Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2012

Lord Lawson of Blaby Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, I am prompted to stand because of the reference to the Cunningham committee on conventions. I simply put this serious question to the Leader of the House. I recognise the great difficulty at times—which was expressed in the length of his answer—in interpreting financial privilege, and the difficulty that he has in convincing Members of the House, including Members on his own side about if and when it should be applied. But can the noble Lord imagine himself telling 300 elected senators that matters such as benefits received by cancer patients or for disabled children were none of their business whatever and if any of their constituents raised any of those issues with them, as constituents inevitably would, they would have to explain that there was nothing they could sensibly do because it was not within their powers?

His position in trying to justify and hold that line would be quite impossible. Clause 2 of the draft Bill as it stands, which still insists that there will be no change in the conventions between the two Houses in the event of an elected House, is absolute nonsense. I therefore just put it to him as I did in perhaps less impassioned terms yesterday, that this is really an issue that the committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Richard must examine before it reports and advises the two Houses of Parliament.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

My Lords, I support very strongly my noble friend Lord Newton's point. While the House of Commons is perfectly entitled to claim privilege, it is not compelled to do so. The constitution of this country operates by conventions. It is one of the conventions of the constitution that this is evoked very sparingly and on rare occasions. For it to be invoked promiscuously is completely contrary to the conventions of the constitution. This raises serious issues and the House of Commons would be wise to think again.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, has just said and revert to the Cunningham committee report, which was very clear on the question of conventions developing and changing over a period of time. It specifically addressed whether the conventions should be codified and decided that that was not helpful to the way in which Parliament operates, but that conventions could develop. The Leader of the House quoted only part of the Cunningham report and not the point in its entirety.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, that was a useful tour around the House on this matter of privilege. From time to time there are debases on privilege in this House, and it is entirely right that we should have them. But as I have explained, the matter of privilege is nothing to do with the Government, although the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, is entirely right that in certain instances the Government can waive financial privilege—if, for instance, they were to agree with an amendment made in the House of Lords or to part of an amendment. As I understand it, neither of those occurred on this occasion.

As the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, explained yesterday and again today, financial privilege is a matter for the House of Commons alone and, within the House of Commons, it is a matter for the Speaker on advice from the Clerks, not from the Government. I do not think that it would be useful for this House to debate endlessly or take a view of procedures in another place, any more than we would like another place to have a view about the procedures in this House. Both Houses have a longstanding convention that we do not debate the other’s practice, and I think that that is entirely right.

What I sense underlies much of this angst is what the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, talked about, and my noble friend Lord Forsyth—about the possibility of a reform. I am the first to defend the rights and privileges of this House, as I have done continually since I have been Leader. It is perfectly true that in the scenario of an elected House over time, the procedures and powers in this House would evolve; it could well mean that we ended up with a stronger and more powerful House, better able to challenge decisions made in the House of Commons. But that is part of the evolution between the two Houses. It would be a reversal of the evolution that has taken place over the course of the past 100 years, or so, but there is no reason why that should happen. If the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, and others were to amend or wish to amend a Bill on the reform of the House to do that, of course that is entirely possible. I am not sure what the Labour Party’s position is on the powers of the second Chamber. Perhaps this is the kind of positive thinking—or critical thinking, or continual thinking—that the Labour Party needs to do, apparently, and it will let its views be known.

My noble friend Lord Lawson was such a distinguished Chancellor of Exchequer for many years. I do not have the statistics, but I cannot believe that when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer he cheered every time the House of Lords spent more money.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

I managed all right.

[Lord Strathclyde]

I am well aware that my noble friend managed perfectly well.

My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay asked whether I was going to make a Statement on whether or why this was not a money Bill. I must say that I have not the faintest idea why this was not a money Bill. I am sure there are very good, practical and well precedented reasons why social security legislation is not deemed to be a money Bill.

A number of noble Lords have suggested that I should make a Statement at some stage next week on privilege. Let me consider that. There is no point making a Statement if we do not add very much more to the amount of knowledge that we already have. We will have an opportunity to debate the Bill when it returns from the House of Commons and when we have decided on a date, but if I can shed any extra light then I will do so. It might be better to have a Question for Short Debate, where we can discuss these matters in the round.

