asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, how to achieve a reversal of the US decertification of Colombia is a bilateral matter between the United States and Colombia. The criteria for certification are set out in legislation and discussed with the Colombians at the start of each year.

My Lords, that may well be so. But surely we should be supporting a country which has made such determined efforts and is so successful in bringing so many drug barons into custody. Does my noble friend recall that when President Gaviria visited Britain in 1993 it was clear that we had a long-standing and warm relationship with Colombia? The bilateral relationship is extremely important in as much as we have considerable trading and investment interests in Colombia. Is my noble friend prepared to make representations in Washington concerning that arbitrary measure? It may well damage Colombia's status in international circles as a major trading nation.

My Lords, I believe my noble friend knows that this whole issue is a matter for the United States Administration. We have excellent relations with Colombia and have long believed that close co-operation is absolutely vital in the international fight against drugs. I can certainly confirm to my noble friend that Colombia has had some spectacular successes against drug traffickers in recent times since President Samper took office, particularly the arrest of six of the seven kingpins of the Cali cartel and a number of other instances where the authorities did all that one could possibly believe necessary. I note my noble friend's point in regard to representations. We enjoy a warm and important trading relationship with Colombia. We work well with them and they are working well with us in terms of drug interdiction.

My Lords, can my noble friend enlighten my darkness and tell me exactly what is meant by the terms "certification" and "decertification" in this context?

My Lords, when my noble and learned friend asks a difficult question, I take careful note. I understand that the United States' legislation allows that country to take a specific attitude with those they believe have not taken adequate action against drug trafficking. At the present time there are accusations against certain members of the Government of Colombia, but they are only allegations. The Colombian authorities are investigating those allegations. I believe that they came to light as a result of the Colombian Government putting vastly additional resources into tackling the drugs problem. However, it is one of those matters where the terms of the Foreign Assistance Act 1961 require the US Administration to certify annually those major drug-producing countries which have co-operated fully with the United States in the fight against drugs. Because of the accusations I described, it is considered by some in the United States that there is not the full co-operation that there needs to be.

My Lords, given what the Minister has just said and the fact that investigations are now being carried out in Colombia into the actions of President Samper and some members of his government who, it is said, have been involved in using drugs money for political campaigning, was it not inevitable that the US Administration would take action to decertify Colombia? Do the British Government support the US Administration in taking that decision, at least for the time being?

My Lords, this is a difficult situation. I should underline that these are only allegations; they are not proven. I underline also something that I said just now to my noble and learned friend. It is as a result of the Colombian Government tackling this problem so energetically that many of the possible takers of drug money have come to light. Until the issue is resolved by the Colombian authorities nobody can gainsay one way or the other. It may be, because of the "black and white" nature of the Foreign Assistance Act, that that action was inevitable. However, we take the view that it is more important to work in support of Colombia's counter-narcotics policies than to have such legislation on our statute book.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that a recent report by the international drug control committee of the United Nations categorically states that Colombia is doing all that can reasonably be expected of it? Why therefore should the United States consider decertification?

My Lords, first, I am aware of the report; secondly, the United States may consider decertification because of the Foreign Assistance Act.

My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate the Minister on treading the decertification tightrope without falling off.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is the increasing demand for these drugs, particularly in western societies, which causes their supply? Does she further agree that it might be advantageous if the United States were to look at the deep-seated problems within its own society that cause this demand, a demand which exists in other western societies including our own, and treat those problems with the same vigour that they recommend the Colombians should adopt?

My Lords, on this occasion I think my noble friend is absolutely right. I commend to him the work of my right honourable friend the Lord President of the Council in another place because the work now being done by the United Kingdom in terms of counter-narcotics policy with foreign governments and in terms of trying to suppress demand for drugs in this country is second to none.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the United Kingdom was instrumental in the creation of the Department of Humanitarian Affairs to strengthen the co-ordination of humanitarian emergency assistance of the United Nations. The creation of the DHA has led to a number of improvements in the way in which the UN system responds to complex humanitarian emergencies.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer, which certainly sounds appropriate. Does she think that the present structures of the United Nations could work better if they were better resourced? Or does she feel that further structural reforms are necessary in order to get an effective early warning system so that the United Nations is ready to prevent crises before they actually erupt?

My Lords, I believe that the present structure could be made to work better. It is not simply a question of increased resources. It is actually a question of the better use of existing resources. Further reforms are needed. One of the things the Department of Humanitarian Affairs, based in Geneva, has in good measure is its early warning system. It is now in a position to give good information to other UN agencies and to call upon other UN agencies to deploy their resources in the most effective way. That is not always easily acceptable to other UN agencies because it causes a feeling that someone else knows how to put the job together. But increasingly the United Nations must look at the deployment of its varied resources and find ways of making the maximum use of them, particularly for preventive work.

My Lords, as one of the great criticisms of the DHA is that it has been under-resourced, does the Minister really believe that it has adequate resources to carry out its job?

My Lords, it is rather difficult to tell at this moment, particularly when we are in the midst of a considerable amount of debate on UN reform. Whereas we have had much more emergency spending over the past five years, that has now bottomed out. That may give the Department of Humanitarian Affairs the chance to deploy its existing resources still better. In my discussions last week with Mr. Akashi, the new Under-Secretary General in charge of the DHA, I made it quite clear that the existing resources could be better deployed. We are in deep discussion about how that should be done.

My Lords, although it is important to increase funding if necessary, does my noble friend agree that it would be much better to concentrate on those members of the United Nations who do not pay their subscriptions?

My Lords, my noble friend can rest assured that I was in such discussions in Washington and New York just last week.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that undermining the effectiveness of the UN generally has been the major funding crisis? Does she further agree that the stand being made by President Clinton at the moment is to be welcomed and that we should be giving him all possible support in ensuring proper resourcing and proper paying of dues? Does she accept that if the Department of Humanitarian Affairs is to be fully effective it is essential to have strong co-ordination with the authority of the 38th floor and the Secretary General at headquarters and equally strong co-ordination in the field?

My Lords, I am not sure that it is just the funding crisis that is undermining confidence in the United Nations. As we covered in a Question in your Lordships' House yesterday, there is the problem of bringing together the different agencies which, in all honesty, are more competitive than they need to be. We have to help the United Nations through this reform process. It is always good for departments, as my own has recently done, to look at their objectives and at how they are fulfilling those objectives. That is very necessary for the United Nations.

There is a need for much better co-ordination, not only between New York and the field, but also between New York and Geneva. There are often quite stupid disputes and a lack of communication despite the vast increase in IT these days. So there is a great deal to be done. I can assure the noble Lord and your Lordships' House that the British Government and my department in particular are working very hard on the matter.

My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House whether there is a department which concentrates on inhumanity within member states of the United Nations; for example, Saudi Arabia? That is the country which probably contains the most torture victims; it is part of state policy and includes whipping women and other disgusting activities. Can the noble Baroness say who is looking after that?

My Lords, I do not expect that this House would expect me to agree that the whipping of women was ever justified.

Hear, hear!

My Lords, I believe there is a good deal of serious consideration taking place in a number of UN departments about the lack of respect for human rights and the way in which some national governments pursue their endeavours. One thing I do know is this: neither the United Nations nor other governments can impose on a sovereign government rules on how to run the lives of their people; nor should they.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the functions of community health councils have not altered following the abolition of the regional health authorities. The composition and appointment of community health council members will remain as now, except that regional offices of the National Health Service Executive will act on behalf of the Secretary of State instead of the former regional health authorities.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Will she agree with me that with so many changes in the National Health Service, and more emphasis on primary healthcare, commissioning and GP funding, community health councils—and they are called that—should have more involvement in primary healthcare?

My Lords, we issued guidance quite recently in March on the role of community health councils. We have tried to ensure through them that primary healthcare is also part of their remit, but there are no statutory obligations as yet.

My Lords, will consideration be given to those members of staff who might otherwise be dismissed, who have considerable knowledge and experience and who are only too ready to continue to give their excellent service to our National Health Service?

My Lords, I am not aware of any community health council staff being displaced through this move. Indeed, there is a study going on at the moment, through a firm of consultants, to see what their role is and whether the resources are properly or adequately allocated.

My Lords, after the abolition of the regions, can the noble Baroness say whether the number of CHCs will remain the same or will perhaps increase, and that they will be adequately resourced?

My Lords, I believe that I have dealt with the question of resources. There is a firm of consultants looking at that question. We shall be reporting back in June. As regards the numbers of CHCs, the Secretary of State is always very open to any suggestions as to different sizes or the numbers of CHCs. As I understand the situation at the moment, they are satisfied, although there are some marginal changes in boundaries where some of the district health authorities have been amalgamated with family health services authorities.

My Lords, can my noble friend clarify the position as regards government policy on cottage hospitals, in view of the number of reports on the closure of such hospitals which contribute so much to community care?

My Lords, wherever there is a major change in service it has to be referred to the community health council. If the council objects to a closure, then it is referred to the Secretary of State. As regards cottage hospitals, my noble friend will have read over the weekend that there is now greater emphasis on ensuring that hospitals which are useful and serving a purpose remain in being.

My Lords, is it not correct that, as the Minister said, the CHCs are about the only part of the NHS structure which has not changed in the past five years? Is it not true that after five years of perpetual and continuous reorganisation culminating in the abandonment of RHAs this week, all the evidence from this year's contracting round is that the NHS is facing this year exactly the same issues of resourcing and financing as sparked off the whole reorganisation process in 1987?

My Lords, when we were debating the Bill to abolish regional health authorities, I remember that noble Lords opposite tried very hard to stop the abolition and the saving of £300 million, which have gone from administration into patient care. As regards the contracting for this year, I have been in the health service for a good many years and I have to say, "'twas ever thus".

My Lords, as the Minister recalls the debates last year on the health authorities Bill, she will no doubt recall the amendments that we on this side of the House put forward in order to retain the independence and the powers of the community health councils under the new organisation. Is she now confident that there are sufficient safeguards to protect the access of the community health councils to independent trust organisations and district health authorities at local level?

Yes, my Lords.

My Lords, does the Minister have available for the House the figures for the number of referrals by community health councils for proposed closures of local cottage hospitals? How many of those closures have gone ahead after referral?

My Lords, I do not have those figures. I shall certainly write to the noble Baroness.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that members of community health councils who represent patients on tribunals when they have problems and difficulties, as well as looking at the standard of all healthcare facilities, work very hard and do not get paid?

Yes, my Lords, they do a splendid job. They are voluntary workers and they put an enormous amount of time and effort into their work. That is why, when the Government were considering NHS reforms, they decided to keep community health councils as they are now.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the re-location of the administrative headquarters from Bircham Newton is a matter for the Board itself and, I am informed, it is part of a package to improve the operational efficiency of all its services, including the training programme. The board does not propose to re-locate the training facility currently situated at Bircham Newton. It also aims, as far as possible, to keep to a minimum staff redundancies arising from implementation.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. Is he aware that the proposed re-location has occasioned an enormous amount of local anxiety, with the result that a group is opposing the re-location? The group is led by the local MP and supported by the trade unions. Is the Minister aware that there has been very little consultation, if any, about the proposed move and that certain members of the board also oppose the move? Is he also aware that there is a very strongly held belief that the move, if it does take place, will involve substantial redundancies? Will that not inevitably have some effect on the effectiveness of the CITB? Therefore, will not the Government feel it incumbent on themselves to do what they can to influence the CITB against this move?

My Lords, I am aware that very strong feelings have been expressed both for and against the proposals and those strong feelings were reflected in the decision of the board which, I understand, was split in its vote on these proposals. I am also aware that consultation with the various employer federations took place only some two weeks before the decision was made. That is possibly something which the noble Baroness and I would agree was regrettable. As regards whether the Government should intervene, it is a matter for the CITB to decide for itself. It is an operational matter for the board and I am sure that it will take note of the anxieties put forward by the local MP and by a considerable number of members of the other place and those expressed this afternoon by the noble Baroness.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that because of the fragmentary nature of the construction industry, there is some requirement for a central training facility, such as the CITB, particularly to develop new technology skills? Does my noble friend agree that the CITB does a good job and that it is the proper function of government to fund such a central facility, which I hope that they will continue to do?

My Lords, the future of the CITB is not in question. It is not a matter of government funding. The CITB is funded by a levy which is agreed by both Houses each year, so obviously that is a matter for the Government. I can assure my noble friend that whatever happens as a result of the re-location proposals, the CITB will continue to perform the function that it performs at the moment and to provide training facilities in my noble friend's own part of the world, Norfolk.

My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that the Construction Industry Training Board has already decided to eliminate 380 training posts, and that a spokesman for the board is reported to have said that the restructuring of the board is because—I quote:

"training is seen as yet another cost in a difficult time"?

Should not training for skills be regarded rather as an essential investment for the future?

My Lords, I can confirm that, as I said to my noble friend, the CITB will continue to exist and to provide training. We are talking merely about the re-location of its headquarters. I can give an absolute categorical assurance that there is no question of money from the training budget being diverted to pay for the implementation of the review proposals. I am not aware of the allegations which the noble Lord has made about a cut in the number of training posts provided by the CITB, but I shall certainly look into that. The assurance that I have had from the board is that it will not cut its training and certainly not as a result of the re-location proposals which relate only to its headquarters.

My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (H.L. Paper 57).—(The Chairman of Committees.)

My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to ask the Chairman of Committees a question. On the assumption that we concur with the receipt of the report, can the noble Lord explain what further action is necessary to activate the ad hoc Committee on the Public Service? Has the noble Lord received any information from the Lord Privy Seal on when the Government propose to table a Motion to set up that committee in view of the fact that they have declined to give any information on what they propose to do with regard to its subject matter?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for letting me know in advance that he was proposing to intervene in this way. The customary consultations have already begun about the membership of the committee. The next step will be for the Committee of Selection to meet and to recommend to your Lordships the names of the chairman and other members of the committee. The report of the Committee of Selection will then be moved in your Lordships' House. Those steps will take place if your Lordships pass this Motion this afternoon. I hope that those steps will take place in the week we resume after the Easter Recess.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 58).—(The Chairman of Committees.)

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Chairman of Committees about item 4 (the signalling of Divisions over the TV and radio channels on the annunciators). I do not quite understand what is going to happen which is different from what happens now. However, what happens now is totally unsatisfactory. One has to keep one's eye on the annunciator, which in itself may be difficult from where one is sitting and one can see only the revolving message. I think that the least that we could expect is to have annunciators for both the House of Commons and the House of Lords in every Committee Room in every part of the building. We have them in the Grand Committee Room and in one or two other rooms, but I think that it is essential that we have them in all. I cannot believe that that would involve colossal expense, but it would make life very much easier for those of us who attend all-party group meetings in every part of the building. Can the Chairman of Committees promise that that will happen soon?

