Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I should not dream of suggesting that we extend the legal aid system to anything at the moment, particularly in the presence of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. As regards inappropriate applications and grants for legal aid, I am confident that the Lord Chancellor has that in mind.

Lord Renton: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that when the Attorney-General appears in charity cases he is what lawyers would call amicus curiae--a friend of the court--and that therefore he frequently does not charge for his services? Should he not always decide not to charge for his services, bearing in mind the capacity in which he appears?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, when the Attorney-General appears in charity cases he normally appears on behalf of the beneficial interests of the charity. It would be quite wrong for the Attorney-General in relation to what he does not to receive some payment out of the charitable funds, I am afraid. However, as I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, the Attorney-General is concerned as much as possible to ensure that he is not in court spending money when it is inappropriate as regards the charity.

BSE: Statistics

3.9 p.m.

The Earl of Clanwilliam asked Her Majesty's Government:

The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, each week the numbers of cases of BSE confirmed by county are made available to the European Community in accordance with Council Directive 82/894. This does not include information about individual herds. Cumulative statistics of cases of BSE confirmed by county in Great Britain are placed in the Library of the House once per month.

The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, will he accept that, when a farmer buys a beast from a herd, he requires to know that the herd is certified as being free of BSE? If that were not the case it would be impossible for organic farmers in particular to maintain the standard of their herds. In addition, is it not true that the government-sponsored body, UKROFS--the regulatory organisation for organic farms--is unable to regulate herds unless it knows that the beasts have been bought from BSE-free farms? Will the Minister make

19 Nov 1997 : Column 571

arrangements to re-instate the procedures that were available, according to the letter from Mr. Rooker to Mr. Woodward of 18th August? I believe that the Minister is aware of the letter, which states that:


    "Arrangements to re-instate the procedures for computer checks for BSE history against the pre-ban export criteria ... to make this information available to, or by permission of, occupiers of holdings or registered owners of herd marks are now being put in hand in Animal Health Offices".

Can the Minister say whether that procedure has been put in hand yet and, if it has not, why not?

Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we are aware of the problems faced by organic farmers. However, the information on disease control available to Europe and previously often accessed by organic farmers was obtained under a different heading or under a different Act. I am legally advised that information obtained under one heading cannot be provided under another. There are also constraints of commercial confidentiality. If it helps the noble Earl, I can tell him that we have instructed our officers to make available the relevant information with the permission of the owner or the seller. That will take place quite shortly.

Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in connection with the provision to the European Commission of particulars relating to BSE, will the Minister give the House an undertaking that the recent report of the Court of Auditors on the scandalous expenditure--much of it fraudulent--under that head will be given specific attention by the Government? Will he also ensure that a copy of that report, which I understand is now available in this country, will be made available to Members at the earliest possible opportunity?

Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we normally try to meet my noble friend's gentle requests. I can assure him that it is the Government's policy to root out fraud, wherever it exists.

Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, can the Minister guarantee the accuracy of the BSE records of UK herds which are held at the Commission? What progress has he made in persuading his colleagues in Europe that the records of BSE in continental herds which are held at the Commission should be accurate and not under-reported, as is the case at present?

Lord Donoughue: My Lords, yes. I have to say that our records are not perfect. We provide to the European Union and the Commission the records at the time of notification in a location, which is a county. As time passes, animals move and the records are not totally reliable.

19 Nov 1997 : Column 572

As regards European Union records, I am sure that they are as perfect as ours. The noble Baroness will be aware that in some European countries where there have been cases of BSE whole herds have been destroyed. That is the state of play on the records.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me exactly how much has so far been expended in relation to matters of BSE and how many cases of CJD related to BSE there have been so far?

Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the costs so far are running at about £3.4 billion, and they will rise towards £4 billion. There have been 22 cases of CJD in the United Kingdom: 21 certain and one probable. There is one case on the continent, in France.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in his original Answer the Minister said that the relevant statistics were available in the Library of the House. Can he tell me what good that is to the average farmer?

