§ 3.6 p.m.
§ Lord Macdonald of TradestonMy Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I explained the background to the Motion.
It has been agreed through the usual channels that it would be advantageous to commit the Bill to the Moses Room for a single day, specifically to allow the government amendments to be inserted into the Bill. Once this has been done, the Bill will be reprinted as amended and recommitted in its entirety to a Committee of the Whole House.
The Bill which is considered in Committee of the Whole House will therefore be a clean copy incorporating all the government amendments. It will then be open to your Lordships to move amendments to the Bill in the usual way.
Although the purpose of the Motion is to allow government amendments to be inserted, the Motion does not prevent other amendments from being tabled. However, I would urge those of your Lordships who have already tabled amendments to consider 157 withdrawing them before the Marshalled List for the Grand Committee is printed and retabling them for the Committee of the Whole House. This can be done very simply by talking to the Public Bill Office and it would assist with the practicalities of reprinting the Bill for the Committee of the Whole House.
I should be happy to talk to any of your Lordships who are affected by the arrangement and the Government Whips Office is also happy to provide advice and assistance on this subject. The purpose of the Motion is to allow the Bill to be handled in a way which will make an effective and efficient use of the time of the House.
Moved, That the order of commitment of 5th June be discharged and that the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee; that the Bill as amended in the Grand Committee be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; and that the Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House of 7th June (order of consideration of clauses and Schedules) be instead an Instruction to the Grand Committee. —(Lord Macdonald of Tradeston.)
§ Lord Peyton of YeovilMy Lords, I want to congratulate the Minister on his well placed sense of modesty and shyness in seeking to handle a very awkward stage of a very clumsy Bill in a reasonably delicate fashion without revealing the full horror to an unnecessary degree of public examination and perhaps even slight distaste and disapproval.
At the same time, I should not like to leave my noble friends on the Front Bench out of the torrent of goodwill which is proceeding from my lips. I congratulate them on their generosity, even if I believe that on this occasion they may rather have overdone it and been a little too generous where the deserts were not all that obvious.
§ Baroness Carnegy of LourMy Lords, before the Minister replies, for the convenience of the House can he inform us how many government amendments are to be put down which necessitate this rather unusual move? After all, a great deal of time has been spent on the Bill in the other place and we have already spent one day debating it here. Can he tell us how many amendments necessitate this strange idea?
§ Lord HenleyMy Lords, before the Minister responds, perhaps I may say a word or two, partly in response to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Peyton. The Minister is right to say that this matter was agreed following discussions through the usual channels. We agreed to it with some disquiet, if I may express it that way, because it is not the ideal way in which to deal with the Bill.
The simple fact is that far too many Bills are coming from the Government. There are far too many government amendments, and one suspects that that is because the Bills are thoroughly badly drafted. The fault does not lie with the draftsman but with Ministers 158 who obviously give inadequate instructions to the draftsman to ensure that Bills are right in the first place.
Therefore, can the Minister give us an assurance that no further government amendments will be put down following those tabled at this early stage? Secondly, we all accept that the Moses Room is not always the ideal place in which to deal with this type of business. If, on the day that is eventually chosen for the Bill to go to the Moses Room, more Peers wish to take part than wish to discuss whatever the business may be in the House—this may be more a question for the Government Chief Whip—perhaps at that stage the two pieces of legislation could be swapped round.
§ Lord Graham of EdmontonMy Lords, I wonder whether noble Lords are making too heavy weather of this matter and looking a gift horse in the mouth. As I understand it, such a move would not set a precedent. It has been done before, and I look upon it as a means of simplifying the debating procedure.
Noble Lords may make points about whose convenience is best served. I believe that it is the convenience of the House. We will have a clear run at what I understand the Government consider to be a tidy process. Noble Lords have sat in this House through Committee stages of Bills which have been a mixture of private initiatives, official opposition and official government. My understanding of the proscriptions that exist on business in the Moses Room is that there will be no inhibition on any individual to move in or out of the Moses Room and no one's rights will be infringed. The procedure appears to provide a tidy way of making progress. I shall listen, as will others, to what the Minister has to say. However, I look upon the move as a benefit to the House.
§ Lord JoplingMy Lords, it is possible that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is right when he says that this move is for the benefit of the House as a whole. However, that is with the proviso that the House has plenty of time to absorb what takes place in the Moses Room. Those of us who have worked in this building for a number of years know that Bills can be changed out of all recognition when government amendments have been tabled.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that a reasonable gap will occur between the Moses Room procedures and the return of the Bill to the House. It seems to me that the two-weekends rule provides a sensible way in which to approach the matter. I hope that, having taken his instructions from the Chief Whip, the Minister will be able to tell us that the two-weekends rule will apply between discussion of the Bill in the Moses Room and its return to the Floor of the House.
§ Lord Campbell of AllowayMy Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Jopling. I speak as an unimportant Back-Bencher. However, Back-Benchers are concerned about what happens and, if government amendments are to be brought forward, we should be 159 given notice. I know that my noble friend the Opposition Chief Whip was reluctant to accept the proposal. As I understand it, no agreement was reached as to the way in which the government amendments would be dealt with. Therefore, from these Back Benches I support what was said by my noble friend Lord Jopling.
§ Lord Macdonald of TradestonMy Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, I am unable to state exactly how many government amendments will be tabled. I can assure noble Lords that, for my liking, there will be too many. No doubt there will be the usual profusion of technicalities which nowadays seem to cluster around every Bill. We hope that by dealing with those in the Moses Room, much of the clutter will be cleared out of the way before the Bill reaches its Committee stage in the House. That would allow us to have a clearer and better debate on the underlying issues that your Lordships may want to address at greater length.
As to whether a reasonable gap will follow our deliberations in the Moses Room, I can assure the House that the Bill will be reprinted the following morning. However, I am unable to confirm that two clear weekends will follow that. But I hope that noble Lords will feel that sufficient time is available in which to address the issues that I shall introduce in amendments.
I accept in good part the congratulations of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, on the elegance of what is being suggested. However, as my noble friend Lord Graham said, it has been done before. When we dealt with the Reserve Forces Bill in 1996 the Opposition neither moved nor spoke to amendments in an attempt to allow the passage of that legislation. Although I should be delighted to accept his congratulations, I shall direct them towards my Chief Whip, whose ingenuity knows no bounds.
On Question, Motion agreed to.