European Council

Lord Lawson of Blaby Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

My Lords—

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

My Lords—

[Lord McNally]

I think that it is the turn of the Labour Party, and then we will come back to the Conservatives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord, even though he brings immense experience to this House. We believe that we issued every signal possible by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and many others as to what we regarded as vital British interests. In the run-up to last Thursday’s summit everyone should have been entirely clear what the implications of that were.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

My Lords, I warmly support my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. He took an extremely difficult decision in the circumstances, but it was the right one, and I have no doubt that it will increasingly be seen to have been the right one as time unfolds. Is it not clear that the misbegotten venture of European monetary union has already proved a massive disaster for the whole of Europe and that, furthermore, this particular agreement, if that is the name for it, which was made on Friday has not solved any of the problems? I do not think it can, because I think that it is doomed. Indeed, as the financial markets have made clear today, it certainly has not solved any of the problems. All it will do is create increasing divisions within the members of the eurozone. They will interpret it in different ways and are concerned about many different aspects of it. Differences will also arise between the Governments of a number of eurozone countries and the peoples of those countries. This is not clever. As for—

[Noble Lords]

Too long!

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

Finally, perhaps I may commend my right honourable friend on being determined to protect the interests of financial services both in this country and in Europe. Unconsidered and malicious regulation will lead to financial services companies going not to other European countries but to Hong Kong, New York and Zurich.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his unqualified support for what the Prime Minister has done and I strongly agree with much of what he says. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, we wish the euro well, and we wish it to succeed, because unless we resolve the crisis that is facing the eurozone it will have an extremely negative effect on the British economy. I also agree entirely with my noble friend on his last point about financial services. There is a view that even if we could veto the financial transaction tax, it would affect only the UK. It would be too easy for many companies and organisations simply to relocate to the rest of the world, so it would be a loss to Europe as a whole, not just London. That was why the Prime Minister was trying to defend the financial services industry right across Europe, not just in the United Kingdom.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Lawson of Blaby Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I have read the Hansard of the whole of that debate. It is clear that the decision that my honourable friend took was on the basis that there was a possibility of differential turnout arising from the arrangement whereby the referendum takes place on the same day as a number of other elections throughout the United Kingdom.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

As the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said that I was going to intervene in this debate, I had better do so; indeed, I had intended to do so. It is the first time that I have intervened in Committee on the Bill and I shall try not to detain noble Lords for too long. I do not need to, because the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, made a number of important points with which I agree but, in particular, my noble friend Lord Lamont made all the main points very convincingly.

I just add one or two points to that. First, this is not merely a constitutional matter; it is a constitutional matter of great importance. If there is a low turnout, it may well be that that is because too many people are puzzled by exactly what the implication is of a change from first past the post to the alternative vote, so they do not feel able to cast their vote. For that reason, you might get a very low turnout. In fact, the alternative vote system is generally agreed to be a totally capricious system. Every inquiry that has looked into it, such as the Jenkins commission, found it to be totally capricious. It could produce extraordinary results.

Seeing the noble Lord, Lord Bach, in his place—I am very glad to do so—I give an example from the constituency of Blaby, which I had the honour of representing for 18 years and five general elections. I mention the noble Lord, Lord Bach, because he was one of my most distinguished constituents. Not only that, if I remember rightly—he will correct me if I am wrong—he was chairman of the constituency Labour Party.

[Lord Bach]

I still am.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

The noble Lord is a glutton for punishment. As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, will confirm, a characteristic of the constituency of Blaby was that it was always clear that the Conservative candidate—and I was fortunate enough to be the Conservative candidate for all those years—would come first past the post by a huge majority. However, two things were uncertain. The first was whether it would be an overall majority or fall short of an overall majority. In the five elections I fought, I had an overall majority in three of them and failed to get an overall majority in the other two. It was also uncertain as to which candidate would come second—whether it would be Labour second and the Liberal Democrat third, or the Liberal Democrat second and Labour third. In fact, on three occasions the Liberal Democrat came second and Labour third, and on the other two occasions it was the other way round, with Labour second and the Liberal Democrat third.

However, under the alternative vote system, which of the two came second and which of the two came third would have determined the result of the election. If the Liberal Democrat came third, it is a reasonable presumption that the second preferences would have been divided equally between myself and the Labour candidate and therefore they would not have affected the result; I would still have been elected. If, however, Labour came third, it is a reasonable presumption that the Labour voters would have given their second preference to the Liberal Democrat rather than to me—regrettable though that judgment might have been—in which case the Liberal Democrat would have been elected. Therefore the decision as to who was elected depended on who came second and who came third. It is an absurd, totally capricious system.

Furthermore, under the alternative vote system, if I had wished to maximise my chances of being elected, which is a reasonable ambition, I would have privately told all my closest supporters to vote Labour because that would reduce the risk of Labour coming third. I did not do that because we did not have the alternative vote. It is a ludicrous and capricious system which encourages insincere voting.

