Business (Hansard, 26 March 1990)

§ Lord Denham
My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Report stage of the Education (Student Loans) Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during that adjournment the Second Reading of the British Railways (No. 3) Bill will be taken.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I confirm that, subject to the progress of business, the House will adjourn for the Easter Recess on Thursday, 5th April and return on Wednesday, 18th April. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on Thursday, 5th April.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, before we move to the Report stage of the Education (Student 573 Loans) Bill, perhaps I may say a brief word about the amendment to the Bill tabled last Thursday by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, which can be seen on page 8 of the Marshalled List.
It appears that the Bill as drafted is incompatible with the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The amendment tabled for Report by the noble Earl is intended to correct the defect. It is very wide. It says simply that the documents on the loan scheme shall not be regarded as encouraging minors to take out credit within the meaning of the 1974 Act.
The introduction of minors into the Bill adds a complex new dimension to the whole Bill. The fact that it is unlawful to charge interest to minors was overlooked when the Bill was first drafted. Furthermore, I understand that that omission could affect as many as 100,000 students, most of them in Scotland. That is because in Scotland, as we know, most students enter college at the age of 17. I also understand that there could be some doubt about the accuracy of the amendment tabled by the noble Earl. My noble friend Lord Peston, who leads for us on the Bill, was told of the new amendment on Thursday by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, who had in turn been informed by the noble Lord, Lord Denham, the Government Chief Whip. My noble friend Lord Peston then asked for more time to consider all the legal and administrative implications of the noble Earl's new amendment, which were very considerable.
Under the circumstances I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will now defer the amendment to enable those who are interested in the Bill and in its proper processing to have more time. All we have had is a very inadequate weekend. It is very important that on Report the House should be given a proper opportunity to consider this new development.

§ Baroness Seear
My Lords, we too very much regret that the amendment should have been produced at such very short notice. It is not a trivial amendment. It affects a large number of young persons and represents a change to the Consumer Credit Act. We do not consider that it should have been introduced at this stage.

§ The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead)
My Lords, I have been taken somewhat unawares because the noble Lord referred to an amendment which is not on the page of the Marshalled List which he identified. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, was talking not about Amendment No. 44 on page 8 but about Amendment No. 49 on page 9. I assume that the noble Baroness also referred to that amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for recording that my noble friend the Government Chief Whip warned the official Opposition and also the Social and Liberal Democrats about the amendment.
Perhaps I may explain what happened. A clutch of amendments was to be put down by the Government on Thursday afternoon. The Government Chief Whip and I were both aware that the amendments would not go down before 3 o'clock that afternoon. Therefore, with my express approval, 574 the Government Chief Whip, my noble friend Lord Denham, sought out the Opposition Chief Whip, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for the Social and Liberal Democrats, to tell them that amendments were to be put down that afternoon. That was on Thursday, not on Friday. He advised that in particular one amendment— Amendment No. 49— raised an issue which had not been raised previously under the Bill. We therefore felt that it was our duty to give notice to the two main opposition parties. That we did, and I hope that we shall discuss the matter later this afternoon.

