Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, many of us recognise my noble friend's altruism in bringing this Motion before the House. I understand that the relevant provisions of the Bill are substantially in the form in which he would wish to see them. Nevertheless he raises an important point.
For myself I believe that recommittala rerunning of part of the Committee stageis appropriate when a material change has taken place to the relevant provisions of a Bill as a result of something that has happened since the first Committee stage took place. But that is not so in this case. By definition, at the end of Grand Committee, the Bill remains in the same conditionit has not been amendedas it was at Second Reading. The decision to send the Bill to a Grand Committee, whether one agrees with it or notobviously, different views can be held on thatwas taken by the House. I believe that the House, having taken the decision, should stick to it in the absence of material changes which might cause us to recommit.
My noble friend's Motion also raises the question of whether we should have split Committee stages. That matter belongs to the debate we had yesterday rather than to today's debate and, obviously, it is possible for two views to be held on it. However, that is not what my noble friend is suggesting at the moment. He is suggesting that we should recommit a section of the Bill. If we had intended to split the Bill, we should have done so at the time we took the original decision on how it should be dealt with in Committee.
For those reasons, although my noble friend has done us a service in bringing the Motion
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for giving way. With respect, my noble friend has made a mistake. In paragraph 20 of the 5th Report split committal is accepted as an extant procedure by the Procedure Committee.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I do not commend or otherwise the principle of split committees. As I say, that matter belongs to the debate we had yesterday or to a future debate. However, that is not what my noble friend's Motion proposes. It proposes the recommittal of certain clauses which have been considered in Grand Committee; that is, a second Committee stage for the relevant clauses. That is slightly different from saying that we should discuss certain clauses in a Grand Committee and others in a Committee of the Whole House although we may be able to do that with other Bills. However, as I say, that is not the decision that is before us. For those reasons I remain extremely cautious about my noble friend's Motion.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I understand and appreciate the concern which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, attaches to this whole area of our Committee debate. However, in many ways we were able to have a much more constructive debate in Grand Committee than we might have had on the Floor of the House, partly because we did not have "set pieces" to contend with
as so often happens during debate on controversial subjects on the Floor of the House as we all know from past experience. We were able to have a proper dialogue and discussion. No one was debarred from speaking. I read Hansard to check the number of speakers in the relevant debate. Some 16 people participated, many more than once. It certainly was not a short debate; it lasted over two hours. I do not think that there is a case for recommittal. I refer to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, in that regard.However, there is a much more important point here; namely, that this is an extremely important Bill as a whole. To pick out one area would discredit the rest of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, the Bill concerns disadvantaged children and the number who need to be adopted and cared for. The whole of the Bill has to be seen in that context; it would be a shame to consider one part in isolation. It is almost impossible to debate the relevant clauses if one has not listened to or taken part in some of the other debates. For example, on a previous day's discussion on the Bill in Grand Committee we had a long debate on the criteria under which people should be able to adopt. That discussion was fundamental to debating the measure in respect of unmarried couples. As I say, I do not think that one can isolate certain parts of the Bill. That would do a disservice to the Bill as a whole. I hope that the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, will not be accepted.
Earl Russell: My Lords, having taken part in the debate in the Grand Committee to which the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, refers, I wish to say that I agree with everything she said about the quality, the standard and the general good manners of that debate. However, I do not think that it was heard by a number of those who will cast votes which will ultimately resolve this matter.
I do not think that the case of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, rests simply on the importance of the matter. Many important matters have been resolved in the House on Report and will continue to be so. I do not think that there is any noble Lord I am aware of in this Chamber who would wish to have two major debates in the Chamber on this one issue. I think that we all agree it should be debated once and resolved in the Lobbies. But the question is: which procedure is likely to ensure a debate which is more honourable, more peaceful, more orderly and more to the honour of this House? To me it is that rather than any argument of importance that would support the case for having the matter resolved by the Committee procedure.
It is a debate which will be hard fought in the best spirit of this House. There will be, for example, a number of statistics put forward whose base people will wish to question and whose significance they will wish to argue about. All those matters are much better resolved in a Committee procedure where noble Lords can come back on each others' speeches, raise points and perhaps narrow the issues of disagreement than they would be in the Report procedure with its
potential for a large number of possibly disorderly interventions. For that reason I believe that to accept the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, would serve the honour and the convenience of the House.
Lord Elton: My Lords, before we leave the question of a split procedure, I acknowledge that last night the House convincingly decided that it did not wish to recommit individual clauses from Bills brought from another place into Grand Committee when those clauses had not been discussed at all in another place. I still thinkand I think that on reflection noble Lords will agreethat such clausesthere are no fewer than 27 in the Bill on asylum which is before this House at the momentneed to be treated in a different way from other clauses. Therefore, when a Bill comes to a Grand Committee in that form, I suggest that those clauses which come to us green from the draftsman's hand should be diverted into a Committee of the Whole House. I can find no other forum in which to advance that to your Lordships and therefore I say it now.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, having heard the procedural points which have been made this afternoon, I wish to make a point about the Adoption and Children Bill as a whole. In the context of that Bill it would be difficult to discuss the future of children only in part. I defer to the great knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, but the particular clauses he identifies are extraordinarily contentious. However, they cannot be viewed as being separate from those which concern the assessment of children and are linked to guidance and regulation. Therefore, the debate should concern the Bill as a whole and not certain clauses. I should be extremely unhappy if those clauseswhich I personally do not regard as more important than assessing families, acknowledging some of the very complex situations in which children find themselves and ensuring that those children have safe passage through those situationswere separated out.
Lord Roper: My Lords, I promised the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and, indeed, my noble friend Lord Russell that I would listen to their arguments on what is obviously an important procedural point. Both have made interesting cases. I have to say to my noble friend Lord Russell that colleagues in this House can read Hansard and can therefore get an indication of the range of discussions which took place in Grand Committee. His argument concerning the distinction between Committee and Report is, if it is an argument, one that should be put forward when the Bill is sent to Grand Committee rather than, as is the case now, when we are discussing recommittal.
I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that recommittal is a procedure which should be used sparingly and only if a particularly good case has been made. On this occasion, I do not believe that such a
case has been made. If the noble Lord intends to press his Motion to a vote, I shall have to recommend to my noble friends not to support him.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I confess to being extremely puzzled by two things that have been said. First, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, twice cited paragraph 20 of the report of the Procedure Committee as being in favour of the split committal of Bills. I do not have the report in front of me, but my clear recollection is that the Procedure Committee came out very strongly against the split committal of Bills, despite the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, suggested and advised that such a procedure be adopted.
Secondly, I am amazed to hear the noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggest that the right way to deal with the matter is to have a vote in Committee. Time after time we are subjected to a policy from his Front Bench that votes will never take place during Committee stage, even when we have been through a matter at great length. Whether or not one agrees with that policy, it is somewhat surprising to hear that somewhat contradictory suggestion coming from immediately behind the noble Earl's Chief Whip.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page