HL Deb 17 July 1990 vol 521 cc761-9

3.22 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne)

My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received.

Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Trefgarne.)

The Lord Williams of Elvel rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that this Report be now received, at end to insert "notwithstanding the failure of Her Majesty's Government to honour the undertaking given by the Minister for Trade, Department of Trade and Industry, on the Second Reading that an amendment would be brought forward to provide for special arrangements for compensation to tenants of licensed premises during a transitional period. (H.L. Deb., 22nd March 1990, col. 413)"

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is not directed at the Minister of State for Trade and Industry, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, personally ad hominem—if I may use that expression; it is directed at the Government, which is why the amendment has been appropriately framed. However, convention demands that Ministers take responsibility for the acts of their department, and they also take credit for the acts of their department. Therefore, if I phrase some of my arguments in a personal manner directed at the noble Lord, I hope that the House will not believe that it is a personal attack. As was said in St. John's Gospel: Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? I would say that there can be nothing bad that comes from Landrindod Wells, which is the noble Lord's birthplace, as he vouchsafed to us the other day.

The history of the Bill has been complicated. It arose out of the MMC's report on the brewing industry. It was one of the recommendations of the report that tenants of licensed premises should have greater security than they have at the moment. The Government introduced the Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Bill to meet that recommendation.

When the Bill was in another place, a number of amendments were allowed under the procedures of another place. They were discussed in Standing Committee and on Report. When the Bill came to us for Second Reading, we discussed those amendments and the territory that had been mapped out by the discussions in another place. We were then told that under our procedures much of that territory was out of order. It was outside the scope of the Bill.

Lord Denham

My Lords, relevance.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, relevance or system—if the Government Chief Whip would allow me to continue. We were told that those amendments were not in order, but we spent a great deal of time on Second Reading discussing their content. During the course of his speech, the Minister referred to an amendment which had not even been taken in another place. As the Table advised that it was not in order even under the procedures of another place it was decided that it could not be taken. That was an amendment to provide compensation for tenants of licensed premises who were to be deprived of their tenancy during the period of transition between Royal Assent to the Bill and the commencement of the subsequent Act; in other words, there was a two-year period, approximately, during which the Act would not apply, but during which brewers could, if they wished, deprive their tenants of their tenancies and bring those licensed premises under management.

The Minister said: I can announce that after further consideration the Government intend to bring forward an amendment which will recognise that special arrangements for compensation should apply during the period of adjustment to a more open market. The amendment will provide that for a transitional period, additional and separate compensation will be payable to tenants of on-licensed premises to which the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II will apply because of the Bill, and where the landlord wishes to use them as on-licensed premises himself".—[Official Report, 23/3/90; col. 413.] That was a clear undertaking.

It was no surprise to the Opposition when we tried to table the amendments that had been discussed in another place that we were advised that that was not in order. If was even less of a surprise to hear the Minister say in Committee: I wish to make it quite clear that I had every intention of tabling an amendment, and instructed my officials so to do. When they arrived at the Public Bill Office, they were told that the amendment was not within the scope of the Bill and could not therefore be tabled in accordance with their advice".—[Official Report, 23/4/90; col. 354.] That again, as I have said, was no surprise. The position at that point was clear. There was a Government undertaking to the House. It was an undertaking that could not, under procedures as advised by our Public Bill Office, be fulfilled within the scope of the Bill.

I have no doubt that in replying to my amendment the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will apologise to the House. That is standard procedure. I have no doubt that it will be a handsome apology. I have no doubt that he will much regret the fact that the Government gave that undertaking and find themselves unable to fulfil it. However much we should welcome such an apology—indeed, such is the generosity of your Lordships' House that we would accept it—the matter cannot be left there. The Government have given a clear undertaking. We support the thrust of that undertaking. We would have argued in favour of the Government if they had met that undertaking.

There is, and must be, a general principle that when governments give undertakings to your Lordships, or indeed to another place, they should seek to meet them. There is a perfectly possible method—and I offer this to the noble Lord—of meeting the undertaking. It was described by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, in Committee. It is a one-clause Bill with the appropriate title and the appropriate text, which would pass through your Lordships' House in no time at all. I give an undertaking to the noble Lord that the Opposition—and I dare say the noble Viscount will speak for the Benches on my right—will give it a fair wind. Furthermore, I speak for my right honourable and honourable friends in another place in saying that they will give it a fair wind there and will not seek to debate or amend the Bill or otherwise obstruct its passage.