If we are going to introduce something like that—if we do make that move—there is a risk that when the public tumble to what is happening they will be extremely dissatisfied with it and there will be a serious loss of faith in our democratic system. It is important that that does not happen by inadvertence, as it were, because of a small poll. We will want as many people as possible to have bought into the change to reduce the risk of them becoming disaffected with our democratic system. We have problems of disaffection with our democratic system as it is; we do not want to maximise that. So we must have a threshold. As my noble friend Lord Lamont and others have said, every country has some kind of special supermajority or threshold requirement whenever it is making a constitutional change.

The question then arises of what kind of threshold it should be. Should it be as with the Cunningham amendment—I shall come briefly on to that—of January 1978, I think it was, in the Scotland and Wales Acts where the majority has to be X per cent—in that case the winning side had to get 40 per cent—or should it be a turnout threshold? I confess that I think that the Cunningham amendment was a better system; a threshold on overall turnout is not as satisfactory. However, I take the point of my noble friend Lord Lamont that it is arguable that to have a threshold for the winning score would be in conflict with the coalition agreement, whereas we have established that that is not the case with a threshold for turnout.

I confess within this private space that I do not regard the coalition agreement as holy writ and, although I am not the greatest constitutional expert, I do not believe that it is even protected by the Salisbury convention. Nevertheless it is right that we should have some regard for it on this side of the Committee. For that reason I am prepared to support the idea of an amendment introducing a threshold for turnout. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, that 25 per cent is ridiculously small and that it should be somewhere in the order of 40 per cent or 50 per cent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

Does my noble friend agree that the noble friends to whom he referred had one thing in common beyond their membership of his party and that was their desire to prevent the outcome being one that gave devolution to Scotland and Wales and that, similarly, those who are of the mind that he has expressed are in favour of preventing any change in the constitution today?

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

I made clear the reasons for my argument. My noble friend is right that I quoted only my noble friends who voted in that way but it was a Labour amendment tabled by George Cunningham and had huge support too in the Labour Party. That was why it was carried.

For the life of me I cannot imagine why anyone would wish to see the alternative vote system. It is a crazy system and the only clear beneficiary might be the Liberal Democrat Party so it is possible that that has influenced its opinion slightly, although I think that is purely a coincidence. But it is very regrettable that the noble Lord is so keen to get the alternative vote system introduced that he is prepared to do it in a hole-in-the-corner way.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, said, except in one respect. He anticipated, or perhaps reflected, on what might have happened, or could happen, in terms of people’s second preferences should there be an alternative vote system, or had there been in his constituency in the past. He made the assumption that every Labour voter would probably vote Liberal as their second preference. However true that may have been in the past, having seen the Liberal Democrats’ performance during the past six months, I would not make that assumption now. Not least, we have a coalition, so where do I put my second preference? I hope that the question will never arise, because, as I have made plain, if we were to have a referendum—and I would prefer that we did not—I would hope that the no campaign won.

I am very mindful of the time, so I shall not go on at any length. However, I have put my name alongside Amendment 44B in this group, which puts the threshold at 50 per cent, and I should like to make a couple of points. The first is to remind the Committee that, as my noble friend Lord Rooker pointed out very clearly, this is not an indicative referendum; it is a referendum which legislates. Should it be carried under the Bill as it stands, even by two votes to one—I know that I shall be criticised by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for going to ridiculous extremes, but we have got to see the logic of the argument—the legislation would be passed. It would become part of the constitution of our country and represent the most dramatic constitutional change for a very long time.

I take it as read—at least, I hope that I can in this Committee—that if a Bill were passed at Third Reading in this House by two Members to one, with the remaining 800 Members wherever they preferred to be, and although it would be unchallengeable in constitutional law, it would be seen as ridiculous. I cannot believe that there is anyone in this House who does not think, though they may not want to put it in the Bill, that there has to be a threshold for a decision of this magnitude. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, made a number of the points that I would have made. I simply say that I wholeheartedly agree with him that we are quite an unusual country—not unique, I think, but close to it—in there being no distinction between ordinary law and constitutional law. The only difference that we seem to apply is that it is increasingly assumed that major constitutional changes have to be ratified by referendum, which is not unreasonable. The reason for having a threshold is that, to quote a seasonal comment, a constitutional change is not just for five years; it is probably for life. If, as I half-anticipated, I had been intervened on and a noble Lord had said that Governments are elected by less than 50 per cent, I would have said that Governments come and go—we are now told that they can come and go only every five years, but they do come and go—whereas I think that we can all acknowledge that, should this change be made, it is incredibly unlikely that it would be reversed in our lifetime. That adds even greater import to the suggestion that we should be absolutely clear about the decision that we are making.

