| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have said consistently that we support a prudent interpretation of the stability and growth pact, taking into account the economic cycle, sustainability and the important role of public investment.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, is it not regrettable that an important White Paper was published this morning and not made the subject of a Statement in both Houses of Parliament? In view of that, will the Minister ensure that an early debate on the White Paper takes place in your Lordships' House?
Are we not witnessing, in the words of the Chancellor this morning, a crude attempt by the Government to rewrite the EU's convergence programme and the rules of the EU growth and stability pact by including or omitting figures to suit themselves? Is that not because the Chancellor can see from today's published zero growth figures for the UK economy that the public finances are heading into a massive deficit, even more horrendous than the £54 billion of borrowing already planned over the next four years?
There are EU rules. The Government are in breach of them. What is their solution? It is to change the rules. Is that not what the Chancellor's words this morning really meant?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I resist the suggestion that the Chancellor behaved in any way improperly or discourteously towards the House of Commons. He went out of his way to ensure that he was able to unveil the White Paper personally to the House of Commons. He agreed to the Speaker's request that he should defer answering the first Question until the end of Treasury Questions in order that there should be sufficient time for him to make a Statement on the White Paper and for there to be debate on it. Of course, the White Paper has been available in the Printed Paper Office and the Vote Office since 11.30 a.m. today.
I also resist the suggestion that there is any way in which this country is in conflict with the stability and growth pact. We are in conformity not only with our own fiscal rules but also well within the criteria of the stability and growth pact. When the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, refers to zero growth, he is referring to this morning's headlines, which relate only to the fourth quarter of last year. Growth in the whole of last year was of course within the margins which we set for ourselves and which we expected both in the Budget last year and in the Pre-Budget Report. As the noble
Lord knows, this country has been outstandingly successful in resisting the dangers of volatility in global economies.
Lord Peston: My Lords, although one has had only a couple of hours in which to examine this document, is my noble friend aware that it is a remarkably interesting and important document? It raises almost every important question confronting our country in the economic sphere and the European Union. I am genuinely surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, takes such an acid view of the document. It does not hide anything. Quite the contrary; it exposes almost everything that needs to be exposed.
None the less, is my noble friend aware that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, on one matter; namely, that this document is so important—I am not sure what my noble friend the Chief Whip is about to say—that, instead of wasting a whole day on the trivial matter of foxhunting, if your Lordships' House is to have any future, and in my black moods I sometimes wonder whether it has, we should give a debate on this subject absolutely top priority? I hope that my noble friend will speak to my noble friend the Chief Whip on the matter and press him on it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Peston rightly reminds me that I did not respond to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, about a future debate. Of course, as the House knows, that is a matter for the usual channels. Personally, I should be very happy to have a debate on this subject.
My noble friend is entirely right about the content of the White Paper. It was promised in the Chancellor's speech to the CBI in November last year. It addresses the reforms which are necessary in Europe in our labour, capital and product markets in order to increase competition and modernise the European economy. Those are matters of the most profound importance and they will be of great importance at the Barcelona Summit meeting and beyond. They were foreshadowed in the Lisbon Summit.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I support both noble Lords who have already spoken in pressing for time to be given to a debate on this subject. I hope very much that the Minister will speak to his noble colleagues in the usual channels, just as I shall speak to mine, in order to press that case.
Does the noble Lord agree that if we are to have growth and stability in Europe, the level of the currency and whether we are to join the euro, which we debated earlier, will be only one factor in determining whether growth and stability come about? This White Paper, whether or not one agrees with everything in it, deals with the other factors which will be crucially important; that is, the way the labour markets work, the way the capital markets work, and, indeed, Europe's place within the world. Therefore, given the
importance of all those issues within the context of the development of the EU, I return to my first point: we should have more time in which to discuss the matter.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have already indicated my personal sympathy with that view. I am glad to hear that the noble Lord will express the same view to his own Chief Whip. I do so now.
Of course, these issues are of far greater significance in terms of what we can do about them than the matter which we debated in Starred Questions on Tuesday and today. That brings us back to the very important debate which we must continue to have on whether we comply with the five economic tests which the Chancellor has set.
Business of the House: Hunting Debate
3.38 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that it has been agreed in the usual channels that this House will have a full day's debate on hunting on Tuesday, 19th March. Your Lordships may also be interested to know that my right honourable friend the President of the Council has today announced in the other place that a similar debate will take place in that House on the previous day, Monday, 18th March.
The debate in your Lordships' House will take place on a Motion which will be both amendable and divisible. I am advised that some careful thought will have to be given to the exact wording of the Motion, and the House authorities are currently considering that question. Therefore, at this stage I cannot tell your Lordships exactly what the wording will be. However, I can tell your Lordships that it is our intention to let the House consider the matter fully and to vote on more than one option.
The speakers' list is now open in the Government Whips' Office. I have suggested to the usual channels that we sit at 11 a.m. that day to ensure that the votes take place at a reasonable hour. The usual channels are currently considering that proposal, but I thought that I should let your Lordships know that we were considering an early start that day.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for telling the House, in a little more detail, what most noble Lords read in the newspapers this morning or heard on the television news yesterday evening. It is good of him. However, he has not given us all the details that we need, but perhaps he or the Chief Whip plan to tell us more in due course.
The whole House knows that I have great admiration for the noble and learned Lord, but today that admiration is tempered with sympathy. We know exactly what has been going on. The Government are in some trouble: Mr Byers, Jo Moore, Sixsmith, Mittal, dodgy donations and so on. The cry goes out from No. 10 that something new and controversial must be found and, hey presto, it is hunting once more.
There will be a free vote on this subject and some noble Lords on the Benches opposite find that puzzling. No doubt it will be a challenge for them and a new experience, but I am sure that they will not have too much difficulty with it.
I have one or two detailed questions for the noble and learned Lord. Less than a year ago we had a debate on this subject. Does he believe that anything has changed in that time? Last time the debate was in relation to a Bill, a piece of legislation that the Government had brought forward and sent through another place. If a Bill was good enough then, why is it not good enough now, rather than producing yet another declaratory Motion that appears to have little effect? Would it not be better to resolve the differences that appear to exist between the Houses and perhaps within this House? Besides resolving those differences, and so that we can better understand the compromises that are talked about, would it not be better to have a Bill, with amendments proposed and debated, in the normal way?
What will the Government do in the event of a disagreement between this House and another place? If the result is the same as last time, will the Government shrug their shoulders and say, "There we are, we tried, but that is the end of that for this Parliament", or will that encourage them to bring forward a Bill?
I believe that it would be useful for the House to know a little more about the Government's thinking. Even better, perhaps the Government should publish a draft Bill and give it pre-legislative scrutiny. That is very much the fashion of the time.
Perhaps we should decide whether the House should sit at 11 o'clock after we have seen the final speakers' list. If there is an enormous number of speakers, and the Government are so keen for us to debate hunting once more, perhaps the debate should take place over two days rather than the House sitting at 11 o'clock.
I ask all those questions in the usual spirit of helpfulness and co-operation. I know that the Government will see them as such. However, having heard the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I wonder whether we should take his advice and let another place tear itself apart over this issue while we have a debate on the future of the European economy.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page