My Lords, on 20th July 1995 the House debated the Fourth Report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices, when I questioned the criterion to be used in the painting of the House in Session. I was told that one could be included on payment of £150. I said that that was neither in keeping with the dignity of the House nor a worthy way to proceed. I also made the point that it could well be the last ever painting of the House in its present form and that we should therefore think carefully before going down the route of including only those noble Lords prepared to pay. As I pointed out on that occasion, noble Lords who perhaps attend only once or twice a year but who pay their money could be in the painting while other noble Lords who may be assiduous attenders but who may object to the way in which this is being done will not be included. I was supported in that by the noble Lords, Lord Strabolgi and Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.

My Lords, I must interrupt my noble friend because I did not support him then although I have supported him on other occasions. I did not support him then because I did not agree with what he was saying and I do not agree with what he is saying now.

My Lords, in order to retain some shred of reputation for consistency, perhaps I may quote from the debate on 20th July 1995 when my noble friend Lord Strabolgi asked:

"Can we therefore ensure that the number appearing in the painting is restricted to those who are regular attenders of the House?"—[official Report, 20/7/95; col. 381.]

That was the point to which I was referring.

I have discovered that only one painting of the House in Session has ever been commissioned by the House previously. That was the 1964 painting by Thomson. The arrangements for that painting were decided by the Offices Committee of the time. The agenda for 24th July 1963 shows that Item I is to consider the picture of the House in Session. The agenda states:

"The list includes certain distinguished Peers as well as those qualifying on the basis of assiduity of attendance. This list represents the optimum number of Peers for inclusion in the picture, but room might be found for any further Peers whom the Committee might wish to specially recommend".

It was stated that suggestions as to who might be included would be welcomed. Because of my position at the BBC I am glossing over the fact that Lord Reith had expressed dissatisfaction that he was not included in the picture. I quote from the Minute that the Lord Great Chamberlain expressed the view that the inclusion of two sleeping Peers in the painting was not in keeping with the dignity of the House. It was stated that Lord Champion, with whom I had the honour of working in the last Labour Government, said that:

"two sleeping out of two hundred is not a bad average. After some discussion a vote is taken and on a show of hands seventeen members of the Committee are in favour of retaining the sleeping Peers and four against".

The Minute does not state whether any Members of the Committee were asleep when the vote was taken.

I do not think that this is the right way to go about it. This is undignified and it is unworthy of the House. If there should be any constitutional changes in the future, this will be the definitive picture of the House of Lords and will be constantly included in articles and reference books. I really think that the House should think again.

My Lords, will my noble friend deal with the question of the request for £150 from whoever is to be included in the painting? I feel that for a picture to be painted of the House of Lords but for only those who pay £150 to be included in it, whatever may be their service to your Lordships' House, is an odd way to proceed. I would be grateful if my noble friend could explain why it is thought necessary to impose a charge and why those who either cannot or will not pay this sum should be excluded from the picture.

My Lords, I speak as one of the relics of the earlier period to which reference has been made. (I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, also present, although I do not say that he is also one of the relics.) The portrait painted in 1962 or 1963 which is now in the Cholmondeley Room resulted from a decision by a committee of this House. The question was how the moneys in the window fund were to be spent. During the war a collection was made by noble Lords, and I believe that there was also some insurance money. The fund was raised so that if there was any bombing, moneys would be available for the replacement of the windows in the Chamber. Fortunately, the Chamber was not damaged during the war and those funds were available. It was thought best to dispense with the fund because it then had no great importance. It was decided that a portrait of the House, as it then was, should be painted, and there was no need to raise funds from those who participated in it for the artist who painted the picture.

If we want to have a portrait of the House today, I do not suppose that presently there are any funds available other than by raising them from Members. Whether or not, as my noble friend Lord Cocks has said, this is the right way to go about it, if a portrait is to be painted someone will have to pay for it. I share his view that it would represent an incomplete House if it were made up only of those who were prepared to pay a sum of money. I do not believe that the character of the House would be accurately reflected if, say, someone with £150 who comes up for Ascot gets his picture in the portrait. If the House wishes to proceed with it, I suspect that the portrait will not be of the same character as that painted by Thomson in 1963.

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that a similar situation obtains in another place? It is impossible to get all Members into either Chamber. Consequently, not everyone could appear in the official portrait of the other place. Subsequently, what was known as "the other portrait" was painted. All the other Members were in that portrait. Surely this House could adopt the same principle.

The noble Lord, Lord Cocks, says that not all Members can get in. Of course we cannot; the Chamber is too small. But it would be possible to have another portrait featuring those Peers and Peeresses who cannot get into the original picture. In conclusion, the other portrait in the other place included the present Prime Minister.

My Lords, will the Lord Chairman of Committees reflect upon the fact that as this discussion continues it may reveal a picture of this House that not all of us may wish to see? Having heard all the arguments several times, could it not be considered by the appropriate committee? This matter may fill too much space in the newspapers tomorrow, which not all of us would appreciate.

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Shepherd spoke of the fund which was set up. I am absolutely certain that all of us had to pay for the 1962 painting by Thomson. I believe that the sum was about £15. Considering the inflation that has occurred since then, that is approximately equivalent to £150 today.

My Lords, I should like to quote another precedent in support of my noble friend Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe. I refer to the painting of the House in 1895 which is just outside the Bishop's Bar, close to the Chamber. Noble Lords may be interested to know that that painting was subscribed for by a dozen Peers, who were presumably fairly affluent, and included a whole range of their colleagues. I am fairly certain that it was representative of the House in 1895. I claim interest in the fact that my ancestor, the second Lord Monkswell, appears in that portrait.

I also support my noble friend Lady David in her request for information about the announcement of Divisions. Perhaps I may ask the Lord Chairman of Committees whether it is planned to have an audible signal throughout the Palace of Westminster to signify Divisions in the House of Lords. Last night I missed a Division in your Lordships' House as a result of being in the precincts of the House of Commons conferring with parliamentary colleagues about the implications of the Government's Business Statement. Perhaps we may be given some assurance that in future there will be a distinct, audible signal of Divisions in the House of Lords.

My Lords, does the Lord Chairman of Committees agree that if Members of this House do not subscribe to this painting the taxpayer will have to pay? Some of us would find it extremely difficult to accept such an arrangement.

My Lords, I deal first with the question about Divisions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady David. This matter was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. I am grateful to him for letting me know beforehand that he proposed to raise this matter. As far as concerns the general improvements that I hope will be made, perhaps it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I let the noble Baroness, Lady David, the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, and others know precisely what is proposed, so as to avoid taking up too much time this afternoon. One of the proposals is to have a bell in a picture on the television screen which can be there all the time that a Division is taking place without interrupting the sound. I will explain the other matters to your Lordships elsewhere.

To deal with the other point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, I am sorry that he had difficulty last night with a Division, whichever way he was proposing to vote. I will have the matter looked into to see whether anything can be done to help.

So far as concerns the suggestions made by the noble Baroness, Lady David, I should like to look into them. I feel that some helpful suggestions have been made. It may be that we shall wish to give consideration to further steps that can be taken. Perhaps I may leave it in that way for the time being. I will let the noble Baroness know of any developments.

The other main matter which was raised was spoken to by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, Lord Shepherd, Lord Strabolgi, Lord Marsh, Lord Clark of Kempston and Lord Harris of Greenwich. Perhaps I may take all the points made at the same time. First, let me offer a word of personal reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe. I have never regarded his reputation as being in the slightest danger. I would also venture one further personal comment, without of course committing your Lordships for the future or any of my successors: I very much hope that this will not be the last painting of your Lordships' House in Session. I trust that there will be many, many more to grace your Lordships' walls. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, is expressing an interest in this matter. He was one of the first to suggest the present arrangements for having a painting of the House.

One of the fundamental points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and other noble Lords is the payment of £150. When your Lordships' committee was first considering this matter it was felt that the painting needed to be self-supporting and that it would not be right for the taxpayer—this is a point which was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and others—to bear the cost of it. Perhaps I may say in passing that those were the considerations that were in the mind of another place when it was preparing for the last paintings made there. That is the fundamental reason.

In answering the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, and other noble Lords, I should perhaps remind your Lordships that you have already taken a decision on this. It was taken as long ago as last summer. The Offices Committee recommendation, later approved by the House, delegated to the group which has been guiding the work for the painting, financial matters and the inclusion of noble Lords in the painting. Those are matters which were accepted by your Lordships' House quite some time ago.

I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clark, that an alternative was considered by the Advisory Panel on Works of Art, chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie. It was felt best not to proceed in that way. I am sorry to have to disappoint him about that.

We have already gone some way towards preparing for this painting which, as your Lordships will have seen, it is hoped will be completed by about October of next year. I believe that that deals with most of the points raised.

The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, asked about referring the matter to the committee. I am sorry to have to disappoint him, but these are matters which have been considered thoroughly. I hope that he will feel that it is appropriate not to take that suggestion further forward.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I believe that it is right that none of the funds mentioned by him is any longer available. I shall check whether there are at least two other funds of your Lordships' House in being, to make sure, for the satisfaction of the noble Lord, that neither of those is available for this purpose. If I am wrong, I shall of course let him know.

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will. If he finds that they exist, I hope that he will not think that I was proposing that they should be utilised for this painting.

My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord on that point. I did not take his words to indicate anything of that kind.

With those explanations, I hope that your Lordships will feel that we can proceed with the report of the Offices Committee. I commend it to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass.

Perhaps I may briefly thank those noble Lords who have taken part on the Bill as it has passed through your Lordships' House. I also thank the opposition parties for the full and constructive support they gave to this important measure which marks a major step forward in freeing the world from the menace of chemical weapons. It has been the Government's aim that the UK should be among the founding state parties to the convention. For the UK to be among the first 65 states to ratify—at present there are some 49—will preserve British influence both in the preparatory commission and in the organisation for the prohibition of chemical weapons which will come into being upon entry into force of the convention. It will also secure British people in post there.

The Bill's passage will ensure that the UK continues to take a leading role in the development of the Chemical Weapons Convention. I can assure your Lordships that we shall not hesitate to use our influence to ensure that the convention's ban on chemical weapons operates effectively. Apart from my thanks to those noble Lords who participated in our brief exchanges on these matters, I thank also the Royal Society of Chemistry for its thorough and thoughtful briefing. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)

My Lords, perhaps I may first apologise to your Lordships, and to the Minister, for not being in my place when the business on the Bill started. The previous business ended slightly earlier than one was anticipating.

This is an important piece of legislation. I am delighted that it will soon be enacted into law. We have dealt with it as best we can, although I must say that I was disappointed that a Bill of this importance attracted little interest from your Lordships.

The Minister did an excellent job, and I did the best I could in the circumstances, as did the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. Most other Members of your Lordships' House, despite what many of us believe is a tremendously important move by Her Majesty's Government, did not feel that it was worth their while taking part. So much for that.

Perhaps I may make one or two points before coming to my final remarks. We discussed the issue of an advisory mechanism. Although in connection with that and one or two other matters the Government felt unable to accept my amendments, they made a number of pledges. One was that advice would be taken without delay and would be taken seriously. I hope that will be the case and that the non-statutory advisory mechanism will start soon. I intend to find ways within your Lordships' procedures to check on that matter because it is important.

Similarly, what will be an extremely important Act will involve various licensing arrangements. The Government promised to publish documentation on the proposed appeals process but as yet I am unaware of its publication. I hope that the Minister will ensure that it will be published soon. The researcher who is denied a licence or who has his licence varied will be most anxious about the matter and will wish to be in a position to appeal. I have also pointed out that many people who will be affected by the Bill—notably the academic community engaged in chemical research—appear to know nothing about its existence. The Minister promised that he would do what he could to publicise the Bill and I know that once he has made a promise, he will ensure that it is fulfilled.

The Bill is a start; but we are discussing a world-wide issue and we cannot act alone. We have taken a leading part, and I know that we shall do so again, in making chemical weapons a thing of the past—that is, so far as is humanly possible. Your Lordships will be aware that biological weapons are another of the more noxious things in the world. I look forward to a biological weapons convention, too.

I repeat my congratulations and thanks to the Minister and I join him in thanking the Royal Society of Chemistry. Mr. Stephen Benn was immensely helpful to me. It was obvious that in so far as I had anything useful to say he was one of my main sources. I wish to place on record my thanks to the Royal Society of Chemistry and to Mr. Benn. I also thank Mr. Julian Perry-Robinson of the Science Policy Research Unit, who has been most helpful. The unit is an example of an effective research body playing a useful role in helping those of us who sit on the Opposition Benches who do not have the vast resources of a government department. Such bodies give us the kind of back-up which enables us to make sense of such legislation.

I support the Bill, as I have throughout its passage. I hope that it succeeds and I hope that our successors will not live in a world in which the use of chemical weapons is acceptable in any kind of conflict.

My Lords, I echo the sentiments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in thanking the Minister for his adroit handling of the Bill, and in particular for the assurances that he gave on Report about the function of the advisory body. I hope that the Minister will take adequate advice.

As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, pointed out, a large number of institutions—mostly the universities and the smaller institutions—will discover that the Bill has financial implications. They must be sorted out at a later date and I am sure that such issues will be raised in this House again. It would be wrong if that were not the case because the Bill is supported by everyone and it certainly has our blessing.

My Lords, I have not taken part in the proceedings of the Bill in this House. However, one of the reasons why few people took part and why the Bill has not received from outside the attention that it should have received is that there was a misunderstanding about its general scope and purpose. That was due in part to its departmental sponsorship—the origins of the Chemical Weapons Convention are in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—and in part because some of the briefing concentrated on academic and non-military aspects of the impact of the convention.

However, as one who with the late Lord Mulley was in at the birth of the Chemical Weapons Convention more than 30 years ago, it is a great pleasure to see the convention come in this form to your Lordships' House. The legislation is of enormous importance and significance. As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, chemical, biological and microbiological weapons are among the most horrifying engines of war ever to be invented.

In commenting on the noble Lord's wish that we should see the end of such weapons, I point out that one of the great problems which faces us is their proliferation. The fact that Her Majesty's Government are taking a leading part in this way underlines their commitment to the cause of limiting the proliferation of all weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them. I therefore conclude my one and only brief contribution to the proceedings and congratulate Her Majesty's Government on taking a leading role in the matter.

On Question, Bill passed.

My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Arbitration Bill, have consented to place their prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament, for the purposes of the Bill.

Bill read a third time.

