| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, my contribution will be brief, but it is based on Membership of the House for more than 20 years.
In 1983, when I came to the House, I can recall that the decision of the business managers was not to meet on a Monday. We did not meet on Monday because that was the weight of business. Too often, Members in all parts of the House are hidebound either by protocol or heritage in such matters. Let us examine our own convenience and contribution.
I am enormously grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, for the admirable way in which he pitched the arguments that he advanced. I see no virtue in sticking to Wednesday for debate day for the sake of sticking to it. I decided to come in last Wednesday. I sat in for the two debates—not for all of them, but I popped in—and I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who has been a good friend of mine over the years, that I sat here and looked at the completely empty Benches on that side of the House in the second debate, which was on a modest topic called Iraq. There was only one Member, a Back-Bencher. That was the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. He is often in his place. He was here earlier; I am sorry he is not here now. I should like to pay tribute to him. He came in and took part.
There is far too much romantic thought about the value and importance of debates in this House. There are good debates, there are passionate debates and
24 Mar 2005 : Column 380
there are well attended debates, but we should not forget that there are debates like those held last Wednesday. I do not make a party point; I have been the only person on my side on subjects like housing, when I have bemoaned the fact that the interest on our Benches in housing seemed to have declined over the years. We try to support our own side. We do that very well, but I welcome the opportunity for change.
The noble Lord, Lord Denham, who is still in his place, drew attention to the change of a Thursday and how that change from 2.30 pm to 11 am could very well affect attendance. Of course it could, but I suggest that there are some people who would not take part in a debate on a Wednesday but might well take part in a debate on a Thursday because the House starts at 11 o'clock. We just do not know. The Motion asks to change an arrangement for our convenience. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said that it was likely that the majority of Members of the House would find it more convenient to switch from a Wednesday to a Thursday. That remains to be seen.
Reference has been made to the nature of the House. Of course, it continues to be a part-time House, more and more doing a full-time job. For the past few years—possibly for a few years more—we have been in the middle of effecting great change. It is not just since 1999 that we have considered a change. In all my time in the House, the question of whether the debate day should be a Wednesday or a Thursday has been talked about. I am conscious of the fact that we need to make a decision.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, chided those on this side of the House who may vote for the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and said that we should remember that governments change. Of course they do—oh ye of little faith on both the Liberal Benches and the Conservative Benches. There may be a feeling that there is some benefit on the margin to the government of the day from the change, but I am prepared to accept of course that this Government will one day not be the government and that it could very well be the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats—but not just yet.
I am all for change, providing it is done cautiously and in the direction in which I want to go. If there is no change, I shall still enjoy coming here and participating. If there is a change, it will make no difference to me. Of course, there are consequences for party meetings and so on. In the Labour Party—as those many Members on the other side who once were Members of the Labour Party will recall—the PLP used to meet on a Wednesday morning. Now it meets on a Monday evening. That was altered because of changes that were taking place. It has a bearing on when business is available. As a member of the usual channels, I know that such changes cannot be imposed; they must be made gradually.
I say to noble Lords on the other side of the House, whom I appreciate as colleagues, that we are about our own convenience. There is far too much romance in thinking that Wednesday debates per se are great and good; there are good and bad aspects. I support the change proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood.
24 Mar 2005 : Column 381
12.42 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we have already been discussing this subject for an hour. It is Maundy Thursday, and there remains a lot of very serious and important business, including the Mental Capacity Bill. Perhaps I could say a few words, as I am the only Conservative, apart from my noble friend Lord Denham, to have spoken.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, I shall start by commenting on the rest of the report, particularly one small point of detail. In paragraph 15(c) the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees talks about committee reports that are "ripe for debate". What does he mean by that?
The most important part of the report is the provisions on packaging, which the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, and the noble Baroness the Leader of the House mentioned. It is not a subject that I approach with any enthusiasm, as it is extremely complicated and affects us only very rarely. But when it affects us, it is crucial to the relationship between the two Houses and to the power in this House. I am sure that we have all read the comments of Mr Hain in another place about the need to restrain the powers of this House. I have read too much loose spin about curbing and punishing the House for the stand that we took in defence of our liberties on the Prevention of Terrorism Bill.
Against that background, the increasing use by another place of packaging—the linking of generally unconnected amendments—which was done by mistake on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act and quite deliberately on the Hunting Act, to avoid having to offer amendments in lieu to a proposition put forward by your Lordships' House, could only be viewed with the gravest suspicion. One of the few points of resistance left to your Lordships' House is the ability to insist on a Lords amendment. Take that away and no government need ever listen to this House again. Whatever we do we must retain that power.
The negotiations between the officers of the two Houses and Parliamentary Counsel, so ably conducted on our behalf by the Clerk of the Parliaments, have clearly established that this House need not be bound by packaging, and that if two unlinked amendments are packaged in the House of Commons and sent back to us as an attempt to escape double insistence, that will not be effective. This House may still consider that double insistence has occurred and refuse further to consider a Bill. I very much welcome that position. It remains to be seen how long it will last and whether we can avoid double insistence, if that is required.
That is why an experimental period is desirable. There was something to be said for the former clarity with which an argument could be brought down to its essentials quickly and a solution therefore inevitably found. With that caveat, I commend these provisions to your Lordships' House.
Talking of experiments, in the past hour we have been debating another experiment regarding Wednesdays and Thursdays. I am sorry that we are debating the matter today, Maundy Thursday, when inevitably the House is
24 Mar 2005 : Column 382
not as full as it should be. It is an important House matter. I echo what the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said: there is a genuinely free vote. It is for Members of this House to decide, and there is no greater power for Members than to decide how we deal with our business daily. I expect that Conservative Peers will vote either way; they must do so, because it is their right.
I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, reminded us, almost incredulously, that when my noble friend Lord Denham was Chief Whip, for months of the year, at the start of the parliamentary Session, we did not meet on Mondays at all—partly because of the weight of business and partly because of how we dispatched the business that we had. It was a very civilised time, if I may say so to my noble friend.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, those were the days.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we might make them come back again. It shows that change does occur.
The second tremendous change that has taken place in the last couple of years is that the House sits at 11 o'clock on Thursdays. The noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, made a powerful and persuasive point about the change. I join those who have said that there does not seem to be an advantage to government in making this change, and I cannot see a great disadvantage to the opposition in making the change. In other words, the argument that somehow the House is hugely strengthened by having the debating day on a Wednesday rather than a Thursday is relatively arcane.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |