HL Deb 04 April 1963 vol 248 cc663-71

3.14 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE)

My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill. I should like to take this opportunity of informing the House of Her Majesty's Government's intentions in regard to the future progress of this Bill. Some of your Lordships may have wondered why a Bill which the Commons may consider infringes their financial privilege has been introduced in this House rather than in another place. The reason is this. It so happened that when we were ready to introduce the Bill the legislative programme in this House was considerably lighter than that in the House of Commons and it might well have proved impossible to get this urgently needed Bill through Parliament this Session if we had delayed introduction until time could be found for it in the Commons. Accordingly, the Bill was introduced into your Lordships' House and Her Majesty's Government have been particularly pleased to be able to obtain the views of your Lordships' House in general and especially of the Law Lords.

I should make it clear that it is not the duty of this House to protect the privileges of the Commons, though, of course, this House rightly pays due respect to the privileges of another place. It is not for us to judge what those privileges are. They are privileges claimed by the Commons, and the Commons are guardians of their own privileges. However, in all cases of doubt on Commons privileges in regard to the initiation, amendment and rejection of Bills in this House, informal consultation takes place between the Officers of the two Houses.

In the case of the Bill before your Lordships' House, I am informed that there are two alternatives which we may adopt. On the one hand, we may complete all stages in this House and send the Bill to the Commons, where it is likely to be laid aside. On the other hand we may complete all stages up to Third Reading, but without finally passing the Bill, so that the Bill does not in fact reach the Commons. I have examined these alternatives, and on the advice of the Officers of the House I concluded that the second is the better of the alternatives, and I propose, therefore, to move no further Motion once the Bill has been read a third time and any Amendments have been dealt with at that stage.

After the Third Reading in this House, the Government have every intention of introducing into the Commons a Bill incorporating the provisions of the Lords Bill. When this Commons Bill reaches the Lords later in the Session, this House will need to do no more in passing the Bill through all its stages than to examine any differences between the Commons Bill and the original Lords Bill. By this means I hope we shall have been able to enact a most important piece of legislation for which otherwise time might not have been found. I ought to inform your Lordships of the fact that a precedent has been found for the procedure which I have now recommended to your Lordships, in a case which occurred in 1904, when this procedure was, I think, adopted at the suggestion of my predecessor, Lord Halsbury.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, this is the most remarkable statement that I have heard since I have been in the House. In spite of the language of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, there is no doubt that there has been an unholy muddle in this matter. Whether there was any consultation beforehand, I do not know. But it is quite clear that this Bill should never have been introduced into this House at all. It was undoubtedly a Money Bill which had the effect of imposing a charge on the Revenue. There can be no doubt about that, because in its terms the Bill provides that certain people should be compensated as regards their costs out of public funds. We were restrained in the Amendments that we might have put down. I had intended putting down an Amendment which might have increased the charge on the Revenue, and I refrained from doing so because I formed the view that it was outside the province of this House to do so, although I imagine it would have been accepted as being in order.

I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord whether in fact there was any consultation before this Bill was introduced into this House. I imagine that legal advice was obtained as to whether or not it was proper to introduce the Bill into this House first. If there was, I should think the legal advice was unsound—probably due to the fact that the noble and learned Lord, who would himself have given the advice in another place, is no longer there. I cannot imagine his allowing a Bill of this kind to come into this House at all. But here we are; and, in spite of the precedent of 1904, whatever that may be (I imagine that it was another mess that had been got into by an earlier Government), I wonder whether the course now suggested by the noble and learned Lord is the right one. What he is saying is, "Although this Bill should never have been introduced into this House at all, because it is a Money Bill, let us go on with it; let us have a Committee stage;"—he himself is putting down Amendments—"let us have a Report stage; let us have a Third Reading and then let us abandon the Bill as if nothing had happened, be cause a fresh Bill will then be introduced in another place and it will go through there, and then we shall go through all its stages again in this House."

My Lords, I seriously suggest that, having made the muddle, it would be far better to drop the Bill here and now, and not to waste the time of the House in going through any further stages. I would ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to consider this point quite seriously. We all make mistakes, some more than others, and I suggest that this mistake having been made, we just accept the fact, and drop the Bill here and now.

