| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, government policy on House of Lords reform was set out in a manifesto on which this Government won an election last year. I fail to understand why this has become an urgent matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, suggests, given Ministers' recent statements to the media. Indeed, I stated my personal view of House of Lords reform to the media two weeks ago.
The noble Lord may ask a topical Question in this House. Perhaps I may remind him of what the Companion states:
Nothing in the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was, in my view, of sufficient urgency to justify a reply this afternoon. I understand and totally appreciate that this is an issue of interest to the House, but it is not of sufficient urgency to justify a Private Notice Question, in my view.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, we are disappointed that the Government have not found time to discuss the Private Notice Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. There is a clear need to find out what the Government have in mind, rather than having to rely on speculation in the newspapers. It would be helpful to know what consultation process the Government intend in order to discuss the reform of your Lordships' House. Are they minded that discussions will be within or outside the framework of
27 Feb 2006 : Column 12
the Joint Committee? The sooner that we can get on with this task, the better it will be for the House of Lords.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Government made it absolutely clear in their manifesto commitments last year that we wanted to see a Joint Committee and that we would look at a further vote on composition. There have been discussions about the possible terms of reference of a Joint Committee. I am still waiting for a response from the Liberal Democrats.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is it normal for my noble friend to have to comment on a refusal of a PNQ?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, it is normal if the Member in question does not like the answer that he or she was given. This House may recall that when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and his committee looked at the speakership of this House, I was clear that this area should be transferred to an independently elected Speaker of this House. In my view, I have handled every Private Notice Question put to me, bearing in mind the needs of the House rather than the needs of the Government. I can see that this issue is of interest to the House, but I cannot see why this issue urgently requires an answer this afternoon. This House has just taken three years to make a decision on whether it wants an independent Speaker. I hate to say it, but it has taken many more years than that to move to the first stage of House of Lords reform. What is of sufficient urgency today? I fail to see it.
Lord Denham: My Lords, does the Leader of the House realise how unusual it is for a Leader of this House to deny a Private Notice Question on a matter concerning this House to the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I have no idea of the answer to that. I have not looked at the number of Private Notice Questions historically which have been asked on House of Lords reform and the extent to which those Questions were answered. I do not see that as my role. My role, on behalf of the House, is to consider whether a Question is of sufficient urgency. I make a distinction between that and the interest which this House may have in an issue such as the House of Lords and the issue of urgency. My job is to look at the Companion and to consider the Question.
There are a number of possibilities that the Leader of the Opposition may take to raise this issue in this House, including a topical Question. What I bring to the House this afternoon are those lines in the Companion which talk of a Question being,
Over the weekend my noble and learned friend said that he may engage in discussions with the parties to see whether some form of consensus can be arrived at.
27 Feb 2006 : Column 13
Wherein lies the urgency in that? The Government's policy on House of Lords reform remains as set out in our manifesto last year.
Lord Denham: My Lords, this is a matter of courtesy, not of fact.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I have to say that if noble Lords want me to operate outside the Companion on the basis of courtesy rather than urgency, we are changing the nature of the way this House behaves.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, in future perhaps we could follow the procedure adopted in the House of Commons; that is—
Lord Campbell-Savours: That is, not to question the Speaker or the person who acts as Speaker on the issue of an application for a PNQ? These matters are always dealt with privately.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am happy to say that that will not be an issue for me in the future.
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill
3.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Bach): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 41 [Biodiversity lists and action (England)]:
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 280:
The noble Baroness said: With Amendment No. 280 we turn once again to the important issue of biodiversity. I want to suggest to the Committee that while matters of the House are obviously interesting, those concerning biodiversity are extremely urgent to many outside this place.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The noble Baroness cannot be heard because noble Lords are speaking while they leave the Chamber.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I am grateful to the Minister for seeking a little quiet so that I can move my amendment.
27 Feb 2006 : Column 14
Clause 41 refers to the Secretary of State drawing up lists of organisms and types of habitat, which is a good idea. However, the clause refers to,
"organisms and types of habitat . . . of principal importance for the purpose of conserving biodiversity".
I would argue that when we consider biodiversity or ecosystems, it is hard to see that any one part is unnecessary and therefore not of principal importance. For example, the small organism at the bottom of the food chain, which may not in the opinion of the Secretary of State be of principal importance, still plays its part. Meanwhile the animal at the top of the food chain, sometimes ourselves or perhaps the big raptors or cats and similar types of creature, depends on the chain holding all the way through. So where this clause refers to "principal importance", I believe it is simply wrong. It is wrong because everything must be considered to be of equal importance in creating both the food chain and contributing to the ecosystem.
I take by way of example what it takes to create a fertile soil in woodland. The soil is created by the action of small insects such as ants breaking down leaf matter. Does the Secretary of State consider ants in woodland to be of principal importance? So the word "principal" as it is used in this clause demonstrates that the Government are not thinking correctly about the lists they intend to draw up. On habitats, surely we have lists of principal importance in the SSSIs and in all the European designations of habitats that are already in place. I wonder whether the energy and expense put into drawing up further lists is energy and expense well used.
In conclusion, I return to a matter that we have discussed previously in Committee. The Centre for Ecology and Hydrology is to suffer a drastic across-the-board cut for exactly this type of work—maintaining lists and building databases. As I understand it, that is exactly the sort of record keeping that the Government are now proposing to introduce in Clause 41, except that, in the past, the work recognised the wholeness of the ecosystem and the wholeness of biodiversity. Work was done to build very broad databases and in-depth studies were carried out on particular species. This clause, as drafted, takes away that ability and makes us concentrate solely on points that the Secretary of State regards as of "principal importance". I believe that that is entirely the wrong way of thinking. I shall be interested to hear the Minister explain why there is such wording in the Bill. I beg to move.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |