HL Deb 11 December 1974 vol 355 cc644-7

3.8 p.m.

Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement about changes in tomorrow's business. As the House knows, we shall be debating the subject of capital punishment and terrorism on a Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The list of speakers has grown extremely long and if there should be a vote it would probably take place in the early hours of the morning. It has been suggested to the Government that this would not be in the best interests of the House or of the extremely important subject that we shall be debating. Discussions have therefore taken place about the difficulties involved. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has agreed that the best solution may be to move his Motion in a different form. Accordingly, he proposes to introduce a Motion for Papers in the following words: To call attention to capital punishment as a means of combating terrorism. This revised Motion will be put on the Order Paper tonight. I hope that this course will meet the wishes of the House.

Lord PLATT

My Lords, am I in order in asking a question on that statement? Does that mean that no vote will be taken?

Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE

Yes, my Lords.

Lord PLATT

My Lords, does that mean, in turn, that the country will not know the views of the House of Lords on this important subject?

Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE

My Lords, there will be 37 or 40 of your Lordships making their views very well known. I think the country will be very well aware of the views of your Lordships' House.

Lord PANNELL

My Lords, if there is no provision here in the practice of this House, perhaps it could be generally agreed that a vote should be taken at, say, ten o'clock. I suggest that the position of this House will be absolutely derisory if the other House takes a vote and we do not.

Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE

My Lords, I could not accept that the position of this House would ever be derisory. What might be derisory would be for a very small and extremely unrepresentative vote to be taken in the early hours of the morning, and this is the danger which all sides of the House have had in mind in considering this question. It is precisely to avoid what my noble friend has suggested that we are putting forward this proposition.

Earl ST. ALDWYN

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making this statement. I see her difficulty. It is important, if this House should come to a decision on this very important matter, that it should do so with votes of proper proportions. I hope, therefore, if there is not a vote tomorrow, that at some later stage during the Session it might be possible to have a two-day debate so that all noble Lords who wish to take part may do so, and that a decision can eventually be reached at a reasonable hour when the right numbers are present to make this decision.

Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE

My Lords, the noble Earl opposite would never expect me to promise a two-day debate on anything, I am sure. But of course I entirely accept the proposition he makes. If it is felt at a later date, obviously after Christmas, that there should be a fuller debate, after nearly 40 noble Lords have already expressed themselves, of course the Government will consider this.

Lord LEATHERLAND

My Lords, may I again make a simple suggestion with a view to solving this problem? Could we have our full debate tomorrow, with the 32 speakers, and then on Tues day of next week have the two winding-up speakers at the opening of the day's proceedings, and take a vote with a full assembly of your Lordships present?

Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE

My Lords, my noble friend is, as always, helpful and practical. Unfortunately, it is not 32 speakers but 37 plus. The business for next week is, if I may use a slang phrase, "chock-a-block". I do not think we can manage it this way; and this is why we now put forward this proposition.

Lord CARRINGTON

My Lords, without wishing in any sense to torpedo any arrangements which have been come to, it is important that the House should realise that the business is in its own hands. If your Lordships wish to have a Division, it is perfectly proper and right that any noble Lord can put down an Amendment on which a Division could take place. Furthermore, as the noble Lord opposite has said, there are no rules about ten o'clock and it is always in your Lordships' hands to divide, whether the debate has come to an end or not, should the majority of the House wish to do so.

Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE

My Lords, what the noble Lord says is entirely true. Those of us who discussed this matter together—which included his own representatives—felt that in the best interests of the House it would be better to have a representative and proper vote.

Lord HALE

My Lords, could the noble Baroness say why, in view of the fact that the House is not sitting on Friday, the debate could not be adjourned at a convenient hour on Thursday, and we could then sit on Friday and have the opportunity of taking a vote? In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, any noble Lord can force a vote. It seems we are going to be left in an unhappy situation if we proceed on the Motion as it has been drafted.

Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE

My Lords, we considered sitting on Friday. This was an obvious matter to consider, but we felt that as noble Lords would have made totally different arrangements, we should still get a small and unrepresentative view even on the Friday.

Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER

My Lords, can the noble Baroness explain how, if 37 speakers are going to give their opinions tomorrow, we can have a fuller debate after the Christmas Recess?

Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE

My Lords, I think your Lordships' House is capable of almost anything.

Lord HAWKE

My Lords, I do not know whether Her Majesty's Government are aware of the fact that when faced with this problem the General Synod of the Church of England promply moves, after the first two speakers or so, that other speakers should be limited to five minutes in which to make their speeches. I cannot see how the majority of the 37 Members will be able to speak for more than five minutes, without duplicating exactly what other people have already said.

Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE

My Lords, I have already tried that, and have been very severely reprimanded as a result.