HL Deb 18 June 1991 vol 530 cc92-6

84 Clause 88, page 51, line 18, at end insert: '( ) In proceedings for such an offence it is a defence for the undertaker to show that all reasonable care was taken by him, and by his contractors and by persons in his employ or that of his contractors, to secure that no such failure occurred.'.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 84. I have already spoken to this amendment.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 84.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, before we embark on any discussion of Amendment No. 85, I wonder whether the Leader of the House or the Minister has a statement to make concerning the discussions that we had at an earlier stage about the matter.

Lord Waddington

My Lords, I have had the opportunity to speak to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The position is that at Second Reading in another place the Government were under pressure to end forthwith the right of local authorities to tender for reinstatement work; that is, to drop entirely the provision inserted by your Lordships. In the circumstances, and not least because of the position stated by my noble friend here, it was thought better at the Report stage in another place to accept an amendment leaving open the question of when the opportunity to tender should end.

As I hope I made clear earlier, I do not for one moment pretend that the amendment which another place has sent to us does not represent the acquiescence of the Government in a different policy in this area from that which your Lordships originally agreed when Clause 90 was added to the Bill. It has been suggested that this is a breach of comity between the Houses. With the greatest respect, that cannot be so. We have the position that the other place was acting as a revising Chamber to your Lordships. What happened was that the Government reconsidered our policy in another place and changed it. We are now asking your Lordships to agree to that change on its merits.

The amendment agreed by another place was in origin a Back-Bench amendment. When the Government accept such an amendment in your Lordships' House, we are usually applauded. Of course I take the point made by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that this Bill has largely been agreed between the parties. I am sorry that this point of difference between us in a party political sense should have marred the harmony on the Bill, but I do not believe that it has done so to a disastrous extent. However, I should like the opportunity of arguing the case on the merits because it is for noble Lords to decide whether they believe the change in policy is right or wrong. In due course I think it may be convenient if I open the debate on the amendment and my noble friend deals with points raised during the debate.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for his intervention. However, I cannot hide from the House my disappointment that the response to the points which have been made on both sides of the Chamber was not more effective and positive. In the circumstances, I think it would be right for the Government, having regard to the nature of the comments which have been made, to agree to give further consideration to the position.

I should point out that the reference on Second Reading was in fact made by one Government Back Bencher. It can hardly be said that at that stage the Conservative Back Benchers in another place were in a state of high dudgeon and conducting a revolt against the Government. It was later when the amendment was moved by a Back Bencher that the Government responded as I indicated, and as has indeed been noted by the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Campbell of Alloway.

In my view, the right course of action to follow in these circumstances is that we should give the Government still further opportunity to consider the very important points that have been articulated today. Few people who spoke earlier, especially from the other side of the House, could have been entranced by the reasoning adduced by the noble Lord the Leader of the House.

I propose, if I may, to move that further consideration on the Commons Amendments be adjourned to another day. That would give the Government the opportunity to carry out proper consideration. I hope that I am in order in my request. I am still a new boy, having been in this place for barely 13 months. I realise that I may be going wrong so far as concerns the procedure of the House. However, I understand that it might be the right time to do so. Therefore, I move a Motion from this side of the House in those terms.

Moved, that further consideration of the Commons Amendments be adjourned until another day.—(Lord Clinton-Davis.)

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, I do not know whether it is in order for me to speak now, but it does seem to me that an immense amount of heavy weather is being made in this connection. The Government said one thing in this House and then changed their mind in another place. However, we spend our whole time asking governments to change their minds. Therefore, to say that governments have got to do absolutely everything that they said in the first place, seems to me to be a storm in a teacup; but the teacup is so small that it is in fact a teacup in the Queen's doll's house.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, in the light of what has just been said, I agree that the Motion to adjourn consideration on the Commons Amendments is wholly unnecessary. This is an amendment of very little intrinsic importance, but it has acquired a certain amount of importance because of the unfortunate—I use the word "unfortunate" deliberately—course of events which followed: it was adopted in good faith by my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara in this House; and then, in equally good faith I am sure, it was rejected by virtue of a Back Bench amendment in another place.

We are indebted to my noble friend the Leader of the House for the trouble that he has taken over the matter. However, I would not say that anything which aroused the genuine feelings which your Lordships heard expressed earlier this afternoon was a storm in a teacup. Members on all sides of the House are very properly concerned with the standing of this Chamber and its relationship with another place. They did see it to be affected.