3.23 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I am sorry to hear the noble Lord express that view. I would say to him straight away that I do not think it is right to suggest that there is any muddle about this. I think I am right in saying that this House can discuss whatever it likes, and could discuss this Bill. What I would stress to the noble Lord—I thought I had his support on Second Reading—is that this is an urgent Bill, and that this is really the only way in which both Houses can give consideration to the content of a Bill of this kind in this Session. The noble Lord asks me to withdraw the Bill and leave it at that. I am reluctant to take that course, for the simple reason that it would mean there would be little chance of the Bill passing through this Session. The noble Lord knows very well how engaged this House is in May, June and July, and if this Bill—indeed, I have mentioned that it would not be this Bill, but another Bill of the same type—were introduced into the Commons and then came to this House in May, June or July, there would not be time for the House to deal with it at all. If the House thinks that ought perhaps to have mentioned this at an earlier stage, I can only apologise; but I thought it right to mention it straight away, before we went to the Committee stage.

I do not think that in discussing this Bill and in suggesting this course, we have in any way encroached upon the privileges of the other House: because it means, if I carry the House with me, that we shall have considered what we think ought to go into this Bill. If the Bill does not leave your Lordships' House there can be no intrusion on the privi- leges of another place. If a Bill in the same form as that in which it leaves this House is then introduced in another place, it will, I hope, be possible for us, if it then comes through to us, not to spend so long in considering its provisions. I would urge on the noble Lord—I am sorry if I have taken him rather by surprise about this—that this appears to be the only way in which, from a practical point of view, we can get this measure through this Session. That is the excuse—if an excuse is needed—that I put forward to your Lordships for adopting this course.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, I do not myself see how it is going to save time to go through three abortive stages in this House—a Committee stage, a Report stage and then Third Reading, which would take place only after Easter, and then drop the Bill. If we drop the Bill now, the other place will be in a much better position to introduce a Bill earlier. They will have the benefit of the Bill, and of discussing the Amendments which the noble and learned Lord wants to put forward. What is the point of going through all these abortive stages, and then having to go through them all again in this House?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I should have thought that the point was this; that we should get the Bill in the form in which your Lordships would approve it; and then, when a new Bill in the same form had been introduced in the Commons, if they passed it and it came to your Lordships' House in the same form as the Bill now being considered by your Lordships, we should not have to spend so much time upon it. I should have thought that, bearing this in mind, there was an advantage in getting this Bill into the best possible form. But I must stress to the noble Lord that this is the only way I can see that both Houses of Parliament will be able to give proper consideration, not to the same Bill but to a Bill containing these provisions, this Session; and I should hope that I carry the noble Lord with me in getting his assent in this particular matter.

3.27 p.m.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, the Lord Chancellor said that he was sorry to come to the House with this difficulty, and that he was sorry to have to go wide in his discussions with my noble friend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I think my noble friend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has stated a perfectly clear case, and, with every respect to the Lord Chancellor, I do not think that he has adequately answered the case that has been made.

On the face of it it is abundantly clear that this is a Money Bill—certainly it is a Bill which involves expenditure—and it ought not to have come to this place first. Of course the Lord Chancellor must have his share of responsibility for it coming here, as must other members of Her Majesty's Government; but I think the gentleman who probably bears the major responsibility is the Leader of the House of Commons, who, if I am not mistaken, is Chairman of the Legislation Committee of the Cabinet, through which the Bill has to go. It is probable that lawyers sit on that Committee. It ought not to have got through that Committee, and the Leader of the House of Commons should have been quick to protect the rights of another place. It ought to have been abundantly clear that it was no good bringing this Bill into this House first. That is a decision which the Legislation Committee makes, and I think that the Leader of another place has once more slipped up and made a great mistake. He deserves to have it made known that he has made this mistake.