§ Lord Peston
My Lords, I hope that I shall be forgiven for saying how unsatisfactory I find the answer of the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I was first informed of the matter via my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, who had in turn been informed by the Government Chief Whip, Lord Denham, on Thursday afternoon, as the noble Lord the Leader of the House said. It took me a little time to appreciate the significance of the amendments. I then went immediately to the Government Whips' office and said that the amendments were of fundamental significance and that it was my view that the Government should not proceed with them at the pace they intended. I said that I should need a great deal of time to examine the significance of the amendments. I asked the Whips' office to get in touch with Ministers on the matter. I also said that I was available for whoever wished to speak to me on the subject. I was in your Lordships' House on Thursday afternoon and available on Thursday evening on my home telephone number, which I gave to the Government Whips on Thursday evening. I was in your Lordships' House for most of Friday's business. I discovered today that no message from me appeared to have gone to the Government side on the lines that I have just mentioned.
My noble friends and I have opposed the Bill most vigorously but we have played strictly according to the rules. I believe that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will acknowledge that. My concern now is that we are moving outside reasonable rules of behaviour. Perhaps I may put the point as clearly as I can in asking the noble Lord the Leader of the House to reconsider his answer.
The amendments concern the possible extension of credit to minors. My view on the matter is twofold and I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House to consider both aspects of that matter. I endeavoured strongly to obtain advice on the matter. I was informed by the only expert advice available that the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is a very complicated piece of legislation. It would be foolhardy beyond belief for me to involve myself in that matter without the fullest advice and briefing.
It is also my view that if noble Lords had been aware of the consequences of the legislation regarding credit and minors the whole tenor of our debates would have been completely different. It is an extremely serious matter. I am still not in a position to debate the amendments today, much as I regard it as my duty, leading for the Opposition, to do the best that I can. I must ask the noble Lord 575 the Leader of the House to reconsider the statement that he has just made and to ask his noble friends to delay the amendments until such time as the Opposition and noble Lords on his side of the House can pursue the full ramifications of the matter. We really cannot proceed with the amendments today.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, there are just two things that I should like to say. I acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has conducted the debates on the Bill from the Opposition Front Bench in a way which has my admiration. The noble Lord is both an expert and a very good parliamentary performer. I should not want to follow procedures which the noble Lord did not like.
Nevertheless, I by no means go along with the interpretation which the noble Lord has put on the amendments that have been put down. It is perfectly true, I am advised, that the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is an untried piece of legislation so far as concerns this particular issue. It is precisely for that reason that the Government have been late in putting down an amendment for the avoidance of doubt. These are matters which it is proper not to debate now but to debate when we come to the amendment.
Secondly, I must repeat to the House that with my express approval and encouragement, as soon as he knew that the particular amendment was to be tabled with other amendments, my noble friend the Government Chief whip immediately sought out the Opposition Chief Whip. That was before one o'clock on Thursday. He tried to seek out the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, with whom contact was not made until just before two o'clock. That was expressly to warn the two main Opposition parties that this amendment was to be tabled.
I like to think that we have behaved as honourably as we possibly could in tabling an amendment which deals with a matter that has not been raised before. I repeat to your Lordships that it would be right to debate the amendment later this evening.

§ Lord Beloff
My Lords, I am sorry to intervene and I have no views on the amendment, which I have only just seen. However, I respectfully point out to my noble friend the Leader of the House that a Bill of this kind is not simply a matter for the two main Opposition Parties. It has largely been conducted by noble Lords on this side of the House and on the Cross-Benches. I imagine that most noble Lords, like myself, left the House on Thursday in the late afternoon or early evening not having had the opportunity of seeing this amendment. It had not been brought to our notice and was not so far as I am aware among those which I picked up in the Printed Paper Office. I first heard about the problem this morning when I read a report in The Times. It seems to me that either the whole House is entitled to be informed of government amendments so that there is at least a weekend to consider them or these amendments should not be tabled in a way which makes the position of noble Lords not on the Opposition Front Benches almost untenable.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, my noble friend says that he has not had a weekend to consider these amendments. He has had the weekend to consider this and other amendments which were tabled on Thursday. For the avoidance of doubt, I repeat that this amendment was one of a clutch which were tabled on Thursday afternoon and not on Friday. Because Amendment No. 49 raises an issue which has not previously been raised in the Bill, my noble friend the Government Chief Whip and myself did the very best that we could. We sought out the Chief Whips of the two main Opposition parties and said that there was an amendment which raised a matter which had not been raised before and that they should be aware of that. I like to think that that was as open and honourable a way of going about our business as possible. I suggest to your Lordships that it is right that this amendment should be considered later on today.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, the noble Lord is being uncharacteristically unfair. He has the great respect of the House for the courteous and fair way in which he controls our affairs. The point is that an amendment which changes the Bill in a fundamental way, taking account of the 1974 Act, was tabled late on Thursday. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that noble Lords in this House tend to go to their homes on Thursday evening. It is not unreasonable to accept what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said. I say this in a totally non-party way but in the interests of the whole House. He said that he was unable to take account of and therefore to study the effect of this amendment. That applies to a large number of noble Lords who have taken part in the Committee stage of this important Bill.
Noble Lords are not asking the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment. They are asking that they should be given a little more time to consider all its implications. If the noble Lord and his noble friends persist in pursuing this amendment today, that opportunity will not be given. With great respect to the noble Lord, that is not fair nor is it good for the way in which this House conducts its legislative processes. I strongly appeal to him to reconsider this and to come back in an hour's time to give us the benefit of his further consideration.