Lord Donoughue: My Lords, those statistics are also available, if the average farmer--as he has often done in the past--contacts the Ministry of Agriculture. He can also obtain the statistics through the National Farmers Union.

Business

Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Utting Report.

Constitutional Change: Cross-party Co-operation

3.15 p.m.

Lord Jenkins of Hillhead rose to call attention to the value of cross-party co-operation on major national issues such as constitutional change and Britain's relations with Europe; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we all look forward to the almost unprecedented number of maiden speeches which will occur in this debate--four out of a total of 13 speeches. But that large number in no way diminishes the enthusiasm with which we look forward to them. I am glad that I have at least chosen a subject for debate which invites debuts.

I believe that I have introduced 12 Wednesday debates in the course of an almost too long leadership of the Liberal Democrat Party in this House. It may, however, be of some comfort to the House to know that this is the last time, following the election yesterday of my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, that I shall lead in a "call attention" debate from this Bench. I shall, however, continue to discharge the general duties of party leader until the Christmas Recess. So let there be no premature obsequies.

19 Nov 1997 : Column 573

The exact import of some of the subjects raised in the 12 Wednesday debates I have initiated escapes me with the passage of time. It is a little cryptic to find that in January 1989 I called attention to Her Majesty's Government's method of conducting relations with foreign countries. I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, must have been engaging in a particularly notable piece of handbag-swinging diplomacy at that time.

However, there have been two main themes running through the debates raised by myself and some of my noble friends: first, the need for us to play a more constructive and effective role in Europe; and, secondly, the need for constitutional reform, pointing consistently in a more decentralised direction. Thus, right at the beginning came a Motion to call attention to the excessive concentration of power in the executive branch of government. I have never seen any contradiction between those two themes. It is just as sensible that what cannot be effectively handled at national level--which, in the global economy, includes interest rates, monetary policy and currency matters--should be dealt with on a co-operative basis higher up; as it is for what can be handled lower down, closer to the people, to be devolved to Edinburgh or Cardiff or to local authorities.

I always felt that there was something absurd about the previous government presiding over the most centralised state in western Europe and making it more centralised by their actions towards local government but at the same time drawing up their skirts in horror at any suggestion of further development in the European institutions; for instance, the single market. That is sometimes claimed to be one of the most proud creations of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, and one to which the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, who is to speak later in the debate, made a mighty contribution. He went out as her legate for that purpose, but proved to be a somewhat rebellious legate when he got there. He made a considerable contribution. I see a contradiction between that and the view that the single market would work better if it were not hobbled by frequent and often violent currency fluctuations.

In March 1992 we had a compendious Motion to call attention to the case for constitutional reform, including a fair voting system, fixed term parliaments, a bill of rights and control over their own affairs satisfactory to the peoples of Scotland and Wales. There has been a lot of progress in those directions in the past six months. I am not sure that fixed term parliaments is currently a lively issue, though there is a lot to be said for it. But for the rest, the issues are very much on the boil, including voting reform.

In the case of human rights and Scotland and Wales, much has already been accomplished. In the case of the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights, I must draw attention to the Motion of my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham in December 1990 calling for precisely that, and also to the dedicated and persistent efforts of my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill on the issue.

19 Nov 1997 : Column 574

The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and members of his party have been recently inclined to complain that the Liberal Democrats are showing a certain preference for the present over the previous government, as though it were some sort of toadying, quisling-like behaviour on our part. Much though I like him, I do not feel like a toady towards the noble Lord, Lord Richard.

Is it surprising, given our great and persistent attachment to constitutional issues, that we prefer a government which at least show signs of open-mindedness on these issues to the complete immobilism, like a sort of rigor mortis, which overtook the government of the last Prime Minister. Any suggestion of more say for Scotland or change in your Lordships' House, let alone electoral reform, was treated not merely as unwise but as a betrayal of the whole spirit and history of England. I was shocked by that. I felt that it was alien to the best traditions of Conservatism--from Peel, to Baldwin, to Macmillan. For instance, recent history is littered with Conservative schemes for the reform of this House, several emanating from the forebears of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, himself, and a Home/Heath attitude to Scottish devolution which was much more constructive than anything we have seen recently.

