§ 3.1 p.m.
§ The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead)My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Third Reading of the Education Reform Bill will take place on Thursday, 7th July, As noble Lords will recall, on Monday evening a number of your Lordships on both sides of the House expressed unease with our original intention to proceed with the Third Reading on 5th July as it would not have given enough time for proper consideration of the text of the Bill as amended. I have taken advice on this and find that there can be Rio certainty of receiving the reprint of the Bill as amended on Report by the end of this week. I have concluded that therefore it would be in the interests of the whole House if the Third Reading were deferred until 7th July.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for letting me know in advance that he was to make this Statement this afternoon. He will be aware of our general feeling about the way in which this matter has been handled and that it has caused considerable inconvenience to a number of people. Of course we shall do our best to adapt to the new arrangement to which he has referred.
However, can the noble Lord say that he is now quite satisfied that one day is sufficient for the Third Reading of the Education Reform Bill. Secondly, when will copies of the reprinted Bill be available? He has just referred to the reprint. Is he quite satisfied that that will be available in time for noble Lords in all parts of the House to study it before the Third Reading takes place?
I must once again place on the record our concern about the way in which business is being handled in this House.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosIf the legislative programme had been studied with greater care some months ago, it would not have been necessary for this House to sit into the early hours of the morning on several occasions and it would certainly have been unnecessary for the House to sit all night as it has done. Without doubt that places an intolerable burden on noble Lords on all sides of the House and particularly upon those who are chiefly concerned from the Front Bench in dealing with the legislation and those on the Back Benches who have been playing an active part in the debates.
In my view it is not satisfactory for this House to sit on three consecutive days on the Committee or Report stages of a Bill, and on consecutive weeks. It places an unwarranted burden on noble Lords. I hope that that will be considered by the Leader of the House. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to announce at any early date when the House will rise for the Summer Recess and when we shall be expected to return for the overlap period and, indeed, whether the gracious Speech will be made at the normal time.
§ Lord Jenkins of HillheadMy Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it was entirely because the Government had to ask for a postponement, and not because representations were made, that they had to change, at some considerable inconvenience, from next Tuesday which had long been a date in the diaries of many noble Lords most concerned? That was inconvenient but it might have been tolerable had the noble Lord been able to negotiate an alternative date. However, as I understand it, the convenience of the Commons received total priority over the problems of this House. Will the noble Lord bear in mind that to be an even-handed Leader he should give regard to the rights of this House as well as to the convenience of the Commons
§ Lord BelsteadMy Lords, I should like to express my regret to both the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, about any personal inconvenience that that may cause. Indeed, I am aware of two particular Front Bench spokesmen for both the Social and Liberal Democrats and noble Lords opposite who not only have worked exceedingly hard on this Bill but have also worked throughout the whole of last night and for whom this is not convenient—in fact, it is not convenient at all. I should like to say that I am extremely sorry about that.
The fact is that it is impossible to find an alternative date which is convenient for everyone. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked whether I am satisfied that one day will be enough for Third Reading. It is most unusual for your Lordships' House to spend more than one day on the Third Reading of a Bill.
The noble Lord also asked me when copies of the reprinted Bill will be available. As I said in my original statement, because there is no guarantee that the reprinted Bill will be available before the end of this week, I expect and very much hope that the reprinted Bill will be ready for us on Monday morning bright and early. Indeed, if the reprinted Bill were to appear a little before that, no one would be more glad than I. However, I do not believe that that would alter the prudence of having to take the proposed step.
The noble Lord referred to the very heavy burden of work on your Lordships' House. Perhaps I may repeat what I said yesterday in the House. I am the first to recognise the very great burden of work which falls on this House during the summer months generally in years and not least in the year in question. I recognise the work which is being done on major Bills—good work at that and work which I believe is for the good of the legislative process. However, this is not the first time that your Lordships' House has been very busy in the months of June and July.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that I know the Government in both Houses will be announcing as soon as possible the dates of the Recess. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, asked whether or not it was the case that it was the Government which asked for the postponement. The noble Lord is absolutely right about that, but it was for a good reason—the reason which I gave in my original announcement to your Lordships; namely, that there can be no certainty of receiving the reprint of the Bill as amended on Report by the end of this week.
1594 The noble Lord then asked whether or not it was for the convenience of the House of Commons that I was standing up and making this statement and was it not necessary for the Leader of your Lordships' House to be even-handed. As Leader of your Lordships' House I believe that I have a responsibility to take account of the needs of the House and the need to make good progress with legislation. I believe that to defer Third Reading on this Bill by two days even-handedly fulfils those two needs.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to ask whether he is absolutely certain that the reprint of the Bill will be available on Monday. The latest information which I have received is that it will not be available until Tuesday. Perhaps the noble Lord would be good enough to check that matter.
§ Lord BelsteadMy Lords, of course I shall check that and shall get in touch immediately with the noble Lord. However, that is not the information which I have received.
§ Lord Boyd-CarpenterMy Lords, as one of those who on Monday raised the question of the timing of the Third Reading of the Education Reform Bill with my noble friend, perhaps I may thank him warmly for the way in which he has dealt with the submissions made to him which, provided that the Bill is delivered as he has said on Monday, gives sufficient time for your Lordships to study it with a view to the possible submission of amendments. Some of us with ministerial experience realise how difficult it is to alter the timetable and therefore we appreciate all the more the action taken by my noble friend.
