§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD)My Lords, I beg to move, That Standing Order No. 41 (No two stages of a Bill to he taken on one day) be dispensed with for the purpose of passing the Housing (Slum Clearance Compensation) Bill through its remaining stages this day. I think it may be for the convenience of the House if I inform your Lordships that it is intended to make this use of suspension of Standing Orders only if the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, is put into the Bill.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 41 (No two stages of a Bill to he taken on one day) be dispensed with for the purpose of passing the Housing (Slum Clearance Compensation) Bill through its remaining stages this day.—(The Earl of Longford.)
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, we are always anxious to help the Business of the House go smoothly, and I do not intend to make an issue of this Motion. However, may I ask the noble Earl why this course is necessary? After all, we have various stages in the Bill for the purpose of discussing the Bill thoroughly, and noble Lords may lose a stage of the 398 Bill when they wish to discuss it. Why is it necessary to do this?
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMy Lords, I will give a short answer to the noble Lord, and possibly later on to-day, when the Bill is discussed fully, further explanations will be made. The short answer is that the existing provisions expire on December 12, and it is—I will not say imperative; but it would be highly convenient and desirable to the public if the Royal Assent could be given on December 13. It would remove a good deal of uncertainty. That is the short answer. I am not going to pretend that the world is going to come to an end if this does not happen, but it would cause a considerable inconvenience and uncertainty to a great many people —not the Government; I am talking of citizens—if this Bill could not obtain the Royal Assent on December 13.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. That is all very well, but this must have been known before. Why are we told at the last moment, when this Bill is before your Lordships, that we have to pass it through quickly because it would be better if we did? All this must have been known to the Government. Why did they not introduce their Bill earlier? I do not think this is treating the House in quite the way it should be treated. I do not want to make an issue of this, and I would not ask your Lordships to take this any further. But if we are going to do this at the beginning of the Session, goodness knows what it is going to be like towards the end of July!
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDI am grateful to the noble Lord for not making an issue of it. Of course we are not trying— nor would it be within our power —to force the House to do anything. We were asking for co-operation in something of an emergency, but if anybody should express regret at the position in which the House is placed, let me assume the responsibility and express it.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, the noble Earl used the words that this was something of an emergency, and then talked about the public being inconvenienced. I wish he would explain to me what the emergency is. He used those words, and it must signify something. But I myself do not understand 399 from what he said, or from looking at the Bill, what the emergency is. Perhaps it could be explained to us.
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMy Lords, I do not think the noble Viscount will want me to explain the Bill at length; that will come later on. I was trying to make myself clear, standing in a posture of regret (and understanding that noble Lords were not going to make an issue of it; I hope the day will not come when they do, because then the discussion will go on much longer) and trying to explain that when the existing provisions come to an end on December 12 the public will not know exactly where they stand. I thought I was remarkably candid. I cannot be more candid than to explain to the House that it would not be the end of the world, but that it would cause a great deal of inconvenience, and we hope it will be accepted. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said that, so far as he was concerned, it would be.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, I rose only because I wanted to understand what the noble Earl was saying. I understood his first answer, so far as it went; but then he went further and talked about an emergency. That I did not understand, and the noble Earl still has not explained what he meant by using the word "emergency".
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDI thought I had explained it twice. I am still in this posture of regret, and therefore I will not say more.
§ THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGHMy Lords, will the noble Earl bear in mind that penitence by itself is not enough: there must also be a firm purpose of amendment.
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDI agree that that is necessary when Absolution is to be given.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.