| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, will the noble Lord say how the consultation regarding the retirement scheme is progressing?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, in view of the time constraints, I would rather write to the noble Lord on that matter.
The Government are very concerned about the high level of farmers' deaths and suicides, an issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. The Department of Health already provides large sums of money, backed by MAFF.
With regard to the timetable for Agenda 2000, the aim is still to adhere to the Cardiff timetable and to settle the agenda in March 1999. Much depends on the handling of the matter by the Austrian and German presidencies. We continue to press for timely and radical reform.
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, asked whether Great Britain was only 77 per cent. self-sufficient in beef. The figures for the first six months of this year indicate that beef produced in Great Britain represents 79 per cent. of the total of beef marketed in Great Britain.
I think I have filled a very large gap. I hope that I have managed to answer most of the points raised. It was a fine debate, with many good speeches. I hope that we have demonstrated the Government's commitment to British agriculture and to giving it fair treatment. I again thank all noble Lords who participated in this excellent debate.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, as the Minister said, we have heard some very powerful speeches and I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate this evening. It was perhaps the House of Lords at its very best. Even the timing went haywire. The Minister said that he only just got here in time. I scraped in even after him, otherwise we would have had no debate at all!
It was very sad to see how few members of the Government Bench took part in, let alone listened to, the debate. It is comforting to know that the Minister understands many of the problems facing farming today. I thank him most particularly for his very full response to the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
European Parliamentary Elections Bill
7.29 p.m.
Returned from the Commons with their disagreement to the Lords amendments insisted on, with their amendment in lieu not insisted on but with a further amendment proposed in lieu thereof.
Lord Carter: My Lords, this is more fun than farming at the moment! I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure for 15 minutes until 7.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.29 to 7.45 p.m.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, on this occasion I beg to move that the Commons amendment be considered forthwith.
Moved, That the Commons amendment be considered forthwith.--(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
1
Clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out ("a registered party, or").
Page 2, line 2, at end insert--
Page 2, line 15, at end insert--
Page 2, line 18, at end insert (", following the rearrangement required under subsections (5A) and (5B)").
2
("(2A) Each candidate shall declare that he is either--
(a) the candidate of a party (and shall name that party); or
(b) an independent candidate.
(2B) There shall be added together the number of votes given for each party's candidates in each electoral region.
(2C) The number arrived at under subsection (2B) shall be the number of votes for the party for the purposes of this Act.").
3
("(5A) After the allocation of seats to the parties, the order of candidates in each list shall be such that the candidates are ranked in terms of the votes each received, with the candidate with the highest number of votes appearing first.
(5B) If two or more candidates have the same number of votes, their order on the list shall be determined by lot.").
4
4C
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause--
(".-(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint one or more persons--
(a) to review, in accordance with subsection (2), the operation of the system of election provided for by section 3 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 as substituted by section 1 of this Act, and
(b) to make a report to the Secretary of State within six months from the day of appointment. (2) The review shall consider, in particular, how the ability of electors to vote for particular persons on a party's list of candidates might affect the results of an election.
(3) The Secretary of State shall carry out his duty under subsection (1) within one month from the date of the first general election to the European Parliament which takes place after the coming into force of section 1.
(4) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of any report received under subsection (1)(b) before each House of Parliament.").
The Commons insist on their disagreement to Lords Amendments Nos. 1 to 4, do not insist on their Amendment No. 4C in lieu thereof to which the Lords have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu of the Lords amendments--
4L
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause--
(".-(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint one or more persons--
(a) to review, in accordance with subsection (2), the operation of the system of election provided for by section 3 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 as substituted by section 1 of this Act, and
(b) to make a report to the Secretary of State within six months from the day of appointment.
(2) The review shall consider, in particular, how the ability of electors to vote for particular persons on a party's list of candidates might affect the results of an election.
(3) The Secretary of State shall carry out his duty under subsection (1) within one month from the date of the first general election to the European Parliament which takes place after the coming into force of section 1.
(4) Before making an appointment under subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall consult such persons appearing to him to be interested as he thinks appropriate.
(5) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of any report received under subsection (1)(b) before each House of Parliament.").
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 to 4 to which the Commons have disagreed and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4L in lieu thereof.
I feel a little bit like the Home Secretary, who said in the other place a few hours ago "I find myself back at the Dispatch Box on this issue". He made exactly the type of speech that we have come to expect--full of intervention in debate and full of humour--which left me, as always, with the distinct impression that his heart was not really in it and that if he never heard about proportional representation again, it would be too soon. He said that his major contribution was to make Victor d'Hondt famous. I think I can claim to have shared in that. Like him, I hope that this will help people with their Trivial Pursuits at Christmas. That is the one thing that I was left with from the Home Secretary's contribution.
Looking at the amendment now sent to us from the other place, it hardly moves us on a millimetre. Of course I welcome the review; I asked for it earlier in the Bill. I was dismissed out of hand. What has changed? A review does not address the issue before us. Do we
Today, a few more brave souls from the Labour Benches were pushed into service--by the Whips, I have no doubt--but a few more brave souls braved the Whips and expressed their opposition to the closed list. So while the number of those who voice their approval of the closed list grows, it does not grow at half the pace of the number voicing their disapproval.
There are really no new arguments, but I have to look at the two or three that have been made. The first one--and we heard it very heavily down the corridor and in the briefing all day--is that hereditary Peers have no right to have an opinion on this. In the Navy I think they call it "Putting up a smokescreen". Many of your Lordships--hereditary Peers, life Peers and the great majority of the Cross-Benchers--having listened to the argument--have voted consistently in favour of the open list.
The other argument that is continuing to be put is about Northern Ireland. Yes, as I said last time--but obviously I am going to have to say it again so that the Government might perhaps listen--the closed list was used to deal with the exceptional circumstances in Northern Ireland. Is the Government saying that the same exceptional circumstances apply here? The body was a deliberative forum, set up to bring in as many parties as possible in order to have negotiations. Is that what the European Parliament is about?
Lastly, we have kept having John Major quoted back at us. But John Major made clear that the system was not ideal. As I pointed out to your Lordships a day or two ago, these were the words used by the current Prime Minister when he said on the 21st March 1996:
My noble friend Lord Bethell raised some points which were used in the debate in the other place earlier today. As I remember his speech, my noble friend did not approve of the closed list but he expressed some concern about the consequences of the open list. I accept, of course, that candidates in the same party will to an extent be competing against each other for the electors' attention and approval. But the d'Hondt formula means that they will also have to co-operate and increase the total vote. In that way, more of them will be elected. A balance will have to be achieved by the candidates. Dare I say that this is a problem for the parties and the candidates to resolve? It does not seem to be such an important point that the electors should be allowed no say at all over which individual on the party's list they would like to represent them in Brussels.
The other point of which we hear a good deal is about manifesto commitments. I have read out the Labour Party manifesto before on this issue. At the risk of appearing to be a devotee of Labour's manifesto, here it is again--
"As I am sure that the Prime Minister would agree, the solution on the election process is certainly not ideal".--[Official Report, Commons; 21/3/96; col. 499.]
How then can it be ideal for Europe?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page