---

Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]

Read a third time, an amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]

Read a third time, an amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Planning (Hazardous Substances) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]

Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Planning (Consequential Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]

Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Police Bill [H.L.]

3 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.--(Baroness Blatch.)

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I gave the Minister notice that I should have to intervene at this stage of the proceedings. The House will be aware that conflicting, shall I say incompatible, amendments were passed at Report stage on 20th January. Although, of course, the Government were not responsible for the position and would much rather it had not happened, the fact is that the Bill left its Report stage in an imperfect form. It was very much better in principle than the Bill which was originally introduced, but it was technically defective.

I should have thought that, in the eight days which have passed since the Report stage, the Government would have come to some conclusion about the amendments and been able to inform the House what conclusions they had reached. It seems to me and a number of noble Lords who are concerned with the integrity of the House as a revising Chamber that the House has the right to be taken into the Government's confidence on the matter. We have the right to know what the Government intend to do about the amendments, where they intend that further amendments should take place and what they should be.

28 Jan 1997 : Column 1083

I am not speaking to the Minister personally, but I am disappointed that the Government collectively have not felt it possible to treat this House with the seriousness which it deserves.

Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, are we not to hear any response from the Government to the point before we proceed to consideration of amendments on Third Reading? Are we to hear whether there will be a statement from Ministers about the manner in which they intend to treat the amendments? If we are, I shall immediately resume my seat. If not, I can only say, without disrespect, that I would regard it as a discourtesy to the House unless we are given a clear indication as to what the Government intend to do about the situation.

It is not the Opposition's Bill, nor that of the Liberal Democrats, it is the Government's Bill. They have a responsibility to ensure that it is put in a proper way and a responsibility for accounting to this House. Despite the noble Baroness's apparent amusement, it is still the Bill of this House. It is treating us with a certain amount of disrespect if we do not hear from the Government what they intend to do about it. It is all very well to leave it to another place, as I assume they intend to do. That is within the Government's rights and I do not disagree with it. On the other hand, as long as the Bill remains the property of this House it is to this House that the Government's comments should be addressed. In view of the clear and decisive majority that was achieved for the amendments, it is to this House that the Government should be accountable.

I am sorry that I am amusing the noble Baroness with these comments but I regard it as a serious and important matter. Here are a Government at the fag end of their life, without a majority in the House. We are unable to say whether the Government will be able to get the Bill through in another place. That is not a matter for us, but at least they could say what they intend to do here. It is to this House that the Government are accountable.

I must say that I would have expected something different in these circumstances, in accordance with conventions and precedents. I well recall what happened to governments that ran out of majorities in the past, and I remember very well the courtesy and consideration with which the Opposition were then treated. There was consultation with the Opposition on Bills that had reached an appropriate stage when there were differences that needed to be cleared up.

I can only say that unless we hear more from the Government, I shall be reinforced in my conviction that this is an arrogant Government. I do not accuse Ministers here of that because they are apparently merely passing on what they hear from Mr. Howard and, if he wishes to say anything, exactly what he wishes to say. However, increasingly over the past 18 years the Government have behaved in an arrogant manner to most people who are concerned with public affairs, whether it be the Civil Service or either House. I know that we have had to continue to groan under this yoke, but I trust that that will soon be brought to an end.

28 Jan 1997 : Column 1084

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may say to the House that it was out of courtesy and not discourtesy that I did not rise to speak, because I was warned in advance that the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, would wish to have his say on the matter. I thought it would be helpful for the House to hear what he had to say first. Having heard it, however, I think it was very precipitate and ungenerous concerning the way in which we have behaved in this House. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, may also wish to have his say. It is important for me to hear what noble Lords have to say on the Bill and I shall reply in full to the challenge that the noble Lord has set down for me.

Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, far be it from me to refuse an invitation of such generosity from the Minister. They are rare and the opportunity should be seized with a degree of hesitation but without delay.

I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said--that the Bill was better in principle for having been discussed in your Lordships' House. He said that it was better in principle, but he did not say that it was better in principle than the Bill he first happily embraced. I make that point in the gentlest possible way.

This is a serious matter and I shall not detain noble Lords long. I had hoped that by now the Home Secretary would have felt able to announce that he had accepted your Lordships' decision on the two most important amendments and was dwelling on how best they might be implemented. In so far as they were contradictory, we hoped he would be able to say what better way there was of solving the problem. It is disappointing if that announcement is not to be made in this House. But I shall not pursue the matter, except to say that I hope that the Home Secretary will make the announcement soon.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it was not entirely unexpected that the noble Lord came prepared to say something this afternoon on the matter. In regard to the noble Lords, Lord Callaghan and Lord Rodgers, who referred to the "decision" of this House, I would rather refer to the "indecision" of the House, because that is where we are at the moment.

Also I am somewhat surprised at what noble Lords have said on the matter. This House has had its say on intrusive surveillance, albeit a somewhat schizophrenic one. It has left us with a Bill containing an amalgam of three propositions: the Government's, the Liberal Party's and the Labour Party's. The noble Lords, Lord Rodgers and Lord Callaghan, must accept some responsibility in that, along with many other noble Lords, they quite deliberately voted for the two amendments, knowing what the effect would be. I exonerate the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, from that because he voted for only one option. We were all privy to his attempts to persuade his Benches not to vote for the Liberal amendment. We heard the exhortations from him, rather like a manic conductor of an orchestra, but they fell on deaf ears. A large number of noble Lords on his Benches went outside and pointed in two directions at the same time.

No noble Lord has sought to put down an amendment today in order to press one proposal or another. Therefore, the Bill will leave this House for another

28 Jan 1997 : Column 1085

place with a mixed message. The Government are clearly concerned. If the judiciary is to become involved, or if different arrangements than those proposed by the Government are to be brought in, discussions must range much wider than with political parties, to include the police and the judiciary, to name but a few interested parties. That could not have been completed by Third Reading.

The Government stand ready to consider all proposals from all political parties and from any other quarter. My understanding is that the Labour Party is already beginning to proffer ideas about a way forward. I have a letter from no less a person than my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. He wrote to the Leader of the Liberal Party saying that he welcomed constructive suggestions and proposals for a way forward from Alan Beith in another place and the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, in this place.

This Bill has all of its stages before it in another place and no doubt the House of Lords will have expressed its concern--that will not go unrecorded by another place--that this House is undecided as to a way forward. It must be for another place, therefore, to resolve this issue. Any proposals determined by the other place will of course come back to your Lordships. We have not had the last word on this and will have a further opportunity to consider the issue of authorising intrusive surveillance.

I cannot accept that any further delay by this House will serve any useful purpose. I am just tempted to think that this discussion, which is delaying our proceedings on the Bill this afternoon, is not entirely unconnected with the letter sent out by the Opposition Chief Whip, which we all read with great interest in last week's Sunday Express. Perhaps I may suggest that we press on with the Third Reading in the normal way.

---