§ 5 Schedule 14, page 77, line 10, after "Scotland" insert "(whether or not it also concerns directly or indirectly any other part of the United Kingdom)."
§ The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment but proposed the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
§ 6 Page 77, line 10, leave out (" concerning Scotland") and insert (" which concerns Scotland (whether or not it also concerns any' other part of the United Kingdom) but").
§ 3.53 p.m.
§ Lord McCLUSKEYMy Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 5, to which the Commons have disagreed, and agree with the Commons in their Amendment numbered 6 proposed in lieu thereof. Amendment No. 5 was moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, in order to bring the wording of the planning intervention provisions in Schedule 14 more closely into line with that for the general intervention provisions of Clause 36. The Government accepted the Amendment in principle, but subject to later adjustment as to its drafting. This adjustment is achieved by the Amendment in lieu proposed by the Commons, and I hope that your Lordships will accept it. I believe that the noble Viscount would certainly do so.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 5, to which the Commons have disagreed, and agree with the Commons in their Amendment numbered 6 proposed in lieu thereof.—(Lord McCluskey.)
Earl FERRERSMy Lords, the Commons Amendment which the noble and learned Lord has just moved, and invited us to agree with, is in lieu of one which, as he said, my noble friend Lord Colville moved earlier, and which the Government accepted in principle. My noble friend, who is unable to be here today, nevertheless knew that his drafting might not be wholly perfect and it therefore comes as no surprise to learn that the Government wish to alter it a little. We are grateful to the Government for having considered that Amendment, and for having altered it in the way in which they have, and we are of course happy to accept the Amendment in lieu.
With that last Amendment, or last Commons Reason, the Bill comes to the 958 end of its passage through Parliament. It will soon become an Act, and will then be presented to the people of Scotland for a referendum before it becomes operative. As this is the Bill's last debatable occasion, perhaps I may be permitted to make one or two observations—which, happily, the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, seemed to wish for—and also to ask him a question. Perhaps he did not wish for that, but at least he anticipated it. I hope that I shall not "needle" him, because that is the last thing I would wish to do on an occasion like this, although I thought I detected a sense of "needle" when he replied to my noble friend. So I hope that that will be absent.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has always done his best to be helpful, despite his understandable ministerial constraints, and I should like to ask him one last question. It is one which is of huge interest to all of us, and particularly to the people of Scotland to whom this Bill is directed, and it becomes even more important as the first shots appear to have been fired in the run-up to a General Election. The question is simply this. When do the Government intend to hold the referendum? Will it be this autumn or will it be in the spring, and will it be before the General Election? If there is to be a General Election in the autumn, will the referendum be held before it or after it?
I realise that much depends on the date of the General Election. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, could give us that information, too, I am sure that it would be very helpful. But I doubt whether even the noble and learned Lord's magnaminity would extend so far, even if his knowledge did; and, if it did, it would doubtless cost him his ministerial office. But that would merely be preempting what will be to him, and indeed to us, a disagreeable experience anyhow. As the next stage of implementing this considerable constitutional upheaval is a referendum, obviously everyone wants to know what the Government have in mind. Clearly, the Government must have an opinion and, if the noble and learned Lord is coy about giving firm dates, then an indication of an anticipated time, allowing for certain eventualities, might be helpful.
We all of us have our own views as to the merits of this Bill and I do not propose 959 to rehearse mine again, other than to say that I doubt whether historians will invite future generations to glory in the day when the Bill received the Royal Assent. There are still too many flaws in the Bill, too many omissions and too many innovations which will allow the future course of events to unroll in ways which many of us would not wish, in ways which we cannot at present begin to visualise and, which, if we could so visualise them, we would wish to prevent. But that is past.
We have done our best in Parliament, and your Lordships' House, as I venture to suggest, carried out its role and its duty—and it is a duty—as a revising Chamber, properly and constitutionally, and the Bill has emerged as an infinitely better Bill because of your Lordships' work. We have considered all the clauses of the Bill, and amended the Bill where we thought it appropriate. Those Amendments we have sent to another place for their consideration. They have approved some and rejected others. There has been no confrontation between the two Houses. When another place has not felt minded to agree to your Lordships' views, then your Lordships have not exercised your right to insist.
Therefore, if some people are tempted to say that it is the unelected House of Lords which has altered the Bill, let them reflect that what is in the Bill is nothing more and nothing less than that which has had the approval of the House of Commons. They might also reflect that had it not been for a second Chamber making suggestions to which the Commons have agreed, the Bill might be very different from what it now is. The mere existence of your Lordships' House, irrespective of powers or composition, has given time for the Government and others to reflect and think again, and even to change their mind. That is good and that is our purpose.
