| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Roper: I have a good deal of sympathy with the amendment. As the noble Earl said, this is the original proposal which came forward from the Leader's Group on working practices. However, when we came to consider it in the Procedure Committee, points which were made earlier about the need for flexibility were made, and the severe constraints which would be imposed if we had an absolute ten o'clock limit—the kind of points made so effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and by other noble Lords taking part in the debate at an earlier stage.
Therefore, on balance, the Procedure Committee found that what we had recommended, which is that the Companion should recommend that normally we would adjourn at ten o'clock, should come forward for the Committee's consideration today.
I hope that the noble Earl will think about this matter before pressing it to a vote. My view is that we ought at least to give the voluntary principle and—those disreputable people—"the usual channels" a chance. If in the course of the next year we are unable to deliver on the ten o'clock finish as the norm, which we have suggested to the Committee today, I believe it would be right for us to go back. We should have a kind of sunrise clause, accepted by agreement if not formally on the face of the Bill: that if we have not solved the issue voluntarily after a year we should consider the need for a Standing Order to do so. On that basis, I hope that it will be possible for the amendment not to be pressed today.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the driving force which has motivated me throughout has been the position of the Back-Benchers in your Lordships' House. I am truly nervous that the proposals contained in the Procedure Committee report, including those to which the amendment relates, further erode the rights of Back-Benchers at the expense of the Front Benches and in particular of the Government. It is the duty of this House to hold Ministers to account and to make them explain their proposals in a clear and concise manner. The arrangements that the proposals bring forward do not enhance that requirement. For that reason, they are to be regretted. If the amendment moved by my noble friend achieves that desirable aim, I support it.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, a cut-off time of 10 o'clock, or any specific hour, could lead to the ridiculous position of 20 minutes of a five day Committee stage being hung over. The choice is either to return to the matter the next day or, more likely, for it not to be considered and just dropped. The inevitable battle is about practicality and the real fear of the noble Earl, which I share, that the usual
channels will erode the provision. I should have had greater sympathy with the noble Earl's amendment if it provided for the normal practice to be to stop at 10 o'clock with an absolute cut-off a little later so that there was some leeway.If erosion takes place, we should come back, and very soon, with a rule such as the noble Earl seeks to make perhaps with my small margin in it. It could be a short trial period; it need not last two years. As soon as those we deeply respect, namely the usual channels, start to erode the position, we quickly table an amendment to that effect.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Roper. We are at the mercy of the Government. They can win any Division they wish.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, what on earth is the objective of dividing? Let us be realistic. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has accepted on one occasion—there may have been two; I have not been present throughout the debate—that he would consider Amendment No. 8 and deal with it. That, for me, is one of the main considerations.
On the other matters which have arisen, we are really at the mercy of the Government. What on earth is the objective of dividing, especially at this hour of the night? There is every objective in moving amendments and seeking to persuade. It is obviously possible to do so.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am happy to follow the course the noble Lord, Lord Roper, suggests and confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I am perfectly content to see whether the measure works to the satisfaction of the House for, say, a year. I accept that two years may be too long. Originally, we thought that we had got it right. Representations were made that we needed a certain amount of flexibility. I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, about Back-Benchers. The argument which convinced me was that a Back-Bencher may have waited patiently in the House throughout the debate. The House comes to the last two amendments in which he or she may be particularly interested and there is then the cut-off. We simply wanted decent flexibility.
If there is erosion or bad faith, I am perfectly happy to return to the issue in a year's time. I hope that that satisfies the noble Earl.
The Earl of Caithness: When the Conservative Party was in power, I remember sitting as a Back-Bencher and waiting until two o'clock in the morning for my amendment to be called. Exactly what the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House described occurred: the usual channels decided to stop about two amendments before mine. If I had known that earlier in the evening, I could have gone home.
