§ Baroness BIRKMy Lords, before we go into the Third Reading, I must raise with the House—
§ Lord SOAMESMy Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness would forgive me. I have a statement to make first on this subject.
I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Housing Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interest, so far as they are concerned on behalf of the Crown, the 879 Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Lord Bellwin)My Lords, I beg to move that the Housing Bill be now read a third time.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Bellwin.)
§ Baroness BIRKMy Lords, may I first apologise to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for being so precipitate? I have just heard from the other place that at Question Time the Minister for Housing has said that the Government intend to reject the Lord's amendment excluding old people's dwellings from the right to buy. We have not yet had the Third Reading of the Bill in this House. The Bill has not yet been passed, and yet we have this behaviour on the part of the Government in another place which is an absolute insult to this House.
The amendment to which I am referring —noble Lords will, I am sure, remember well—was passed by a majority of 35 in this House on Report stage. The voting was 109 to 74. This included people from all sides of the House: from the Government Benches, the Cross-Benches, the Liberal Benches and the Opposition. It seems to me absolutely disgraceful that, before the Bill has even been through this House, this should have occured in another place.
We have spent hours and hours and hours on this Bill, and indeed I had intended to say at a later stage that I thought that this Bill had been improved in this House. But how are we, as a House, as one of the legislative Chambers of this country, to be able to proceed when we are treated in this way? I do not think that this is a party matter. I think this concerns the whole dignity of the House.
§ Lord BYERSMy Lords, I wonder whether we are going to hear from the Government whether what the noble Baroness has said is to be confirmed? If 880 it is to be confirmed, many of us in all quarters of the House will regard this as a Parliamentary outrage of the first order.
§ Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLSMy Lords, is it in order for this House to castigate another place in such terms on pure hearsay? The noble Baroness said that she had heard. What was her source? Ought we not to subdue our prejudices until we see in print what has actually been said? Is the noble Baroness suggesting that in another place when the Minister is asked a question on a specific subject he must not give an answer because it may upset the prejudices that she has expressed in the way she has castigated the other place? I believe that a little bit of reticence, and finding out exactly what happened and why, would have been more becoming if we are part of a Parliament that can work as a two-Chamber system.
§ Baroness BIRKMy Lords, I was not castigating another place. I was castigating the Government. My source is a Member of the Front Bench, the Shadow Minister for Housing for the Opposition, who sent me this note. We have already asked whether it is so. To say that we cannot castigate the Government for behaving in this way is, I would say with great respect, absolute nonsense. This Bill has not been through this House. It has not yet been finished in this House. If the Minister is asked a question, there is a form of words that is not unknown, which is, "It would be inappropriate for me to comment at this stage as the Bill has not yet proceeded through the other place".
§ 3.20 p.m.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lady Birk because, speaking personally—nobody can challenge this and I am sorry to intrude with a personal note—when there has been debate and controversy in political circles and throughout the country, I have defended the existence of your Lordships' House. When the Housing Bill was going through its various stages I seldom intervened; I think it unwise to speak on subjects about which one knows nothing, although I must at the same time observe that often one can make an eloquent and pragmatic speech on a subject about 881 which one is completely ignorant. On this issue, however—I may be corrected in this observation—the Government in this House were defeated not only by the votes of noble Lords on this side but by the attitude of some Members on the Benches opposite.
I can understand those in another place seeking to offend this noble institution. They have been doing that for more than 100 years with no great success; whether they will be successful in the future is a matter of conjecture and high speculation. But when it comes to the other place ignoring not only the Opposition but Members of the Government party, then we are faced with a quite remarkable situation, and in those circumstances I suggest we do not now proceed with the Third Reading of the Bill. It would be not only inappropriate but, with such knowledge as I possess of the subject based on long experience, almost unconstitutional, and we must not embark on an adventure like that because that would be going a bit too far.
If on this occasion the Government take a pragmatic and objective view—I could add even a humanitarian view but it may be difficult for them to undertake a task of that kind, though I am ready to accord that sentiment to them—I suggest they should do what my noble friend suggested. As for the remarks of my erstwhile, now noble, friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, I would not have expected him to say anything other than what he did say. He simply cannot help himself; he has to be on one side or the other, but usually on both, so I suggest we completely ignore his intervention.