§ Lord Nugent of Guildford
My Lords, I should like to put another point to my noble friend which is not entirely helpful to him but which I believe is very germane to the view of the House. Noble Lords who wish to take part in this— and they are on all sides of the House— will need to study the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and obtain expert legal advice on it because this amendment seeks to stretch the terms of the Act in order to make this exception. It may be perfectly valid and possible to do that but it seems to me a relevant point that we cannot take the Bill as it is on its merits without considering it in relationship to what is a very complicated piece of legislation; namely, the 1974 Act. I wonder whether my noble friend has taken that into account in the view which he has taken.

§ Lord Flowers
My Lords, it is perhaps not unreasonable for a noble Lord to speak from the Cross-Benches. I played a fairly active part in the Committee stage of the Bill and I spent part of the weekend in telephonic communication with other Members of the House considering some of the government amendments before us today. This amendment was not mentioned. I had not seen the significance of it and I presume that those to whom I was speaking also had not done so. Therefore, even though I have done my best to follow what is happening over the weekend, I am totally unprepared on this matter. Having heard what has been said about it, it seems to me to be something which deserves a fair amount of thought.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I believe that it is unreasonable of noble Lords opposite, after the specific warning given to them by my noble friend the Chief Whip on Thursday, to say that the amendment should not be debated at all. I am being asked that the amendment should simply be withdrawn. I cannot agree to that for the reasons which I have given. I suggest that the amendment should be moved and debated. If noble Lords then think, having listened to the debate, that it is wholly unreasonable that it should go on the statute book, we must then listen to the majority voice in the House. Having listened to my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, it may be that there will be a majority voice.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, is always helpful and courteous and acts in the best interests of the House. However, if he could literally put his hand on his heart and say that from his side of the House amendments have never been tabled, for example, on a Friday and then taken early the following week, I might feel somewhat less sure of my position. However, this amendment was tabled on Thursday and we specifically approached the noble Lord's party and the Liberal Democrats. Therefore, I believe that there is an irrefutable case for the amendment to be moved this evening. We can then see what is the opinion of the House.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, I must agree with; he noble Lord that from time to time all governments are guilty of the late tabling of amendments. On those occasions, the House has properly objected. However, on this occasion we are not speaking of a run-of-the-mill amendment but of a basic amendment which raises new issues that have not previously been debated during the passage of the Bill, including its Committee stage. It is on that ground that we ask the noble Lord to think again.
As his noble friend Lord Nugent said, this refers to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which is, as he knows, very complex in itself. Therefore, it will take time— and it is not unreasonable to take further time— to look at the student loans Bill side by side with the Consumer Credit Act to see what will be the effect. Today is too soon. Will the noble Lord think again and give us more time?

§ Lord Monkswell
My Lords, perhaps I may pose a slightly different question to the Leader of the 578 House. So far, the discussion has concentrated on the short time available between the tabling of the amendment and the possible consideration of it on Report this afternoon. My concern is with regard to the different types of debate and consideration given to the Bill at different stages. At Committee stage it is possible to have a much freer to and fro of debate which is very beneficial. This amendment appears to be making a significant change. Perhaps the Leader of the House could advise us whether there might be some procedural mechanism whereby it could be considered on its own as an amendment at Committee stage. That would allow the to and fro of debate and further consideration at subsequent Report stage and Third Reading. The House could then go through the full debating procedure on an amendment which, as everybody will agree, significantly changes the Bill.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, it will mean repeating myself but I shall answer the noble Lord. As I have already said, let us move the amendment, let us debate it and if there is then a majority feeling in the House that it should be withdrawn and decided on Third Reading, that is what we should do. I am not speaking of forcing a vote through. If there is clearly a majority feeling when the amendment is moved, then the Government should withdraw it.
However, it is unreasonable to come to me in my dual capacity as Leader of the House and leader of my party and say that an amendment tabled on Thursday, about which opposition parties were specifically warned— not that it is a difficult amendment, but it is a new issue— should not be moved at all.

