asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, we supported preparation of the study and we expect to discuss the recommendations from the evaluation report with other donors, UN agencies and non-governmental organisations.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Can she tell the House what Her Majesty's Government are doing about the problem?

My Lords, we supported the study on the Rwanda evaluation to see what lessons we could learn from it. One of the good things to come out of the study is that the input by British non-governmental organisations has obviously been extremely well respected there. We also closely monitored the humanitarian effort throughout the emergency phase and shall continue to do so. We are sharing with others the lessons that we learnt in order to try to achieve better co-ordination of the efforts when such ghastly tragedies occur.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the lessons of that dreadful story is that humanitarian operations can never be a substitute for timely political action and proactive diplomacy? Does she further agree that timely political action was needed most in April 1994 and is it not timely political action that is needed most now in the Great Lakes region as a whole? What lessons have the Minister and the Government drawn from the role of the Security Council in 1994 in failing to respond and to recognise genocide? What are they promoting as positive diplomacy now to deal with the overall situation in the region?

My Lords, I, for one, am glad that this is the only time that we have seen something quite so horrendous as the genocide in Rwanda. One of the difficulties back in April 1994 was that no one could envisage what was building up, even those who knew the country. From it, we have learnt the need for pre-conflict action, as the noble Lord said. That is why this country has been engaged on a major programme of conflict prevention, working particularly in Africa. So far there have been four seminars in different parts of Africa with military and civilian personnel, to try to find out the key issues that turn a country away from normal civilized behaviour and towards such total uncivilized behaviour.

With regard to Burundi, where there is most concern at the moment, we have been visiting regularly. There is the Great Lakes Conference, and we had the Tunis Conference a couple of weeks ago, when many of the key players were brought together. I believe that the whole world has learnt a lesson from the genocide in Rwanda and everyone is determined that it shall never happen again. That is why we are now much more proactive across the world—not just the few of us who were involved right at the beginning in Rwanda—in trying to prevent it.

My Lords, if the situation in Burundi becomes worse, what action, taken from the lessons of Rwanda, will the Minister consider undertaking?

My Lords, first, the situation in Burundi was linked with Rwanda, but is by no means identical. Certainly, it is an over-simplification to suggest that the lessons we learnt from Rwanda have a direct application in Burundi. We are playing our full part already in the international preventive diplomacy. We are bolstering the standing of moderates within the power-sharing government. By individual visits to Burundi (which I shall visit again in August) we are putting a whole series of pressures on those people. Past President Nyerere of Tanzania is spearheading the peace-making process. We are offering him every support and we have constant contact. In addition, there is the European Union Special Representative, Aldo Ajello, whom I saw last Thursday. He is on his way to work on all the problems of the Great Lakes but doing so from a base in Addis Ababa, so that he connects up with the Organisation of African Unity. So I can assure the noble Lord that we are all involved in trying to prevent further tragedy.

My Lords, can the noble Baroness give us a progress report on the reintegration of the large number of refugees from Rwanda back into the economy of that country, in such a way that they do not need to have continuous outside aid from now onwards?

My Lords, the return of refugees is slow, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said. But the trilateral talks with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and neighbouring governments succeeded in agreeing a means of safe and voluntary return, and the Tunis and Addis Ababa meetings are taking that forward. Those who have returned need to be enabled to take up their old occupations and start to live a steady life. Britain has put resources into helping that to happen and to get people back to normality.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the chief problems is that the countries concerned have infrastructures which, such as they were, collapsed? It is extremely difficult to help a country to get on its feet if it has no infrastructure of its own with which to do it.

My Lords, my noble friend is right. That was why, in Rwanda, one of the first things we did was to try to get the health service, such as it is, and the basic education service going again. Without those there was nothing to stabilise the community. We have also given help for the building up of civilian administration in Rwanda. The Government of Rwanda have come a long way, though there is much to be done to have anything like an infrastructure as we would know it and as Rwanda once had, which is the sadness of the situation. All that has been destroyed and it will take us a fair time to put it back on its feet. I believe that relations between us and Rwanda are very good. They are prepared to accept civilian help even though, understandably, they do not want military help.

My Lords, are the Government considering financial assistance to past President Nyerere's initiative as a regional honest broker?

My Lords, that may be necessary. We have given a lot of help to Rwanda and continue to help through the NGOs. The Carter Centre initiative, which has encouraged the dialogue, does not need our funding. If there should be any special need for funding for past President Nyerere, I shall look at it. He certainly has not asked for any at the present time.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Government are still considering their response to the opinions expressed by the House on this matter. We have also noted the recommendation that a Select Committee on the public service be established which might consider as its first report the Government's plan for the future of Recruitment and Assessment Services.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Can he say when we are likely to hear what the Government's decision is, given the clear view of this House as expressed and related in the Question?

My Lords, at the conclusion of our debate on 8th March, my noble friend the Leader of the House gave an assurance that the Government would come back to the House once our conclusions on the way forward are finalised. As my noble friend will understand, they are important and complex issues to which we shall need to give full and careful consideration. That process is still continuing. Clearly, we hope to report to the House as soon as we can.

My Lords, the Minister will recall the debate on 8th March; he took part in it and I listened to it. Can he go this far and say that, until the Select Committee has reported on this aspect of the public service—I understand that the committee is to be set up shortly and this is to be the first matter that it will consider—the Government will take no further action towards the privatisation of the service?

My Lords, I note carefully the suggestion of the noble Lord. It is one that we shall consider in preparing our response to your Lordships.

My Lords, does not the Minister agree that there are two distinct issues in this Question: onė is the merits of privatising the selection of the Civil Service, with which some of us may well have sympathy; the other, which some of us see as far more important, is that no temporary government should have the right unilaterally to interfere with the selection of the Civil Service?

My Lords, the noble Lord will recall from the debate that selection for the Civil Service will remain with the Civil Service Commissioners. That was one of the central points that I stressed in the debate. The Government's proposals for RAS do not have any bearing on the noble Lord's anxieties.

My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that it would be slightly surprising were we to appoint a Select Committee of this House to consider this issue without receiving an undertaking from the noble Earl that the Government will not announce their final decision on the matter until the committee has made its recommendation to the House?

My Lords, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I note the anxiety expressed on that score. Clearly it is one that we shall need to bear in mind.

My Lords, whatever changes may be considered within the structure of the Civil Service, can the Minister say that, before they are finalised, all staff associations involved will be consulted?

My Lords, the staff of RAS and the staff associations are being kept fully informed of progress as we go along.

My Lords, when is the report of the Liaison Committee likely to be considered by this House?

My Lords, unfortunately I am not in a position to say. We hope that the Select Committee will be established very soon. I understand that, if it is, its terms of reference are likely to be approved tomorrow. Its membership should then follow on from that in a week or two. It will be for members of the committee to decide what their programme of work should be.

My Lords, does the Minister accept that it is understood that he may be inhibited from giving any formal undertaking, but that, pending the report of the Select Committee, it would be desirable that there should be a moratorium? It would be inconsistent with the setting up of such a committee that any further positive action should be taken.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I can only repeat to him that this is clearly a concern which we shall need to take fully into account.

My Lords, simply for the avoidance of doubt and as a superfluous postscript to the many questions that have been asked on this subject, perhaps I may ask the noble Earl whether, in addition to postponing action until after the Select Committee has made its interim report, any action will be postponed until after this House has had an opportunity to debate that report.

Earl Howe: My Lords, a further debate on the future of RAS is a matter for the usual channels, but I note the noble Lord's suggestion.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that those of us who know the Civil Service well—I had some responsibility for it both as a Minister in the Civil Service Department and in the Treasury—and who were very concerned when they first learnt of this privatisation proposal would welcome the careful consideration which a Select Committee would give to it? Certainly, speaking for myself, I hope that at the end of the day this proposal will be dropped.

My Lords, I am only too well aware that on 8th March I was in a minority of—I shall say no more than a very small minority. So my noble friend's opinion does not altogether surprise me. However, I am sure that your Lordships will accept that the Government will give careful consideration to this matter in the light of the opinion expressed by your Lordships. We shall hope to report to the House as soon as we can.

My Lords, for the record, the Minister was in a minority of one on that occasion.

Two.

My Lords, I beg the noble Earl's pardon. At whatever time the Government come back to fulfil the undertaking given by the Leader of the House on 8th March, will the Minister give an assurance that it will not be in the non-debatable form of a Written Answer or an answer to an Unstarred Question but in a form which enables the House not only to debate the matter but to express a view on it?

My Lords, no decisions have been taken. I note the noble Lord's wish. Whether we have a further debate is, of course, something for the usual channels to decide.

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Molloy asked about consultation with the staff representatives but the Minister referred to information being given to them. Can he give an undertaking that there will be genuine consultation?

My Lords, the Civil Service, as a customer of RAS, has been consulted all along because clearly it is the one which needs to ensure that the contract with a privatised body, should this occur, is satisfactory. However, following the Government's decision, I can reassure the noble Baroness that staff have been kept informed of progress through regular staff meetings, information bulletins and things of that kind. The acting chief executive and senior managers will work closely with the Cabinet Office to ensure that the sale is presented in the most favourable light possible.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, we shall need to consider the Commission's proposal on droit de suite—that is, artists' right to share in the proceeds of the resale of their works—and intend consulting all interested parties in the United Kingdom about it. However, the Government are not persuaded that there is a case for the introduction of droit de suite into the United Kingdom.

My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that satisfactory Answer. However, as the Minister knows, the new rules on the introduction of VAT on works of art which came into force last year are already having a damaging effect on the UK trade. This is because there is no import tax into Switzerland or the United States. Are the Government aware of the serious economic consequences of this provision?

Very much so, my Lords. We are conscious that one of the consequences of introducing this provision into the United Kingdom could be the displacement of art sales from the United Kingdom to other countries where there is no such suite. I imagine that New York is likely to be the most prominent beneficiary were such a change to be introduced. The potential impact on the London art market is clearly of utmost concern and it is for that very reason that we wish to consult all interested parties in the United Kingdom.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that this droit de suite levy, rising from only 2 per cent., will do little to help young artists but could amount to as much as £30,000 on a major work of art and in consequence, as the noble and learned Lord said, sales of important 20th century art are likely to move from London, which is at present the centre of this art market, to New York?

Yes, my Lords. My understanding is that the Commission has not yet put forward its final set of proposals before the matter goes to the Council and others for consideration. However, the idea is that there should be a sliding scale with the levy going from 2 per cent. to as much as 4 per cent. In some circumstances, for the cheaper works of artists, clearly that would not be a very significant addition to the income of an artist or his heirs, but it could be an extremely expensive item and it could have a serious deterrent effect on those who wish to use the London market. It would be a very serious consideration if London were to lose its pre-eminence.

My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that the result of his consultation exercise may well be a foregone conclusion in this country but that it will not do him much good when he comes to negotiate the matter in Brussels? Does he agree that with this piece of legislation, as with the common fisheries policy, the common agricultural policy, the fruit and vegetable regime and many other pieces of damaging legislation from Brussels, the Government will be up against a qualified majority vote within the terms of the treaty which was unfortunately signed and that there will not be anything they can do about it?

My Lords, it is my understanding that the Commission intends to bring this proposal forward under Article 100a which would mean that qualified majority voting would be the order of the day. It is nevertheless right that we should go forward with the consultation I have indicated. I am already very much aware of the strong representations that has come from the major auction houses in London setting forward their opposition to it. I understand that there are others who would purport to act, or may indeed act, for artists and their representatives who might take up a different point of view. I think it only right that we should carry forward that consultation.

My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that the opposition to droit de suite comes exclusively from the fat cats? So far as concerns the artists, this is right and is supported by all right thinking people as being a means whereby the artist is able to have a small share in the increasing value of his work. Therefore, it is my hope that the noble and learned Lord will not be influenced by the opposition that has been expressed, from wherever it has come, and will consider the matter on its merits. If he does that, he will accept it.

My Lords, as I have indicated in my previous answers, I am well aware of the strong representations from major auction houses in London. I do not think that their views are to be set aside. London enjoys a worthwhile pre-eminence and I very much hope that that can be maintained. The noble Lord makes my point for me. I indicated that it was right that on the proposal coming from the Commission there should be proper consultation. It is a rather extraordinary position that in some countries in Europe where this droit is already allowed it is nonetheless not implemented. That seems to be the least satisfactory of all positions.

My Lords, I declare an interest as a director of an auction house. Will my noble and learned friend reiterate to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and others that this is not an issue that is going to affect the auction houses themselves, simply the locations in which they conduct their business? Is my noble friend aware that it is not universally accepted by artists that this programme is in their interests? In the very unfortunate event of there being a qualified majority vote on this issue, can we for once copy our European partners and ignore it?

My Lords, my noble friend will not be surprised if I do not answer directly his last point. The substance of what he has to say is right. It is not that artists or their heirs may receive something that they would not otherwise have received. The greater likelihood is rather that the sale of those works will not be undertaken in London or within the European Union, but the sales will be displaced either to the United States, other than to California, where no such right exists or, alternatively, they may take place in Switzerland.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are other differences apart from the 3 per cent. droit de suite levy in the art market between France and the United Kingdom? For instance, is the Minister aware that in the United Kingdom there is 2.5 per cent. VAT, but in France it is 5 per cent.? Is he further aware that in France dealer commissions are limited to 9 per cent. by law, and in the United Kingdom dealers can charge up to 15 per cent.? Will the Minister take these matters into account when conducting his consultations? Does he agree that harmonisation would bring real competition to the art market in the European Union?

My Lords, I am not clear that I understand from the noble Lord's question whether he is in favour of the introduction of this measure into the United Kingdom. I am sure that in a supplementary question he will make it clear from the Opposition Front Bench where exactly he stands on this issue. I would have thought that there was little within the operations of the commercial auctioneering firms in France that we wish to copy. The only good news that has come out of that is the announcement by the French Government that, after considerable pressure, its market will be opened up on 1st January 1998. That is a welcome development; but we should like that date brought forward.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the positions of Taiwan and Hong Kong are very different. Under the terms of the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, Hong Kong will return to China in 1997, and China has guaranteed the continuation of Hong Kong's way of life for 50 years.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does my noble friend agree with me that China's recent bullying of Taiwan and its determination to scrap the recently elected LegCo, to replace it with an appointed body and to extract a pledge of loyalty to that body from Hong Kong's senior civil servants raise serious doubts about its commitment to freedom and democracy? I ask my noble friend specifically what steps, if any, the Government intend to take to protect the existing LegCo and the electoral arrangements which created it, beyond the date of the handover of Hong Kong to China next year.