My amendment is for a 50 per cent threshold. It is not a figure that I have plucked out of the air, although “50 per cent” has constantly been repeated by the proponents of constitutional change. I have glanced through the most recent turnouts under the various electoral systems that operate in our country—there are far too many in my view, but that is not the point of this amendment. For local county council elections in 2009, it was 35 per cent; for Westminster parliamentary elections in 2010, it was 65 per cent; for the Greater London Assembly election in 2008, it was 45 per cent; for the Scottish parliamentary election, it was 51 per cent; for the National Assembly for Wales election, it was 43 per cent; for the European parliamentary elections, it was 34 per cent; for the European parliamentary elections in Northern Ireland, it was 42 per cent; for the Northern Ireland Assembly elections, it was 63 per cent; for the local government elections in Scotland, it was 53 per cent; for the local government elections in Northern Ireland, it was 62 per cent; for the Bedford Borough Council mayoral election, it was 30.9 per cent—I bet no one knew that one; and for the Greater London mayoral election, it was 45 per cent.

I hope I can convince the Committee that, for a major constitutional change, a 50 per cent turnout is not an unreasonable figure to validate that change. In fact, it is quite a modest figure bearing in mind that only half of those voting need to have voted in favour for the constitutional change to take place, which means one in four. Is it really an extremist position to suggest that, before we make this huge change, we should require one in four of our fellow citizens to vote in favour of it? That is the simple argument that I am presenting to the House and I hope the House will accept it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rooker]

I have kept out of this debate, but I will give the Leader of the House the reason. It was the result of one of the finest speeches that I heard in 25 years in the House of Commons. The place was packed and I suspect that half the people in there did not know at the beginning how they were going to vote. George Cunningham turned the House around. I say that in all sincerity; he is no personal mate of mine. It was an absolutely magnificent speech. That was a big factor, along with the bit of low cunning that people saw as a consequence as well.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

If I may, while my noble friend is having a well earned rest, let me say that it was not a whipped vote on the Conservative side. It was a free vote and we were influenced in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, described. As an indication that it was a completely free vote, my noble friend Lady Thatcher, the Prime Minister at that time, did not take part in the Division. She did not vote—or did she? I do not recall.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

She was Leader of the Opposition.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

Sorry, she was leader of the party, but she did not take part. It was a completely free expression of opinion based on principle.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, that just goes to show what happens when you have unwhipped votes. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Lawson knew which way he was going to vote on that day and rightly so. That is all part of the fabric of history that has brought us to this point. My point of principle remains that if people want to vote they need to know that, if there is a majority, they are going to get what they voted for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

If my noble friend will allow me, let me say that it is not as simple as that. It is not the case that an abstention will count as a no vote. It might well be the case that, if there is a considerable body of opposition to the change, it will win if its members vote, but if they stay at home and do not vote, that will allow the people who vote yes to win if they get over the threshold. So it is by no means as simple as my noble friend said; in fact, what he said is totally wrong. It might be that in certain circumstances it would help the no case, but in other circumstances it would help the yes case. That is the truth of the matter and people will therefore be inclined to vote if they understand what they are voting about.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

Just to follow up on that important point, what is the evidence that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is relying on?

European Council

Lord Lawson of Blaby Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I cannot help the noble Lord on his question about the terrorist incident. I am sorry that he did not have the opportunity to ask my noble friend yesterday when she made the Statement.

I do not know what the noble Lord has been dreaming about on the role of the Prime Minister, the 2.9 per cent, when it was agreed and so on. I am utterly clear that unless the Prime Minister had taken a firm stand on the 2.9 per cent, we could well have seen what happened before—it happened last year when the Labour Government were in charge—where the negotiation between the Council and the Parliament ended up with a middle way, a sort of halfway house between the two figures. We wanted to avoid that; we wanted to ensure that not one extra pound should be spent, and that is what has happened. I also note that the noble Lord would have been perfectly happy to have signed up to 6 per cent. That is what most of his colleagues did in the European Council, and it is of course the cost that has increased exponentially over the past few years.

As for the question on budget discipline, we are trying to give direction and budget discipline to the European Union by sticking out for the agreement of 2.9 per cent.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Leader of the House recall that almost the last act performed by Mr Blair before he stepped down as Prime Minister was to sell this country down the river by surrendering, for nothing in return, a large and growing part of the UK rebate that had been negotiated by my noble friend Lady Thatcher? There were unworthy thoughts that he may have been interested in the job as president of the European Union at the time; I am sure that could not have been the reason, but certainly he got nothing whatever in return. Will my noble friend, who is such an ornament of the present Government, give an undertaking that this Government will not surrender any of what remains of the British rebate?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, anyone would think that I had planted that question with my noble friend, but he will readily confirm that I did not. He is correct on both counts: not only did the former Prime Minister, Mr Blair, surrender a large part of our rebate—worth, I think, some £8 billion—and get absolutely nothing in return, but I can give a firm commitment that under this Government no more of the rebate will be handed back.

