HL Deb 23 January 1990 vol 514 cc919-21

2.43 p.m.

Viscount Mountgarret asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether it would be desirable to have a fixed date for the State Opening of Parliament other than for the first after any general election.

The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead)

My Lords, the opening of a new parliamentary Session is a matter for the Royal Prerogative. In the Government's view, the length of a Session depends on the business to be conducted, which inevitably varies from Session to Session. A fixed date for the State Opening of Parliament would remove the flexibility of the present arrangements.

Viscount Mountgarret

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. However, does not business currently conducted produce the somewhat unedifying situation whereby government can and do change the proposed date to suit their own purposes? If it could be stated on which date the Session would end, this House and another place could work to that date and stick to it. Furthermore, would not our Gracious Sovereign perhaps find it easier to manipulate her diary if she knew what we were doing?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I can see the attraction of a fixed date from the point of view of many of your Lordships. In practice I believe that a fixed date might not suit the needs of Parliament. As my noble friend mentioned Her Majesty, it might possibly not suit the Royal programme.

This matter was looked at in 1914 by the Commons Procedure Committee, and by the Government Chief Whip in another place before a joint committee in 1923. It is interesting that on neither of those occasions was it thought that a fixed date was the answer.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that his noble friend made some sensible points in his supplementary question? Does he not further agree that it would be possible to hold the State Opening of Parliament on or near the traditional date—that is, during the first week in November—if the Government planned their legislative programme more efficiently and more thoughtfully in the interests of this House? Does he recall that when we went into Recess last summer only 26 out of 35 Bills had received Royal Assent? Is that not a case of inefficiency and thoughtlessness? Will he look again at the position with his right honourable friends to see whether a programme could be launched which would be less taxing and frustrating for noble Lords on all sides?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I readily acknowledge that the last two Sessions of Parliament began later in November than I would have wished. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is, if I may say so with respect to him, constructive and patient always.

Noble Lords

Hear, hear!

Lord Belstead

My Lords, he is of course a doughty opponent on these matters. I cannot resist adding that late State Openings are not the perogative of any one Administration. Noble Lords opposite hold the record for a late State Opening in recent years; namely, 24th November 1976.

Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone

My Lords, does my noble friend recall that a highly radical government in 1911 passed 450 pages of public general legislation and that practically no government in recent years, at least in the past 10 years, has passed fewer than 3,000 pages of public general legislation? Is not one possibility that successive governments of different parties might be a little more economical of print and paper?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, my noble and learned friend is absolutely right. It is interesting that if one looks at the number of public Bills passed in recent years, there is not a definite trend. The number simply goes up and down. However, what my noble and learned friend says is true; namely, that the sheer number of pages at which your Lordships are asked to look has increased, and I admit that.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree, as he told us that this matter was last considered in 1923, that quite a lot has happened in 66 years?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, of course we looked at our procedures as a result of a committee set up by my noble friend Lord Whitelaw when he was Leader of the House. Perhaps I may suggest that it is too soon for us to go round that particular course again. However, the Government must look as carefully as possible at what is being brought before your Lordships and particularly at the number of amendments once a Bill has been introduced. I assure the House that that is something which I take very seriously indeed.

Noble Lords

Government amendments.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, yes, I mean government amendments.