My Lords, we are all well aware that the Chinese exercises against Taiwan were intended to influence the Taiwanese electorate in the run-up to the presidential election on 23rd March and to try to condition the approach of the victor to the China-Taiwan contacts. I believe that the scale of the exercises discredited once and for all China's earlier emphasis on peaceful reunification. Certainly, the bullying did not work. I understand my noble friend's serious doubts, but it is perfectly clear, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said to the Chinese Prime Minister at their meeting in Bangkok on 29th February, that our view is that the members of LegCo, elected last year, should be allowed to serve their full four-year term. We have told the Chinese that there is no justification for the establishment of a provisional legislature. We shall continue to urge them to reconsider this. Meanwhile, we stand by our commitment to work with the legitimate legislature, which is LegCo. We shall certainly continue to keep the interest in this matter, which has been expressed by many friendly countries, and we shall watch very carefully what is happening.

My Lords, perhaps I may pursue the question of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, a little further with the Minister. Can she say what the British Government's response is to the latest move by the Chinese Government in demanding that Hong Kong civil servants support the Peking-appointed provisional legislative council after takeover? Have any representations been made to the Chinese Government since the Prime Ministers' meeting in Bangkok at the end of February?

Yes, my Lords, we have made it quite clear that any move to create a conflict of loyalties would be damaging to the confidence of the Civil Service and for Hong Kong. We have made inquiries of the Chinese. We continue to find out exactly what they are seeking to say. As soon as we have a better understanding of what they are saying, apart from their threats, I shall be able to say a little more. We are well aware of the very serious implications of their remarks should they be carried through.

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the recent missile tests and military exercises in the neighbourhood of the Taiwanese coast by the Chinese authorities constitute a breach of the United Nations Charter which prohibits the threat of the use of force? Can she say what mechanism exists within the United Nations' system for countering these threats of aggression where the aggressor itself is a permanent member of the Security Council?

My Lords, the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, goes a little wide of the Question. All I can say to him is that these matters have not gone unnoticed. They are being discussed in New York, as I heard last week. No doubt the Security Council will, in its wisdom, come up with one of its famous answers.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that despite some anxieties in Hong Kong which are understandable, and a good deal of friction with China, the development of Hong Kong remains remarkable? Does she further agree that there are many people in Hong Kong who are determined to make a success of the arrangements which come into force next year and the new relationship with China that that implies, and that this is an attitude which deserves support?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn. He knows better than anyone how determined the Hong Kong people are to make a success of the economy which they have built up. When one meets businessmen, and even those from China, they too want to share in a similar success in the Special Administrative Region. Therefore, these people are to be praised and encouraged. We must carry on doing that. It is quite remarkable how confident people are. I saw that for myself last year. We should do everything we can to encourage that confidence and do nothing to undermine it.

My Lords, will the Minister agree—

My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement to be made in another place on the European Council in Turin.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]

On Question, Whether Clause 111, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill.

We resume the debate which this Committee had on Thursday evening on the Question of Clause 111 standing part of the Bill. At that time there were not many noble Lords opposite who were prepared to support the Government in their legislation and, regrettably, noble Lords were not available, with the enthusiasm that one would normally expect, to support the noble Earl in his honest and capable endeavours in trying to get this legislation through the Committee. It was perfectly understandable because the fact is that Clause 111 should not stand part of the Bill. It is no wonder that noble Lords opposite felt that they could not possibly support it. Indeed, even now the noble Lord the Leader of the House is demonstrating his confidence in the noble Earl's case by standing at the Bar. That is perfectly understandable for the simple reason that the scheme that has been produced in draft by the Department of the Environment is not a scheme for adjudication; it is a scheme for arbitration. Indeed, the Chief Whip is now deserting the Government.

I am certain that over the weekend the noble Earl received many representations stating that the industry, in the broadest sense of the word, simply does not agree with the thrust of the draft proposals. We debated that at some length on Thursday evening and I am sorry that noble Lords opposite were not available to hear the arguments.

I shall make just one point now. As both I and my noble friend Lord Howie said on Thursday, at one point we were proposing to table the scheme as a schedule to the Bill. Under the procedures of the House, that would have allowed us not only to discuss it substantively, but to amend those provisions if any noble Lord had chosen to table a further amendment. We could therefore have had discussions on different parts of the scheme. As my noble friend Lord Howie pointed out, after consideration we decided not to do that.

Nevertheless, I very much hope that when he comes to argue the case, the noble Earl will agree that the scheme as it stands is not acceptable either to this Committee or—this is much more important—to the industry at large. If the noble Earl can say to me today that he is producing new draft proposals for a scheme for adjudication rather than for arbitration, I should be perfectly happy, as I am sure would my noble friend, to cease our opposition to Clause 111. If, on the other hand, the scheme proceeds along the lines of the draft proposals, I am bound to advise the noble Earl that although we have decided not to table the provisions as a schedule in Committee, our view may well be different on Report.

I, too, have received a number of representations from the industry over the weekend about the scheme. As one who has worked in the industry for much of my life, it hurts me that although the Latham Report had the almost universal support of the industry, we now have a Bill which has been questioned by many of us and a scheme which I do not believe that anybody supports. I wonder whether the Minister received any representations over the weekend and which of the original supporters of the Latham Report are now with us even in general terms, apart from the process workers who do not want to be part of it anyway.

Perhaps I may quote from one or two comments that I have received. I refer first to the Institution of Civil Engineers and to its chief conciliation and arbitration advisory panel, which has stated:

"It is a sad reflection upon our means of communication that the outcome has been this dismal Bill".

That is not a great compliment for the Bill.

The Building Employers Confederation has said:

"We have given it the thumbs down and we will be looking for significant amendments".

That was referring to the scheme, not to the Bill.

The subcontractors group, the Constructors Liaison Group, describes it as "quite appalling". Lastly and perhaps most importantly, the solicitors who have to work on arbitration and adjudication for the industry and the Official Referees Solicitors Association say that they believe that the whole scheme is "misconceived" and that the Government appear to be muddling adjudication with arbitration. What has happened between the publication of the Latham Report and the introduction of the provisions of this scheme? Do those who have had to turn the report into the Bill understand what they are trying to do? Even in its early draft form, the scheme seems to muddle arbitration with adjudication.

I hope that the Minister will agree to consult urgently with the industry and that he will either come up with an alternative solution, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, suggested, or delay the introduction of the scheme until we have a new version; otherwise the industry will continue to complain about the scheme which will remain unworkable. I believe that it will cause us much more trouble in the future, both here and in another place.

During the proceedings on Thursday, my concern about the scheme's shortcomings increased almost by the minute. Noble Lords who have already spoken have referred to the lack of clarity as to whether it is an adjudication scheme. We approached the question rather crabwise on Thursday. The more questions that we asked, the more concerns noble Lords both on these Benches and the Labour Benches had about the scheme and about the final resolution to be proposed; about the Bill's relationship with the Arbitration Bill; and, returning to broader questions, about just which construction contracts would be subject to the scheme.

I have just read a report from a newspaper which is published for the construction industry, stating that the Constructors Liaison Group believes that the scheme,

"demonstrates a crucial misunderstanding in the mind of the DoE of the difference between adjudication and arbitration … We regard adjudication as the key to solving a lot of the problems in the industry.

If that is spoiled, we will be getting rid of the key part of this whole process".

The article concludes—I believe that this is very telling:

"Indeed, if we go down the road proposed by the DoE, we could end up increasing litigation rather than reducing it".

That would go entirely against the objectives of the Latham Committee and, I believe, of the Government.

Surprising as it may seem, I was greatly encouraged by the events of last Thursday evening. Because so few noble Lords stayed behind to oppose my Motion that Clause 111 should not stand part of the Bill, I took it that they agreed with me by abstention, if not by their actual presence. I must be right in that because if those noble Lords had thought that I was wrong, I am sure that they would certainly have stayed behind to support the Government and to oppose me.

I do not want to repeat the speech that I made on Thursday although many noble Lords who are present now missed it then, but I am sure that they will have studied it closely in the Official Report. Your Lordships will be glad to learn that I should like to make just two brief general points. First, the draft scheme is closer to arbitration than it is to adjudication. It is clear that parts of the draft scheme have been lifted more or less in their entirety from the Arbitration Bill, and that they have been slotted into the scheme as though arbitration were a species of adjudication which, as we all know, it is not.

My only other point, which I made on Thursday also, is that by its very nature the scheme will apply only to small contracts because most contracts in the construction industry are based on standard conditions of contract which have been laid down and agreed over many years. They are well understood on all sides of the industry. It is obvious that contracts of any substantial size will be laid under the umbrella of those standard conditions of contract. It is also true that at the moment those standard conditions do not wholly comply with the Bill, but there is no doubt that they will be amended or altered in such a way that they meet the conditions of Clause 105. That leaves out the lesser, smaller contracts which are not usually made under the standard conditions. The problem is that the scheme is more draconian than the standard conditions. The effect is that the scheme, which is more severe, will bear more heavily on small contracts than on big ones. That is unfair. The Government's strategy is that if the scheme is draconian, small contractors will be obliged to adopt the standard conditions; but, in my experience, life is not like that.

A moment or two ago my noble friend Lord Berkeley wondered whether there was an alternative to 'the scheme. I believe there is. If the Government are acquainted, as they must be, with the sixth edition of the standard conditions of contract published by the Institution of Civil Engineers, they will be aware that the conditions contain a procedure for conciliation. In this context, conciliation is almost the same as adjudication. The civil engineers' procedure for conciliation is much shorter and less complicated than the proposed scheme. Therefore, it is much more likely to be understood and used. It is also much less ambiguous than the scheme. The scheme is replete with ambiguities. I believe that many in the construction industry would prefer that the standard procedure in the sixth edition were used instead of the scheme.

My noble friend Lord Williams has already said that thought was given to putting down the scheme as a new schedule at Committee stage so that it could be debated and perhaps understood by your Lordships. In the end that was not done. I will take advice on whether it is possible to put down the civil engineers' procedure for conciliation as a schedule to the Bill at Report stage. If that can be done procedurally, I shall certainly consider doing so. It will be a great improvement on the scheme. I suggest that a much better idea would be for the Government to have a look at it—if they have not already done so—and replace this ambiguous, tortuous and too lengthy scheme with something of the kind that I have suggested.

I oppose the suggestion of the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Howie of Troon, in part because of a whole series of logistics. If Clause 111 is deleted, it will remove any further opportunity that the House might have to make comments on the scheme at Report stage and on Third Reading. All of us have difficulties with some of the words of the scheme. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, indicated that the more it was looked at the more there was to consider. The scheme has only just come before us and there has been only a relatively short time in which to look at it.

Perhaps I may intervene with the leave of the noble Viscount. The scheme is referred to in Clause 105(3), so even if this clause is removed from the Bill, there will still be an opportunity to refer to the scheme for construction contracts when we come to discuss that clause on Report.

I understand what the noble Lord says. However, Clause 111 gives it a statutory base. A scheme without a statutory base is not worth discussing in your Lordships' House. We need to make certain that it has that statutory base. I was about to tell the Committee that my noble friend the Minister has already indicated that the scheme is out for consultation. The Government and the industry will have plenty of opportunity to look at it. The Government will hear what noble Lords say in the discussions to date and will have an opportunity to hear what noble Lords say on the next two stages of the Bill.

The right course of action is not to remove the scheme from the Bill at this moment but to make known our views on whether what is in the scheme is right, whether it is too close to arbitration and not close enough to adjudication, and so forth. All those considerations will be taken into account by my noble friend. I believe that the course of action proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Howie of Troon, is wrong.

Can the noble Viscount tell the Committee at which stage the Government should remove the scheme, if it should not be removed now?

As my noble friend has already indicated, it is a draft scheme. The word "draft" is written all over it. It will have to be put before Parliament before it becomes "the" scheme.

I have a certain amount of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I commiserate with him. I do not wish to take advantage of him. Whenever he gets up to speak the Chamber seems to evacuate itself (as the scientists would say). That happens because the noble Lord always seems to get up just after Question Time. I do not think he should worry that it is anything to do with him. The Chamber probably feels that there are other things to deal with which are of more pressing importance than the noble Lord's speech. The noble Lord should not become too depressed by it.

He began his speech this afternoon by saying that we did not have enough people here last Thursday night to support the Government. That is perfectly true. If I may say so without impertinence, I do not believe that the noble Lord had too many people to listen to his erudite speeches. There were only eight on his side. Of course, it is the job of the Government to keep a House. When this side was in opposition and I was a young fellow with dark hair, it was thought to be rather good fun to ambush people. However, when in government one regards it as rather childish. One takes a different point of view depending on where one is. The noble Lord had his fun last Thursday. There was not a House. We were counted out and therefore had to come back to the same matter today.

The noble Lord, Lord Howie, said that there were so few people in the Chamber to listen on that occasion that he believed everyone must be in favour of his amendment. He was quite sure that everyone had studied his speech. I know that most noble Lords make a point of studying the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Howie, rather than anyone else's. Whether that happened on this occasion, I am not certain; but there are more people here to make up for it today than there were the other day.

I wonder whether the noble Earl would tempt me into repeating the whole of my speech last Thursday, lest noble Lords have not had the advantage of reading it in Hansard. They may enjoy it all the more.

I would not wish to weary the intellectual capacity of your Lordships by doing that.

The fact is that we are trying to deal with a difficult matter. There is a difference between arbitration and adjudication. Put simply, in arbitration one waits until the end of the contract. One has a full-blown argument about it, perhaps in the courts with barristers and heaven knows what. It may take a year or two years to get to the end of it. Adjudication is an attempt to resolve the matter forthwith. On too many occasions in the past contracts have been made with adjudication clauses in them; but they have been cut out because the big boys believe it is easier not to have such clauses. Therefore, any matter that arises falls to be dealt with by arbitration. That can be adverse for the small contractor.

