LORDS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 16 November 1976)

§ Lord McCLUSKEY
My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 45, to which the Commons have disagreed, but doth agree to Amendment No. 46 proposed by the Commons and to the words so inserted into the Bill. With the leave of noble Lords, I will deal with Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 at the same time and move them in due course. First, I am indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who, before I rose to my feet, pointed out a number of errors in Amendment No. 46 as printed. That gave us time to inquire into the cause, as a result of which I can tell noble Lords—and I look at No. 46—that it should read as follows: Page 41, line 37, leave out from 'repaid' to 1201 'or' in line 42 and insert' any sum the right to repayment of which, if the sum had not been repaid, would, following the service of a notice under section 21 above, have been treated as a security or part of a security under subsection (6) of that section'". I can direct the noble Earl's attention to the Official Report of the Commons proceedings in column 752, where he will find that in fact, before the Commons, the Amendment was in the correct form and that a printing error has crept in between that stage and this.
My Lords, it was suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, during our Report stage that the drafting of Amendment No. 45—and this applies to No. 56 as well—was defective. We agreed to consider that matter, and on consideration we agree with his view. The two Amendments proposed in lieu have the effect of keeping more closely to the drafting included in the Bill as it first left the Commons. I therefore beg to move.

Earl FERRERS
My Lords, I am delighted to know that the noble and learned Lord agreed with me; that is very flattering. I wish that he had agreed with some other more important Amendments that we put forward, but I am grateful. We had a discussion on Clause 22, as it was originally, in Committee. The Government thought that they would redraft it and, having redrafted it, I pointed out at Report stage, that it might have been, for want of a better expression, "bog drafted". The noble and learned Lord said that he did not think that it was so; but that he would look at it. He looked at it again and met our points and, as he pointed out, it was "bog drafted" again or "bog printed" in so far as it left out the word "not", which is fairly relevant, and it referred to "payment" as opposed to "repayment".
I would also draw his attention to Amendment No. 46 and to an even more "pithy bog" where the word "repair" has been used instead of the word "repaid". It is understandable in the 1202 heady excitement of the Bill that the word "repair" has direct connotations and that must have permeated through to the draftsman or printer. But I hope the noble Lord will note that, too.
The other point is where there is a difference in the words as submitted in the Commons Amendment from the Amendment which the noble and learned Lord moved on Report stage. At Report stage, the Amendment used the words: repayment of which could be treated as security". The words here are different. They are: "could be treated as a security or part of a security". I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could explain how such a loan could be treated as part of a security. I can understand how a loan or part of a loan could be treated as a security, but I do not understand how anything can be treated as part of a security.

§ Lord McCLUSKEY
My Lords, again I am indebted to the noble Earl for giving me notice of this matter. First, my own impression is that the draftsman has been slightly zealous. That is not uncommon in lawyers. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I say that this reminds me of the well-known lawyers' story of the young woman who gave birth to twins and having brought a paternity suit against the putative father was met with the reply: "My client denies that he is the father of the said twins or either of them." That is in the same category as this.
The explanation which I can offer to the noble Earl is this. We are here talking about inter-company loans. If there was one loan of a certain sum made at a certain time and no part of that loan was repaid, the whole sum would be treated as one security. Equally, if one loan was made on one date and all of it was repaid, that would be treated as one security. But if there was one loan made on one particular occasion and part of it only had been repaid and part not repaid, then the two parts might be dealt with slightly differently. There might be arbitration about the part repaid and not about the other part; or it might be the other way round. Accordingly, at the end of the day both would be treated as one security. That is why the words "or part of a security" have been put in. It is to cover the situation where perhaps part of the loan has been repaid.

§ The Earl of LAUDERDALE
My Lords, before we part with this Amendment, may I say, since the Government instead of rejecting Lords Amendments out of hand have proposed a counter Amendment, that perhaps this is the moment to draw attention to the dichotomy in the attitude of the Government towards these Bills in general. On the one hand, we see in the Government counter Amendment (in fact, on a technical point) that they are glad to have had the opportunity to think again. That is quite apart from more than a score of their own Amendments that they put forward on Report. But before this Bill passes and before this Session ends, I believe that it is in the interests of this House that one should protest again at certain things that have been said else where in direct contradiction—twice by the Prime Minister and once by each of two Members of his Cabinet, Mr. Varley and Mr. Benn. Despite their opportunity to think again they have been saying, in effect, that if the House of Lords persists in amending these Bills, we—that is, the Government—will go to the country for a mandate to abolish their institution as at present functioning. That is, in effect, what they have been saying. They have been saying that they do not want discussion but now that on this Amendment they have admitted discussion was useful to them, we have an opportunity to refer firmly, quietly and I hope effectively to these quite unworthy suggestions of pressure from another place.
Parliament exists, among other things, through mutual respect, respect between the two Houses. Just as we have a convention that we do not make undue fun, or only in the nicest possible way, of the other place, so it is quite proper that we should reply when they make threats against us. The implication is quite clear from things that have been said openly and privately in another place that they think that they could run a "Lords versus People" campaign.
"Lords versus People!"What a cry, when it is we who insist on debate!"Lords versus People!"What a cry, when the whole country knows perfectly well who is running away from debate!"Lords versus People!"What a cry when we, and if it came to the crunch, the media, too, would make it clear to the public who have been responsible for 1204 blocking discussion through the use of the guillotine in another place. "Lords versus People! "What a cry when those aiming to muzzle us must face the charge thereby of opposing Parliamentary Government itself. Muzzling Parliament! Do they not realise that they stand condemned out of their own mouths and by their own gestures and stances.
In muzzling Parliament do they seek more power yet? The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse. Do they equate Government in times of economic crisis with a new and greater mountain of legislation that has no relevance to the problems of today? If they are looking to us to be sausage machines turning out second-rate, ill-considered legislation and if that is their view of the purpose of Parliament, then all that one can say is in the words of the famous Lord Lovat on the way to the scaffold: "The greater the mischief, the better the sport". The question is, said Humpty-Dumpty, "Who is the master? That is all!" Is it a question of Parliament mastering the Executive or the Executive mastering Parliament? This is an old story and an old issue, but it must be faced and I make no apology for taking up two or three minutes of your Lordships' time now at this late stage of this Bill, at this late stage of this Session, to draw attention to it once again. The spectacle that we have witnessed does no credit to either House of Parliament. Policies have been debased without being debated; so that all that is not compulsory shall be forbidden. It all reminds one of the famous adage: Nature, our father and mother, gave us all we got; the State, our elder brother, swipes the lot!

§ Lord BROCKWAY
My Lords, I am not sure that this is the right occasion to be discussing the issues which the noble Lord has raised. I content myself merely by saying that the House in considering this and other Bills recently has not been a revising Chamber; it has been a wrecking Chamber. In that character it is digging its own disappearance from our institutions. The British people will not be content with a House of Lords of 1,100 members, 800 of which are there only because they are sons of their fathers. I think it is correct that there should have been a warning from Members of the 1205 Government that if the House of Lords continues in this way its abolition in its present form will become inevitable.

§ Lord ORR-EWING
My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, did he hear the broadcast of the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, who is the Chief Whip on the Government side, in which she said there had been no filibustering in the discussions on these Bills? She made that public statement which surely has far more weight from the Government Front Bench than it would have from the Back-Benches of the same side.

§ Lord BROCKWAY
My Lords, before I sit down, it is very rare that I disagree with the noble Baroness, if indeed she said that. We on the Back-Benches can have independent opinions, and I certainly have them.

§ Lord LEATHERLAND
My Lords, may I rise most apologetically and suggest the we get on with the Amendment.