Not everyone would realise that of the 239 Amendments made to the Bill in your Lordships' House, no less than 170 were agreed to by another place; of the 239 Amendments made by your Lordships, 96 were made by the Government to their own Bill in this House, and a further 46 I Amendments were Government concessions to arguments and representations which were made by your Lordships. 960 How would that have been possible without a second Chamber? The remaining 97 Amendments were put forward from other parts of your Lordships' House.
So much for the Amendments. If we consider the issues to which the Amendments referred, we find that the Government made 23 substantive concessions when the Bill was in your Lordships' House. In addition, your Lordships decided by vote—admittedly against Government advice—to send a further 29 issues of substance to another place to consider. Of those 29 issues, the Government accepted eight in another place which they had rejected here. While we all appreciate the wisdom of an open mind and the ability to change it, we cannot help but reflect that it would have been so much easier and might have saved a lot of time if the Government had been prepared to make such a change of mind earlier. However, we are happy that the Government made the change of mind when they did.
In addition to those eight issues which the Government accepted in another place, another place decided to accept a further change which your Lordships suggested— against Government advice—and this was on abortion. Yesterday, another place accepted by vote—but not by a free vote and against Government advice—a further two Amendments on forestry and the "West Lothian question". Therefore, of the 29 issues which your Lordships sent to another place, another place accepted 11.
No one can say—and here I agree with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy—that your Lordships' time and effort have been wasted and that your Lordships have not carried out your role and duty as a revising Chamber. May I re-emphasise what my noble friend said: that not one change to this Bill was made against Government advice which was not a decision of the House of Commons.
The most significant of all the changes which another place accepted was on the "West Lothian question", to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has already cursorily referred. If it had not been for the mere fact of the existence of your Lordships' House, with its different rules and procedures, such an Amendment—which another place showed that they wanted to be made, even though I 961 accept that the Government did not, for reasons which they have frequently explained—could not have been made, because the rules of scope in another place prevented them from putting down such an Amendment when the Bill was with them. Yet our rules of procedure permitted us to do so and, having done so, enabled another place to discuss the problem and, as they did yesterday, to accept the Amendment.
As the Bill concludes its Parliamentary passage, I hope that it will not he considered immodest to recognise and record the fact that your Lordships' House has played a significant part in shaping and improving it. Yet there are those who perpetually castigate your Lordships' House. Of course, we all accept that your Lordships' House has always been a good whipping boy, but there are now those—and they are an influential lot—who are hoping to get the abolition of the House of Lords accepted as part of the Labour Party's Manifesto in the forthcoming General Election.
Of course, the Party opposite must seek to do what they think best to secure their return to Government, and I would hesitate to comment on their domestic issues. However, being a helpful sort of fellow, I wonder whether I might be permitted to give a little bit of advice to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey—or, perhaps, to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, because he carries even more weight than the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey; and his is considerable. If I do this, I do so, as it were, on my knees—in a stance not of supplication but of humility.
It is that the setting up of Assemblies in Scotland and Wales is constitutional upheaval enough for the body politic to assimilate at any one time. To follow this, hotfoot, with the permanent abolition of one of our two Chambers of Parliament at Westminster will commend itself to very, very few people indeed. There are not many votes there. Although the House of Lords does not always find itself in the forefront of news, the public as a whole are pretty discriminating in realising that the work of the House of Lords is today, probably more than ever before, a valuable contribution to our Parliamentary 962 processes and that it has never worked harder, more conscientiously, or more effectively than it does now. It probably stands higher now in the public's esteem than it did at any time in history.
My respectful and humble advice to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is that, when discussing with his colleagues whether to put the abolition of the House of Lords into the Labour Party's Manifesto, he should say, "Don't touch it with a barge pole. It won't do you any good".
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, may I be forgiven for saying just a word or two, in a sense reinforcing the words of my noble friend but from a rather different point of view. When the autumn comes, I shall have been a Member of Parliament, in one House or the other, continuously for 40 years. In the nature of things, obviously I cannot look forward to very many more years of useful life, but I have become increasingly disturbed and worried about the whole legislative process in this country. I am not making a Party point and I am not really discussing, although there are implications, the relative roles of the two Houses of Parliament. However, every Government of which I have been a Member, or which I have seen from the Opposition Benches, has made use of the guillotine to an increasing degree.
The whole system of legislation which the Government—and before it Great Britain, and before it England—have depended upon over so many centuries has been predicated upon the supposition that every line and every section of every Bill should receive some discussion and opportunity for amendment in each of the two Houses of Parliament. That is the supposition upon which we act today. We have had the Scotland Bill, which we are now discussing. We have had the Wales Bill, which was discussed on Second Reading to some extent from this point of view by my noble friend Lord Elton. We had the Industrial Relations Bill when we were in Office. We had the European Communities Bill when we were in Office. They were all very important Bills.
