Lord Speaker's Corner: Lord Forsyth of Drumlean

In this episode

'The House of Commons is failing in its function. It’s just abandoned its function of considering legislation properly.'

In this new episode of Lord Speaker's Corner, Lord Forsyth tells Lord McFall of Alcluith that he wants to see 'root and branch' reform to cut the use of time-limits on debates and prevent overuse of secondary legislation. He explains that the task of scrutiny now falls largely to the House of Lords, where members can examine proposed bills with greater rigour because there is no guillotine on debate and every proposed change is debated.

Michael Forysth, now Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, was first elected as an MP in 1983. He went on to serve as a minister under both Margaret Thatcher and John Major, becoming Secretary of State for Scotland in 1995. He was the local MP at the time of the Dunblane Primary School shooting. Speaking about the tragedy, he explains 'It’s the worst thing that’s ever happened to me. It was a huge shock. I still get flashbacks of that scene in the gym.'

In the House of Lords, Lord Forsyth has chaired the Economic Affairs Committee and served on committees investigating the Barnett Formula, House of Lords reform, soft power and the National Security Strategy. He shares why he thinks Lords committee reports are so important and the dangers of government not giving their recommendations due attention.

Listen now

• Listen online
• Apple podcasts
• Spotify
• See a full list of podcast platforms

Other episodes

• Find out more about the Lord Speaker's Corner series and see other episodes

Watch now

Read a transcript

Lord Speaker:

Lord Forsyth, Michael, we've known each other for a long time. Take me back to your early days in Arbroath.

Lord Forsyth:

Well, I was actually born in Montrose.

Lord Speaker:

In a council house?

Lord Forsyth:

Yes, yes. In a council house. And I had various moves, which ended up in Arbroath and I went to school in Arbroath. I went to Arbroath High School, got the most fantastic education. I did five years of Latin and Greek and maths and physics. Of course in Scotland, we'd never had a national curriculum. And then from there I went on to St. Andrews University. I mean, my father started his own business, he overextended himself. The business went down and we went back into council housing, but then he picked himself up and started again, and paid down all the debts. And it's made me very, very wary of folk who are critical of people who start up in business and it doesn't work. I'm very supportive of free enterprise. But when I went up to university, I thought I was a socialist, John.

Lord Speaker:

And you come out a Thatcherite.

Lord Forsyth:

I did. Yeah. Mainly because of Keith Joseph. And I got involved with Margaret in the early years, in the seventies when the country was in quite a state. Inflation was at very high levels, interest rates were very high, unemployment was dreadful, and we had the collapse of the old industries. And that's how I got drawn into politics. But I never really wanted to be a politician. And I'm not sure, I didn't really expect my life to be so dominated by politics, which has been a huge privilege. And it really saddens me to see how the reputation of Parliament and politicians has been damaged. Whereas, as you and I know, the vast majority of parliamentarians are good, decent folk trying to do their best for their country.

Lord Speaker:

You mentioned Margaret Thatcher. You were known as a really robust Thatcherite in Scotland, and it was probably a bit of an uncomfortable position, but I don't think that aspect, it worried you given a lifelong engagement with her during her life. What was it like to work with her and relate?

Lord Forsyth:

Well, I can tell you a story about Margaret. During the Maastricht Treaty, Margaret stopped being Prime Minister. John Major was Prime Minister, I was in his cabinet. And she was holding drinks parties for backbenchers and telling them the Maastricht Treaty was a really bad idea and they were all coming back and saying they were going to vote against it. So John Major said, ‘You know her, will you go and talk to her because we're going to have to start having a go at her.’ So like a fool, I rang her up and said, ‘I'd like to come and talk to you about the Maastricht Treaty.’ So I arrived and she said... I went into a room, she got the Maastricht Treaty, all annotated, and she said, ‘Which section of the treaty would you like to discuss, Michael?’ And I said, ‘I'm not here to discuss the treaty, Margaret. It's just that if you go on with these parties, the party machine's going to be turned against you and it would be really damaging to you.’

At this point, there was a thermonuclear explosion. And I remember her screaming at me, ‘Michael, how can you of all people use that argument on me? Do you think if I ever cared about me, we would ever have achieved any of the things that we did?’ And it was a bit like that for me in Scotland. I mean, I was very concerned about education, I was concerned about health and a number of issues. And I had lots of ideas upon what we could do.

