§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, for the convenience of the House, I should like to make a Statement about the business to be taken next week. It will be a little difficult for your Lordships to follow and I apologise for having to read it but I shall read it as slowly as I can.
On Monday, we start with Starred Questions; then we have the Industry Bill (Money), Third Reading; Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill, Third Reading; Banking Bill, remaining stages; Estate Agents Bill, remaining stages. The following Bills are expected from the Commons and, if they come to this House, will be taken: Credit Unions Bill, Second Reading; Independent Broadcasting Authority Bill, Second Reading; Merchant Shipping Bill, Second Reading.
Motions for approval—White Fish Subsidy (Deep Sea Vessels) (Specified Ports) Scheme 1979; Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order 1979; Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) (Second Amendment) Order 1979.
Tuesday: Starred Questions. Arbitration Bill [H.L.], Consideration of Commons Amendments; Land Registration (Scotland) Bill [H.L.], Consideration of Commons Amendments; Credit Unions Bill, remaining stages; Independent Broadcasting Authority Bill, remaining stages; Crown Agents Bill, Second Reading; Consents to Prosecutions Bill, Second Reading; Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workmen's Compensation) Bill, Second Reading; Representation of the People Bill, all stages; Merchant Shipping Bill, remaining stages.
Wednesday: Starred Questions. Appropriation Bill, all stages; Finance Bill, all stages; Crown Agents Bill, remaining stages; Consents to Prosecutions Bill, remaining stages; Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workmen's Compensation) Bill, remaining stages; Appropriation Bill, all stages; Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Order in Council.
That is the business for next week and perhaps it might be convenient if I were to say now that, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Boston of Faversham will repeat a Statement, being 1680 made in another place on the Representation of the People Bill, at about 6 o'clock.
§ Lord CARRINGTONMy Lords, the House will be grateful to the Chief Whip for what she has said, but what she is advising the House to do is quite impossible and I have the very gravest doubts about its constitutional propriety. As I understand it, the noble Baroness is asking your Lordships' House to pass at least seven Bills in two days which have not even had a Second Reading in this House. They are by no means uncontentious. Some of them are uncontentious, but very long. One of them, for example, the Merchant Shipping Bill, has between 40 and 50 clauses and your Lordships are now being asked to pass a Bill of 40 to 50 clauses in two days.
We all know what happens when your Lordships' House does not do revision to legislation, and I really think it would be most unwise for this House merely to act as a rubber stamp in a situation of this kind on a Bill of this importance. Then, there are other Bills which the noble Baroness mentioned. There is the Leasehold Reform Bill, which is by no means uncontentious. As I understand it, the Leasehold Reform Bill seeks to upset a decision of this House sitting judicially. There is another Bill—the Weights and Measures Bill— about which a number of your Lordships will want to say something. I could go on.
It may be that there are some Bills among those mentioned by the Chief Whip which your Lordships could take, discuss very briefly and accept, but I really must ask the Government to think again because the proposals which the noble Baroness has put before your Lordships not only seem to be impossible owing to lack of time but are also unconstitutional if we do not bother to do our job properly.
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, if these Bills come to this House they will have been passed by another place. I understand that a great deal of this programme has been agreed there. I believe that we should think very carefully before actually turning down Bills which have passed through the other place. We are living through a most exceptional time; we all understand that noble Lords opposite wished to have the 1681 Election even earlier than we are having it. If that sort of situation arises, one can only proceed by agreement. We had hoped to have agreement in this House as we have had in the other House, and if we do not, then we must just try to get the business through as best we can.
§ Lord CARRINGTONMy Lords, the noble Baroness has totally misunderstood what I was saying. I am not saying that the House should reject Bills from the House of Commons. Of course we should not reject Bills unless there is a very particular reason why we should do so. We have not done so for years. What the noble Baroness is saying is the best argument for single Chamber Government that I have ever heard. She is saying that if a Bill has passed the House of Commons that is all right. What does it matter?—we can all accept it because if we do not, it will be a very bad thing indeed.
What I am saying is that none of these Bills is particularly urgent. If any Bill is urgent or very important, then by all means let us examine it and let us rush it through if it is necessary, but none of these Bills is urgent. They can all be done again in the next Parliament. They can start here. Good Lord!—there will not be much to do in your Lordships' House for the first few months of any new Parliament—
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOESpeak for yourself!