Wherever we place the cut-off, some people will be hurt. Rippon did not deliver the goods because there was no check on the executive. The Procedure Committee's proposal also contains no check on the executive, but I am grateful to all Members who have spoken in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Roper, has come up with an interesting idea, which I support. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, for picking up that idea. I hope that the House will consider the matter, because it concerns a serious point at which power to make decisions is being transferred from the House to the usual channels. We must return to the proposal if it does not work. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 17:
- Paragraph 22, page 7, line 12, leave out:
11 am–1.30 pm House sits for public business
1.30 pm–3 pm House adjourns during pleasure
The purpose of my amendments is simply to disagree with the suggestion that we should sit on Thursday mornings. Frankly, it is undesirable for the House to sit on any morning. We are not a paid House; most of us must earn our living, or at least a partial living, elsewhere. The only time that we can do that with any sort of certainty is in the mornings. If we are regularly to sit on Thursday mornings, that creates a serious problem for those of us, such as myself, who have to earn a modest living somewhere else. That is an important consideration. It is no more than that. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: In the Procedure Committee, I suggested the table laid out on page 7 of the report. I am not hugely attracted to the idea of sitting on Thursday mornings. However, when the working group, the Leader's Group, sent out a questionnaire, the response that we should sit on Thursday mornings was the most popular.
My noble friend Lord Trefgarne may well be right to say that that will be inconvenient to some noble Lords. It is equally inconvenient to some noble Lords to stay late on Thursdays when they have far to travel. It strikes me that the best way to resolve that is for the House to take a decision. The reason that I put it like that is that if we do not try an experiment, we shall never know whether my noble friend or those who want to stay late on Thursdays are right. We can spend half an hour—or even more, as the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House suggests—discussing the merits of sitting on Thursday mornings, but I suggest
that this is one issue on which most Members of the House have already made up their minds. It is a clear-cut case: either we decide to try this out, or we do not.10.30 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, trivialises the issue when he describes it as a mere matter of convenience. During all of our debate about the powers, duties and constitution of this House, enormous lip service has been paid to the theory that it is of value to the House to include people who have outside activities and bring them to their work in the House. Those outside activities do not necessarily have to involve earning. They may involve sitting on the boards of charities, but they are doing things that are other than—I was going to say "merely"—legislating or debating. They involve applying ourselves to what we are legislating about, rather than merely doing the legislating.
It is difficult enough to do such things and be available in the afternoons; having to be available in the mornings as well would make things even more difficult. We might take the example of someone who is offered a seat on a board or on the governing body of a great charity. Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday mornings are probably the only occasions on which such bodies meet. So we are ruling out one in three of those occasions.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, rightly said that people who undertook to sit on committees of the House owed a duty to be here. However, people who sit on boards or boards of charities owe a similar duty to be there. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, shakes his head, but he would be the first to criticise someone who took the salary of a non-executive director and did not go to the meetings. I do not say that for financial reasons; I say it because Members of your Lordships' House, the Government and the Wakeham report have all said how valuable those who work outside the House are.
My amendment represents a halfway house. If we must sit on Thursday mornings, it would be intolerable if we took the Committee or Report stage of a long Bill on those mornings. The House might be considering a Bill that takes five days—the Countryside Bill, the Animal Health Bill or whatever. Sod's law being what it is, one can be dead certain that the amendments one has put down for Committee or Report will turn up on a Thursday morning, if that is the one time one cannot be here. We might have discrete debates on Thursday morning about Select Committee reports or orders that need confirmation, and if one cannot be there, one cannot be there. However, if we take the main stages of major Bills on those days, it will not be possible not to be there. One's amendments may be part of a central thesis that one is trying to carry through.
I ask the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House to agree that, on most occasions, Thursday mornings will be taken up with other business and that we will not find that Committee and Report stages of big Bills are taken then. If he can make that concession, I shall be happy try the Thursday morning
experiment. If he cannot, he is kicking in the teeth the theory that the House wants people who are also involved in outside activities.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |