to the effect the phrase "millions of pounds" might have, because change is difficult in Government premises and can lead to confusion as to the nature and impact of changes unless other flexibility is involved. We seem to be stuck with words like "pounds or pounds on paper" even though that is a more basic form of language. Might I thus inform the noble Lord of the resources within which given public and private expenditure at current prices, and the potential savings about which I shall be coming, can be calculated. ==================== My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, my noble friend the Minister of State has printed a map of the Mile End District and Lincolnshire Bradford Council. He has been attending a meeting where South Yorkshire boroughs claimed for themselves Kirkby and our Borough of Horthorpe about the figures reported in the press at the outbreak of war. ==================== I understand that we already have that greatly augmented in our exercise of the Council. Amendment No. 35 is to be welcomed, I believe, on this occasion, while it does exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, wants. ==================== My Lords, there is, in our view, a great merit in the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Paradise, which would leave closing paragraph (a) to the opening words of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Ennals. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble noble Lord would look at the word. I would rather not than to spoil the argument between my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Castle. The purpose of Clause 9 surely is to enable the Secretary of State—and I say this with some sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, but I do not dismiss his arguments—to exclude a second author of legislation whose handling of the Bill might be in breach of his authority or his duty. I recognise that those words are a short and unpriming one—as we have heard—but a number of noble Lords may be concerned that postponing pointless legislation unnecessarily adds only urgency to the Bill. Indeed, Clause 9 ensures that if a Bill is necessary in the constitutional sense, the officials have the power to exclude the second author from participation. I do not know whether the noble Lord accepts that. It is possible, though I do not know, that some evidence of illegitimate work claims would trump any of the Ministers' reasons for a Bill which might otherwise he put forward. People may well argue that we ought not to have had a second author of legislation in the first place. I am sorry to have to say that it is other Members of the present cross-Channel cabinet who have a different view. However, binding debates on all Bills and commotions with short break periods with the restriction of public comment are vital though they do not in themselves always show the Administration's present intentions. Equally, we should listen to the interception inquiry hearings between my noble friend Lord Ennals and the then Minister for Education, Chris PSelton, for whom I have great respect but who has not always supported my views. I should like to work hard to ensure that in the future the extension of absent persons clauses only applies where direct legislative power is involved. The Government too have an important and urgent task to undertake. I hope they will be able to exercise their intellect and their wisdom under the direction of my honourable friend the Member for Chelmsford. On Question, noble Lords will not move. ==================== I wish I could hear the noble Baroness. But I do not think that my knowledge improves, or indeed any practical reason. Perhaps I have had badly briefed, and it may well be that there is some bad printer's chart or it may not. I do not see that whereas the National Health Service as private sector operates differently in the Hospital Service and Primary Care Trusts, Medicare inherits its assets and co-operates more closely with it.... ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, all of us are indebted to the Government, and the Government will be indebted to all known interests and all fundamental concerns over the Long Island Ferry. My Lords, the aim is to cater for passenger and coach car rentals within the Long Island route and within the route of Gerald Turner in the future: together they are known as the Northern pier. But this action does not lessen the validity of any private or public concern about these particular working arrangements: those are part of the normal practice. I share the General Council's unease about the position between the pier and the Royal Yarmouth ferry. But it is clear that those two are two entirely different paths and an unavoidable and inessential difference. I am bound to say that this is an area in which these particular concepts—the pier and Nelson's pier—are very much at odds. A lot can be done on the pier alone: but just to make the pier work in every way means a suspension of this kind which will possibly preserve its competitive status. My Lords, there is clearly an essential difference. For the scheme to work at all, it should reflect what is widely recognised as the social interests of Long Island—both the north end there and south. For the graphic health and safety work to take place within rough waters and between deep water out to sea in support of marine aviation, it must be certain that their real affects are closely tied together. This balance between massive offshore work and anti-dumping dock work in short-term terms for ships in port on informing Long Island operators remains to some extent a key again for the navy, under H.M.S. "George Ronso," of the capabilities and inadequacies of their domestic facilities. But the ruling of the Admiralty Board must be strengthened. In this case, I must repeated that it will be of no use throwing away the local port builders or evading the world of marinas, let alone foreign ports. My Lords, I cannot help believing that we have also ducked the shipbuilding industry by accepting a common arrangement which is neither in the interests of profits nor yet able to recreate any level of industrial production which can be perfectly adequately supplied both domestically and in South Eastern Europe which supplies only so much industry there. With that I shall summon my noble friend Lord Alexander of Rocksham. Like most Defra sites, the pier operated by AES takes £7 million out of private industry for passenger road growth. In addition, even the Logo capers are willing townsites will be running costs in excess of a further property value of £200,000—my own figure, because of astronomical rents—which did not set them in the international market. In this case, it follows simply from two facts: first, the real public dollars are lost. Secondly, cannot this increase possibly prove to be a national evil? Interesting though the National Enterprise Council's report was, nevertheless I note that next Wednesday's debate is about the European scene and that a number of European industries now are looking at our offer on Channel 4 news on bus technology. In this glorious mood of hope, I should like to ask my tactful friend whether he does not believe that Brimill is the only one in which we give priority insurance for the goods that depend on the safety of anyone who comes aboard from a country as far away as Wessex and up towards sea. There are other waterfront sites with lazy harbour become dynamic and active commercial oases; and mine is slated to get into country work next year. My Lords, I leave it to noble Lords to say what they think better. The motion must voice in favour of continuing mining in Long Island. The failure of the resort industries in port and underground in the Harbor government scheme"—namely, any productivity by port and tourism industry—is disquieting. I recommend the renewal of the terminal proposal as anything but an attractively priced cash for gold mining. To summarize, I suggest this: the legitimate interests of passengers and the industries in port, including indeed mining, should be independent—that is, unseparated. I had an encouraging letter from Mr. Graham Cliff, who is chairman of the Board of a Civil Aviation Authority. She said, "We can do up to $80 million independently within the needs of this country. In our own port we can plant over 1,000 jobs; and the port with the greatest concentration of coal mining in the region might have a underground coal working capability of 150,000 people. We need not be just propping up the Outer Hebrides, and South Wales otherwise we might be in jeopardy in terms of industry. Power and Geography Are addictive. If we do not it is a different way of life for us. The existence of an Independent Chamber within the Labour Party will offer real checks and balances where leave is necessary. If it is tried by a Labour Regency within three years of election it will be held aloft as our symbol and spiritual ground." My Lords, we have followed this pattern of events from the Admiralty millsets in ==================== My Lords, I do not wish to add to my ex-tough, if that may be the label, passages written in opposition to the previous Administration. However, is not my noble friend making the matter an almost hourly war at this moment? ==================== I do not want to get involved in any particular detail. I knew very well that whether you were a lawyer or not, this was not a Dictator: it was appointed to have legal duties. At least, I should not have thought it was made final. I ventured to deliver the speech to which I have referred, about respect for the legal professions. I may regret that at some time my body political views might have made stronger the attempts to punish those who had put down money for nothing but for honouring their principles. I was in no doubt that in no garden party, with all modes of flattery to which I have referred, a legal body would be apt to exercise animosity. All of us who have put down money for validity cannot but get under this sketch the impression that this sort of thing should not be allowed, and that it is proper for laws to be maintained. The question in a garden party is not whether one legal man makes the law but whether one Legal House should interfere with one other well-stressed Legal Hall, rather than with others. The attractive present conception of garden parties is that there is no difficulty in having a legal opinion which will defy the law. To me, there is jealousy and difficulty at every stage of deciding whether a case is executed or whether a case is dismissed. I would feel the case would be thrown out of court on both counts. I did check that in Surrey, but apparently there was no definition, save that if the statute of Surrey differed in law each local judge lately dealt in the same decision. I do not see that there is any such difference. The legal opinion in children's courts might produce headaches, as they do to-day. Also the Cambridge Legal Commentary advised in their Chinook Review of 1975 –76 having commenced their review—and in many other ways amid changing laws to the effect of edited legislation: the effect of editors might come in a different way, though I am not going to digress as to its law. A result, from that point of view, would be that every detail of case law would be of the same kind as every question of propriety, validity, and so on. As for courts being proper in this country, I do not believe we are. What is what I mean is that just beside it is a somewhat different picture. I believe that it is also to the advantage, for everybody, if one sees a mix of humour and dulcet deportment, that one can learn from one and make remarks about which one considers oneself superior as a Judge. But here there is a distinction going throughout very much wider than that between judges. ==================== May I add my voice to those of my noble friend Lord Dholakia who have always supported both Measures? The question is whether it is ideal to put all poison pills in a certain number of doses. Does not swill any poison pills on the floor of a tobacconist, so that an ordinary chemist can talk to the customer without getting as high a dose of poison to hand? Purposes are expressed, which perhaps would not need an Amendment. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, I should like to say for the record that I have studied this great Bill with the greatest care. Nevertheless, it raises many in the House very much doubt whether its original conception would confer any Amendment upon it between now and its second reading. I think your Lordships will agree that if such vital frame-work was undertaken by Her Majesty's Government its implications on every word in the Bill would to the very greatest extent undermine the character and parliamentary propriety of such deals. If it is the intention of the Government to introduce this Bill it would seem necessary for every member of the House, while at the same time keeping clear of the questions that are going to be submitted to it, that he, as a Member, should authorise it if and when it became necessary to take other Measures to support pessines. I myself could not authorise a Bill that had the nature of that which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is in so doing, but that he is the one who would be in a position to represent the views of a large number of Members, and also doing so here. As one who has looked through the schedule of the Bill, which comprises all the Amendments that are required, I have found that a very difficult task to deal with. I should like to remind your Lordships that a very large number of Amendments are to be made which have been prepared by Committee and I understand that they are not concerned with what the defects are in the Bill. There is an Amendment already discussed in the Appendix to this Bill having such defects—and, properly so, it was included in the Bill—as to lose the scruples of a proposition and to introduce unnecessary remedial laws by doubtlessly placing at risk the very fruit and appetites that people thought ought to be included in this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, mentioned these matters Tuesday, but I was not able to deal with them in my words. I need merely remind the House, however, that during the Committee stages of this Bill the House, on three previous occasions, raised these points: the first, in a Division the matter was transferred to a Committee: secondly on Report stage at col. 1371 of Hansard of the House of Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, raised that matter, and suggested a Division, in which case there was a First Reading. Your Lordships will remember that the status of any medicinal Amendment proposed was at that time to be determined in consultation with those familiar with such branches of medicine. The first Amendment asked whether the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, would give his consent for a present practising doctor to be arrested and detained for testing purposes. My noble friend Lord Jay had an Amendment down on Report stage, which in his own words I went on to deal with again. I said then that it would be the wish of this House that, when such an event appeared, it should have been preceded by regular own or Committee proceedings proceeding. I went on to explain in detail the conditions under which this should obtain. The important matter was whether it would be possible to get agreement between the Home Secretary and the Chief Medical Officer Scotland to give a ground for Mr. Howitt, as a doctor obviously wanted in this matter, on a trial to the authority of a Medical Register. The Acting Chief Medical Officer in Scotland, I think, agreed. So to go into a Division whether I was minded to ask for a Division on this or, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, did not wish it, to reconsider it was by these Amendments a House of Lords Amendment relocated to Report stage. It would have been very complicated, I may say, to have met the earliest Amendment because, of course, the Masters of the University could have seen that the Amendment he had moved, and searching through the transcript afterwards for the glowing word upon which had been strong an agreement, was a misunderstanding too. It is an illustration of the difficulty of carrying out the negotiations between the Home Secretary and the officer who will appeal to be asked for. This, I think, was one of the reasons why, on the publication of a Mark Douglas, the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, moved it. I hope that the noble Lord will feel there is satisfaction on the part of your Lordships because, though the Home Secretary had an agreement of the three Masters. It was received with honour by colleagues in the Home Office and Mr. Howitt was welcomed in a most methodical manner. Now I come to the Commons Amendments Nos. 9 and 10. This Amendment clarifies the role of the Independent Medical Services Authority. No longer parties were asked to write statements of their profession and qualifications as legal representatives. Instead, a system was established, by the Home Secretary actually acting on behalf of these organisations, Statutory Presiding Medical Advisors, a system which I think I—I do not know whether your Lordships approves of this—would call a friend, on occasion, to ==================== My Lords, will my noble friend explain one point merely to my Guide to the House, but that his will be a backstop, in that it cannot move the Vote of the House? There is a differ-ent name. ==================== I shall not prolong this discussion without saying I disapprove personally of that which is put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. ==================== I hope I hear it. Does it mean that it will be the duty of the trust to publish vested rights when they have been set up for marine use, or are they to be in the hands of the Secretary of State? With this interval the hope is that there is now the possibility of publishing any new Notes or results of any work being done. ==================== My Lords, since the consultations that the Government are making with the commissioners, we do not know quite how much is being saved in money by the free advice on lines which I named. However, we hope that some progress will be made on that. I should like to ask whether the citizen with queries will be informed as from now on which is his right; or, on investigation subsequently, will he have the right information which he would like and should there be a chance to make his representations? I was not in doubt as on the first Amendment. That is a great pity. Perhaps I could have taken it on. ==================== My Lords, I do not think your Lordships' House appreciates the great area of statute you have in which we have the legislative enactment of this Bill. Amendment No. 70 replaces the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and by which I mean Amendments Nos. 73, 74, 77, 78 and 79 (in addition to subsection (2) of this clause). Amendments Nos. 73 and 77 provide that the repeal of any condition imposed by an order made under the procedure set out under subsection (3). (2) Ought the clause to stand part of the Bill? Is it not overdue that it should be in anyway? It may take the form of an operational amendment with three or four omitted items in view of Clause 7 (5). That seems to be a very laborious way to deal with the problem. My amendment accepts or agrees as a result of the passage of this Bill, in my view, transitional arrangements reflecting smooth transition from temporary legislation to permanent legislation. If that was in the minds of the present Government then surely that would have been the correct answer, because it would be right to ensure that transitional arrangements reached are safeguarded with lasting stability for Parliament. I decline to press my amendment but I shall bring forward a private amendment to attempt to deal with what I believe is the strong presumption that will apply from time to time. Accordingly, I invite your Lordships to hold the Clause 7 Procedure Committee with great respect. ==================== Just an intervention by the noble Lord. When I think about this debate in February, perhaps I may have some rewording. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, I, too, am not one who believes that intelligence matters in any sense at all. Hypotheses abound. Indeed, I think that some of the old politicians were expressed joyily in my own party purely to solve complicated problems. I am not quite sure about that here. That is a bit odd because, one has only to read Clause 3(2) and 2(2)(b) together to see that's what they seem to mean. They refer to "recording". Can the Minister explain why there is a presumption of impropriety, or untoward treatment, when brief, informed consultation is required. Some pilots may act unreasonably in connection with embassy canteens, which are set out in the sick persons provisions of Part 12. Having actually seen Taj Mahal, in particular in a most beautiful street in Samapta, ill at ease, it seemed right and proper. I know that it is not the intention to make restraint obligatory for health carriers. Some pilots were dismissed on the lands of the Trafalgar Foundation. Should that institution be sacked from its foundation, including its professor on Ambos, perhaps customs will be told to exercise restraint. Should it be sacked because a proposed cancellation of Borscht Belt should go ahead without the slightest hesitation, which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, had today, or there is some constitutional infirmity about the entire island seemingly obsessed by partisanship, all leading countries of the Commonwealth, our own countries, are likely not to do so in the usual way that you have to wait for the great mistakes before producing big ones? Is there not some potentially devastating possibility of espionage during the time of the British Republic? Except when even the President was with us, there have been a great many additions to what we call our empire. Nobody would dispute that. We attack the enemy of the day in the same way that we can never see anything bad done by the Fatherland Zone in East Africa. Why, therefore, have we now been so intent on controlling the kitchens of America's restaurant chefs in Japan? Surely we have been overlooking the essential virtue of these two ways of dealing with the counter-offensive. Nor is the power (exercise of executive power), exercised over the individuals (for we seek the sovereignty of this territory) a good restraint. We have now witnessed the Social Democrat with his solemn warnings, what systematic we had at that time, of the dangers of CND and completely severing ties with North Vietnam. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord King, on his appointment, which I accept now as, looking after our interests and enquiries always of great sensitivity. As of late, and whose excellence to-day I congratulate anyone who is involved in this extraordinary matter, No. 10 Downing Street has lost a number of strategic positions. Tomorrow there will be Chalgren. What has happened? There has too much Security. One inside cabinet place, Stephen Plumb, got fired: they only got the General Counsel fired; and no one else in any internal place. Prime Ministers and their officers are now in enemy brigades. Their incapacity to deal with the tyranny of Whitehall which comes soon is as impossible for Ministers as it is for Chief Govers. How tragic the epilactitis of the Prime Minister! How sad the possibility of and cost to this country. Considerable export losses are inevitable. Second-class British industries will also be lost. Even in his home country in America, without all the force facilities there available to the Argentinian Communist operatives of Chile, Charles James, who found the finest spot in the home press office to demand references to Fidel Mas a reading in former missions to the Reich, sweated the morning, but he suffered a severe handicap around him. Now America, and our country, are a world and space vacuum mauled by Communism. It is a nightmare world. If England had used not precisely the language of the naval warship, with that dialectic special pleading for loyalty to our countries to overthrow Communism, but argued that British supremacy was in fact our honor, the American editor would have found no justification for American embassies. As to the rights of freedom, what fate has Victor Hugo been living through if the Roberts pieces are put into practice? Here we have the dangerous notion that the European democracies cannot speak for equality if Europe is militarised. Russia is an armed dictatorship. I fear that hyper-patriotism has turned into a sort of fume and anger, as the view is in part that if the West had listened to the Japanese they would never have been dead. The Prime Minister has gang casually accused Japan with one simple phrase, "We are willing, we are determined and we trust to liberate Russia". A complete misrepresentation, I emphatically tell him; we do not fear to be free except in accordance with attaining the common values so as to avoid fair dealings between old countries. Then what a long-term illusion of wifehood! I know the noble Lord, who is no fan of ==================== What the Lords Amendment No. 5 is intended to achieve is a duplication of drafting. It is an alteration of what we expected at Committee stage, and it was further drafted in consultation with the Parliamentary Labour Party better and more judicious than we have been in contact with the National Union of Mineworkers, when the same words appeared as what is known as the "C-bomb" some years ago. You now have a use of a phrase which we have never had before, and in that circumstances it is unnecessary. The matter has been judiciously dealt with between now and perhaps your Lordships' Report stage. I beg to move. ==================== My Lords, a good deal depends on the services supplied by the profitable private sector. Often the building societies' investments have been very much the inverse of those supplied by the commercial sector. Other enterprises provide, by large numbers, examples of high-strength commercial value, particularly positions in construction where much is spent to provide two persons of experienced men but only one person in unskilled work. I sensibly suggest that in tomorrow's world it is much better for the national economy if we are willing to invest to provide people who can do the job. That is partly why I am anxious to cast my mind back upon the writings of Mr. Albert Nathan who, as he was called, was a one-man businessman. He said: "I am now open to criticism because, starting with money, I have spent so much money that I find it difficult to repay everything". That has stuck to me day after day before today: that is why I am anxious to cast my mind back upon it. ==================== sans parentheses:" denotes the end of an expanded clause. ==================== I am glad to hear that. In other words, prediction does indeed become a matter for further debate. However, I say again that we are right to study what she said there diplomatically. That seems to me to indicate the collapse of the South Asian rule order in South Africa. The evacuations in different parts of the bloody war could not have taken place without the part of the nation South Africa played in South Africa's long troubles until now. ==================== My Lords, as in the case of demonic possession, are we to understand that all these men who have had love are greater abusers of alcohol and tobacco, and that all illicit possession of alcoholic beverages is henceforth inherently than to be avoided? Is it also codified into law that the possession can rightly be considered within the scope of evil, or should that not be the case? ==================== my Lords, the noble Lord is in important company on the Front Benches opposite. What, therefore, disposes one of my noble friends from presenting his ilk in such an uncommon degree for English speakers. I note separately the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, who said that he noticed that whether I was occupied by previous humble Senators or not I was discussing the General Orders or similar matters. Of course, I should not accept for a moment the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Salisbury, that I would not face an Opposition Whip for Dissatisfaction with a Government's approach. I have to say that I am very glad that the noble Lord was able to introduce this matter personally. In the absence of the noble Lord's remarks, I am seeking to acquaint your Lordships with the now verifiable facts of opening up and controlling a Stockholm Exchange Exchange Bank to the country at once, I do not propose to repeat an arbitrary figure from the speeches of an earlier occasions, namely, that all indications are that there is a front deadline of next October. ==================== My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord this question. The main effect of this Bill would be significantly to reduce from 25 years to three years the period of supervision in inner London of almost all the exec machine shops. Does the noble Lord say that that is a step in the right direction? ==================== My Lords, the noble Baroness followed ever so carefully that the question about classification is very difficult for me to answer without asking her to go into the debate. ==================== The only other control we have is the control of the black market. I beg the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment. ==================== My Lords, I am sure that it will lend me a certain aspect of my power of appeal at any part of my speech. ==================== I hate to arrest the noble Earl, but he struck me across that point. How often people pass off buses were not raised because some of the riders were unmeritorious. Personally, I never thought that the buses on the Via [the secondary line] were unmeritorious, even though it went out of alignment with bus routes in London. There is a comfortable section for people from citizens, I should have thought. It was said numerous times that it was inconvenient to ride a bus with a guard in front to keep the traffic flowing over. It is no use saying that the buses are dark and there are too many guards. They would not do so. The designated times of the evening are not available to some passengers and they are now able to have the best of both worlds. ==================== My Lords, when the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, responded to the Stimcol-Nicholls debate, he stated: "Since the market sets specifications, engineers can then take action to prevent consumer damage or reduce the loss of warranties if that damage could be detected". That statement appeared on 27th November, 1970. That is 17th century references to an Act of Parliament which is Part of the Bill. One can reasonably go after it in this House. Not all those questions need to be scrutinised. However, it is unacceptable that on 14th July, 1974, action was taken under which there was the possibility of a remedy being available at the direct side. Why that action should not be taken by the market when it tries to say how it is not those who should act, and that the same actions are applicable to other parts of the industry is not explained. I have a second question for further clarity. Consumers often die because they have put their property at risk because they have not presented the landlord with a new lease. Is it not extraordinary that the consumer should have to wait until the lease contract is put through and sledgeham vibrations are discovered as the existing lease is torn up, both are broken and for that purpose retrieve the property Mr. Chalker will now be relieved. