Crime and Disorder Bill [H.L.] (Hansard, 2 February 1998)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn)
MyLords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Crime and Disorder Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 4,

Clauses 18 to 21,

Clauses 5 to 7,

Clause 16,

Clauses 8 to 15,

Clause 17,

Clauses 22 to 25,

Clause 68,

Clause 26,

Clause 79,

Clauses 27 to 32,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 33 to 43,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 44 to 47,

Clauses 70 and 71,

Clauses 48 to 51.

Schedule 3,

Clauses 72 to 77,

Schedule 5,

Clause 78,

Clauses 52 to 55,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 56 to 65.

Clause 91.

Clauses 66 and 67,

Clause 69,

Clauses 80 to 87,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 88 to 90,

Clauses 92 to 94,

Schedule 7,

Clause 95.

Schedules 8 and 9,

Clause 96.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

Lord Renton
My Lords, although this is the Crime and Disorder Bill, I have never seen the order in which we are to consider a Bill put forward in such a disorderly way. We occasionally take a clause or schedule out of order, but, within my recollection, such a chaotic plan has never been put before us.
I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House on the detail, but the proposed order of consideration means that Schedule 4 is being taken after Schedule 5—for no apparent reason, so far as I can see. If we now look at Clauses 27 to 32 and later at Clauses 33 to 44, we find that Clause 33 is grouped in the list with Clauses 27 to 32, and not with Clauses 33 to 44. Strangely, Clause 68 and Clauses 70 and 71 have been promoted while Clauses 52 to 55, Clauses 56 to 65, Clauses 66 and 67, and Clause 69 have been demoted. 435 It is strange that Clauses 72 to 77 come within a group dealing with Scottish law. Scottish law and practice differ from those in England and Wales in various ways and should surely be considered separately instead of being grouped together with similar clauses relating to England and Wales. We do not normally proceed in that way.
I have always admired the manner in which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, presents matters to the House. He normally does us a great service. I cannot believe that he was the inventor of this chaos.

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, I did not do it all on my own, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is about to leap to his feet to confirm. It was done through the usual channels with the absolute support and affirmation of the Opposition Front Bench. What we have tried to do is helpfully—I stress the adverb—group related clauses.
On the Scottish question, the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, approached me to see how the Scottish matters might be dealt with. We thought carefully and concluded that the appropriate Scottish clauses should be grouped together to follow their English brethren. I am sure that that is a convenient way of proceeding. As I said, it was all done by agreement with the usual channels and in the usual way. Your Lordships will agree that it must therefore be 100 per cent. right in every respect.

§ Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, having been dragged to my feet by those words of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, I voice my support for what my noble friend Lord Renton said. Although it is true that the usual channels agreed to this Motion, it was not without some discussion as to its merits because, as my noble friend pointed out, it is extremely unusual. However, the Government are the Government and if they have decided in their wisdom that this is the best and most appropriate way to proceed, who are we to disagree? It was not until heard my noble friend that I realised the seriousness of the flaws in the Government's argument. I am sure that the Government will want to reflect on what my noble friend said, but we shall not oppose the Motion.

Lord Renton
My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may say a few more words. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for his attempt to answer the case that I put forward. I thank also my noble friend Lord Strathclyde for destroying that attempt.
I should have thought that between now and tomorrow the Government should be given the opportunity to think again, certainly about some of the earlier clauses. This would be a bad precedent to set. If we have a Bill with a carefully considered order of presentation—this Bill undoubtedly has, because the order of the clauses as set out in the Bill is readily understandable—it seems unacceptable that we should then have to consider the clauses in a different order. 436 Therefore, although time is short, I suggest that the Government should be asked to think again about the earlier clauses. However, I shall not oppose the Motion.

§ Lord Carter
My Lords, perhaps I may remind the House and the Opposition Chief Whip that the order was largely suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and that we agreed with him.