SHOPS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1978 (Hansard, 14 December 1978)

§ Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE
My Lords, before your Lordships agree to this Motion, I wonder whether I may say a few brief words not only on the merits of the order, which I welcome, but also to express some misgivings at the way in which Northern Irish business is handled here. At the moment the legislature in Stormont is suspended. That means the Parliament at Westminster has a heavy responsibility to consider very carefully and punctiliously the legislation that affects the people of Northern Ireland; indeed, I would say it should be done with the same fullness of consideration as would be given by the Stormont Parliament.
Today's business cannot be considered without also considering the background. In the last Session your Lordships were much concerned with the devolution legislation, and it came to be the accepted practice for your Lordships to adjourn for one hour during the evening for supper. During that time Northern Irish business was put down for discussion. That meant that it was discussed in an empty Chamber, and perfunctorily, and was often cut short. I was particularly concerned about something that happened on 20th July this year. I shall not go into the details, but there was laid before your Lordships' House a measure, the momentousness of which could hardly be exaggerated, nor, indeed, could its controversial nature. It was a matrimonial causes measure.
As a former President of the Divorce Court in this country, I felt it my duty to comment on the measure. I wrote to the Minister to say so, and indeed to the Whips. Nevertheless, that measure was put down for discussion with five other measures. Two of them were appropriation measures which opened to the field of debate the whole scope of Government 814 in Northern Ireland, and indeed we had important and instructive contributions from two noble Lords who were particularly concerned.
The result was that the matrimonial causes order came on for discussion only 13 minutes before the close of the dinner hour, and, by the time the Front Bench speeches had been made, only four minutes remained. Naturally, at that time noble Lords concerned with the devolution legislation were returning and were anxious to get on with the business. That was a particularly striking example, and, indeed, two further measures remained for discussion after the matrimonial causes measure.
In this Session a different practice seems to have arisen; it is to put the Northern Irish orders down for discussion on a Thursday evening, which is, I apprehend, not a convenient time for many of your Lordships to attend. I noticed that on 23rd November there were two orders put down for discussion. I imagine that the noble Lord will not minimise the importance of these measures. The first, concerned with health and social security, came on for discussion at 4.45 p.m. and concluded four minutes later. The second one came on at 4.49 p.m. and concluded two minutes later. Your Lordships will have no difficulty in measuring the discussion that was available on those important measures. The second was again a controversial measure on the rehabilitation of offenders, which your Lordships' House had found very difficult when the English legislation was discussed. That is the way it was handled Parliamentarily, in spite of the responsibility which, I venture to suggest, rests on us at Westminster in handling Northern Irish Parliamentary affairs.

§ Lord MELCHETT
My Lords, I do not wish to delay the noble and learned Lord, but I was hoping he was going to make clear that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Order, to which he has just referred as being passed by your Lordships' House in a brief space of time, was almost identical to an order which your Lordships' House had passed in the previous Session, and I dare say that that goes some way to explain the length of time your Lordships thought fit to spend discussing it the second time it came here.

§ Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE
My Lords, that is absolutely true so far as the second measure is concerned, with one important difference, and that was that the other place had disagreed with your Lordships' House as to whether one should proceed by Affirmative or by Negative Resolution. I do not imagine the noble Lord will minimise the constitutional importance of that alteration.
Today, again, three orders are put down. This is only the first. There is an appropriation measure and an emergency powers measure. That is all I have to say about the handling of the Northern Irish business. Your Lordships may think that, to put it mildly, the way that it has been dealt with is, if I have represented the matter accurately, at the very least open to misconstruction in Northern Ireland.
As for the measure itself, I welcome it unreservedly. It is over 20 years since I was a Home Office Minister, but I can remember being impressed at the time by the way the shop hours legislation inhibited the small independent shopkeeper from offering a service to the public which could not be vouchsafed by the departmental and chain stores. I hope that this, like the English and Scottish legislation, represents a trend towards greater freedom in trading.

§ Lord MELCHETT
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his welcome to the order we are discussing. I must tell him, with respect, that he has not represented the picture accurately so far as the discussion of Northern Ireland legislation generally is concerned.

§ Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE
If the noble Lord intends to say that, my Lords, I hope he will make good his contention.

§ Lord MELCHETT
Certainly, my Lords, and I was intending to do that. The noble and learned Lord suggested there had been occasions when the discussion of Northern Ireland orders had been cut short; indeed, he used that phrase. So far as I am aware, during the time I have been responsible in your Lordships' House from this Bench for bringing 816 forward Northern Ireland orders, that has not been the case. Even when orders are put on during the dinner hour, as they were in the last Session, it is entirely a matter for the House to decide how long the discussion should go on and when it should be curtailed. It may be called the dinner hour, but the discussion which starts during that period may go on for as long as the House wishes, and if any discussion is brought to an end, it is brought to an end by the House and not by the Government or the Minister either in bringing forward an order at a particular time or in attempting, in the noble and learned Lord's words, to cut short the debate.
The noble and learned Lord and I have corresponded about his feelings on the debates on the Matrimonial Causes Order. I would only tell him that it is now in effect and has been widely welcomed in Northern Ireland. As for the two orders which the noble and learned Lord mentioned were debated on 23rd November, and indeed the Northern Ireland business today, I suggest that 4.15 p.m. in the afternoon, when we are discussing orders today, or 4.45 p.m., when we discussed orders on 23rd November, cannot really be described as bringing Northern Ireland orders forward late in the evening, again a phrase he used. There was as much time then, and there is this afternoon, available for discussion as the House wishes to use. There is no question of the discussion being cut short. I may do my best to facilitate your Lordships' House by introducing orders as briefly as I think is reasonable, but I am happy at any stage to answer any questions noble Lords may wish to raise on any orders I introduce.
As I attempted to explain in my intervention in the noble and learned Lord's remarks, I thought the discussion we had on the Rehabilitation of Offenders Order when it came before your Lordships' House for the second time covered the point which the noble and learned Lord made—indeed, the point I mentioned in my remarks—and which had been raised in another place, and of course all the orders we are discussing today and those we discussed on 23rd November had already been fully discussed in and passed by another place when we came to discuss them.
817 As has always been my practice with noble Lords who show an interest in Northern Ireland legislation, of whom there are some in this House, I am always willing and happy to discuss the orders in advance and to arrange for them to be brought at a time which is convenient for anybody who wishes to come here to discuss them. That has always been the Government's practice and will continue to be so.