I have an appeal to make to the noble Lord the Leader of the House, and, after all, in doing that I am appealing to somebody who can speak and act with authority. In his absence, perhaps there is some other noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite who will heed this appeal.
§ Lord SHINWELLSo he is, my Lords, and I see him edging himself along to the end of the Bench, for what reason I do not know. Why he should indulge in a geographical change of that kind I cannot imagine. Be that as it 882 may, I make an appeal to him as a person who is really objective; he always was objective and that was probably the reason why he was not in many Governments with less ability than he has himself, but I must not make too much heavy weather about that. I appeal to him to accept the suggestion, at any rate until tomorrow, that we should not proceed with the Third Reading of the Bill. Otherwise, what will be the position We shall make a laughing-stock of ourselves. The Government were defeated, and what a hullabaloo there was in the press about that! What a remarkable innovation that the Government should be defeated! Actually, I took no part in it; I conveniently absented myself, although that is by the way.
We now have an opportunity for your Lordships' House to assert itself. We can say to the other place, "It is all very well lambasting and criticising us, running us down and saying nasty things about us, and it is all right for some sections of the press and media to supplement those opinions of us, but we are an independent institution". Are we or are we not? We are, my Lords. But if we were to forsake our independence and throw it in the dustbin because certain people in another place, for some unearthly reason of which I do not have the faintest idea, decide to reject what we have decided, then that is going a bit too far.
Do not force some of us who have stood absolutely firmly, even theatrically and dramatically, by your Lordships' House to change our minds. It may not go well with you, my Lords, if some of us were to support those who want to abolish this House. It cannot be reformed. It could be abolished, and I am against the abolition of your Lordships' House. I want it continued, and although I may not be here for all that much longer, while I am here I want to enjoy being a Member of this House and be proud of the fact, as I am sure all noble Lords are equally proud. If so, show your pride today and tell the other place to go and jump in the lake.
I had better conclude, but I have one further comment to make.
§ Lord PEARTMy Lords, I suggest—
§ Lord SHINWELLJust a last word, my Lords?
§ Several noble Lords: Order!
§ Lord PEARTI urge my noble friend—
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, my final comment is this: do not talk about the abolition of your Lordships' House. Talk about the abolition of the other place.
§ Lord PEARTMy Lords, I interrupt my noble and dear friend Lord Shinwell simply to say that I should like the Lord President to make a statement about this matter. Lord Shinwell made an important point and he knows that I always respect his judgment very much. Nevertheless, I should like to know what the Government are doing and intend to do. I urge the noble Lord, Lord Soames, for whom I have great respect, to make a statement now so that we may see where we are going.
§ 3.28 p.m.
§ Lord SOAMESMy Lords, I do not think any of us, including the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell—I am sure it is the last thing he would want to do—would wish to push anything too far, as he mentioned in his intervention. I really do not know what happened in another place. There was no intention of making any announcement, so if there was any discourtesy it was certainly an unintentional discourtesy. Those of us who know the rules of order of another place will appreciate that at 3.15 it is Question Time. There was certainly no original Answer to any Question which was intended to give such a reply. What exactly was said in the reply which I imagine was passed to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, I am afraid I do not know. I do not know what was said, but it would have been said in answer to a supplementary. I am sure no discourtesy was intended to this House and I am also sure that no statement has been made on what the Government intend to do in another place, which presumably they will decide when the moment comes. I would suggest that this is not in any way a wilful indiscretion or incivility from one House to another. If it is, I am sure the Government would share my regret.
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, since there is some confusion about what was actually said, and since our information is that the Government said that they intended to reject the Lords' amendment, can I ask the noble Lord the Chief Whip whether we should not suspend the sitting of the House for a quarter of an hour until we have heard what the Government said? lf, indeed, they did say what it is reported they said, it surely calls into question how and in what form we debate the Third Reading of a Bill which has not been through this House but a bit of which has been prematurely rejected in the other place.