Energy: Renewables

Lord Lawson of Blaby Excerpts

Monday 5th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords—

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

My Lords—

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

There must be room for both noble Lords to speak. Why do we not have first my noble friend Lord Lawson and then the noble Lord, Lord Howarth?

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House. Is my noble friend aware that only a couple of days ago, Mr Bob Wigley, the chairman of the previous Government’s Green Investment Bank Commission, stated that meeting the requirements of the absurd Climate Change Act will cost the United Kingdom £50 billion a year, every year, for the next 40 years. How—above all in this age of austerity—can this possibly be justified?

[Lord Marland]

I am very grateful to noble Lords for fighting over a question for me; it is quite rare in this job. However, I must correct my noble friend; the Green Investment Bank was an initiative set up by our own party and one must not rule out the phenomenal business opportunities that it offers for this country. We must have 2 million heat pumps by 2020. We must have bioenergy, which will create 100,000 jobs at a value of £116 million. Wind alone should create 130,000 jobs at a value of £36 billion. At a time when the country needs investment, these are heartening numbers.

G8 and G20 Summits

Lord Lawson of Blaby Excerpts

Monday 28th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, on the point about Afghanistan, I agree that the view was taken in the past that making too rigid a timetable and setting the end date too soon simply gives a target for everyone to aim at. That is not true in this case because we are in a very different situation. We have been in Afghanistan for about nine years now and we can see that this current year is extremely important in creating the right grounds for long-term peace and rebuilding civil society. In this case, I do not think that we will run into the danger of giving the Taliban a target, and after all, five years is a long time to have to hang around waiting for British troops to leave. Moreover, that would not achieve the right conditions on the ground for rebuilding civil society in Afghanistan, which is important. So while I accept the point made by the noble Baroness, it is my wish, as I know it is hers, that those conditions will not apply.

On the question of the Minister for Trade, I could not agree more with the noble Baroness that such a Minister is important and that—by her own example and that of others in this House who have held the role—it is a key role for the Government and for focusing our overseas export effort. I am delighted to say that in the past 24 hours Mr Mark Prisk has been made the Minister of Trade. I know that, aided and helped in every way by my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford, they will make a valuable team. Moreover, my noble friend will be answering for him in this House.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

My Lords, is not the answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia—who, having asked his question, appears no longer to be in his place—that the G20 was unwilling to tackle the question of climate change because the major developing nations such as China, India and, to a certain extent, South Africa and Brazil quite rightly attach much greater importance to economic development and the relief of poverty, to which moves on climate change would be entirely antipathetic? Nevertheless, does my noble friend agree that there is reason to welcome the response by that distinguished economist, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, speaking on behalf of the Official Opposition? Although he devoted his comments largely to the minutiae of banking reform—which are important but not urgent matters; indeed, it is more important to get this right than to do it quickly—he accepted, tacitly at any rate, the urgent need for the fiscal consolidation which this Government have shown they have the courage to enter into despite some of the rumblings from the neo-Keynesian dinosaurs who appear to be around.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, enjoyed that in the spirit in which it was intended. I agree with my noble friend that fiscal consolidation is important. Not only have we struck the right balance but, increasingly around the world, it is seen that we have struck the right balance. On the question of the G20 and the G8, my noble friend is again correct. Different countries have taken different views of these issues, particularly the developing countries. That is not news today but has been true for some time. That is why the climate change conference in Cancun will be extremely important.

Barnett Formula

Lord Lawson of Blaby Excerpts

Monday 7th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, not only for producing his eponymous formula at the end of the 1970s, when he was a much respected Chief Secretary to the Treasury, but also for his powerful arguments in recent years for change. He of course knows more than I will ever know about the Barnett formula, and he makes a valid point; and the coalition understands his concerns very clearly. However, I am sure that he will be among the first to acknowledge that, in the light of the grave financial situation that the country faces, it would be wrong for a new Government to rush to a decision on this complicated matter.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

My Lords, perhaps I may assist my noble friend. I entirely agree that the number one objective—the Government are right—must be to reduce the appalling size of the deficit. If he re-reads the unanimous report of the Select Committee to which he referred, he will discover that its recommendations would assist that task, not fly in the face of it. I hope he will embrace it.