§ Baroness David
My Lords, the Government may have tabled the amendment on Thursday but it was not printed until Friday, when many noble Lords were not in the House. Surely it is possible— there is a precedent for this— for these amendments concerning the Consumer Credit Act to be recommitted and taken at a later stage when we have had a chance to study them. If the amendment were recommitted we could continue with the other amendments today at Report stage. As my noble friend said, we shall then have the chance of a much freer discussion.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, perhaps I may say that the noble Baroness, uncharacteristically, is being less than fair. It was precisely so that noble Lords and noble Baronesses opposite were aware that an amendment which raised a new issue was being tabled that my noble friend the Chief Whip contacted the Opposition Chief Whip. Let that be quite clear.

§ Baroness White
My Lords, does not the Leader of the House recognise that that applies to the Front Bench but not to the rest of us who have taken an interest in the Bill? I was in the wilds of North Wales and would not expect my Front Bench to try to contact me on the three or four different telephones which I passed, so to speak, over the weekend.

§ Earl Russell
My Lords, no one has suggested that the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal is guilty of any dishonourable conduct. He has behaved with impeccable honour. Our concern is not with honour; it is with having sufficient time for business. Most noble Lords specialise in a particular field. I am not a specialist in consumer credit. I should therefore want to take advice on that subject. I should have hoped my noble friends who are expert in consumer credit might be here. The House might consider the amendment more effectively if the noble Lord were to accede, however reluctantly, to what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, once again the noble Earl has been an extremely good performer on this Bill, but he was not, perhaps, up to his usual high standard in making that intervention, kindly though his words were to start off with. Even though his Chief Whip knew about this amendment very early on Thursday afternoon, he makes it sound as though there was no communication with one of the main spokesmen on the Bill on the Liberal Democrat Benches. It was precisely in order to achieve that communication that my noble friend the Chief Whip contacted the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff.
We cannot extend this exchange any further. I suggest, perfectly reasonably, that when we come to the amendment it should be moved; it should be debated. If there is clearly a majority wish in the House that it should not be proceeded with, I assure your Lordships that the Government will not under those circumstances attempt to bulldoze it through.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, I hope the noble Lord the Leader of the House will not close this discussion. A very reasonable point was raised by my noble friends Lady David and Lord Monkswell as to whether this part of the Bill could be recommitted so that the amendment could have proper and due consideration. As my noble friend said, there is a great difference in the quality of discussion at Committee stage, when Ministers can be questioned closely on a number of occasions by the same noble Lord, and the procedure at Report stage, when noble Lords are allowed to speak only once.
That is the important point; that on such an important amendment, bearing in mind the complexity of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, noble Lords should be able to probe the Minister and obtain proper replies to relevant questions before a vote is taken. Nobody is accusing the noble Lord the Leader of the House of bad faith or anything like that; indeed we respect his integrity. Under those circumstances, and bearing in mind that he has the respect of this House, I hope that he will closely and reasonably consider the suggestion made by my two noble friends.

§ Lord Nugent of Guildford
My Lords, before my noble friend replies once again, I have already intervened but perhaps I may add one thought. He said that we should debate this amendment and see what happens. If the consensus is that debate on Report is inadequate to deal with it, he is prepared 580 to take further action; in other words, to refer this subsection to a postponed Committee stage. My noble friend has given that undertaking. Surely the point has now been reached when noble Lords might accept that and continue with the debate. When we debate this amendment we can see what happens. If the House feels that there has been inadequate time, my noble friend has given a satisfactory answer. That will perhaps allow us to proceed to debate through Report stage.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Once again I am placed in some difficulty by noble Lords opposite. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition asks that this amendment be postponed to Third Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, says that it needs to be recommitted. Those suggestions are very different. If I may say so, the answer is somewhere in the middle. I gave an undertaking that if the amendment is moved— which I think it should be— and debated, and if there is consensus that it should not be decided tonight, the expression I used was that the Government will not bulldoze it through. I promise that I shall be true to that undertaking.