§ Lord DENHAMMy Lords, I understand that my honourable friend in another place, in answering Questions, as my noble friend the Leader of the House has said, answered a supplementary question about the Government's intentions with regard to certain provisions in the Housing Bill. I understand—and it is quite impossible to know what, in fact, he did say until we have seen the Official Report tommorrow—that he indicated in some way that he was not, whether at that moment, or how, I will not know until I have seen it, prepared to agree on the first four amendments but was prepared to accept the fifth. How this was put, and whether it was put in a manner that was discourteous to this House, I do not know. I am sure that if any discourtesy could be taken to have occurred, it would be regretted by everybody.
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, then I think we really must ask for a suspension until we find out what was said. The noble Lord clearly does not know what was said. We shall soon know, after the end of Questions, and if necessary I think we must ask the House to decide.
§ Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
§ Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLSMy Lords, a mis-statement has been made. The Government are not in a position to turn down the amendments that your Lordships' House put in the Bill. The Government cannot do that. Parliament can do it. Are the noble Lords opposite suggesting that the Members of the 885 elected Parliament, who constitute another place, are not in a position, in the time that we give to them, to make their own decisions in their own way? Would it not be wiser to wait until we see what has been said before we take precipitate action such as is being suggested?
§ Lord SOAMESMy Lords, I wonder whether I could help to clear this up? Of course, it would be a matter for regret if any slip of the tongue appeared to be a matter of discourtesy, but certainly we are talking about no more than that.
§ Lord SOAMESHad this not arisen, the Bill would have gone from this House to another place, and at the proper time the Government would have announced their intentions, of which this House is not yet aware. They would have announced them when it got to another place. It is my belief—I cannot be sure because I was not there; but I do not think that is necessary—that nothing has been said which could be construed as being more than a discourtesy, and certainly nothing which would warrant the postponement of this Bill being given a Third Reading in this House.
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, if it is only a discourtesy, then we accept it; but I think the whole House wishes to know what actually happened. This is why, with, I think, the support of most parts of the House, I should like to move a temporary suspension during pleasure while we find out what was actually said. After that, we can find out where we go from there. So I think at this point—
§ The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone)Does the noble Baroness beg to move?
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, I do beg to move, and was about to beg to move, that we divide on the Question, Whether the House should be suspended during pleasure until we have heard what happened in another place.
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMay I take it that the noble Baroness has moved that the sitting of the House be suspended during pleasure? The Question is that the sitting of the House be suspended during pleasure.
§ Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLSMy Lords—
§ The LORD CHANCELLORNo; I have not put the Question yet. The Question is that the sitting of the House be suspended during pleasure.
§ Lord BYERSMy Lords, on this new Motion I really do think that we must make a protest, because it is not just a matter of discourtesy. It is a question of knowing what the intentions of the Government are going to be. So far as the Third Reading of this Bill in this House is concerned, we ought to be aware of what their intentions are in another place. I think it is very important that we should divide the House on this Motion to suspend the sitting of the House during pleasure.
§ Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLSMy Lords, I hope the House will not make itself look ridiculous by reacting in that way to what is still hearsay evidence. We have got on our Order Paper today a bidding to be here to give a Third Reading to this Bill. What we do on the Third Reading can have no effect on the powers that another place has got when the Bill goes there. But I believe that to react in this way to what, as I say, is a third-hand account of what is supposed to have been said, undermines the dignity and the standing of this House. I believe that we ought to ignore such things and get on with our business. There is nothing that we can do today which can interfere with another place using their powers when the Bill eventually goes back to them. If I may be allowed to say so—I know it may not be happily accepted on the other side of this House—I believe that this is something of a manoeuvre. I believe that—
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw.
§ Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLSMy Lords, I am not giving way.
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw.
§ Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLSMy Lords, I am not giving way.
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw now.
§ Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLSNo, my Lords. I am not giving way.
§ Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLSI certainly shall not withdraw.
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEAs the Leader of the House stood up, I sat down, but I shall not sit down now.
§ Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLSThere is no one who has any power to make me withdraw something that I believe is a fact.
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, I call on the Leader to ask the noble Lord to withdraw.
§ Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLSI did not give way to the noble Baroness. I believe that making a mountain out of this molehill is part of a manoeuvre, and I believe that we ought to resist it.
§ Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLSMy Lords, I believe it interferes with the dignity of this House, and I would ask noble Lords to vote against the Motion that has been put to us and to retain our independence in that way.
§ Lord SOAMESMy Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend would allow me to say that it looks as if the wish of the House is that it should divide on this matter. I should just like to point out that there is, in effect, no way by which we can discover the exact words used in another place until tomorrow, until we see the Official Report.
§ Lord SOAMESThere is no other way in which we could find it out. This Motion has been put to the House by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. In reply to the noble Baroness, I would say that we are absolutely convinced that we know enough about it to know that no statement has been made which could affect this House in any way, except in so far as it might have been a discourtesy. And I have already told noble Lords that if it be a discourtesy the Government will, of course, regret it.
§ Baroness BIRKMy Lords, just before we vote, I really must make a protest about what the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said about this being a manoeuvre. I think that is quite disgraceful. What happened was exactly as we said. In fact, there was not even time for me to tell the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, as I would have done out of courtesy. I had a note saying that John Stanley had said at Question Time that the Government intended to reject the Lords' amendment excluding old people's dwellings from the right to buy. It was on that that I proceeded. I take very great exception to the noble Lord saying that it was a manoeuvre. I was absolutely prepared to come along with the Third Reading. I ask the noble Lord to have the courtesy and decency to withdraw, but if he is not to withdraw, I should rather not be subjected to another speech.
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, the Question is that the House do adjourn during pleasure. That is the correct Question.
§ 3.41 p.m.
§ On Question, Whether the House do adjourn during pleasure.
889§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 121; Not-Contents, 107.
891| CONTENTS | ||
| Amherst, E. | Foot, L. | Pargiter, L. |
| Ampthill, L. | Gaitskell, B. | Parry, L. |
| Amulree, L. | Galpern, L. | Peart, L. |
| Ardwick, L. | Gladwyn, L. | Phillips, B. |
| Aylestone, L. | Gordon-Walker, L. | Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.] |
| Bacon, B. | Goronwy-Roberts, L. | |
| Baker, L. | Gosford, E. | Pritchard, L. |
| Balogh, L. | Granville of Eye, L. | Raglan, L. |
| Banks, L. | Gregson, L. | Rathcreedan, L. |
| Beswick, L. | Grey, E. | Reilly, L. |
| Birk, B. | Grey of Naunton, L. | Rhodes, L. |
| Blease, L. | Hale, L. | Ritchie of Dundee, L. |
| Blyton, L. | Hall, V. | Rochester, L. |
| Boston of Faversham, L. | Hampton, L. | Ross of Marnock, L. |
| Bourne, L. | Hanworth, V. | Seear, B. |
| Bowden, L. | Hatch of Lusby, L. | Seebohm, L. |
| Boyle of Handsworth, L. | Hayter, L. | Shackleton, L. |
| Broadbridge, L. | Henderson, L. | Shinwell, L. |
| Brock, L. | Hughes, L. | Simon, V. |
| Brockway, L. | Irving of Dartford, L. | Spens, L. |
| Brooks of Tremorfa, L. | Jacques, L. | Stamp, L. |
| Bruce of Donington, L. | Janner, L. | Stedman, B. |
| Burton of Coventry, B. | Jeger, B. | Stewart of Alvechurch, B. |
| Byers, L. | Kilmarnock, L. | Stewart of Fulham, L. |