§ Lord BelsteadMy Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Provided that the Bill appears on Monday, that gives two and a half days for consideration of the Bill as amended and for the tabling of amendments.
Perhaps I may say that for Third Reading that is perfectly acceptable. It will mean that the interval from the end of Report will have been eight days; that is to say six sitting days. What is required in our Companion to the Standing Orders is three sitting days between Report and Third Reading.
§ Lord GlenamaraMy Lords, the Education Reform Bill is, in fact, three Bills rolled into one. It is a disgrace and something of a contempt of Parliament that the Government have put so much in one Bill. Therefore, is there not a case for giving, exceptionally, a second day for the Third Reading?
Secondly, from this week's Times Educational Supplement it is apparent that the Secretary of State is already making his preparations to implement the Bill. Indeed, he has already started to do so as though the Bill had passed through Parliament, so there could be no great inconvenience to the Government if it were to be deferred for another week. Why cannot the Third Reading be deferred to the following week, and why cannot we have two days on it?
§ Lord BelsteadMy Lords, the noble Lord finally asks why the Third Reading cannot be deferred to the 1595 following week. I am not by any means sure that that would be for the convenience of the House. As I said earlier, it is difficult to find a day that is convenient for everyone.
Of course, I have to remind the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, who will remember this very well as a senior business manager himself, that the Government must wish to make as good progress as they can with their Bills, having regard always to the minimum intervals set out in the Companion to this House and the availability in good time of working texts of the Bill.
As regards the period of time for Third Reading, I repeat that, even allowing for very large Bills which have come to your Lordships' House, it is most unusual for a Third Reading to take longer than one day.
§ Lord Harmar-NichollsMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that we admire the tolerant way in which he has accepted the wholesale criticism regarding the management of the House? Is it not time that the House itself looked at the mote in its own eyes? Recently the Leader of the Opposition said that the House generally had been exemplary in the way it carried out its part. However, anyone present in the House should be appalled at the way arguments made in Committee were repeated on Report. They should be appalled at the length of speeches and at the repetition of one argument by several noble Lords when it was unnecessary, all against the general rules of this House. If we want to save time without in any way interferring with the efficiency of the House, it would not be a bad idea if all Members of the House adhered to the rules in the way that they used to and ought to if we are to continue.
§ Lord BelsteadMy Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls for his generous personal remarks. I simply content myself with saying that there is no question but that we have a very large Bill which has had a large number of amendments. That is exactly what this House is all about, but in this case it has placed a considerable strain on the machinery and that is why I have made a statement today.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, I must follow the criticism made by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, which was without foundation. I followed the debate very carefully in Committee as much as I could. I must say that my noble friend Lady David and her colleagues on this side of the House behaved impeccably in the way in which they dealt with the Committee and Report stages of the Bill. The noble Lord has no grounds at all for making that criticism. If there have been long speeches, they have been from the noble Lord and his colleagues.
§ Lord Graham of EdmontonMy Lords, there is no one like the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls.
§ Lord BelsteadMy Lords, I am not sure that we are making much progress. Shall we simply content ourselves with saying that there has been a great deal of debate on all sides of the House and for that reason the Government gave one extra day on Report and now we are giving two extra days' interval before Third Reading?
§ Lord Harmar-NichollsMy Lords, yes, but may I say to my noble friend—
§ Lord Harmar-NichollsMy Lords, perhaps I may say to my noble friend that if Opposition noble Lords want any grounds for the comments that I made a moment or so ago, all they need do is read Hansard. That will justify all that I said.
§ Lord DenhamMy Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon—
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords—
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords, in reply to the noble Lord—
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords, I wish to say—
§ Lord DenhamMy Lords; if the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, will give way for half a minute I will sit down and allow him to rise. Out of courtesy to the House, when a noble Lord rises at the Dispatch Box it is generally accepted that noble Lords have the politeness to give way. I will now give way to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch.
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House appears to consider that it is an act of God that the House has been abused, as it was last night. It is not; it is an act of the Government. The noble Lord says that it is usual for this House to be busy at this time of the year. We all know that. However, is it not the case that this year the Government are trying to pour a quart into a pint pot and that we are the victims because of the excessive legislation, the delays in receipt of that legislation and the use of the guillotine procedure in the other place? Those are the reasons why the practices of this House have been abused and why the personnel of this House have been abused, as they were last night.
§ Lord BelsteadMy Lords, with respect, the noble Lord is not on to a good point. The noble Lord says that the House is receiving legislation very late and that that, among other things, is causing intolerable strain. This busy Session is remarkable for having received legislation in very good time. The last of the main Government Bills due to come here has now arrived—and that, of course, is the Housing Bill which arrived this week.
§ Lord DenhamMy Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Ferrers will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement to be made in another place on the reform of the Official Secrets Act.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Local Government Finance Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Building 1597 Societies (Limits on Commercial Assets) Order 1988 and the Building Societies (Commercial Assets and Services) Order 1988 will be taken.