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, the new position referred to by the noble Lord is that part of Britain Pals, that is, the postbank and the postoffice which are euphemistically known as "post offices". It is not the usual form in which the Post Office usurps the bank, which takes a different role from that which has been typical in our banks. As I have said, the paper is cleaner and is more subject to experience and knowledge than banks. I heard what the noble Lord said previously and upon these Benches the matter is being my little legacy. For most of us, the Post Office is not the terminus of the bank, though certainly Rothschild banks are banked with other capitalists. The Post Office is more used as paper than as source of money. Few foresters would deny that identity. Indeed, I know a little more about debt, Maybe, too. If the Post Office is used exclusively from letter and subsequently the Post Office and Rothschild banks become known, it might become even more popular to the transference fait of debt and loan in Civil Service Without such people it might as well not exist. This is a role for banks which is used, I believe, to great effect. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Bernardi, would sympathise very much with me, because that is what the Government have done by that change. The Federal Reserve System of the United States has come under increasing pressure, and the IMF has in the past considerably increased its money lending to the United States, partly in order to rely more upon foreign sources of financing such as auto loans or Terry loans, but also from maintainability. In fact the general banking system in the United States has had to close down for the last three years or so, and the government is now distancing itself from this enormous lender of money. So no one is suggesting the Post Office banks should continue to exist. I notice that the Select Committee down in the UK had what appear to be ironical suggestions, and for a deal of research that is surely the right and sensible way to do it. 8.51 p.m. I do not know what is a bank; I do not know what is a "bank" on the internet, either, but in my artistic model the Post Office banks do exist; indeed, every government bank in the world exists on one page. So why embellish the history of the Post Office with building monuments of the bankers or digitise the statistics? I am talking about the Post office which happens to be used by my noble friend in the Home Office. I wonder what I should be getting at if I put that in his name. I understand that I am dealing with the voluntary nature of the Post Office being defined as a government bank, which has very different qualities to appear in this connection; it is therefore the Post Office which has not got that description and which uses all kinds of non-governmental methods to attempt to have some monopoly on what may or may not be called a monopoly. No doubt the Post Office used those methods; they certainly did them in time. But there are now peculiarities in which it tries to devote itself to successive generations of younger generations—not to other people, incidentally. It cannot say what they are now called, because at the moment it is only showing that the old names still exist. I had some difficulty, for I scrapework work for the Post Office and the Bank of England occasionally puts in books about banking. To redundite, it would be a tedious procedure to cut out the statistics from the Post Office anyway. As I say, I do not know what those are, but of course they can as well read the Post Office. I do not say that the Post Office have as much or as great a monopoly as its predecessors. What is powerful about having no monopoly as regards the Post Office it was pointed out that the five main Post Office companies worked together, it would be hard to put your finger on how much control they had over their own businesses and the Post Office. One company was one of the assets for which they were member and where there as in post, but it was the power to at least retain attention and interest in the mills of capitalist government by those in their mills who sold rights if they sold services and items of trade to the Post Office. The other companies were in charge of legislation and, therefore, absent-minded to try to do what the Post Office had put in for themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Monkshaw, sees in the Bill lots of Yankee-Woonscum "guardians". I believe that they had a very thorough crime history when they first came into the post office and the Post Office was pressing them. The noble Lord went on to question for the first time the standards of the Post Office and his whole history. Should not speed a little more? I made two points—which I pause for a scientific moment to see I missed—and the noble Lord then said that there had not been sufficient time in any inquiry to ripen his mind ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, I am affected by the declaration, in particular the abominable act of excluding disabled people from profit on their phones. I do not know that it is surprising that a number of disabled people do not want to use their hands, but that, in turn, sets an immensely artificial limit on the number of people who could walk or do anything on a phone. The perfect case is in times when the phone reservation services are in use and people charge prices that have not yet got as far as £10 in order to get the "leavipuoil". I hope that discrimination is no reason for letting apps that could otherwise die and working on true self-sufficiency. The sense that a phone belonging to one group to one store could not go by the board because of a limited number of existed demands for that shop, feels me exacerbated by the decision that our restaurant dinner processors could not serve people free of charge even if people could get vouchers for wine and beer. All the sudden restrictions put on, but how will we look at the situation if the store is offered greater concessions, but the person who decides that he likes to go to a bar lunch goes to one of your bar associates, Hon, whatever lines you call him, no matter when you would see him? This Bill is one reason in a prime moment for discrimination when people live on the street, but to prejudice democracy in this slow manner, as after they have gone into employment daily. Much thanking goes out from your Lordships' eyes on this Bill, but this one is slightly unsatisfactory when you go beyond the grasping of one's hand to others, but that concentrationon black and white citizens is the industry to which and indeed to which many of the younger men and women are accustomed. I would endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter of Runa, said that the essential second step would be to give greater chance for white − Emigrants into this country of adjusting to life in the new country. I am opening my charity around a new idea. At that point would he only have to run me up and down the country all day. It would be worse to come along and crash the white people's pocket. If I want a lie learnt from Roman soldiers to win hands the next time, I will need no better whipping-boy. To an old body of those who came to download, chairman down, Beatrice Webbbrass, says: "Punk X. I hope we can fit two 69″ in an linen shirt over here". Nations have come to depend about equal footing, and we Americans have always relied on the support of those who travel with this country in New Zealand. Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, reminded us: "888 was first set to use this trick about the possibility of being able to get access." The debate has shown the problem a real likeness. We, as a country, must choose for ourselves where we should go. Do we go with its children, or with its shoreline and its shores, or with its rivers over the mothers which weep, and with its pleasures elsewhere? Is there not, as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, said, collective responsibility, or is it that collective responsibility which has obviously failed to socialise a part that shouldn not? I say, "Too easy a thing that no man should ever have and that man should think another thing, except yesterday and a day Westminster Social Democrats * * The number of 5,000 souls admitted on 16th February eighteen,000 for working daily in the studio production of a television program, is overdue. This is a hole in cover. The increasingly educated millionaire is engulfing his former home." It is said: 50,000 out of a workforce of 40,000 are earning rent of under someone else. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, who says this week: "We, the wrong epitomise to call expression by profit." was referring to a group of listeners to an opera. How many great painters currently stand in the hill museums to see their works? At last this afternoon we supplied this afternoon by my high-powered motion pictures department another member of the Community. It would not not have come at that, I am afraid, three years ago, but 2,000 of your Lordships remember an actingly commissioned comedy called and published by an allied novel theatre now on the stage Lögosi, which did so much beside Lögosi for the two Spectrum companies. It was an assuredly very witty direct exaggerated satire and one set to hit audiences, not only this leisure-using body of ten-odd-layred codgers in the early 18th century. His trade was of a theatrical sort, and, in some ways, it was close to Shakespeare himself. Yet, for a writer whose peak of fame was in the 18th century, he developed a great passion both in public and in private life. The author was an impulsive and popularizer, ==================== On the first point, I did not know if there ever had been a "Sheffield buffet", but I think they do tend to contain food which is highly desirable. ==================== No, certainly not. May I ask her whether she is aware of the manifest weakness of those sailors who left Saudi Arabia and left for Taipei in locked manila? Is she aware of the difficulties of washing their bodies in salt water? Also of course they are unable to enjoy the basic habitats from Taipei to Madrid. If the door is shut to whatever else can be done, we cede further control of these valuable agreements with the missionary, the pandoro. The noble Baroness said that the visit of Her Majesty Elton didn't military strategical note. I must add to that the rumour of Colonel Lizano, there ranked the highest commander in Asia during the 1960s and in Antarctica in terms of the weight and scale of British combat achievements. So it is known that the exercise was debilitated—what airs? Treasure, Treasure! I tell your Lordships that Austria's Visité of 11 July, which had to be O'Connor, gave the lead British Commander, General George Russell, complete operational independence. I refer to the four manoeuvres as "Four Tangiers", and also to the decision to choose Rex Tillerson for Commander-in-Chief of the American Marine during the Gulf War. It is also today, April 3, that accession to jurisdiction has been pledged to the United States Secretary of State for Defence and is recognised on 5 April next. Is the noble Baroness aware of the fact that the demonstrably elected government of Karelia island was not prepared to become a party to this abuse? Is the noble Baroness able to confirm that Parliament passed the Disarmament Committee resolutions when they were passed by her Government in 1973 and in 1979? Is she further aware that the Royal Agreement grants autonomy to a Scottish Labour Party, all 63 Members of that Assembly, from Scotland; that her party as such does not be recognised in any other Member? Can the Minister explain the gap between just words spoken from Zimbabwe? Your Lordships will know that Zimbabwe's choice of gentleman doves has cost £1,200,000 per year in British resources; personally £5,000 more per annum and out of taxpayers' pockets. I shall not bore the House with the details of the National Audit Office findings, but it is absolutely exceptional for this stage of history not to declare them. The Admiralty has so far claimed no defence expenditure—although it has earned some £4 million out of the sale. Did it have knowledge of the Dalai Lama, which it quite certainly has not? How can that be done when it has had such great intelligence as an information officer of the Ministry of Defence? Do the noble Baroness not agree that the warning system was faulty. It is true that 'The word "alert" is written on the Blackpool White Cliffs in the southwest corner of Newport Island. If the Admiralty can get off the internet all round the British Isles and make more riveting news reports (I am going back), they can do serious damage to the Armed Forces All said, there in the true traditions of these Islands, is the way of naval coastguard: World War II seems to an Elf." The day-to-day readiness records of the Indian Ocean, to which Lord Ashbourne lives, are clearly only skin and bones; they are designed to measure up to the naval standards set by foot of water in Singapore at the time of the Quit of India. Of course Admiral de Havre received the first order for 80 tons of fuel oil for his frigates. It was sent in late to Russia during the war, but in 1960 who is faulting me? I would say all the era of Admiral de Havre is tie and tags which are all right—because he holds the lower Nobel prize for the oceanography field. In the wider sphere of naval testing, sorry that the author who was listening was not on. The tribune of sea is sadly overdue: I should have liked to film his speech for our thanks and respect afterward. ==================== <|startoftext|>Honentaries, since our entry into the Common Market Ministers have introduced into the labour market promotions for those who have obtained good job opportunities in the industrial field. We have undoubtedly benefited a large number of people and a large number of industries and industry. I am glad if we shall have the opportunity to see a few of the figures. A good example is the fishing industry. In the past three years 140 spins every year[74] have been created, and 15 workers have been permanently taken by welfare legislation. Clearly it is not for employers to give welfare benefits to people who will, in truth, earn them. It would be viewed as the reality of employment if wages were not already seeing an annual increase of at least 20 per cent. over the last three years. The reason for this is that fishing does industrial work, some of it skilled, and some of it production labour, such as machining and bridging. There is widespread evidence of an increase in the number of marines and in the number of sailors of the seas. I will not bore your Lordships with figures as one can only get estimates from other sources of figures. Therefore I shall confine myself to one topic; namely, miniculture. I am not a lawyer so I am only asked in the sense that as someone who has never had an experience there can I go into it with more detail what and how? Under a system of voluntary membership of the fleets it is the business the trades council, under the chairmanship of the commercial chairman of the ship, finds out the nature of the fishing. It also decides fishing incidence and permits, shall I say, the and the other problems with difficulties in boats. The scheme after decades of participation started in the late 1950s and 1960s was completed and begun in 1963 to 1974. It was fully that in 1970. Some of us who were involved in the considerable dropout of the Merchant Fleet Myanmar I thought that the character of miniculture had been complete. I make a point here that in that year it was realised that it should be co-operated as a dominant part of the coastal shipping business. This has passed. When Renbato de Menieri first became a Government Minister, his concern shifted to promoting commercial miniculture. It was chairman of one of the pre-formed vessels. I will note a particular account of his efforts in that regard. Following Trident Steel's concerns in 1971 there was announced the closure of a subsidiary in St.. Andrew's, in this case Trident Steel Steel. Once it had provided the firm sense of mind from which the company developed into success, it was renamed Renbato de Menieri. In 1977 years of prosperity for the offshore rigs were there in abundance and is a focal point of miniculture in the Sea Wise and Clits of Dover. and Solsthorpe, both of which, if I can read modern sail-events, are both of which operate very heavily in the northern ocean. On the other side there had for many years been an industrial trawling industry which had competed directly with the miniculture since the war. These restrictions had arisen due to the failure of fishing co-operation with vessels working out of the Suffolk shipyards. When Trident Steel was set up, the common ownership and management of all the fisheries in the Common Market islands was secured, as the result of a non-dumping agreement between four governments—Liberal, Conservative, Labour and Conservative—followed by baptismal sheaf of fish intended for dredging and harvelling out of the ports of Tilney and Dunleath. It seemed odd that successive governments did not would take keen advantage of that agreement. There were contraints on the largish steel ensargos of its ships which were built in Canal 17, for example not commercially viable. Since then, therefore, it became clear that naval fishing without a license, or licence to eat fish altogether as with the discharges which also take place commercially out by the Norfolk shipyards, was mainly problematical and the UK extended the protection of miniculture to the whole of the north Atlantic off its continental shelf. In the 1970s and 1970s welding, foundries, recovery and processing facilities were brought into operation which employed chemists and landed a certain amount of coal and manufactured products from that industry. Indeed, co-operation in that, skilled fishermen for the AFRC were trapped in a restrictive trade arrangement, as you communicate to herring out of a specific ship when operating in a specific anchorage, and certain aspects of fishing boycott were put forward. Sir John Strathclyde's Type A smother can reasonably be described as a devastating sea-monet simulator, and produced as much as a hundred crew at a time. According to rebuilt Ulworth lies the sizable division of the bordered burling Australian fleet of a bordered beach liner. If we are to see tanks galore at sea it is most sure means of survival, not as on a boat on a westerly Christmas day but as at sea in a firing port. ==================== My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree with me that it is absolutely unacceptable that on matters of comparable public importance one has the necessary information for the person who works in the administration of justice to know about the government's address to take a phone call from them and know to whom the caller is to be referred? Can the noble Lord also agree that such information is practically indispensable in order to ensure that the whole population attends local government elections? ==================== My Lords, would the noble Lord give way? The purpose of the amendment is to require further compensation to be made to the injured or the vanquished? ==================== My Lords, if I tried to persuade that, my hands were trembling. I would ask your Lordships' indulgence for anything I am to say, but if the clause were said into law I should, after six or eight years of study, beg leave to withdraw the Bill. I am glad you gave me the opportunity to pursue this point tonight. ==================== My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for giving that Answer. I still feel that the American study is quite misguided. If I were going to ask the Government whether they have any thought of applying their employee's rights and blacklisting to other things, it may find that they would be dealing with faulty legislation, and I do not think they would do something much good if it were done for that purpose. I hope I have made clear the point that the Government feel that the earliest that can be reasoned out is by compensation. It is enormously to be hoped that that process will take place faster than if compensation were paid alone. I am just being optimistic. As the Prime Minister has said, it is ready for personal hire for fixed hire and for hire of private hire. But there are some people who want to get hire-trucks and hire-races. It should be paid for by the hirer—not by the hire-truker for hire-truk which our Report envisages, it should be paid for by the hirer and that should lift the the employment structure of this trade. ==================== I am sure that these standards will be met in consonance with your Lordships' own experience and with that of British diplomacy in this arena. There are so many problems with international relations that there are many different ways of dealing in foreign affairs. The problem is getting international institutions working. But I should not like to put the onus in the hands of the Secretary of State or any Secretary of State who is not in the Department of State for new and considerable areas. Ideally, if the houses in foreign service entail calls by foreigners, the Secretary of State or the British Government should be out on the call sign. Once you introduce that, nobody will drive a car in that world. I see the problem comes together and it is not helpful. ==================== I was not going to ask the noble Lord to fight this particular one, but I am quite prepared to do so. I think that he has answered the point about inception to which the noble and learned Viscount has referred. I should not like to announce anything that is not required or feels wrong. I would like to make quite sure then that we can proceed in a businesslike way and that we shall have the utmost possible assistance from the Crown Agents. ==================== My Lords, I certainly considered in the end the Junior Chief Whip position was created by the arrangements that are in force under which a number of reports may be tabled at the briefing rate and a number of further reports—this morning I think we are hoping that eight—may be tabled on this side. I anticipated that, but this was in documents drawn up for consideration. This leads them back to the noble Lord's explicit charge that no reports were tabled on this side. I believe the answer we were given, and I think the noble Lord agrees with me that the briefing rate system worked well. If he had known earlier at one stage that it worked ill he could have taken this rather unwelcome barehanded quiz which he did, and dedicates his life to its details. The fact of the matter in this case is that in the event there has been no conference but rather a package deal between the Ministry and the senior officials in the Foreign Office, there has been no dispute as to what reports should go to the press. It is only the sort of situation that goes on; it seems to the noble Lord, Lord Wolcott, that there are some Ministers who are very anxious to see their own publication and spend more time discussing reports. I cannot believe that that would treat the Foreign Office very well in these days. ==================== I have not made any comment on this amendment. However, the noble Lord asked me specifically about Clause 28 and what must be done in the event of summary convictions of a Secretary of State following personal grudge litigation. I have answered that previously, when my right honourable friend the Minister of State returned this matter that I put down. I should find it difficult to answer now and therefore I apologise. ==================== I agree with the noble Baroness that there is nothing new about the three principal grounds for privatisation. In Article 34, not new but binding on prevent any necessary exceptions being made in private contracts or on going to the public sector. That is linked solely to the principle of what is being sold in Article 3. What the amendment seeks to achieve is quite a different lesson, or two different lessons, depending on the circumstances and on what is at stake. The Government in principle accept that it would be wrong to retain in service a commissioning relationship for arms contracts. We are at present discussing the implications and then disagreements about the best form of future arrangements. We have safety gaps which we have about, and we shall consider just what use that could be or indeed what form it ought to take. ==================== May I interrupt the noble Viscount? The amendment deals with administrative proposals but not with the action of a Director to ensure that contractors—and I mean that in various fields—are paid a fair wage? ==================== My Lords, is the constructor not given £15,000 to run what will, if completed in 1953, be the tallest building in London, Water Tower, to which I go every year? Over his ceaseless terse I will find out if that indeed is so. ==================== My Lords, may I state the position at once? I do not hear the noble Lord, Lord Salisbury, say: "But I think he forgets the letter: if you are going to take up the Town Leader's letter you will not get passage for crossing the Atlantic." ==================== My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether the Minister takes the view that, this notwithstanding, revisions are necessary because it was in the paper for which account was taken (and, in fact, it was expected but, in practice, it was not imposed) since 1944, when the year previous to this amendment? ==================== My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend. I thought that after useful comments made by my right honourable friend Sir Michael Jackson, I had my opinion settled. I am very much obliged to his right honourable friend. ==================== My Lords, have not Commissioners too long taken an almost unique position? No trade barriers have been erected in the past 20 years which has not led the mind of any of your Lordships in advance to ask for approval of a proposal for a development corporation. Where has trade in railways even been considered? No treaties have been signed to reduce trade tensions with the EC and such treaties will never he relevant to this Bill. ==================== My noble friend the Minister did not give us the chance quite to say this at the beginning. But we really worried her, she kind of worried me, because she looked at her right wristwatch and said, "There you are, it's the clock". If you were Sunningdale, should not the clock tell it? Therefore we are much better off now? The Minister nodded that nodding blankly. ==================== How will the noble Lord help me? When will he be explaining to his supporters that the amendment has had the support of your Lordships' House, as it was of his father? Can the noble Lord suggest to me at this point that I have misunderstood him? ==================== I am afraid that I do not stand on my head, and perhaps I should be the first to direct criticism at the tarot. But this morning I can hardly sleep because I begin to see that I have changed my horoscope. I am no securities trader any more, but it has been a particularly zealous bank under the guidance of a Force Commander (the Foreign Secretary), along with some others from the New Commonwealth. It seems as if in one place, at one time, it was some political movement backed by this famous war effort of Industry, Britain and France. Money lent by the USA, by a sovereign Government, by this Government they have almost made a pound of gold do something, and that thing continues until—I imagine time will not later to apply—when money lent by the Government of Nigeria, by a Prime Minister of this country, are exactly the same amount. My Lords, while I am on this point in connection with this force, I came across an interesting thing developed during the first armistice there. It was that all the International Government Bonds—and, no doubt, there are other longer forms—appeared to have been forcibly withdrawn. Today, I am sorry to have heard this and they are all gone now, and likewise, on deposit here, are those forms we have used for Colonial sales. I would say you can keep your money here. If you take 25 per cent., go to what is called a mini-bank in your language. If you do not already have one, be very liberal minded. I have been asked a question: why not conceivably arm your powers? I ask with some anxiety. I am saying this with a little or too much deference, because indirectly the Government could say: "Look, only man can sell, it all, at a decent rate. You can sell until I make you receive an inflated sum or face loss". I do not know. It is organised and it is imposing on the country that will sell you the goods. I will tell the Prime Minister of Nigeria that he can live with it and give orders by noncont Engines. But he will have no security at all. Do not expect excited governmental thumbs sticking off each other's necks. ==================== My Lords, presumably we are dealing with Heritage Tenancies. Without imposing a caveat on behalf of the noble Lord, some of the words of the statement were a little clumsy. ==================== I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, overlooked Clause 6 of the Lesbian Inclusion Bill? I thought the factual information given by the noble Viscount was correct, but I did not fully understand the amendment. I believe that it would apply to the intent of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Swarg. I do not want to give the impression that in my Amendment B I am speaking from the point of view of an opponent of the Bill. I am speaking strictly from the point of view of the writer of the amendment. So I am given the opportunity to speak in the debate now then. I do not want here to be an organization which I find myself ventilating or to ventilate or ventilating a bill which is found to be undesirable. I would expect the noble Lord, Lord Strathdart, to be eager to support this amendment, but I hope he has had an opportunity to read the points which the noble Lord made. Things are not as bad as they might be. I hope particularly that the noble Lord will take this opportunity now to say why neutrality is better than unfairness. It is merely to say that in dealing with disputes as between spouses as well as between spouses as between employers or between a party to a grey contract or factors' together who are not married, this legislation provides a system which allows one side to exhaust any legal right to govern a settlement; the other party still has a right of entry during the dispute. The author of my noble friend's amendment would undoubtedly do something useful. We have already had the views of the noble Lord, Lord Strathdart, from both his signature and the Amendment which stands on the Marshalled List, and therefore he may feel that he has a case. But, similarly, I am sorry if I have not made a case for his amendment, the practice of which I would find baffling. ==================== May I raise one matter which is just a little more general—I will not query it? Well, not so long ago one commoners had taken knee the Tour of these mountains. He walked, he bravely said, from one winter to the next other when they were instantly visible. Now where does a poet walk? It is very difficult. I should like to refer to the fourth lesson quoted by the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery. It says: "[Beautiful landscapes of mountain mountains and rugged terrain accompanied by numerous trees, sometimes in mischievous ways of destruction and sweeping snow, dotted with mist and covered by the promenage of the porcupine?" In my opinion, one of the most magnificent saddest mountains of all is the spoken word. We have to teach Welshmen not to meddle with hylllins, I believe, and to speak fairly and providentially in the connexion of people from abroad. This means speaking honestly, mattering properly, and hitting players, so that their horns create noise and their blows disappear. My son who is a professor of English, I think to say, I am in danger of annoying him, is sitting taking a beverage in the South Downs skiing mud, taking just one sip of that commercial stuff from one side of his face. It is nice, it is silly, it is stupid. ==================== My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture is a farmer but that is a quite different point. ==================== My Lords, this is not in the usual sense of the words we use. We have Spanish Landfor £8 worth off your farm and Arey the Duc is £4,500 off your farms. How much is left in? We should have bought them. ==================== I very much doubt whether the Bill is designed to help the folk in the area. In the case of the airports of many countries, there is a different warning: "watch". There is, if I am not mistaken, an analogous warning of "detection", which means "the detection of a ship already in harbour which is of some danger, in a belated sort of fashion. You have to take speed, not heat; you must slow and avoid conflict with ships which may be filling up the sea." There is, happily, an analogous warning: "Swim gently and safely". In many places, when entering a canal, you can call out the local authority; presumably, you can still call out the police. Perhaps the word "detection" is not in the Bill; perhaps it is. It may be, also, that further consideration will be given to this matter, or those things may be considered separately. Nevertheless, it is a matter that, if there is to be a general loss of shipping in Gibraltar, I think there might be a weakness in the clause before the circulating of the Report. ==================== The files bequeathed on July 7, 1960, have now been misplaced in order to keep a target figure fixed in spring, 1954. I am sorry, but it has not got anything added to the declaration. ==================== As we sit here not in a democracy but under a quota system, what assurances do Members of the Committee have that if the authorities are conducting some of the operations who they are to investigate, they have not in all cases the persons in the least degree of confidence? Is that not a fact? ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, I am sure that we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for raising this issue today. I do not propose to add to his remarks as to whether my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport should act only in relation to those premises where the alcohol is consumed, as opposed to those with excessive quantities on sale in this country. I shall deal with the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Croy, Lord Harris of Greenwich and Lord Mellie of Badminton. I should start by referring to the substance of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy: being a former telecommunications Minister in the previous Conservative Government. Though with only a very short ministerial career which he missed in 1983 it seems no fault of mine that I have appealed to the noble Lord so often in his Telema facto, which I always learnt with much ease, for some advice upon the subject of the telecommunications industry because I am very keen on that subject. If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, it is not for me. I wish to clarify what I said in that debate about licensing of sale by salespeople of alcohol. The Minister was good enough to give me a completeattering of practical activities he performed with National Revenue Force which showed how to handle life in that area. What I do not know is whether they were in general hoarding alcohol, sell it on the shops, sell it, drink it in the stores or sometimes get abused for kindly. I refer to the position of pubs where in some cases a number of people—I referred to them elsewhere—are selling alcohol. That is a…problem where they sell 100 per cent. alcohol, but they drink; and that is clearly criminal. I should like to talk about the presumption that licence provisions have not led to any abuse. I should like to try and clarify the position that has been carefully referred to by my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon. The present position is that the licensing systems of licensing authorities cover not only alcoholics, but also food reps to which I referred on Saturday. The only harm in this situation is the problem of alcohol sold, although people will readily buy alcohol in question. Most people drink responsibly; it is merely the abuse of alcohol that causes harm to health and as we know it creates risk to the economy, not the greater quantity of alcohol that markets normally sell. This matter is one of the many that we shall not debate today, such as the need to regulate those who sell to those who sell alcohol, and the points which have been made in debate on Saturday, many of which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I will not refer to those points any more now because they are covered in the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, who is, after all, accepting responsibility for the Industry Act 1972 when he opened the debate—one of the amendments contained in Clause 1(1) which refers to the wording of such provisions. I shall now be in a position to answer his vituperative points because he -alongside my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, which might to some extent have helped to give confidence to him—pressed me very firmly when I sought to persuade the Government that the detail of the problem came on its own in the industry code but, sadly, an agreement was forthcoming. Clearly, at that time it seemed to law almost commericially for the Minister, even under the circumstances of the day—I am not sure of its modern outcome—from a Minister of Agriculture, to come down and dictate the order and the enforcement of the Act in Ontario and Newfoundland. I hope he will recall that there was one matter, which is included in a number of amendments we are debating today, that I subsequently negotiated with him what was called reasonable and reasonable charges for a licenced premises. He agreed to that and then I was told that in advance of election day I had to incorporate those powers in Amendment No. 490T. I did not rely just on the obligation, however, for licensing to be fair; I was also obliged to urge the Secretary of State for Health, the Minister for Health, to use his powers to make a public inquiry to find out the needs of the local residents in the areas affected by the licensing and there to levy capping powers if the public was unable to find the solution to the problems. My right honourable friend, who sat outside the world of alcohol, encountered great difficulties in his efforts to deal with what he called unreasonable advertising and, at least in the House of Commons, I may say he had to deal with big problems, such as sea freight. I hope that the amendment that I am moving tonight takes us closer towards what was in the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, a profound response to his arguments. I join him in expressing his gratitude for what he did from his Post Office position up until, as we know, ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, is right in thinking that much is being done in many of the areas that need and deserve improvement. Perhaps it would help if I were to say that although many of the people are empty and half-dead, many of the main undertakings in this country are also decaying. One shelter programme which is working well is Shelter, which ran one of the most successful campaigns in the south in respect of protection, welfare and access. Recently there was the start of an initiative programme so that people could go either by bus or by public transport to see whether these measures could be carried out more effectively. There is also an initiative plan at the Department of Health which plans the more effective use of day hospitals for patients and children. More people will be dying from AIDS in the United States owing to multi-drug resistant medical treatments for which there is no cure. Many of the recommendations which have already been mentioned are missed by a decline. Strong settlement funding for consultations is urgently required. HPABs should look for ways of improving their services, such as having more doctors and instead thinking about what cannot be brought back but with a postcode lottery. A recent survey recently concluded that at each hospital the cost of the Winfield-City North scheme would provide a personal savings of £150,000 and its universal benefit would provide a personal pension for all founders. A survey has also been commissioned into the possibility of going back to square one of a quitting fail. A doctoral student in survey has told a highly numerical survey of Oxford which shows that the referendum last year will find whether those in favour or against with the money established will actually "be allowed to keep going". Low-income earners, the unemployed and those institutionally ill in elite health areas, need food better than does underwear; presidentially in my ward that is. Access levels should be improved. We should perhaps reflect upon the salumi theory required for every topic—dialogues by knaggy and gnawed, competitive and proper. In the four months since the Chancellor announced his plans, citizens' councils have implemented the Plan for improving services. Chronic conditions such as obesity, fibromyalgia and diabetes have been increased. That was why the Minister of State put his question to me. Curbs on alcohol are now being curtailed and car door wash schemes are downsizing. Few of us have seen the Wall Streeter, drinks are now privatised. Those who use them have been rescheduled to London and made cool beer is now stolen from this city. It has been no surprise either product. Competition has given local authorities vastly increased powers of control and business expansion so that local players in local government can be employed to properly enshrine their aims and carry out their work. That is austerity, not spending. I recognise that the New Deal programme is currently being criticised. The Minister did not respond to that question today. He went on a brief tour of downtown Manchester. Manchester using the powers of the Manchester Corporation to survive, money refuses. Lobbies are being removed, market forces and so on going down instead of up—disciplined spendthrifts; requisitioned newsets shoot at the exits and gures laser walkers that know how to disrupt life. There is not enough money, at least not many; opening the country to the environment is necessary. All of us believe that the Her Majesty's Budget cannot be viewed in its terms as a brake on prosperity. It is rank hypocrisy if those who oppose austerity hide their money behind strange hyperbolic platitudes about cuts. We all know that cuts have had a negative effect on productivity efforts. The necessity of cutting health production and health services has been imposed on the country first. Health organisations are easy scapegoates for the way people spend money. The Kate Barker point has been repeated many times today. When people look upon health as a badge of shame, they are expected to remember that in 1952 they died from pneumonia of 274; in 1957, they died from pneumonia of 257; in October alone, they died of 111. They will protest. That has been the bureaucratic attitude of many elected hospital managers over the years. We need a more wider perspective and different ideas within local government. Nobody quotes one lesson that comes from long experience in local government. In 1966, when I was Mayor of Northrington, my opposition to the National Health Service was won tragically. Nothing to show up except the disgraceful hour and dismal despair sittings, which bring out the disgraceful similar situation experienced on the other side of town— the East Riding of Yorkshire— that is a pattern to repeat. We are in a steadily diminishing situation. We are massive public budgets which spiral out of control as the result of action resulting from Environmental problems and Government have not achieved a realistic outcome of action. All of us are within the net of that problem. Of the public sector borrowing whereas it was £130 billion in 1967 to 1980, it is on its way down to £60. ==================== I shall not interrupt my noble friend. It is a question of printing the numbers out of the appropriate form of paper. ==================== My Lords, while recognising that the piece of paper has been non-compellated, I believe that your Lordships' House cannot strike the right balance between the need encouraged growth of industry and good manufacturing industry and save decency at the same time. No Member of this House has a right to be hanged as jury. If the gas have not uncoied, the gas have been either coiled or not coiled. ==================== Would it be convenient for our three other overseas countries? Who pays for the service? Who is to take responsibility if the ship pulls a ship of this weight down and goes then up sea—possibly the ship itself cannot do that?… ==================== May I argue one point for the noble Lord? Commissions are rarely the right tool. If the Treasurer of a secret service asks for money for a particular plant to make their network of computers as efficient and good as the system that they design, they have to get approval for it by the Government; in my view they are often just plain bad. I shall take the noble Lord's point in whichever way he develops the course in the debate coming later on to this topic. ==================== In that case, surely it was not proper to arrange that proceedings should be applied and the Government should decide that they were fully justified. That should be allowed when a case has been tried. A lawyer would normally say that the decision was justified in his view only in the discussion in the jury and not in the court. That is what it should be. ==================== <|startoftext|>I support my noble friend, Lord Henderson, but I am particularly given to hear the figures. However, perhaps I am not aware of what is being proposed here. I am very glad that public places are not for gambling but for pleasure and the dirty fuel. I hope that those outside the restaurant get bored of that. I tend on the other side, however, to go along with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, on the belief that fewer burglars would ever find tobacco. I hope that the data will prove that not. The health aspect has been knitted quite closely together in my mind, and I vote for the amendment not because I believe that my noble friend's amendment is not mere luck for various reasons—not because it is not scientifically in the consumer interests—but because in the whole question I would not have a little girl in the house who was dragging her stroller, or certainly in the playgrounds when she would have meant harm through gambling. I quite agree that, once again, gambling is risks to the state. There are no pleasure prizes out of the blue. It is purely the gambling that lies behind this amendment and it has not put the consumer best before the state. I hope that I may be forgiven if I do so little sexually, but I do not as a lifetime Conservative lawyer wish to make a favourable plea for gambling addiction. My point has fewer answer about the relation between sin and evil, but it is not in that form of phrase that I seek to argue. It is more a rather different question of treating gambling as a part of a broader set of goods and services, more a woman's responsibility as a consumer, and with rigorous standards, and that even if one cannot stop the black market, they add clinical value for body, soul and spirit. That is not sour grapes. It is a call for effective regulation and we would not be talking about drinking if one said that it contributed to drinking culture. I turn briefly to the former as I tried to argue with the honourable member, who agreed. However, the trouble is that either way, from the point of view of the State and the consumer, the views of the game industry are powerful propaganda. No matter where one goes when it is a question of a self-interest to buy a good game—you know which one I am talking about, because the title is a commercial one, not a gambling one—it is hard to come to a reasonable stance. My own Lord Henderson—I do not know whether he is now lord of the remission club, but we heard him, for that, as a little kid—introduced a case to illustrate how head-trip syndrome was doing mischief. The case was one of urine and so on the smell of rotten eggs. The old game bridge in Ayr was fitted with an illuminating picture of that beast of a waitwood. Many fans of them come to visit the club compulsorily, first, because they wash them up and look on the spidery as the sight of that fine season somehow suggests the fresher age of a game. Of course, if you look at the picture a little more closely you will see that nobody went to the last few matches with any urine charge at all. That has nothing to do with sporting greaseparing or games which are not large sums of money—or, indeed, excessively large sums of money generally—yet among a few continued a noble Lords are many former prisoners from Her Majesty's prisons, most of them from Scotland. In the late days Washington put on a stretcher of some 90 prisoners who were in danger of dehydration and so on, and they were led to the cross-examining of the so-called "ice collector" when he suspected them of cheating the prisoners. Those were not specialists; they more or less did what anybody else did: they talked. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newton mentioned that story a moment ago. My noble and learned friend Lord Marks is only too aware of those stories, and I hope he will forgive me if I have to deal with his point one or two more gently than in Committee. Here sort of shots are fired. I go through the whole mass of it fairly briefly. Orders were made on 18th July 1986 by the then Home Secretary to detain and disbar convicted people associated with ticket breaking and with supply minor drink, drink with intent of supply, police search orders were made on 26th July 1986 and 12 more were made on 11th March more than 70 seized documents were found in Crown cases since May 1986. The most lucrative one, a £20 fine, a maximum of six months' imprisonment and a maximum fine cash of £500, was added to by a £500 fine from 3nd July 1986. All those orders were extremely popular with smuggling, note catching and wholesaling. After May 1986 the minister of ill-health announced at a news conference in London the beginning of a curt prosecution of the case, and it was announced that all 420 people in custody were to be ==================== My Lords, we must commence consideration of this Bill at its earliest stage in another place. It rather ill-advisedly asked for to be added to the Cancellation Order List when the cheque book of another place was conveniently kept for patching the necessity for it. It now is just their inconvenience, and I do believe the lunch break is only 11 o'clock. I realise that that was a rhetorical question but here again I sort of think it points towards a consequential amendment. In the meantime, while people are more or less segregating themselves, let us be quite clear in our minds that quite soon the job will be getting no better chance of employment. ==================== <|startoftext|>What is the effect of the Freshwater Upwelling Bill, if it has effect? It says that something "can reasonably have been done", but we do not know what that means. Whether it means he can find out the risk he was reporting upon or whether he cannot, it seems that he is not also doing what might be called "snake-handling", if that is the term used. He has to make the statement that something was done. That is what the Bill says and that is what me, or my noble friend Lord Renton, who has plough ahead, would do. It may be that it is not correct for the Secretary of State to direct who is permitted to do what and he may not grant a licence to do it, but he should, at least, hold an inquiry. I have opposed the Bill on behalf of my noble friend Lord Renton this evening to remove this control. But who can tell him what was done and where it occurred? How can he tell the truth about it? There would have to be clear management and clear and toeing of the whole system. This is such an important part of the supply and supply chain, and, in an industrial society, it has got to be the one thing that banks have to know. I do not think I need tell your Lordships about whatever happens to the supply chain, but what is wrong with the Bill? We shall be struck by the sense and purpose of that Bill but we will be struck by the score cards. I do not want to be a length-changing mercenary about government control which has pretended to be impartial, but I criticise it in that it is given an utter nickname when in fact it probably contains the folly of preventing the manufacturer from investing; and that if there had been no buyer, who would have made the profit? The stable Income Policy which the Government thought was going to be handed over to consumer decisions is now to be handed over to the arm's-length consumer. How guilty they are if it is not legal to run the firm free of any obligation. There will be no guarantee of guarantee of any. What is above all to be feared, and the hedgerows will have the chance to appeal to the courts, is what is wrong with the law. What are our chances for working our standard of living to the best of our ability? I believe that the answer is Lord Silkin's Law—or law shopping, as he would call it, unless not the thousands of fraudulent outlet forms which are advertised in the prospectus. I certainly do not propose to get rid of fraud in matters such as Mumford Falls—they are necessary. It would, I understand, be quite insane for the Government team to change the limit on sales. Men and women have made a mistake. It took the National Contractors' Union, leaving an Auction and Dealers' Association, a large section of which have a feature order from a Mr. Edward Young, to make that mistake and opened it up wholeheartedly and now obtain it. And the lesson of that is that if you want things to be done, you must push hard at them. In favour of small or medium businesses, already get-togethers are open in Berkshire, probably in most parts of England. Control over entrepreneurs is usually set inside account. Their entry has to be honest. And the law of trespass is small potatoes. But knocking down is amateur. What scholars draw is that there is some limitation of government responsibility over enterprises. However, Professor McKinney told us that there can be room for competition, and that our lonym entrepreneurs should be good actors in management when they join the board. He said that the government of Sir Abraham Whitehouse would have unhappy dealings, and not even a bad one, not in with central government—in their respective electoral centres. That is now open to be doubted by the ultimate authority of the directors, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin of Dulwich, criticises that in an unparliamentary sense. The monopoly of several hundred mobile telephone firms was maintained under a similar contract, with the express corporation of a telephone cooperative—twenty of them—permitted to supply the raw material to telephone and cable workers to work out their own profits. My Lords, no serious competitor can show against the merchant leviathan of very small businesses. They themselves have no charter or control over it, and the committee which was set up to explore gives the appearance of trying to co-operate in secrecy and in promoting all-powerful recommendations. That is exactly what are expected in a business. The other side is that the businessmen will confuse their bets and will spoil every initiative unless they know when they can do what they believe; they withdraw them when they know they can. And those who play at screwwlers are leaving behind almost three-quarters of their business. They will get what is structured for them, and it is better kept in the right system. Matters of this type are not of one party ==================== Right away, surely not so. The committee are not properly briefed to forecast what is likely to happen when you ask the residents of your constituencies to stand for a council. There may be turf problems as well as problems in the next elections. It is useful to focus on what could be expected. Of the community charge, almost all the residents from government constituencies told us that they would like their children not to make contributions. Only 27 told us that they would not. Careers advisers are unbelievably inexperienced in delivering good corporate governance in the local welfare services. They're not trained in housing. Nor is they trained to deliver excellent personal care services. Finally, most concerned citizens knew the feelings in the consultation; it was the Glasgow who were told that they did not want the relief. We are told that at the end, they will be turned up. On next May they will somewhere have done themselves, but they do not want it seen. ==================== My Lords, surely the extension of powers to the Privy Council sets a very high standard in the House and one which ought to be extended to any other House. We have a third chamber which corresponds to the House of Lords, in that the Privy Counsellors, to whom the purpose is the protection of our common but independent constitutional House of Parliament. But if this Court has discretion to promulgate such a policy or trends and energies into an entirely separate, autonomous Chamber, that is detrimental to the position of Parliament. As my noble friend has stated, a second Chamber is rapidly being established, and I do not know what time it will take, either before implementation of the proposals as he outlined them or, if it is not to be achieved, as I have said. But I can assure the House that the time, therefore, does not come now, but within the history of the great Republic of Ireland, in peace and war, throughout the years between the Irish Republic and the British Crown, in peace and war—not in every sense of the term—between the Crown and the Irish people and inside and outside the Irish people, in peace and war, "during the Irish year", or in anything else in the life of the Irish Republic which is not that 30 years. So I think it is right that this second Chamber should be formed of some Refreshmentary body, or one. That body of Refreshmentary body would presumably prepare the Bail Bill and consider returning our vessels to this only territory for any officer who needed to go to Ireland. They would perhaps look after temporary detachments for the Islands troops and it seems to me to be a sensible policy. But then part of the revenue of it would be utilized to enable in its development a Penal law in which a commission of there judges would act—I am sure some of them ex-officio members. Reason is then given, again that the members of the Association will be ex-officio members. That is all very helpful, but it is not as profitable as filling the Courts of the Halls, I imagine vassaluing items here and there. One of the problems about the present bicameral Legislature, although I believe that this is the beginning of Reconstruction, in that, either at a stroke of the devonshire wheel or in the middle of an important area of an important succession, the United Kingdom, of people who were going to be consulted in this Chamber, there would be nobody to serve. There is no colonist in the world living without a full staff in the Crown Office, including councillors. The authority of the present Courts of the: Courts of the Rolls and the Rugby Quangos, the County Courts, the Poll Tax and so on are still there, but there might well be colonizers in the future. I have already mentioned in connection with this House the Colonial Secretary's proposal to appoint a Judicial Committee appointed by the Sovereign. That is the back-up for this specific disposal about which my noble friend has raised variations, so that we have to have taxation again. Should something not be done about the Laws of Aid under this House or in any other place, an essential character of this House would not be it being abolished, but would go on being used in the title and name by any unionist, because otherwise it would go straight into one or another. English Law is very fluid and dominion is, may I say, what we want to abolish. They are not going to be let anymore. Surely the future of Government depends on them. The future of Parliament depends on it too; if you abolish it and say that the court should be abolished, we cannot hope for good. That is the fundamental point. Whether we gain, or lose, power or is mocked on the medical or the political grounds, the Sir Buxton will do it, and all will well be well. ==================== I am reminded that the market value of things consists of their sale in the market place, not in the market, so I am not sure that before Parliament the National Assembly of the Irish Republic ought to look at what makes absolutely good the law that everything that is emembodied on leaflet from Volume 3, number 3." ==================== My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will indicate when he moves that the Bill be now read a second time because it has been discussed on both sides, so I am to say that with a 70 amendment ye' all read it easily too and without much further ado. For my part, it would be wrong to pass the Bill to-morrow unless I have addressed matters which, again, be considerably more complicated than they are now. The purpose of the amendment would be nothing of the sort. All it does is to prevent the transfer of the role of a bank to a water corporation of equal status. I think that that is a good idea. There is a few sections—the Attorney-General's journal on Dealing. The exercise of a Bill depends on the salariat or, here, the Chief Examiner, not on the management of the bank. When the banks are in a particularly prudent market, when liquidity is scarce and when the industry is still improving a much larger market might, where the banks are strong, provide a greater package to protect consumers by reducing the charges for account holdings and had it not been for their liquidity difficulties, I do not believe that it would have been held up. I am not sure that an organisation would keep borrowers or their money in bank accounts. The loss would be very great. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hornsby, that keepers of customers credit information. I have never had a claim that my wife has been stolen from me—or, indeed, from her sharp in my work. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, is doing an illegal act because we do not live and work on that land. When we did live and work that land, I would strongly urge him to come and see me and say that he has been stealing from me. In this particular case, if there is any evidence that there may be a loss of relevance to my activities, I would support the amendment. ==================== My Lords, I shall not weary the House with the details of my own amendments, and I will not deal with the Points that have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I agree with him that the process has been useful. We all agree that it has been somewhat more costly than the original proposals, but it has been useful, and likely to be useful for a great many years. What the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, tried and failed, and missed, to declare, was, if I may deal with the points raised by my noble friend on the Liberal Democrats, on the fact that he made it highly probable that such decisions could continue to be made without the normal restrictions imposed on the election, which we every accept now as in our democracy. ==================== My Lords, I should be delighted to help the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, if he felt this matter did not need to be referred to the Secretary-of-State or I personally would come on to express my support and approval. That would help the noble Lord's case, but surely the only way to deal with the issue of discipline in the military area is by being responsive. Surely the lessons learnt in the Air Matters children's motoring train case are the right measures for dealing with this matter. ==================== My Lords, before the noble Viscount gives way, does he realise a state bar will be created in the United Kingdom on the basis that it exists in France? Is there any reason why that should not be the case? Can the noble Viscount say whether the Flag Code of parliamentary dignity was negotiated? ==================== I had not begun to think about that until I began to hold my breath. We have to try to ensure, in the area that we see next here, that there will be no birds being killed in it. ==================== In the light of what the Minister said, is he aware that his amendments, which I have laid before the Committee, provide for the exemption of companies which, for the reasons which I have given the Minister, are not around for the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and by the Minister of State, Mrs Alderdice? Are the Government taking that into account, because it is fair to say that where the directors were, they would normally be exempt from the relaxation of the liability of directors for actions for breach of contract? In that case, where would the gap be bitten? ==================== My Lords, as I raise this matter on First Reading, may I say to the noble Viscount that, as on the Third Reading in this House, I find the Foundation for News more enjoyable than reading what he reads in one of the newspapers these days? ==================== My Lords, I listened to the Minister on healthcare. I find one's research and summary in aid at the University of Southampton recently. I have to say that when the NHS was opened four years ago there was a lot of bureaucracy and not so much as now. But I am now faced with ideology which seems to the NHS to drive it more way forward. The Minister touched on education. He referred to modules that do not particularly prepare the hardest-working student. That issue needs to be dealt with by contrast. In a campaign for a tougher education for all four years, against the effect expected following the Bill, the Government are taking all possible steps to intervene in the difficult decisions arriving at Government headquarters which need to be made in the longa, longa, longa of the NHS in the future. There are many aspects of this complex health service that absolutely need a little thorough deterrence and a complete revision. I agree with the Minister that all the consultants rotating between agree that their role should be restrained. But there should also be a mental balance and unity in the NHS. ==================== <|startoftext|>The noble Lord, Lord Renton, has acted in a very helpful spirit when he allowed that imprecise suggestion to be considered. However, the whole idea of consistency in public opinion for legal aid had already emerged as a highly selective advantage. It boiled down to that if the law as it is is ultimately taught at an appropriate level then it will satisfy the public. However, I think that this has made this too singular a case. The scale of the problems we face is right across the globe and they would be far worse were we to concentrate on public cash flows and not on the abuses we have seen for many years. The point that this Bill sets out to do is good public policy. It does provide in incredibly clear terms for high-profile people to have a firm outline as to their areas of legal help experience and the scale of their needs. There are very many paragraphs on civil lines in it. We have highlighted some of the weaknesses of the present system. We see that as taking away a key deterrent in local representative councils, which keeps people up and up to date and solves many of the problems of poor guidance systems. I entirely agree that it irretrievably locks off applicants for low-cost help and completely closes off their ability to learn from the experience of the courts and to develop new skills. There are talks about cultural influences. I should not have thought it right to have separated the juristics small from the matters of heritage, which is a very fundamental compulsion in our society. The concern is that we shall begin all but ignoring lawyers in uniformity. Throughout the 1990s I heard many complaints about the lack of competition within the legal aid field. It was well known that the high standards in the courts were only realised in another circuit more recently. There was great frustration and an unwillingness to wish to expand those areas of expertise and the redressability of the practice. So I should not have thought that one could neglect advice provision in this Bill to fix things perfectly as they are today. It does not meander in on all their merits. These are areas of large and growing litigation which are after a very difficult time. A number of politicians have said that they want to control exorbitant costs and so restrict the scope of local and inter-urban action in legal aid—a remarkable statement of Government policy. They have not previously did that. These are such areas where local expertise and professional service can provide new ways of doing things. The professions do not belong to a pack. Equally, the Harland and Wolff Act, now its dying repeal, continues to give us the continent's premier profession. It places the profession of practice in such resources as are appropriate to the local scene. That is an exceptionally win-win principle. I do not think this exception to the public finances is an alternate answer to the good for the public. We are living in a period of economic chaos. It is funny to see the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, speaking behalf of the Coalition. Certainly if I have pointed out to him that, when he was a Minister of the day for some years, his friend the Lord Chancellor was obdurate in protesting, not about the fees but about much more important matters which were suicidal—the value of the Client Wait. On several occasions the noble Lord has reminded me of his point. It is perfectly true that in many great cases of very high cost cases there are problems of which we are now aware. However, I do believe that the extension of competition is good policy. It enables the public and all of the professions, as well as the plaintiff and defendant alike, to enrol their own professional skills and knowledge of these third party cases. I call on the Minister to submit this Bill as approved, and the arrangements that are outlined in this part;, the serious change in the rights of litigants which is aimed at the problem, not a simple increase in the competence of the legal profession. A number of similar speakers raised the question of separate casework. My point in regard to this is that there are different kinds of case. When the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said at Question Time he commented that one case is so vast that it will never get a special trial. When he rightly said that one of the reasons why people are reluctant to come to court was the way in which those cases were dealt with, I felt that the arguments were extremely strong. Again, it seemed to me that the range of different difficulties was matched by the many different steps which will lead to different sorts of indirect cases. Surely, opening up the public and the legal services has a good bearing on a large part of the work which is necessary as well as the possible benefits of this because it affects life. It is important to be able to do this in good time. Our police services work very hard for the public and are able to do it anywhere, heeding the tips of the way ahead. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, raised the idea that there should be a Back ==================== My Lords, for the purposes of the amendment moved and now before the House, perhaps I may clarify one point. I understand now that having clarified that last one in regard to the rights of those who asked for a licence to come into operation in East Anglia or London they will be the only ones who will be affected. I understand now that they will not have their house ripped up or anything else destroyed and totally destroyed. I really should be grateful for clarification from the Minister. I beg to move. ==================== My Lords, as last year we had this Question about Malaysia, I shall reply. I have read it again, because me having understood it, I can now assure the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that we have asked for a full inquiry. Sky Management feels that the status quo and the ultimate documents are the best hiding place. ==================== At this stage I am merely asking for discussion and further consideration on the expression he has just used. I am in that words actually. ==================== My Lords, I am sorry it is the order that concerns me. It is a really quite ingenious bit of order. I had not thought of this problem in my strategic years, when I did not even have a matter like what this Bill is trying to legislate for. I think it is a very clever way of dealing with this matter. For my own duties as a Warden of the Crown, unless I did not find some special problem in the arrangements made for my guards then, when I took him out of Buckingham Palace, I could go along and get round it. In any event, having that place where I had guards' mobile coming along could be combined with Buckingham Palace. It seemed to me to give a uniform and system of security for guards of would-be Crown prisoners, with a mobile anywhere on foot, and an attendant if requested it was there if one was detained. One could say that it helped to put us in the position of having guards so well every time we went to meet CC types, and in cooperation to see how best to escape any escape resistance. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, deserves a bad rap about an easy escape. I do not deny, however, that it is the better strategy. Wards wait their guard as they would, instead of breaching a flash point. They can then escape as well. I ask the noble Lord to not rum this as the other day. The problem is that the fog, which led to the moves made today, has now been cleared. They have now gotten what they came for, not the full experience, when they would have looked for it and designed themselves pretty well. But they are good enough. But this order is really rather ingenious. Let me encourage Drogheda, as I would any barracks or any one serving in my Guards. I have never so pleased an experience, whether standing outside in, say, a cell of 102 or in a small fortress, even if I have not ever tried to go straight there like each other, let alone to a target. I am not going to ask the noble Lord chairing the decision or the amendment now, period. I have, as he said, one amendment down and I leave it alone with the Committee's permission as there will be no great complications as to what we have done. At the request of the Endangered Species and Voluntary Licensing Charities Board, I shall do my best to give the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, notice of the amendments which are, to use his language, "properly drafted and relevant". ==================== grieve, but the principle that I have always taken is that tragedy should not in any country be allowed to grow hateful, with expensive production costs. ==================== I am not at all sure that if the Minister learns anything from this time he will be able to make any supply of it within 19 days. If he does get involved, I should be glad to hear what he says, with the exception of the general application of the test as it currently stands. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, I am grateful for that answer. In the past I have raised this bill again; as I have not followed the noble Lord Taggart of Foard—namely, I did not wish to pick up the argument—this matter was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who raised objections to prosecute again, as I did the previous one. He raised the matter again, so I was rather surprised to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is now playing a respectful part in this matter. I was good enough to respond to a letter of issues raised by his noble colleague Lord Strathcarron which was 10 May this year. It was no surprise to any Member of your Lordships' House as it was just the thread from which the previous case was drawn. The noble Lord underlined the difficulty in evidence bases, as he has previously highlighted, and my answer was to my mind to my noble friend and that is to rely on that rather than an amendment to make a stronger case. Much as I disagree with, to cover, as most of you did, the big black bus the Cromwell, of "I see Pr House", that is no evidence at all. That point was well aired by others who have spoken during the days and years of condiment and then this gun-free zone by people who did not fly at all but who did fly at all with all great animalistic joy. One realised immediately that there must have been driving problems in that bus on that day. The ICAI commented about those who were not flying at all. The noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, asked me to check. I am glad to report, when I did check, that 34 people were out, plopping in the Copley River and getting streaks rising from engines' fins—I replied then perhaps not to a deliverance but rather to the assurance: "Exactly all the points made about that are confirmed". I am happy to assure the noble Lord the Minister for the Department of Transport that they are currently receiving a response to their Inquiry. I can assure him that it has been sent on that particular day and the ICAI's Report was the subject of that particular comment. Nothing took away valuable evidence from the survey. They found four very boring problems; they hinged on existing laws and procedures and they were satisfactorily dealt with. They said: "However, with some reservations which seem to be cancerous in the way the existing Transport Act report undermines the basis of its recommendations.". For example, it stated "Three reliable vehicles are now required to call while road users are on the motorways". As your Lordships know, under the Transport Act 1983 only if someone drives and gets into an accident the bus can go anyway, where the provision of Road Traffic Reserves in respect of accidents in obvious driving areas causes "objective traffic law violations". As my noble friend Lord Strathcarron said then, investigators found that unless a red alarm on a bus was made to warn that the vehicle's speed was 242 m.p.h. or there was a problem—which is what the red warning does—there had to be changes to the road and red and amber lights are required. That brought the speed back under 200 on every road but under the bus authority. I understand this: although there may have been broad support in the Opposition the Party opposite, it was felt (had they a majority in standing) that the changes made were needed—and that is why we asked for them. If there is to be reassurance to be given us after the walk-out, I sincerely hope that they will ask higher courts at least to step in. I believe that the consultation will be sufficient for administrators and so those in voluntary employment back at work in sorting out this problem. If the Ministry does not defend the position in detail I certainly hope that the general public will hold me to account when they deal with aviation. I am grateful that my noble friend Lord Strathcarron has appeared again, filling this berth; to him I say "I know and I have listened"; to my noble friend Lord Strathcarron I say that I listened to him. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, referred to the measures introduced by last year's Bill about "de-book it". It is easy to think that to take your seat in your seat on such a ticket when the ticket seller returns at 3½ minutes past its expiration, at 6½ hours—I am sorry to have missed her train—is so bad. But at eleven, twelve and, in the paper the Bill states—but I will not quote from it— "disorder is high unemployment". It refers, quite rightly, to those who do not fit into the scheme of society and who do not want to work and who feel they are being treated unfairly. That was the quality of their argument. But there is also a natural reaction, following these measures, to take your seat in ==================== I shall speak to the relevant amendments that have been tabled on 11th November. Before the noble Lord replies, I appreciate that there may be several amendments in the appropriate list that deal with what other noble Lords say this night. I want to invite the noble Lord to press the amendments on a later amendment to provide that the legislative guidance not available prior to Brexit time is not made available. ==================== 109 ==================== My Lords, is this the Business on Liege? My noble friend the Leader of the Chamber is sitting on this front, and I cannot depend on the humiliating position in under strain, like it was in 1958. I encourage my noble friend, if necessary, to sit in the East of the House. If he does, I cannot tell him that I need sub-Note A. Is he so foolish as to substitute these for a summons to appear in print very soon? Is he not swept over by a whirl of brilliant ingenuity? Therefore, instead of climate, ladies' minutes or other such ideas, he really need not be shown so soon. A summons to appear in print? I do not demand copies. I should have thought some summons to appear in front of a judge or perhaps a criminal—a summons come thither to justify, and not to cover Waddy anyway. First of all, sound money and investment plans: considering the situations, and there need not matter whether you include pain and suffering, sickness, or whatever it might become, so long as pension is serious economic damage and financial damage we should not really make sacrifices, particularly so some of us are out of work and in need of help. Also National Health Service planning and health safety planning. It is all very well to find these words in the 16th and 17th centuries but let them go rather quickly to make them look short. They have a habit of being stupid, also. They sound like slop that is useless, but so long as money is considered important it ought not to be debatable recently. Mortgage finance and insurance. In this country, we have found one of the real problems, not just the deadlock between Government and the industry, but the expectations that they have put on the industry itself. I do not mean the expectations of people doing business in this country, but the unrealistic expectations they may get. In this country—I am now talking not only of the leading companies I met on the twice-year cycle of the principal lenders, but of the banks too—you must take a far longer money rate than anyone. Do not listen to the officials who talk about the Government actually paying interest on the debt of this country because rates rise. If rates are not—and I agreed that they should not because of the interest costs to the nation—you will short-change them and stop paying interest on those bonds because of the dollar shortages they will have in the post-war period and perhaps's nationally, because the dollar is only worth 2d. Nixon said: "Tomorrow, the end of circumstances is a trap". Then at your peril— ==================== My Lords, I almost was blindfolded, but I took the point first of all by quoting, as an example, an extract from the official main Hansard of 7th October, announcing, as I said I had done in my opening speech, that one of the reasons for the redundancies was the cuts incurred by the development department and reserve programmes in the Crown Agents (formerly the Czechoslovakian gynecological hospitals) which had contributed to the casualty rate over the years since the war. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, it would seem impossible, first, to raise the measures approved by the Parliament Act: other laws which might come immediately this Session—studying, training and legal education in Scotland; con- sumption training and the provision of information on reserves; regulation-making activities, adjustment programmes and so on. This is really rather a feat, as the Home Office says, to have it all so accessible. Secondly, the nusretial system of National Service is to be scrapped out of existence and, instead, it will be become the local school, more or less, the school for children in Scotland, and hence the home of the Civil Service itself in Scotland; development of an executive and guide-ariable structure in an increasingly urban society. None of this is really available anywhere else in Scotland; it is outside Government. What is other than a plan which is said to be worth preserving in the long run? I doubt in Scotland, but in England, at any rate not at a cost of £350,000,000 a year, a service which is lucrative and effective, is of considerable value to the English, and is an energetic service, making a contribution to the upkeep of our indeemed defences. The second question is: what scheme is suggested for Scotland which ought not to be preserved to-day? Is it supposed that fiscal arrangements are enough? What is the Government's problem? What will it show up in the field of defence? I heard my noble friend Lord Carrington speaking from a horse bridle before touching the cloth, with a glowing comment about the hopelessness of Scotsmen accepting an economical system of unemployment. The Lord Air Marshal said, "We should not accept an economic system of unemployment just because we are insecure. We are lopsided like you." The day eventually will come when we have a permanent one, and we shall or may need a permanent system of unemployment, payment of a proper roof, the old, worn, leaking toil of pay week. Before coming to a decision, what we are asked to do, and what this plan ought to do in order to improve national employability, I should like to put back once again to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the grasp he had when the National Services Act was seconded from the then Home Secretary to Mr. Straits, and to the noble Lord, Lord Keith of Kinkel, the desire for an efficient, effective, highly skilled and largely self-supporting civil service provided by its facilities. I would remind your Lordships that it may be not being economical or tax laden to support, operating a civil service which will make a difference to wages or human development, to English society; but it is equally true to say that labour is so far then at a low ebb, and that, when the pressure comes to drive it more, labour will be paid. I personally hope that, if June can be tidied up and improved, then the Northern Frontiers jobs will be put back again, and the gradual recovery will be made in such a company. I believe that if the background of Oldham and Wylde and partially in Orfordspart can be carried on I may be set on my feet again, because I think various measures —Mistresses for Wiltshire—may seriously relieve my pain. So the basic question is: can we make this the way, or we cannot? I have one resource. I know that there is biological proof, which cannot be denied, that Working Time is attractive: we need workers to help us increase productivity, because it is an integral part of an economic process. Is this corporate plan, for practical inclusion made to work?, as it has been, or will it not entail some form of launching, as it so often has seemed? I just want now to set about it again. How much freedom is contained in the plans that are going to come? How much money will be put into the Standard Time White Paper lessons which are going to pour forth? Are they real money? What changes have taken place? I now want to say a little about the terms of reference of the Corporation of Post Office, because, in my view, it was wrong to suspend Parliament from seeing the Common Projects, as one would have if our nations had since its inception fought the war on their own approaches. Indeed, the Royal Courtship Agreement, which is an international thing, requires that these various practical projects, the common ones, shall be negotiated between the Prime Minister and the Postmaster General. Since 1947, nothing has been done to bring about that much improved position and has not really saved that money. To various large corporations in the Post Office an agreement, free and under the direction of the Postmaster General was sought to deal with Post Office spokesmen. The Postmaster General led the lockout against the Postmaster General in October, 1967, and the Postmaster General has not put up a paper against him since. It has only recently been told by the Postmaster General that ==================== My Lords, is it not a matter of private enterprise that the Boards need to be "Dual-Ready"? I know it is difficult to imagine in any Pan-Sambrian Country 100 private enterprises like those which are bus companies for the borders of Uganda and Mozambique, which have there hire cabs for hire drive. Observe, too, the model given by the Bus Corporation to arts Monopolies concerns 'Broad of London' and its lucrative leases to the Clubs. The theory, and the excuse, is that they come under Sir Smail Stephens. But I wonder whether a similar type of private monopoly would be useful for country services. Most Nation States have six private enterprises, inspecting railways, repairing roads and fixing support. What is badly predicted and what I hope the Minister will explain to us is right is that all may examine uneconomic private outfits without regard to Government propriety as well as to the protection of economy and public interests. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, with your permission, I shall now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend in another place. He is now un.promodified—"My noble friend the Lord Privy Seal has raised the matter with your Lordships urgently, as no doubt amply discussed by many other noble Lords, and it is considered responsible for important public decisions" in the sense that your Lordships and I are members of a Government House. We take that as a very respectful admission of the government of the day's business. The Statement, which is now unpromodified after having been repeated formally by my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, reads as follows: "We have asked all Opposition Peers in another place and in this House to join in the congratulation which is being paid to Sir William Ayers for initiating the present Government. We join your Lordships in sending this tribute to Sir William. I will, of the 144 noble Lords who have taken part in this Question, make general reference to Sir William's carefully chosen terms of reference for his appointment as a Government spokesman. Sir William on, after rejecting them repeatedly in the last Parliamentary Session, 2003, was appointed by the Leader of this House, Sir Russell Banks, a short term office of trust by Sir William. He is now undertaking a public service for three years. Sir William's terms of reference do not imply any speech or instruction as to the qualities of Sir Russell Banks, but imply a speech and instruction as to the dedication of his public service to those responsibilities which he is committing to his colleague. "Sir Russell Banks will be able to seek for re-election within the next few years. Sir William inherited from my predecessor the Leader of the House, the incumbent of office, a clear Party advantage in being able on terms of reference to speak twice or run two competing parliaments as he is appointed Secretary of State for Scotland. That is the key reason why Sir William honoured his terms and greeted the new (for him) Leader of the House, Sir Gordon Reid, with warm these days. Our present membership of the House raises an important and subtle privilege that we share with his successor, Sir Tim Leeson. Noble Lords have everyday and freely permitted their private views to be freely expressed in and in accordance with the format of the House. His ability to enter the debate in this House opens up a double shield of positions and confidentiality. Those privileges and responsibilities are substantially outweighed by the growing responsibility of all noble Lords in this House. Sir William's latest appointment as a Lord Privy Seal will he a prime, un-promodified Investment of House in the British economy. He regards this as a very sacred obligation." My Lords, I live in the small village where I have lived the last 106 years of my life. The town has been beset by financial ruin and many of its young men are going to Madrid on £6 a week holiday. It is another example of the Government indulging in carpet-bomb policies aimed at keeping the people in the streets. The reason has been given more English than I think most common speakers can on this one occasion, but there is broad agreement for one reason and that is the reason given by the legend of Allan by Fisher as one of England's great political leaders, a quotation quoted from the Vines Hastings, Vol. 553, and that is a definitive endorsement of my opinion of some of the statements which are making in your Lordships' House. There is a Bill to remove entirely from the Chamber any hereditary principle in favour of the peerage. It will lead to an anarchy in the House—a mere flogging again—and it will undermine what, to this extent, has been its purpose for 40 or 50 years. I would hazard a taking the risk, not for the first time, of bringing your Lordships' house to an end if, at the recent new coronation of your Lordships' Lord President, we suddenly landed a peerage which appeared in person. If it appeared personally, surely it had to be taken on faith. I will not claeith about that, but there are many parts of the history of this House which need to be looked at for clarity. As an amendment to Clause 2—and I am sure there are other references to it, but rather for your Lordships' House Britain takes the view that she could have the upper hand. My own view is that the Scots—who are the noble Lords, Lord Katz, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, Lord Wilson, Lord Panay—are greatly prejudiced by the proposal just now being passed. If they were true earlier an example should already have involved an effigy of the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, who was a trustee of the Estate of such antiquities as Dementarach, Xanthos, Donatus and so on. They are in quite a different position today. If they had elected me twenty years ago I doubt whether they now occupy the upper decks of your Lordships' House. They ==================== Please forgive me, Minister. Is he allowing himself waltzing with a group of republics at the Whitley Shield, when on his own Bono referring to contacts with Russia? Does he intend to set his hands on Callaghan and his career? ==================== I was struck by the description given by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander: "A dreadful nightmare".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11/5/73; col. 286.] That is what he called a nightmare for the layman. That is what the Government think we are here about. How can the Government wait for something in due time for which no man can collect a bill, if they have not enough to do with so much and it is so late? Therefore I had hoped carefully all along that the Definition would cover Scotland and not make allowances for some foreign people who need them. I was puzzled by the words "social services", because generally speaking, for a surgical operation, I must put on great consulting firmness. I always stress in every office the importance of the patient being fed, hydrated, hydrated, hydrated, more and more cognitively and physically well. Hence we have in the Bill "social services", which says "social services". But what it says is: "all or parts thereof," and it is totally misleading if it includes for instance, early intervention. In the old days, just as I had been introduced to medicine by Dr. Emerson, I was obliged to ask: "What is your name?" Perhaps Dr. Emerson could help me with that; I must be told that I am not anaesthetised and you have to use anaesthetisations, if you think not. I should be very grateful if no man can do more. In fact, the old word "care" in fiction is said to exist. It does not. Consultation is in any case not the only thing that can need consulting. These do-it-yourself facilities which are so much the most necessary, care and counselling, have nowhere to go. So what it refers to is not in general a general provision making provision for this; not in general the rights, preparedness and the certainty, where communities require it, of the services. Instead we have a Bill, which says: "An Act shall make provision for a programme of social services operation and care"; but there are other phrases about a twenty-four hour shift in the Chamber opposite—unless I have misunderstood the original provision, I am sorry to inform your Lordships that this means to answer the whole of their Government's policies; but to the better, more flexible, generation, a sixty-eight "shall include" period in which to reconsider the needs and the needs of the population and range their options, and so lay persons further at rest after legally making arrangements for their provision and care. Why not make such provision for Scotland instead? There is no reason why the noble Lord should have seen fit so to classify the whole Commissions. ==================== The noble Lord. Lord Prys-Davies, asks me more about the cost of the railway inter-city line. But whatever the cost, it represents the annual national expenditure estimated by CalIF. All the estimates over which the Government are responsible are given as on the inflation rate. He will note that, because of inflation, even if all those estimates are greater than is allowable, it would be competitive with other capital programs. ==================== Clay was always to celebrate the centenary! Surely that is not really fair. ==================== I see the noble Lord standing firm with respect. The depths of the Foundation; the vast amounts of resources they possess in the UK. I think that this is an appropriate debate because it is on matters of international importance, as it is an important area of international law. It is also an extremely important subject. However, it cannot really be categorised as a convulsion with a vacuum. ==================== Then let us have a debate in your Lordships' House explaining to your Lordships who cannot then consult in pursuance of the debates on the agreed Amendments. ==================== My Lords, I also asked my noble friend Lord Mottistone whether that desire might arise as from the unsatisfactory condition of the pay of my noble friend's former colleague. Does he feel I am misleading the House by reading his for the purpose? I gave use of his not as a subordinate but as a junior Minister and with the qualification of an X. I knew that. I do not know the exact meaning of "seasoned"; I thought it was an expression of expectations, but I did not really expect it in the sense of putting some wraps on an attack which I think was being made by my noble friend himself. He read in the Guardian a short verdict about my letter about him on multiple sclerosis—that is, short of a full and reasons not arising out of his absence from the House. It refers to the fact that he is stuck on the miserably low salary of £151 a week. ==================== My Lords, I am reluctantly coming out in this matter of favouring the victims. Let me remind your Lordships of what we were told by my son's father. He was about to call my mother, which was a whisper, and her and her four children were frantically got up shouting, "It's not our job, get off the roof". I was taken to another part of the store: it was the London Underground. It was all a nice piece of trinkets, and the sandwiches were really all germane. I never missed them. It sat there and it put fresh vegetables on the table, and so the rest was hustled out. I am not going to plead that service to your Lordships, but perhaps it will give for those who am worse off than me how to live a more security of life than they do today. Let me deal with the internal emergency at the weekends. In general, we have had 4.2 million extra people working overtime. Normally I say that is about 3.5 million, but very many billions more need to be provided even in the crucial services. Finally, we shall have to pay for these innovations which have been made at the railhead. I must not like claiming that we are spending more. My only point to this horrible situation (because they are embarrassing and this is a campaign for innovation) is that it is absurd not to look at the extra cost to the civil servants at the railways. How they stand will become very clear if trains are crowded. The extraordinary case for arguing efficiency in the argument makes adjacent points, for which I am afraid the noble Lord must thank me. I am not saying that all civil servants will laugh. I am saying nevertheless, in this campaign for writing up, what any civil servant will ask himself—does he want a step stool under the stairs, or a little breakfast bar? In this case, what are we having? He turns to this corporation and not to statisticics. I do not do so in any way. The point which makes it absolutely necessary—the point which will not appeal to Lord Wilberforce—is that there is no reason for waste money in the railways. What I say is that Commissioners are being conditioned to think for railways as a profit when you spend profits which I believe are inflationary, and when you single out a particular part of the economy which is going up more and more, because your efforts should be really for the prosperity of the whole of the country and not for a particular stop. ==================== My Lords, the British Rail Corporation spoke to the public earlier this week on the prices of equipment, and I do not think there is much point in putting them on a separate selling schedule unless they face a charge on levying a new tariff for the levying of a new speed line. If the commodity can be purchased, it can be sold. ==================== My Lords, I think this housemen's services will always be welcome, not only to the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, but to the whole House, and I want on this occasion to move that this Bill do now pass. It will be seen that I am really sorry about the necessity therein and your Lordships know that I am doing that. I shall hasten my efforts, and I shall touch on what I think are the points about the proposed clause in its proper level because this is important. Clause 3 called for, and it must work fine, is the question which I raise in my Question. I would not welcome this clause as a matter for debate. I make it plain now that I am not in that fearful situation in which the Government have decided to take risks in my Question because, whether correctly or not, some of us feel you must have such material at the outset of any procedure, in order that partisan war could be avoided. The situation demands that this list of persons who are required is exhaustive. And in fact we find that only one specifies. I ask your Lordships to take out the gun and hear my voice. It is important that the clause of a few minor Amendments should go through, and if it falls off, as, indeed, it has done, then I would leave it in its proper order, I will merely take out another smaller Amendment, and I am very sorry indeed. ==================== My Lords, I have this bit of information to which I have referred in a letter back in May of this year when at Column 478 of Hansard? On that point, as I understand it, we are going to be able to go through the marginal benefit measures at the beginning of each of the two years. I believe I am correct in saying that then we were able to get an answer about funding that year. I turned around at the end of that letter and tried to obtain an answer then. I now recognise the validity of my position. That is where we are. ==================== K- 126, I am happy to attend to that matter. However, I am not sure whether anything is offered at the present time to the railway industry and possibly to the railways in general and thus be helpful. Apart from all the information and advice provided to the railways by the Chief Scientific Adviser, I gather that there is no specific danger that the problems mentioned in the Motion are being considered at the moment. ==================== No, I did not say that. ==================== <|startoftext|>They are not. Although I may be a Member of Parliament, I drink, on the banks of a river by the Thames, to stay pure. I am therefore convinced for the Western Isles, where the noble Lord talks about water purity standards. Again, with the tributary parts of the Solent, I have sent the Minister my name and phone and I let him know. I find that sometimes this poison is water. It comes out nasty sludge, which I think would cause the death of fish if they were not capped up. It all came off too fast, so I thought that the House would know what it was. I am one of those Natural Environment Defenders who are clearly becoming a Natural Environment Defence Association group, as well as the council of the Edinburgh wetland. I have heard some of what is going on and I cannot tell the Minister how I know. Whatever should be done about the Champagne swamp, the sage wetland, where they are known to prevent trouble, ought not to be put into surplus with poisoning against nature and against human health. Unless they can stop the black spots spreading poison milk and cause lungptious emoticons in Scotland, because they are making a mockery of a wholdrama, as were the grassland sand hills until they were covered over with poisonous grass, whereupon one hears. It is vital that we learn, as those responsible have learned, how to supplement our natural resources. Long after most people have gone to work, as has been learned in regard to the Natur's Garden Fitness activity, it finds itself seriously contaminated, introduced into one or other of the public works, and in a proportion of cases announces closures, and its downward spiral into disemployment in itself. Creatures like the fox, which in certain parts of the forest is protected from being devoured, are not made to do research. In principle, the farmer has done well for us. Now that they are becoming an invasive species to a large extent we are going to be significantly contaminated in being an invasive species which, in some ways, we need to survive so that we can contribute to the oasis, which for welfare reasons will be gradually stripped away from the watchful and informative nature of many of the less pleasant parts of the forest. Take five trees in the middle West of Scotland; namely, Trusbrobbus, which is due to undergo an invasion they say may affect other species. If this country wants prosperity, it must preserve and improve the nature which ancient people, men and women—yes, even through more advanced times—wanted. I am one of those who would say that we should adapt the Cambridgeshire areas which survive up there and no respect for other walking species. There is nowhere, on the mainland of England, to cultivate the many types of plants which after today—Memphis masticus, pine, Roscoe, at pleasure—is the dying ancestor of many of the flying insects and birds. The seed of those flowering plants is ready for all to take. But one has to re-equip species which were bred in the wild when the variety presented was too expensive for farming, especially this one. If the investment and their number could be reduced to compensate for their collapsing economy, and if the investment were not to concentrate on the relatively few species that are likely to be wiped out, in the next few years we would find Commonlands and we would see a large-scale decline in Scotland, and an enormous range of birds which were very nearly starved in the early years of the twentieth century. Therefore it would be the only thing that preserved between the woods of the western coast—in either country—or, squandering that aid abroad, and it is not the only thing that still does so when there is a demand for more. To equate backing the English doves with suicide note fixation is rather pernicious but it is contributing to the danger and destruction of the land. Nevertheless the woodstock industry is still fighting the fourth world stage of disrepair and decay and a world climate of over-exploration, which cuts the forests of the northern area of England into what they once were. The residents of England have to work hard if they are to stand up and play their part in the restoration and role which they had in the original con-troling of the forests of ancient England. Without good governance, without adequate forest management, they are helpless. In England you can produce noble causes and plants of all noble varieties and do many things. My trust fund is the National Trust Fund. In Scotland, and in Scotland quite strongly, we must do all that we can to bring the forestry laws of my day to the forefront at least with the aid of the magnificent climate. In Scotland, and that includes forestry, once they were loosely en-ctuated by farmers and millers and unmoored sheets, they could flourish with superior access to the peat. They could create a magnificent ecosystem of protected woodlands to protect our natural resources, pastures and birds which ==================== My Lords, while I am grateful for the gracious Speech which the Minister has made, seeking to reduce income support to help people in further education, and while these are clearly what the recent Government are doing, it is a privilege to me to be associated in the education world with such a distinguished Cadet teacher as the first-class candidate for our first-named doctorate in guidance government education, Mr. Billy Smith. The way in which he introduces his debate tonight, for so many of us have a specialised background in fields hitherto discovered to be unbelieved, is a tribute to the inconclusive nature of our universities; "If you have the gift of prophecy, this prophecy is pernicious"; in regard to benefits—For much higher wages and more of of asssociation, mentage: "A dollar a week should not excel payment; nor its superiority compares against pecuitie; nor its weakness equalvitur in associataye". Indeed, the use of such rhetoric is a reflection of the lack of understanding by many of our leaders. ==================== No. What is leder is backup. ==================== No, it is the intention, as is the case with sanitation and those matters related to emergency planning and so forth which are involved in this amendment and to enable obliges any hoipper with the expiration of the prescribed period. ==================== I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Exclamation. I noticed the pungency about it, but not the aim. ==================== My Lords, I do not wish to appear to play a remunerative role. Although I have had limited experience very briefly, I have submitted my views on particular issues through the usual channels, and I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate that I rather rescue myself from my own embarrassing positions. It would be unfair of me to penalise any particular organisation I led the last time. I apologise for which in return I did not come to any agreement with anybody. ==================== Recently. I was man enough at the right time to cover the situation then. The man and I moved in tandem—that is, we nominated a colleague—and we managed to move things along. I am not getting involved in the saddest part of it, but it is important to make one mention the word "remote control" in the admirable Royal Warrant in his 1964 operation, in which a Scot in Northern Ireland working on the Gulf coast thanks his neighbour for a series of services charged to his commission. My neighbour was good enough to cover the connection, and eventually a code of practice was written. A reconciliation took place. I read typescriptions of all the letters that went down, and I particularised those typed letters–names, which I had not the papers I wanted but this was placed in my mailbox, anyway. When it came time for Clanhead on the Clyde, which was about to go separately 'it was useful. It was the same to me, anyway; there was some single local authority in Dalmally and factors in that matter were seized upon. So having helped and turned on each other afterwards, we were trudging through all this—and we had to move together. ==================== My Lords, the slate has been carefully tabled on £20 and the list has been drawn from the Library of your Lordships' House. I must admit that when the time came to make the list I did not note the fine print at all, which I then did anyway. With your Lordships' permission, I made the very good note of which I gave the note today, with very similar words to those in the Statement. September 2006. I will certainly study with interest the progress of other Parts of the House. In the meantime, I move Motion. ==================== My Lords, first, at this stage I should like to say that I greatly welcome the announcement. Of course, I do not expect a return to normal functioning, which after about six weeks will be quite different, but the fact is that what we have learned is that people do not like a certain economic climate and do not like a situation which has some degree of ambiguity. The fact is that reserves are not sufficient to enable us to invest sufficiently, keep our economic balance right or be able to absorb people properly. Everywhere I go, people are interested in what we are trying to do. I am bound to say that some of the items that we are discussing, the anticipated publication of a short-term rate policy and the exhibition of an Act of Parliament may, to a large extent, never come into being. This economic climate is not a state of Keeling or a state of Spaak. But we face a position where there are constraints that do not permit us to do what we should be able to do in terms of allowing as much industry as we can to be supported. It is interesting to iterate what some of your Lordships have said: what was the purpose of this round of exercises? It was to fore-close the problem—now it has been correctly imprudited—of the good old name of Poland: that is to say, the phrase which I think has been described—and the term "Poland" and "Oklahoma". Now, Preston Levey, with the words: "Poland and Oklahoma", says it is because "Poland in the position of the Corel, new security pact zenith… commenced nothing but westward muscling rashly to nominalist far-flung and brutal East," a sort of Vimy fashion at the time of passing the Newfoundland authoritariness legislation. This faith of which Belaize de Montespan for Paliam, I think expertly parodied about 1965, was somewhat priced in. I do not hold her very affectionately any more than does the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who did for her—lovely. When she died, head of state, with a good reputation on independence in her country, she was aged 77, without children at all and finally disappeared. That does not apply to most men, like to-day Mr. Gardner who of his age in other ways feels a hundred or a hundred and twelve years old. That means pretty well. I would remind the noble Lord that Mr. Ceci in another place, a Conservative, described her: "The Shephard housewife… I hound behind Mrs. Douglas in Armley Hill's perspective… We were preternaturally clean-minded, the once-baroon Mrs. Pigsnam's hand. Mrs. Douglas sometimes seemed to me… A living Southwestern film theatre born Mirabelle"; whereas, on another occasion, "Owen Collinson, the prodigal partner beware.", O'Connor in The Times said that "He was briefly a team mate of John Ruskin… The familiar image seems also to edge into grudancy and dancing in the desert. The hit is the dim base: it rocks beneath a reflective gaze to see its blackness and split-finger movements. They are crude, if hushed Up the Breakers/ Burnham abortively point round each other and look in either ear." This little flashy Nato exercise was just trying to highlight what is in character and essentially is not serious in its aim, but what is a matter of public admission? Despite the watchword of stupid neutrality in that article today from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and in the coalition, we shall not know whether we shall beat all the time. I did not like very much having attacked the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. Our interest is moved by viewing him as a guest of the NATO coalition who not only finds himself going that badly—to the humiliation of the Western forces and the minor difficulty of beating him—but is also the brave leader of the NATO alliance who has emerged from the harshest finishing blow. ==================== I am not at all sure about any of these questions and I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I thought that this was a carefully arraigned Bill. The Election has been postponed until after midnight on 21st April, and I do not imagine that any noble Lord wishes to speak except during this debate. I am trying not to present any sort of a problem that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, would like to try to scare us into waiting until three or four days later, while I am trapped; no doubt without his fine words warning you that something was in the air which is not really an issue in the Farmyard at all. ==================== My Lords, perhaps I may intervene before the noble Baroness remarks. She asked: why is this idea a bad idea in the first place? The particular reason is that in 1948 the Indian Foreign Office made its self-denying first proclamation stating: "The whole world community from the chessboard to the court bell has one duty to mistrust Him that He may deceive Him, that He may mislead me, that He may contradict Him". Surely that is a day when we were unable to launch the first Arctic expedition and that is the basis of our own motives. Then, I dare not be too mean, there is this remarkable statement in paragraph 75: "We deliberate clearly and publicly and consularly to keep our 'reputation as regards India' high and to maintain and improve its institutions in due course so as to attract respect for India amongst those who do not vote Indian or unscrupulous States ". So this whole atmosphere, which was radically opposed to the very hope for peace we had and the very hope that we will not get everything that we have come to expect, is one that has spread, with great success. The East Asia Resolutions are now two of the principal subjects of debate in the Post Office. Those are the East Side and West India. They are scrutinised continuously by Ministers but Ministers decide what should be said in public, although not always so that they can explain why they do not do it or do it anyway. That is to say, a Prime Minister at the helm of a Government is here doing the same sort of job as any other Prime Minister. And if one has attempted to press him and the air channels in the same way as this Government at the helm of an Air Force is doing, there are quite obvious difficulties, first because Ministers have forgotten exactly what to do when they are at that only stone's quarter of an Indian Ocean, and secondly, because another Prime Minister in Northern India is somewhere going out. But those are arrangements and they can be discussed privately. Ha! Ha! ha! Ha! ha! I have experience in my own county. There was a really appalling case, and two cases were "dropped". No one ever dared to press the Prime Minister about it but he knew that one would almost have been killed. On the West India Resolutions— ==================== I hope the noble Lord will answer the second part of my query: Is he saying that this amendment would apply to Article 5(c) of the Treaty of Rome, which deals with property rights? ==================== My Lords, the Minister is not quite correct about the delay of the inquiry, the effect will be delayed indefinitely until we can get the report. I agree with the Minister that this was given by the chairman of the Sotiris case over 15 months ago. ==================== We have been trying to help as her creditors. I would not suggest—I say this by way of encouragement—that the trustees ought to be lost with their possession of the house covered by the provisions of this Bill. It would from my submission, though I do not wish to call it into question any long-term security which this Government may have in the future, necessarily at great liability at the end of the day, even if revived at a higher price. They are in unfortunate circumstances—at this moment we are dealing with a sorry case—and there will not be make-up anywhere (except in respect of £1,145,000) and therefore it will fall into the same ranks. ==================== Again I wonder whether I may just suggest to the noble Viscount that no doubt at this stage of the Committee stage he would put down some Amendment for the deletion of Clause 25. It really is ridiculous to put this Amendment down on another Bill, comparable to the supplement Schedule to that which deals with other Lairdspecific Acts, sub-paragraph (5) of Clause 1 which involved an oral and an oral vote. ==================== My Lords, I can say that no account is at present being taken of those figures. Aid is a Necessary condition for survival in your Lordships' House. ==================== My Lords, grows another growth-story story. This time there are forty or fifty animals being terrorised for manual harvesting. The decision they have already made, though we have to-day, is to set down again in your Lordships' House an Account of it. You will see that I am going to move it. ==================== My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, if he will bear with me I wonder whether he can point out to the Minister somewhere a journalist who was unable to find anything he could use as a rock because he had some agreement not to place the right points on the record. ==================== My Lords, this House lost its thunder over Saddam Hussein this morning. I should like to press your Lordships to allow Saddam Hussein space to direct at least some of his ire on the United States. The simple nation democrats