| Caradon, L. | Leatherland, L. | Stone, L. |
| Chitnis, L. | Lee of Newton, L. | Strabolgi, L. |
| Clancarty, E. | Leonard, L. | Strauss, L. |
| Clifford of Chudleigh, L. | Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.] | Taylor of Blackburn, L. |
| Coggan, L. | Taylor of Gryfe, L. | |
| Collison, L. | Lloyd of Hampstead, L. | Taylor of Mansfield, L. |
| Cooper of Stockton Heath, L. | Mackie of Benshie, L. | Underhill, L. |
| Craigavon, V. | McNair, L. | Wall, L. |
| Crowther-Hunt, L. | Maelor, L. | Wallace of Coslany, L. |
| David, B. | Melchett, L. | Walston, L. |
| Davies of Leek, L. | Milford, L. | Wedderburn of Charlton, L. |
| Davies of Penrhys, L. | Milverton, L. | Wells-Pestell, L. |
| Diamond, L. | Monson, L. | White, B. |
| Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. | Northfield, L. | Wilson of Radcliffe, L. |
| Elwyn-Jones, L. | Nunburnholme, L. | Wynne-Jones, L. |
| Evans of Claughton, L. | Oram, L. | Zuckerman, L. |
| Fisher of Rednal, B. | Paget of Norghampton, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS | ||
| Ailesbury, M. | Dudley, B. | Home of the Hirsel, L. |
| Alexander of Tunis, E. | Dundee, E. | Hornsby-Smith, B. |
| Allerton, L. | Ebbisham, L. | Hylton-Foster, B. |
| Avon, E. | Eccles, V. | Ilchester, E. |
| Balerno, L. | Effingham, E. | Inglewood, L. |
| Balfour of Burleigh, L. | Ellenborough, L. | Ironside, L. |
| Barnby, L. | Elliot of Harwood, B. | Kemsley, V. |
| Beaumont of Whitley, L. | Elton, L. | Killearn, L. |
| Bellwin, L. | Fairfax of Cameron, L. | Kilmany, L. |
| Belstead, L. | Faithful, B. | Kimberley, E. |
| Berkeley, B. | Falkland, V. | Kinloss, Ly. |
| Bessborough, E. | Forbes, L. | Kinnaird, L. |
| Bethell, L. | Fortescue, E. | Kinross, L. |
| Boyd of Merton, V. | Gage, V. | Lauderdale, E. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, L. | Geddes, L. | Lindsey and Abingdon, E. |
| Caithness, E. | Godber of Willington, L. | Long, V. |
| Campbell of Croy, L. | Gowrie, E. | Luke, L. |
| Clitheroe, L. | Gray, L. | Lyell, L. |
| Cottesloe, L. | Gridley, L. | McAlpine of Moffat, L. |
| Cullen of Ashbourne, L. | Haig, E. | McFadzean, L. |
| Daventry, V. | Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.(Chancellor.) | Mackay of Clashfern, L. |
| De Freyne, L. | Macleod of Borve, B. | |
| Denham, L. [Teller.] | Harmar-Nicholls, L. | Malmesbury, E. |
| Derwent, L. | Hertford, M. | Mansfield, E. |
| Digby, L. | Hill of Luton, L. | Margadale, L. |
| Drumalbyn, L. | Hillingdon, L. | Marley, L. |
| Middleton, L. | Rochdale, V. | Strathclyde, L. |
| Mills, V. | St. Davids, V. | Strathspey, L. |
| Mowbray and Stourton, L. | Sandford, L. | Sudeley, L. |
| Murton of Lindisfarne, L. | Sandys, L. [Teller.] | Trenchard, V. |
| Netherthorpe, L. | Seafield, E. | Vaizey, L. |
| Northchurch, B. | Selkirk, E. | Vaux of Harrowden, L. |
| Orkney, E. | Sempill, Ly. | Vivian, L. |
| Porritt, L. | Skelmersdale, L. | Ward of Witley, V. |
| Rawlinson of Ewell, L. | Soames, L. (L. President.) | Westbury, L. |
| Redmayne, L. | Strathcarron, L. | Young, B. |
§ Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
§ 3.52 p.m.
§ The LORD CHANCELLORUnfortunately, my Lords, the Motion did not contain a time at which the House should resume. Therefore, I hope I may do right if I select a time to return to the Woolsack. If I do it too soon, a further Motion, with a time limit, can be put; but, if your Lordships will allow me, I would propose to give the House half an hour. If I may resume the Woolsack then, I shall be here, and I hope that your Lordships will, too.
§ House adjourned during pleasure.
§ 4.23 p.m.
§ House resumed.
§ Lord SANDYSMy Lords, in the absence of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I think it would be convenient to take the Statement at this juncture.