Lord Forsyth:

I mean the Daily Record was the sort of daily assault, but I think it's really important to have courage and to have the courage of your convictions. And we did some good things. We established the University of the Highlands and a number of initiatives. And I do think, even though what we were doing was very unpopular and against the grain as it was then, I do think when we warned about the dangers of devolution and the platform that we'd give to the nationals and so on, that has come to pass. But in politics, you've got to accept change and make the best of it. And I think there's further work to be done there.

Lord Speaker:

Yeah. Maybe I could take you to Dunblane where you had a really prominent role, but in many ways with politicians working with each other, it's usually in private and people get the idea that Prime Minister's questions is the norm for politicians. But in Dunblane, you brought other politicians in. Why did you do that, and what effect did it have when you brought the Prime Minister up?

Lord Forsyth:

Well, I mean, Dunblane was just, I mean, it's the worst thing that's ever happened to me. It was in my constituency. I was the Secretary of State. I knew the murderer because he used to come regularly to my surgeries. It was a huge shock. I still get flashbacks of that scene in the gym. It was just horrendous. I was really anxious that it shouldn't be turned into a political squabbling match. As soon as I was given the news, I said to my office, ‘Find George Robertson.’ George Robertson was my opposite number, and he lived in Dunblane. I said, ‘Find him, get him on the plane with me.’

And we did it together. And together we went to see John Major and Tony Blair, and said to both of them, ‘look, you need to come together.’ There's a lot of political people giving contrary advice. But they came together, and that was hugely appreciated by a community which was traumatised by this horrible murder of 18 people on the 13th of March 1996. And one of the things that really struck me about the late Queen Elizabeth, because she agreed to come afterwards and meet the bereaved families, was it's very difficult to give any comfort in these circumstances where you've lost a child like that. But I don't think there's anyone else in the world who could have given as much comfort as she did.

It was a bad time. And that was in March of 1996, and shortly after that, we were told that everything that we'd been told by the scientists, that BSE couldn't jump across the species and infect people, and CJD and all of that, that was reversed. And then we had an E. coli outbreak in Scotland. So it was quite a tough time. This is pre-devolution, and there's a Secretary of State and four ministers plus your involvement in cabinet. And I must say, I think John Major was hugely supportive, and he ran a cabinet where he gave his Secretaries of State time and space to get on with the job and held them to account. But we've moved steadily since then towards a kind of presidential system, where ministers are there for five minutes, and you can't run a country like that.

Lord Speaker:

The writing was on the wall for the Conservatives in Scotland really, I think since from the 1992 election. But you were firm in terms of being Secretary of State and running things yourself because you were very prominent in that. But you were seeing the writing on the wall, in terms of the Conservative support in Scotland. What was your determination at that time, in terms of the Scottish Parliament versus Westminster, and what do you feel about that now since the Scottish Parliament's been established since 1998?

Lord Forsyth:

Well, I remember saying to George [Foulkes], or anybody who was listening in the Labour Party at the time, may even have said it to you.

Lord Speaker:

Yes.

Lord Forsyth:

Just be careful what you wish for. I mean, my perception at that time was that the Labour Party were quite keen on having a Scottish Parliament because the Labour Party was so dominant. But they ran a campaign which was basically the Tories don't care about Scotland, Scotland's getting a raw deal, et cetera. They used the language, the rhetoric of nationalism. And I said, ‘If you ride the nationalist tiger, it will divide you.’ And that by creating that platform, there was a danger.

And I think one of the things that went wrong from the point of view of people voted for it, but I thought it would lead to pressure on the Union, which I really care about. And I also thought it would lead to us becoming the highest tax part of the United Kingdom. And that was the so-called Tartan Tax, and that would be damaging to our economic outlook. And that we would, because the Secretary of State pre-devolution, I sat on all the key cabinet committees. I was involved in Whitehall, I was able to say, ‘Yes, but hang on a second. This is not going to work in Scotland.’ And you had at that time in both parties, really talented people like yourself, like John Smith, Donald Dewar, Robin Cook, Gordon Brown, real tight, Malcolm Rifkind on our side, and Ian Lang, people like that.

