Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Earl Russell: My Lords, further to the remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, has made, it is at present a Standing Order of this House that all peers count equal, and has been so since 1621. I recognise that what the House does, the House can undo. I recognise that what Parliament has done, Parliament can undo. But at present that is the position. Were I to listen to too many speeches from ministerial Benches implying that I am in some way a second-class Member of this House, I might be slightly less ready to inconvenience myself to vote in the Government Lobby when I agree with them than I have hitherto been.
Let that pass. There is also a further procedural unusualness--shall I say?--in a Minister in this House announcing while the Bill is still in this House that an amendment carried here will be reversed in another place. It has in the past been the custom here--although I admit it has been honoured in the breach as well as in the observance--that we recognise the basic parliamentary principle that each House is sovereign over its own proceedings and therefore any announcement about what another place will do with our amendments is not made until another place has possession of the Bill. That, I think, was a good custom and I am sorry to see it broken.
To come to the specific matter of the amendment, in a rather unexpected speech which the Minister made on the previous amendment she complained constantly of an open-ended commitment she believed it imposed on the state. I do not entirely understand this because it was not my understanding that the previous amendment did anything to repeal anything in Clause 18. She might think about this from the other end. If you look at this from the university point of view, when we have a Government who believe--as the noble Baroness clearly does--that government have sole and unfettered authority to decide what
things will cost, you are living in an open-floored room and dancing on the few remaining rafters comes to seem--shall I say?--a little uncertain. It is essential that government of any party should from time to time have to listen to other expert opinion, with an authority that they cannot ignore, on what things cost. If the Government cannot or will not absorb that principle, relations between universities and the state are likely to be very near their end. That, I believe, would be a desperate loss to us all.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have been surprised--as I know other noble Lords must have been--that this debate, which seemed to be about a relatively straightforward series of amendments (albeit, in my view, unnecessary amendments) has turned into a semi-constitutional debate. First, we have the spectacle of noble Lords opposite posing to be the students' friends. The very same noble Lords--
Earl Russell: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to withdraw the charge of posing to be the students' friends?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not think it is appropriate to withdraw that charge. The noble Earl and others who have spoken in this debate claim that they are protecting the students' fear of some Australian menace which is not likely. I shall give way in a moment. They are the very same Members of this House who have voted on previous occasions to prevent the Government stopping universities charging top-up fees which would hit in particular parents of poorest families. It is a hypocritical attitude. I think, therefore, that it is appropriate for me to say that those arguments are not in reality on behalf of the students of this country.
Earl Russell: My Lords, once again I request the Minister to withdraw that. It is a charge I do not believe he would risk repeating outside this Chamber.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not prepared to withdraw the charge. It is on the voting record and on the speaking record that noble Lords have spoken in this House against the Government's proposals in Clause 18 which would hit individual students--I have given way twice.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I move that the Standing Order on asperity of speech be read.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have no doubt that the Clerk will find the appropriate place in a moment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may advise the House on this matter. The Motion that the Clerk reads the Standing Order which relates
to asperity of speech is debatable; and the Clerk may only read the Standing Order if it has been agreed to by the House.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I move that the Standing Order be read.
On Question, Whether Standing Order 30 shall be read?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 169; Not-Contents, 98.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
7.4 p.m.
The Clerk of the Parliaments: "To prevent misunderstanding, and for avoiding of offensive speeches, when matters are debated, either in the House or at Committees, it is for honour sake thought fit, and so ordered, That all personal, sharp, or taxing speeches be forborn, and whosoever answereth another man's speech shall apply his answer to the matter without wrong to the person: and as nothing offensive is to be spoken, so nothing is to be ill taken, if the party that speaks it shall presently make a fair exposition or clear denial of the words that might bear any ill construction; and if any offence be given in that kind, as the House itself will be very sensible thereof, so it will sharply censure the offender, and give the party offended a fit reparation and a full satisfaction."
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page