All that we have tried to do here is to ensure that if the process proposed in the Bill is adhered to, there should be an adjudication process which will end up in a decision. If the two parties to the contract do not want to make that decision binding, they have to say so before they go to adjudication. If they do not say so, then they agree that it should be binding. The adjudicator makes his decision, and it is binding.

If one were to accept that that was a pity and that there was cause for complaint or appeal, it means that the adjudication process is almost meaningless because it can be rehashed at the end of the contract by going to arbitration. The whole point of the clause is to try to avoid that. All I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Howie, is that if they do not want to do that, most contractors would have their own contracts setting out the terms and conditions of the contract; the terms and conditions of adjudication; and the terms of arbitration. It is only if the parties do not do that that the clause falls to operate. If Clause 111 is a little more harsh than most contracts, so be it. That may encourage people to include a more modest clause in their contracts.

One must remember that the whole point of Clause 111 is to provide something which has not been provided for in the contract between the two parties. If they want to avoid Clause 111, all they have to do is to set out their own requirements in their own contract. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said that this is arbitration and adjudication muddled up, and that we should ask the industry. That is precisely what we are doing. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, said on Second Reading that they wanted to see what the Government had in mind. So we tried to produce a draft scheme—my noble friend Lord Ullswater was right; it is a draft scheme—to show the kind of things that we have in mind. We tried to be helpful. It is always fatal to try to be helpful when in government because if one is the Tower of Babel falls down upon one, and everyone says, "You should not do that."

We tried to be helpful. We produced the draft scheme to show what we have in mind. The draft scheme has gone out not just to Members of this place, but to members of the industry. When we have heard the results of that consultation—of which, if I may say so with respect, this Committee stage is one aspect—we shall decide what shall be put into the draft proposals. They will go out for statutory consultation once the Bill becomes law. There has been a considerable amount of consultation over this point.

I do not for one moment suggest that we have the thing 100 per cent. right. But Members of the Committee asked what it is that the Government intend to do, so we have produced a draft scheme to show what it is we intend to do. Some Members of the Committee have said, "Let us take it away and produce another one". I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and I think that that was a churlish suggestion. How can we take something away that we have just issued to other people to consider, and produce another one? We want to get the preliminary consultation over. We want to find out what people say and what the Committee says. We shall produce a further document in due course.

I come back to the original point. So much time in the past has been wasted by people arguing about construction contracts, and so forth, and there has been no method of conciliation. We have put into the Bill a fall-back position which means that if contracts do not have within them a method of arbitration or adjudication, then the parties can fall back to Clause 111. If they do not want to fall back to Clause 111, all they have to do is to put it in their own contracts. That is why I believe that Clause 111 is important.

There is no point the Minister saying that adjudication should be introduced, because it has been there since time immemorial. The ideas he has put forward are the common currency of construction contracts, and he knows that. I am greatly encouraged by the speech the Minister has just made. It is clear that he is now beginning to understand the difference between arbitration and adjudication. That was not clear on Second Reading. It is clear that he has now grasped that distinction. It is a distinction which is extremely important in the construction industry.

I have just one last thing to say. Although the Minister now grasps that distinction, the scheme does not grasp that distinction. As I said, the scheme is largely lifted, holus-bolus, from the Arbitration Bill, which is a different thing, and deals with different matters. That has now to be thought about.

Now that the Minister has reconstructed his attitude towards the distinction that I have been making for some time, will he make that same distinction in the scheme? When I suggested that the scheme should be replaced by the scheme for conciliation from the Institution of Civil Engineers, their sixth edition scheme, I was proposing something with which the industry is already well acquainted, and with which it is already comfortable. It is much more significant since the whole point of this part of the Bill is to reduce costs, conflict, and dispute, and to put in propositions which the industry already understands and with which it is already comfortable.

I am, as I say, greatly pleased by the Minister's movement in thinking. I urge him to continue that progress just a little further. Then he and I are in some kind of asymptotic condition—coming closer together—although I should say that the problem here is that asymptotes never actually meet. I am hoping that we achieve a readjustment of geometry, and that on this occasion the asymptotes actually meet.

All the points that I could make have been made. The Minister has made his point. There is one fundamental point about the jurisdiction of the adjudicator under the scheme. When it comes to the end, the scheme says:

"The right of appeal from the decision of the court on the substantial jurisdiction of an adjudicator shall be governed by the same rules as if the adjudicator were an arbitrator".

That is our basic problem. Either it is a scheme for adjudication or it is a scheme for arbitration. In the Bill, in the Government's view, and in the Latham Report, it should be a scheme for adjudication, which is quite different from arbitration.

I could say, but I shall not say it because it is not totally true, that adjudication and arbitration are matters of semantics. They are not. They are different, but they are confusing words.

The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, said that adjudication has always been there. It is true that it has. There is no doubt that what we are trying to do is to have a system of adjudication which speeds the process of arbitration. It is a difficult balance to strike, because under the old system of adjudication one could have a contract going ahead. There is then a row and someone says, "I am owed £50,000." The adjudicator comes along and says, "No, you are owed only £40,000". That is accepted and the work goes on. Then about two years later everything is blown apart, and the matter goes to arbitration. All that adjudication can be too easily lost. Then the parties become involved with the enormous expense of arbitration.

Although it is not easy, we have tried to stop that exercise being protracted so far down the line and being enormously expensive by saying, "Let us have an adjudication principle which is quick, simple and cheaper and which is binding upon the two people unless in advance they say that they do not want it to be binding". If they do not say that in advance, it is reasonable to say that it is binding.

That is where there is a difficulty between arbitration and adjudication. There will be no simple answer but we believe that our proposal is good because it provides clarity, expediency, and reasonable justice. The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, said that I was an asymptote. I am sure that I am, but I am not certain what I am supposed to do—

The Minister is not an asymptote; he is pursuing an asymptotic path. However, he would make an excellent asymptote if he were one.

I am not an asymptote and neither am I a butterfly. That is good because I am following an asymptote's path. That is interesting because I did not know that I had done so. We are using the mechanism of arbitration—

Would it be unreasonable to ask the noble Lord, Lord Howie, to explain what the curious creature is because I am sure that nine-tenths of us do not have a clue?

I shall try to help because I am a helpful kind of fellow. I am sure that nine-tenths of the Committee know perfectly well what it is. It is a term of geometry. It consists of two geometric paths which approach each other but never actually reach. It is a little like trying to convince the Government of anything at all.

As usual, I am deeply indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, because she had the temerity to ask the question that I did not dare ask for fear of being considered by the Committee far too ignorant. Of course, I am because I had not the slightest idea of what an asymptote was nor what its path was. I thought that it was some kind of animal, but I discover that it is a geometric path. I am sure that the noble Baroness always walks down geometric paths and knows exactly where she is when she does so. I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howie, for the total and gross distraction from our consideration of Clause 111.

We are trying to use the mechanism of arbitration, which is conveniently set out in the Arbitration Bill. The mechanism will be guided by the principles of adjudication and not of arbitration. I return to a point that I made once or twice and I ask the indulgence of the Committee in making it again. This is not an easy matter. We are trying to stop an elongated process and to make it shorter, simpler and more concise. We are trying to introduce a process which, in the end, will cost the industry a great deal less and will give satisfaction to the whole of industry.

That is what we have suggested in the draft scheme and it remains for us to hear what those involved think about it. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked what we had heard about it during the weekend. We have heard some sympathetic remarks about our draft scheme. Some people have contacted us saying that they believe it to be a good idea. That is the beginning of the consultation. We have put it out for Members and those in the various parts of industry to consider before we get too far. I hope that members of the Committee will consider that we have been understanding and have produced a scheme which they can criticise—regrettably they have criticised it—and we can take that into account before we produce the next scheme.

I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the meeting of the European Council in Turin on 29th March. The Statement is as follows:

"The purpose of the meeting was to launch the Inter-Governmental Conference aimed at preparing the European Union for the next phase of enlargement. The Council conclusions, which I have placed in the Library, set out the main areas of the IGC's agenda.

"We have ensured that the conclusions do not prejudice the actual negotiations in any way; nor do they contain an exhaustive list of the issues for negotiation. We shall pursue our objectives for the development of Europe as a partnership of nations, as set out in the Government's recent White Paper.

"The negotiations themselves will now begin. They may well last for a year or longer. Foreign Ministers will meet every month. Their personal representatives will meet every week.

"I outlined to the European Council the Government's approach to the IGC. I made clear that our vision of Europe is built around the bedrock of the nation state. I also set out some of the areas where the UK will be putting forward proposals, and those where we have strong views.

"For example, I underlined the need for the principle of subsidiarity to be enshrined in the treaty; the value of a greater role for national parliaments; our desire to see Europe's common foreign and security policy work better, while preserving its basis of unanimity; the need for further progress in co-operation in justice and home affairs, without undermining its essential intergovernmental nature; our opposition to any further extension of qualified majority voting; and our insistence on reforms for the working of the European Court of Justice.

"I also made clear to the European Council my particular concern about the recent opinion of the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice on the Working Time Directive, and its implications for the IGC. I said that I was not prepared to see our Social Chapter opt-out undermined as a result of an expansive and unreasonable interpretation of the health and safety article of the treaty. I made clear that I would be looking in the IGC for changes to that article, to reflect our earlier understanding of its limited scope.

"The European Council also held a brief discussion on employment and competitiveness. This subject will rightly be high on the agenda of its meeting in Florence in June. I set out this Government's views.

"Europe has to be globally competitive. Jobs are not created by governments, still less by the European Union. They come from the decisions of businesses in the marketplace. Job creation needs less regulation, not more; lower financial and other burdens on business, not extra impositions arising from ill-conceived European directives.

"There is increasing understanding of these realities among some of our European partners. I was encouraged by the discussion. But I will continue to resist strongly any suggestion that the treaty be amended to cover employment issues. Action in those areas is overwhelmingly for individual countries, not for the EU collectively.

"All the heads of state and government in Turin were acutely conscious of the Europe-wide crisis in the beef market. This is, and was treated as, an entirely separate issue from the IGC agenda. There was no question in anyone's mind of trading help in one area against co-operation in the other.

"I told my colleagues of the impact in this country of the ban on British beef decided in Brussels last week; particularly as it was taken on the basis of considerations other than the scientific advice.

"I suggested to my colleagues that three things were now needed. First, the conditions should be created as speedily as possible to allow the ban on British beef exports to be lifted. Second, the specific problems of the UK beef market had to be addressed. I looked to the Community for sympathetic and speedy support for the measures necessary to return confidence and stability to the market. Third, it should be recognised that this was a European, not just a British, problem.

"The response of my European colleagues was, without exception, one of support. There was universal agreement that this was a Europe-wide problem, and that a European solution was required. All heads of state and government who spoke expressed readiness to see the EU bear a share of the financial burden and recalled the EU help in the swine fever epidemic a few years ago.

"This was a welcome response, in tone as well as substance. But we still have some way to go. Negotiations continue with the Commission on the measures needed to restore confidence. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture is in Luxembourg today to take this forward and to attend a meeting of European Ministers of Agriculture.

"I emphasised to my European colleagues that, with the measures we have taken, British beef is, on any normal definition of the term, safe. No one disputed this. Everyone recognised that the present crisis came not from a real health risk but from unnecessary hysteria across Europe.

"At Turin the IGC was launched with an agenda which enables us to pursue our objectives in a non-prejudicial climate. I was able to make clear to my European colleagues our strong views on certain key issues, including what is needed to tackle unemployment across Europe as well as in Britain. And we achieved a notable measure of understanding and support over the beef crisis that we and our European partners now face together.

"The need now is to turn this support into action, particularly the lifting of the export ban on British beef and beef products. That is our immediate objective. It is important; and we are pursuing it urgently".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement that his right honourable friend the Prime Minister made in another place. I shall begin by saying a few words about beef. I do not want to spend too much time on that subject, because I believe that the rest of the report is extremely important. We welcome the support that the Prime Minister received from his colleagues in Turin; indeed, he was at one time reported as having said:

"I wish the Euro-sceptics back in Britain could be in this room now to see how European solidarity works in practice".

I wonder whether the noble Viscount the Leader of the House could confirm whether or not his right honourable friend the Prime Minister actually uttered those words and tell us whether they remain his view.

Today is perhaps not the time to discuss the Government's responsibility for the crisis in the beef industry. However, perhaps I may be forgiven for noting in passing that the Government seemed to spend an awful lot of time this weekend trying to persuade the country that it was anyone's fault except their own. Nevertheless, we can debate that issue in more detail on April 17th when the House will consider the problem.

Can the noble Viscount tell the House, first, when the Government expect the package of measures on beef to emerge from the various discussions that are now taking place? Clearly it is in everyone's interests that that should be sooner rather than later. Secondly, can the noble Viscount say whether or not any compensation which comes from Brussels in respect of what we may have to pay to resolve the crisis in this country is to come out of Britain's budget rebate? There have been reports in the press to that effect. Therefore, a certain amount of clarity from the Government on the matter would be helpful.

I turn now to the IGC. I do not suggest that noble Lords should ignore the Statement but, as is well known, I have said on a number of occasions when dealing with such Statements that it is most important that one looks at the communiqué and not at the gloss that any national leader or national Minister puts upon what was actually agreed and the document to which the Prime Minister put his hand. I shall, therefore, concentrate on the communiqué.

Although it was clearly overshadowed by beef, I believe that it is worth while spending a moment or two on the contents of the communiqué. The communiqué expresses and welcomes the fact that the intergovernmental conference is the first step towards,

"creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe".

Does that remain the policy of Her Majesty's Government? The communiqué also states that the

"Union [is] firmly committed to the full implementation of the Treaties, including … economic and monetary union".

I know that the Government negotiated an opt-out, but is it their policy—and, indeed, does it remain their policy—that the Union is firmly committed to economic and monetary union?

The communiqué also sets out an agenda for the IGC and, indeed, points the direction very clearly as regards the areas in which the IGC is to work. A number of issues are, therefore, highlighted. First, how to strengthen human rights. That is firmly in the communiqué. I assume that that is to be within the framework of the existing institutions. I should like to know how the Government see a drive at the IGC in order to strengthen human rights and reinforce and buttress them. We have not heard very much about that recently, and a little clarity in that respect might be helpful.