On the other hand, my noble friend the Leader of the House has certainly done what I asked of him. He has consulted the Secretary of State on the issue. Therefore, that simply leaves us with the question of the merits of the matter. As regards those merits, as I indicated, I have very limited views and concern. However, I believe it is right that we should continue now with the discussion on the amendment. There is a good attendance in the House today. Therefore, if it be the view of the House, the amendment can be rejected. But I believe that it would be a waste of everyone's time to postpone consideration until another day. I hope, therefore, that we shall proceed.

Lord Renton

My Lords, if we were to have an adjournment it could only be justified on one of two grounds. The first is that the Opposition had been taken by surprise. However, from the eloquent speeches that we heard earlier we know that that is not so. The second is that my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara, and perhaps my noble friend the Leader of the House, had not had an opportunity to discuss the implications of the amendment with the Secretary of State. I should think that they have discussed scarcely anything else for quite a long time.

5.45 p m.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, far from Members of the Opposition not having had time to discuss the matter among themselves, perhaps it was felt that Members of the Government had not had sufficient time to do so. I must say that I found the intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, to be unfortunate. It is not a storm in a teacup; it is a matter which touches this House quite deeply. Indeed, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter illustrated that fact.

When government Ministers come to the Dispatch Box in this place and say, "Yes, we understand the point made by the Opposition; we accept it, and we shall do something about it" and then do something about it and explain that that is part of the philosophy behind the Bill, we expect that to be sustained. However, I believe that we have made our point as fairly as we can. All that we can ask is that it does not become a habit of the Government to fail to live up to expectations in another place which have been raised in this Chamber. I hope that the adjournment will not take place and that we can continue to debate the meat of the matter.

Lord Sefton of Garston

My Lords, it seems to me that the debate is concentrating on the issue of the two Houses. However, that is not the issue. The promise was not made just to this House but to all local authorities in the country. If we are really to consider the people who matter, we should take some time to discuss the situation.

I have a few comments to make on the amendment. Moreover, there is much to say about the way in which it has been handled. The Motion before the House merely seeks to provide time to allow us to give proper consideration to the issues arising out of the very unfortunate way that the Government have handled the matter. As I said, it is not just a question of this House versus the other place. I did not spend 52 years of my life in local government to see local government moved out of the way to give in to party dogma. There is a need for an adjournment so that we can re-establish the trust between local authorities and central government. Quite simply, the action of the Government as regards this particular amendment has certainly damaged the trust which existed.

Lord Waddington

My Lords, as I understand it, it is open to your Lordships to vote on the Motion that this House should not consider the amendment. However, I respectfully submit to your Lordships that the feelings voiced by noble Lords can be fully expressed in a debate on the amendment. Moreover, if your Lordships do not like the amendment—not least, perhaps, because the Government have changed their position since the Bill was last dealt with in this place —as I said, it is open to noble Lords to vote against the amendment. I believe that that is probably the most convenient way to proceed. However, if your Lordships really want to vote on the question of whether we should proceed then, as I understand it, there is nothing to prevent such action.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, before the noble Lord the Leader of the House sits down, it would be most helpful to the House if he could clarify a few points.

First, can he tell us whether the Government, at the time that they accepted the amendment or since, have conferred with the local authority organisations and the public utilities about the matter? Secondly, can he say whether the Secretary of State for Transport has, apart from a bare acknowledgment, responded to the letters which were sent to him on the 10th and 11th June respectively by the public utilities and the local authority organisations? Thirdly, can he say whether there has been any reply from the Prime Minister to the letters which were addressed to him?

Lord Waddington

My Lords, with the greatest respect, whether there had been adequate consultation is a matter which can be raised by your Lordships in the debate on the amendment. Your Lordships would be entitled to take the view that you should not support the amendment because the consultation had been inadequate. That does not go to the question of whether to accept the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, the virtue of having raised the matter in this way is that we have been able to obtain some clarification, albeit negative, from the Government so that we can now move on. I do not propose to test the opinion of the House. I wanted an explanation of the situation from the Government. I resent the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow—I am not sure that he was here at the time—should say that this is a storm in a tea cup. It is nothing of the kind. That has been borne out by the debate. I am informed that there has been no consultation: we shall refer to that when we debate the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.