But of course, none of them chose to go to the Scottish Parliament. They wanted to be in Westminster. It means it's so important to actually have effective means of communicating between the two parliaments, something that George Foulkes regularly brings up in the House of Lords today. But I basically, as a junior minister, I was responsible for health, social work, education, sport, and the arts, and you had to cover all of that. So I see why there was a bit of a democratic deficit. I see that.

And it was a hugely demanding 7/24 hour role, but I wouldn't have missed it. But the things that really concerned me was, 'is the education which I got, is that still available to people in Scotland? Is there still an opportunity?' And I didn't think there was then. I mean, I used to go on about the five hours reading, writing, arithmetic, right and wrong. And I think under the Scottish Parliament, I think where we were once way ahead of England, we're now behind on education.

The fact that you don't pay university fees is great, except it means that Scots can't get places at Scottish universities. I mean, my old university is now dominated by overseas students, Americans and so on. It's very hard for Scots to get into St. Andrews. I mean, I wouldn't be able to get into St. Andrews today, and I don't think I would've got the quality of education at Arbroath that I got. And that, to me, that remains a central facet of politics. But I mean, you would think the same, I dare say an SNP person would think the same. But we've got a long way to go in terms of social mobility and improving standards in education, in my view.

Lord Speaker:

So I detect 25 years later that you are not a convert to the Scottish Parliament.

Lord Forsyth:

I'm a democrat. That's what people voted for. But I think the Scottish Parliament needs to be very careful. If you have a huge differential on income tax between England and Scotland, you're going to find it hard to get well-paid, top people to come to Scotland and we'll lose our people to England. So I think there are some issues. I think the fact that the nationalists have been so obsessed with independence and that the kind of bread-and-butter issues have not really been at the forefront of political debate and accountability is a problem. But if you're asking me, would you reverse the devolution? No, of course not.

Lord Speaker:

Let me take you on to the House of Lords. And you've been very prominent, both on the floor of the House of Lords, but also in the committees that you have served, and particularly as Chair of the Economic Affairs Committee. One thing that's struck me about that is that you have not stuck rigidly to just economic affairs, but the economic implications, for example, in social work, in universal credit and student fees. And it seems to me that the remit of a House of Lords committee has more of a reach and a depth than a House of Commons committee who consider the departmental role solely. Is that a fair analysis?

Lord Forsyth:

Yeah. I mean, I love the House of Lords. When I lost my seat in '97, John Major offered me a place in the House of Lords and I turned it down. And I turned it down because I'd lost my seat, we'd lost all our seats in Scotland, and I just thought it was completely wrong to be translated to the House of Lords. Fortunately, I was asked again in '99, and when I came in, in my maiden speech, to my shame, I said that the House of Lords should be elected. And then after about six months, I realised what the House of Lords was and what it was doing. And I realised that that would not work. If it was elected, what am I going to do, knock on doors and say, ‘Hello, I'm Michael Forsyth. Vote for me. I'm very good at revising legislation. But of course I haven't got any power to change things because ultimately the decision rests with the House of Commons.' I mean, that's not a credible position.

And just to answer your question directly, chairing the Economic Affairs Committee, and as a member of the Economic Affairs Committee, was a huge privilege. I got two former Chancellors of the Exchequer, a former permanent Secretary at the Treasury, former Governor of the Bank of England, really high calibre people. And we operate completely differently from the House of Commons, as you well know. That our approach is evidence-based, and we always produce a report which has got consensus agreement, evidence-based consensus agreement, no one grandstanding because we've all had our careers, but trying to get at how we address this problem.

So for example, on HS2, you were on the committee…

Lord Speaker:

I was on the 2015 committee…

Lord Forsyth:

Yeah, the 2015 committee said, ‘We're not sure about the business case for this. We think it might be better to spend the money on infrastructure in the north, look at it again.’ Ignored. Four years later, I chaired the committee, we looked at HS2 again, we said, ‘Costs are out of control. If you don't get this under control, perhaps by making the train go a bit slower, perhaps by looking at the terminus, various other ideas, if you don't get this under control, you're going to end up cancelling all the routes in the north. And the effect of that will be that you'll end up with a very expensive white elephant.’ That was four years ago. Ignored. Unanimous report. Same on social care, which you mentioned.

Lord Speaker:

Which was a very substantial report and still referred to today.

Lord Forsyth:

Yeah, it was a great report. It was a great report because there were good people on the committee, and we took evidence. And the evidence is absolutely clear. If you don't tackle this problem with social care, you'll have a problem with waiting lists. You'll have a problem with beds and the health service, and more importantly, you'll have elderly people being put to bed at three in the afternoon because there aren't enough care workers and all that. And it explained what was required, but the government ignored it. Boris said, ‘I will fix social care.’ Well, he didn't.

Because one of the things that report pointed out is the problem is not people having to sell their houses. The problem is that we are not paying enough for the people who do this wonderful work, and we're not doing enough to create a career structure and training. And the problem is that the relationship between the health service, social care is not integrated, that the demand varies according to local authorities. Some of the local authorities, which have the biggest problems, have got the lowest tax base and a whole range of issues. And it was unanimously supported in this House, on all sides. But nothing, as we sit here, the problem's got worse, not better.

Lord Speaker:

You and I know, politics is a serious business, and there's a difference between the rhetoric and the implementation. Give us an example of that.

Lord Forsyth:

Well, I think that the House of Commons, the House of Commons that you and I remember, I remember going past in a taxi after I'd been kicked out and a taxi driver saying to me, ‘Do you miss that place?’ He didn't know I was in the Lords, do you miss that place? And I said, ‘The place I miss no longer exists.’ And he said, he looked at me and he obviously thought 'poor lad's got early dementia. He doesn't know where he is or whatever.' He didn't understand what I meant. The House of Commons now, I think, is broken. The House of Commons that we were members of, having a guillotine motion on a bill was a very, very rare thing and always caused a row - requiring the bill to be timetabled. Now all legislation is timetabled, which means it comes up to this House, vast tracts of legislation which have not even been discussed in the House of Commons, not even voted on in the House of Commons, often not particularly well drafted, full of Henry VIII clauses, which just passes power on to the executive without proper accountability to power.

Lord Speaker:

So maybe you can explain that. It allows a Secretary of State to change the law by secondary legislation.

Lord Forsyth:

Exactly. Even amend the legislation itself or gives them powers to do stuff. And there's no guidance on how they would use these powers. And so it is a huge transfer of power from Parliament to the executive, and a huge diminution of accountability. Now the House of Lords does a fantastic job. We sit for longer hours now than the House of Commons. I mean, just a few months ago before the recess, we were sitting till one in the morning and the House of Commons was going home at four o'clock in the afternoon.

And all of this is done by dedicated individuals who have to put up with all the abuse that we see in the tabloid press about the House of Lords.

And yet the work on that legislation is being done here and nobody notices. A cabinet minister said to me just before the summer recess, ‘I'm so sorry that you're having all this trouble with legislation because of the Liberals and the Labour Party.’ And I said to them, ‘The reason we're having all this trouble is because you lot have not been doing your job.’ And they said, ‘Well, what do you mean?’ I said, ‘You don't scrutinise legislation.’ And they said, ‘Well, I didn't realise.’ I explained what it was like in our day. And they said, ‘Well, I didn't realise it was like that’, because they'd only been in Parliament a short time.

So I feel very angry about the rhetoric about we must have an elected House of Lords, we must do this and that. Coming from people who do not understand what Parliament is for or about, and do not understand the fantastic work which is done in this house and the way in which the House of Commons is failing in its function. It's just abandoned its function of considering legislation properly. And then we have Secretaries of State who are just moved after five minutes, who are not allowed to run their departments. And we've moved from a system where we have the Prime Minister is first among equals in cabinet, to where we have a sort of presidential system where the Prime Minister is surrounded by special advisors who then boss around cabinet ministers. It is no way to run a country and we've seen the consequences of that. So we need a root and branch, I believe, reform of the House of Commons and the process of government. And we need considerably more respect for the House of Lords and the work which it does.

I do think we need reform. What is really dispiriting is, as you say, no names, no pack drills, but some of the appointments to this House, you would think, I mean, Caligula appointed his horse as consul in order to discredit the institution. And I think that we've had examples of that. And sadly, we have examples of people who are really able, who are sitting on leave of absence and not actually coming into this House. Now out there, there are lots of really good people, who if they take this place seriously, could make a great contribution. If you come in here as a crossbencher, you are interviewed by the committee and you're asked, ‘Have you got the time? Do you have the necessary skills?’ They look at the range of skills that are available.