This Motion seeks to bring parties together rather than tear them further apart. I hope to see the present Conservative Party return to those earlier and more constructive traditions. Before I turn to that point, I must mention three other Motions during the 10-year period. In March 1990 we moved to call attention to the inspector's report on House of Fraser Holdings plc. In June 1995 we called for an independent inquiry into the arrangements for the funding of political parties and in February of this year we returned to the latter subject with greater urgency, actually moving to resolve, and therefore voting upon the issue, that this House calls upon HMG to refer the issue of the funding of political parties to the Committee on Standards in Public Life. If those three Motions had been acted upon at the time they were moved, a great deal of trouble might well have been avoided.

I turn to the cross-party aspects of today's Motion, and Europe in particular. British policy towards the European Community or Union has been bedevilled by not being handled on a more cross-party basis. Europe has been a dangerous issue for British parties and British politicians for around a quarter of a century. It gravely damaged the Labour Party in the 1970s and nearly destroyed the Conservative Party in the 1990s. The individual leaders have suffered even more. The failure in 1963 of the first British application, with de Gaulle's veto, effectively destroyed the end of Harold MacMillan's premiership, and Harold Wilson's shift of position in the early 1970s took a great deal of the zest off the latter part of his leadership.

Mrs. Thatcher fell on this issue and much of Mr. Major's premiership was rendered a nullity by it. None of those governments managed to pursue a consistent policy which commanded either success or respect in Europe. That was partly due to a lack of confidence of successive Prime Ministers that they could carry their parliamentary parties with them along

19 Nov 1997 : Column 575

a more constructive line. Yet from the 1960s, through the 1970s and the 1980s, there was always a substantial pro-European majority in the House of Commons. Only in the last Parliament did it somewhat fade away. But it was always a cross-party majority. Party managers and party whips hate cross-party majorities. They upset the simple rules of adversarial politics. But when cross-party majorities can be achieved, they settle issues a good deal more satisfactorily because they are more broadly based and are less liable to be reversed later by crude party votes.

No doubt in the near future--perhaps a little earlier than is commonly assumed--we will face another referendum on Europe. That will inevitably be fought on a cross-party basis. There are many powerful Conservatives who are just waiting to break ranks and no doubt there are some--some present today--members of the Labour Party and maybe even one or two Liberal Democrats who will do so too.

I welcome the cross-party basis. As 1975 showed, there is something exhilarating about people previously kept apart by the rigidities of party politics working together when the issue is one on which they spontaneously agree. Those who are enthusiastic about national referendums should not doubt the loosening effects which they have upon the structures of party politics. When Mr. Benn propounded the "wheeze", as it then was, of the referendum in 1971-72, he saw it as a great device for doing down the Conservatives. But, in fact, in the context of that decade, it had the reverse effect. Not only did it produce a great majority for, rather than against, Europe, but it was, I think, a necessary condition for the creation of the SDP--I doubt whether it would have happened without the referendum campaign--and therefore for the Liberal Democrats in their present form.

Just as with Europe, constitutional questions are much better settled, if they can be, with at least some cross-party element in them. God knows, we move slowly enough on constitutional change, so no one could say we should only proceed by unanimity, which would be a recipe for total immobilism. But the firm acceptance of irreversibility in constitutional change is also desirable.

Franchise extensions over nearly two centuries provide a very good example of party intermingling. The Whigs did the Great Reform Act of 1832, but the Tories did the 1867 one. The Liberals, as the Whigs had become, did the 1885 one. The Conservative-dominated but Liberal-led coalition did the big 1918 extension of the female franchise and the Conservative ended the process with the "flapper" vote in 1928.

On our relations with Ireland, historically the most traumatic British constitutional issue, the Conservatives bitterly opposed three Liberal Home Rule Bills but then participated fully in the 1921 settlement. It settled relations with southern Ireland. Had they, as they half veered towards in 1885-86, done a Home Rule Bill themselves then, they might have settled the Northern Ireland question at that stage as well.

