§ 3.25 p.m.
§ EARL ST. ALDWYN rose to move, That, in the event of the Channel Tunnel (Initial Finance) Bill being received from the Commons, Standing Order No. 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday next for the purpose of taking the Bill through all its stages on that day. The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper. I think that perhaps a word of explanation is desirable here. It has been agreed through the usual channels that this Motion should be taken. It is expected that in fact this Bill will be certified as a Money Bill, in which case your Lordships will not be deprived of any of the rights which you would otherwise have had. There will of course be ample opportunity to have a full discussion on the Second Reading of this Bill. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That, in the event of the Channel Tunnel (Initial Finance) Bill being received from the Commons, Standing Order No. 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday next for the purpose of taking the Bill through all its stages on that day.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
§ LORD ALPORTMy Lords, I am sure the House is grateful for the explanation which has been given by the Chief Whip, but what has worried me about this matter is that this is a substantial Bill about a very important subject which concerns many of your Lordships, and from the explanation given by my noble friend I find it difficult to see why there should be a departure from the normal custom of the House. That custom is that in the case of a Money Bill the Second Reading is taken one day and, because there can be no Committee or Report stage, time is still left to elapse before the Third Reading is taken on a subsequent day. In view of the controversial nature of 477 this Bill and of the fact that it involves expenditure of something like £35 million as an initial allocation, it may well be that a number of Members of this House would wish to consider, at more leisure than would be the case under the procedure suggested, the arguments put forward by the Government during a general debate on principle on Second Reading. If there is a special reason why this course must be taken at this time of the Session, when we have very little real business before your Lordships' House, then, if I may say so, I think some special explanation should be given to the House, other than merely an ageement through the usual channels.
§ LORD DAVIES OF LEEKMy Lords, may I support the point of view put forward? I believe that the House should be aware that we were promised massive information on this Channel Tunnel project—18 different documents, of which there have been only about four or five. The nation is rushing into the building of this Tunnel with unseemly haste. There is a local example underneath the shadow of Big Ben itself. The cost of the hole that we are digging under there is way over the estimate: it is now up to about £2½ million, when originally it was supposed to be only about a third or a half of what we are now spending. Consequently I think more time should be taken over these matters. We had enough of this with the Common Market debate, whatever point of view we took. Public money is being spent at a most difficult period and there is enough time in this House for another day at least to be given to this quite important topic so far as the taxpayer is concerned.
EARL ST. ALDWYNMy Lords, it would in fact be possible to take the Third Reading on another day, but I would suggest to your Lordships that we pass this Motion and then, perhaps, have further consultation to see whether it is really necessary or not. I must take issue with my noble friend Lord Alport when he says that the House has very little to do. The House has got coming before it more Bills of a major nature than it has ever had in its history, and to say that we have little to do is really nonsense.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.