But if a political appointment, no undertakings given, no commitments made, no consideration given. I mean, okay, you can say originally the hereditaries, it was because you were the pal of the King. Well, I think we need to move away from that. And then also, if you look at our frontbench, and if there's a change of government, it'll be a problem for Labour as well. One third of our frontbench ministers, who have a really tough job in this place because every minister at the despatch box answers for the government as a whole, a third of them are unpaid.

And the reason that that's the case, is because the number of ministers in the House of Commons, there's a limit on the total number of ministers, has been allowed to increase. Because of course, if you make them a minister, they've got to vote for the government. And so departments have got many, many more ministers than they used to have. And there are not enough for the Lords. And yet ministers in the Lords work very hard indeed. And the idea that you have to have private means in order to be a minister, I thought we ditched that in the 19th century.

So there's a lot that needs to be reformed, and you well know, across this House there is a consensus on the things that need to be done. We'd like to have legislation to achieve that. It would sail through this House, but the government refuses to provide time. So we can find time, government time for the Animal Trophies Bill, but we can't find time to make this, this House of Parliament with its great expertise and contribution, more efficient and more acceptable in a democratic world.

Lord Speaker:

I have advocated in a number of speeches that any reform should in part be incremental, for the point of view of better governance. Because you've eloquently made the point, that with the House of Lords and the scrutiny, that ensures better governance. In fact, the UCL inquiry made the point that 55% of the legislation that's passed by the House of Commons has had some input and influence in the House of Lords.

Now explain to people the relationship between the government and the opposition in terms of the House of Lords. It's not a naked engagement, it's much more a consensual engagement. Because I've made the point to people that when the government come with their legislation, it gets examined here. And my colleague and friend Helen Little, when she was in the Treasury, she had a bill, I think it was relating to energy, that came up and that was changed quite dramatically. But when she took the time to reflect on it, she said, ‘I didn't understand a lot of this stuff.’ And there was that expertise in the laws. And I interviewed David Blunkett recently, and he said that whilst he was annoyed initially on that, it made for good law.

Lord Forsyth:

Absolutely right. And actually, one of the things that's gone wrong, we don't have a written constitution. We rely on what one of our colleagues calls the Good Chap Theory-

Lord Speaker:

Peter Hennessy.

Lord Forsyth:

Peter Hennessy, the Good Chap Theory of government. I mean that sounds like kind of an old boys’ sort of thing. That is our constitution. Our constitution is respect for those conventions. And one of the conventions was if the House of Lords amended a bill or proposed an amendment, you in the Commons, the government, would not immediately respond by saying, ‘This is rubbish.’ That they would consider it carefully, and they would look at the arguments and they'd give a considered response. That's gone. That's gone. Equally, on the other side, I mean, I think I was told that on the Levelling-Up Bill, there are a hundred pages of amendments. Now that is-

Lord Speaker:

Well, on the 10th day of the Levelling-Up Bill, there were more amendments than there were on the first day.

Lord Forsyth:

Yeah. And there are two reasons for that. One is really bad drafting and things not thought through and it not being discussed in the Commons. And the other, is people using the process as a campaigning platform to put forward their policies. That's not what the House of Lords is for. I mean, the House of Lords must always take the view that the government will get their business but try to get the government to think again. And the government needs to be respectful of those changes. And the government needs to be respectful, also, of their colleagues in the House of Commons.

And I think that relationship with MPs... I mean, when I got in the House of Commons, I didn't want to be a minister. Just being a member of the House of Commons is a huge privilege, and there's vast amounts you can do for your constituents and so on. So I think there's a lot to be done. And I agree with you, it should be incremental. We could have a bill to deal with the size of the House of Lords, to deal with some of the anomalies in the House of Lords, to deal with some of the problems I've been discussing in terms of ministers are being unpaid and so on. And it would sail through the House of Lords.

Lord Speaker:

House of Lords Appointments Commission as well.

Lord Forsyth:

Yeah, all of that. All of that. But you see there again, when I was offered a place in the House of Lords, it was unthinkable for me to come to the House of Lords having just been kicked out of the House of Commons. We've now got to a stage where people give up their constituencies, out of pique, because they feel they should have come to the House of Lords. I mean, that shows things have gone a bit off the rails and people are not respectful of the institutions to which they've been privileged to be elected.

Lord Speaker:

Can I take you onto the social aspect? For many years you were against assisted dying legislation, but you changed your mind. And the last time it was debated in the House of Lords, you actually put an amendment down on it. Take us through how this happened.

