Criminal Justice Bill (Hansard, 20 November 2003)

§ Lord Grocott
My Lords, I hope that that is clear!
I beg to move that the House do adjourn until noon. The reason for doing so is that amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill are still being processed following discussions on how to resolve the differences between the two Houses. At 12 o'clock I shall come back to the 2051 House to make a further business Statement about when we expect to start consideration of Commons amendments on the Criminal Justice Bill and on the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, and when it will be convenient to repeat the Statement that the Foreign Secretary is making in the House of Commons on the terrorist attack in Istanbul.

§ Lord Cope of Berkeley
My Lords, I am sorry about this delay. Earlier today the Government tabled amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill but those amendments have now been withdrawn. We are trying to understand why and, as the noble Lord the Chief Whip says, discussions are proceeding. In the interests of reaching agreement, I think that the House should rise as suggested until noon. I am sorry that the House is inconvenienced in this way but, as I say, I think and I hope that it is in the interests of reaching agreement.

§ Lord Grocott
My Lords, as promised I now give the House further information. I shall formally move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 12.45 p.m. By then the amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill will have been processed. I wish to emphasise that I make no criticism whatever of the Public Bill Office, the staff of which are working heroically at this difficult time.
Once we have considered the Commons message on the Criminal Justice Bill, the House will immediately consider the Commons message on the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. When we have completed that, my noble friend the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement made in the other place by the Foreign Secretary on the terrorist attacks in Istanbul. The start of business will be a little later than we should all like, but I hope that the sequence is now clear; that is. the Criminal Justice Bill, the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, then the Statement. I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 12.45 p.m.

§ Lord Grocott
My Lords, as the House will recall, I have twice had to postpone the start of our proceedings. On behalf, I think that it is fair to say, of the usual channels and not simply myself acting singly, we shall have to ask for a further 30 minutes' postponement. The reason is to ensure that when the House comes to consider its business, everything will be in order so that we can do so in a coherent way. I 2052 say that with every finger crossed, but I really believe this time that when I say 1.15 p.m., that will actually mean 1.15 p.m. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 1.15 p.m.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, will we have 10 minutes to look at the amendments before we come back into the Chamber? It is pretty hopeless trying to put one's mind to something handed to one only three minutes before. They are not available now.

§ Lord Grocott
My Lords, the purpose of the delay is to ensure that the amendments can be considered properly, and that noble Lords can see what is tabled before the House sits again at 1.15. I hope that the House will believe and trust me that the adjournment will be for its convenience.

§ Lord Cope of Berkeley
My Lords, I concur with that. The adjournment will be for the convenience of the House. Some of the amendments are very complicated. It would be very unsatisfactory to deal with them as manuscript amendments, which is a theoretical possibility open to us. Given the complexities of some of the amendments and the attempts being made to reach agreement, it is in the interests of the House that the Public Bill Office has time to do its work properly. That is what we expect from it, and we get such excellent service from it. If it has the time to do that work, we can proceed with our business. Like the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip, I believe that this will be the last postponement.

§ Lord Roper
My Lords, I support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. We are obviously all very distressed at the further delay, but we believe that it was inevitable, unfortunately, because of the complexity of the amendments. The Public Bill Office is certainly doing its best to try to get them to us as soon as possible.

§ The Earl of Onslow
My Lords, not a smidgen of criticism attaches to the noble Lord or the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. That is acknowledged by everyone. However, is it not the case that someone slightly higher up—I would hesitate to name him or her—has in effect been withdrawing agreements that were already made? That is why the pickle in which the noble Lord finds himself is as big, vinegary and full of gherkins as it is possible to have.

§ Lord Cope of Berkeley
My Lords, I was careful to minimise the possibility that anything that I might have said might make it more difficult to reach agreement in the very near future. It is in the interests 2053 of both good legislation and the House that agreement should happen, which is why I support the further adjournment. I hope that we can agree to it.

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, in the most irenic sense, when will the newly printed amendments be available, so that we can converge on them and read them for as long as possible?

§ Lord Grocott
My Lords, the answer to that has to be the standard one; namely, as soon as anyone humanly can deliver them. That will be in time for us to start our proceedings at 1.15.

§ Lord Grocott
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.