I move my amendment for these two reasons: first, there must be a general principle that if the Government give an undertaking to your Lordships' House it should be met; and, secondly, there is a perfectly feasible way of meeting this undertaking. All that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has to do now is accept my invitation and I shall immediately beg leave to withdraw my amendment. If he does not, I may be forced to other conclusions. However, I shall wait to hear what he says before I arrive at them. I beg to move.

3.30 p.m.

The Viscount of Falkland

My Lords, we on these Benches find it unfortunate—I am quite sure that the Minister agrees—that we should have reached this point, particularly with a Bill that we on these Benches largely support. At the Committee stage I wished to table one amendment. However, I discovered that the constraints of the Long Title of the Bill made my amendment not relevant to the Bill, as the noble Lord the Chief Whip said. I assume that the Minister discovered that himself or his advisers advised him that what he had undertaken would not fit within the parameters of the proposed legislation.

It has been well expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that what bothers us is that in this House there is a delicate balance between Parliament and the Executive, which works so well in your Lordships' House that we have a measure of understanding and trust that runs through all our deliberations. We find it unfortunate—I am sure that the Minister agrees—that we should have arrived at a point where he is unable to meet an undertaking that he made on behalf of those who advise him.

As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said at Committee stage, I suggested that a No. 2 Bill could be introduced into your Lordships' House to deal with the matter of compensation during the interim period. As he suggested, it would be relevant to this Bill. I agree with and wish to support what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said. We would strongly welcome it if the Minister could give the undertaking that he has been invited to give. We on these Benches will make every effort to support anything he can do to meet the request of the noble Lord, Lord Williams.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, in rising to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I should like to say right at the outset that I fully accept that I gave an undertaking that an amendment would be brought forward and that I have not met this undertaking. Your Lordships are entitled to an explanation.

In my speech moving the Second Reading of the Bill on 22nd March I said that the Government recognised the case for special arrangements for compensation to apply during the period of adjustment in this industry to a more open market. I stated that the Government intended to bring forward an amendment to take account of this.

I can assure your Lordships that this commitment was made in good faith and that although the detailed drafting of such an amendment had not at that stage begun the department's officials believed it would be possible. This was understandable, since amendments had been tabled and accepted for debate in another place which went wider than what was now proposed. However, when my amendment came to be tabled DTI officials were advised by the House authorities that it was outside the rules of relevance with regard to the Bill. It was also clear then that any other amendment dealing with similar subject matter would probably also be outside the rules of relevance.

When faced with this difficulty, I was concerned to see whether there was any means by which the undertaking I gave could nevertheless be met. I have therefore considered with colleagues whether there were alternative courses of action.

The first possibility I explored with the House authorities was whether the procedures of your Lordships' House would allow the amendment to be debated notwithstanding the rules of relevance. While I understand that it might in theory have been possible to invite your Lordships to agree to debate the amendment, this would have been quite contrary to the procedures we are accustomed to follow and has not been done within living memory. The House has long regarded such advice as binding and I of course accept it.

The second possibility which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, when this Bill was considered in Committee would have been to abandon the Bill and reintroduce it in a form in which the amendment could be made. I do not believe that this would be in the interests of the great majority of licensed tenants. The Government are anxious to ensure that the protection of the Landlord and Tenant Act is available as soon as possible to those who have agreed tenancies since July 1989.

Withdrawal of the Bill would delay such protection and at this stage in the parliamentary Session such a delay might be lengthy. In practice it would mean a new Bill, presumably in the next Session. Since it is not open to any Minister to anticipate the contents of the Queen's Speech, the extent of the delay would be uncertain and the risks of such a course considerable.

The third possibility referred to again today by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, appeared to be to introduce a separate Bill, simply to provide for the additional compensation. I am advised that this too would be extremely difficult to accommodate within the legislative programme. The measure that was proposed was in essence transitional. Any delay in implementing it undermines its purpose. Furthermore, the limited nature of the change we had proposed would make it difficult to press the case for such a Bill since it could only be done at the expense of other equally important legislative priorities.

I acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that for their part—and I presume that he committed his noble and honourable and right honourable friends—they would be prepared to give such a Bill a fair passage. However, the noble Lord is unable to bind all parts of the House any more than I am.

In the light of the difficulties with all three of the options, the Government have regretfully come to the view that it is not possible to honour the undertaking I gave. For this I must apologise unreservedly to your Lordships and to the House. In my speech to your Lordships on 23rd April I said I regretted that it was not possible then to table the amendment. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has been made aware of our difficulties through the usual channels. I hope he will be sympathetic. I should like in particular to say how much I regret that we are unable to extend a degree of extra support to tenants of certain licensed premises. However, I believe the most important thing now is to see that the protecton which we are aiming to provide to pub tenants is made available without further delay.

Notwithstanding the difficulties over additional compensation, the Bill as originally proposed constitutes a valuable and welcome increase in the security of tenants of licensed premises. I know that tenants of licensed premises will be disappointed that we have been unable to bring forward the proposed amendment to the Bill to provide for a period of enhanced compensation. I hope that they too will understand our predicament. I hope that they will agree that as the changes in the brewing industry in response to the Government's other measures gather pace it is important that the protection available under the Bill is provided and that the position is secured soon. In all those circumstances, it follows that I can only accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel.

Lord Nugent of Guildford

My Lords, I wish to say a few words on the procedural point which is an important aspect. My noble friend made a serious procedural error; but the narrowness of that procedural error deserves comment. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, has tabled a Motion. I must confess that in the 24 years that I have been in this House I have never seen such a Motion on the Order Paper. The noble Lord put down the Motion in order to deal with this procedural point. That is a serious thing to do as it amounts to a vote of censure on my noble friend Lord Trefgarne.

The procedural error that my noble friend committed in wishing to move an amendment that was outside the Long Title of the Bill is an error of minute proportions. It would be not unnatural to expect that an amendment that sought to deal with the transitional benefit for tenants would fall within the Long Title of a Bill which was entitled the Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Bill. However, when one studies this small Bill, one finds that the Long Title simply states that the Bill is intended to repeal Section 43(1) (d) of the 1954 Act. It is quite exceptionally narrow.

As I look around these crowded Benches, I think it is true to say that few noble Lords are au fait with all the mysteries of our procedure. I often see even my noble friend the Chief Whip asking the Clerk of the Parliaments to show him the Companion to the Standing Orders so that he may look up a point of order in the course of a debate. Few of us are really au fait with problems of procedure and what is or what is not in order. I have had some experience of this problem myself when I have tried to amend Government Bills dealing with road safety and even obscenity. Sometimes I have been successful and other times I have not been successful. The procedure of the House is a mystery to most noble Lords. For my noble friend to think that his amendment would be in order in a Bill which is entitled the Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Bill seems to me a reasonable mistake to make.

My noble friend gave an undertaking to the House when he said he would bring forward an amendment. It is a serious matter when he finds that such a provision is outside the Long Title of the Bill and is therefore out of order and cannot be made. My noble friend informed the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that he had made an error and that he was sorry about that. My noble friend has repeated all that publicly and has made a full apology. He has also explained why it would not be possible to introduce a one-clause Bill to put the matter right.

As regards the undertaking that was given, I feel that the Motion is a heavy-handed way to deal with that. If every Minister on either side of the House was taken to task in this way for making a procedural error of this kind, this would be an uncomfortable House to live in. I am the first to admire the style of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, in the House. Normally I would congratulate him on his elegant finesse; but that finesse has not appeared on this occasion. I regret that this matter should have to be settled in such a heavy-handed way. It is quite obvious that my noble friend has accepted the amendment. He has apologised and no doubt the House as a whole will accept that apology. Nevertheless, I feel it is worth mentioning that the error which has been made covers a narrow procedural point which few noble Lords would have understood. My noble friend is not being charged with a debt of honour but with a small procedural fault. He should see it that way.

Lord Hughes

My Lords, I am tempted to intervene on this matter because the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, said that not many noble Lords understood the mysteries of our procedure in this House. I am very much in that position. I do not understand why the amendment we are discussing was said to be out of order as it did not come within the Long Title of the Bill. As I understand the position, when we start the Committee stage of the Bill we start on the basis that the Long Title should be postponed.

On a recent Scottish Bill (which incidentally caused a lot of problems for another Bill), the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate introduced material which required the Long Title of the Bill to be altered to include the matters that had been dealt with. Why therefore was it not possible in the case of this Bill for the amendment to be moved and for the Long Title to be extended beyond the narrow point to which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, referred? Are there circumstances in the procedure of your Lordships' House where the Long Title of a Bill can never be altered?

