HL Deb 23 February 1972 vol 328 cc540-4

4.18 p.m.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, it might be for the convenience of your Lordships' House if at this point I were to make a short Statement suggesting how we might conduct our business in the light of the Statement which my noble and learned friend has just repeated. It is the suggestion—and I think it commands the general assent of the usual channels—that this brief Bill should pass through all its stages in your Lordships' House to-night, and so receive the Royal Assent either later to-night or early to-morrow morning. That means suspending Standing Order No. 42, which states that no two stages of a Bill may be taken on one day.

Your Lordships know that in order to suspend Standing Orders it is usually necessary to give notice, and because of the emergency of the present conditions that has not been possible. It will therefore be necessary for the House to agree without notice that Standing Order No. 42 should be dispensed with for the purpose of taking the Bill through all its stages to-night. Therefore, at the conclusion of the debate on the need for a Broadcasting Council, the second of our two mini-debates this afternoon, my noble and learned friend proposes to move that Standing Order No. 78 be read by the Clerk at the Table. I would briefly remind your Lordships that that Standing Order provides that no Standing Order may be suspended or dispensed with without notice, save "on an occasion of grave national emergency" or "for reasons of national security". It is perhaps worth remarking that a proviso to that effect was inserted, as a result of a recommendation from the Procedure Committee, only last Thursday in your Lordships' House, and agreed to. It is my firm belief that the present situation very definitely involves national security. Therefore when Standing Order No. 78 has been read the Clerk will read Standing Order No. 42, and thereafter my noble and learned friend will move to resolve: That it is essential for reasons of national security that the Bill should immediately be proceeded with and taken through ail its stages this day. My Lords, I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House if the substantive debate on the Bill were to take place on the Motion moved by my noble and learned friend. Copies of the Bill are in fact now available in the Printed Paper Office. If that course is agreeable, I would suggest that the Bill might then be taken formally when it reaches us from another place. I have noted that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, whose position on this matter we all respect, has said that he would wish to move a Manuscript Amendment to this Bill. I hope that he may be per- suaded, on consideration, in view of the explanation I have given of the procedure, to make his point in the substantive debate; but, of course, what course he takes is entirely up to him.

I am afraid that I am unable at this stage to give your Lordships any indication of how long it will be before the Bill is sent to this House from another place. But I think I can give an approximate indication that if it is agreed that we should handle this matter in the way I have just suggested, our substantive debate on this matter, which I hope might be quite brief, would start about eight o'clock. My Lords, when we have finished debating the procedural Motions to which I have referred and had our substantive discussion, the House would then adjourn during pleasure and resume when the Bill was likely to be brought to us from another place. We would then take the Bill through all its stages as rapidly as possible before adjourning again to await the Royal Assent to it. That is the proposition on how we might handle this which I should like to put to your Lordships.

4.23 p.m.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his explanation. The House should be aware—indeed, noble Lords are clearly aware—that this is a very unusual situation. We clearly do not want to rush our fences, and I am not accusing the Government of doing so in this matter; but, as the noble Earl has pointed out, this new procedure has only just been passed. So that no one shall suspect the Government of either an unnatural prescience or some malice aforethought, I think I should say that the actual suggestion that we ought to be in a position, in a situation of grave national emergency, to pass such legislation in fact came from myself some weeks ago. I say this to exonerate the Government Front Bench. The protection that is provided under the Standing Order, and the notice that has been given, should be amply sufficient for your Lordships to decide whether this is an occasion upon which the relevant Standing Order should be suspended.

I am a little bothered at the noble Earl's suggestion that the substantive debate should necessarily take place on the suspension of the Standing Order. At the moment I am not quite sure what there is to debate. My noble friend Lord Brockway may wish to raise a point, but unless noble Lords are inclined to say that this is not a grave national emergency—and clearly, in a situation in which the troops and the authorities are not able to operate, it seems to me it is almost automatically a grave national emergency—and although there may be something to be said for getting any debate over early, I do not think it necessarily follows that the House will wish to debate this matter at any length, and certainly not at sufficient length to carry the House on until such an unearthly hour as the legislation may reach us from another place. I do not of course know how the Speaker will rule on Amendments and other such matters, but, as the noble Earl suggested, we may not see the legislation until to-morrow morning. Therefore I think we should keep rather closely in touch and see how matters go.

It seems to me that the Bill which was explained by the noble and learned Lord does not lend itself to the sort of Amendment that my noble friend had in mind, which seems to me to bear on a completely different point. I am not saying that my noble friend has not a substantial point, but I just do not quite see how it bears on the Bill, copies of which are in the Printed Paper Office. Therefore I would only say that I think the Government have no option but to proceed in the way suggested. and my only point of disagreement is whether or not we shall wish to debate the procedural Motion.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, if I may respond straight away to what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has said—and I am grateful to him—I am not suggesting that we should necessarily debate this matter on the procedural Motion. I certainly would not wish to encourage your Lordships so to do. I agree with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that it is very difficult to question the fact that national security is involved in this particular issue. I had thought that if any Members of your Lordships' House wished to debate the Bill itself this was an opportunity for so doing, although I very much tend to agree with what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has said as to the difficulty of debating the sort of Amendment which the noble Lord. Lord Brockway, half foreshadowed. I had felt that if there were a desire on the part of any Member of your Lordships' House to debate that or a similar issue, it would perhaps be better to do so at an hour which was more or less predictable, rather than at some very uncertain hour during the middle of the night. I entirely agree with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that this is essentially a matter where the two sides of the House should keep in rather close contact through the usual channels.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, may I leave until the Committee stage the question as to whether my Amendment is in order? Perhaps I may just say that I have the highest authority for saying that it is.