Business (Hansard, 27 June 1988)

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Education Reform Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour. During this adjournment the order of commitment of the Licensing (Retail Sales) Bill will be discharged and the Third Reading of the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Rear Seat Belts by Children) Bill will be taken.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, the House will recall that last Wednesday we had an exchange about the state of business between now and the end of the Session. As a result, the same day the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip announced that an additional day was to be given to the Report stage of the Education Reform Bill. I note today that since the House rose on Thursday, 182 additional amendments to the Bill have been tabled by the Government. Is the noble Lord the Leader of the House aware that this is a very substantial addition to an already overloaded amendment list in respect of this Bill? Will he be good enough to tell the House why so large a number of amendments has now been tabled? I think that the House deserves an explanation.

§ The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead)
My Lords, I recognise that there is a large number of amendments to be debated on the Marshalled List which we have for today. I would be the first to recognise also the enormous amount of work that the House has put in on this very substantial Bill. In answer to the question put to me by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, perhaps I may point this out. While it is true that of the large number of government amendments tabled 12 are indeed substantive additions, 33 are in fulfilment of commitments which were given at the Committee stage of the Bill. They will be amendments that I hope your Lordships will be pleased to see. I am advised that all the rest are technical, consequential, paving and otherwise minor amendments.
I realise that the total number of amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has quoted sounds very large. However, having given that answer, I think it is clear that taken together this batch of amendments is not that much of an additional burden on the House.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that that is very easy to say, but my experience is that those who are more closely concerned with the processing of the Bill in the House really do need time to consider technical amendments? I think that the noble Lord owes it to the House to explain why this was not mentioned last Wednesday when we were discussing the matter. These issues must have been before his noble friends and well within the knowledge of noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite. Why therefore was the House not informed when we were having a full discussion on the state of business, including the Education Reform Bill?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, to answer the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, the critical point is the number of what are called starred amendments, meaning that they were tabled on Friday but were not printed until today. I was most anxious to see the Marshalled List to discover where the starred amendments fell. It is fair to say that when one looks at the Marshalled List, one sees that almost all of them are to be found in the second half of the Marshalled List. In other words, the starred amendments will not be taken today.
I am not trying to suggest either to the noble Lord or to the House that there is not a considerable burden on your Lordships' House in taking this substantial Bill through this Chamber. Nonetheless, bearing in mind the answer which I first gave, I suggest that this batch of amendments needs to be seen in the light of the fact that a large number of amendments have been tabled to fulfil undertakings given and only a small number—in fact a dozen—are substantive amendments.

§ Baroness White
My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that these amendments should at least be dealt with by midnight? Does he not recognise that for some of us walking the streets after midnight is not an occupation that we wish to continue? It seems to me, and I hope it would seem to him, to be an abuse of the general procedures of the House to expect noble Members to sit more than very occasionally after midnight. To conduct business at two o'clock in the morning is not conducive to adequate consideration of business by the relatively small teams concerned, at least on the Opposition side of the House, and that also applies to the next day. So far the handling of this matter has given cause for considerable concern and dissatisfaction.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I am sorry to hear what the noble Baroness said in her last few words. This, as I have said, is a very large Bill—

§ Baroness White
Whose fault is that, my Lords?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I was about to say that this is not the first time your Lordships' House has seen a very long Bill and it is not the first time that your Lordships' House has had to sit late. In fact, I believe that the handling of the Bill both from the Government and from the Opposition and other Front Benches, and indeed from the Back Benches as well, has been exemplary because it is a very large Bill indeed. But to come to the noble Baroness's point, we shall indeed do our best to see that we do not sit too late, but that does mean an effort on behalf of us all.

§ Baroness Seear
My Lords, I do not want to add to the turmoil, but, to put it mildly, is it not very unfortunate that we have this Bill running concurrently with the Local Government Finance Bill, which is also a very heavy Bill? It is really impossible. I know that this may not be in the hands of the noble Lord, but to have two such Bills at the same time does make life extremely difficult for some of us.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I have to admit to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that it is indeed in my hands because. together with the Chief Whip, I am responsible for the management of business in your Lordships' House. I shall not try to duck out of that at all. They are two major Bills. The Government wish to see them on the statute book, and that is something we are determined to do.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, we recognise that the Government in some part have acceded to the requests which have been made by those who have been critical of the Bill. We understand that perfectly well. Here I register a protest that I believe will be widely supported in the House: that as a result of this the House will not be able to pay attention to the Bill and to certain important parts of it as it should.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, again I am sorry to hear the noble Lord say that. So that there is no misunderstanding, we are talking about a batch of amendments, which the noble Lord mentioned in his first intervention, which sounds very large indeed. The noble Lord had every right to raise that matter, but in looking at the detail one sees that a large number of the amendments fulfil undertakings given in Committee and a very small number—only a dozen—are substantive amendments.
I must just say to the noble Lord that amendments have been put down by other noble Lords and noble Baronesses at short notice which also appear on the Marshalled List. Noble Lords and noble Baronesses have every right to do that; so do the Government. I should like to apologise to the noble Lord and to the noble Baroness for amendments which are starred and are therefore later on the Marshalled List than I should have wished to have seen them. But I ask your Lordships to bear in mind that the number of substantive amendments which were tabled last Thursday and Friday is very small.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, I really must come back. Every Member of the House appreciates that when the noble Lord talks of 12 substantive amendments, which may take half an hour each to debate, that totals six additional hours. That is the reality with which we are dealing.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I think that perhaps we must now terminate this exchange. Let us start the business to see how long the amendments take.