§ Lord WakehamMy Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the Third Reading of the Bail (Amendment) Bill to be taken after the Report stage today; and to enable the Representation of the People Bill to be taken through its remaining stages on 8th July.
§ Lord Harris of GreenwichMy Lords, I gave the Leader of the House notice that I proposed to make some comments on this particular resolution. My concerns relate exclusively to the Bail (Amendment) Bill, and not to the other Bill which is mentioned. We understand the case for treating that in the way suggested by the Leader of the House.
The House may be aware that the Bail (Amendment) Bill was given a Second Reading on 9th June. It is a Private Member's Bill emanating from the House of Commons giving the prosecutor in some cases the right to appeal to a Crown Court against a magistrates' court decision to give bail. The consequence of such an appeal is automatically that the defendant will be held in custody for a period of up to 48 hours.
No issue of principle has divided us so far as this particular Bill is concerned. It has received general support in all parts of the House. But, as the noble Lord the Leader of the House will be aware, a number of issues of considerable significance were raised during the Second Reading debate by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Williams of Mostyn, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby. Then we had a situation where last Thursday there was a Business Motion in the name of the Leader of the House to take all stages of this Bill at one Sitting—the one which occurred last Monday. Representations were made through the usual channels, and I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for deciding not to proceed with that Motion. A number of issues arise from that procedure which cause considerable disquiet in many parts of the House.
First, because of the timetable in the House of Commons, it was argued that it was essential to proceed in this way; otherwise, there was a risk that the Bill would fail. The second point is that it was argued—as it has been argued on many previous occasions—that if any amendments were made to the Bill, the Bill would fail. Last Monday we had only 45 to 50 minutes' discussion during what was the Committee stage of the Bill. We faced a situation where, for instance, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, did not move a number of amendments because of the need to make progress because of the Maastricht Bill. In addition to the Bail (Amendment) Bill, during the dinner hour we also took the Osteopaths Bill and the Motion on the fishing vessels scheme.
Yesterday afternoon, in order to try to make progress and get agreement on all sides of the House, there was a discussion between a number of us and the promoters of the Bill, some of the colleagues of the noble Lord the Leader of the House and representatives of government departments on many of the amendments that were moved on Monday and some of those that were not moved on Monday. In fact, it was a Committee stage of the Bill but the Sitting was in private. If I may say so, it does not seem to me—I am sure that I shall carry the noble Lord with me on this point—that that is a very sensible way to deal with public business.
Tonight we very much hope that we shall reach agreement when we discuss the Bail (Amendment) Bill 934 both on Report and on Third Reading. But there are, I believe, three important issues which I very much hope the noble Lord will consider.
First, there is the Commons timetable for looking at Lords amendments to Commons Private Members' Bills. It seems to me most unsatisfactory that arguments of the kind that have been deployed in relation to the Bail (Amendment) Bill and used on previous occasions so far as other Private Members' Bills are concerned, are used simply because the House of Commons will not agree to look at Lords amendments later in the Session than they presently do.
Secondly, there are the repeated statements made on this Bill and on many previous Bills that if any amendments are passed there is a danger that the Bill will fail.
Thirdly, it seems to me remarkable that with the present weight of business in this House we have not been meeting on Fridays. This Bill could have been dealt with properly and in detail last Friday, but of course there was no Sitting of the House. It seems to me quite wrong that we should be placed in this situation. The liberty of many people will be affected as a result of the passage of this Bill. It is quite wrong that as a revising Chamber we should not apply ourselves in a far more businesslike way to looking at these issues than has been possible when discussing this Bill.
§ Lord WakehamMy Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for raising those points and for giving me notice that he intended to do so. I say at the beginning that the Motion that I moved has been agreed through the usual channels. I do not think that it is the noble Lord's intention that we should eventually not agree to the Motion. Nevertheless, he has raised a number of points which are important.
The question of the Commons timetable is a difficulty in this case. I believe it was my noble friend Lord Bethell who made the point that amendments might not be considered. As I understand it, the noble Lord was not speaking 100 per cent. accurately in theory, but in practice was probably right. That is to say, Lords amendments would be at such a low place in the Order Paper in the House of Commons that in practice they would not be reached. Those points are important and I shall certainly undertake to discuss them with my right honourable friend the Leader of the House of Commons and my colleagues in another place to see whether this matter can be looked at and whether we can find a more satisfactory way of doing it; or at least, get a more satisfactory answer if we cannot do it. I shall certainly do that, and I shall write to the noble Lord.
With regard to sitting on Friday, it is a matter for this House to decide whether it wants to, and on which occasions. I am sure that there are occasions when it is right to do so. Those are decisions that I would not dream of arriving at without discussions through the usual channels. I shall certainly have those discussions. There are occasions when it must be appropriate.
§ Lord Graham of EdmontonMy Lords, I simply say from these Benches that the Motion that the Leader of the House has moved has the full approval of these Benches through the usual channels in the light of the hiatus that occurred at the beginning of the week. We certainly fully endorse the sense of aggravation felt by the participants in the affair. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Harri 3, will appreciate the good intentions of the Leader in seeking to avoid the possibility of anything of that kind happening again.
On Question, Motion agreed to.