I could go on enumerating the Bills which I have played some part in or listened to the discussions on during the 963 last 40 years. Nearly all of the most important Bills have been guillotined, which means that to an increasing extent their details have never been discussed line by line or section by section in both !louses of Parliament. If we were to create a situation in this country in which we had a unicameral Legislature, whether it was elected or non-elected, the effect would be not less work for that Legislature; the effect would be more work for that unicameral Legislature. The use of the guillotine would not be less; it would be more. The whole idea upon which our legislation has succeeded in establishing a free Legislature in this country for over 700 years would, in fact, be destroyed if that were done. I do beg Members of another place and, indeed, of this place, to remember that you cannot abolish this House without replacing it, unless you destroy the system upon which the freedom of England, of Great Britain and of the United Kingdom has been founded for 700 years.
§ 4.9 p.m.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, I was not aware that it was the intention, in what might be regarded as the concluding chapter of this controversy, to embark upon a discussion about what should or should not appear in the Labour Party's Election Manifesto. If I had known that this was the intention, I should have asked my speech writer to prepare a rational analysis of the situation and, of course, offer some conclusion. But my speech writer was not available; every summer he goes to the Riviera, while I have to content myself with a modest visit to Southend. However, I must say that in what is the concluding or the twilight performance—who can tell?—before next Wednesday when we rise for the Recess, somebody from another place, or somebody in your Lordships' House, may find some rational reason why reference should be made to the Scottish devolution Bill, and we shall then be back again to square one.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, usually indulges—and I enjoy it every time—in a philosophical treatise. I am bound to say, though I do not want to make too much of it, that I am inclined to follow him in his philosophical views. What he 964 has said about his disappointment with the legislative process is welcome to my ears. I go perhaps a little further than he does. I was in another place before he made his entry. He was rather more successful than I was. But in fact whenever I arrived and listened, particularly to the products of the high scholastic institutions, I was convinced that the legislative process was doomed to disappointment; that in the long run it would be discovered that it required substantial emendation, and indeed that much of' it should be thrown into the dustbin anyhow. That was my opinion, because, after all—I content myself with what seems to be the most reasonable argument in support of my contention—look at the results; vast unemployment, inflation to the highest possible degree and no likelihood of an early solution, all kinds of problems; every day we hear about them in your Lordships' House. We get the same type of questions and the same type of answers. There we are. So I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, was justified in expressing some disappointment—I would not say disgust; I would not take it as far as that—with the legislative process. Sooner or later it has got to be reconstructed, restructured; let that he understood.
Let us dismiss the Election Manifesto for the time being. We will come to it in due course and we shall have our say. There will be no consensus; there will he adequate confrontation, and let the best man win. Perhaps I ought not to confine it to one sex, but I was using a familiar phrase: let the best man win. Let us leave it at that. I hope it is not regarded as a political allusion, and if it is so regarded by Mrs. Thatcher I offer my apology at once; that was not my intention.
I want to come now to what I think is the proper course towards the end of the performance. The principal actors have bowed their acknowledgments—the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who has played a very active part in the course of the play; the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has rendered noble assistance, and there have been many others. But I want to convey my congratulations, strange as it may seem, to my noble and learned friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland—and I mean what I say—who has piloted this Bill with remarkable skill; 965 there can be no question about it. Sometimes I have thought—perhaps it was a misunderstanding on my part—that he was a little too ministerial, particularly when I ventured to intervene in the course of the debates. But he always adopted the right course for a Minister: that is, in replying to a discussion in which several Members have played their part always to leave out the name of the one you dislike; mention everybody else, the noble Lord, Lord So-and-;So, the noble Earl, Lord So-and-So, the noble Viscount, Lord So-and-So, but do not mention the name of the other one, because that is how to snub him. I used to play that game myself, so therefore I know what is done. But leaving that aside, there can be no question about it that the skill deployed by my noble and learned friend is worthy of our acknowledgments.
He was assisted by a somewhat less ministerial but capable colleague, my noble friend Lord Kirkhill. There was a difference. The Solicitor-General was a little too legalistic—anyway, of course, I could not understand the language very often; I am a Doctor of Laws but that does not mean I know anything about the subject. My noble friend Lord Kirkhill I could understand clearly; there was clarity in what he said, although I frequently disagreed with him. Anyway, I offer my acknowledgments.
Now I go even further still before I sit down. There can be no question that the Members of the House of Lords have played their part in this performance and have done their duty. Their actions have been justified. It is not a question of how many Amendments have been accepted by another place. But as long as your Lordships' House exists the Members are entitled to justify their existence by intervening in debates, by initiating debates on various topics of the utmost national and international importance. As to when this place is going to be abolished, I wonder. I have held the view for many long years that the Labour Party—of which I have been a Member since the year 1903; and that is a long time ago—always must have a grievance. What better grievance than the House of Lords?