Clause 85 [Modification of Part 1 in relation to domestic arbitration agreement]:

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 34, line 1, leave out from ("(2)") to end of line 2 and insert (""arbitration agreement" and "seat of the arbitration" have the same meaning as in Part I (see sections 3, 5(1) and 6).").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. They are small, tidying-up amendments. The purpose of Clause 101 is to bring into Part II of the Bill the definition of certain terms which are used in Part I. It is largely redundant as the linkage is either already made in the text of Part II or a separate definition is provided. The clause can be omitted but it is necessary to make the linkage between Parts I and II for those terms which are not already covered. That is achieved by the amendments. I beg to move.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 34, line 33, leave out subsection (2).

My Lords, I thank the Minister for moving these amendments on two grounds. First, he has shortened the Arbitration Bill by two clauses. It is regrettable that he could not shorten it further but we are very grateful to him for that. Secondly, I am grateful to the Minister for meeting some of my anxieties in relation to the issue of domestic and international arbitration. My noble friend knows—and I shall return to it when we debate the Motion that the Bill do now pass—that I wish him to go further and to abolish altogether the distinction between domestic and international arbitration.

My Lords, before we accept the amendments, I wish to make certain that nothing in these provisions in any way reduces the rights or position of the consumer. I believe that he said that, in fact, they strengthen the position. In case I was not listening sufficiently carefully, will the Minister confirm that not only is it the intention to do that, but that in reality, that is what will happen?

My Lords, indeed, the noble Lord did hear me correctly. We were concerned that nothing should be watered down and our conclusion is that we have strengthened the rights of the consumer in certain respects.

On Question amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 3:

After Clause 88, insert the following new clause—

moved Amendment No. 4:

After Clause 88, insert the following new clause—

moved Amendment No. 5:

After Clause 88, insert the following new clause—

moved Amendment No. 6:

Leave out Clause 89.

moved Amendment No. 7:

Leave out Clause 90.

moved Amendment No. 8:

Leave out Clause 91.

moved Amendment No. 9:

Leave out Clause 92.

moved Amendment No. 10:

Leave out Clause 93.

moved Amendment No. 11:

Page 38, line 21, after ("dispute") insert ("or difference").

moved Amendment No. 12:

Leave out Clause 101.

moved Amendment No. 13:

Page 42, line 2, at beginning insert ("Sections (Application of unfair terms regulations to consumer arbitration agreements), (Regulations apply where consumer is a legal person) and (Arbitration agreement unfair where modest amount sought) (consumer arbitration agreements) extend to Scotland and").

moved Amendment No. 14:

Page 59, column 3, leave out lines 22 to 25 and insert ("The whole Act.").

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Lester, indicated that he expected the Bill would travel through the legislative process:

"speedily, free of friction, moving on oiled castors".—[Official Report, 18/1/96; col. 764.]

I am glad to say that that has proved to be the case, at least up until this point, and I would hope that its smooth passage continues.

That we have made such rapid and problem-free progress is due in no small measure to the support which noble Lords have given to the Bill at all stages. I am most grateful for that. I am particularly grateful to those noble Lords who participated in the Committee stage off the Floor of your Lordships' House and also to those who took the trouble at various stages to write to me on particular issues. As this was a technical, legal matter, it was of immense value to have advance warning of a number of the suggestions.

The noble Lord, Lord Peston, indicated on Second Reading that the debate was dominated by lawyers. He may feel that that pattern established on Second Reading continued. But I hope that he does not feel that his own contribution has gone unrecognised. I am certainly very grateful to him for the welcome support which he has given to the Bill. He did that very graciously and I am not surprised that to some extent, he was rather over-awed by the contributions of a number of very distinguished lawyers, including several practising arbitrators.

The fact that the Bill has been scrutinised carefully by a number of noble and learned Lords who bring to bear on the issues a wealth of experience of commercial litigation and arbitration gives me considerable confidence that we have got it right. Indeed, I have succeeded in doing a double this year. Not only did I secure the support of a number of noble and learned Lords on the issue of public interest immunity some weeks ago, but on this occasion also I have secured their support. That is of great value.

We have made a number of amendments to the Bill. I should like to stress the immense contribution made to the Bill by Lord Justice Saville. In thanking him, I should stress that none of the amendments that we have made has not met with his agreement and none represents major changes of policy. Most amendments were of a drafting nature and designed to improve the clarity of the Bill.

On Second Reading, a number of your Lordships praised the Bill for its clarity. Indeed, we took the utmost care in drafting it to ensure that it would be readily comprehensible to both business and other users. I trust that that will be one of its selling points. However, with such a complex and technical subject matter, it would be surprising if there were no ways in which the text could have been refined or improved.

Finally, I believe the Bill is in fine shape. I am convinced it will do much to further the cause of arbitration in this country. Those who find themselves in the unfortunate position of needing to resolve a dispute with another party want it sorted out with a minimum of fuss and expense. At the same time, they look for fairness and finality.

The Bill provides a comprehensive framework for settling disputes and meeting those criteria. I am sure it will enhance the competitiveness of both the arbitration community, particularly by helping to attract foreign arbitrations here, and the business community at large. I invite your Lordships' House to despatch the Bill, with oiled castors attached, for consideration in another place.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)

My Lords, I never use anybody else's clichés, so I would like to see the Bill simply despatched with alacrity. It is a Bill of which one can be extremely supportive, and I would like to echo the remarks of the Minister, especially his remarks about Lord Justice Saville, who did what I imagine was an intellectually back breaking job in preparing the groundwork for this Bill.

My difficulty was that I did not understand anything about the subject when I started and, in so far as I believe I now do understand the subject of arbitration, it is rather late to decide that we ought to start all over again so that I can make a more positive contribution. However, in due course, having worked at it, I found the subject absolutely fascinating, and I hope that I shall find some way to use my newly acquired knowledge in your Lordships' House on some other occasion, particularly if the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, finds ways of returning us to these matters.

Although the overwhelming interest in the matter rests with the lawyers—and an extraordinarily distinguished group of lawyers joined us on these matters—the reason for the Minister's and my involvement is that we are discussing real business; we are discussing things that are economically valuable to our country. There is a lot of money to be earned by what is called the arbitration community, and the whole point of having this legislation and the reason why we are equally supportive of it is to enable that community, as the Minister said, to compete effectively and efficiently and to bring the business to this country. I, for one, want very much to see this legislation on the statute book and see no reason to delay the matter any further. I hope that the Bill does now pass.

My Lords, could I begin by expressing personal pleasure that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has intervened in this debate. The noble Lord spoke at Second Reading; he made a very short intervention in Committee and, after his short intervention, was corrected by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. The noble Lord then fell into silence until now, the Third Reading. Therefore, I am very glad that he has come back, and I am glad that he has come back with the confidence of knowing something about the subject.

I would like to thank my noble and learned friend the Minister for accommodating my concern over security for costs. I was very grateful that he came forward with his own amendment on that issue. I express my gratitude over that. However, I express sorrow at not being able to persuade the Minister on the issue of costs, and express even greater sorrow—I do not see the noble Lord, Lord Byron—that I did not get support from my fellow solicitor of the Supreme Court, the noble Lord, Lord Byron, on that issue. My noble and learned friend knows of my continuing concern over this distinction between domestic and international arbitration. I will not repeat the arguments that I put to your Lordships at Second Reading and at Committee and Report, but I would ask my noble and learned friend to continue to note those arguments, particularly the argument that I put forward at Report, where I sought to show to your Lordships that nobody would be disadvantaged in the domestic market by removing altogether this distinction between domestic and international arbitration.

Therefore, I live in hope—although I regret that it was not done as a primary matter as this Bill was passing through your Lordships' House—that my noble and learned friend will revisit the subject and will do so by introducing an appropriate statutory order to remove that distinction altogether. My noble and learned friend has indicated that he hopes to do that by the end of this year. May he take polite notice from me that I intend to put down a Starred Question before the Summer Recess to find out how his consultation process is going on that issue, and I intend again, if he may take notice of this, to put down another Starred Question after the Summer Recess to find out again how his consultation process is going.

It therefore falls upon me to join with my noble and learned friend and, indeed, with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in paying tribute to the departmental advisory committee on arbitration law to Lord Justice Saville, who again has honoured us with his presence in the Chamber this afternoon, and also, as I am sure Lord Justice Saville would wish me to do, to his two successors, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mustill and Lord Steyn, for their contribution to the work of that committee.

It has been a long journey. I do not know if my noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne remembers—he is sitting right in front of me at the moment—the debate in which he participated in this House in May 1978, when he gave a good thrust forward for arbitration law reform. I do not know if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, remembers participating in that debate in 1978 and, indeed, I do not know if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, remembers that the first book that he ever wrote was on the subject of arbitration. The book, I believe, has now gone out of print, but perhaps the noble and learned Lord could be persuaded to revisit that subject. Now, some 18 years after the debate of 1978, your Lordships have reached the point of passing the Bill. Therefore, I wish it all speed and happiness through the other place and speed and happiness onto the statute book.

My Lords, I should like to join in the general congratulations with great confidence, without the slightest authority, on behalf of the judicial members and ex-judicial members of this House who joined in the various stages of this Bill, and congratulate the Government on achieving this stage in the proceedings.

Lord Justice Saville, undoubtedly, has been a driving force—not the only one, but a major driving force—and I join in the tributes to him. I can assure the Minister that I shall not be putting down any Starred Questions. I am not even sure that I know how to do it.

My final word is that I believe the Bill will have a wider effect than its mere terms because of the way it has been drafted. It is beautifully drafted in terms of clarity. I may be wrong, but I believe it is the first time we have ever seen an Act or Bill with parenthetical references by way of example. I look at Clause 40: "(see Sections 32 and 45)". I regard that as enormously valuable and I hope that it will be regarded as a precedent for other Bills that come before this House. May I once again congratulate all concerned and wish the Bill well.

On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Bill read a third time.

Clause 1 [Constitution, functions and membership of Deer Commission for Scotland]:

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 16, after ("of") insert ("deer in Scotland").

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for these amendments and support them. They give effect to the unanimity of expression which was present at our hearings in Edinburgh and during the various stages of the Bill as your Lordships have considered it. There is perhaps one point I might put to my noble friend. He revealed that the Red Deer Commission and the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals are conducting a study to produce a code of practice for the management of deer in enclosures. My noble friend uses the word "management" in perhaps its more euphemistic sense. I think he means the culling of deer in enclosures. If that study is going on, can I suggest to my noble friend that he does what he can to encourage the Red Deer Commission and the SSPCA to consult with the Association of Deer Management Groups before they produce any code of guidance which obviously should be acceptable to all sides of the land use debate in Scotland. Having made that suggestion to my noble friend, I thank him again for his amendments and support them.

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for the amendment. He may remember that I was one of those who spoke in favour of the proposal. It is tremendously important that the welfare of deer will appear in Clause 1 under the functions of the deer commission. We are grateful to the Minister for introducing the amendment.

My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble Earl. It is very clever of him to have come up with a solution. We have all been trying to find a way of introducing welfare into Clause 1 without any unwanted consequences. We are all grateful to him for having been the one who managed to do it.

My Lords, I shall pass on the compliments paid by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, to the draftsman of the amendment. It underlines the concern that we have had throughout the different stages of the Bill. We have all agreed that welfare is vital to the management of deer in Scotland. We wished to ensure that the way that concept was introduced onto the face of the Bill would not lead in later years to a misuse of our intentions. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, was, I think, the first to mention the matter at Second Reading—possibly the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, did so too—hut it has been a continuing theme and I am glad that we have managed to reach a successful conclusion.

My noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch suggests that my reference to enclosures was perhaps somewhat euphemistic. I have heard since Report stage about the use of enclosures, described to the SSPCA, alongside the Red Deer Commission, for the treatment of warble fly and other problems that deer suffer from. My understanding is that the SSPCA was quite impressed with the way in which enclosures could be used in those circumstances. However, I take note of the points the noble Lord made. I can assure him that the SSPCA will be consulted in the drawing up of the code of practice.

My Lords, I think my noble friend means that the ADMG will be consulted.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that correction.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 1, line 17, after ("matters") insert (", including their welfare,").

Amendment No. 2 has been spoken to.

My Lords, I apologise to the House. I am speaking to Amendment No. 4. I spoke to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 when I moved Amendment No. 1. Along with Amendment No. 2 therefore I also wish to move Amendment No. 3:

Page 1, line 17, leave out ("in Scotland").

I beg to move the two amendments en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 2, line 24, after ("and,") insert ("subject to subsection (3B)(c) below").

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lindsay has recognised that the composition of the commission was one of the key areas, if not the key area, which concerned a number of noble Lords as the Bill has been debated in your Lordships' House, and the key to the success of the commission in the future, and of all that the Bill contains.

The amendment that he puts forward today meets as many of the anxieties that I can think of within the bounds of practicality. For my part I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his efforts in bringing the amendment forward.

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for delineating specific groups that he will consult. I hope that the commission does not become too cosy, and that people in Scotland other than those who have a definite connection with deer and the forest will have an opportunity to be on the commission.

I am sure that the Minister will remember the plea made by me and by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, for some public representation. We referred to people from outside bodies. We suggested that CoSLA, the Crofters' Commission or some such body might be included. The amendment makes it possible to include a wider range than might be considered ideal by those who are concerned only with the estates.

My Lords, again I am very grateful to the Minister for the amendments that he has tabled and for the way that he has introduced them. I speak to Amendment No. 9 tabled in my name. Its purpose is to clarify that the one-third of the new commission which the Secretary of State must appoint from nominees of organisations representing deer managers must be put forward by organisations which have deer management as their primary purpose. This may already be within the legal drafting. If it is, I apologise for taking two minutes of your Lordships' time.

The point I am trying to make is that, although I have been a life member of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds for many years and have a high regard for that organisation (except perhaps when some of its investigations are a little too zealous), I would not expect the RSPB to be among the nominating organisations in this part of the Bill. The RSPB manages deer on several of its reserves, perhaps most notably Abernethy, but deer management is not its principal purpose. The National Trust for Scotland would be in the same category, I suppose, although one should exonerate it from any charge of over-zealous investigation.

The amendment has been tabled to confirm on the face of the Bill what the Minister said on 21st March at col. 1424 of the Official Report at Report stage. He said:

"The aim behind the proposed amendment at Third Reading is that the Association of Deer Management Groups will be the nominating organisation".

My noble friend then wisely went on to say that life is never as simple as that, especially when legal drafting enters upon the scene. Of course, we all accept that.

Apart from the Association of Deer Management Groups, there are other organisations which have as their primary purpose the management of deer. The British Deer Society springs most obviously to mind, as does the British Field Sports Society. The Scottish Landowners' Federation might also be a candidate, especially when it is representing Highland landowners. But I am afraid that it does also busy itself with advice on things like sheep and the unfortunate grants which go with them. Therefore I am not sure that the SLF maintains quite the pristine purity of deer management which my amendment seeks.