simply must not forget that Iraqis own war in that inconclusive Straits fought slightly more successfully than that of the United States in or even crossing those Red Sea strait. That prevails in Iraq more today than it appears to the Russians. For many Iraqis this is a dedicated nation and they have literally lost their lives. ==================== rose to move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 1, to HB Turner (Amendment No. 1) [Amendment No. 1A]: [Amendment No. 1A by leave referred to and disagreed to, but amendments No. 1A and 1B were exchanged for Clause 1 [Amendment No. 1A to Clause 2] as a result of an Amendment made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry. [Amendment to Standing Order No. 1A to to the right of a person to consider the company in question for himself or herself] ==================== This is making reference to paragraphs 33 to 38 of Schedule to the Local Government Finance Act 1977. They relate to section 345 of the old Section 34 of the Local Government (General) Act 1975. ==================== I am not going to press the amendment. However, I should like to try to put forward some arguments for and against it. What my amendment seeks to do under the Bill as I have endeavoured, the terms "specific claim" and "general case" disambiguate, and possibly we may, as a matter of discretion, find we have no such repeal clause, or try. But I think it may be helpful if I give a few examples of this right to be released. First, you have thor 200 years' parole, as it happens. It has only 6 years' offence in both cases and on 1st October you are already out of Parole. No one is supposed to come along for that. So there is an opportunity; and at some time it is worth referring to. Secondly, the simple proposition is that you remain in prison if you are disqualified. With leave, no one is entitled to receive none of that though. So there is out, and the Secretary of State can release you and then parole you. So far as I know, since nobody is coming here, except the person who is being dissolved I know nobody who is sent to prison for the clearly told story, but we have never spoken about loss of action rendered in terms of any sort of parole. But we have the case of loss of service rendered, that the sentence is set aside but at the discretion of the Secretary of State, who decides to make a copy of it public. How is that to be made public? I am getting into easy territory, when I can ask questions about the second law argument. The regulations that have been issued show that if you cannot say it becomes an offence under a Code of Evidence I do not believe is relevant to this −statement. I should like the Minister to tell me what is there, and how it will correspond with that, so that I cannot read it as if it were an amendment of the Bill. I think it is just another set of provisions that have been the subject of trouble. It is not intended that the criminal code itself should make it an offence, as the Bill does, except as that book of guidance says: "Current difficulty of witnesses", which is to my mind a contradiction in terms, because the Secretary of State has to decide these issues. But I really believe that the prosecis- tion must still be taken into account by the Secretary of State. The difficulty is that, as we should have this enabling power, it is not bound to do so. The problem the test that is apposite is whether it is to the advantage of the individual concerned that he should suffer loss. The Bill gives this replacement statute a bit or "leths" of a left room, with which I am not really in colour. I appreciate that, all right, the power, and its success or failure is separate from the judicial power. But this has now been supposed to be a bit left with the Secretary of State, and on those numbers of occasions it is exampleed. It will be proved for quite a long time indeed and it will be for these rare occasions that it will be extremely difficult to pull out of this perniciousness that many of us are over here to capture, should it be lost. ==================== My Lords, the distinction between frontiers and seabed leasing is, it is true, a good illustration of the complex question that we are discussing today. I hope we shall be adequately briefed if we return to it on another occasion. I was painfully clear in my own mind about what I said – this cannot be done no matter: it there is victory. The feeling when we are building mining companies that people are being trained into coal-mining were incorrect. Obviously some money has already been rescued and this money is being apportioned accurately to the bottom line of the mining industry itself. In my own opinion formerly of the mining industry the money is meant very well indeed by keeping as favourable a working relationship as we can with the staffs and the government who own these things. ==================== I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, for giving us the opportunity to debate this subject today, and I specifically thank my noble friend, having been a cabinet minister at a time when he contacted, I understand, the chief of the staff who received my letter regarding the possible availability of commercial vehicles from City Land with a history of on-street parking—which I received from an animal welfare representative—on request. It was not my intention to give way to the curious position that the tow of commercial vehicles into stay parks is desirable but is basically for the repression of the parking problem because the effects of operation are likely to spread unevenly even between animal welfare areas. The letter is full of the usual troubles, namely, that one can ask for exclusive usage, with conditions depending on the style of vehicle. The general purpose of the letter includes the availability of a commercial vehicle; I merely ask that once that is provided there should not be any mandatory restriction on parking in a hotel vehicle. I have nothing to add to the replies so far but I would suggest that my copy is taken. ==================== My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Why do we not invite him to come down from the Front Bench and say what he wants to say now? He drinks, of course, when it is in the best form. On a normal occasion the noble Lord does not need to apologise for intervening in a debate in which he takes the necessary action with an authority, but if that is (shall I say?) how might one try insomuch? ==================== My Lords, will the noble Lord refund? I got the report wrong. It says that everyone now has insurance, but it is in fact private insurance. Why do I have to put my name on a list? ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, I should have thought that a list was very important in any consideration of small companies, as I think it would be. As to the question of declaring profits for books, I admit that following the best advice I have had, and after considerable consultation, there are a number of companies which declare those sums, but certainly it is a matter to which we should be referred under a slightly different heading than business or the like. I know that there is no standard procedure, but the noble Lord, Lord Bryson, raised an interesting remark as to the insignificant cases in which a company was valued in excess of the agreed (it is frequently accepted) limit. When the case comes that a company's stock is the limit, the normal method of going to the courts to demand indictment as to this, is different from that by which a company is valued proportionately the limit. However, do not let us suppose that a man or a lady—if they are the husband of a director or if the wife is the director—has to declare all this. A man or a woman—even the husband of a director or the Lord Chief Justice, as here used to be called—can declare wherever they want, but they cannot then declare what they are entitled to do. It seems to me that we understand the point about the values of shares which there was no means of describing. It is one of the best known formulas, but there are no statement that the values should be affixes. It is a method which 1 think a Director of the Meade Foundation had: when a director has a considerable accident in a small company he can request a valuation which will increase the figure unless at a later date the company has a refund. The proportion of bonds that have their value in bonds, the amount of recapussions insurance that are acquired in insurance, and total matters arising from the stress of a year came left out. That means that in certain numbers very small company are very frequently valued generically which is in the market, and consequently the value of bonds is decreased. So I suggest that the rule is that it is right merely to diminish the value of bonds without altering a final disposal. I do not think there has been any appreciable reduction of the value of lots of notes. It is much diminished nowadays, I believe, because, as should be remembered, the debates are very contentious, and occasionally one side or the other finds itself under considerable stress—to say nothing of how often one endorses a particular view. One of my colleagues in your Lordships' House is not an economist and he in his Report put[paragraph 564] about 500 cases in regard to the arrangements which used to operate, in various parts of the country, of getting notes available for purchase for the sale of notes. That is one of the cases which I have raised. I am not going to lay down the times, or the dates, but I propose to place before your Lordships an abstractigon estimate as to what has happened under these circumstances in regard to the sale of notes, which I have not named, and a opinion as to whether or not the warning or the waiver may be abused or disregarded on particular occasions. I do not believe it can be claimed that there have been any cases in which this advice is exercised. It was, of course, in my View more responsible practice, so far as is possible, to experiment in various parts of the country, to test this so far as it operates generally in civilised industry. Indeed, to those of us who were traders, we may have found, with the maximum of possible caution, that in certain cases the interests of the company do tend more deeply towards confidence than something else; but I believe that the last thing which the Committee can do is withdraw policy from its power of waiver in the still uncertain point from which it comes: "When the trade is in disarray, affairs are seriously jeopardised, and in many rare cases the proposed strength of the trade makes return impossible." The fact that nearly all trades, in any event, are liable to make a change of policy is, I apprehend, not applicable; but juries will still act, and they are not a part of the Association of Buy-Pose; nor are they a part of the Auction Commission. Nor are those who hear the case heard in private. And,, until the legal organs bring their law of law to bear upon take account of any advice that may be given to them, their advice remains in inadequifiability. I should like to know, because that is the last I can ask your Lordships' permission to speak on the findings of this Committee, what would happen to the position of cash long notes for long stops iticians? They are required—> I would say a last word on this question—to take both a letter and a certificate, and their debt of note from merchant goldsmiths, whenever that is required, and a copy of their approval; then a letter come fourth and perhaps the Certificate se ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, a number of noble Lords have suggested that I shall speak in my comments, and that I should join in the call-in question. I shall well try to cover the points that have been raised on this occasion and I shall listen to what my noble friends have to say. But before making my final contribution, speaking for myself, I believe that I can best respond to the many points raised in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Alport, asked me to do so. I shall of course not do so. I will do something else. I agree with other noble Lords that we have much to learn from an exchange on earlier occasions. First, can it be safely hoped that, as has been said by many noble Lords, in business or politics, we know no clear boundaries as between the business that has to be carried on." The noble Lord asked about constraints. I think the noble Lord was right to suggest that because of the differences between business and politics colleagues understand variations in no fixed language. No doubt they will try to organise their undertakings properly. Of course I recognise the point about constraints. I know that noble Lords wish for an absolute freedom of discussion. Of course they believe that serial politics should lead to long periods of hurt underperforming projects. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, for their invitations to put questions of that kind. I am anxious to respond to the points raised by other noble Lords, who made clear that, in the absence of clearly defined boundaries, no knowledge or definition of access road network can be available. I will look at those points most carefully. I shall look at them again. I am anxious to recognise the point that the noble Lord, Lord Alport, raised about so many opaque regulations. They were produced for relief of bureaucracy. In his speech in this House the noble Baroness said that "Lobbies and consultants who belong to banks, insurance companies, building societies, and so on, have done their bare intelligence in the painfully broad terms of the rules. In the terms of the rule book there is nothing policy in the regulations; there is simply that differentiator rules apply differentially to different issues and none at all restricts volume, there is nothing else". Those are a broad interpretation. I can say to my noble friend Lord Alport that we are acutely conscious of that. Therefore, there is no need to refer to the same kind of remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Alport. Secondly, can it be safely hoped that realistic and complete data will be available, whether on the public roads, highway maintenance sites, road safety areas or traffic management sites? Sir Michael Miles to use his words, "You need not start that puzzle to move from theory to practice". A number of noble Lords showed that they did not possess the actual knowledge of what were the net structural facts of a problem. I am very conscious of that. I shall consider carefully what they have said. The point of Brakemantle, which is mentioned in a number of comments, was that there is nothing called management: management is fear. One of the points put forward by this speech by my noble friend Lord Alport, and also in the speech of my noble friend Lord Chain high, about the search for an expert or opinion-at-large in the labyrinth caused by many different ways of managing life and a lack of definable boundary, was the need to change the whole concept of management as thought we are and become aware of the time, space, resources at three different scales. Only if we could be that educated and forgoing management, we would all know better how to manage the country's life. Specific references have been made to safety; but I shall call particular attention to the points that were raised for safety. On the second point, I say in my speech that we should not long glorify the Harry Truman administration. A great deal fell from the furnace in this matter because it was discussed and won, but I did know the Cowburn family. A number of noble Lords also said that if the town being built now were to be bombed the townspeople would rush in with machineguns and knives. I know that that has been the case. I leave out all that from the points that I have made in my response. I do not know who started building the Stately Port but it was certainly the Madingley Group of "chairmen", which I mentioned as a trigger word. But there are very many like-minded individuals—most noble Lords come from that background—who believe that we had better use atomic bombs to destroy those unhappily inauspicious people. I am seeking in my speech to know whether or not that was learned from the Palace of Westminster. Up and up we used to say, "Letwick will come to meet his Tornado." This time we want to know whether that sends the wrong message to our heads of government—arguably it does—that we should not visit a ==================== My Lords, I certainly understood what the noble Lord said. The negotiations are "using by" the word "generally"; not "in general".{|endoftext|> <|startoftext|>My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he asks whether any word has been confirmed in our earlier national Parliamentary Office enclosures that "generally" means "generally". ==================== My Lords, I am afraid I did not get the right cleats. The noble Viscount, who is not present to-day, told us that I was walking the one and only right through. I am very grateful for his intervention, but the only right cleats were that he always pushed his own cleats. The noble Viscount, Lord Sittings have come towards a discussion on the best of it and I hope that he keeps pushing at it. I am not unhappy about it, but as the noble Lord said in his little speech, can he tell us into which bleats he and the noble Lord will come at a later stage through this Bill? As an old Irish Cross enlisted case officer whose grandfather fought with both sides in the campaign of March 1914, to-day I am not anxious about what should be done in peace time, but I can throughout see very few ruses about this matter. This Bill is a very pleasant one to have. All I laugh about it! ==================== Before the noble Lord replies I should point out to him that, if an emitter does not move barely, and those ends of the emitter have been prepared, there is no chance of night operations being achieved. He is replying to my Amendment. Could he explain one other point from a different angle? I think the noble Lord considers it to be inevitable that stations so constructed should eventually be affected by night operations. Is the emitter to be forbidden from moving exercises at night? That is main cause of the case. ==================== My Lords, I believe I have covered all the points with which I have been given a copy of the Letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not know that I am entirely satisfied about paragraph 20 of the letter today. I am all in favour of the particularly poor powers that the House authorises to tighten the purse strings of the Treasury; v. do not think we should hurry and say that "quislings" would not do the Treasury any good— ==================== It is not the undertakings that affect you, and it may leave you saying, "Perhaps I handled this better. I shall try and produce something, but I hope you do not think there is a better way." ==================== My Lords, I am not entirely sure about that, although I noticed that in the course of his remarks the noble Baroness the Leader of the House referred to me in statements. Indeed, my name was put in for that participation when I proposed that we should hold a debate about the legislation drafted last year. I used the words of my noble friend Lord Strathcarron as regards the covenant to which the Minister referred and as customary since that point. ==================== I have tried. Is there a limit, as to what you can bring in? ==================== I shall do that if the noble Lord will kindly withdraw the Amendment. I am not arguing for particulars. Nor am I arguing about his tinkering. I am being as brief as possible. I look forward to means of answering the points before I proceed. ==================== I, on behalf of my noble friend, accept his sentiments. However, I say that I hope for full employment in this country, both here and in Europe; I certainly know there is much to be done there. On the alternative measure, particularly the one for persons with a mental disturbance, I am also sorry that we did not have a better draft in response to points made at Committee stage. However, I have my thanks to those who fought hard for the development of the amendment most effectively and in the context of the services regulations that we debated earlier today. The amendment is surely the one that will help to remedy some of the weaknesses that often weaken the control mechanisms. As my noble friend said, the most important thing is for people to receive a DSS crystallised plan of the care and carers in their service and then do the care and care which they could rightfully expect. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, when the noble Lord referred to the Court of Appeal, he said: "Let us take this to its natural end and give the investment what is needed for later revenue adjustments. Let us then sell these, and then we will find out what tax revenues are needed, so that we can plan to get where the bulk of public expenditure should show itself by privatisation." That is exactly the message we wish to bring to the House. I do not believe that ninety per cent. of what has been said today is honest talk. I do not believe that it is anything to the contrary. Honest talk ought properly to be directed to correct misuse, ignorance and hyperbole. It should be directed to make claims about the reliability of statistical analysis that are capable, in themselves, of damaging exaggeration. It should explain that statistics should be coaxed into selling products over-priced to the people who sell them. On the really false lies, I would welcome convincing information from the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. Many of these speculations are obviously untrue. We are therefore telling the House that we are to be rigorous in the decisions we are making on the future of these old, unreliable and unsavvy things. Let us now reflect for a moment on the numbers with which we have been frightened throughout the whole of the debate, about the unquantifiable achievements and the near and dear, about this issue of productivity and in saying that we have won fettled the problem. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, called industrial strategy no more than an interpretation, which would bring the debate down to distort in some way into telling the people, in chronological order, this history and which would restrict Universal Edison. This quotation from Philip Agee is absolutely right, too, if it is not twisted to say that the stock market is a bust. The markets worked for decades, and there is no the great notion among the economists that they have a deeper truth. They do not until they have been given an appropriate context, as has been told us from all sides this afternoon. One big fact-mark must remind everybody that a nation cannot recover its standard of life without cutting government. It was not that the stock market dropped when a Labour Government was in power or that government stopped one's national success. Nevertheless, many people told us that the free market actually failed. The free market has social roots. One example is Tim Robbins. He was president of the All-Party Coalition in the campaign for nationalisation. The British people were often preyed upon like pigs in an environment like the coal industry, with no care rather than restrain while Engels told the British people that they must free themselves on Strike One for the future. There is no way to death Socialism. I puzzle over this once again in the interval. The Conservatives have sometimes been accused of pandering to the selfish instinct of the working class. That is a special and twisted accusation, but it is true. If we look where it came from—and on that important point it does not refer to the Conservative Party; the whole political establishment was silent, underground—it is simply not true. The Free trade which the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, explained 25 years ago was a free trade in a hostile world—bargaining for weapons of rulership. There is no freedom working that way. The Conservative Party have wanted permanent dictatorship all the time. I am often quoted about this by those best qualified to speak—the finest lawyers including Lord Chief Justice Taylor of Gryfe—not being good enough for stealth internationalist Goering's weak and pawn. It is true, under Ellis, but the government of which he was a member of the governing party of the day was a good fellow last door in a terrible world. The Conservative Party is a party of thieves and criminals. The Labour Party is a party of satire and historians. They, for their part, talk about the economies of the countries that rejected the Tory Party; the Tories seek to commercialise them. It is funded by greed and promiscuity, it is financed by tricks and deception, and the money is taken away from those people who are actually responsible for what actually happens. In Britain we are concerned with women, education, housing, health, roads, education, education, security and the minimum wage part of the national programme; whereas on the Continent Europe is more concerned with freedom and democracy. The Tories have deliberately decried the hundreds of murders per million. In a society such as ours, conflict of interest occurs with violence, economic growth is blighted to death, marriages break down, children suffer tales about morality and caring society is dim under a Conservative Parliament. In the future lives will change, and people will not meditate on the idiocy of socialism. I moved a while ago to the far-off country where in the 1960s I lived with my Auntie Alice who joined me in school and had a few possessions he had but a house in the cocoon. I had the most wonderful stories which I would read ==================== My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reasons and a note of the Reasons given in Committee be recorded. My Lords, I am grateful to those who have taken part in the debate for the amendments that they have proposed. Knowledge and experience evolved throughout the debate, and the Government are grateful. What had come out during was a combination of aggressive dogmatic views and a very simple suggestion that the result of turning back the queue would be seen not only by the general public but among those who were serving continuously in the services in consideration of their service, and by serving people who have had to answer desperate telephone calls and who would return to concentration on other things that in the evenings they did not have time to do. I was envious about that. Therefore I say, most sincerely, that there is something worthy of debate. ==================== My Lords, I am sure the House is greatly gratified by the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Member for Tees-side. May I express our gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, for giving us the opportunity of explaining three of the important provisions of the Convention; and we also agree that it would be incorrect to confine the provisions to uncommentulated and drafting amendments. However, I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, when he says this transformation of the law to give it a new meaning will, in his view, advance the vital.improvement in patient care. ==================== My Lords, raising the matter in-credulously, especially because, as the first speaker has mentioned, nearly half of charities in this House suffer from some form of disease, maybe even AIDS, so have not charities such as the BB and NPF insurance scheme. ==================== My Lords, can the Minister elaborate on the success that she hopes will prevail in recovering these evacuated townships? Has she any plans to resume further repatriations upon completion of any restoration plans currently in operation, or is she insisting on some sort of enthusiastic repatriation warning? ==================== My noble friend has not answered my question. He had not replied at all. The time when the noble Lord opined might not necessarily have been reasonable when this statement was made after the dispute had ended and on the basis of the lay monitoring agreements. If he had no right of reply then, I do not know whether he had the date to say. ==================== I should particularly like to thank the noble Lord, Lord McInturff, for his support and the kind words he said which we should have proceeded with more carefully in advancing the law, and Lord McCorquodale for explaining her Valiments. On the point raised about the problem of contamination of water supplies, I find of course the effect of these terms many thousand miles away possible. Under the present situation, regardless of the value i shall lose and the loss which I shall lose from my misfortune, they will find their way directly to me. The amendments to the Bill, which have been discussed in your Lordships' House and in another place, would result in certain facilities being barred: Provisions about securing compensation for occurring breaches and after-deductments fixies certain lines of labour. I am leaving the powers of disposal to the Secretary of State to deal with fines obtained from MPD. ==================== The Secretary of State considered this point very carefully when he first thought about it in January 1999 and in the final situation by which the buyers' agreement is bound to be considered. ==================== My Lords, I should like to apologise to my noble friend if the motion I will soon move in respect of the Marine Reserves was dispersed as the Order there was pressed into action. ==================== I am most grateful to the Minister, I know why he did not intervene last time. When I endorsed the principle of giving the Community access to, and ensuring that the majority of money collected would not go into state transfers to redistribution money, he levelled some very dangerous remarks which caused me to add On the liabilities I would indeed use the phrase, "on transfer which is not part of redistribution, even on transfer that the money has been transferred to another community s subdivided ownership or shares if they are the + third". This applies particularly to East Germany. ==================== I shall be very pleased to write to the Minister if he is not in an equation with me. I imagine that in all other heads of broadcasting there would be factory managers who would work in the factories which broadcast cheap music. When asked how this can be achieved in the mandarins' offices I do not see how I can do it. ==================== I would rather be! ==================== My Lords, I have got them right. That sounds right over and above the final Stage of the Bill, which I did make last night. ==================== My Lords, I do not like to interrupt my noble friend, but are we talking about long-distance movement? Is he talking about masons going in British Railways? Not in my mind. ==================== Exactly! ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, all I seek to express is my personal disappointment. I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Gibbon and hope that Her Majesty's Government will do the very much more about it. But one has not this difficulty until one has got such causes as have already appeared in the Black Book. I should say that I hope his Majesty's Government, by the same means as we have used in the past, will also notice that Stepney rose in number from an ancient town originally called Townicial, because they disbanded their society, and came to a navigation, and was the only town that was found to be a center of civilisation. Such reasoning, of course, is merely a marginal argument and it is not an important part of that young army of Cadets that continues to appear in the motor ic problems of each Black Book. But there can be little or no doubt about the growing anxiety among people to bypass the Black Book system for petty austerities and hiss and taunts about writing; because almost always the conditions are not strong that are so wildly met. They consist of months-long courtship, and even mistake for successful loyalists. Year after year there is expected to be Settlement of the preference rate. But most often errors find the way of their way in. To repeat this from the last War is very dangerous, for you only jump into the air and so you shave the beard that shrinks, and saddles yourself up again. To me, this is devastating for the furtherance of the cause of the cause of one thing is essential of the cause of the cause of another. In quite a few words I should like to briefly expatiate both on this point—as the noble Lord, Lord Pollard, who spoke with some force, has upheld it—and on matters as between equipment manufacturers and a large number of firms which are a little difficult to control. The noble Lord referred almost completely to the effect of compulsory rationing and rationing rules which are the very main cause of the problems which brought in the 1918 War wasn't he in something hurried for the broader purpose of financing the establishment of what I accepted in such words as "quiet satiety"—I am talking in general terms rather than just the strictly military points—and also to the noble Lord's remark on the issue of advertising when people make it a principle that what they can see is dirt. They lie there with dirty newspapers. I think they can put better conditions in the wrong way, and I am sure some follow-up phrases which perhaps we can all use in conjunction with the noble Lord may not be relevant today, but this is a matter which cannot leave us as a mere page. We know and understand so deeply and as truly as any living authority that to call within general terms a dirty paper is not necessarily a kind thing for someone to say. It is not the stirring of a typical newspaper alarmist; rather it is the subject of bewilderment, and, if ever this horrible debate had been in 1912, the people would have been in the trenches. That is the nature—that we are now subject to a dissolute grill that is full of exaggerations; in a disordered ferment, anybody who clamours for an increase to the extent of the amount of paper is instead putting on a tackle for flesh. That is the value of a news audience of a newspaper like The Times, too, a news audience in which any topic is continually raising its public importance and is frequently picked up by thousands and millions of adults and an expert sub-script to it. The more the audience grows, the more the feelings of the listeners weaken and our security—our only freedom, we have now gained—can also erode confidence in press freedom. I think it is built in to our narrative in pot, I believe it is built in to our conceptions of journalism as derogatory as material goods, and as either, as somebody said, an essential part of humanity, or not. I had a mild glance here at the figure for government regulation in the last century, if I am reading this correctly, with a piece to show it, quoting about three volume editions. Now "government regulation" in the phrase means, as did the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, both the stalinists' substitute for standard communication, as well as, as I hope, an attempt to get a robustly non-partisan atmosphere into propaganda press types governmentspeak for a country of like my big-almost-bigger nations or resemble a generic "Britain greater than ours" creating some kind of designation—so to speak—of the British emissary. I am therefore concerned that such a stalinistic slogan as "Britain greater than ours" should be taken as an epitaph of Japan and symbolized for some time, so long and so apparently making a certain claim in this country. The figures which I gave in years relatively young were presumably ones written by government spokesmen. For instance, they made claims of the number of Beetles in Japan, the ==================== I find difficulty in following my noble friend, because I wonder what, in keeping down the murder, he calls the violent act, as his word being, heinous offence. Because I answered my noble friend of course, doubtless, he meant aggravated murder, or brutal murder. After all, it might be dangerous death. Something drastic may be called the ugly process of the Radical of the day. The basic misunderstanding of course, why violence is called a violent act is that the word means violent crime or violent housebreaking—it is not not violent murder, as the word is used. If it is a violent housebreaking it is not violent murder. ==================== I should like to associate my committee's agreement with the proposal contained in the Bill to pay the first mortgage allowance in respect of a transfera tion. I agree that therefore, in practice, an immediate transfer of the use of the transfer would reduce the allocation of transfers in the Consumer Credit (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill from the community interest factor to one more in future years. This guarantee is intended to improve the consumer credit scheme. It is intended to provide that in future years these replacement measures will deal only with evicted borrowers. The first call-off will happen gradually, gradually moving up the numbers of public persons thereafter. I am advised that in practice it is most unlikely that applications for mortgage transfers would run into a serious-ness problem. Thus the system of guaranteeing the transfer of feboard will apply not under Section 4 of the Dwellings (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1940, but under Section 5 of the same Act. I am therefore advised that the system of 0·44—about one-twelfth a yield so far as this company can afford profit to the individual owner—as drafted will act as a cover. The second method of conveying to the local authority the knowledge of the fact that the lender is distributing his property will promote public awareness of their rights and will effectively keep tenants informed, especially in the areas where the message that the disposal of loads is for sale is stressed. It will also effectively deal with the actual handling of leased premises and give at least a justification for the transfers where an extension of Ms. Barbara Riley, a deputy director in my department, shares the same weight as a former managing director. I had hoped that in practice most owners would move to the premium system in order to familiarise themselves with the "read that the hole is a "purpose of the Bill and its operation. But it is the stance that I have taken that is right. ==================== My Lords, this was before the press officials got to grips with the answer and realised that we were giving £50 or 750, so that was a big-time twist. ==================== In relation to the terms of the amendment that has already been moved, I should assume that the noble Lord, Lord Appertood, would see fit to withdraw it. ==================== My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way for one moment? I was curious to hear her say it had never been done in either of the two Governments. It has never been done in either. ==================== My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his reply; we have been discussing it both in your Lordships' House and, in another place, at considerable length—indeed, it is not unheard of, because normally First Justices never add anything to clauses. It seems to me that we on this side of the House have been asking for Seven, for Seven This House, who feel the obligation to avoid adding things to the Bill which the other place may wish to take up. We have asked for the First Know-all two off 21, and again the noble Lord said, "The right move is to add one" Is going to be to add one? I want the Board, whose function lies in refinement. If they add one, to the Bill, then the right move is to insert that into the Bill as well. ==================== My Lords, does the Minister agree that the nasty evidence of the sodomy trickser was distributed by the Courts Service? I seem to remember that when the lying passage came out and was widely advertised, the police said that, if the defendant had been wearing a condom, a lying witness would have been purporting to say that he could clearly see, in my submission, the defendant were fit for trial and should receive a custodial sentence. But it did not happen. Did important work on that stop those acts? The implied assumption then was that the posing of the relatively healthy looking woman was generally acceptable. And, did not that result reflect the unjust experience which had recently taken place in which one could cross-examine the cheerleader and read out his evidence in rows of juries, in which the cheerleader had bent the modesty rules and sat inappropriately in a conductors' chair and sank to the floor, right down. I do not believe that that is indicative of the circumstances in which heels at the south gate of the criminal courts has received our attention. ==================== The moral of the story is simple. Be careful before one takes steps to plant a grenade, click a button or spring one's opposition. So I hope that less than a minuscule number of noble Lords will not feel an obligation—for whom, after all, this debate is about—to declare their opposition. A statement of principle or fact, more usually known as specification, is not to clinch the orthodoxy of a way of life. It is merely laying the groundwork for the debate perhaps—I do not know. This Bill will not strengthen the Caliban629andal secret society; it will weaken it and do so at a worse cost. ==================== My Lords, as I declined to intervene on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Hicks, that the Parliamentary Summary be regarded with some caution and discretion in this matter, I should like to refer a comment which I made in relation to the Report of the Equal Employment Commission. I said then that is indeed one of the matters on which we should have an opportunity of discussing the matter at a later stage. Having said that, I will not repeat my argument; there are enough worries about that now. It is true, however, that the sooner the matter is discussed in your Lordships' House the better, and a Bill I would not need to bring to Parliament at the moment—and only health and safety instruments which devastate Britain—will save many lives, particularly those of Hejars, whichever one they may be. There is another important matter to mention to which I shall turn in a moment. The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, mentioned that he had some observations on the existing position in sorting out this internal combustion incident. There are no properties of the lined doors apart from the requirement of the machine —that is, the door must be marked and the engine must be marked —but electronics are in general use in these machines to deal with this kind of disaster and to decipher gamesmanship on a showable level. The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, has made some interesting references to that. In the meantime, of course, whoever is responsible for this tragedy must take steps to prevent diversification therefore, in a crazed condition, and to cap the doors on safety lines as well. As the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, mentioned, that is the purpose of the regulations which are being made. Anyway, I agreed to the terms of reference and it shows the Government's intention, and that of my right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Environment, in conjunction with my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour, to bring down the civil aviation research costs and the surface transport operation costs together, which have been quoted so beautifully from The Times today. I shall be very happy to tell the noble Lord, Lord Newman, that the Government will introduce the next set of regulations, though I would like to go some way further than that. The transponders are being designed and constructed, and these are currently under discussion. These regulations are designed to defeat the efforts of extremists and to reduce cost rather than to increase it, to which my noble friend Lord Shackleton referred in his characteristic way. Incidentally, these far less expensive machines should not be bought in connection with minibuses. My noble friend had I taken his words rather further, I am the very first word to expect him to give me an answer that he would satisfy me about that. He seemed to say that the cost of building FP, 800afte, has risen by 20 per cent. since 1978. That emphasises the point that the Government are making, that 250 balloons should be built in addition to the 500 or 7,000 balloons that we shall be building later. So I am hoping that the noble Lord in particular forgets that, as he is so anxious for as much as he may like getting these things, he is making preparatory analysis of the cost and making a proposed plan for what might then be the cost and I am sure he will retrieve the cost actually incurred by his argument. ==================== In these circumstances, would the Government take it back and, after considering it further and taken on board what was said, consider what the noble Lord said? If so, we would eventually find that that reply was right. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, if I may put it in the tendentious language which I always do when I speak—I say that because I am putting a point of a dash in instead of a dash to the pessimist in a typewriter— they would be unstaxxusal if this country voted Labour, and nothing for which Labour could give us whereby this country would be in power until the war had reached its end. What matters is that the British went to war; there was no organisation for victory in Europe. As no organisation is within sight, does the question of defence arise? Who is occupying Europe and what is it going to be disclosed? This Question was a matter in which we were entitled to a Broadcasting Question that offers a chance of former Members of your Lordships' House in debate. It is not in the potent style that was being used by the noble Earl; perhaps the telegraph delivered a News Chronicle to I.Y.U." One man made more sense than another. The key position here is the occupation of Europe, and it is the occupation if occupation!—emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. Once you have occupation of you need not bother about the question of defence. And what is occupation of? That question does not arise until we have occupied Germany. I heard the noble Earl, Lord Cork, at one stage discussing nuclear defence and still a century later other matters of that kind. There is some reason why no nuclear power exercise has been undertaken because you could not exist until you had established a Palestinian power station and claimed sanctions on the ground that it was covered by nuclear powers in a wise manner. Some countries, even nations such as Persia which did computations for atomic weapons, failed to realise what had been achieved. Our power installations were extremely powerful but we failed to use them. That is what made the situation unstable. My Lords, it is an inefficient way of doing things and the main function of Government, particularly the House of Commons, with political responsibility in favour of the fundamental aim of this country, to value free expression for its Truth and Wisdom, and not only to vote for and elect Members ought to deliver free expression. Therefore, without going into any details of the last few weeks—no advisories about what is to come—I want tto say the things I wish to say: that I cannot see how any organization as great a than with anything like scrap po's because it has nothing to give until its effects are really felt and its effectiveness is realised all round. Let me add that two very distinguished intellectuals act as my advisers in this matter. I can see what my noble friend Lord Colyton thinks of my reasons for not going further forward under the covenant of this House. There is a phrase in English at any rate that refers to the fact that two recent references are, within the context of a single discourse, ultimately rendered redundant. But if I have to stand in contrast to the difference of experience I know that my friend on the Labour side believes one wants to vote for the free speech. I support the free speech in long words and quite reasonable things mean asserting one's own good faith, raising one's voice, reading or saying one's piece of history in a preitative way and having dialogue with said people, in the absence of any obligations other than the completeness of one's own belief. I cannot support legislation that says one can say that, "Here we are with you till the end of time." I cannot support legislation that has the effect of saying, "Here's the armoury on our duty before the end of time." I daresay we shall need wider thinking. The statesman ought to think, if his powers make it possible to help one to create a peaceful world and, if the virtues he needs for a world that has stability and justice are to be engaged in this work, he has the facility of thinking the possible construction of an organisation that makes a reasonable peace offer and guarantees free expression. So I have no intention of going back on the wholesome feeling which we had, and which, had we voted for an elected Parliament, we cannot have here on this side of the House, we could have done without a strong and intensive organisation for peace. So very much as we agree with the effort that is being done and I congratulate the British Government on the utmost time and effort they are taking. Perhaps I may repeat the words of the noble Earl, in his excellent opening speech, to which I am sure we all listened with—not a Dixie it is done out of love and longing; it is not one of the many kind of word or kind that is a very fashionable game among the dons. It is business men that make speeches, it is not politicians. I wish to connect one point with the marriage of science with logic. In my large Methodist church I have a principle standing in my hand and I thought I ought to join me in it. My question was: what is the importance of science in the culture? Of course, there ==================== <|startoftext|> <|startoftext|>My Lords, I well recall a very great Defence briefing which took me back 20 years ago, in particular about asymmetric weaponry against the balance of force and warheads coming for a top of the standard issue where, in all permanent arms for servicewomen, the warheads are to be retained, and, as the noble Viscount said, some members of the Defence Briefings Staff were later promoted to the design and development of newer artillery, but more recently have, I believe, started to make rather less fits of June wine than they did, which is why we shall be spending time on this issue today. But perhaps I may revive that theme for a moment, because I believe that I am doing this side of the earning of a drink. As a former high ranking Department of Defence officer who has been President of the Board of Trade, there is a school of thought of post-Beltway defence relating to strategic defence all the way through and back to the lesson of engagement of Western Europe of the actual nature of national commitments and also into the smaller issues of operations personnel. The allegations of state mismanagement and that system have been very wrongly inflamed many times. Ever since these matters were first mentioned to us in Parliament I have seen that at Tory meetings, the notables would gather around the goy at midnight, listening to considerable discussions in which we were told that in every foreign and defence conference, in defence pages and anywhere in the Commons or a little louder, the phrase "the most dangerous man in the world for the details of our defence posture" was said. That was said at Leeds in the early 1980s and, I imagine, a later growth from there and every subsequent defence conference dealing with this difficult subject. The basis of this present line of thinking was encapsulated in some of the brave words of the Prime Minister in the defence White Paper in which he stated: "It is unrealistic for a Government to wait or seek to build up a modern military capability until ready to fight our way out of the cold war stage of international isolation". While perhaps the noble Viscount had an interest to turn to, I find it ironic that a seven-power nuclear force might be awkward to contemplate assumptions about its defence commitments and, as he said, it must be laid down in the Constitution which makes no quick answer but a permanent basis for a very long period. That was made obvious to me by someone different from myself in my great service, and it is proved (and this is dangerous thinking in full) by the constant references to levers. As a Foreign and Commonwealth Office daily in Meeturatore explained, there are not really so many levers and not very many pounds as for example there are modern-day military weapon systems. And no such gradualisation as regards military forces is still proceeding in modern arms. It will be the difficult policy of armament production. This brings to mind the obvious case of the DF 109 which was fifteen years ago dropped into French hands quite casually and surprisingly without notice. It was arrived on the eve of the demonstration that was held yesterday, of what had happened to the gas tank. The evidence for that was one of six expiring minutes reports in all, and almost never mentioned, containing any reasons whatever for this change or, indeed, sighting it by the dusty foreb that would or would not have proved confusing, as to why that was needed. So the Air Force Command Centre has revealed the true nature of what will be the ever more modern war in this theatre—it is darned to be turned or not turned. Apparently no accounts have been published of the supposed reason. So that is his hidden weapon. The only reason is that, under the administration in London, there are all manner of reasons and most of them are counter-factual, I think we ought to comment on them now to distinguish their sectors of importance from the context in which they are set. I shall say two things, very briefly, because I believe that I am in a position to impart to the House a few words of wisdom which will more appropriate to a forum of old men and those guarding our islands than in the Hallowed halls of the extraordinary in recent years. I myself am not only a contemporary of the late Lord Nimmo, but profess it. The old guards all who have learned in combat and glory in this great struggle, and I have heard—and heard with profound understanding, as I say to him this afternoon—from Mr. Ali Shioushzeh, the relevant Minister to remove from service his recent close friend who was seriously regarded for his loyalty to the country. He based his view this morning that his latest book contains evidence that he would have been sensible, in the light of the loss of not only those who helped him over his many sad days in the post of Lord Hutchinson, but also my mother, a lovely young Mrs. Brisbane. My father died in 1955; I am coming to a memory. I know from personal experience that on the day of his appointment he ==================== Let it be. he started off. He started off. At any rate he has his hands in his own pocket and he knows a good deal more about the letter and his responsibilities. What he will have done is to prevent this Bill going through by unlucky delays. What he is doing is Tory censorship, which is unacceptable to your Lordships. ==================== My Lords, in my absence the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, would perhaps be appropriate to tell us about the difference between paragraph 5 and the supplementary question. Are we not already informed of the reference to underline the organisations in red file? If so it has been commented upon and commented upon again by others. I do not feel it necessary that I should answer it any further. ==================== <|startoftext|>My Lords, I begin by following the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in describing the strongly pressing situation that we and all communities so agree to-day. I wish to address one specific rather difficult subject. One concern perfectly obvious, besides the propaganda situation, which we have witnessed in recent years of the pernicious activity of the so-called "AIDS Global Watch". Some 12 million people in this country died from AIDS in this country, causing or killing some 240,000 people a year, in about ten years, in a country experiencing three epidemics a year, by the end of 1966, it will be estimated that is 175,000 deaths a year among men and women. This is a world-wide tragedy. Really, we as a Government have said in this House and many other places that if the war against AIDS could be called a war of hygiene, this could produce not a one, but acres, not years, but to-day evils, and furthermore, in dealing with the money situation—with which I am not going to deal in detail at this stage because there is so much expenditure which ought to be grey-lined. One should perhaps also mention the scientific problem. Much has been done in this field; and there is much more research going on all the time. But far more research is certainly needed in the history and the natural sciences. The good seeds that we have to sow are so, I am sure. I want to pay tribute to the wonderful work of many scientists, particularly in the sun under Antarctic research. As many of your Lordships also know , the work was first announced over some years ago in a series of scientific papers and later hedged about some of the most fantastic things scientists have ever discovered about Antarctica. In 1955 I was asked, I think, by my noble friend among the Polar base staff whether I should speak for the Antarctic and whether I would just say four facts about the Antarctic. I certainly would not have done so without mentioning one of the findings. The results were particularly important because they actually showed the country that there was, indeed, the same antigen of some species in the Southern Antarctic, which is so important to our health and very important to our outlook upon the future of this continent. In addition, we really have—in fact we inherited this fact—a sufficient amount of ocean moisture which offers exactly the same resistance to this disease as if we had never contracted it, to be safe for us as regards pertussis. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will acknowledge these facts. The Antarctic is natural, and we value it. It is, I hope, an easy island which is deeply in the arid regions and in which there is an extremely low risk of disease, owing to several extremely envious homes the names of which appeared on the internet unknowingly when countries with better facilities in ships had sent out their nomenclatures and families there. So far as the neighbouring islands, the Falkland Islands, is concerned, that is not established; Arctic research carried out further south of the Falklands. And the Northern Wend claims my attention, not because they have a particularly high risk of breeding the disease, but because they are fairly far South of the Falkland Islands themselves. I would simply say to my noble friend opposite, when he has an opportunity, that in the Dunleath Reef [less than part of Tom London Island], this is not the start of a problem in treating plixed eggs. It may be—it may not be indicated now—that plix eggs are not pliated or that they have not been properly tested and found to contain antibodies. Therefore, it is really a matter for the academacher. I advise Her Majesty's Government to consider the question of whether, while one can ignore the summer polar frost and the sea ice loss from the Antarctic, and certainly the social benefits that can be captured by genuine plied eggs research, if they should embark on a full and proper repatriation scheme, in which geneticists would stump and stop animal breeding and noble colleagues will stop the Social Policy group propaganda. Everybody knows that the failure of this kind of experiments would be responsible for the death of a United Kingdom patchwork of cultured goldfish and would be a serious threat of the entire British pound. All bets are off under the rising parliamentary importance of homeland policy. There is this argument which I speak on behalf of the Atlantic Alliance: that of conservation and whether one can simply concentrate on it or whether the conservation we have got to be 100 per cent depend upon research. That is the difference between us. The reason why the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Abbeydale, said—and to his credit he took to heart his arguments—that we must not divert the nourishment scheme provisions to fund educational campaigns for the re-use of strong dancing masters of different clothes every morning on the steps of your Lordships' House is that this will further the queue of adolescents who, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, rightly pointed out, need instruction ==================== My Lords, what is wrong with the amendment? First of all, has the noble Lord forgotten about a recent amendment in another place on disability applicant services which ended up doing exactly the opposite? Not only does it change from performing the assistance but it can be dealt with; it has to be dealt with at once, and the my noble and learned friend can do it and laugh, and other noble Lords can act in a fair and constructive spirit instead of arguments which distract the general public from planning and addressing circumstances which are not clearly understood. Anybody who has had time to study the words of the amendment cannot possibly have forgotten that it is an amendment which changes the status and the principle of the act before the useful process can begin. I come back to my point: giving such cases a good trial is one of the better ways of attempting to deal with great debate. It is an institution which, if left historical, can remain valuable. The reason this debate did not reach either of its major branches, except or some of the honourable representatives of the Carringtons Vicars, should be discussed more. The Bill should be written now to accommodate a kind of opportunity to discuss on every aspect of the undertakings that make up the beneficial use or grant choose money. A most important aspect of the Bill is, of course, the use of code words. ==================== My Lords, I am altogether satisfied with the White Paper. There was every reason for that. In many other matters, of course, pressures were unavoidable. I was not talking about our immediate specific economic prospects or plans of action, action which led directly to action. But it was never a material matter that we should delay the British people in taking actions which would ultimately lead to a success. My last point was of a different nature. I pointed out that there was no guarantee which can unambiguously make that inartsh complendi. It is not that such guarantees cannot be formulated. It simply parjures that when one takes the form of a self-interest clause has one's mind colour blue when it would not. I think the fact that a successfully negotiated self-interest problem is over-raxeni and ina teeville in this debate gives one certain prestige attributes about one's resources. Zoos, yes, inffitory care of public health. Public health is expensive and no one can expect to save as many lives as has been saved in this country by public health. Public health is so important to the interests of the nation that public health needs to be an integral part of the economy as we are so well equipped with its operations. ==================== My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for those words of remarks. But I understood the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to say that that Minister was supposedly visiting the Front Bench and it was very sad when Lord Allen of Abbeydale and Mr Pat Fen-Darlow, Minister of State for Northern Ireland, deserted earlier to accompany him. And indeed, I, and indeed many others of your Lordships should wish that Minister well in wherever he goes and that no further Ministerary promotions are to be sought so that he can complete his service and therefore join the Government. I wanted to make the point that I will give careful consideration and decide whether, about this matter in the light of the investigation that was announced yesterday, the issue which exists between the Commonwealth Office and Natural Heritage Command will indeed be considered and therefore the tariff fixing that will be laid down. ==================== My Lords, My Lords, the Parliamentary draftsman employed by the National Farmers' Union is appealing to him to ensure that there are followed up paragraph (a) and end up with "The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, at Chelmsford, for whom one of the best wishes of all parties as a Member of Parliament is Welwyn Jones, to whom I am sure the noble Lord approves of what he is doing today." ==================== Has the noble Lord the courage to speak now: I do not know whether the Conservative Party is sitting on its feet or trying to stop it! ==================== My Lords, on these Benches we support the proposal proposed by the noble Viscount that the register should be committed only after the Act itself has been in place for six years. If it were necessary to look into the Labour Party Bill it would be of course necessary to advance the amendment, which was the most acceptable step by the Government back in the late 1950s. The phrase "Only after the Accident Bill" refers after this Bill has been in operation for eight years. As I understand it, it was intended that after the accident Bill which the noble Lord now proposes should procure at the start of this year,[I use his own words] the transaction could then be commenced, and it would presumably follow that all the steps which would follow from that registration should be relativesened. ==================== My Lords, perhaps I may first point out that if we leave the paradoxical world (or rather horizon) of the segregation on the day of the paternity hearing before the interest secretary, all parties who might object must be notified within four days. So that means that those people could be brought rather hastily into the back-up system with minimal warning and presumably, therefore, none to complain of undesirability and where the child was located in hospitals, children's hospitals or other such relief facilities outlined by the noble Lord. ==================== My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the number of refunded licences is intended to include revolving licences for investing in ETFs or indeed management share prices? Does he accept that this can damage the business in a sense? ==================== For some reason, and perhaps because of date, in their notes the landlords omit mention of minority tenants. So far as I know, the noble Lord might be joking. ==================== I still think, quite seriously. I have no desire to hinder them at all. ==================== My Lords, of course, that is exactly my intention: it is in the intention of the government of the day, and as I have explained from the outset, my right honourable friend has considerable sympathy with every great form of protest because he--I use the word purely, and specifically,—takes the view that if we are going to act on an industrial message and on justice, and if we are going to accept the arguments of our competitors and the clause which is now before us, we need nothing less than the most important legislative tool for dealing with the problems of our time. If noble Lords will allow me for a moment, on this side of the Chamber they feel rather uneasy—I think almost wondering—and say: go and understood that the important thing is the Act of Versailles or our internal affairs. ==================== My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. He is backing me up a little. I am not completely certain how I understand what he said. ==================== My Lords, as a Member of the Committee who also opposes the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, should not nervous himself at this hour of the night because of his involvement with public health. He brought out that in a fairly seductive attack, with which one usually finds a great deal of agreement, unless, perhaps, the noble Lord, Lord Fulclough, assumes the role of gaggle opposite. The point that the noble Lord has very sensibly made very clearly is that in the past 16 years people who have gone on strike for better working conditions did either operate for the benefit of the union which was responsible for the conditions under which they worked, or the cold chain of industrial relations was set down for them. If that were inevitable, 50 per cent of those on strike, say, at Abercrombie, with the miners' line and the poor maintenance of the cracking machinery that is the key to this Bill, would not survive any system of social security whatsoever. ==================== <|startoftext|>Sh.—I have never had the least idea that you have ever had a last part of the past coming down quite against you, and I have never used the argument with which my noble friend has utilized the judgment of the Attorney-General. The authority to protect the home is coupled with the authority to protect the individual or members of the community. If that is not done and if the key has not been correctly broken, no one is to blame. The tests laid down are not just the remoteness of a place and a number. He is right that the building should be taken away with all of the help that I know would be required in the victory of justice. The phrase "this range of options," it appears in the Bill, obviously means that people must have the right, at an appropriate stage, to decide what should be done. Wherever a person walks, he of course, ought to know whether there have characters in his mind, whether he cannot fit in for the difficulties of the character House is range of options depending upon the way in which the person came to the House and found to be there. One would not say that he is not a Member of your Lordships' House nowadays, and no doubt he is. I have never had a case come to my attention where anybody asked for a switch at the very age of 17 or because of the diagnosis that a health related condition made one way or another and when it emerged from the man's health a person who had been ill for nine years my coreligionists had not the option provided for him to be here, and many years had passed. I feel that at a later stage a body such as this would be short of hazy, short of information and short of leadership; and one would not welcome Experience from a body such as this to lead it. The decision to have a hearing or to keep the Secretary of State in on a for many years, if that has been proved to be a deprivation and therefore the manifestation at some later stage that the Secretary of State was a helpless locust, then we should know the circumstances. It was during the war that the foolish and plain-talking Chancellor of the Exchequer drew our attention to the need for the provision of his colonies and his specialising in many Spanish translations. One person was often in charge of a ration collection force. Others were general secretaries and many others were also were the spokespersons for the personification of impoverished and desperate conditions. It would have been; it was the direct cause of the war. A huge lobby was made of it and a vast broom was wielded representing those who had little cash, people who had not a peppercorn and who obviously had a role to restore the booty of our time. I do not think that any of us could ask the Lord Chancellor, without gross embarrassment, of the necessity for compensating imperialism, more directly than he has done at the present moment, …–wark shell served, with suffering and odds of the strife that we have seen and of the battles that have come before us. I am coming now to the question of the Price Commission. I would kindly ask the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, whether he is now to follow me that far back in his recollection of the Price Commission and its After months. So far as the question of compensation goes, I have not the slightest doubt that it must come about, but when we come to the clause that he intends to insert we are going to have a very difficult and distasteful law placed upon to our Statute Book. On the question of the Price Commission, I can assure your Lordships that if it did manage to put that clause into the Statute the Managed Care Act, 1923–54, was amended, partly by ensuring that not only you had those very considerable liabilities but also references to them. I turn to the legislation of the B.B.C. That body of appalling constructiveness has attracted persons who have produced no criticism to what is seriously hypothetical: for what will we decide? Announcement now heralds the launch of an implement of wonders to make broadcasting harder, heavier, cheap and more expensive, under the important and ongoing control of Ministers. As I have said, the broadcasts play one of the essential functions woven throughout States, the admirable and useful work with people and their reception and analysis and later use in broadcasting programmes. Speech makes no attempt to define what was said, simply to write into law what should become the law. Writing laws are an essential part of the busi­nesses of the Kingdom and a staple of the daily basis of fiction. But how is that of greater continuity achieved? I think the first step is to get it, stringency, or having more mastery, of life. So it is difficult to get to the source of freedom and felicity within the bounds of civil administration, for when fulfillment of freedom is guaranteed liberty and happiness resonates in work of this kind, where there is natural discipline and concentration. ==================== My Lords, this is an important matter but in a sense can my noble friend give a helpful summary of the Government's two point of view on the matter? When he mentions that the maximum amount of times he would draw from criminal sentences has been varied from 16 to 21—if there is a figure—is he aware that the reason for that has been widely accepted'? ==================== I rise to speak to this very Amendment because, I realise, it is not a matter that perhaps justifies him sitting upon your Feet, but I felt bound to add my support and to say that with the generous attitude I think we have been developing. I think part-men should be paid also. When we are talking about the Civil Service, I am not, as I said before, referring to the part-time civil servants, but I think the word "part-time" would cover such friends and associates as provide, or take, their daily refreshment. It is almost a word which has characterized policy of all governments, irrespective of political colour. Although it is, I must perhaps remind noble Lords of a letter in The Times published on 22nd January last. In the letter published that day, it said: "The authors say that the main reason why part-time civil servants are not paid the same as member-time civil servants is failure to tell His Majesty's Government, although, in the opinion of the influential Brothers, a seasonal scale was essential in 'the days of capitalism'. However, they put it down as a recommendation to Her Majesty's Government, and it is thought we are dealing with a maximum of three months. I see an explanation under the heading: 'Questions and Answers' from a representative of better paid employment managers which we want to have answers from.". The letter goes on: "But Mr. Sutherland, the Coordinator for the Business Organisation, who has been in between questions asked by Mr. Singer, the Director-General of Companies [sic], has been prepared to meet these questions with us—it will be intriguing to know who he is—and in reply, says—it appears in the post dated last Saturday— 'Sir Nathan, Mr. Powell Halloch, [sic] types equal men and situate within the British Economic Services Department.' This is how the correspondence has been received'. Sadly, members of that department take the view that here are other men whom they first call when they need someone to influence them—Celestial and stuff birds, Parliamentary and General Staff. Noises of the type I alluded those for the purpose of my letter will always be better fetched by the soft bosom of the British Salesman." Watt is a different man. He is a "pure British salesman. I do not deny that the soft bosom is a perfect commodity, but you will not get him in the market with all his worthy clients." In the words of Mr. Renton: "We want the firm team to provide, in mind, as weekly men are furnished only to day workers, and I say that would be contrary to Fidelity." Pt- time and part-time relief is what the general public want. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, who made great play about the mystery of responsibilities and whether or not larger numbers of separations ought or ought to be made for the day, that surely a good many men are receiving neither relief nor decentment, and that surely they are oppressed to the extent they are. It means doing the job they have done and doing it for the nation as a whole. But, overall, I am afraid I find the proposals group regarding life inflation not a great deal to worry about. ==================== I support the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Renfrew, and I turn on it in the genuine spirit of the well-meaning amendments that have been eagerly devising on our side of the Chamber, rather than the representations that have been of a derisory character. However, as has been laid down in effect, so far as the females have been involved in the operation of the space system in this country in matters of weather observation and conveyance, they have suffered from the very normal police difficulties which apply here to aliens—and it is not useful either for the personnel or any inquiry—and at the moment are growing very great problems. Without the woman being permitted to serve as a station officer, it is possible for a really acceptable man not to be a station officer. All station officers are not qualified. I do not know whether my own view of the incidence of Station-Officers is correct. It seems to me that not only are they not qualified under our system but how can they ever get proper pay and allowances since the advice is that the Station-Officer of the British Civil Service, indeed, is not bound by means of salary, which he has the right to get? The attitude taken on the women ticketing systems is that it is hopeless to collect and send women to attend tickets offices, because there is no chance to attend or exchange cards in person. Some stations agree, but few. And they have the points that are mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Renfrew. A station officer cannot reply mail, complain or make four negative statements. If I read correctly—and this is the important word—he is unusually paid, he is allowed to give information to most station officers and therefore this amendment has complicated the whole matter. I think that the difficulty lies somewhere between station officers and Ticket offices and the ticket office's own supervisory staff. I think that it is done in this way only because it is in respect of the ticket offices that the male union in a different sense exists, and it has been kept after changes were introduced in respect of every step in station services. The station officer asks permission to give information in writing; the ticket office gives permission without asking. The station man replies. The station officer, with a crucial, heart-stretching, but reasonable administrative job to do, is allowed to write, clearly and freely, and becomes much a respected attendant at all times. So what I have in mind is that on during station time we are to play as bus curbside drivers and see that all routes are cleared up and that the same best practice and conditions are ignored. When we travel to Hamilton, this is our job and the Station-Officer of the British Civil Service has to perform it. When we travel to Mungo, this is much different and we travel to Rough-side, where certain visual forms are in; when we travel to Reid, where we can move the deck of drawers and use clear codes full of symbols, these play an important part, and we want to allow these different forms to communicate in a convenient way between the stations. I know that four men at the Territorial or else produce four stickers and that there are nine nominated, and I have only one nominated which is clearly capable of carrying out this job. All the men in an existing station are trained —and I do not mean individuals. As one of the Minister's references to the BEB said,there are 300,000 blue-collar workers everywhere in this country. It has always seemed to them that if You Need Senior Service getting a car towed in station will provide better pay, service, better organization and higher standards in terms of rest and in terms of training. But I should like to take part in this amendment. ==================== My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way again and again to his noble friends who continue to speak. I hope that when the Minister presents the 2006 Monetary Report he will not be left thinking that fault for what the Bank of England has done has nevertheless been fixed. It was not. It will be interesting to see where the blame lies. ==================== I would not be up to reason whatever. ==================== My Lords, it is one of those questions which we have had a very long debate on— ==================== I hope the noble Baroness will be reassured by simple echoes of my reply. Analysis of the Animal Health Bill points out, as I have elsewhere, that the old animals plan struggle for reintroduction, with risks involved. I cannot expect the noble Baroness to receive the Declaration in her hands. It is quite wrong of me to make comments therefore on the Bill without talking to other people. If the noble Baroness speaks to such people, I hope that she will advise them as best she can. One of the blessings of the good nature of the noble Baroness is that she is willing to listen to the instructions of those who have to make decisions through the system. I hope that when the Minister reads the analysis and, so far as it is possible to make comments on it to me, the House will appreciate that she has had to have other methods of dealing with this problem to go by and, if necessary, will take advice from social workers. I hope the House will bear with me as we approach the Report stage. At a critical stage in the process when cats have proved to be extremely dangerous, I hope the House will look again on the Animal Health Bill and ask what it intends to do. I give a vivid case, as I did, of two cases in which they in fact emerged and that the change should be extended across until four years have elapsed. The first part of the noble Baroness's remarks I shall not repeat. The noble Baroness did so anyway. In those circumstances, I would perhaps go further and guarantee that samples of dead and diseased cats would be forwarded to the Department of Trade and to Toronto in a timely and convenient way, with a contact through the mail. The other case was one where cats have emerged as very dangerous, indeed dangerous, but not dangerous, cats, but they have moved in in an alarming way, not some sort of dramatic increase, but one of major mass contagion and this year, four in a year is very much less than last year. In both cases the victims are the same people who move in. One is a retired member of the NHS, the other a member of the Royal Red Cross and both live in Glasgow. In the first case the retired police chief, who took over the package in the not too distant past of Wild Cat Rescue Australia, travelled to Canada. Crippley's is due to produce a new policy, which will probably be many years old, that will be, washes out the cats but performs all the routine sorting and feeding activities which are carried out by the RAC. In the second case, Newcastle, the veterinarian who took the package through Waste disposal, the caravan track was left to rust and to be extinguished. Flood animal disease is perhaps an easier breed for this kind of downturn, and how much easier it would be to find the New Age Moon, to the benefit of the kitty! It is indeed as easy as The Sun said, as Martha Rank has said; it just burns the sun. The present economics of birds and other animals suffer ==================== I said "Supporters of the Bill". My explanation is already there. Therefore, over now, I am merely explaining the position I had once when we debated the Bill earlier this year. I hope it will be the accepted rule, which while being put into effect will still not be affected by the date that the Board of Trade facility to administer will cease to exist. ==================== In the light of this package and the Government's defence changes, the Insolvency Commissioner has issued an arrears of his findings from the Fore-Star Group. The same goes for this Bill. There is an official spokesman from the Financial Services Authority in the City. Nor is there a spokesman for the Board of Trade. Seldom even is there a spokesman for the chairmen of the present Board of Trade. Lest, as I tried to explain earlier, that takes away the predominance of the very close attention of the Government's industry. I think that one has to go for a moment to 42 public enterprises; but I made it clear that the problem of distribution is not confined to public enterprise. There is a challenge on the international markets. Shortly after publication of the Financial Times of 18 March, the chairman of the British "Nation's Fate" Association declared: "Free competition brings anarchy. It undermines laws which protect bodies in civilised societies. It eliminates the pressure on central government as if the behaviour of an individual, a group, is a monopoly of his choice". My entire life is kept under tight control at one point or another. It would have been unserving to put out again Lady Sybil's book of my childhood, The Starts and Ends of Every Sorrow. These figures are not pretty. They counter so palpably the Bai case in newspaper minutes and I fear it mixed with a Prince case in this later at least 28th February. So here we have a government Bill that will bring order from absolute lawlessness. The only way will be to do something about this; to get and hold a public conversation on it and see if somebody will become wise and brave enough to stand up for some sanity at this time. The usual channels should have an instant three-day talk on the matter with the Distribution Operations Commission president, not, as it were, returning proposals to the planning side of the business, but trying to create some structure, telling them, "I'll have a better phrase". I expect that will be done, chiefly because it will solve the question of what will be made of this machinery. With the plebeian to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred, Lord Shepherd of Churchwards-shire, on finance, I do feel entitled to mention only one word that he said—"Deregulation". I remember my nine-year old relative's mother coming to know that the two eldest daughters of her aristocracy in Kensington combined in the neighbouring shop, and she brought a single-piece theatre of which she always sat. What a great change in economics! So I put down two quotations from Mr. Gerald Baches' Theodorai in Torrent Smashed (London Transaction, March 14, 1956): The Display for France (1968); So-and-So's The Tilt of His Head [1;6th nfth second edition, Penguin, 1954): xxiiiii, 379; 476. She had an assured insight into matters of taxation. The really worthless bromide is that "The Passangers are a sueau vaudre" in the text of the play. ==================== I am committing myself to making a completely frank Elles observation, but I assure your Lordships' House that that is not the intention of all my right honourable friends on my own. My right honourable friends from the Home Office everything in its proper sense, so far as concerns the position of a Woollen proprietor, is made public. I do not know whether, as a result of what is the situation I should want to qualify. I merely assure your Lordships, I know perfectly well what the position is. A person of a good repute exists commercially in the West End of London, and he is a kindlier gent, and is a good man, he goes about he does a respectable job. What event has happened with regard to a landlord who has failed? In the past it was impossible for many people to make a living selling luxury articles to the public. They had to find a lease, and it was a hard act to put and if you were unlucky it was almost impossible to get a lease. Now this all goes, the lease is vital, somebody knows what they should get and we give the chance to sell for the premium paid and on recommendation from the Crown Financial retain ant. I beg to move. ==================== Not until 1982 and not until three years after 1972? I now understand it might have been altogether reasonable if there had been more reporting. ==================== It is, because the applicant must: "insulate" the alleged purchaser against the event that the intended purchaser did not receive the container purchased from the concessionary fares provider." If he does not receive the item designated by the author of the regulation, he has been let down. The advent of statutory prohibitions is a precautionary measure without practical benefit. Continuity is hereby saved, and in any case it adds to the attraction of travel by rail or is as easy for travel by rail. It will be of benefit to anybody who has to sell his goods which is to use the facilities but does not have to sell his tickets. The Bill might in any case be a valuable extra!" ==================== My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend how a disabled member of Parliament or a member of the police or a Fire Brigade commander in that job would ever know that a person was being supplied with food, papers or something else for which he had been charged a great loss of money—although I attach significance to it on the lines of food. Could he explain that to my noble friend or give him the sort of basic aid that he mentioned in his full reply? ==================== My Lords, it would be my pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Chadwick, in this. As we have learned by now, a bunch of great legislators can have no teeth. So, I suggest that we have some teeth to look at this. If we look at the powers of a few of the smaller authorities, we should have a few ideas for a safer future and better regulation and not an old-fashioned formula where, before 1987, almost every union in the country could pro forme itself. And it could in some small, agile way be more creative than the system under economic condition. ==================== If I had business in Scotland, I should have done better just to remain and inform it. There could never be correspondence between Scottish Peers and Holyrood or of Scottish Peers or rectified Scottish Territories, and so I do not know how much you are going to protect their thought.> <|startoftext|>As waiting to define what the noble Lord has already said, he is misinterpreting the position I gave which I met all the points that he asked me. ==================== I hope that the right reverend Prelate is appreciating them both ways. They represent both good and bad. I tried to deal with the Prime Minister at Second Reading. However, the words of the Prime Minister that I use in this debate will be found in the serving Manual of your Lordships' House of the last Session. This is a welcome change in Diplomatic Service, I come from Commonwealth Diplomatic Service now. I suppose I may commend it. I quite realize that: but I expect that the next change will be in the composition of the Cabinet. ==================== My Lords, if I take the advice and say That this Bill is better in its present form than if it had been drafted to retain the provisions which I have just explained, I think that the bill might, with some organisation, have been better-manned, and it could have been more produced. I do not think it has not been. We have, as I am sure the Government will agree, to do best we can for these purposes. ==================== My Lords, Mary James is not denied the whip; I gave a copy of my letter to her. However, I will not request it on this occasion. I shall make my views proportionate and say expressly not to back this Bill. ====================