Lord Forsyth:

I put down an amendment actually, which flouted the convention, which I've just been telling you is so important.

I put down an amendment because I wanted the government to provide time so we could have a debate. Because what happens is every time that there is a measure on assisted dying, people who are against it table lots of amendments. So it runs out of time and it dies because it has to be private members' legislation. So I tried to get the government to commit to providing time so this matter could be discussed. Complicated, sensitive, really needs to be properly debated in government time. Why did I change my mind? My father, when he was dying, I went to see him and he was in a lot of pain. He'd been in a huge amount of pain and there were problems controlling the pain. And I said to him, ‘I am really sorry, dad, you're going through this.’ And he said, ‘Well, Michael, you're to blame for this.’

And I was completely taken aback by that. I said, ‘How'd you mean I'm to blame for this?’ He said, ‘Well, you have consistently voted for what I wanted, voted against it, which was the ability to be able to just ease out of this because I'm at the end of my life.’ I know you should not be influenced by your own personal experience in that way. But when I thought about it, all the arguments, I mean, I've raised a lot of money for Marie Curie, and I do believe that people should be able to die at home. And I supported the hospices. And when I was health Secretary, I introduced pound-for-pound funding in Scotland for the hospice movement. I support all of that. But for some people, it just isn't possible. I've always felt a hypocrite because if I, God forbid, but if I was told you've got motor neurone disease, I would want to have that ability to be able to avoid just choking to death and all the pain and suffering it would cause.

But so I kind of thought, well, I'd quite like it for myself, but I worried about it being abused. And I'm now persuaded that it is possible to set up a system where you can limit the abuse. But at the moment, there's nothing to protect people from being taken by greedy relatives to Switzerland or many other countries. And in Scotland actually, the Scottish Parliament, I think is way ahead of us. And there the time has been provided and there's a bill going through and it's been properly consulted.

And I think it would be ridiculous if we end up with the Isle of Man allowing it and Scotland allowing it, but not England. I mean, you can go to Gretna to get married because there's a differential in the laws on marriage, but you couldn't have a differential on the laws on assisted dying. So I think we need to have a proper debate about this. And I think if you look at the opinion polls, the public are way ahead of Parliament on this issue. And it's never a good idea for Parliament to be too far behind public opinion on something sensitive. So my view is, respect everyone's views, but Parliament needs to discuss this. And people abusing, because that's what they're doing, abusing our procedures to prevent a decision being reached on this, I don't think does us any credit.

Lord Speaker:

On the social side, you're an enthusiastic mountain climber.

Lord Forsyth:

The last mountain I did was the highest mountain in Antarctica, which is called Mount Vincent. And I was so lucky, we had perfect weather. And you stand on top of the mountain, and because the air is so clear, you can see for 150 miles, and all you see is mountain after mountain after mountain and not a footprint anywhere. And in the silence, because it's so cold, nothing can survive. In the silence, no birds, no wind, no noise. It's a spiritual experience. And that was the last one. Quit while you're ahead.

Lord Speaker:

I think you climbed Kilimanjaro and it was for charity. Explain your charity work there.

Lord Forsyth:

Well, Vincent and Kilimanjaro, I raised some money for DEBRA. There's a horrible thing called EB, which is where the skin is not attached to the body. It's a horrible, horrible disease. I have a niece who died from it. And also for Marie Curie, and my wife was involved in an Indian charity helping women with babies and nutrition and so on. So I raised a bit of money for that. I paid for the expeditions myself. And then I wrote to all my friends and people I knew in the City and said, ‘I'm giving some exorbitant sum, would you support it.’ And we raised, I can't remember exactly, about half a million quid or something of that order. But I've done Vincent and I've done Kilimanjaro, and I've done Aconcagua, which is highest mountain in the Southern hemisphere, which is, I think it's about 23,000 feet. But I'm not fit now. The thing I hated John, was having to go to the gym every day. Some people love that. Having to run up and down mountains behind my house and do the training. But I couldn't, I mean, I struggle with the stairs now.

Lord Speaker:

Well, Michael, thanks for this. It's been a very engaging conversation, and I think there are issues which you have articulated here, which many people don't know about. So thank you for that.

Lord Forsyth:

Pleasure.

Lord Speaker:

Thank you.