I cannot see anything material in the Lord Chancellor's argument about the time factor. He suggests that we carry such Amendments as we like; then have a Report stage, and a Third Reading, and that we should stop at the Question, That the Bill do now pass. That would not be moved. It is suggested that we do all that, knowing that the Bill is going no further than that point. That is reducing Parliament to a farce. It means that we gravely go through these stages without the slightest intention that the Bill should pass. If to-day we were to adjourn the debate sine die, so to speak, and the House of Commons knew that we know that there has been a mistake made, surely the Government could easily and quickly bring in a Bill in another place. And, so far as I can tell from my knowledge of both Houses of Parliament, I should not have thought that such a Bill would be controversial, though some Amendments might be moved. But it is possible that Amendments might be moved here; and Amendments might be moved in another place whereby, in the end, the Bill would not be the same as that submitted to this House.

Therefore, I think the thing is to "come clean". I think it is for your Lordships' House to say that a mistake has been made, for which the Government is primarily responsible—and, I think, the Leader of the House of Commons—but for which in a sense we are all responsible, in that we did not spot it on Second Reading, so that we all have a share of responsibility for it. I confess, in extenuation, that I have never read the Bill until to-day, which is a good defence in the circumstances of the case, but not a good defence, I understand, in law. I think it would be far better, rather than that we should have to divide the House on the point, that we should "come clean" now; and agree that the Bill, so far as this House is concerned, will not be further considered. Then the Government can bring in a Bill, possibly on a Friday—which is a good day for these innocent Bills in another place—and have it amended in such ways as the House may wish. They will probably get it expeditiously. Then the Bill will come here, and I think I can say, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, that we have no intention of being unduly troublesome about the Bill when it properly reaches this place. If one is caught out, if it is what I would call, if I may, "a fair cop", which this is, then let us admit it; let us "come clean".

I therefore beg to move, my Lords, that the debate be now adjourned, and I trust that the House will take that course, in the hope that Her Majesty's Government (because it is desirable that the Bill should pass) will present it expeditiously to the House of Commons. Let it come back here soon, and we will give all reasonable co-operation for it to pass through. But it is no good playing about with it when you are caught out. With great respect, I think that the Lord Chancellor is seeking to go through this business in a rather farcical way—I do not know why, unless it is to save our faces a bit. I see his argument about the time factor, but I do not think there is much in it. We are caught; we know we are guilty, the whole lot of us, especially the Leader of the House of Commons, and I think the best thing to do is to drop it. I therefore move that the debate be now adjourned in the hope that it will finish this Bill until it comes back from another place.

LORD AIREDALE

My Lords, I think it is proper to observe that we are on the eve of the Second Reading debate next Monday of what I believe is the third Weights and Measures Bill, both of whose predecessors fell by the wayside after lengthy discussion in this House.

3.36 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I have listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has said with regard to this. First of all, I should like to disabuse him of the idea that there has been any mistake or muddle about this, and his language about "a fair cop" is not justified. Consideration was given to this before, and I would ask him to bear in mind, too, that we do in this House discuss matters which are contained in Bills and which go back to another House as a privilege Amendment. There is no inhibition, as I understand it, upon what your Lordships may discuss.

I said very frankly at the beginning, when I thought it right to bring this matter to your Lordships' notice, that the advantage of the procedure I proposed was that we should, I hoped, be able to get your Lordships' views on the contents of this particular Bill. If we then sent the Bill to the Commons, then indeed there might be a question of infringing the privileges of that House. But I pointed out that it would be open to the Government—and this was the idea which I hoped would commend itself to your Lordships—if they thought fit, to introduce in the Commons a Bill in that form. It would not be the Bill coming to the Commons from this House, but the introducing of a Bill in that form. I hope that would mean that, if that Bill came back to this House in that form, your Lordships would not need to spend very much time upon it. I wanted to make it quite clear that the reason for this unusual procedure was that the possibility of getting the Bill upon the Statute Book this Session—and it is a Bill for which there is very considerable demand—would otherwise appear extremely remote. If your Lordships desire further time for me to give further consideration to the matter, I will ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Motion that I moved for this Bill now to be considered in Committee. In fact, my Lords, I had not put the Question, so I do not think that I need to withdraw it.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, may I say that I am greatly obliged to the Lord Chancellor, as is my noble friend, for the course he has taken? I think that it is in the good interests of Parliament itself.

Order of the Day discharged.