The Earl of Perth

My Lords, I cannot address your Lordships on this narrow and difficult procedural point. However, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, put forward a proposal on a single-clause Bill. He said the Opposition would give such a Bill their backing and that he believed the Liberals would also give it their backing, in so far as they were able. However, there are others in this House; namely, those on the Cross-Benches. There are over 200 of us. There is no certainty as regards which way we would go. Nor is there any certainty that the Back-Benchers of all parties would back such a Bill. That proposal in no way represents a simple solution.

Lord Colnbrook

My Lords, compared with almost all your Lordships in the House this afternoon, I am a very new Member of the House. I confess to a degree of surprise that we should be considering this Motion. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, sought to say, the Motion is critical of my noble friend the Minister. Parliament has always been understanding and sympathetic to people who admit to making mistakes. I have not yet had to admit to a mistake in this House although no doubt that will happen one day. However, I have had to admit to a mistake in another place as a Minister. I had to stand up and apologise for having misled the House. The House could not have been more sympathetic and understanding. The matter was left there. However, in your Lordships' House, although there has been sympathy and understanding, the matter has not been left there.

One of the things that distinguishes our Parliament from almost every other and which is the source of a great deal of admiration is our understanding and our sympathy for people who make mistakes—we all make mistakes—and admit to them. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, is wholly entitled to pursue his amendment, and to ask for it to be accepted, as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has said it will be. However, if he does that, will he advance, in descending order of importance, the reputation of Parliament, of your Lordships' House and of himself?

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said about the protection available to tenants in licensed premises. He was simply stating what both sides have agreed previously. The terms of my amendment are such as not to oppose the Bill on Report. In other words, we wish the Bill to go forward, even though the noble Lord is unable to meet his undertaking.

I am surprised at the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. I thought he understood the procedure of this House better than almost anybody. He has great experience and he knows as well as I do that the Long Title of a Bill defines the scope or relevance of a Bill, depending on which expression one wishes to use. I have been advised that it is now the "system" of the Bill. Although the Long Title may be amended in Committee in our House it can only be so amended if an amendment has already been passed which is within the relevance, scope or system of the Bill. Therefore, unless we adopt procedures which have now fallen into desuetude, we cannot amend that Title in Committee other than consequent on amendments which are within the ambit, scope or relevance of the Bill. I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, would have understood that.

We are not talking about whether or not the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has made a mistake. It is a question of the Government making a mistake. It has something to do with the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, but, as I said in my earlier remarks, the Minister only takes responsibility because it is a tradition of parliamentary debate that Ministers take responsibility for what happens in government. To say that the officials were told when they arrived at the Public Bill Office on 23rd April that the amendment was out of order is to imply that they did not consult the Public Bill Office in our House before the noble Lord gave his undertaking. If they had done so I am sure that the Public Bill Office would have given the noble Lord's officials the same advice as it gave when they eventually arrived on its doorstep.

The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, complained that I was being heavy handed. If the Government give an undertaking to your Lordships' House I am entitled to be heavy handed in asking the Government to meet that undertaking. It is a very simple matter. Were we in government and had we given such an undertaking I can assure your Lordships that on all sides of the House noble Lords would be standing up and saying how terrible our Government was.

The noble Earl, Lord Perth, said that the noble Viscount's proposal for a No. 2 Bill would not meet the situation. I can undertake that this side of the House would support such a Bill. I give that commitment on behalf of my colleagues on the Benches behind me and my right honourable friends in another place. I take it that if the Government introduced such a Bill they would give an equal undertaking on behalf of their supporters in this House and in another place. With such undertakings—with the support of my party and the support of the party opposite—I have no doubt whatsoever that such a Bill would go through without difficulty.

The problem is that the noble Lord cannot guarantee the support of his own party. I can guarantee the support of mine. There are many noble Lords sitting behind the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who would say: "We do not want that undertaking. We do not want the amendment". The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, said so quite flatly in Committee. That is the real problem that the Government face.

That is why I am being somewhat heavy handed. It is not a question of the personal honour of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. It is a question of whether or not the Government will face up to the Brewers' Society. It is on that basis that I shall press the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to: Report received.