Business (Hansard, 18 May 1999)

§ Lord Marsh
My Lords, I wonder whether this is a convenient moment for me to ask the Government whether they can enlighten the House on how they see future progress on the House of Lords Bill. It is a unique Bill in that the major part of it is the result of a formal agreement between three parties: the Government, the Opposition and three Members of these Benches, not representing Members on these Benches—my noble friend, Lord Weatherill, my noble friend Lord Carnarvon and myself.
In return for the Weatherill amendment, it was formally agreed that the Bill would enjoy a normal progress through the House. Many of us believe that that side of the bargain is at least possibly at risk. Certainly after last night's performance the House as a whole is entitled to know whether the Government at this stage are confident 151 that the Bill will progress normally, or whether other steps should be taken to ensure and preserve stage one in order that we may sensibly proceed to stage two.

§ The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg)
My Lords, last night those of your Lordships who wanted to get on with working on the House of Lords Bill were prevented by busloads of hereditaries, who at a quarter-past 11 made a majority to close down the Committee. That was high-order profligacy with parliamentary time. By that behaviour they are at risk of testing the patience of the country and the Government to destruction.

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor aware that he does not do himself or his office great credit when he speaks in those terms? He says that "busloads" of Peers were brought in. That is not so. There were nine votes more from this side of the Committee than there were on the other side. The only trouble is that the other side did not bus in 10 more people than it did. It does no credit to the office that the noble and learned Lord holds when he speaks in those terms.

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I reject every word of that. What we saw last night was a "go slow" by hereditaries, very many of whom were not even actively participating in our debates. That was self-indulgence of a high order. They compelled those who wanted to work to down tools when they themselves had come in not to work but to close down a House of Parliament.

§ Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, I wonder if I could put a question to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, as to his—

Noble Lords
No!

§ Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, in that case I wonder whether I may put a question to whoever it is appropriate to put a question to about the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, when he says that this great bargain was struck between the Government, the Opposition and three leading Cross-Bench Peers. It must be clear that a number of Cross-Benchers did not participate in that secret deal, and as far as I am aware the Opposition certainly never participated in it.
We had a very interesting debate on other things yesterday, including a very sensible alternative to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. I have to put it to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, that his premise is simply inaccurate.

§ Lord Marsh
My Lords, since my name has been mentioned directly, I crave the indulgence of the House to make one simple point. If there is no agreement, perhaps someone will say so and we can reassess our way of dealing with the Bill.

§ Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am intrigued by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. I understood 152 that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House had not given permission for a Private Notice Question, so that is not what it is and therefore I suppose it is entirely in order for the noble Lord to respond.
I was rather hoping that today we would get away from the churlishness of last night. It is not an attitude which sits well on this House. What happened last night was a very unusual circumstance. There was a breakdown in the arrangements which best serve this House, the arrangements that work through the usual channels. The usual channels have worked consistently well, in good times and in bad, over a considerable number of years. It must be infinitely preferable for us to return to that happy state. But we on this side of the House, and those in other parts of the House, who do not support the intentions of the House of Lords Bill cannot be blackmailed with threats that are issued from time to time from the party of government.
My noble friend the Opposition Chief Whip had made it plain that we did not feel that it was right for a Bill of this importance to be taken into the small hours of the night. He offered that we should try to complete the business in another hour, and if that was not possible that we should complete it today. He further said that he would do everything he possibly could, short of a total guarantee, to ensure that all the business that the Government wanted between now and the Recess would be honoured.
That was not acceptable, and a vote ensued. As my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, there was only a nine vote difference between our side and the government side, which must be particularly galling to the government side.
What is also particularly surprising about this issue—

§ Lord Carter
My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?

§ Lord Strathclyde
In a moment, when I have finished this point.
I was saying that what is also particularly surprising is that within a few hours of the House adjourning the Government themselves were planning to adjourn another place under very different circumstances and to muck up their own business. This is a very odd state of affairs.
I say to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who has achieved a great statesmanlike attitude towards the Bill, that we should revert to that state, because it is one which best serves the interests of the House.

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, perhaps I may make one point simply and shortly for the record and in order not to raise the temperature.
We are speaking of a five-clause Bill, with a single schedule. It is admittedly of considerable constitutional importance. Let us consider the extent of the debate that we have had on the issues thus far: one day on the Queen's Speech, two days on the White Paper, two days on Second Reading and six-and-a-half days on the Committee stage, including today. The Government have been very reasonable, but I have to say that there must come an end to all debate.

§ Lord Carter
My Lords, this is extremely important. I ask the noble Lord the Leader on the Opposition to make 153 one thing absolutely clear. I thought that I had been given, and that the House had been given, by the Opposition Chief Whip in the Chamber last night a guarantee that the business that I need before Whitsun would be reached. That was confirmed by the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip outside the Chamber. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has just appeared to imply that there was something less than a total guarantee. Is he reneging on an agreement that was made by his colleague?

§ Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, no. The noble Lord misunderstood me. I said that it fell mildly short of a guarantee, but what I am trying to say is that we would do everything we possibly could as the Official Opposition to make sure that the Government's business was produced.

§ Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank
My Lords, I think your Lordships should rise a little above this detail, which can he exchanged between the two sides for an infinite time. Everybody who was here yesterday knows that it was a wasted day. And everybody who was here knows precisely what happened at 11 o'clock. This was very familiar; it is House of Commons politics brought into your Lordships' House.
The point of substance is as follows, and I hope that I shall be forgiven if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has already indirectly faced it. As the House knows, we on these Benches were at no time party to the negotiations which led to the Weatherill amendment. As the House also knows, we are against it in principle and we have been against it in detail.
But the realistic fact is that if the deal, however unacceptable to these Benches it may have been, got the business through, then there was an argument that it was worth doing. Plainly, on yesterday's experience it is not getting the business through. In those circumstances, although I would expect no reply from the Government today, I hope that they will consider between now and next Tuesday whether, when the time comes to consider in the House the question whether the clause should stand part, next Tuesday is the time to say "Enough is enough and the Weatherill amendment should stand no longer".