I certainly would not expect to see the deer farmers brought within this clause because I should have thought that they would have come under the agricultural provisions of the clause. My expectation, especially after what my noble friend said when introducing his amendments, is that it is in effect the ADMG which will he consulted. It can then consult the BDS, the BFSS, the SLF and such other bodies as may appear relevant.

My Lords, I should like to support all the amendments relating to membership of the new commission put forward by the Minister. At Report stage I was still not convinced that the correct balance had been found for the various interest groups; there were concerns still being expressed by those organisations representing deer managers about their future representation. These new amendments seek to address those concerns and they remove much of the ambiguity surrounding the issue.

Specifying that one-third of the commission should be nominated by the organisations representing the interests of deer managers should give reassurance to those with the task of implementing deer management on the ground that their interests and opinions will be given proper consideration and hearing. Provided that the Association of Deer Management Groups is one of the nominating organisations—I am pleased that the Minister has confirmed that—I believe that the new commission now has the correct balance of interests while at the same time retaining necessary flexibility and should therefore command the widest possible support from all organisations with an interest in the management and welfare of Scotland's deer.

I welcome the amendments and congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the positive and helpful way that he has handled this sensitive issue.

My Lords, I regret that it was not possible for me to attend at Edinburgh, where I gather that there were fruitful discussions on this and other matters. I commend the proceedings at Edinburgh.

I may be out of order in making this comment as regards representation on the Deer Commission. I have heard noble Lords putting down their marker regarding their respective interests and organisations. As noble Lords will appreciate, as chairman of the Forestry Commission I spent a fair amount of time covering the largest estate in Scotland—indeed, in the United Kingdom. The commission was made up of a variety of interests, not unlike the body now under discussion.

One of the areas specifically referred to in the Act governing the Forestry Commission was the representation of those who had experience in labour relations in countryside affairs. Those various worthy organisations which have been mentioned this afternoon inevitably have experience in that regard, but there is merit in having some of the operators in the field of land management and deer conservation with some voice as regards policy. That could be extremely helpful. The point is not introduced in a confrontational sense, but as regards having the co-operation of the labour force which will be operating this piece of legislation.

My Lords, I am afraid that I shall be introducing a slightly contentious note. It appears to me that the Minister has gone too far. I should like his assurance that he will go no further. In my view, he cannot possibly accept Amendment No. 9 proposed by his noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch. His noble friend specified the trouble with the amendment when he said that he wanted to exclude organisations which took a contrary view to his way of thinking from the one-third of the commission to be appointed. I hope that the amendments which the Minister has put down to appease his noble friends will leave the Secretary of State in control of those appointed. As I understand it, the reason for giving the Secretary of State the power to pick members, as against their nomination by those bodies, was that the system had not been working. I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance that that is so and that a body like the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds would be eligible. I have heard its handling of deer on Abernethy praised by experts in the field. The society handles many deer forests and I hope that it would be considered as having the expertise necessary to be appointed in this case. The Scottish Landowners' Federation should also be one of the bodies eligible that has experience in the handling of deer.

Can the Minister tell us how many organisations will be consulted? He said that they were not statutory bodies and could not be named on the face of the Bill. It would be useful if the Minister could tell us which ones are concerned. At the moment I view the amendments with fear and displeasure. I thought that the provisions were right to start with in the Bill but I wait to hear what the Minister has to say.

My Lords, surely an organisation such as the RSPB would be covered under subsection (3)(3A)(a)(iv), "the natural heritage".

My Lords, perhaps I may address first Amendment No. 9 proposed by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch. Then I shall pick up on the comments made by other noble Lords on the group of government amendments. Referring to my noble friend's amendments, the effect of the amendments I have moved is to ensure that it is from nominees of bone fide organisations representing the interests of deer managers that the Secretary of State will select the members of the commission whom he chooses to represent that category. Organisations which do not represent the interests of deer managers as their primary purpose will fall into other categories. The crucial word is "represent". My noble friend is quite right to compliment the RSPB on its record of working with deer and deer management at Abernethy. Other noble Lords have also pointed out its commendable record.

However, as an organisation, the RSPB does not have objectives which represent deer and deer management. Its objectives are devoted primarily to ornithological subjects and the organisation would not fall within this category, it would come into other categories. I hope to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that the RSPB is an obvious organisation which will be consulted and it may provide from within its own ranks a commissioner because of its experience with the natural environment and how it impacts on deer management.

I draw the attention of noble Lords to Clause 1(3)(3B) which states:

"Before making an appointment under subsection (3A) above, the Secretary of State shall … afford to such persons or organisations as he thinks fit an opportunity to suggest the name of any person who would in their view be an appropriate person".

The persons so appointed, in other words under the subsection on the natural heritage, will be expected under subsection (3)(3A):

"to have knowledge or experience of one or more of the following matters … in so far as that matter may be affected by the Commission's exercise of their functions".

I make that point because the experience of the RSPB with deer management, as it impacts on the expertise that the organisation has of regenerating forestry or ornithological matters, makes it eligible for the Clause 1 nomination.

My noble friend was quite right, the ADMG is an obvious candidate for nominating persons for the deer management section of the commission, a minimum of one-third deer managers. However, because it is a non-statutory body it cannot be named on the face of the Bill. I can reassure my noble friend that as regards deer farmers, under Clause 10 farmed deer are, for most practical purposes, excluded from the scope of the 1959 Act. The term "deer management" therefore applies to the management of wild deer and not farmed deer.

I am grateful for the support from the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and my noble friends Lord Glenarthur and Lord Woolton for the Government's amendments. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Mackie of Benshie, that we do not seek a cosy relationship, through the provisions, with certain interests involved in deer management nor do we seek in any way to unbalance the commission. The primary purpose is to inspire confidence in those people whose primary duty is to manage deer. They have deer management at the heart of their activities and all the related activities. Therefore, it is vital, because of the importance that the Deer Commission places on the voluntary principle and voluntary agreement, that it has the confidence of deer managers.

The amendment is proposed in response to many observations and comments made at all stages of the Bill. It is designed to encapsulate our intentions for that section of the Deer Commission that represents deer managers. The word "appeasement" is totally irrelevant in that context. We intend the deer management section to represent the activities with which the Association of Deer Management Groups is involved.

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. Can he assure us that there are enough groups concerned with deer management to give the Secretary of State a choice from among the nominees they propose?

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch named three groups to begin with, and the Association of Deer Management Groups is exactly that—an association of many groups of people who manage deer. There is no shortage of avenues for nominees. The overlap between the British Deer Society, the British Field Sports Society and the Association of Deer Management Groups will ensure that both cohesion and a width of field will be available to any Secretary of State.

I must also reassure the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that crofters are already guaranteed representation on the Deer Commission. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, that we see forestry as being a critical interest which must be properly represented on the Deer Commission. I am glad that he reminded the House of his illustrious career with the Forestry Commission. He was a chairman who is still remembered at Forestry Commission headquarters. He rightly points out that the Forestry Commission is a huge landowner; it still owns over 1 million hectares, despite the erroneous fears of some Members opposite who feel that the modest sales of about 1 per cent. of the holding per annum for the sake of rationalisation is, for some reason, privatisation by the back door. It will take 100 years to achieve that if that is the theory held by noble Lords opposite.

The Forestry Commission is an organisation that any Secretary of State would want to consult before appointing commissioners who could represent the forestry interests on the commission. Indeed, someone within the ranks of public or private sector forestry might be suitable to be a commissioner.

On the matter of labour, I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that it is open to nominating bodies and bodies that are consulted to put forward names which they think are fit for consideration by the Secretary of State. So if, for instance, a stalker was put forward by one of the nominating groups from the deer management section, it would be for the Secretary of State to judge the eligibility of that potential member against others.

I hope I have answered most of the points raised. The crucial point expressed by those who doubted the need for this amendment is that we are determined that the commission should retain a balance and also that it should retain the confidence of those who spend most of their time and their focus on deer management at ground level.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendments Nos. 5 to 7:

Page 2, line 29, leave out ("persons or").

Page 2, line 29, leave out ("he thinks fit") and insert ("appear to him to represent the interests of persons concerned with the matters mentioned in subsection (3A)(a) above").

Page 2, leave out line 32.

moved Amendment No. 8:

Page 2, line 33, at end insert ("; and

(c) where names have been suggested by organisations representing the interests of deer managers, select the one third of the Commission referred to in subsection (3A) above from among those names.".").

My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 9, as an amendment to Amendment No. 8, I point out to the House that "Line 2" should read "Line 3". There is a misprint in the Marshalled List.

moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 8, Amendment No. 9:

Line 3, leave out ("representing") and insert ("which appear to the Secretary of State to have as their principal purpose to represent").

moved Amendment No. 10:

Page 3, line 34, leave out from beginning to ("or") in line 35.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, though it did not quite meet some of the objections I received from some of the other bodies in Scotland. It is just as well that the amendments have arisen now and that we have another stage in another place where more discussion can take place. Possible improvements in the wording may be made and matters may be cleared up to allow people to understand better than perhaps some of us are able what the full impact of the new clause is.

As a result of the introduction of the new clause, the majority of Scotland's nationally and internationally important habitats, such as peatland, heather moorland and scrub habitats, have been excluded from protection under the emergency powers available in the Bill. The role of Scottish Natural Heritage as the statutory conservation adviser in Scotland appears to be undermined.

The new clause specifically limits the application of Clause 4 to forestry, ignoring other habitats that may be seriously damaged by higher deer numbers. The Minister said—I wondered whether he would—that the issue is related to not merely the quantity of deer but also to the density. That may be obvious, but it did not appear to be the case from my understanding of the wording.

I received representations from the RSPB and the WWF. They consider that the consultation relationship between Scottish Natural Heritage and the Deer Commission should be a statutory one so that the commission seeks the advice of SNH, first, in order to satisfy itself that adverse change is being caused to the natural heritage and, secondly, for financial reasons. I shall not go into that; the Minister is aware of the grants made to SNH which could be affected if it lost a certain amount of status because of the Bill.

The new clause changes the situation dramatically in that regard. The Minister's explanation will be looked at carefully when the Bill goes to another place. For instance, as a consequence of the new clause, what role will SNH play? We all thought when the Bill was going through that it would be the fundamental body looking after the natural heritage of Scotland. What role will it now play in advising the commission on whether deer numbers are having an adverse effect on the natural heritage? Which body, other than SNH, would be the appropriate body to judge serious damage? The Minister mentioned the Forestry Commission. If that is suggested as an alternative body, what will be the appropriate body to decide that serious damage is being caused to natural habitats such as peatlands or montane features?

A number of issues are raised in the new clause. While its intentions are good, one of the reasons that a second Chamber is important is that the Bill will go back to the other place after all the discussions that have taken place here. I hope that the other place looks at it and we end up with something that at least I can understand.

My Lords, I rise to support the amendments of my noble friend on the Front Bench. Though it is with a tinge of regret that I see the word "marauding" disappear even from the rubric of the Bill, I confess that once again his drafting is good and meets the majority of opinion advanced so far in our deliberations on the Bill.

It may not be my place to answer the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, but can I say to him that the Bill does not exclude damage done by deer to sites of special scientific interest, peatlands or whatever; all it does is ensure that if enhancement of the natural heritage is to take place, then that must take place with the consent and agreement of the occupier and owner in question, possibly through a management agreement.

The difficulty in the past has been how to define the natural heritage, which is the new feature of the Bill. It is easy enough to define agricultural production, crops, foodstuffs and so forth. But the amendment meets all the difficulties raised. Where the natural heritage is on enclosed land, Section 6 can still apply and indeed it can also apply on unenclosed land provided a significantly higher proportion of deer than is usual is present and is doing the damage.

I believe that my noble friend has met the main body of opinion advanced during our deliberations. I am grateful to him and feel sure that the amendments will do much to ensure the harmony which we all hope the Bill will introduce into the land in question. I support the amendments.

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I should have thought that the anxieties of my noble friend Lord Carmichael were covered by the effect of natural heritage in relation to SSSIs. I presume that any operation of the Deer Commission will need to take account of areas of land which are covered by SSSI provisions.

My Lords, the advisers to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, would do well to read what I said in Hansard. In fact, I could almost have moved the amendment by saying "This is a clarifying amendment". Not one piece of policy has changed with the amendment. All that has happened is that I have taken the assurances given from the Dispatch Box at every stage of the Bill in relation to Clause 4 and turned them into wording on the face of the Bill. We are therefore clarifying the situation.

The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said that the intention behind the amendment was good. We have taken that good intention and put it into unambiguous language. I thank my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch for saying that the drafting meets that intention. Once again, that compliment will be passed on to the draftsman involved.

SNH is obviously a vital element in the management of the natural environment of the natural heritage in Scotland. Unavoidably it will be concerned with deer management generally and with advising at various instances on the activities of the Deer Commission. SNH is the statutory adviser to the Secretary of State on the natural heritage in Scotland. It is also a public body, so there will inevitably be a close liaison between SNH and the Deer Commission.

We decided deliberately not to make SNH the statutory adviser to the commission. There will be matters concerned with the natural heritage where the Deer Commission wants to seek advice from other quarters. It may be that the Forestry Commission and many other bodies are the right people to advise the Deer Commission on some elements of the natural heritage. We did not feel that the Deer Commission should be obliged in every instance to seek advice from that quarter. But the link will be close. I shall be grateful if the noble Lord can assure those who addressed their concerns to him on this point that the link will be close.

The grant-giving abilities of SNH are obviously important, especially if enhancement of the natural heritage is sought through voluntary agreements. It may well be that SNH is involved both as an adviser and as a grant-giving body in the drawing up of a voluntary agreement between the deer commissioner and the deer manager.

The definition of "serious damage" which the noble Lord mentioned will be sought depending on the circumstances of the case. I would not be surprised if SNH often provides advice on the definition of serious damage, but there will be other instances where other arbiters or advisers will be drawn in. At the end of the day it is up to the commissioners on the Deer Commission to make a sound judgment, balancing the advice they have had from experts and their other expertise and duties.

The central assurance that I have sought to give on Clause 4 at all stages of the Bill is that we are dealing with marauding deer which cannot sensibly be defined on the face of the Bill but can be described in, as it were, longer hand by saying that they are deer that are not being effectively controlled and that they are not normally established on the ground in question. The amendments that we have brought forward over the course of the Bill ensure that there is a tighter definition of what Clause 4 is intended to deliver. We have also stressed that Clause 4 powers can be triggered only in a genuine emergency—in other words, if the other powers available to the commission are not adequate or have not been able to deal with the situation. I believe that the concerns usefully raised throughout the proceedings on the Bill have led to a wise clarification of Clause 4 and I hope that noble Lords will accept it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 11:

After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—

moved Amendment No. 12:

Page 8, line 43, at end insert ("and "vehicle" does not include any aircraft or hovercraft").