§ Lord CARRINGTON—whichever side gets in, and it is surely totally wrong to try to get this House to rubber-stamp Bills which we have not even looked at and which have not had a Second Reading, and to attempt to get them through in two days. It seems to me to be totally unconstitutional and wrong unless there is a real reason why we should do so. I really must ask the noble Baroness to think again.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, I should like to raise one point. I do not know whether the noble Baroness is aware that the Merchant Shipping Bill, to which she has referred, has been talked about for some considerable time and indeed, as she probably knows, Questions have been asked in your Lordships' House about it. 1682 I myself have asked Questions as to when the Bill was coming because I know that there are some contentious clauses in the Bill and the shipowners themselves are not too happy about it. On the other hand, what concerns me is that the National Union of Seamen, of which I happen to be a life member, is very anxious to have the Bill through as rapidly as possible. Can some arrangement be come to with the other side, to ensure that that Bill goes through? I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, might agree to that being done, even if something else which is not so contentious, or not so urgent, is set aside.
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I had always hoped that an arrangement could be come to with the other side, as has happened in another place. I am sure that we could come to agreement on particular clauses and probably there could he no difficulty about that. As the noble Lord knows, we have already been able to accommodate him on one of the other Bills and have given the full undertakings that he wanted. I do not see any difficulty if we are all reasonable about it.
I can only say that this is the business which the Government want to get through. The other House accepts Bills from this House without going through the whole process of all the stages, and nobody is going to say that they are rubber-stamping our Bills. This is an absolutely exceptional situation and I think the House generally expects co-operation from the Opposition. We look for it and if we do not get it the House will have to sit long and debate whatever business we have to put through.
§ Lord CARRINGTONMy Lords, I think the noble Baroness is being totally unreasonable about this. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, it is not for me to come to a decision as to what Bills can go through this House. It is for your Lordships to decide whether or not you want to discuss them. It is for the House to decide what is wanted. It is not for the Government to try to railroad all these Bills through the House if the House is not prepared to do it. 1683 I should be very grateful if the noble Baroness would be prepared to come and have a talk outside the Chamber with my noble friend the Chief Whip on this side of the House, with the Liberals—if Liberals there be—and with other Members of your Lordships' House, in an effort to find some sort of timetable which it is possible for us to accept and which is realistic.
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, the noble Lord knows quite well that we have had exhaustive talks. We have tried in every possible way to meet the Opposition. We are already meeting them in that we have changed our plans about having short debates on Second Reading at their request, and so on. We have been extremely reasonable. Of course, I shall always be willing to meet the noble Lord and the Opposition Chief Whip. But this is what we have to do; it is a quite exceptional situation. We shall have some debate on these Bills, and if noble Lords find that they are not acceptable they must accept the fact that they have thrown out Bills which the country, on the whole, wants.
§ Lord DENHAMMy Lords, we have been discussing through the usual channels, as we do on these occasions, the way that business can in the circumstances best be run next week. I think the noble Baroness will agree that the programme she has outlined was not agreed by our side of the House the last time we spoke.
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, I did not wish to imply that at all. I meant that it had been agreed at the other end.
§ Lord DENHAMMy Lords, it was not agreed at the other end either, my right honourable friends there tell me. My noble friend the Leader of the Opposition and I were told right at the last minute before we came into the Chamber exactly what terms the noble Baroness was going to announce this afternoon. What I would like to suggest—and I am sorry to impose such a thing on your Lordships—is that we have yet another adjournment during pleasure, so that we can discuss what the noble Baroness has suggested through the usual channels; we might 1684 possibly meet again in another half hour. In the meantime we might come to some agreement over this.
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEYes, my Lords; I hope I am always reasonable, and I am perfectly prepared to discuss this with the noble Lord. As he knows, I am not the one who presented a change of attitude at the very last minute. This has gone on, as I think everybody knows, for quite a considerable time today. I think I must make it quite clear that we must accept the business for Monday, because the House really must know where it is, but, with that proviso, I am perfectly willing to talk to both noble Lords, and make another Statement in half an hour.
Viscount BARRINGTONMy Lords, not for the first time, I find myself the only Member on the Liberal Benches. As it was said "if Liberals there be", I have to say as a third-ranking Liberal that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that if this House is a rubber stamp I do not want to be part of that stamp. If there had been more notice there would have been people present capable of putting the Liberal case in a way that I am not and do not pretend to be. I am quite sure that somebody will be here if this proposal is carried out and we meet again in half an hour's time. I have to say this, because I feel otherwise it would be unfair on the Liberal Party if it could be said that there was not one Member who thought that hereditary Peers who are not hereditary Liberals, or Liberal Peers who are not hereditary Peers, who would stand up for their right to vote with their feet or speak with their voices. Hansard may have difficulty in getting that right, but I feel I must say it.
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, I am sure that we all accept the noble Viscount as a very worthy representative of the Liberals in every sense, small "1" and large "L". I have consulted his Front Bench about the programme. They did know that there was to be a Business Statement, so I think we can assume that if they had wanted to come and object they would have done so.