Even on the question of the powers of your Lordships' House, quite a lot of Conservatives voted in the last resort for the Parliament Bill of 1911. No one

19 Nov 1997 : Column 576

has remotely talked of reversing that. If a semi-consensual solution to present issues could be found in relation to your Lordships' House, I would rather welcome it. But much Labour tolerance and much abandonment of Conservative rigidities would be needed for that.

After nearly 50 years in one House of Parliament or the other, 50 years which will be up at the end of April next year, and having led with great pleasure one party in this House and one of its tributaries in another place before that, and having 15 years before that been fairly near at times--I shall not put it higher than that in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff--to leading a different and a bigger party, my conclusion is that parties are necessary instruments of state: sometimes good servants but almost never good masters in politics or in the service of the state. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

3.34 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, I should like to begin my remarks by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, on his speech and on his choice of subject for today's debate. It is timely, it is challenging, and, if I may say so, the noble Lord moved it, as we would expect him to, with a historical sweep and a penetrating political analysis. I shall have some more to say in just a few minutes on the substance of what he said.

However, before I move on, I hope the House will think it appropriate that I should mark a recent sad event. Lady Llewelyn-Davies, the former Government and Opposition Chief Whip, died recently after a long illness. There are, inevitably and rightly, strict rules in this House as to when formal tributes should be paid. I thought, however, that I might be permitted to pay a personal word of regret and of sympathy to my noble friend's family and to her many personal friends. She was the first, and so far the only, woman to have occupied either of those posts or indeed to have run a Whips' Office in either House. She did so with great distinction. Her grace and her charm will be warmly remembered by all of us who knew her. It is a sad loss and we shall all miss her greatly.

Perhaps I may say, too, in advance of dealing with the Motion, how much I am looking forward to the maiden speeches of my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, a title with a somewhat Braveheart ring about it, and of the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart, Lord Razzall and Lord Blackwell. I hope that I will be in a position to hear them all, but perhaps I may, in advance, apologise to them and to the House as I shall have to be away from the Chamber briefly to attend the meeting of the Procedure Committee which takes place this afternoon.

As many Peers know, and indeed as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has just retold us, the noble Lord has just announced his intention to stand down as leader of the Liberal Democrat Peers with effect from the end of this year. We learnt yesterday that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, is to be the new leader of his party. I take this opportunity to welcome him warmly to his new

19 Nov 1997 : Column 577

post. This is, as the noble Lord again said, very probably the last major debate in which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, will lead his Benches in this House. We naturally look forward to hearing a great deal from him in the future but it would be right for me to spend just a few minutes saying one or two words about his truly remarkable career.

For the past nine years he has led his Peers with authority, with wisdom and always, if I may say so, with elegance. The whole House has benefited from his long and distinguished experience. He has achieved the highest distinction in letters as well as in politics. As a historian and biographer--not least in matters connected with this House and with this Palace--he is essential reading. By my count he so far holds no fewer than 26 honorary degrees and doctorates from institutions of learning in Britain, Europe and America. He is, of course, Chancellor of the University of Oxford.

As a politician, his parliamentary career so far has spanned very nearly half a century since he first became a Member of another place in 1948. In what might be called his "early period", he was twice one of the most distinguished Home Secretaries of modern times, a formidable Chancellor of the Exchequer and a distinguished Deputy Leader of my party. In his "middle period", as President of the European Commission from 1977 to 1981, he made an enormous contribution both inside that body--not always an easy task, as I can myself attest--and he made an enormous contribution to the growing warmth in this country towards the European Union. Since then, in his "later period", he has been on a political odyssey, sadly no longer as a member of my party. He has since been a leading member of no fewer than three political parties: the Social Democrats, the Social and Liberal Democrats and the Liberal Democrats. In fact, if I may say so to him, I am told that the nameplate on his door in this House tells us that he still leads the second of those parties rather than the third. Now, in his latest phase, we find him charting a friendly course of good counsel and constructive engagement with his former party. On behalf of the House, may I say to the noble Lord how much we have appreciated his contribution. We look forward to very much more of it.