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for omitting hovercraft and helicopters from the Bill. The matter was raised right at the beginning of our proceedings. There was a feeling that there could he horror stories in the popular press about helicopters chasing poor little deer over the Highlands. In Committee we heard some interesting information about the use of helicopters in New Zealand. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, who is an authority on the subject of helicopters, made a considerable contribution to this part of the Bill. All in all the Bill without the helicopters will be given a better reception than it otherwise would receive. Certainly in the other place the issue would have raised very many doubts.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for this amendment. Perhaps I may say a brief word about Amendment No. 17. When I first looked at Amendment No. 12 I thought that it was splendid. Then I suddenly asked myself why helicopters had been taken out of Clause 9 while the definition was left under Clause 11. I regret to tell the House that very unworthy dark suspicions entered into my mind and I became seriously worried lest there was some nefarious plot behind leaving the definition in Clause 11. I consulted the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. That is why I put down my amendment and it is probably why he put down his amendment. Perhaps when the Minister comes to wind up he will comment on what I have just said.

My Lords, this will be a good amendment if it allays suspicion. As I understand it, it means that one must not move a hovercraft or a helicopter in an operation to take or kill deer. However, rich noble Lords like the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, could have a helicopter and a hovercraft on their estate for the normal work of the estate, but they must not use it to take or kill deer. Is that what the amendment means?

My Lords, I regret to say that once again the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has misunderstood my position, if not my words. As to the amendments themselves, I have to join the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, in confessing that Amendment No. 16 was tabled with the idea of being a backstop in case anything my noble friend on the Front Bench had to say about his Amendment No. 12 had not been sufficient to remove any doubts that remained in our minds and, indeed, helicopters from the use to which we feared they might have been put. I support the government amendment and will not be moving mine when the time comes.

My Lords, I shall make a brief comment because the purpose of the government amendments and therefore the problems posed by Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 have become clear. I would stress to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that there was no dark intent or conspiracy. However, the problems we had with Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 relate partly to the fact that if one excluded those two vehicles from the definition in Clause 10 one automatically removed much of the merit of an amendment which the noble Lady herself moved and which was accepted at an earlier stage of the Bill—namely, that it is an offence to shoot a deer from any moving vehicle and by changing the definition throughout the Bill to exclude from vehicles hovercraft and helicopters one suddenly legitimised the shooting of deer from hovercraft and helicopters. The issue is not as straightforward as it should be when one looks at the amendments that are tabled. But the intention is very simple. I hope that the House will accept the amendments.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 13:

Page 9, line 5, after ("the") insert ("owner or").

My Lords, I support these amendments. They seem to me to make sense of what we have been intending in this part of the Bill for some time. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, suggested that they might be a charter for the lazy deer manager. I suppose it is possible that for one season they might be, but I would have hoped that, with the progress that is being made all over Scotland in counting the number of deer and making sure that the right number is shot through the co-operation of the Association of Deer Management Groups, the Red Deer Commission, SNH and others, before too long the powers which the commission will have under this Bill will be brought to bear against the lazy manager in question. Therefore, I should have thought that the benefits that these amendments confer are likely to be very much greater in the medium and long term than any disadvantage from that fast-disappearing breed, the lazy deer manager.

My Lords, these powers for shooting deer out of season ought to be granted only in the most dire emergency. I know that the Forestry Commission, as a matter of course, likes extending the season for culling hinds. As I said before, they should only be permitted in an emergency.

My Lords, as I hinted to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, at earlier stages of the Bill, I am in complete agreement with the point she makes and I am very happy to accept her amendment.

These amendments will allow the commission to authorise either the owner or the occupier of the land, or their respective nominees, to take or kill deer out of season to prevent serious damage to unenclosed woodland or the natural heritage, or in the interests of public safety. There will be occasions where the beneficial interest lies with the owner rather than the occupier and it is reasonable that the owner should be able to initiate action in his own right.

Proposed new Section 33A(5) introduces what is, in effect, a new power to the commission. The nature of the action that may be authorised, for instance action on unenclosed land, will require careful attention by the commission as to its procedures for ensuring that adequate notification is given to those with a direct interest in the land in question.

I also stress that these are powers which are only to be used in the last resort and therefore they will not be part of a lazy deer manager's charter. Indeed, the discretion available to the commission should prevent that, even if it is unable to establish whether or not these are circumstances which justify last resort powers. In addition, I believe that my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch made the point that lazy deer managers are now a very rare breed indeed.

I also share and sympathise with the anxiety expressed by my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard. The sentiment that he has expressed is one that we would expect to see in the Deer Commission itself in the exercise of such authorisation. The Government are happy to support this amendment.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for his reception of this small amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 14:

Page 9, line 6, leave out ("such an occupier") and insert ("either of them").

moved Amendment No. 15:

After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—

My Lords, I apologise for the lateness with which I have involved myself in the Bill, but I have been following it with the greatest of interest since its early stages. I have done so because, apart from a short interval during the war years, my family owned or leased the same deer forest for over 50 years and I can recall very clearly that after the war when I was there much concern was expressed by many people on the question of the tagging of carcasses. When the Red Deer Commission came into being, we had many conversations with the commission during which the question of marauding deer was raised as, on every occasion, was the question of the tagging of carcasses. It was definitely felt that that was probably the best way of controlling the poaching of deer and of preventing deer that had been poached being described as "marauding deer". However, the idea never seemed to get off the ground. I have never understood why.

I should like to lend the maximum support possible to my noble friend's proposal. The question of the tagging of carcasses has raised its head yet again. Surely we should have at least an enabling provision in the Bill. I am only sorry that it is not a requirement in the Bill. However, I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will feel able to take the amendment on board and to include such an enabling provision in the Bill.

My Lords, I, too, should like to support Amendment No. 15, which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Pearson, as I did on Report. Those of us who have been pressing the Government on this issue have been heartened in our attempts by the commitment of my noble friend the Minister to keep an open mind and to be willing to be persuaded by the weight of the argument.

As my noble friend Lord Pearson said, the Minister has now received further expressions of support for a mandatory scheme from organisations representing the great majority of producers, dealers and processors. Both sides of the industry are now united in a desire to see mandatory tagging introduced as a basis for participating effectively in the food industry.

On Report I raised the issue of food quality in relation to persuading the food retailers, the main customers for wild venison, that they could have confidence in the production procedures and in the quality of the meat. As my noble friend Lord Pearson said, since then the beef crisis has underlined how fragile consumer confidence can be even when existing hygiene controls are deemed satisfactory. I was interested to hear the Secretary of State for Health comment in another place during a recent beef debate that the United Kingdom is now the most highly regulated country in Europe for food production. That has been a powerful argument in giving British consumers confidence in British food products.

I believe that a mandatory tagging scheme should not be seen as compromising the Government's deregulation initiative; rather, it should be presented as strengthening the Government's initiatives to improve the quality of another British meat product. In the light of criticism currently being directed at the United Kingdom's public health procedures and at intensive livestock husbandry in general, the Government should be seeking to ensure that there is no possibility of substandard, poorly handled venison being sold either in this country or abroad.

I believe that the opportunity should be taken to introduce an enabling provision into the Bill to provide for a mandatory scheme once the new commission has put in place the necessary administrative details. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will agree that the arguments in favour of such a scheme have now been proved.

My Lords, perhaps I may express the same sentiments as my noble friend Lord Woolton because I, too, have not played any part in the Committee stage or the Bill's progress to date, but I, too, have read with great interest the Minister's responses to amendments on carcass tagging. Although I have no interest to declare in relation to deer, the subject interests me greatly.

As some noble Lords may know, I have another even greater interest, salmon in Scotland—and I may be involved at some stage in legislation on that. I have had a very quick look at Clause 31 of the Salmon Act 1986 which provides an enabling provision, not too dissimilar to this, to create a dealer licensing scheme. There are about 70,000 rod-caught salmon in Scotland and about 80,000 red deer are killed there annually. I mention that only because that enabling legislation was passed by Parliament and is now on the statute book. I know that the Government have considered that provision since then although they have not found it practical or desirable to apply it. Nevertheless, that enabling legislation is on the statute book should implementing its provisions become either necessary or desirable at any stage. Therefore, I very much support the amendment because I think that such a system may well become desirable, even if introducing it may not be immediately possible now.

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment for the simple reason that the honest man should have nothing to hide. Many red deer carcasses go under the counter and the more that can be done to make that as difficult as possible, the better.

My Lords, I believe that subsection (1) of the amendment would be a useful inclusion in the Bill, but I believe that it is probably wrong to set out all the detail now. The deer groups should move not only to tag the deer, but to promote them in the sort of exercise that is now taking place in farming generally in Scotland in relation to beef, lamb and many other products. I believe that the Government should have the power, but that the detail should not be on the face of the Bill.

My Lords, powerful arguments were expressed behind the scenes, if not on the Floor of the House, in 1982 when we debated this matter. Those arguments seem to have been enormously strengthened during the past few weeks. I very much agree with all that my noble friend Lord Woolton said about confidence in the meat industry in this country. With those few words of commendation for my noble friend's amendment, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to see his way to accepting some kind of enabling measure along the lines suggested by my noble friend Lord Pearson.

My Lords, when moving his amendment my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch said that he was not going to rehearse all the arguments that we have usefully gone over in detail at earlier stages, and in responding to the amendment, I shall not go over all the arguments that I have used previously. I accept, as I have at every stage, that there is a strong case for tagging. I accept that I want to keep an open mind on this. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Woolton reminded me that I have done that. My mind remains open on the question of whether a strong case has been made for mandatory tagging as opposed to voluntary tagging by the industry.

The principle behind the proposal, which has been accepted by the Red Deer Commission, was introduced comparatively late in the day in terms of the formulation of the Bill. The Bill was the subject of three or four years of consultation. It was only once the Bill had started its progress through your Lordships' House—at the evidence-taking session in Edinburgh—that deer tagging suddenly became an urgent issue.

I am conscious that the introduction of mandatory carcass tagging will impose burdens on the many people in Scotland who have the right to shoot and deal in deer. Questions relating to the administration and enforcement of such a scheme need to be properly thought through. Of the benefits that have been explored at earlier stages, a number of noble Lords have mentioned BSE and traceability. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has pointed out that in the agricultural industry there are traceability systems which are incorporated into quality assurance schemes. Despite some of the animal health problems that have been experienced, to date the traceability procedures have not been compulsory; they have been voluntarily assumed by producers in order to gain market advantage over competitors.

My noble friend Lord Mountgarret refers to poaching. Tagging deters poaching, but whether that argument alone or the various benefits that are accumulated make a strong case for mandatory tagging is yet to be discovered. We believe that the case is not absolutely proven.

My noble friend Lord Nickson, who has a very important job and special interest and expertise in salmon, has prayed in aid the Salmon Act 1986. I acknowledge the point that he makes. However, I am glad to see in the Chamber my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. The contracting out and deregulation Act, which has been introduced since the Salmon Act, has changed the whole approach of government to new regulatory measures which impose a burden on business, however small those burdens appear to be. Quite rightly, it subjects proposals for such burdens to very careful compliance costs and cost benefit analysis. An essential part of this analysis is a properly conducted process of consultation with all potentially affected parties. That will allow all views to be taken into account.

My noble friend Lord Pearson asked who else there was left to consult. I acknowledge the flood of correspondence, bearing in mind the amount of correspondence that has come through my letter-box in the past few weeks from various organisations which support my noble friend's amendment. Given that there are hundreds of thousands of people in Scotland with the right to shoot deer, I imagine that there are still some people to consult. We wish to consult throughout the chain, from the person with the right to take or kill deer to the point of purchase for retailing on to the public. We wish to ensure that farmers and small land managers who now and then take a roe deer and drive up the road to hang it in their larder are consulted, because if there is no tag on it they will be committing an offence under the amendment as moved by my noble friend. They may do that once every year, or every 10 years, but it will still be an offence.

To reassure my noble friend, I have already alerted my officials that as soon as possible a consultation exercise will be conducted on this matter. Noble Lords in the Chamber who have been involved in creating policy will understand the process that has to be gone through, especially where new regulations are to be imposed. They will understand the need to produce a comprehensive argument with evidence across all bodies affected by such a scheme. The Deer Commission will be asked to look again at the proposals. It has commented upon them only in principle, not in detail. A contribution from that angle will be a vital part of the exercise. I renew my promise that, with sufficient evidence from consultees and various interests who will be affected, Ministers will give a positive consideration to this matter. I also flag up, as I did at Report stage, the ability to use the new fast-track procedure for Scottish legislation. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is anxious to seek measures that are required in Scotland which do not involve United Kingdom legislation in order that they can be used on this system. We will consult quickly and widely.

We have available the fast-track procedure for Scottish Bills, if this Bill passes through the other House and this House before the results of the consultation are known. On the basis of those assurances, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I ask my noble friend why it is so easy to have consultations with the many people that he rightly wishes to consult but not to accept the amendment. If there is an enabling provision and the consultation proves fruitful, it is a simple matter to press the trigger on enabling legislation. If it is not there, one has to go through the long-winded process of having an amendment to the Bill. Surely it is more sensible to have the enabling provision in the Bill in the first place.

My Lords, quite often this House takes a suspicious view of enabling legislation, especially when the need for such legislation has not been proven. I remind my noble friend that we now have a fast-track procedure for Scottish legislation. The size of the Bill required for the introduction of mandatory carcass tagging will be ideal for such a procedure. My noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch is often wary of future Secretaries of State having enabling powers which may be misused either accidentally or deliberately. I would rather present this legislation to the House at a later date, with the costs and benefits well proven and the burdens on all businesses involved thoroughly analysed, than simply introduce an enabling power for the Secretary of State without the case having been properly scrutinised.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I hope he will forgive me if I take his remarks about the deregulation initiative in this country with a pinch of European salt. I remind your Lordships that at the moment there are some 1,500 regulations which pour forth annually from the Brussels monster but do not even see the light of day for debate in your Lordships' House or the other place. I gather that not one of the pieces of deregulation brought forward in this country under the auspices of my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister would have changed one word of any of the articles in the Sunday Telegraph written by Mr. Christopher Booker over the past three or four years on the burdens of overregulation. I trust that my noble friend will accept what I have just said as a general comment.

I thank him for his undertaking to continue the consultancy exercise, which I understand has already been initiated. I hope those noble Lords who support the amendment will wish to keep the pressure on for the fast-track procedure if the consultancy exercise produces the result which we all feel confident it will. With that proviso, and with thanks to my noble friend, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11 [Interpretation of the principal Act]:

had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 17:

Page 11, line 30, leave out ("an aircraft") and insert ("a").

My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass.

The Bill is an important measure to amend the legislation on deer management in Scotland set out in the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959 so that this legislation can be better fitted to meet the challenges of today and the new century.