Secondly, the communiqué calls for an examination and,

"strengthened control of the Union's external frontiers … [including] coherent and effective asylum, immigration and visa policies".

Is that the Government's policy? Is that the direction in which we wish the IGC to go and which we hope it will eventually recommend? Then, after those words about asylum and immigration policies it says, "clearing"—that is a strange word—

"divergent views on jurisdictional and parliamentary control of EU decisions in the field of justice and home affairs.

What on earth does that mean? I do not know, but the Prime Minister presumably does because he signed the document and pointed the IGC in that direction.

On unemployment, the communiqué calls for the completion of the single market and,

"the implementation of the convergence criteria",

together with "supplementary coordinated action". Again, I am not quite sure what that means and I would be most grateful if the noble Viscount could tell us what the Prime Minister intended the IGC to be considering when he agreed that that is what it should consider.

On the institutions, the communiqué calls for examination of a number of things and for,

"simplifying legislative procedures and … widening … codecision".

Are we, or are we not, in favour of that? If we are in favour of simplifying legislative procedures, how would we like to simplify them within the European Union? If we are in favour of widening codecision, how and in what areas do we propose that it should be widened? Presumably the Prime Minister has some idea of what he wants otherwise he would not have signed the communiqué pointing the IGC firmly in that direction.

The communiqué talks about "the role" and composition of the European Parliament and a,

"uniform procedure for its election".

Are we in favour of such a Europe-wide procedure in terms of the European Parliament election? Again, I assume that the Prime Minister knew what it was that he had in mind when he signed the communiqué pointing the IGC in that direction. It would be nice if someone could let us in on the secret. There is also reference to qualified "majority voting", "the weighting of votes" and,

"the threshold for qualified majority decisions".

The Government say that they are very much against qualified majority voting, although I have recently detected what is perhaps a slight, and to be encouraged, tendency on the part of the Prime Minister to resile somewhat from the starkness of the undertaking that he gave on the David Frost television programme in February.

I turn now to a very strange and difficult paragraph which appears on page 5 of the communiqué and which talks of introducing,

"rules [to enable] a certain number of Member States to develop a strengthened cooperation".

What does that mean? I assume that someone on the Government's side knows what it means. However, I wonder whether that is pointing the IGC in the direction of creating a two-stage Europe; namely, one in which a number of states go in one direction and a number of other states go in another direction. If the Government consider that that is what the IGC should be spending its time doing, perhaps they had better tell us which of the two stages it wants the United Kingdom to be in.

Finally, there is a plea in the communiqué for,

"a greater capacity … [and coherence in] foreign policy",

and the possibility of the European Union,

"expressing itself in a more visible and coherent way and with a more perceptible face and voice".

Yet again, I assume that the Prime Minister had something in his mind when he agreed that the IGC should consider that and pointed it in that direction. If we are in favour of European foreign policy being more visible and coherent and having a more perceptible face and voice, I should be grateful to be told so today by the Government.

The points that I have made are not nit-picking points; indeed, they are fundamental points. They are points on which the British Government, through the voice and pen of the Prime Minister, have said that the intergovernmental conference (which is sitting for a year) should be beavering away to try to produce answers to such problems. I cannot believe the Government agreed that they should all go to the IGC, thinking that, perhaps, they had no view on the matter and would not take part in any discussions.

The question raised is: how much of all that is United Kingdom Government policy? How can the Prime Minister sign up in Turin to this and then pretend that it does not, and would not, involve greater integration? Of course it would. If carried into practice, it would be bound to involve greater majority voting in the Council, an enhanced role for the European Parliament, a common immigration and asylum policy and a much more co-ordinated European foreign policy.

Coupled with the agreements we made at Maastricht, this document, and the direction in which the IGC was pointed by the Prime Minister when he signed it, amounts to a significant step towards the creation of a European Union and a further curtailment of the United Kingdom's right of independent action. I am not necessarily against some of this, speaking personally, but a policy of signing up to one thing in Europe and then pretending otherwise at home is both disingenuous, and in the end it will be self-defeating. The truth is that if we believe what they say, they have agreed to virtually nothing; if we believe what they have signed up to as the agenda for the IGC, they have agreed to a lot. Just for once it would be pleasant to know the Government's true position. One can, of course, understand the limitations on governmental transparency imposed by the current situation inside the Conservative Party, but the time has surely come when this open Government should be a little more open with the country as to where they really stand.

My Lords, we on these Benches also wish to thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. The report, of course, is about the preparations for the beginning of the IGC, but judging from the press and judging from much comment that has been made, it is somewhat overwhelmed by the subject of beef, which is a subject on which we have perhaps heard rather a little too much over the past fortnight.

The Prime Minister must be glad to realise that the beef issue is recognised as a European issue. Perhaps he and the Government also accept that it is a good thing that it is recognised as a European issue. If we were not—I would not say at the heart of Europe—at least inside the European Union, we should have a great deal more trouble in dealing with our beef problem than we have at the present time. It is certainly welcome that our partners in the European Union are prepared to help with the financial implications. Incidentally, has anyone ever discovered how much BSE there is among our European partners? I know nothing about agriculture but I find it extremely difficult to believe that this unpleasant germ or condition—who knows what it is?—is confined to these islands. The fact that we are not told of the numbers of cases in other countries does not necessarily mean that they do not exist. Did we extract any information about the extent of the beef problem, or rather the potential for a beef problem, in these other countries, if that information were more widely available? Perhaps the noble Viscount can enlighten us about that.

On the subject of beef, it is good that there were negotiations and discussions about it, but surely the most important thing is to achieve a settlement of some kind as fast as possible. There can be no doubt whatever that there are a great many people in this country at the moment who think that they are likely to be broke by the end of next week unless the Government make a clear decision. As we are operating in what I humbly suggest is almost Cloud-cuckoo-town in regard to beef—the whole matter is in a realm of unreality—can we not just cut through it all, regardless of what comes out from Europe, and get on with it? That is what is urgently needed as regards the rural areas of this country. We need a decision to be made quickly so that people know where they stand. I hope we can be told how much help we shall receive and how quickly it will be given, but we need to come to a decision, whatever else there is to be done about the beef issue in the future.

Listening to the noble Viscount repeating the Statement I tried again to ascertain what the meeting was supposed to be about. I understand from the first page of the document that it is supposed primarily to be about enlargement. However, I see remarkably little within the Statement that tells us what will happen in relation to enlargement, and yet a great many of the issues that are raised should be very much about enlargement. The Statement refers to the problem of unemployment in the Union. The reference to enlargement is on the first page of the document if the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has overlooked it. The question of enlargement is surely at the heart of what is going on in relation to the IGC.

Unemployment is an extremely important issue in the European Union, and we all recognise that. For the Government to harp on about the effect of the social chapter really is to be straining at gnats and swallowing camels. Surely the most important issue in connection with enlargement is what its effect will be on employment in the better off countries with high standards of living inside the European Union when enlargement will bring in countries whose labour costs are so much lower. Yet, if we do not accept their goods, that makes extreme nonsense of any talk about enlargement. I am astonished that nowhere in the document is there any reference to what we will do about the problems arising from enlargement both in relation to the CAP and in relation to unemployment. To talk about the unemployment question and not to discuss it in relation to those countries with low costs which are to come into the Union seems to me to be missing the point in a most spectacular way.

The first two pages of the document are almost entirely devoted to stating that the Government are in fact Gaullists and that they believe in a union des patries, and not in any sense in a federal Europe. They use the word "federal"—as I would—in the sense in which it is understood in every country except Great Britain. Great Britain manages to create a bogey of federalism by misinterpreting the use of the word. Those of us who are strongly federal in the European sense are totally in support of subsidiarity. In fact in many ways we are more in support of subsidiarity than are Her Majesty's Government. However, that does not emerge.

The Government seem to think that they can go ahead with enlargement and yet maintain in every possible way national control over all the issues. Yet another inevitable consequence of enlargement is that we have to look at qualified majority voting. Again, in the Statement, the Government refer to qualified majority voting but they do not refer to the effect that enlargement will have on the whole question of voting. How can one possibly contemplate enlargement without saying how on earth one will make decisions when there are 17 or 25 countries who do not have the opportunity for qualified majority voting? It is "Hamlet" without the prince to have an IGC on the subject of enlargement and to leave those questions totally unanswered.

My Lords, I shall try to answer both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness as succinctly as I can. However, it will be a challenge in view of the number of questions that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked me. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked me two questions about beef. The first concerned when the Government package of measures would emerge. If I may, I shall link that to my response to the entirely justified urging of the noble Baroness that speed was of the essence in the restoration of confidence in the beef market. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture is in Luxembourg today discussing this issue with the Commission with the absolute endorsement of Her Majesty's Government, aiming to agree a package of measures to help restore confidence in beef right across Europe as swiftly as possible. The Government are all too well aware—as the noble Baroness pointed out—of the large number of jobs which depend directly and indirectly on the beef industry. The number of beef products spreads almost throughout the economic endeavour in this country. So it is essential that this period of uncertainty should be brought to a close as swiftly as possible. I hope that the eradication of BSE and the market support measures which my right honourable friend has discussed, and is discussing today, will be a welcome step towards getting the EU ban lifted, which I think is a prerequisite to the restoration of confidence.

The noble Lord's second question concerned compensation and whether it would come out of the rebate. It is not clear as yet what level of compensation will be payable to various interested parties. It will depend entirely on what measures emerge. It is important that when the measures emerge we should make it perfectly clear as swiftly as possible how they are to be applied and how they will operate. A broad declaration will not in itself restore confidence. What will restore confidence is the clarity with which Her Majesty's Government set out their proposals; and I hope that that will be possible in a very few days.

The question of compensation will have to be addressed at that point. However, I remind the noble Lord that measures on calves and a number of market support measures have been announced by my right honourable friend. The question of intervention is one to which the rules apply. A broadening of the rules and categories of intervention may emerge from my right honourable friend's discussions.

I turn to matters of the IGC. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, as always—he drew our attention to this fact—looked at the communiqué. I make no complaint about that. However, he forgot one thing, if I may so suggest, in his clear indication that the Government had not taken any trouble to set out their own policy. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has not forgotten the recent White Paper which published the negotiating objectives of Her Majesty's Government in the IGC. I am sure that what was set out in the White Paper has been part of the noble Lord's daily reading. However, I remind him that among our objectives set out clearly in that document has been the further entrenchment of subsidiarity in the treaty and action to ensure that the treaty articles are not misused. Indeed, my right honourable friend made it clear in his Statement that we feel that Article 118a, on health and safety, has been misused by the Commission, an issue on which we hope to get action during the course of the IGC. We hope to achieve improvements in the quality of legislation through better consultation and the automatic withdrawal of proposals not adopted within a given period. We do not want any more powers for the European Parliament at the expense of national parliaments or governments. We believe that the foreign and defence policy must remain the responsibility of national governments and that NATO should remain the bedrock of western security.

That is all fairly well ploughed ground; I could go on. However, there are some signs that our European partners are beginning at least to move in the direction that we have set out. I draw the noble Lord's attention in particular to the French Prime Minister's recent speech in which he underlined the central role in the European Union of the nation state and the supremacy of the Council of Ministers over the Commission.

In his reference to the final document, the noble Lord asked a number of questions. I believe that an ever closer union among peoples is clearly an objective which the Government can sign up to. After all, as set out in the White Paper, we fully support a strengthened co-operation and friendship across the whole of Europe. I suggest to your Lordships that that is not the same as an ever closer federal union of states—"federal" in the sense that we understand it in this country rather than as it is understood abroad, as the noble Baroness said.

As regards the strengthening of human rights, I believe that our position is perfectly clear. The fundamental human rights are already protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. All member states and the European Union are bound to respect that convention. As your Lordships know, the ECHR is already enforceable through its commission and through the court. The Government see no need for duplication of the ECHR in the EU treaty. I believe that there has been an Advocate-General's opinion supporting that view in the past few days.

I also point out to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that unemployment, the institutions, the widening of co-decision, simplifying procedures, the extension of QMV, rules to strengthen co-operation, and so on, are already well on the agenda so far as concerns European meetings. It seems perfectly sensible that those matters should be discussed. I am sure the noble Lord will realise that the fact they are discussed does not necessarily mean that Her Majesty's Government feel able to sign up to all of them. Indeed, they may not feel able to sign up to many of them—but that could be said also of a number of our European partners. However, if some of our partners wish to see those issues on the agenda, it is much better in the tradition of representative government to discuss whether they are to be accepted or rejected rather than that they should be swept under the carpet and not explored.

Rather than weary your Lordships with a long exposition on the common foreign and security policy, perhaps I may refer the noble Lord, Lord Richard, to the speech which my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary delivered recently in Paris. It set out our views very clearly indeed. In particular, my right honourable friend made it perfectly clear that it would be sensible for us to develop a common policy; and that it would be very much better if that policy were developed by consensus rather than by majority voting in the sense that it is much easier to ensure that there are no divisive votes on anything which can be of critical importance to individual countries.

It must be fair to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that a number of those areas, in particular as regards qualified majority voting, are integral to the question of enlargement. For reasons greater than the question of internal government of the European Union, I think that all noble Lords will agree that we must pursue enlargement with the utmost vigour. I am sure that the noble Baroness would agree with that. Nevertheless, unless we are able to find practical mechanics to enable enlargement to occur, that very desirable objective will be kicked further into the distance with considerable malign consequences for the future stability not only of central and eastern Europe but, I suspect, of western Europe, too. Therefore it is important that we should examine the matters to which the noble Baroness drew attention.

Finally, I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to the social chapter, to which the noble Baroness referred. It was perfectly right, in my view, for so much of the time of those who prepared for this European Council, and the conversation during the course of the European Council to concentrate on unemployment. It has become perhaps the greatest scourge for the membership of the European Union. Her Majesty's Government are clear that the way to address the scourge is broadly through the economic policies we have been endeavouring to pursue in this country for some years. It is a matter of deregulation, of supply side reforms, rather than the more prescriptive and expensive methods which have increasingly come to dominate attempted solutions by our European partners.

With the greatest diffidence, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that the statistics are beginning to give a hint, at the least, that we may have had a point all along. Our unemployment statistics, from far too a high a peak, have fallen since 1992 by 0.75 million. In the past three years we have created over 0.5 million new jobs. Our European partners have not had the same experience: they have high non-wage employment costs which we have managed increasingly to shed. The inward investment record of this country compared with that of our partners in Europe seems to show that many investors from outside western Europe agree with us. Therefore, I hope that in the run-up to the next general election the noble Lord will consider whether he feels that it is sensible—I put the point to him in the spirit of delightful amity and partnership which I hope he will agree we have developed during the past two years—to continue to advocate adherence to the social chapter and other matters which seem to obsess his party. Perhaps he will consider whether there are any votes in it from his point of view.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Rome Treaty was designed about 40 years ago for five nations of western Europe whose legal systems and constitutions had much in common? Even as amended, it is now quite unsuitable for an enlarged Community of 15 nations which may be further enlarged by several nations in the fairly near future. Is he aware that in the course of the IGC negotiations, attempts should therefore be made by Her Majesty's Government to persuade the other European countries to have a system based not on the Rome Treaty but on consolidation and amendment of the treaties which followed it in order to avoid the present confusion which arises in law making?

Is my noble friend aware that in the enlarged Community, with 11 different languages and a number of different constitutions, law making has become dilatory and cumbersome and the outcome is sometimes confusing? If the Community is to succeed in the years to come, as an enlarged Community of many different countries, we must get the constitutional position put right.

My Lords, everyone will sympathise with my noble friend. For that reason, we must look at streamlining the procedures and also take seriously the issue of subsidiarity which can make a great contribution towards the direction in which my noble friend wishes us to go.

My Lords—

My Lords, I will allow the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, to speak, since he is bigger than I.

My Lords, I did not mean size to count! The Minister must be aware that his statement that in a few days we hope to be able to come to an agreement and announce the action that we shall take on beef will strike despair into many hearts in this country. We have already had the Government announcing a serious danger which might arise and then a wait while disaster struck all over Europe until the committee reported. Now, apparently, we must wait until agreement is reached in Europe. Is the noble Viscount aware that intervention will be absolutely necessary? All over Britain, particularly in Scotland, fat cattle ready for market are piling up. However big the recovery is, it will not be sufficient to take the cattle off the market. Therefore, we must have intervention buying. It must come anyhow. If it is announced now at least we can start to employ slaughtermen and ancillary trades who are at present being put out of work.

Will the noble Viscount agree that a policy of selective slaughter, advocated by most people in this country who have thought about it, would speed the process which is already going on to reduce by at least half every year and eventually eliminate the big epidemic of BSE in this country? An announcement, without waiting to see what cash we shall receive, would contribute a great deal to the rest of the country having confidence in the Government.

My Lords, I have already mentioned the importance of intervention, so I am happy to agree that it will play an important part in the resolution of the crisis. Intervention exists, and there is the possibility of widening the intervention categories.

The noble Lord was extremely clear. I agree that it is important now to restore confidence in the consumption of beef. In Turin, my right honourable friend and his colleagues agreed that it is not only a matter for this country. I understand that the scare is beginning to have an effect on continental European beef markets as well as ours. The problem must be tackled on a European basis. That is why the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, was right when she emphasised that it was essential for Europe to move fast. That is what I hope my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture will have begun to secure today. The noble Lord is right; today will not be too soon.

My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that I agree with the Prime Minister that British beef is safe? It is probably safer than most of the beef now being imported. On the other hand, presumably the Government should ask themselves why, in that case, they plan to burn it. After all, it is someone's fault that that may happen; it could be the fault of the Opposition, the Cross Benches, I do not know. But apparently that is what will happen.

We are told that Ministers at the conference were in agreement with,

"an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe".

We are told, "We welcome it". Is it just the Prime Minister or the whole of the Cabinet who welcome it? In the next paragraph, we are told:

"In a Union firmly committed to the full implementation of the Treaties, including provisions on economic and monetary union, the Conference will provide the opportunity for dealing more effectively with the internal and external challenges of the coming years".

I am glad to hear it. But is the noble Viscount aware that, when the Reflection Group considered the matter for many months, it submitted and recommended an agenda which did not include anything to do with economic and monetary union? Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether it is now thought or intended that the IGC will consider the whole issue of economic and monetary union?

My Lords, the question of economic and monetary union is not on the agenda of the IGC. Nevertheless, the presidency conclusions from which the noble Lord quotes make clear at the top of page 3:

"The Heads of State or Government consider that the Conference should, in the light of the Reflection Group's Report and without prejudice to other questions which might be raised during the Conference, mainly focus its work on the areas described hereafter".

It is open to consensus among the negotiators to broaden the matters under discussion. Nevertheless, matters of economic and monetary union are not for this discussion, as the noble Lord well knows.

My Lords—

With regard to beef, it is important that your Lordships should be given the opportunity to express—the nods of approval, particularly from my noble friend Lord Ferrers, underline the importance that your Lordships attach to this matter—the fact that British beef is safe. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, emphasised that fact. My right honourable friend made it clear at Turin that the over-hasty European reaction in imposing a ban, which was not supported by scientific evidence, as was admitted, had merely succeeded in deepening the crisis. I wish that more people would follow the excellent example not only of the customers of Sainsbury's over the weekend but also of your Lordships' House. I am reliably informed by my noble friend Lord Lindsay that one evening last week when, as a result of undertaking his ministerial duties, he came into the Barry Room rather late and quite rightly demanded beef, he was told that unfortunately it had run out.

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. When I rose to speak, I thought that he had finished speaking.

The abrogation of the Rome Treaty was mentioned a moment ago by my noble friend. Can the noble Viscount confirm that that was never on the table or discussed at the conference? Can he also confirm that if that were to happen, the whole substructure of the jurisprudence of the Court would collapse and one would have to create some new fundamental treaty? Does he agree that the problems that this country faces are not with the decisions of the Court on the Rome Treaty as such but on the implementing regulations and, therefore, there would be no useful purpose to be served, irrespective of enlargement or not, in abrogating, as has been suggested, the Rome Treaty?

My Lords, I can reassure my noble friend. There is no question of abrogating the Rome Treaty. It is perfectly clear that, if certain measures are agreed as a result of negotiations during the course of the IGC, treaty amendment may be necessary. But that is rather different from wholesale abrogation.

My Lords, I gathered the impression that the Statement made in another place is somewhat softer and limper than the conclusions reached in the Government's White Paper. But I prefer to leave an assessment in greater detail for the debate which is to take place on the 15th of this month. It will also be necessary to assess the Statement in conjunction with the conclusions of the Italian presidency on 29th March. Those conclusions, for some reason, were not available until comparatively recently to me as a Member of your Lordships' House. However, they were available to the Conservative Party house magazine—the Daily Telegraph—in time for a detailed editorial to appear on the conclusions reached by the presidency. Incidentally, it was able to quote copiously from them. For the avoidance of doubt, I checked the quotations in the editorial in today's Daily Telegraph with the statements made by the presidency. They coincide. I do not like an embargo being imposed upon us that is not imposed upon other people in relation to these matters. After all, we have a fairly considerable interest in them. I should be glad if the noble Viscount would cause investigations to be made.

There are just three matters of comparatively topical interest on which I should like to touch. From the Statement made in another place, I am not at all sure about the financial impact on the United Kingdom of any arrangements under consideration for aid to be given by the European Community to the United Kingdom. I noticed the observations made by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place. The right honourable Member for Kingston-Upon-Thames indicated that we should, after all, only be getting back some of our own money. I draw attention to the fact that at the moment we contribute some £2½ billion net to the Community. Although any contribution from our own money would be extremely welcome, we should not welcome the occasion, proposed by the European Parliament itself, to revise or abolish the existing arrangements relating to the United Kingdom's rebate.

Other matters dealt with in the Statement relate to the beef issue upon which I am no expert other than as a very avid consumer of the product. What bothers me a little—my understanding of the position may be wrong—is that the European Community arrogated to itself the right to instruct us not to send our beef to countries outside the European Union; in other words, there was an embargo against our exporting to anyone at all, let alone to the European Community. I should be glad to be corrected on that point. If it were true that the Community sought to ban British exports from here to, say, the United States or any other country outside the Community, I should strongly dissent. I shall be glad if the noble Viscount will say whether or not that is true. If it is true, it should be resisted.

Finally, in the communiqué there is inserted—according to the Daily Telegraph—at the express behest of the French Government, the suggestion that the IGC could also address the question of the compatibility between competition and the principles of universal access to essential services in the citizens' interest. I shall be glad if the noble Viscount can elucidate exactly what is meant by that suggestion in the presidency conclusions because many might think that it is in contradiction of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty of Rome.

I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to give some enlightenment on those matters.

My Lords, first, I shall certainly investigate the noble Lord's complaint about the availability of the conclusions to a certain newspaper before either he or I had seen them. Perhaps I may write to him. It is perfectly clear that draft conclusions have been floating about the European ether for some weeks if not months. I am not entirely clear whether, in fact, a certain newspaper had access to a final version of the conclusions before the noble Lord or I saw them.

So far as the legality of the European ban on British beef exports is concerned, I am advised that there is a reasonable legal basis for what the Commission has done. However, as your Lordships will be aware, different lawyers often have different views on these matters. Her Majesty's Government are examining the true worth of that legal basis with some expedition. I do not want to raise the hopes of the noble Lord too high because the advice we received comes from eminent sources.

In relation to the access to universal services, it is no secret that there are some countries among our European partners who feel that there should be a social and national element involved in the provision of services from utilities. It is perfectly clear from the record of Her Majesty's Government in that respect that the standard of services provided by utilities and, indeed, the price of those services in the first instant has gone up and in the second has gone down as a result of the policies we pursued which have had rather more of a commercial edge. It seems to us that—how can I put it without offending the noble Lord too much?—the rather more socialist traditions of some partners is not always in the best interests of the consumer, which is what we are pursuing.

My Lords, perhaps I can draw out my noble friend on one matter which he mentioned; that is, enlargement. That is generally regarded to be a good thing. My noble friend referred to practical mechanics being necessary. Do the Government accept that for enlargement, reform of the common agricultural policy will be necessary? If so, are they mindful of the fact that of the 87 votes which exist in the Council, only 26 constitute a blocking minority? Further, in relation to the mechanics of the treaty, the communiqué says that,

"the implementation of the convergence criteria for the achievement of the economic and monetary union [is necessary]. However, supplementary coordinated action is necessary".

Does my noble friend agree that if the convergence criteria slip, that will give Her Majesty's Government the opportunity to use Article N of the treaty and prevent any further monetary union unless we get back most of the things that we want from our European partners?

My Lords, I am conscious that our time is up. However, we feel strongly that CAP reform should lie high on the agenda, not only for reasons allied to our hope for enlargement of the Community, but also for reasons of good sense in relation to the administration of the CAP. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture issued a glossy document some months ago which set out some of our initial thoughts on the subject.

With regard to the second point of my noble friend, he is pursuing a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I refer him to the answer I gave.

moved Amendment No. 198:

Page 64, line 6, at end insert ("together with all days forming part of a customary holiday period within the industry in question").

My noble friend Lord Howie has a point. It is difficult in timetabling simply to concentrate on what is statutory time rather than what is conventional time within the industry with which we are dealing. Though I accept that it may be difficult to include my noble friend's amendment in the Bill immediately, I hope that the Government will accept that there are arrangements within the industry which are generally acknowledged and which would make the timetable specified in the Bill difficult for them to meet on certain occasions.

The noble Lord, Lord Howie, says that this is a simple amendment and he is sure that the Government will be able to accept it. But the noble Lord, Lord Williams, sees a difficulty. In fact, so do I.

I have a lot of sympathy with the suggestion that customary holidays should be discounted from the time periods mentioned in the Bill. But I wonder how practical that would be. It may vary from place to place or even from site to site. The last thing we want to create is a source of dispute about the precise timing of deadlines.

It may be that some builders take two weeks off over Christmas or during the summer so that everyone can go on holiday at the same time. It would be difficult and, indeed, unfair to take that into account in that the payee may have to wait an extra two weeks for his money. Many of the time periods mentioned in the Bill concern payment or the transmission of information. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Howie, that, so long as the banks are operating and postal services are working, there is little justification in discounting certain special days. It would not be fair that a small businessman had to wait for his money because his employer had gone on holiday.

As it is written in the Bill, obvious days such as Bank Holidays, Good Friday, Christmas Day and Easter Day are all taken account of. It would be inappropriate to widen that scope.

I have known the noble Earl for the best part of 30 years and I notice that he has an unerring aim for difficulties which nobody else can see. Of course, that is part of his job.

As I read the Bill—I may be mistaken and no doubt the noble Earl will correct me in due course—"reckoning periods of time" relates to a variety of things. There are periods of time for payment to any contract involving extensions of time and things of that nature. But there are traditions with which the noble Earl may not be wholly aware.

I can remember when my father worked in Troon Shipyard. They had a local custom which was continual and traditional. They had two days off at new year—the 1st and 2nd January—and then on 3rd January the workers congregated near the shipyard and threw a brick into the air. If the brick stayed up, they went into work; if it came down again, they had a third day off. This was a traditional holiday and I have no doubt that others have similar traditions. More seriously, there are certain traditional holidays. I mentioned Wakes weeks and the Glasgow fair, both of which last two weeks or so and have great significance, especially in relation to extensions of time.

If the noble Earl can convince me that this part of the Bill relates entirely to time in relation to payments, I may well be satisfied that he is right. But if, on the other hand, he does not do that and leaves hanging in the air, as it were, such matters as extensions of time—I shall try to keep talking until the noble Earl's colleague returns from his advisers—which are rather more important because they have knock-on effects in terms of such operations as follow after the extensions of time, I shall not be satisfied. An extension of time, which extends the whole contract period and impinges upon the operations of sub-contractors, other contractors and ancillary contractors, is totally different from something which is merely a matter of accountancy. I think I can probably stop now because I see that the noble Earl's colleague has returned. I should like a reply from the noble Earl.