Turning to the noble Lord's Motion, the case that he has put has lessons for members of all parties and of none. His fundamental contention is that, where those in public life have similar objectives, they should concert wherever possible to achieve those objectives. I agree. The first draft of his Motion spoke of the benefits of "non-confrontational politics". I agree with that, too. Politics can be a rough trade, but it has an objective--to do better, as we see it, for the people we represent and for the country as a whole. Without that aim, politics would simply be a scramble for power for its own sake. But quite often the differences between the parties are relatively small and the dispute is often about means rather than ends. Wherever that is the case I believe that it behoves those of us who practise this trade to seek common ground when we can in the interests of good and durable government. If I may say so, this House and the way that it operates without rigid

19 Nov 1997 : Column 578

rules is perhaps a good example of how that approach can work in practice. Since the new Government were elected in May we have sought to work within that approach and to preserve the spirit of co-operation in this House and we shall, of course, continue to do so.

The noble Lord's Motion points us towards two key areas of government policy, and if I may I shall deal with Europe first. There is no more important single long-term issue facing this country than that of the nature and the extent of our relationship with Europe. The aims which drove the original Common Market to prevent any repetition of the two world wars which began on our continent are still inspiring ones--certainly, they still are for me.

Europe poses for us enormous and significant choices--on employment, the environment, transport and agriculture. Following the Chancellor's announcement on European monetary union, the electorate may be invited to make perhaps the most important decision for a generation in a referendum. For all these reasons I am delighted that we have been able to discuss with the Liberal Democrats our priorities for Britain's forthcoming presidency of the European Union. We were able to find broad support for our plans. We were able to establish a shared determination to shape a national consensus around our joint view that the United Kingdom should seek to play a leading role in Europe. It is already clear that a great deal of important business will be done during our presidency.

This country has a strong and immediate interest in a successful start to the process of economic and monetary union. We want to see a process which starts on time and with as wide a participation as is consistent with a strong and sustainable currency. On economic reform the Government wish to promote agreement in the European Union on the basic principles necessary to make Europe more competitive for the future. We shall take forward in our presidency work on the next round of enlargement of the European Union together with reform of the common agricultural policy and of the structural and cohesion funds. We shall take practical steps in the war against crime and drugs. We shall pursue a heavy agenda on environmental matters and work for effective and substantive co-ordination of European Union foreign policy on the major current issues.

In seeking a consensus in the country on Britain's role, it is extremely important to us that the Liberal Democrats have given their substantive support. Would that the Conservative Party had been as constructive, though I do begin to detect dangerous signs of what I believe some in the Conservative Party seem to regard as the virus of consensus in Mr. Clarke, Mr. Heseltine, Mr. Temple-Morris, and like-minded Back-Benchers. I hope that the virus spreads and that others become similarly affected.

I turn now to constitutional matters. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, reminded us, a Cabinet Committee chaired by the Prime Minister was established on 22nd July to consider issues of joint interest to the Government and to the Liberal Democrats. Such inter-party co-operation is not unique. It has happened

19 Nov 1997 : Column 579

before. But it is important to see it as it is: Ministers remain the only decision makers, and thus are properly and solely accountable for those decisions. This is not a pact, nor is it a coalition. It is a committee which enables the Government to explore with a party with which it shares many common aims, how those aims might be achieved in what we perceive, jointly, to be the national interest. The aim was expressly to move away from old-style confrontational politics. The early focus of that committee has inevitably been on the government's programme of constitutional reform, as set out in our manifesto put before the country at the last election, and based on agreements reached in opposition with the Liberal Democrat party.