Much has changed since the 1959 Act and since the previous amendment Act in 1982, especially relating to the nature of land use in upland Scotland and the increasing importance society as a whole places on the protection of our natural heritage. The Bill before your Lordships is designed to ensure that deer can continue to thrive as an important part of our natural and cultural heritage yet in harmony with their habitat and with other land uses.

The Bill achieves that aim by making significant changes to the powers and functions of the Deer Commission, to be renamed the Deer Commission for Scotland. The commission henceforth will be responsible for furthering the sustainable management of deer in addition to its existing general functions of furthering their conservation and control. It will now have equivalent powers for all species of deer and be able to exercise them in a manner which takes full account of the characteristics of individual species. It will be subject to a new balancing duty to take into account key issues such as the impact of deer on the natural heritage and the interests of other land uses and owners and occupiers in exercising its functions.

New, more flexible arrangements for the appointment of members of the commission will be introduced, so that the best available candidates can always be chosen. The advisory and research powers of the commission will be broadened and arrangements for appointing advisory local panels made more flexible.

Measures related to the protection of the natural heritage and dangers to public safety will be added to the various powers of the commission to authorise action to control deer. These powers will be in particular strengthened by the detailed provisions in Clause 5 for the commission to promote control agreements.

Clause 9 contains a number of measures to regulate the circumstances in which action can be taken by occupiers and owners, including at night and during the close season, to protect against damage or danger caused by deer. New provisions on close seasons will allow the Secretary of State to set all those by order.

All in all, the package of measures included in this Bill will provide a coherent and consistent framework for ensuring that deer are managed effectively for their own benefit as well as for the benefit of the wider community.

The House has subjected to detailed and careful scrutiny the original proposals put before it which were based on proposals put to us by the Deer Commission. I made it clear on Second Reading that I would listen very carefully to suggestions made by your Lordships for improvements to the wording first proposed, and I am very pleased to say that the work we have done together has achieved precisely that. It is a better Bill now as a result of your Lordships' scrutiny than when it arrived with us.

We broke new ground through the work of the Scottish Select Committee which met in Edinburgh in January to take evidence from a wide range of interested parties. I should like to pay a special tribute to the chairman of that committee, the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, who I understand from all parties, and indeed saw when giving evidence, ran a productive and useful committee. It aided all the Bill's stages to have had that opportunity. That committee stage allowed many of the noble Lords involved the opportunity to learn more about what is to many a very esoteric subject so that we were all well prepared for our subsequent work.

In Committee and on Report we considered many amendments and accepted a significant number which acted for the most part to clarify the wording of the Bill. We have also accepted a number of important amendments today. I would stress again to the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Mackie of Benshie, that the policy underlying all the clauses has remained the same, but its intention has been clarified through the introduction of various amendments.

The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, has been diligent and thoughtful from the Bill's very first stages. We are grateful to him for the issues he has raised and for expressing his concerns over the consequences that may result to land which has been enclosed for forests or agriculture and the impact that that will have on deer normally resident over that ground.

The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, expressed a number of concerns. Being a good and honest farmer from Angus, he used turnips in many of his examples of what the Bill will or will not do in relation to the management of deer. I am sorry that his noble friends Lord Mar and Kellie and Lady Robson of Kiddington are not here because they contributed greatly to the Bill's passage. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, was concerned about the use of the word "servants". The Consolidation Bill, which is almost complete, will address the term "servants", and I hope that any noble Lords who remain uneasy about the use of that term will be reassured.

The experience of many noble Lords of deer management at ground level has been especially useful. I refer especially to my noble friends Lord Astor, Lord Massereene and Ferrard and Lord Woolton, who, the whole House will be delighted to see, made his maiden speech on this Bill. It was a fine maiden speech.

The experience of my noble friend Lord Burton has been missing from every stage of the Bill, which is unusual. But he has been a constant presence through telephone calls and correspondence during the Bill's passage, so that he has played a part in the way that the Bill has proceeded.

I should like also to draw attention to noble Lords who have had previous experience of bringing forward deer legislation in the House. My noble friend Lord Forbes was the Minister in charge of the 1959 Act which this Bill seeks to amend. My noble friend Lord Glenarthur was involved in the 1982 amendment Act. I am grateful to them both for applying their skills and expertise to the Bill. A former Secretary of State for Scotland, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, is sadly not in his seat now, although he was here earlier this afternoon. He took a keen interest in the Bill, and due to his curiosity about the possible use of contraceptives in deer management he generated interest among the evening newspapers in various Scottish cities which Scottish legislation in your Lordships' House does not usually achieve.

I pay a special tribute to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, and to my noble friends Lord Glenarthur and Lord Pearson of Rannoch for their continuous commitment to the detail of the Bill and their continuous scrutiny of it to ensure that the Bill's intention is properly set out on the face of the Bill and that that achieves what I, from the Dispatch Box, explained. Some of the most important amendments to Clauses 1 and 4 are the result of the bright light that my three noble friends were able to shine on the matter.

I hope that the Bill will be welcomed and useful, and that the improvements that the House has brought to the Bill will be regarded as having made it a better piece of legislation. I look forward to the consolidation Bill which, in the normal way, will be published shortly after Second Reading in another place. I hope that the Bill will be a considerable improvement for all those involved in deer management and that we will have one document which deals with all the legislation on this subject rather than having to have an amendment Bill in one hand and the original Act in another. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)

My Lords, the one person who the Minister could not congratulate was himself. He has done a remarkable job and was courteous at all times. I am sure that many noble Lords, particularly the few on this side of the House, are grateful that he was so courteous.

This is the second Bill with which I have been involved which was outwith the scope of my normal range and experience. When I look across the Chamber, I see almost exactly the same group of noble Lords who discussed a salmon Bill until two o'clock one morning. I then learnt a little about the great Atlantic salmon and so forth and during the past few weeks I have learnt a great deal about deer. I hope that we shall be less esoteric when we next discuss deer.

Someone from my background still has many questions about a Bill such as this. However, we got to know each other very well; we got to know each other's opinions and points of view. It was an experience for which I am extremely grateful. I am pleased that the Bill is now ready to go to another place; but there it may have a slightly rougher time.

My Lords, I too pay tribute to the Minister, who has handled the Bill extraordinarily well. He has co-operated and compromised and has put up with the close lobbying of his noble friends in an admirable manner. I hope that he has not placed a future Secretary of State in a position in which the close knit community of deer managers will present him with only four names which he will be compelled to accept. The Minister assured me that that is not the case and that a flood of names will come forward from the public-spirited body.

It is a good Bill and it will be useful. It achieves one great aim; it brings in the Scottish National Heritage, widens its scope and shows the concern which we all have for our heritage at large as well as the particulars of deer management in Scotland. I wish the Bill well in another place.

My Lords, I too congratulate the Minister not only on being at the Dispatch Box after a sleepless night in Luxembourg but on the way in which he has handled the Bill. My noble friend has spoken with great clarity and courtesy in carrying out his task of steering the Bill through your Lordships' House. We are all most grateful to him for the way in which he has handled it.

The success of the Bill, which amends the 1959 Act, will depend largely on the members of the Deer Commission for Scotland. I cannot emphasise too strongly that its members must be chosen with the greatest care. They must be chosen for their wisdom rather than their technical or scientific merits. The commission has considerable latitude over any action it takes so the onus is on it to use its wisdom. I look forward to the day when a consolidated Deer (Scotland) Act reaches the statute book.

My Lords, perhaps I may follow my noble friend Lord Forbes and congratulate my noble friend Lord Lindsay on all that he has achieved in getting the Bill to its present state. I endorse all the remarks about the way in which he has handled the Bill. I am grateful to him for the way in which he has listened to all the arguments and has taken matters forward in a way which all of us agree has improved the Bill no end.

He has not been alone in that because others have been associated with the Bill throughout its long gestation period prior to reaching your Lordships' House. For a number of years they have played a large part behind the scenes and have been most helpful to those of us who have taken an interest in the Bill. I remember the intense relief, as I expect does my noble friend Lord Forbes, of reaching this point in respect of the Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill 1982 and seeing it on its way to another place. When it came back to your Lordships' House I was not able to take it on but I hope that when this Bill returns my noble friend Lord Lindsay will be able to do so. We all expect that. I wish the Bill a speedy passage to the statute book.

My Lords, the Minister was kind enough to mention that I had the honour and interesting task of being chairman of the Select Committee set up by your Lordships' House to consider the Bill. Since that was an historic occasion, perhaps it deserves a brief mention. Unfortunately, I was unable to be present during the Committee stage but I had the impression that the meeting of the Select Committee in Scotland—that being the historic occasion—was a success. Perhaps this was the ideal piece of legislation to choose as a first for that experiment. It was a matter of great interest to a number of different groups in Scotland. It was not particularly a party political issue. A great deal of preparatory work had been done by the chairman of the Red Deer Commission. There was a great willingness to find common ground, not least in the form of the responsiveness of the noble Earl the Minister to everything that was said in the committee. The committee pursued its questioning with a great deal of good humour and I thank my fellow members for that.

My Lords, I wish first to say a word or two about the Select Committee which was chaired so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn. Most of us believe that it was a useful exercise. It provided the opportunity to receive submissions from so many diverse organisations and to clarify various points by questioning their representatives. Then to have all that body's evidence gathered together in one publication was most helpful in later stages of the Bill. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has one or two constructive suggestions about how such Select Committees might be even more useful. I shall leave that to him.

Most of us are very happy with the Bill as it now stands. The noble Earl was most helpful in meeting some of us in between its various stages. As a result amendments—mostly Government amendments—were tabled to meet all the principal concerns of, in particular, the noble Lords, Lord Pearson and Lord Glenarthur, and myself. No Divisions have taken place. I thank the noble Earl for that; we are most grateful to him. I also thank him for his kind tribute to myself, over which I am still glowing. Finally, I wish the Bill a speedy and uneventful passage through another place from which we all hope it will return in as good condition as it leaves us now.

My Lords, I shall not trouble your Lordships by repeating what has been said. Were I to speak at any length I should be repeating everything that has been said so far. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, suggested that I might have something to put forward about our Select Committee meeting in Edinburgh. I suggest that it might be helpful if in future such committees which have near unanimity at the end of their proceedings on any particular subject might be allowed to make the briefest of reports to your Lordships' House. I believe that that might have been helpful on this occasion and I can but recommend it to the usual channels or whoever considers the procedure of such committees in future. I believe that if there had been such a report the wish to put welfare onto the face of the Bill in some way and to remove the spectre of helicopters driving deer and causing them great distress would have been one of unanimity.

I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister and I congratulate him on his success in achieving that.

The other important changes which he has been able to agree are to clarify the powers of the new commission to enhance the natural heritage on open ground; that will have to be subject to the consent of owners and occupiers in future.

The only thing that remains undone is that the tagging system is not actually with us but it does appear to be on its way and I am sure that most of us wish it well on its journey.

I end by agreeing with something that my noble friend Lord Forbes said which is, of course, that nothing will be more important than the composition of the commission in future. I very much hope that the Bill as it leaves your Lordships' House will enable the commission to continue to do the good work which it has started to do over the past few years in collaboration with the Association of Deer Management Groups and Scottish Natural Heritage. With that hope, I wish the Bill well in another place.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, described himself as being outside his normal range when he addressed this Bill. Part of the definition which we apply to marauding deer, certainly from the Dispatch Box, is that they are deer which are outside their normal range. I suggest that as a marauding Peer, he did very well. The second part of the definition of marauding deer is that they are not being effectively controlled. But I think that is for the noble Lord's Chief Whip to decide and not for me.

Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that the intention behind the Bill is that a balance is maintained through all the powers of the commission. Without balance, the commission will not command confidence and if it cannot do that, it cannot promote voluntary agreements. Over the past 30 or more years, it has had a tremendous record in relation to promoting voluntary action and there is nothing to suggest that the commission will seek to follow any path other than that which it has trodden so successfully to date.

I am grateful for the remarks of the noble Lords who have supported the Bill. For those noble Lords who do not know it, my noble friends Lord Forbes and Lord Glenarthur steered the earlier legislation in this area. My officials advise me that the 1959 Act and the 1982 amendment Act were a great deal more complicated than this modest 1996 Bill. Therefore, I commend them in retrospect for what they achieved with that legislation. I commend the Bill to the House.

On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

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

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

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Dean of Harptree) in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 [Publication at direction of either Commission]:

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 4, line 5, at end insert—

("() The relevant body may publish the information in accordance with a code of practice issued by the Secretary of State under section 2(2) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.").

I apologise to the Committee for not being in my normal place. I broadly support the amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has brought forward, and I do so for two main reasons. First, it seems to me impossible for any local authority to exercise any power over a newspaper, whether free or not, to distribute its product anywhere that it does not wish to distribute it. Therefore, I do not see how you can exercise upon a free newspaper any kind of means to ensure that it reaches, as it says in the Bill, each household, each dwelling.

In fact, I would like to ask the noble Earl the Minister what he considers to be the reasonable steps which local authorities should take to ensure that newspapers are delivered to each dwelling. I would also like to ask him what the Government suppose the criteria for a local authority's success in this matter would be. Would the local authority be proved to be successful if the free journal reached 70 per cent. of dwellings, 50 per cent. of dwellings, or 30 per cent. of dwellings? What is the criteria for success and, if the Bill goes through, will we be leaving it to the courts?

My second point relates to what I take to be the main aim of the amendment, which is in one way or another to achieve the ability for local authorities to use their own publications to circulate information about performance indicators. I believe that would be an excellent idea for the following reasons. First, it is one way to ensure that the publication actually does reach each dwelling, and I believe it is the only way of doing so. Secondly, legislation already exists and the code, if that is the method that we adopt, could reinforce this to prevent such publications from taking on a party political tone. Thirdly—this is something people have not talked about before—in those areas, at least, where a two-tier system has persisted despite the Government's best efforts and where the responsibility for allied services are divided, the publication of a joint publication by both county and district authorities could reduce the total cost of informing local people and contribute to the enhancement of the two-tier system which the Local Government Commission recommended.

I support these amendments and I suspect that, even if the Government reject them today, the ideas that they represent may appear sooner or later in the legislative process.

First, let me say how distressing it is to see the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, sitting where she is and not in her normal position on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I thought for one moment that she might have left them behind but, no, she has not; she merely finds herself sitting in a wheelchair as opposed to on a seat on the Bench. I am sure that the Committee would extend their sympathies to the noble Baroness for her indisposition.

I enjoyed listening to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, as one always does. Then, all of a sudden, he went off and he banged the drum for the Labour Party in the most astonishing way in an extraordinary extravaganza of imagination. He was saying that he was looking forward so much to reading of all the wonderful work that the Labour Party has done and the local authorities have done—let it all be published and then everyone can see how good they are. That is a very good thing and, of course, it is exactly what we want to see as a result of this Bill.