The noble Lord, Lord Howie, said that he has known me for 30 years. He has indeed; he is a very lucky chap. He said that I have an erring aim for difficulties.

An unerring aim.

That is even worse. The curious thing is that, as far as I can see, the encroaches of senility make me seem to find everything simple. I would not want to pick an argument with anyone—least of all the noble Lord, Lord Howie. The noble Lord gave as a reason for his argument the fact that up in Scotland when they want a day off they throw a brick into the air and if it comes down they take it. That is a curious analogy to use in support of one's argument, because I do not suppose many of the bricks stay up in the air, unless it happens in Scotland where they do have very curious habits.

The time limits in the Bill refer to payment. They also refer to other things as well. I really do not think it possible to take these other curious, if I may so describe them, occasions, which are not national occasions or statutory occasions, and build them into the Bill because they will have different effects in different parts of the country. It seems unreasonable to tell people who are expecting money, and may be expecting some money on, say, 15th August, that everyone has gone on holiday for two weeks and they have to wait for two weeks for their money. After all, this is a case of making payments when payments are known to be expected and payments are due. I should have thought that it is perfectly reasonable to say in those circumstances that only the statutory holidays should be taken into account.

I hope that I have been able to persuade the noble Lord because, very curiously, he said that he was open to persuasion. That is an unusual facet of the noble Lord's character. I hope that I have managed to persuade him that it is better to leave the provision as it is.

I find the noble Earl's argument persuasive but only up to a point. If I heard him correctly, he said that these time matters refer to payments and other things as well. But it was the "other things as well" that I was bothered about. I said that in so far as it was a matter of payment I accepted his proposition—and I do—but matters such as extensions of time on a contract with the consequential knock-on effects are totally different. I am not sure that he has convinced me. He has half persuaded me, as I thought he would, but he has not persuaded me wholly, because he did not apply himself to what I actually said. I think the correct thing for the noble Earl to say is that he will look at what I have said and ask me to withdraw my amendment. If he says that, I shall happily comply.

It is a remarkable thing when the noble Lord says to me that if he were me I would say what the noble Lord thought I should say. But, as I am myself, and as I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Howie, I shall do what the noble Lord says. I shall ask him to withdraw the amendment. I shall certainly have a look at what he has said and if I have either misdirected myself or, even worse, misdirected the noble Lord, I shall certainly get in touch with him. I shall certainly look at what he has said to see whether there is anything we can do to meet that point.

Since we seem to have changed our places in some curious way I am happy to comply with what the noble Earl suggests. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 113 agreed to.

Clause 114 [The Board and its committees]:

moved Amendment No. 199:

Page 64, line 23, after ("committees") insert ("(which must have a majority of Board members)").

Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. He referred to the noble Lord, Lord Elvel. I think he actually meant the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. It is only a small point.

I am most grateful. I was being economical with my language in order to shorten the remarks which I propose to make. I am grateful for the correction. I have made that mistake before and I apologise to the Committee and to the noble Lord, Lord Williams.

The noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Berkeley, talked about representations over the weekend. All I would say is that I have had many representations on behalf of 30,000 registered architects who hoped very much that Part III of the Bill, which is so important to them, would be considered last Thursday but for reasons we all know, though sunshine turned to twilight and twilight eventually turned to darkness, the House rose for unusual reasons before that part of the Bill could be reached.

It is a most important part of the Bill and it is for that reason very significant legislation for the profession. For more than 60 years it has depended very largely for its status and therefore its livelihood on the 1931 legislation. Part III of the Bill effectively amends, but in a very important and significant way, the legislation of more than 60 years ago and some subsequent amending legislation. However, there is a significant difference between the 1931 Act and Part III of the Bill which reflects our changing times. The 1931 Act was certainly seen as protecting the profession from imposters—those who claimed to be architects when they were not—and from others and, despite the support, as I shall explain, that has been given by the great majority of architects to Part III of the Bill, the Bill and Part III ought to be considered primarily as protecting the public. For that reason it is important for the Committee to look at the detail of the proposals in that spirit.

Equally, if it is a sea change of the kind which I suggest—indeed it is as regards the further amendments to which we shall come—it is not surprising that architects have been caused some anxiety, not necessarily by what the Bill says but by details which, for one reason or another, have been omitted. My amendments are all probing amendments. At present I do not intend to press them to a Division at this stage of the Bill. The amendments are all intended to enable Ministers to place beyond all reasonable doubt what the new registration body will be like and how it will be expected to function. If, as I anticipate, helpful replies are given today of a robust and emollient kind—those two things can go together—I shall certainly not expect to press the matters further at a different stage of the Bill.

I shall be on my feet on a number of occasions in the next hour so I shall say what I said at Second Reading. I was the director-general of the RIBA from 1987 to 1994, and a consultant for a short period afterwards. I am an honorary Fellow now. I was very much involved in the discussion of the contents of the Bill, in the first place with Sir George Young when he was a Minister, and also with the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, and officials. All the amendments that I am putting before the Committee today have the support of the Royal Institute of British Architects though it would not necessarily agree with the way in which I shall address them.

The noble Lord has referred on a number of occasions to all the amendments. I take it that the noble Lord is speaking to a number of them at the moment. Can he tell us what the others are?

The noble Lord anticipates by about 10 seconds what I intended to say. I thought it was important to make my position clear so that there would be no misunderstanding. The amendments stand in my name and nobody, in accordance with the proper procedures of this House, can be committed to them. Now that the Committee is preliminarily apprised of the amendments to which I shall later be speaking, I am now speaking, as the Marshalled List suggests, to Amendments Nos. 199 and 200, which go together. Amendments Nos. 212 and 213 are essentially belt and braces amendments. I do not intend to make any particular reference to them.

My remarks will now be quite short in addressing Amendments Nos. 199 and 200 together. They make clear my anxiety and the area as regards which I hope the Minister will be able to help. As the Minister and the Committee may know, the Government originally had in mind to end altogether the registration of architects, but then they had a very wise change of mind. At that stage there were alternatives about how the problem of future registration might be dealt with. One possibility was that responsibility for maintaining a register of architects should be passed to the RIBA itself. Indeed, in John Warne's report to Ministers, he recommended the ending of registration. He said that were registration to continue, he thought that the best option was to pass responsibility for maintaining the register to the professional body. That was one option and most favoured by John Warne and at that time by the RIBA itself.

The second option, which was developed both among the professional bodies and in ARCUK itself, the existing registration body, which embraces registered architects who are not members of a professional body like the RIBA or its equivalent in Scotland or Northern Ireland, was called a "minimalist organisation". I am very glad to say that that being the alternative which was most widely favoured in the end, both by the architects themselves and by Her Majesty's Government, the Bill embodies in its detail the essentials of such a minimalist organisation.

For example, there is a board of 15 people instead of a council of 77. It is a board shorn of the unnecessary committees which have created some problems in the past, particularly the Board of Architectural Education. I hope that the new organisation, being minimalist, is the cheapest to run although I make it clear to the Members of the Committee, if they are in doubt, that the present organisation for registration and its successor set out in the Bill, will be paid for by the profession itself. No cost falls on the public purse.

As I say, the direction of the Bill, as printed, is towards a minimalist organisation. I move principally these two amendments, and the others which follow from it, to make clear to the Committee that my understanding of the organisation is its understanding, too. It believes in a minimalist organisation, which will not attempt in any way to grow beyond the bounds set in statute in order to avoid any unnecessary conflict with the professional bodies which will very properly continue to represent those architects who join. The organisation will be kept as economical as possible in order, quite reasonably, to conserve the resources of a profession which, among all professions, is not a very well rewarded one. I hope that the Minister will be able to give those assurances. I beg to move.

Do I understand correctly that the noble Lord is not speaking to Amendments Nos. 212 and 213 at this stage?

That is correct.

Perhaps I may first apologise to the House for not being here on earlier occasions. My work takes up a lot of time in the afternoons and evenings. Although I would have wished to take part in the debates on the Bill, so far, I have been unable to do so. I have come to the House particularly for Part III of the Bill. I declare to the Committee my interests. I am a chartered surveyor. I started life as a land agent. I then became a commercial agent and then a developer. I have now set up a business as an estate agent. During those times I have used the services of architects and I wish that I had not had to bother with them.

This is the most bizarre part of the Bill. How this Government, which I support, can have changed their mind after receiving an independent report from Mr. John Warne that we should get rid of this dreadful legislation, beggars belief. I cannot follow my noble friends' thought processes. However, we have this dreadful Part III of the Bill. The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, only serve to make it even worse.

However, I support the noble Lord on Amendment No. 200, which is reducing and minimising the cost of the board to the profession. The best way of doing that is to scrap the board and to take away the rather unique position in which architects find themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said that the reason why architects wanted this board so much was that it protected their profession. He went on to say that it protects the public. What a load of rubbish! The public certainly do not need protection from architects. They need the greatest ability there is to seek competitive positions in this profession and from other people who can provide just the same services as architects, but much more efficiently, effectively and at a cheaper price.

I wonder who needs protecting from a profession that can produce a calendar for this year of 12 pretty pictures showing the designs of buildings. Five of those buildings have never been built and they are never going to be built. The great majority of the rest have been modified extensively from the original concept. Many of my own designs have had to be rescued from the hands of architects by quantity surveyors and others in the profession. There are too many buildings in this country, too many ideas and too much money has been lost as a result of bad workmanship by architects that others have luckily been able to rescue or, in many cases, not. I cannot support the thrust of Part III of the Bill. I shall argue most strongly against the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers.

I was going to say that I have been driven to speak by the last speaker, but I had intended to contribute anyway, so perhaps I should say—this may come as a surprise—that I am driven with alacrity to defend architects. Perhaps I should say first that I am a member of MSF, the Manufacturing, Science and Finance trades union, which currently has some difficulties with the Royal Institute of British Architects.

Secondly, and probably more importantly, I have used the services of architects and I have friends in the architectural profession. Furthermore, because of my involvement directly and indirectly with the civil engineering and building industry over a period of 30 years, I can testify to the professional competence of architects. The professional way in which they go about their business extends not only to their professional competence in a technical sense but also, generally speaking and in my experience, to the way in which they treat other professionals as well as people involved in their own business.

I shall concentrate my remarks on Amendment No. 200, which is grouped with Amendment No. 199. Part of my reason for speaking is that I fear that the concentration on the minimisation of costs and administrative burdens addresses only one side of the equation. We have had 17 years of this Government, whose constant cry is that they are keen on reducing taxation. We need to recognise, however, that all that they have done is to reduce the taxation levels of the very rich; the taxation burdens for the rest of us have increased. That is the first point. By concentrating on arguments about reducing taxation, the Government have lost track of the other side of the equation, which is the fact that we must be aware of the need for the provision of adequate and decent levels of service. By concentrating on just one side of the equation, the Government have effectively lost their way in terms of being a government of the country. Judging from the opinion polls, my view is shared by the vast majority of the British people.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, will not take it amiss if I say that if he were to press Amendment No. 200, he would in effect be going down the same kind of road as the Government, because by concentrating on one side of the equation, if I may put it like that, there is a risk of losing sight of the other side of the equation. I hope that the noble Lord will think again about Amendment No. 200 and take on board the need to look at both sides of the equation.

I, too, am tempted to my feet by the intervention of my noble friend Lord Caithness. I had expected to say that it was a great pity that my noble friend had not been here for our earlier consideration of the Bill, but having heard his speech I am not quite sure whether that is what I want to say.

I am puzzled by what my noble friend said. The burden of his message was that architects are to be mistrusted and done down at every possible turn because he has had such a bad experience with them and so, he says, has everybody else. How strange, therefore, that he should object to the constitution of a body which determines who may be allowed to practise as architects, when the majority of that body is appointed to protect the public interest while only a minority is elected by the profession. I should have thought that my noble friend would argue for exactly that. I hope that he will repent of his intervention.

I, too, was a little puzzled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I have come over the years to respect his views on things. However, not being a member of any of the professions about which we are speaking and not belonging to any of their organisations, but speaking as somebody who may potentially employ the services of an architect, I would take it amiss if there were not a register of those eminent people so that I could be assured that the architect I selected had the normal, required professional qualifications. I strongly support the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. A simple register, administered with minimum cost, is what we require. I very much hope that my noble friend's amendments to that effect will be accepted.

I am delighted that at last we have had the opportunity to hear the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, whom I had hoped to see on Thursday. He is here now, however, and in prime time and I am sure that achieving that was the real intention behind the Division on Clause 111 stand part which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, called. I can find no other reason for that action.

I am rather taken by the thought that 30,000 architects are all standing up, crying out for the Bill. One wonders what would happen if one were to pile them all on top of each other. One asks oneself whether they would stand up. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Caithness would have some opinions on that point.

We support this part of the Bill and the efforts made to bring the provisions to fruition by the companions in arms in architecture of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. Despite what my noble friend Lord Caithness said, we believe that they will prove to be a worthwhile change to the legislation.

On the amendments, I find myself in the same camp as the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. The noble Lord began by taxing my imagination and I wondered whether we were talking about the same Bill. Eventually, however, we returned to the Bill and the noble Lord supported the attitude that I shall take to Amendment No. 200. All's well that Monkswell, I suppose.

The aim of the amendments is to ensure that the new Architects Registration Board does not spawn several new large and expensive committees. We are certainly sympathetic to that aim. We have established a new professional conduct committee but, having abolished the Board of Architectural Education and the admission committee, the last thing we would wish to see is large new committees rising from the ashes, as it were, to take their place. I accept that such committees may be bureaucratic and expensive to run, and one of our aims in reducing the size of the Architects' Registration Council of the UK was to reduce registration costs.

We agree with the minimalist approach implied by the amendments. Our proposals would reduce the board to only 15 members and we would not wish the board to be supplemented by vast committees. However, I do not think that the proposed amendments are the right way to deal with this possibility.

While I might agree with the sentiments contained in Amendment No. 200, I do not think legislation is the right way forward. After all, any professional body is bound to act reasonably with regard to the interests of that profession, and this would include avoiding unnecessary costs.

There must be a certain amount of trust and a new organisation should be free to run its own affairs without having its hands tied unduly by legislation. If, at some time in the future, the board were to act in a way contrary to the spirit of this legislation, there is the possibility of changing the composition of the board both through elections and through the appointed members.

The proposals in Amendment No. 199 to insist on a majority of board members on all committees established by the board unnecessarily ties the hands of the board, which ought, in establishing its small, effective but inexpensive committees, to be granted the freedom to choose who should serve on them.

I, too, very much regret the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, was not able to be present on Second Reading because I thought that the points that he made were very much Second Reading points. Although I recognise their weight, I found his remarks today a little intemperate and prejudiced. If the noble Earl does not mind me saying so, the answer to his claim that the Bill is a "load of rubbish"—those were his words—although it is argued that it is designed to protect the public, was extremely well given by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who pointed to the membership of the board, a matter to which we shall return when we reach Amendment No. 211.

At the time of the passage of the original legislation, the professions had much greater status and were taken for granted by the public. However, their status has changed greatly during the past 60 or more years. Although I do not necessarily agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has said about the composition of the board, the fact that by election it can be changed by that part of it which is subject to nomination is safeguard enough. I say to the noble Viscount that I would not resist an argument, if it were put forward by the profession of chartered surveyors, that it should have registration. I say cautiously that I think it is mean of him as a chartered surveyor to try to interfere with the entitlements of architects when I am sure that the great majority of that profession would not wish, in a similar way, to interfere with the wishes of the profession of surveyors, if it decided to pursue this course.

I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lords Monkswell and Elton, and to my noble friend Lord Ezra for the support they have given to the spirit of my amendment. I am not entirely happy with what the Minister said in referring to the composition of the board, which could not be quickly changed, as sufficient guarantee against the possibility that this would not be minimalist but would grow by the establishment of new committees. He said specifically that the last thing the Government would wish to see would be large new committees arising. I believe that this provides some guarantee that, should there be any danger of it, the Government will endeavour to find ways to reverse that trend, which would not be in keeping with the contents of the Bill or the intentions behind it.

The noble Lord was kind enough to thank me for the support for his amendment. In case he intends to do it again at a later stage, I point out that I was not saying anything about his amendment but supporting this part of the Bill against the misguided attack of my noble friend Lord Caithness. I reserve the right to attack anything that the noble Lord brings forward at the next stage with just as much ferocity as that, if the need arises.

I hope I was not presumptuous. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out to the noble Viscount, Lord Caithness, the proportions of the Bill.

I, too, point out that I was not being supportive of the noble Lord's amendment but merely complimentary to the profession as a whole.

I am amazed by how many noble Lords are disowning, not their earlier remarks, but my response to them. I acknowledge that the Official Report should be read. That is the only way to discover precisely what noble Lords have said. For the moment, I am grateful to them for what they have said about the amendment and the spirit of Part III of the Bill. For that reason, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 200A:

Page 65, line 21, at end insert ("or who has infringed the rights of other registered persons in respect of belonging to a trade union.").

It grieves me that I rise to support the amendment. I have a great deal of respect for the architectural profession as a whole and many individual members of it whom I know. I respect also the way in which they operate, not just in the sense of professional and technical competence but in the way they treat others, whether they be clients, staff or other professionals. I believe it to be a blot on the escutcheon of the architectural profession that the dispute between the leadership and employees of the Royal Institute of British Architects has arisen. I hope that in supporting the amendment the Government will send out a very clear message to the profession that, while this part of the Bill is about the professional competence of the profession, there is also an expectation on the part of society that professional people should behave in a responsible manner to others with whom they come in contact, particularly those they employ.

I suspect that the action of the leadership of the RIBA has been disturbing to a large number of practising architects. They feel that their profession is brought into disrepute by this action. It is to be hoped, even at this late stage, action can be taken, in the form of an amendment, to make amends for this blot on the escutcheon of the architectural profession, all members of which are listening to this debate, according to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank.

This amendment has nothing to do with the Bill. The Bill is not about the RIBA but about an entirely different body: the Architects' Registration Council. The Bill affects registered architects, not unregistered employees of the RIBA. The right to belong to a trade union and protection against infringement of that right is properly dealt with across all industries and professions by employment legislation. This Bill contains provisions that deal with allegations of unacceptable professional conduct. If it were alleged that the type of infringement under discussion constituted unacceptable professional conduct, it should be dealt with in a proper manner as set out in the Bill. But this Bill does not even require architects to be very good architects; it certainly does not require them to be very good employers or people. That is entirely outside the scope of the Bill.

It would be wrong and contrary to the principles of natural justice for a person against whom an allegation had been made simply to be thrown out by the registrar without his case being heard and dealt with in a proper way. The registrar would be entirely the wrong person to hear a case of this kind. I very much hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment without further ado.

Perhaps I may point out to the Minister that the amendment is entirely within the context of the thrust of this part of the Bill, because it talks about registered architects. The amendment is drawn fairly narrowly in that it applies only to registered architects who are denied their trade union rights. With that explanation, the Minister might like to reconsider his remarks, because, as I said, the problems are faced by registered architects, and that is what this part of the Bill is about.

The amendment does not refer to other members of the RIBA's staff who are not registered architects. If the RIBA were to be required to confer what everyone, I think, would consider to be the right of trade union membership and representation to registered members who are members of staff, those same rights would be read across to other members of staff who were not necessarily registered architects.

Neither does the Bill deal with registered architects who have difficulty obtaining their child benefit. Registered architects, along with everyone else, have the rights granted by employment legislation. That is the right place for those rights. They have no place in the Bill.

Of course, in a narrow technical sense the Minister is right, but I draw a great deal of comfort from two phrases that he used. He used the phrases, "very good employers" and "very good people". I think by that he meant that he welcomes employers who are good employers and behave decently to their employees. There was indication of a slight rap over the knuckles of people who are not good employers. I welcome that rap over the knuckles. In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 201:

Page 66, line 12, at end insert ("and shall consult the chartered bodies of architects in the United Kingdom and shall have special regard to the advice received from such bodies.").

Perhaps I may raise one point. I appreciate that my noble friend may not be able to answer off the cuff, but I should be happy if he would write to me. I remember on the question of registration and education in the years when I was a junior Minister having to go to Brussels to discuss common qualifications with other members of the Community, in particular the Germans. I wonder whether registration here will automatically mean registration throughout the EU; and, equally, whether we would be prepared to accept EU architects, however they may have been educated, under the proposals.

I shall instantly satisfy my noble friend by saying that I shall not give him an answer now and that I shall write to him.

I turn to the amendment. One of the duties of the new board will be to consult such professional bodies as it considers appropriate before adopting any qualifications, practical experience, and examination requirements for registration. I can fully understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, to make it absolutely certain that the chartered architectural bodies will be among the consultees. Their advice on the criteria for registration will be of particular importance to the board.

Let me therefore assure the Committee that in carrying out that function the board will have to act reasonably in deciding which bodies to consult and in having regard to any advice received. It would clearly be unreasonable for the board to fail to include chartered architectural bodies in its consultations, or not to consider their representations. For that reason, I see no need for a specific reference to that group of consultees on the face of the Bill. I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

I hesitate to intervene between the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, but the answer to the noble Lord's question is that there are acceptable reciprocal arrangements between the member states of the European Union under the architects' directive. The point is most important and it is one to which the new registration body must give continuing attention.

I am grateful for what the Minister said. In particular, I am comforted by his comment about the board having to act reasonably. To say that the profession should be among the consultees might seem to diminish its relative role. I am sure that was not his intention, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 202:

Page 66, line 40, leave out ("within three") and insert—

("(a) where the application is made on the ground that he satisfies subsection (1)(a), within three months of his application being duly made; and

(b) where the application is made on the ground that he satisfies subsection (1)(b), within six").

Perhaps I may refer to a comment which the Minister made about Amendment No. 204. He suggested that the amendment would give the professional conduct committee the discretion not to impose a penalty against someone whom it had found guilty of professional misconduct or incompetence. He suggested that the reason for not imposing a penalty was that the transgression might be considered too trivial.

I am not sure that the Minister meant to make that suggestion and perhaps I may suggest another scenario. The misconduct or incompetence may be of a serious nature but the standing of the architect and the fact that he has been found guilty will be enough of a penalty in itself. That will give the professional conduct committee the ability to declare the fact that they have found someone guilty, even though for a significant offence, yet impose no penalty. Does the Minister confirm that that is an acceptable understanding of the amendment?

I hesitate to leap onto that possibly shaky ground. I shall consider what the noble Lord said and shall write to him if, after consideration, I in any way disagree with what he said.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 116, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 117 [Discipline]:

moved Amendment No. 203:

Page 67, line 43, at beginning insert ("serious or repeated").

The noble Lord explained himself very well and I have a clear understanding of the difference between "serious or repeated" and "serious and repeated". An error which is not serious but has been repeated is perhaps the noble Lord's continuing demotion of my noble friend Lord Caithness!

The Government are opposed to Amendment No. 203 on the simple ground that it is unnecessary. There are already two opportunities to decide whether an allegation of professional incompetence is taken further. First, persons appointed by the board, or the professional conduct committee itself, must satisfy themselves that there is a case to answer. Secondly, the professional conduct committee has discretion to satisfy itself whether professional incompetence has taken place. In both cases it will be possible to decide that the matter is sufficiently trivial or isolated not to be regarded as professional incompetence.

The addition of the words "serious or repeated" would do little to clarify matters. After all, their interpretation is a matter of opinion and it would be for the same committee to decide. In any event, I expect that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, will be doubly reassured by the Government's Amendment No. 204, which removes the requirement for the committee to make any disciplinary order if it considers none to be necessary.

I hope that my remarks have convinced the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, as I am sure he will, I ask my noble friend to notice that as presently drafted, Clause 117 requires that the case "shall" be investigated where there is an allegation of either of the two kinds of offences mentioned. Therefore, the discretion to which he referred is not apparent on the face of the Bill. If the Bill said that the case "may" be investigated, what my noble friend said would be plain to all who read the legislation. I hope that my noble friend will seek further clarification about that before the next stage because it would be a great pity if this machine, which is intended to be smooth, simple and cheap to run, were required accidentally to investigate every scintilla of doubt in relation to professional propriety. For once, I find myself in modest agreement with the noble Lord opposite.

I pause to see whether the Minister wishes to respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, because the element of discretion is extremely important. I had understood that there was discretion, but I may have misread the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will clarify this matter because it is very important. Indeed, if it is not clarified to my satisfaction, I would certainly consider raising this matter again at a later stage.

I am surprised that the noble Earl—and I beg his pardon—Lord Caithness had not thought of intervening on the amendment, because I should have thought that he might wish to express strong opposition to it. In view of what he said earlier about architects, I thought that he might consider that on every possible occasion, for whatever error had been committed, architects should be subject to the provisions of the Bill and to disciplinary action. But perhaps on reflection, the noble Earl feels that his earlier language was rather strong and therefore is prepared to go along with the amendment.

Although in the circumstances I must withdraw the amendment at this stage, if there is no discretion I may return to the matter on Report. It may well be that in the interval between now and Report, the Minister will write to me to point out what both the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and I have missed or, alternatively, I may discover for myself that the element of discretion exists satisfactorily.

Perhaps I may intervene to ask the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, what discretion he suggests should be written in. It would concern me greatly if all allegations were not investigated. The Bill is silent as to the extent of those investigations. I would hope that even where an accusation has been made that appears vexatious, some degree of investigation, even though it may be fairly minimal, takes place and that no accusation or allegation is dismissed as trivial or insubstantial.

As I said, the Bill as I read it does not give any explanation as to how much investigation would take place. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, will accept that we must ensure that all allegations are investigated, even though it may not be in great depth.

I agree with that. It is an extremely important point because there must be no presumption of any matter being vexatious. It must be investigated to see whether or not it is. However, I have tabled this amendment in these precise terms to ensure that anything which is not serious or repeated should not have the results which are set out in Clause 117. But I can see from the movement of the Minister that he has extremely important matters to divulge to the Committee.

I really wish to stand by what I said in my initial answer. Clearly, reading Clause 117, if it appears to the registrar that a person may be guilty of unacceptable professional conduct or incompetence or if an allegation is made to that effect, then the matter will be investigated. There is no discretion there.

The discretion comes in at the next stage when the persons investigating the case must find that a registered person has a case to answer. That is the first filter. Unsubstantiated allegations will drop out at that stage. The professional conduct committee must then satisfy itself that what is alleged has actually occurred. I presume that some allegations will drop out at that stage too. The professional conduct committee may then find that what has occurred is of such little import that it makes no award against the architect concerned.

Those are the three levels of discretion which exist in the Bill as amended once my amendments are accepted. I believe that that is the right arrangement and that people can be sure that their allegations will be investigated. However, there are adequate filters to make sure that unsubstantiated allegations do not take up a lot of time.

I am grateful to the Minister. I believe that he provides some reassurance for me and for the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, by setting out the various stages which are followed in those circumstances. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendments Nos. 204, 205, 206, 207 and 208:

Page 68, leave out lines 28 to 37 and insert—

("(1) The Professional Conduct Committee may make a disciplinary order in relation to a registered person if—

(a) it is satisfied, after considering his case, that he is guilty of unacceptable professional conduct or professional incompetence; or

(b) he has been convicted of a criminal offence other than an offence which has no material relevance to his fitness to practise as an architect.").

Page 69, line 4, leave out from ("persons") to ("disciplinary") in line 8 and insert ("whom it has found guilty of unacceptable professional conduct or professional incompetence or in relation to whom it has made a disciplinary order under subsection (1)(b); and

(b) in the case of each person a description of the conduct, incompetence or offence concerned and the nature of any").

Page 69, line 23, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(1)(a)").

Page 69, line 26, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(1)(b)").

Page 69, line 34, leave out ("penalty order or a suspension") and insert ("suspension order or an erasure").

moved Amendment No. 209:

Page 71, line 4, after second ("Act")") insert—

("(a) in subsection (1), after " "Architect" " where it first occurs, insert "nor in the course of business hold himself out to be such by the use of similar words"; and

(b)").

I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Rogers of Quarry Bank, is seeking to do, but I have some fears that his amendment would go much further than his stated intention. I am not clear whether the terminology is as precise as he suggested. The noble Lord used words like "misrepresentation" and "masquerade" to describe people who are in professions other than architecture but who provide professional services which have some relationship to what the general public would consider to be building work, architecture and so on. I am worried lest the effect of the amendment would prove to be far more restrictive than would be acceptable, given the fact that other professions are also allowed to undertake some of the work in the building area.

I am not clear what the expression "use of similar words" actually means in the amendment. If it means that no person should pretend to be an architect when he is not, then that is beyond challenge. However, if the noble Lord is seeking to prevent other professions providing certain services to the public—for example, design services, building conservation and so on—I am concerned lest the effect of the amendment would prove to be duly restrictive and too protective of the architectural profession at the expense of others.

I have a few points to make to the noble Lord, Lord Rogers. When I spoke earlier I was trying to make clear that some of the architects with whom I dealt in the past—and, indeed, with whom I still deal—who are not masquerading as architects and are fully qualified have not provided the service that would entitle them to be set up on a pedestal. However, my real point is that I believe that the registering of title is a totally outdated and outmoded form for any organisation to undertake. That applies particularly to one part of this wide profession—the architects—who seek to maintain it. That is the bane of what I was trying to say.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I shall continue to use architects because some of them are extremely good. However, it is only right that I should point out that I have had many bad experiences as indeed have other people. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I find the amendment to be very ambiguous. I was reassured to some extent by what the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, said. If someone tries to pose as an architect who is not so qualified, I believe that such a provision would be fair. But many people provide services which are very similar to those provided by architects and we should allow such services to continue; for example, chartered building surveyors provide a host of services.

Part of my training was spent in designing and adapting buildings. If now, in my profession as an estate agent, I wish to draw plans of a house for sale and show the plans on the particulars for sale, would the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, allow me to do so? I spent six years trying to get qualified and eventually did so. Surely I can use that part of my professional training. That is the point which concerns the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and myself; namely, that the amendment would actually prove to be a great deal wider than the noble Lord realises.

I apologise for joining the debate rather late. The protection of title is a most important matter. I say that because there has been a tradition of disquiet between the architectural profession so eloquently represented by the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, and the civil engineering profession so ineloquently misrepresented here by myself. We have always been at daggers drawn in various ways; but that does not apply to me personally. Indeed, I have the greatest admiration for architects and have said so on many occasions. As a structural engineer, I have assisted them in ensuring that their buildings stay up, which is always a good idea. Moreover, I have designed buildings—and very nasty they were. They were nasties because I am an engineer and not an architect. Had I been an architect, they would have been absolutely splendid.

The protection of title is important in the sense that when you buy an architect, so to speak, you buy an architect and not some kind of building technician who fancies himself to be an architect. If Members of the Committee take a profession where the title is not protected, they will see what I mean; for example, the title of "engineer" is not protected. People describe themselves and are described as engineers when in fact they are no more engineers than the noble Earl. But the noble Earl would never dream of doing such a thing because he is not an imposter; nor, indeed, are those people.

They are engineering technicians; for example, a television engineer is a mechanic. Then there are motor engineers. I know that my noble friend Lord Monkswell is an excellent engineer, although he gets a little above himself from time to time. The title of chartered engineer, the professional engineer of whom I speak, is not protected. I should like to see a Bill which would protect their title in the same way as the title of architect is protected. It is not a matter of closed shops or anything of that nature; it is a matter of presenting a professional expertise truly, openly, honestly and in a way which can be understood by reference to the register or to the Royal Institute of British Architects. I believe that the registration of title as regards architects is entirely to be supported. Indeed, it should be extended far beyond architects so as to cover others in the building arena, including the noble Earl opposite who is shaking his head for some reason. I should also like to protect him because he is obviously in need of protection.

Will the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, bear in mind that almost a logical consequence of protecting title is then to protect jobs? The European architects' directive has made working in Europe for many chartered building surveyors absolutely impossible. It has reduced their opportunity of carrying out work which they currently do as they are banned from so doing because of the registration of title.

They are trying to do work which others could more properly and better do.

Like my noble friend Lord Caithness I should declare an interest because I, too, am a surveyor. I quite understand what the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, is trying to do. He is trying to ensure that no one without appropriate qualifications can hold himself up to be professionally qualified as an architect. However, I suspect that his proposal could do serious damage to a number of surveyors who perform architectural services in that they are capable of, and do, design buildings and extensions, and supervise repairs and maintenance. I do not wish to be rude to architects because it is not my opinion but the chartered surveyor who trained me always said that the task of a chartered surveyor was to correct the mistakes made by architects. The noble Lord should find a different way of trying to achieve the purpose he rightly has in mind.

As I have been alluded to in this debate, I rise to declare that I am an engineer. However, that term can encompass anything from a fitter at one end to a chartered engineer with tremendous professional competence at the other. I agree with my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon that there is a problem in this respect in this country. I suggest that it extends far wider and is of far greater import than Members of the Committee who have spoken today have mentioned. I give a couple of examples. Anyone, without any capability or qualification whatever, can set himself up as a plumber, an electrician or a roofing contractor. The problems that the general public experience as a result are horrendous.

In America—the "home of the free"—my brother works as a landscape contractor. If someone wants to set himself up as a landscape contractor in this country he need have absolutely no qualifications or professional competence whatever. He can hawk his services where he likes. In the state of California, however, a person wishing to practise as a landscape contractor not only has to receive some training and pass exams; he also has to be licensed by the local authority and must have professional indemnity insurance. If those sorts of restrictions can operate in what is described as the free capitalist economy of the United States, surely we can go some way towards emulating it. I would hope that the protection of architects embodied within the Bill was a step that we could, and should, willingly take. Notwithstanding that other areas of economic activity within our society are not so regulated, we should set out our stall to ensure the regulation of the architectural profession and then ensure the regulation of every other profession that bears on the lives of ordinary consumers.

We seem to have strayed rather wide in recent contributions. Heaven knows where the process might end if we allow it to carry on. We may be discussing qualifications for legislators even!

It is of fundamental importance, in matters concerning registration, that the general public should be given as precise and clear a definition as possible over who is registered and who is not. The Architects (Registration) Act 1938 achieves this by requiring that any person using the title "architect" in the course of his business has to be registered. There are specific exemptions for naval, landscape and golf course architects who are unlikely to be confused with the real thing. This is simple and easy to understand and does not allow any room for confusion or misinterpretation. It is the definition which the Government wish to retain.

There will always be unqualified persons who would like to pass themselves off as architects by using similar titles or designations. I have sympathy with the intent of the amendment to prevent such persons misleading the public. However, by expanding the scope of the protection to include similar words to "architect" the amendment would introduce a grey area over exactly what title is being protected. Someone who misspells the word "architect" is hardly likely to be mistaken for the sort of architect anyone would want to employ.

There are perfectly legitimate designations currently used by non-architects such as "architectural consultants", "architectural designers" and so on, which would be affected by the amendment. It is not in the interests of the public to weaken the distinction between these sorts of designation and the title "architect". Nor would it be fair to prevent persons using designations which accurately describe the work which they legitimately carry out, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Caithness.

For these reasons, expansion of protection of title was never a part of the pack age of reforms which the Government, the RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects) and ARCUK (Architects' Registration Council of the United Kingdom) agreed upon. Nor was it the subject of the consultation which the Government subsequently carried out. It would be unreasonable to introduce any change in the scope of protection of title without fully consulting all those who might be affected. I do not believe that such an exercise would ultimately serve the interests of either the architectural profession or the general public.

It may interest the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, to know that the title "surveyor" is a wide one. There is a Bill before this Chamber at the moment—the Party Wall Bill—where the term "surveyor" is specifically defined to include almost anyone who is competent to do the job that is required by that Bill and might even extend to cover architects if they wish to call themselves that. Therefore I do not believe the noble Lord can levy that charge against my noble friend.

Has that Bill come before this Chamber?

Yes, indeed, I replied to its Second Reading.

Is the Committee stage yet to come? Will we then discuss the matter to which the noble Lord has just referred?

I look forward to it. I was merely pointing out that there was no protection as regards the title of "surveyor". Indeed, the surveyors themselves who are promoting that Bill do not seem to have the worries that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said they would. I hope that I have persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, that any expansion of protection of title would be a complex matter and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

The Minister is, of course, right in saying that the matter of this amendment was not subject to any discussion between the profession and his department. I clearly said in my opening remarks that this might not seem to be wholly appropriate to the Architects (Registration) Act but that this was a suitable opportunity of the kind noble Lords seek to take to introduce desirable change on the basis of legislation before the Chamber.

I am sorry that there should be any misunderstanding about the amendment. With great respect to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, I want to make it absolutely clear that, having seen the professions working together in the construction industry over a considerable period of time, it is only by working as a team that we can expect to achieve the quality of building which I know—despite his unfortunate experience—he and I would both like to see. Architects are very much dependent upon chartered surveyors. They work closely with structural engineers, building service engineers and civil engineers, and with many other professions. Nothing that I say today should be thought to cast doubt upon that or to imply that I should like architects—of which I am not one—to take work away from those in other professions whom they are dependent upon and who do excellent work within this industry.

The noble Earl referred to the amendments being ambiguous. Clearly I puzzled the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who said he thought that the amendment went too far. He believed the implication was that it prevented others from offering professional services. However, at present a man and woman with no qualifications in any profession can choose to use a form of description which could mislead the public.

The Minister believed that potential clients or clients would not be easily misled by the form of language to which I referred earlier. I hope the Minister will remember that many clients are small, once in a lifetime clients. They wish to extend their house; or perhaps a widow wishes to spend some money left to her on the death of her husband. Those men and women have no experience of the profession. They assume that there are regulations which prevent anyone who is not an architect purporting to be one. The purpose of my amendment is solely to protect such persons from the possibility of misrepresentation.

I recognise what the Minister says about a grey area. He seemed to be more passionate for consultation than Ministers usually are. I do not believe that it is a complex matter. The provision could be changed on the face of the Bill now if the Minister so wished and the Committee so decided. However, in view of the misunderstandings which appear to be common to both sides of the Chamber, I do not press the amendment. I shall consider fully what has been said, including the support received from the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. I shall consider whether it will be proper to come back to the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 119 agreed to.

Clauses 120 and 121 agreed to.

Schedule 2 [Architects]:

[Amendment No. 210 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

moved Amendment No. 211:

Page 87, line 4, leave out from ("represent") to end of line 5 and insert ("consumer and public interests, none of whom should be from other trades or professions seen to be competitive with architects").

In Schedule 2 to the Bill, under the heading "Appointed members", there is the phrase:

"represent the interests of users of architectural services and the general public".

I therefore assume that the Government have in mind a category of individuals who use architectural services. My understanding is that some users of architectural services are from the professions to which the noble Lord referred. It would be wrong if a large number of such professions were represented on the new board, but it seems to me that one or two would not come amiss, if it were thought proper in terms of their other contributions to the work.

I am concerned that a phrase as wide as "competitive with architects" should find its way into legislation. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, does not intend that, but the phrase is so wide that it is difficult to know who would be allowed to serve on the new body. I am worried that yet again the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, has gone further than I would have expected. I understand that he does not want a large number of persons from other professions to be appointed to the body and that is a proper concern. However, if one or two should appear on the body as users of architectural services, it might not be such a bad thing.

I hope that my noble friend Lord Lucas will resist the amendment as another piece of protectionism by architects. As drafted, the Bill is right. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, adduced a number of arguments for some good people who should be appointed to the board or who are worthy of consideration. Having listened carefully to him, I found no arguments why those who use the services of architects but who also compete with them—such as chartered building surveyors or chartered surveyors—should not be represented.

On an earlier amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said that the professions had worked in harmony and should continue to do so. Having said that, it seems odd that the noble Lord should wish to exclude from the board those people with whom architects will work in the future.

There might be an answer to that proposition or a reason for it. Thirty years ago, when I was active in consulting engineering, I recall that such building professionals as chartered surveyors and the like—estimable people in almost every way—attempted to usurp the work of architects. They did so largely by insinuating themselves in as project managers. Being somewhat feeble, the architects permitted them to do that. When I returned to consulting engineering after a period in another place (from which I was ejected by popular appeal), I discovered that the quantity surveyors were attempting in the same way to insinuate themselves into consulting engineering. The consulting engineers were able to repel them, at least for a while. There is more to chartered surveyors than meets the eye, there is nothing wimpish about them. They are a serious competitive body of people who must be carefully watched. That is possibly why we do not want too many of them on this body.

It all boils down to what one considers a profession, what it is for and how it ought to be disciplined and arranged. To some extent, the manner in which the profession is arranged and disciplined is a definition of the profession itself. I was excited that my noble friend Lord Williams put down an earlier amendment which proposed a majority of architects on the board. I was about to put down a similar amendment, but since he had done so I did not. Unfortunately, he withdrew his and left me stranded like a whale. No doubt I shall put it down again on Report, because it was right.

The essence of a profession is that it is disciplined, organised and arranged by its members. It is different from a business. I know that noble Lords opposite are obsessed with the idea of the market, with businesses and similar matters and can think of nothing else. I absolve them from even considering the matter. However, that is not the case with my noble friends. They should consider the professions and what they are like. I shall advise my noble friends on the Front Bench where to look for a description of the ethos of the profession which might help and guide them in their attitude to this part of the Bill. I revert to a point which I have mentioned before in this House, as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, will remember. It is a well known book called: The Acquisitive Society, by R.H. Tawney, a well known socialist. That word has perhaps gone out of popular usage lately. In his book, R. H. Tawney included an interesting chapter in which he discusses the industrial society and describes the professions as the model he would like to see an industrial society take.

My noble friends on the Front Bench will be happy to note that not only does R.H. Tawney say that, but he suggests that the pattern of professional institutions such as the RIBA—although he does not mention it by name—and other professional institutions which I have mentioned was the kind of pattern that the trade union movement should have taken.

In parenthesis, if my party had listened to Tawney in those days and had converted the trade unions into the same shape as the professional institutions, the world would have been a much better place than it is today. If a profession is to remain a profession and not be transformed into something else, it must retain a substantial measure of self-government. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, has gone a long way towards meeting the Government's views, much further than I like. If a profession is not self-governing, it ceases to be a profession. In so far as it ceases to be a profession, it loses its value to society.