Our agenda is a substantial one and it was partly referred to by the noble Lord in his speech: first, incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights so that British people no longer have to go to Strasbourg to enforce their rights; secondly, a referendum Bill and White Paper on a strategic authority for London consisting of an elected mayor and an assembly; thirdly, regional development agencies on which legislation and a White Paper will be announced this Session; fourthly, freedom of information on which a consultative White Paper will set out proposals for legislation, putting an end, we hope, to secrecy for secrecy's sake; fifthly, an independent commission on the Westminster voting system to consider the best alternative to the first-past-the-post system to be followed by a referendum; sixthly, proportional representation for the European elections--a Bill is already before the House of Commons; seventhly, reforming the procedures in another place. The modernisation of how the other place deals with legislation and holds Ministers to account has been the subject of a report from my right honourable friend the President of the Council and may have consequential implications for this House. It is a matter on which I am this afternoon asking the Procedure Committee to take a view. The eighth issue is devolution. Following the referendums on 11th and 18th September, the Government will introduce two devolution Bills, which will doubtless receive close and proper scrutiny in your Lordships' House.

So it is a substantial agenda but it is one on which we believe that it has been right and profitable to the country to consult closely with the Liberal Democrats. The Government have benefited considerably from their involvement and not just in thrashing out policy details. Discussions such as these signify an understanding, on our part at least, that there are issues which transcend party considerations.

There is one issue which, as noble Lords may perhaps have noted, I have so far omitted from the list of the Government's comprehensive constitutional programme. I have done so deliberately because I wish to underline the lesson of this debate in relation to it. That issue is, of course, the reform of this House, a policy overwhelmingly endorsed by the electorate and discussed in opposition with the Liberal Democrats. In the spirit of the terms of this Motion I believe that the Opposition needs to answer one straightforward question. Does it support the removal of the rights of

19 Nov 1997 : Column 580

hereditary Peers to sit and vote in a reformed House? It seems to me that that is the fundamental issue. It seems also that the leader of the Opposition, Mr. Hague, has grasped it. He floated the idea that fundamental opposition to our plans should be dropped. He was promptly attacked by his chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, has argued publicly in the opposite direction.

From this confusion it emerges that the policy is "under review". I hope that the Opposition can soon resolve where it stands. I say this to them, and I hope very clearly. If they are prepared to accept that accident of birth should no longer give a right to sit and vote in this House, then we can have a sensible discussion about reforming our Chamber. If they are not prepared to accept that, then it seems to me that they have little to bring to that discussion. If the noble Viscount will allow me to pull his leg for a change, he needs to make his mind up on one other issue. On the "Today" programme on BBC Radio 4 on 9th October, he claimed that our proposals would "emasculate" the House. A little later he said that they would "give it more authority". That is a difficult dual concept for a brain as naive as mine to understand. I do not see how the noble Viscount can have it both ways. If the House is emasculated it seems unlikely to have more authority in the future.

Wherever those of goodwill wish to work with us to achieve common aims, we welcome their contribution. Constitutional reform and our approach to Europe are only two examples of the areas in which we seek a new approach to party politics. After barely six months in office this Government are making great strides in forging a national consensus on our society's aims for the future, and I say again that we welcome the contribution that the Liberal Democrats are making to that process. We look forward to more of it. We invite parliamentarians and others of all parties or indeed of none to join us in this great project of taking this country forward as a leading nation into the millennium to come.

3.50 p.m.

Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, before I begin, I should like very much to echo the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal in respect of the late and very much lamented Lady Llewelyn-Davies. I know that the noble Lord, as so often in matters appertaining to this House, is entirely correct when he says that we do not want to devalue the currency of paying tribute. However, although I was not fortunate enough to know Lady Llewelyn-Davies as well as I would have liked, it is perfectly plain from the extraordinary affection in which she was held in all parts of this House irrespective of party allegiance that some rules at least are only good when it is clear that they should occasionally be broken--and this is one of them. I should like to echo the tribute which the Lord Privy Seal so eloquently paid to Lady Llewelyn-Davies. I was only fortunate enough to meet her twice and I have to confess that within about five seconds I was utterly seduced not only by her charm but by her extraordinary beauty. I can well understand how the noble Lord, Lord Carter, as the present Captain of the

19 Nov 1997 : Column 581

Gentlemen-at-Arms, might find himself at a serious disadvantage because, although we know that he is a man thoroughly imbued with charm and skill, I think that he and I would agree that he is not nearly as beautiful as his predecessor--


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page