The amendments which the noble Lord has put down do not come as any great surprise to us because, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will no doubt be aware if he read the proceedings in another place—I have no doubt that he did—they were put down in another place, too. However, I am bound to reiterate the argument which my right honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment put forward in another place.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and, indeed, the noble Baroness, and I share a common objective in this matter. The objective is to ensure that local authorities publish information about their performance in a way which is unbiased and which informs the people in their area. We think that the Bill as drafted at present achieves this by providing that the publication must be subject to independent editorial control.

The suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in his Amendment No. 1, that the Secretary of State should issue a code of practice for the publication of performance information, might be used to the same ends, but we must consider what would be involved in that kind of measure. First, it would land local government and the Government with more regulation. That would mean more intervention; we would need yet another code of practice, and that would mean more bureaucracy. I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, likes that kind of thing, but I doubt that she does. I am quite sure that her party does not, either. Of course, the party of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, loves that kind of thing, and that is probably why he put down the amendment. However, we do not agree with that, and I am bound to say to the noble Lord that it does not attract us very much.

The code of practice would need to specify not just what information should be included, but also what information must not be included. One might ask, for example: how would a code deal with the Government's concerns that the indicators should provide independent information about an authority's performance? One might ask also: would a code allay the suspicions which the public may have about statistics which councils publish in their own publications? Would the publication need to be what one might describe as a stand-alone document? That would mean more expense for local authorities.

I have no doubt at all that the Government's way is better. Local authorities and Parliament will be in no doubt whatever about the publication requirements and they will not face the possibility of changes to those requirements from year to year. I do not think that we wish to increase the level of interference.

Of course, the remainder of the noble Lord's amendments are closely tied to the first one. The removal of the distribution requirement in subsection (3) and the independence requirements in subsections (3) and (5) could mean that local authorities could publish performance information in an in-house newspaper, which not only was editorially biased, but which might also have only a very limited distribution. That would entirely negate the whole purpose of what we are trying to achieve.

We believe that, whatever forms of publication are chosen by a local authority, the information about its performance, as measured against the Audit Commission's indicators, should at least he available throughout its area in a publication which is wholly independent of the authority. We attach considerable importance to that information being readily available to all those who wish to obtain it, and to it being available in a context where an authority cannot seek to put its own gloss on the results of its own performance. Of course, it is entirely open to the authority to publish this kind of additional information about its performance. In addition to publishing it in a newspaper of independent editorial concept, it can also publish it perfectly easily in an in-house journal which is delivered to the public. Some authorities have produced their information in a very good and a very understandable way, and I congratulate them on that. The point is that that should not be the only way in which to transmit the information.

The picture which emerged from the second national publication is one in which many of last year's worst performers have risen to the challenge of improving the services which they provide. That is the purpose of publishing the information, and I congratulate the local authorities on that. Perhaps those were the local authorities which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, had in mind—the ones that had done so well and had made such an improvement on last year because, perhaps, they had not done so well in the previous year.

The increase in flexibility in the minimum publication requirements—in other words the ability to publish in a free newspaper—which is contained in this Bill is intended to assist local authorities in the publishing of their performance indicators, and members of the public in having access to them. One of the reasons for that is that free newspapers often reach more people because they are free than do paid for newspapers which have to be bought.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, asked how an authority could know whether the free newspapers would reach people. The authority has to check with the editor of the free newspaper to ascertain whether the paper is distributed throughout the area—that is the important point. If the authority is satisfied by the editor's assurance that the paper is distributed throughout the area, and if, subsequently, the paper fails to be delivered, or some houses do not receive it by mistake, or there are publication difficulties, the local authority cannot be criticised. The noble Baroness asked about publication in areas which have retained a two-tier system. The performance indicators demonstrate local authority performance against a decision by elected members. The county and district each have a duty to report separately to their electors, but the two authorities could share the cost of publication by, say, taking out an advertisement together.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, was worried that the distribution requirements for free newspapers could be more onerous than for newspapers for sale. I do not think that one can have a distribution requirement for newspapers for sale. The public make a choice when they buy a newspaper. The point about buying a newspaper is that it is independent of a local authority. While I understand the concerns of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, I hope that they will agree that all those concerns can be met by the local authority publishing its information in its own paper, provided that it also publishes it in an editorially free newspaper.

That was interesting. I was surprised when the Minister said I was tub-thumping for the Labour Party. I made the mildest of pro-Labour council comments. If the Minister thinks that was an example of my making full scale pro-Labour Party comments, I am afraid that he has not heard me when I really want to do that. The Minister said that the amendments happen to resemble those that were put forward in another place on this Bill. That may or may not be a coincidence, but they were tabled because I had hoped better of the Government in this place than the Government achieved in the other place. Sadly, I am disappointed.

The Minister said that he was against too much interference and bureaucracy as regards local authorities, and suggested that I liked bureaucracy. I certainly do not; I dislike bureaucracy very much indeed. However, the Minister is setting up a complicated bureaucratic system. I put it to him and to the Committee that my amendments would lessen the bureaucratic load on local authorities rather than increase it. Let us consider Clause 5. As regards free newspapers, Clause 5(4)(a) states, with regard to the condition imposed on local authorities, that they should,

"take all reasonable steps to secure that a copy of a publication containing the information is distributed to each dwelling in their area".

It is quite a burden for local authorities to establish that a paper is distributed to each dwelling in their area when that newspaper is not within their control, and indeed when they might have the choice of using a newspaper for sale where they do not have to worry whether it is distributed widely. It might be distributed in a narrow area. The Minister said that if a local authority's own publication was used, there would be the danger that a local authority would put its own gloss on the performance indicators. However, he then said that there is nothing to stop a local authority from using its own publication provided the information also went into one of the other publications specified in the Bill. He thereby conceded that if a local authority wanted to put its own gloss on the figures it could certainly do so. That does not seem to make much logical sense. I have a feeling that the Minister's heart was not in it because it does not stand up as an argument. I should like the Minister to say a little more before I decide what to do with my amendment.

Of course I shall comment further. I shall be more than delighted to help the noble Lord. He said that his observations were merely mild pro-Labour Party comments. That is fine; I understand that. I shall watch out for the blast when he really gets going and I shall take cover! The noble Lord said that he thought better of the Government in this place than in another place. It is gracious of him to say that and I am sure that was a personal compliment that he was making to me. However, he will realise that governments tend to have a unified view as regards this place and another place. However, the exposition of it may be slightly different. That is the reason that I did not feel I could accept the noble Lord's amendment. I thought the phrase he used was charming when he said that if we accepted his amendment that would do away with bureaucracy. What is the very first amendment the noble Lord has tabled? His Amendment No. 1 states,

"The relevant body may publish the information in accordance with a code of practice issued by the Secretary of State".

I shall let the noble Lord into a little secret. Since I have been in the Department of the Environment, I have seen codes of practice that appear on my desk which are submitted for approval. They are usually vast documents. I keep on saying that we should think of the people who have to read those documents. They are enormous great documents which state exactly what is to be done, how and why it is to be done, and who should do it, and other such matters. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, suggests that we should produce another one. It will be quite simple but it might be half an inch thick and all his local authority councillors will have to read through the wretched document—and what for?—to find out whether they can publish the information in their in-house newspaper. That is a waste of time. They can publish all the information they want in the in-house newspaper provided they also put it in other local newspapers.

I think the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, was lost in imagination as to how an authority might publish the facts and possibly put a gloss on them. He did not seem to think that was at all conceivable, but then he went on to say that it was perfectly all right for them to put a gloss on the facts if they published that in a newspaper for sale. He therefore admits that they might put a gloss on the facts because if they can do that provided they put the facts in a newspaper for sale they can also do it if the facts are not in a newspaper for sale. The noble Lord made the argument against his case, hook, line and—if I may say so—sinker.

I do not think that the noble Lord has his heart in this. Now he is talking to the noble Baroness on his Benches because he is trying to inveigle her into getting involved. However, I do not think she will because her heart is not in it, either. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, knows perfectly well that if we proceed with the Bill as it stands all a local authority has to do is to publish the information either in a newspaper for sale or in a free newspaper, and in the local authority's newspaper—with a gloss, if the local authority wishes to put such a gloss on the information, which I am sure not even a Labour authority would wish to do as it would wish to give the facts—and then everyone will be satisfied.

I shall read Hansard tomorrow with great interest because in referring to putting a gloss on information, I was quoting what the Minister had said. If my memory is right—and I am pretty confident that it is—the Minister said the trouble with only publishing in local authority newspapers is that local authorities will be tempted to put a gloss on the information. I then suggested that if the Minister was happy that local authorities should publish the information in their own newspapers provided they also published it in others, he was saying that the gloss did not matter.

However, if the Minister is against codes of practice, I would refer him to a previous code of practice concerning the publication of financial statements and annual reports by local authorities which was published in February 1981. If the Minister is against the suggestion in this amendment, he is presumably against things that the Department of the Environment was putting out some years ago. However, there is a simple answer. The Minister needs only to accept my other amendments which do not cover a code of practice but which simply say that the local authority may publish in its own newspaper if it so wishes. I fear that the Minister is not to be persuaded this evening. I deeply regret that but I feel it would be wrong to take up any more of the Committee's time in what is a matter of some importance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Lord Lucas.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 20, at end insert—

("(4A) Subsection (3) or (4) above does not have effect in the case of a pitch occupied by a caravan, or a mooring occupied by a boat, which is an appurtenance enjoyed with other property to which subsection (1)(a) above applies.").

Clearly, I welcome the amendment and thank the Minister for having responded to what was said at Second Reading and for the letter that he sent me explaining in some detail the thinking underlying the amendment.

In so far as I understand the technicalities, I believe that it is an improvement on the Bill. I support the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 2, line 11, leave out ("or 1st April 1995") and insert ("1st April 1995 or 1st April 1996").

moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 2, line 14, leave out ("1st April 1995 (as the case may be)") and insert ("in the case of lists compiled on 1st April 1995 or 1st April 1996, from 1st April 1995").

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].

My Lords, we thank the Minister for explaining the regulations to us. They show that personal pensions remain a bad deal for so many people that the Government are artificially having to make them more attractive by bribing existing and potential personal pension holders with more of our—the taxpayers'—money to keep them.

We all want people to hold a second-tier pension. It is the only way of ensuring and enjoying an old age above the margin of poverty. We all accept that a good occupational pension is the most desirable of second pensions. For those on lower incomes, SERPS may provide the same kind of security; or it would have done if, since 1979, the Government had not progressively raided it, both to save government money and to make private pensions artificially and comparatively more attractive. In consequence, under this Government we have seen SERPS cut from the best 20 years to 40 years, every year but five, as well as an annual rather than an end-of-scheme valuation. Together, those have almost halved the value of SERPS. Even so, SERPS remains appropriate for people on relatively low incomes in secure occupations without an occupational pension. However, in future SERPS may have to be made more secure against government raiding.

The third option has always been personal pensions. Again, no one disputes that they meet a real need in the market, for the better off, for those who are self-employed and for those who are highly mobile. In other words, they are for those who do not have a conventional employer and have to or can afford to dispense with the employer's contribution. Had that niche market been addressed and had personal pensions been properly regulated, there need have been no problem with either approved personal pensions or the right to recycle the standard SERPS rebate. Instead, we have seen hungry, commission-only salesmen whose companies have willingly turned a blind eye to dubious practices.

A similarly blind eye from an indulgent Government has put us in the following situation. First, we have seen the marketing of approved personal pensions to the wrong people: those on low incomes who were persuaded out of good occupational schemes and out of SERPS, to their disadvantage. Secondly, as a consequence, those APP providers have been found to be so inefficient that even the best providers top-slice at least 15 per cent. in charges and the inefficient double or nearly treble that in some cases. Thirdly, some two-thirds of those holding APPs only, and merely, recycle their rebate. Many are in and out of work and cannot keep up regular premiums. Therefore, sadly, many people will find that APPs will not float them off poverty in old age.

Therefore, finally, the Government have realised, as pension holders themselves are realising, that for many it would be financially prudent to rejoin SERPS because of the poor deal that they get from APPs. As the Government are anxious that SERPS should not become an ambulance to casualties of private pensions, they are throwing additional rebates at APPs, not because APPs and their providers are good providers of pensions but because they are bad; not because they are efficient but because they have proved inefficient; not because people want to remain in them but precisely because people may not. Consequently, the taxpayer is having to contribute some £300 million, we suspect, this year to bribe people with their own money to stay in schemes which would otherwise probably damage their financial health.

Let me spell out those points a little further. First, personal pensions (APPs) have been sold to the wrong people. Those with personal pensions may be worse off if their income is low—say, below £10,000 a year; if they are too old to benefit because the pension does not have time to accrue; if they cannot maintain regular contributions; if they are in and out of work; or if they are women, who tend to get lower private pensions for the same level of contributions or annuity rates. As my honourable friend Mr. Denham made clear in another place, every one of those fears has materialised. We find that something like 3.6 million people—60 per cent. of all personal pension holders in 1993–94—had less than £10,000 a year in average income. For women holding personal pensions the average income was £6,300. We also find that nearly half a million of the holders are over 45. In addition, since 1987–88, nearly half of those who bought personal pensions have failed to make regular contributions each year since.

In consequence, if APPs are funded merely by recycling this rebate, they will be insufficient to take people out of poverty. We fear that that may apply to something like two-thirds of those holding such pensions. As we found when we discussed the Pensions Bill last year, the best advice was that unless people can afford to make voluntary contributions over and above a rebate taking them up to something like 15 per cent., it will not be sufficient to provide for their old age. By definition, those who are poorest, those who are often unemployed and women with interrupted work, are least likely to make voluntary contributions and least likely to benefit from APPs in their old age, and may still need income support.

This situation has been made worse by charges. It would be bad enough, pensions having been sold to the wrong people, if APPs were efficiently provided. But the record has been disastrous. According to the Government Actuary, the typical figures (not the most efficient provider, but not the least efficient either: presumably the median) suggest that, on an income of £10,000 with the SERPS rebate being recycled, between a quarter and one-third of the money saved is being top-sliced in charges if a person is around 40 with 25 years to go to statutory pension age. We should remember that the average income for women is only £6,300; and for someone on £7,000, charges can take anything from 25 per cent. (the more efficient) to 40 per cent. or more of the payments at the age of 40. Some will do better, some will do worse, according to age, gender, income and provider. But in all cases where we are dealing with incomes under £10,000 we are likely to see at least a quarter of the savings top-sliced, and nearly half of the savings top-sliced in costs. For those who put in simply a single premium or an intermittent premium, the whole of that will be taken out in charges. It is a straight gift to the commission-hungry salesman and to the company, and nothing remains in the bank.

How many people on an income of £7,000 a year would have entered into a personal pension plan at the age of 40 had they appreciated that in some cases 40 per cent. of what they were recycling or saving was being wiped out in charges? It is worse still, compared to SERPS. For someone in SERPS who is unemployed for a year and cannot make a contribution, or whose earnings fall below the income threshold for two and three years, nonetheless the existing contributions are fully protected. They are ring-fenced, and people are not charged. But for those in a personal pension scheme, fees continue to be charged per year to manage a pre-existing asset whether or not additional contributions are made. So each and every year people see their capital being top-sliced, top-sliced and top-sliced in fees. They see it diminishing, as they stand there looking for work, steadily depleting what has been built up.

As for women, they are hit three times over by the Government's personal pension schemes. First, they are more likely to have low earnings—as I say, the average is £6,300. Secondly, their income is more likely to be interrupted as a result of work patterns and family responsibilities, while charges nonetheless continue to top-slice what they have put away. Thirdly, women will receive a lower pay-out because, unlike SERPS, where the same is received whether a person is male or female because there are no actuarial considerations involved, in APPs the payment will be less. So women are hurt because they are more likely to have lower incomes, because the charges continue when they are not so likely to be in work and because at the end of the day they will receive a lower sum. These are the people the Government have encouraged the personal pension providers to take into portable personal pensions. It has been an absolute disaster.

This means that, as the Government have belatedly woken up to the fact, if such people are not to rejoin SERPS the Government have to increase the attractiveness of staying with the personal pension by increasing the rebates that can be recycled to fund it. In other words, in a desperate effort to keep personal pensions afloat, the Government are having to pay for the management costs and charges of inefficient providers so that more of the rebate stays as savings and less is grabbed by the company. That might be fine—except that they are doing it with our money, the taxpayers' money: £300 million of it. So far the Government have spent over a billion pounds of our money to persuade low earners to leave SERPS, even though, alas, many will remain in poverty.

The Government have got themselves into the most awful mess. We see their pensions policy unravelling before our eyes. They are having to throw additional money at the problem. (This is one area where the Government clearly think that the problem is solved by throwing money at it.) But it will not be solved. Although additional money is being provided, it will still not be enough—nor can it be—to remedy the plight of those who are with the worst providers. Even with the additional rebates they will still find themselves facing poverty in old age—all to avoid a return to SERFS which this additional rebate may not postpone.

So we have a government pensions policy, first, to cut the value of the state pension relative to earnings from 22 per cent. value in 1979 to 14 per cent. today; secondly, we have seen the Government chop away at SERPS, which would otherwise, in 2040, have been worth £173 and will now be worth only some £107 under the Tories; thirdly, to encourage private provision at all cost. It is now clear that that cost is considerable.

At considerable cost to the taxpayer, we have ended up with a scheme that pays to the poorest more taxpayers' money to take them out of SERFS into APPs, while still almost certainly having to give them additional money when they reach pension age because a recycled APP will not float them off income support. What a waste of taxpayers' money and their money. And what a desperate situation for those who will see their savings whittled away by the false promises of government and the false prospectuses of providers. It is a sad and sorry story.

My Lords, every time I hear the word "SERPS" I start feeling a bit like Laocoon. It is not a simple creation; it tends to mirror the mind of its creator whose worst enemy would never have described him as simple minded.

I shall not follow the Minister and the noble Baroness into a long argument about contracting out. I have heard that argument in this House at least 10 times before and it tends to grow in the telling. In any case, as I understand it, it is not directly relevant to the orders before the House today. Those orders are simply a matter of fixing rates according to the recommendations of the Government Actuary.

I do not propose to make a complaint about the Government taking the advice of the Government Actuary. I will ask the Minister about one thing that he said in his speech. In the contracting-out money purchase order, he said what I suspected on looking at the figures as set out in the order; that is, that the Government have decided to treat the rate of 9 per cent. as a cap. I understand the Minister's argument for having a cap, without at present passing judgment on it. What I want to know is why he fixed that rate at 9 per cent. Why not 8 per cent? Why not 10 per cent.? Maybe there is an answer; maybe there is not; but if there is one I would be interested to hear it.

Also, somebody should draw attention to the report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, to which, as usual, we owe a great deal. It noticed a drafting error in the primary legislation on which the salary related contracting-out scheme is based. The wording of the section left out the words "or (b)". The effect of that was to make it apply only to the employee's share of the rebate and not to the employer's share. The committee believes that it was clearly the intention of Parliament to refer to both percentages and thinks that it should be treated as a manifest mistake on the face of the Act. I should like to hear the Minister's comments on that.

I do not mean to make a meal out of this matter at the moment because the rebate percentage for employers has not, in any event, been altered. It does not affect the vires of the order. But if the mistake, as is alleged, has been made, at some stage before we leave things set in stone for too long, there should be a miscellaneous provisions Bill in which this question could be addressed. I do not know whether the Minister has anything to say on that. Mistakes happen to all of us; one does not make a meal of them but they need to be put right.

I agree that in 1995 the security of personal pension funds was improved. I am not sure that it was improved enough. There is probably still a good deal to do in that area. Indeed, we have not even done all that was set out in the Goode Report, a subject to which we must return and give our attention. It should be clear that there is an employee trustee and a pensioner trustee and the other trustees should not have the power to dismiss them. There should not be schemes which are open only to directors and to which other people cannot get access. There should also be, before and not after we experience another scandal, a really effective compensation fund so that the next time we have a Maxwell—and it will happen again because sin goes on—we have equipment ready to deal with it rather than having to look at emergency provisions.

With those few remarks I shall not detain the House on what are themselves, however great the arguments behind them, quite small orders.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for their welcome, at least to those parts of the orders with which they agree. I do not believe that there was too much disagreement on COSRs; the disagreement from the noble Baroness came from the order on COMPS and perhaps in particular from the order on personal pensions.

I shall deal with the technical point, though it is equally a serious point, raised by the noble Earl in relation to the observation of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments that there was an error in the Pensions Act. As is so often the case, the noble Earl is quite right about that. I am surprised that he did not spot the error in the original Act but I suppose he was not actually dealing with the original Act for his party and that excuses him. However, it does not excuse the rest of us who took part in the passage of that Act. I fear that there was a mistake and nobody spotted it. I should like to blame the word processor and perhaps that is where I shall stand.

What happened, without going into detail, was that the important words "and (b)" were omitted from the Act when they should have been included. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments rightly points out that if we take the whole of the section together, it is clear that it should refer to (a) and (b); (a) being the employee's share and (b) being the employer's share. The joint committee accepted that that was the meaning of the Act and that we should work on that basis.

The noble Earl asks whether we will take the opportunity to correct that error at the earliest opportunity. In fact we do not need to do that. The specific part of the Act where the error occurs is relative to the transitional position. As we stand here this evening, this is the transitional position and after this the error effectively disappears for subsequent reviews under the Pensions Act. I am happy to tell the noble Baroness therefore that at least we do not need another Pensions Bill to correct this error.

My Lords, if the Minister is prepared to make the same sort of concession as his noble friend Lord Lucas made to my noble friend Lord Dubs, I would welcome such a Bill.

My Lords, the noble Baroness should not push her luck too far.

The noble Earl asked how the figure of 9 per cent. for the cap was arrived at. Essentially, the setting of the cap at this level means that most current appropriate personal pensions holders are able to maintain their plans until retirement without imposing excessive cost on public funds. A balance therefore had to be selected between trying to make sure that people were encouraged to stay in their personal pension schemes as they got older and making sure also that one was not putting too much money across from the national insurance contribution fund to personal pension holders. As the noble Earl will note, over time, as each year progresses, fewer years—if I may describe them like that—at the top end down to the 9 per cent. are capped. In time, five years and then another five years as each quinquennium progresses, the 9 per cent. would drop off if governments maintained the same kind of arrangements into the future. That is the reason we selected 9 per cent.

The noble Earl went a bit further than the provisions before us by addressing the protections in the Pensions Act for pension schemes against people like Robert Maxwell. There is already a compensation fund. As I have described before—I will take a second to do it again as the noble Earl raises the matter and it is important—the defences operate at a number of levels. There is a compensation fund if all else fails and there has been distinct cheating. Also, OPRA will be there; indeed, it has just been set up with the chairman, chief executive and members appointed. Duties have been placed on auditors and scheme professionals to blow the whistle to OPRA if they see anything irregular occurring in the fund, as can members of the scheme or trustees if they feel that there is something wrong or something has not been properly done. They, too, can blow the whistle by reporting the scheme to OPRA and OPRA will then investigate. The employer trustees are another line of defence, as is the minimum funding requirement. We believe that, taken together, the OPRA schemes and, more importantly, the pensioners and prospective pensioners have better protection than they had before the Act and before Goode.

I turn to some of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who seemed to say that the Government's pension policy was "unravelling before our eyes". The Opposition's pension policy is not even ravelling, let alone unravelling. We are still waiting for it. I am not too sure if, in the midst of the attack on personal pensions, I got the flavour of the fact that Mr. Chris Smith, when he announces the Opposition's pension policy, may well say that they intend to abolish personal pensions. It will be interesting to know whether that is the kind of commitment I can rightly assume emerges from the noble Baroness's clear dislike of personal pensions.

My Lords, the Minister, I am sure not deliberately, misstates my position. It was not a clear dislike of personal pensions. I made it very clear that there is a niche in the market for personal pensions—for those who are better off, for those who are mobile and for those who are self-employed. My criticism of personal pensions—I am delighted to spend another 10 minutes repeating it if the Minister does not recall what I said—is that the Government have encouraged them to be targeted at people who could not afford them, that personal pensions for them would not float them off poverty and that too heavy a slice of those personal pensions was going in charges—up to 40 per cent. of people's savings.

My Lords, I have lifted a little corner of the veil over the Opposition's pensions policy—they do not dislike personal pensions. That was not the flavour that came over to me, but I am happy to accept that and to accept the Opposition into the same group as those of us who believe that personal pensions have an appropriate part to play in pension provision for all our people.

The noble Baroness made a number of points about the personal pension scheme. She attacked our rebates on a number of grounds. The decision as to whether the pension is a good buy depends on a lot of circumstances and not, if I may say to the noble Baroness, just on the level of income the person has at that time. We are keen to encourage people to contribute as best they can to their pension. There is no firm evidence that so-called rebate-only personal pensions are unsuitable for specific types of employees. Neither low earnings nor time out of the employment market necessarily mean that their final personal pension will not be as high as the SERPS they would have received if they had stayed in SERPS. Quite often the effect of charges on a pension fund is more than outweighed by the investment performance. For example, pension funds over the past 15 years have managed a real rate of growth per year of nearly 10 per cent. and providers' charges vary too. If people have a personal pension, even if it starts off by being a rebate-only one, at least they have the vehicle into which they can put additional contributions if they are able to do so at any time in their working life. Therefore they are on their way to providing a better pension provision than just remaining with SERPS.

Personal pension charges do indeed vary and, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned, since January 1995 changes have been made. Providers have been required to set out their charges in their promotional literature and in the key feature documents issued at the time of sale. Indeed, a PIA recent report said there was some evidence that companies are charging less and that they are improving what they pay if a policy is surrendered early or transferred. Our publicity advice clearly advises potential investors in personal pensions to shop around by talking to an independent financial adviser or several advisers tied to individual companies. We are sure that that is the way to explore what is on offer.

With regard to where the expenses have been pitched, we have made allowance for reasonable costs and charges of the more efficient personal pension providers. We have not incorporated any allowance for flat rate charges. We have not taken the average. We have looked at the more efficient personal pension providers when we have come to the conclusion about how much the expenses part of the rebate should be.

It was said that the age-related rebates are just another example of a bribe to keep people out of SERPS. At present appropriate personal pensions become less attractive for contracting out of SERPS as people get older simply because there is less time for the investment to gather interest and to grow the nearer one gets to retirement age. These age-related rebates will ensure that most of those who are already contributing to an appropriate personal pension will continue to do so for the rest of their working lives. It also gives younger people the same kind of personal choice.

Personal pensions play a part in the spectrum of pension provision that we on this side of the House, and I think most people, want to see available. Not everyone works in a company where there is an occupational pension scheme—either a salary related scheme or a money purchase scheme. Indeed, personal pensions are a sensible way for those people to consider putting aside money for their retirement. We are all keen to see that. Even the party opposite appreciates the need for second pension provision. We have a clear policy on how we proceed to that and APPs form an important part of it. In order to get to the position where an increasing number of people have second pension provision, these rebates are very important—the rebates to salary-related schemes, the rebates to money purchase schemes and the rebates to appropriate personal pension schemes.

As I said at the beginning, we are looking forward to the unveiling of the pensions policy of the party opposite. I think I know now that it is not entirely opposed to personal pensions. I think I know from an article I read in a newspaper that it is not keen on carrying on with SERPS. An article in The Times of 29th February by Mr. Chris Smith stated that,

"Serps depends on the benevolence of each younger generation to meet the cost of its elders' pensions".

The article went on to say that it will always be liable to raids from some future Mr. Lilley who will cut the benefits once again.

The noble Baroness complained loudly about the changes we made to SERPS provision in 1985. Without those changes, by the middle of the next century SERPS would be costing the taxpayers of that time an extra £30 billion at 1985 prices. It is one thing to expect the next generation to look after you; it is another thing to saddle them with costs that are so huge that they will no longer be prepared to accept the burden. That is why we made those changes in 1985 and 1986. SERPS had not been properly worked out when it came to considering the burden which it would impose on future generations in the middle of the next century and when it came to the £30 billion cost that would be imposed at that time. We had to throttle back that expense, frankly, in the interest of those people who would come to retirement at that time and the working generation who would be expected to shoulder that burden.

In conclusion, we believe that the rebates will reinforce and continue the excellent policy we have in this country. We have a pensions policy of which we should be proud and on which we should be building. It should not be attacked in the negative way in which the noble Baroness attacked it in her speech. We should be proud when we consider what our colleagues in Europe have. They must look with envy at the kind of pension provision we have—£600 billion and 10 million of our people in salary-related schemes or COMPS and another 5 or 6 million in personal pensions. We ought to be pleased about that. We ought to be extremely pleased for future generations that we are making these sensible provisions today. These orders are part and parcel of the sensible provisions for people in retirement tomorrow. I commend them to your Lordships.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

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

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 8, at end insert ("of the statement complained of").

Some time ago the noble and learned Lord invited suggestions on the drafting of this Bill. I am grateful to him for dignifying two or three of the suggestions that I made as two or three of the Government's amendments. It is helpful to have it made clear in Clause 1(1)(a) that we are indeed talking about the statement co