| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Earl Russell: My Lords, I think that everyone in this Chamber accepts the proposition that the will of the other place should usually prevail. However, the proposition that its will should always prevail and the proposition that we need a revising chamber are incompatible. Which of these propositions is the policy of Her Majesty's Government?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not accept the noble Earl's contention that
those propositions are incompatible. As I said in my original response, it is obviously--as the noble Earl has accepted--the constitutionally accepted position that the other place is the pre-eminent Chamber of Parliament. As I said in my original reply, there may be occasions on which the position of this Chamber--or that of any revising chamber--may be considered by another place and it may indeed be accepted. I remember the noble Earl's generous remarks on the occasion of the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill only a week ago when he said that it was incumbent on him to express his intense pleasure that on that occasion the Government listened to this House. Ultimately it is for the primary Chamber to maintain a primary position.
Lord Peston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that for once the noble Earl is somewhat illogical? It seems to me to be perfectly compatible for the revising Chamber to revise and for the ultimately democratic Chamber to make up its mind on what should pass into legislation. I personally have no difficulty with that as long as the House of Commons at least listens to what we have to say. That, surely, is the central point of what we do as revisers. Does my noble friend agree with that?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as so often, my noble friend, in suggesting that the noble Earl was illogical, is more exact than I dared to be when responding. However, I think it was clear from my response to the noble Earl's supplementary question that I believe that there is no incompatibility in what he suggested.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, will the noble Baroness look favourably on the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords that your Lordships' House should have power to delay statutory instruments for a short period and to invite another place to think again?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I have made clear on several occasions, the Government do not intend to respond piecemeal to individual recommendations of the Royal Commission. We have accepted it in broad terms as a good basis for further reform. I am sure that the noble Lord will be aware that the Royal Commission recognised that the second Chamber should always be subordinate, even when fully reformed.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recognise the following words:
- "A decision by the House not to support a proposal from the government will carry more weight because it will have to include supporters from a range of political and independent opinions. So the Executive will be better held to account"?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: No, my Lords. The answer to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition
is the same point made by my noble friend Lord Peston; namely, that the noble Lord is being illogical. There is nothing inconsistent in the statement which the noble Lord quoted, nor in my original Answer to the noble Earl.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, is it the Government's position that a Bill coming from the other place is ultimately inviolable, or is it their position that it is ultimately infallible? In her reply, will the noble Baroness take an illustration of a provision that was not promised in the manifesto, perhaps the imposition of party lists upon European elections?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord is well aware, that matter was subject to intensive scrutiny by this House. Ultimately the other place prevailed. However, I draw his attention to the more recent example in which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was involved; namely, the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill, in which the Government accepted amendments which originated from this House which they felt improved the Bill. That was obviously a matter of some importance. As I said in my original Answer, in each case the Government will need to decide whether it is appropriate to accept propositions from the revising Chamber.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the logic of the noble Earl's Question is simply that, if it is not right, to what constructive end and to what reasonable purpose do we continue to sit here at all?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am rather surprised by that question. Perhaps I should simply repeat the answer that I gave to the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Without in any way seeking to say that that constitutes universally and absolutely the last word, it seems to me to reflect the position exactly. It must be for the other place to decide in each case whether to accept revisions proposed by the revising Chamber--and, of course, on certain occasions it accepts such revisions--or compromise positions which may differ from those which it may have originally wanted. I think that that is clear.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, in arguing that we have the right to be heard by another place but that it has an automatic right to prevail over us, she is describing exactly the position of the Social Security Advisory Committee? Does she agree that it is properly described as the Cassandra of the body politic? Has she any evidence that this House is willing to occupy such a position?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I take once again the example of the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill. If the noble Earl regards the amendments for which he argued as being Cassandra-like, it is for him
to accept that description. I described them as improving the Bill. I think that is optimistic rather than pessimistic.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that ultimately we are saying that the representative Chamber must prevail? If the noble Earl cannot accept that, he is not accepting a basic principle of democracy.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Yes, my Lords. Through my noble friend's question, I would draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to the remarks that he made in his well-known constitutional lecture last autumn. He said that he of course accepted that the House of Lords was not going to revise the position, or take another position which moved away from the basic fact that, under our constitution, the Government are formed from the elected House of Commons, and ultimately that is the democratic responsibility of the Government.
Organophosphates
3.1 p.m.
The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What is their current policy on the licensing of products containing organophosphates as their active ingredient for agricultural and domestic use.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the Government's primary aim is the protection of human safety and the environment. All organophosphates for agricultural and domestic use are therefore tightly controlled through stringent scientific evaluation and rigorous regulatory arrangements.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that it now transpires that there are questions about the rigorous safety checks on organophosphates? Perhaps I may ask two questions. First, if the Minister is minded to restore organophosphate sheep-dips to public sale, will she ensure that the labels contain a very clear use-by date? There are now indications that contaminants--about which I asked the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in 1993, when he held the office of Minister--are developing in stored sheep-dips. So it is very important that they are used immediately.
Secondly, do the Government propose to run any studies on the effects on children of organophosphates used in the home?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as the noble Countess is aware, we followed the advice of the Veterinary Products Committee that organophosphate sheep-dip should be withdrawn from the market unless and until satisfactory packaging to protect from accidental
spillage of concentrate could be brought forward by the manufacturers. If they succeed in providing that kind of satisfactory packaging, and the advice is to allow the product back on to the market, I shall certainly look at the issue of best before dates in terms of both the packaging and the advice to users, to ensure that users are aware that the best before dates are not only theoretical but have safety implications.
As far as concerns the issue of research into its effects on children, my understanding is that at the moment no specific research is taking place. We are planning a wide-ranging seminar on future research needs for organophosphates next month. It is possible that suggestions may be put forward then.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page