18 Dec 2001 : Column 129

House of Lords

Tuesday, 18th December 2001.

The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.

Royal Assent

The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act.

House of Lords Reform

Lord Geddes asked Her Majesty's Government:

    Whether, in the context of their proposals for House of Lords reform, they consider that the elected element will constitute a more legitimate body of membership within the House than the unelected element.

The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I do not consider that one type of Member in the reformed Chamber will be more legitimate than any other type. All Members of this House will be equally legitimate.

Lord Geddes: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. He always gives such replies so graciously. Can he advise the House where that reply leaves the doctrine of his immediate predecessor Lord Privy Seal?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, absolutely intact. The reformed House will be the subject of a constitutional settlement approved by Parliament, as the present House is the subject and the consequence of a constitutional settlement approved by Parliament.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I congratulate the Leader of the House on the brilliance of his reply. I want to press him further on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes. Does he accept that there is a danger of there being two classes of Peer, one elected and the other appointed? Does he also accept that, to sustain the legitimacy and the appropriate democratic role of this House, there is a strong case that those who accept a party Whip should be elected and that those who decide to retain their independence, on the grounds of their expertise and experience, may be appointed? That would meet the charge that some noble Lords are "cronies", an unacceptable charge and one that should be fully repudiated.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there will not be two classes of Member. All Members will be equal,

18 Dec 2001 : Column 130

as George Orwell intended to point out. Speaking as one who was put here on the recommendation of Mr Major, I never thought that I had an obligation to be one of his cronies. I say quite seriously that I do not detect any subservience or desire to be ruled by others among any noble Lords, whether Bishops, lifers, hereditary Peers or others.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we shall return to the matter of legitimacy many times over the course of the next few months, particularly if the Government publish a Bill. It is important to understand the Government's thinking behind this subject. If, as the noble and learned Lord has said, directly elected Members of this House will have no greater legitimacy than appointed Peers, what is the point of having them?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, to add a certain degree of variety that may be needed, and to give the representation that is specified in the Royal Commission's report to different sections of national life that may be under-represented at the moment. I stress that if the reform comes about it will be a constitutional settlement agreed and approved by both Houses.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that some difficulties could arise as a result of elected Members representing constituencies, whereas the rest will not have constituencies?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not believe that to be the case. The Bishops of the Church of England as established by law are Members of the House partly to represent a particular constituency of religious opinion. Of course, they also reflect much wider aspects of national life. There is no difficulty, except for those who want to find one.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord ask the Government to open their eyes a little wider so that they realise that elected Members in this House will alter the authority of the House of Lords and another place? The other place will hate the idea of an elected second Chamber and there will be endless trouble.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: No, my Lords. It is worth looking at the preamble to the Royal Commission's report and the basis upon which that commission pursued its inquiries and conclusions. That makes it perfectly plain that the House of Commons is to be supreme. It is to be supreme as the legislative organ and if it insists it must have its own way; and it is entirely supreme in relation to taxation. No changes to either of those bases will be proposed.

Lord Boardman: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord recognise that votes last week showed quite clearly that the views of this non-elected House represent the views of the public, as was widely shown afterwards, rather than the views of the elected House?

18 Dec 2001 : Column 131

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am not sure about that. It depends on which poll one reads. I take the point made by the noble Lord. This House, although non-elected, discharged what it took to be its duty.

Lord Elton: My Lords, does the Leader of the House accept that if in future Members of this House—however it is to be composed—are to be paid a living salary, the country will be governed by two Chambers out of touch with real life?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, not really. I believe that outside this House most people's aspiration is to have a living salary.

Manufacturing Industry

2.43 p.m.

Lord Roberts of Conwy asked Her Majesty's Government:

    Whether they have any plans to revive manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the Government recognise the difficulties that UK manufacturers are experiencing because of the slow-down in the world economy.

We are helping UK manufacturing industry to drive up productivity and to increase competitiveness. We are doing that by providing a stable fiscal environment, by investing in basic science, by pursuing a strong competition policy, by investing in transferable basic skills and in infrastructure, by actively promoting knowledge transfer between universities and industry and by supporting exports, regions and small business.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will he confirm that after two consecutive quarters of negative growth manufacturing is now in recession? Does that situation not call for other special measures such as exemption from the climate change levy, or has manufacturing ceased to occupy the central position in the Government's industrial and economic plans?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I have said, we recognise that there is a fall in output in manufacturing industry. That does not require us to take emergency measures, such as changing the climate change levy. But, as was shown by the fact that we had the manufacturing summit recently, we take the performance of manufacturing industry extremely seriously. We shall continue to support it as necessary to increase its productivity and competitiveness.

Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister accept, having been asked this Question probably six times in this House since the Summer Recess, that this is a serious issue? Does he further accept that there are

18 Dec 2001 : Column 132

really only two policies that Her Majesty's Government can pursue? The first one, which seemed to be the answer that the noble Lord was giving, is to do very little and allow the decline of manufacturing industry to be left to the market place. The alternative is to have a proactive fiscal and monetary policy in order to preserve our manufacturing industry, including—dare I say—making plans to go into the euro. Which of those two policies do the Government propose to adopt?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for asking that question. He has asked it every time this issue has been raised. I shall give the same answer as I have given before. I do not think that the failed policies of the past, in terms of either fiscal or monetary stimulation, are the right policies to pursue. What industry wants and has always said it wants is stability in these areas. Equally, to go into the euro, which is what the noble Lord has in mind, without the five tests being passed would be a great mistake.

Lord Jones: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in my former constituency some £250 million is currently being invested in the Airbus factory? It is a world leader in wing technology and wing production to the tune at the moment of over 4,000 jobs. Is he further aware that the aerospace manufacturing industry in Britain now earns nearly £5 billion a year for our country, employs over 40,000 skilled workers and is the last great reservoir of skills? Therefore, will the Government bring forward their plans to buy the heavy lift aircraft, the A400M? Will they increase the already notable research and development grants that they give to BAe Systems and to Airbus? Without the aerospace industry Britain would be in serious industrial trouble.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page