|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for sending me today a preliminary draft of the government amendments and then what I understand to be the final draft of the government amendments. He will, I think, agree that there are profound legal differences between those two texts. I had begun a legal consultation on the first text, and now find that the point upon which I was taking advice no longer exists. I am, therefore, in the same difficulty as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
I understand that haste is difficult for all parties, but is haste so desperately needed that there is no time for a few days' postponement? The issues which involve a conflict between two Acts of Parliament, and between an Act of Parliament and, as some see it, our international obligations, are very complicated indeed. They are issues that might have exercised, had they gone there, the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House for a very long time. I do not have those skills. I should welcome some more time.
It is unreasonable to expect me, between now and Monday, to master those apparently enormously complex amendments. In view of the small number of your Lordships who took part in proceedings in Committee and on Report, it would not have been too much to ask that the noble Lord let us have copies too. When the noble Lord replies, will he say how we are to reply to people who are telephoning us constantly--I had a telephone call only this morning--asking our advice as to what happens to the benefits which were taken away from those people and which were restored to them by the Court of Appeal, and whether they can claim at least the benefits which apply until the new amendments are passed, if they are?
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, perhaps I could appeal to the Leader of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, did at least address the point that there are those interested in this matter other than the Front Benches. It may be that the Front Benches are in great difficulty not just in understanding what will be put to the House on recommittal but because they will also need to consult.
The strength of this House is the membership of the House, and not necessarily the relationship between the three Front Benches. I suggest to the Leader of the House--I know because of his long family connections with this place that he will be aware of this--that great importance should be attached to giving all of us who participate by speaking or, what is perhaps more important, by voting a reasonable opportunity to see the amendments as they are drafted and, if necessary, to consult.
This is a revising Chamber. At least that is the function which we have regarded as being perhaps our most important function. We cannot revise without some degree of understanding of what is being placed before the House. As I have said before, the House is all its Members; it is not an agreement or disagreement among the three Front Benches. We have in this House a great many of what I call the "independents". We who belong to a party may be in a better position than they are. They perform, in a sense, the most important function by providing a balance between the two sides of the House.
I say to the Leader of the House--I have said it before, and I hope he will not mind it being said again from someone who has been involved with business management--that the leadership of the two Front Benches has an inherent duty to protect the interests of the ordinary Members of this House. If we are to deal with important legislation, however contentious it may be, adequate time should be made available, taking into account the composition of the House.
This House has always been careful about considering new legislation within a Bill. This change to the Bill may be necessary, but at this very late hour we should have a proper opportunity to understand what is being proposed and to be satisfied before we are asked to vote upon it.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will listen carefully to what my noble friend on the Front Bench and other speakers have said, because we are getting too fond of passing through Parliament legislation which is defective and which is seen to be defective when it is too late. It would be a disaster if the Court of Appeal, having ruled against the Government on this issue once, was able to rule against them again because the correcting legislation was again defective. That is why it is important that Members of the House, and Members of another place, should have adequate time to consider the revised legislation.
There is one other point I wish to make. The Prime Minister himself--I agree with him, and I think that many in the House will agree with him--said only yesterday, I believe it was, that Parliament was rushing too many Bills through Parliament too quickly. Apparently he is going to propose that we have two-yearly Sessions starting in March. The Leader of the House shakes his head, perhaps he can give us a progress report on that. Let me just tell the House what I believe to be the case from a reading of the responsible press. It is that we are going to have a great deal more time to consider fewer Bills so that we can consider them properly and not make so many mistakes.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, for those Back Benchers and others who wish to become involved in the Bill, perhaps I may say that cols. 702-736 of Hansard give excellent background reading if they wish to be prepared for the debate on Monday.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, perhaps the House will allow me to speak briefly on the point in response to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. My right honourable friend trailed the idea not of one opening of Parliament every two years but continuing an opening of Parliament once a year, and looking forward to the second year in terms of what legislation might be brought forward in the interests of a cause which I know both he and I hold very dear. Yet again, I suspect that noble Lords' reaction
I am extremely sorry that a number of noble Lords, in particular such distinguished noble Lords as the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Shepherd, have expressed such serious reservations about the timing of the tabling of the amendments in relation to the consideration on recommitment. I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, as I know he recognises, that it is absolutely imperative that the Leader of this House should do all he can to ensure that the interests of the whole House are considered above the interests of the Government, however tempting it might be to do the latter. I assure your Lordships that that is always at the front of my mind. It is in that spirit that my noble friend the Government Chief Whip has established such harmonious relationships with his opposite numbers. We must always seek to arrange business by negotiation and arrangement. I am particularly sorry that on this occasion, in respect of what I agree is an important matter, noble Lords should feel that they have a cause for complaint.
I believe that my noble friends Lord Mackay and Lady Blatch in particular have made every effort to keep the House and those noble Lords who are particularly interested thoroughly informed about the matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, agreed, the issue is not new. I suspect that in the network of paths of legislation in your Lordships' House this is probably one of the most heavily and frequently trodden and has been during the past few years. Indeed, we know from the enormous number of Hansard columns on the subject that on previous occasions the House has fully debated and pretty strongly endorsed Her Majesty's Government's policy on benefits for asylum seekers. Your Lordships have already had the benefit of what always seems to me to be a remarkably detailed grasp of the matters under discussion, evidenced by noble Lords opposite. That grasp is always most strongly evidenced by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It is significant that those who have such a mastery of what is proposed are the very ones who say that they need more time in order to extend their already considerable knowledge.
Of course, it has taken some time to draft the amendments. The matters are complex. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will acknowledge that my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish has already circulated and placed in the Library a full briefing of what is at stake. As your Lordships are aware, on Monday he made a full announcement to the House of the Government's response to the judgment of the Court of Appeal and gave notice of our intention to invite the House to amend the Bill to restore the position. I was grateful for the acknowledgement of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that my noble friend the Government Chief Whip readily agreed to his suggestion that a Motion should be moved to allow the new amendments to be debated in Committee and to permit full exchanges without constraints on Third Reading. My noble friend and the noble Lord came to a rapid agreement on that.
I understand that this morning the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, received a letter from my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish enclosing draft amendments, which required only minor refinements, together with a full explanation of their effect. That communication was copied to other Front Bench spokesmen and was also placed in the Library. Therefore, they were available to the whole House in the way that I think the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, would approve.
Since then noble Lords have also received a copy of the final amendments as they will be tabled. That allows all of this afternoon and all day tomorrow for noble Lords to prepare their own amendments. I had hoped that the House would agree that those arrangements were properly helpful. In view of what has been said, and despite what has been said, I doubt whether it would be in the interests of the House as a whole to rearrange next week's business at this late stage. But my noble friend the Government Chief Whip will always be prepared to listen to further representations through the normal channels. Those further representations are always welcome. Meanwhile, I should be misleading the House if I did not say that my judgment, for what it is worth, is that there has been ample time and that the interests of the House are that it should proceed to the further consideration of this business as scheduled on Monday. After all, as my noble friend Lord Mackay pointed out, this is a matter on which there appears to be a considerable command of the issues at stake among, in particular, Opposition spokesmen.
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page