§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEMy Lords, may I have permission to raise one question before we start on to-day's Business? To-day a Government Bill is down for Second Reading and we are then to have the Second Reading debate on two further Bills, on one of which there are ten or eleven speakers, and on the other—which is an important Bill on which feelings run strongly—no fewer than twelve speakers. I raise this with the Leader of the House, to whom I have not, I regret to say, given notice, but it seems to me that neither here nor in another place would it be in accord with the general wishes of Members that two such Bills should be taken on the same day.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEThe second of the two Bills, on which there are twelve speakers, is bound, whatever noble Lords' views may be, to provoke an acute debate. It will mean that the Division is taken very late indeed and will, I submit, not be representative of the feelings of the House because other noble Lords beyond those who are down to speak have many engagements, public and private. I submit that it is trying the House too far to ask that both these Bills should be taken to-day. May I suggest that some other course might have been followed—a Monday Sitting, or one of the Bills might have been considered on a day when Business was lighter. It is not for me to say when such occasion would arise, but I do say to the Government—and I trust that I voice the views of many noble Lords in this House: please reconsider to-day's Business and do not take the second Bill.
§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD)My Lords, as the noble Lord was good enough to say, he has not given me even five minutes', or indeed five seconds', notice of this matter before raising it. He and I are old friends, and he will not mind my reproaching him for not giving me any notice, but I cannot see why he could not have brought the matter up earlier.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEMy Lords, I must, of course, apologise to the noble Earl, as I do gladly, but, like other noble Lords, I have a good many things to think of, and this occurred to me only when I saw the list of speakers and realised that the House would be placed in an intolerable situation. Therefore, while I apologise to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for not giving him notice, I make no apology for raising this subject.
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMy Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for what he has just said about myself, but I have been in touch with the Chief Whip and I thoroughly endorse the action he has taken, and indeed I take full responsibility. I should make it plain that this Business has been on the Order Paper for about ten days. There has been plenty of opportunity for 558 anyone who did not like the procedure to raise it, and I cannot help feeling that something which was arranged through the usual channels was implicitly endorsed by the House in advance, as nobody raised it. As always, we are in the hands of the House and there is no question of the position being different from that, but I should have thought that we had taken all the proper steps. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will not feel that this is a criticism which should be pressed.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I should say that this procedure was agreed through the usual channels, as all the Business in this House is. I think it would also be true to say, and certainly it was my understanding, that the debates on these two Bills were expected to be rather short, because we have been through them both before. But it so happens that we are to-day faced with a very long list of speakers on both Bills, and I must say that this comes as something of a surprise to me. I had no idea that the House would want to go through these two Bills again in such detail, and, that being so, I think that the situation has rather altered. It. seems to me that the House is asked to take these two Bills through when there are a large number of speakers and I wonder whether, during the passage of the first and second Bills—that is, the Guyana Independence Bill and the Abortion Bill—there might be discussions among Members of the House about whether or not we could take some other action.
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMy Lords, of course one could not possibly refuse discussions, and therefore, no doubt, they will take place. But I ought to explain that these are not Government Bills. I do not think anybody is under that impression—certainly the Leader of the Opposition is not. These are Bills which have been put down by agreement with their proposers and, obviously, we should have to discuss the matter with them. At any rate, I cede the point that a much larger number of speakers have put their names down than was expected by anybody, and no doubt discussions will take place. But I must emphasise, once again, that as the noble Lord agrees, every possible step was taken in advance by the Chief Whip and others to make sure that the convenience of the House was suited; 559 and I should not like anyone to suppose that for any reason whatever—and there are many cross-currents here—there was a desire to push these Bills through at some awkward time.
§ LORD FERRIERMy Lords, as regards the discussions, may I take up what the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has said, and urge that there should not be a Monday sitting for the third Bill. One of the reasons for the long list of speakers to-day is that the Second Reading of the earlier Bill took place on a Monday, and I think the Committee stage was on a Friday morning.
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMy Lords, all these points will be borne in mind.