What they are going to replace it with, I do not know. I want it to go on; I 966 want the House of Lords to go on. There might be some reduction in the numbers on the other side of the House. I think even my noble friend Lord Carrington—I say that because in private we are quite friendly; we agree rather than disagree about some things—has declared in your Lordships' House that there might be a reduction in the number of Members on the Conservative side, in order to escape from the imbalance that exists, which perhaps causes more trouble and more controversy than the existence of your Lordships' House itself. Anyway, it will not matter very much to me. Of course, if a Conservative Government comes in we have got to put up with this place—what can we do?—but perhaps with some restructuring. However, if a Labour Government should come in, I understand that they do not intend to implement what is to appear in the Manifesto about the abolition of the House of Lords until the 1980s. So I shall escape. I shall not he here. Those who have been siding with me all these years will discover their mistake. It simply cannot be done. In fact, I shall not resign. I shall disappear, as will most of the others. They will accompany me. Where we are going I am not sure. I wish I knew.
What are we trying to do? Are we trying to have another confrontation at the end of the day? I beg the Members of your Lordships' House to do nothing of the kind. Skill has been deployed on both sides of the House. Many Members of your Lordships' House have been rational in their observations. What has been done has been done in the best interests of a United Kingdom. After all, that is the primary consideration. Let us stand by that. Let us be proud that we were privileged to take part in this performance.
§ 4.21 p.m.
§ Lord POLWARTHMy Lords, perhaps it would not be out of order for a Back-Bencher on this side of the House to say one word before the final question is put. May I, as a former occupant of the seat now held by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, opposite, simply associate probably most Back-Benchers on all sides of the House with what the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, said about the Government team's handling of this measure, and especially the 967 extraordinary skill and good humour of the noble Lord, Lord McCluskey, when faced with such complexity? If ever justification was needed for the proposition which I urged for long but did not succeed in bringing about—that the Government team should enjoy the presence of a noble and learned Scottish Lord to back up the humble efforts of lay Ministers of State such as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, and myself—surely the proof has been in the handling of this Bill. I hope that this innovation will be continued by Governments of any shade in this place.
Secondly, it would be unfair if we did not all recognise the assiduity, the stamina and the good humour with which my noble friend Lord Ferrers—good Englishman that he is—has carried the heat and burden of the day on this side of the House. I hope that the House will agree with those proportions.
§ 4.24 p.m.
§ Lord BANKSMy Lords, in supporting acceptance of the Amendment in lieu, perhaps I may be allowed briefly to say on behalf of my noble friends that we made it clear at the outset that we supported this Bill, although we should have liked to see it go very much further. We wanted a federal solution. I do not know that we have come much nearer to the ideal which we have in the course of the debates in both Houses. Nevertheless, we recognise the important part played by this House in the consideration of this Bill.
We join fully in the tributes paid in particular to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and to others who have been concerned with the explanation and advocacy of this measure in this House. Whatever reservations we may have about the Bill—wishing it had gone further than it has—we nevertheless hope that it will in due course receive the approval of the people of Scotland.
Lord MCLUSKEYMy Lords, it would be appropriate for me to mention by name at least one noble Lord, my noble friend Lord Shinwell. I hope that others will excuse me if I do not mention all the names. I acknowledge what my noble friend and others said about the role played by the Government Ministers, not just by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill and myself, but by the noble and learned 968 Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, without whom we would not have got where we did.
On the general matters that have been discussed—the Manifesto and the House of Lords—it would be inappropriate for me, as a Government Minister and a junior Member of this House, to enter into the wider debate. However, I should like to acknowledge the good humour, the kindness and the quality of the debate in the House which has made such an impact on the discussion of this Bill.
Let me turn to matters which are within my domain. First, I refer to the date of the General Election. I do not see why the House should be kept in suspense on this matter. I have this to say. There will certainly be a General Election in October 1979 or earlier. As to the date of the referendum, I have to be rather more circumspect. In relation to that, I have to say this. As the House knows, there have to be two orders made. They cannot be made before the Recess. It is not practicable to do so. Draft orders need to be considered by the Special Orders Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which has to report on them. That cannot be initiated until after the Royal Assent has been received. The Government have constantly reiterated their intention of ensuring that both referendums are held as soon as practicable. The first practicable date would, I suppose, be in the autumn. But that is a matter for Parliament to decide. As to the intervening of a General Election, subject to what I have said before, that is a somewhat hypothetical question. Parliament may run until October 1979. I do not think that I should address myself further to that.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.