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn 1685 during pleasure for half an hour until 6.15, to hear the Statement repeated by my noble friend Lord Boston of Faversham on the Representation of the People Bill.
§ Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
§ [The Sitting was suspended front 5.45 p.m. to 6.15 p.m.]
§ Lord CARRINGTONMy Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness can report any progress?
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEYes, my Lords. In accordance with the best traditions of this House, we have had discussions—reasonable discussions—and I think that the best thing for me to say at this juncture is that the business on Monday will be as I announced half-an-hour ago, with the exception of the Merchant Shipping Bill. The Second Reading of the Merchant Shipping Bill will be taken on Tuesday and the remaining stages later. I should also say that it may be necessary for me to make some further changes to the business that I have already announced, but for the moment Monday rests as it is without the Merchant Shipping Bill.
§ Lord CARRINGTONMy Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness. Perhaps for your Lordships' benefit I ought to make a few more comments. In the short time available, we have been through the legislation which the Government propose—that had not really been possible previously—and there are a number of Bills, it seems to me, which probably, with explanation, your Lordships could accept without too much debate, provided that your Lordships were prepared to do so. Some of them are totally uncontroversial. However, it seems to me that there are three Bills about which there is some doubt; namely, the Leasehold Reform Bill; the Weights and Measures Bill—a matter which your Lordships do not always find uncontroversial; and then there is the Merchant Shipping Bill consisting of some 40 to 50 clauses, and I must confess that I find it very difficult to understand how this House could take it in a day or two days. However, I think that the best thing we can do is to accept what the Government 1686 Chief Whip has said about the business on Monday, which is comparatively uncontroversial as has been agreed on both sides of the House, and discussions should continue further about the other three Bills.
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I am glad that he accepts that I was not being as unreasonable as he thought and that he accepts the simpler form of the business. We have discussed the Merchant Shipping Bill and we shall proceed in the way that I have indicated.
§ Lord ROBBINSMy Lords, I speak not on behalf of the Cross-Benches, but simply as a diligent observer of the procedure of this House. I am sure that every Member of the House is aware of the dedication of the noble Baroness and her success in arranging an agreeable procedure. However, on this particular occasion, I believe that someone should say that, in the interests of the House as a whole, the protest of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was right. This does not seem to me to be a party matter at all. It is a matter of the constitutional position of the House.
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, of course it is quite acceptable for the noble Lord to make his personal views known as such, but I do not think that I was being unreasonable. This is an entirely exceptional situation. The date of the Election has been agreed and the Queen has approved it. It went through this morning. I do not think that I was being unreasonable and I very much appreciate what the noble Lord said about my care for the House, which I think everyone knows is always present, as it is now.
Lord SPENSMy Lords, I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, has said. I am also a Cross-Bencher and during the adjournment of the House I went, first, to the Printed Paper Office to ask for copies of the Bills which we are supposed to pass next week. That office did not have a clue. I then went to the Government Whips Office and asked for some details. I was told that the matter was so secret that I 1687 could not be given anything. As Cross-Benchers, we do not have the backing that the major political Parties have in their offices. There is also an unofficial postal strike, and I am wondering whether any of us will receive any copies of these Bills before they are produced before this House. Without those copies, I do not see how we can proceed.
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, the business on Monday is the business which is already in this House, with the exception of some Bills which could not be in the Printed Paper Office because they will only come from the House of Commons tomorrow. Certainly those Bills which we have already discussed will be available, but those coming from the other House will not yet have been printed; they will be printed this weekend. I am sure that my office only said that the matter was secret—and I am not sure whether they used that actual word—because I was having discussions with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, the Opposition Chief Whip, the Chief Whip of the House of Commons, and they could say what the business was.
Viscount BARRINGTONMy Lords, for the record I want to make it clear that anything I said just now was not said from the Liberal Front Bench but was said on behalf of a part of the Liberal Party—a part, which every Party has—that is, the Back-Benchers. At one time we were allowed only two Benches for every 36 Peers, but we are now allowed three. However, it is not always the case that a Back-Bencher is present. I was expressing my personal view that in difficult circumstances this House has been treated in a rather cavalier fashion—perhaps that is the wrong word.
When we left the Chamber just now, I was handed a notice for Front Bench Members, which I was asked to pass on. I was unable to do so. It is a Statement and I shall read just one relevant sentence. It refers to the, no doubt, admirable proposals for fixing the Polling Day for the Election.
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, the noble Viscount has passed on to the next business. My 1688 noble friend Lord Boston of Faversham will make a Statement about the Representation of the People Bill as soon as I have sat down. I believe that that is what the noble Viscount was referring to.