Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before we begin debate in Committee today, I have a few brief remarks to make. First, I reiterate my thanks, on behalf of the whole House, to all staff across the House for their work facilitating this sitting. A huge amount of work takes place during the day of the sitting, and in the days before, to enable us to consider this important business.
On today’s Committee stage, I will not repeat my previous statements, but I remind noble Lords that, in line with the resolution of the House to ask for more time on the Bill, I will look to adjourn proceedings around 6 pm, but any noble Lord can seek to bring proceedings to an end at any time by moving a Motion that the House be now resumed. I hope we can conclude the group we are on when we adjourn but, if necessary, I will adjourn the House during the middle of a group. The Clerk at the Table will have compiled a list of all noble Lords in attendance at the beginning of that adjourned group. Noble Lords will be able to check with the Table to ensure their name is registered on the list, if the group is to be adjourned. It will remain the case that only those present at the start of a debate can participate, even on a subsequent day.
To help those participating throughout the day, the Whips have facilitated a 40-minute lunch break at around 1 pm. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer has set a target for today’s debate. I hope that the usual discipline and courtesies of the House will make for some more progress. Courtesy, kindness and respect for noble Lords who have a different opinion from yours, remembering that everybody holds views just as sincerely as you hold yours, should be the cornerstone of our debates, today and always.
For general guidance on how noble Lords should conduct themselves, I highly recommend the Companion; paragraph 4.29 on page 60 and paragraphs 8.81 and 8.82 on page 143 are particularly useful for today’s proceedings. Noble Lords should not be having conversations with others during the debate. If you want to have conversations, please leave the Chamber to do that. With that, I think we should move on to the business before us.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I want to raise the point with him that I am getting really irritated by constantly hearing Peers on the wireless complaining about filibustering. It has happened twice this week—it happens every week. The fact of the matter is that I have been here every day except one, and on not one occasion has anybody ever stood up and complained to a speaker that they were filibustering. Why is it only by going external that Peers do that? What prevents someone who feels a filibuster is going on getting up and saying so here, and being honest and courteous with the House over it?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
Can I respond to that? I am the person who has been complaining about filibustering on the radio. I moved a Motion on 8 January in which I set out in detail my position about the delays that have been made. I have complied completely, and continue to comply completely, with the courtesies of the House during the debate, but that does not mean that I do not think that we are taking an undue length of time in relation to it. May I give the House the statistics?
We have spent 53 hours debating this Bill in Committee. If we include the additional scrutiny by the Select Committee and the two full days of debate at Second Reading, we have had more than 80 hours of deliberations on this Bill since it was passed to us in June—more than eight months ago. In total, 1,253 amendments have been tabled, of which we have debated 354 so far. We have over 850 amendments left to be debated, which would suggest we need another 22 days in Committee if we continue at this glacial pace. After nine days of debate, we have completed consideration of just three clauses. We have debated 26 groups and have another 60 still to go.
I completely endorse what my noble friend the Chief Whip has said—that we have got to be kind and courteous. I would earnestly ask the House to consider whether or not we could agree informally how we can make progress and complete Committee by the end of the next day because otherwise we will fail to do what we are so good at, which is scrutiny and improvement. The way it is going at the moment, we will reach no conclusions whatsoever; we will appear to be an irrelevant talking shop.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, we all agree with the Chief Whip, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, that everything in this House should be treated with kindness, courtesy and respect. Will he therefore condemn in no uncertain terms the articles in the last couple of days suggesting that there are seven Peers who are filibustering and that a handful of Peers are putting down hundreds of amendments to sabotage the Bill? If he runs a check today, as I have meticulously have, he will find that in the first six groups, 41 different Peers have tabled amendments—not seven Peers, not a handful of Peers, but 41. They are doing so in order to make this very badly drafted Bill better, and to try and make things safer for all concerned.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure the Chief Whip and my noble and learned friend Lord Falcolner would agree that it is impossible to improve a Bill if you do not get to a point where you can pass it.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I want to make the point that the Companion asks us not to read long speeches if people have already made the points in the section that we are discussing. When we were dealing with the Mental Health Act, which I think was equally important, I had written long speeches that I then reduced by saying that I completely agreed with points that had been made by other Peers. I would encourage us to adopt a similar approach in our debate today.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I have listened to many hours of debate, but I have only spoken to one group so far. I have other amendments in one group later, which I think are very important, but they are 30 groups ahead. I have not taken a position for or against the Bill in principle. We should do our job, which is to make the Bill, as far as we can, fit for purpose and then return it to the other place. We are not going to achieve that unless we each take a personal responsibility to make that happen. For my part, I want to tell noble Lords that I will withdraw or not move my remaining amendments in Committee and consider very carefully which amendments are essential for Report. Otherwise, we cannot meet our obligations.
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and other noble Lords about courtesy in relation to our proceedings. It would be helpful for those of us who are trying to amend the Bill to be told at the time when we are filibustering, because we do not think we are filibustering and we think we are debating the Bill. We would value some guidance if Peers on the other side were to jump up and say it at the time rather than in the papers or on the radio later.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Chief Whip for the remarks he made earlier and the response that he made in writing to me following the remarks I made at the end of the last session when we had adjourned mid-group. He has committed to make the list that the clerks will compile of those that were present at the beginning of the group available to the various Whips’ offices and the Cross-Benchers so that they can be circulated and everyone is then clear about who was here, which will hopefully avoid the confusion that we had at the beginning of the session a few weeks ago where it was not entirely clear who was present. I think we ended up having some extra speeches from people who perhaps were not necessarily here at the beginning, so I thank him very much for that helpful advice.
On the other points that have been made, very briefly, there absolutely has not been any filibustering.
Lord Harper (Con)
I hear noble Lords groaning, but the average length of a speech in Committee so far has been less than five—
Baroness Murphy (CB)
It is worth noting, for what it is worth to the Chamber, that the noble Lord, Lord Harper, is just beginning his first filibuster now.
Lord Harper (Con)
With respect, perhaps the noble Baroness should listen to what the Government Chief Whip said about treating people with kindness, courtesy and respect. I started by thanking the Government Chief Whip for his helpful observation to avoid confusion when we adjourn mid-group. I was only responding to the points that had been made earlier, including by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, who spoke at considerable length.
I would have already concluded by now if the noble Baroness had not intervened on me. Let me just finish what I was going to say. The average length of a speech has been less than five minutes, which is half of the length of the time set out in the Companion. People moving amendments have up to 15 minutes, so I think that demonstrates that noble Lords are indeed doing what the noble Baroness opposite suggested in making sure they focus on new points and on keeping their speeches short. On a number of occasions, I have not said things I planned on saying because they had been well ventilated and I felt the remarks had been made.
The final point I would make—
Lord Harper (Con)
Again, the groans do not suggest that people are listening with courtesy and respect. I have been in this Chamber for every single minute of debate on this Bill and have listened to every contribution, even those that I fundamentally do not agree with, with courtesy and respect. I think it is good that we all do that on a Bill of such importance, which is being viewed by people outside this Chamber.
The final point I was going to say is that we would have made more progress if many of the known issues with this Bill when it was first introduced and left the other place had been dealt with at an earlier stage. We are making progress; we have improved the Bill. We accepted the amendment the noble and learned Lord tabled on dealing with the well-known issue of anorexia. We have improved the Bill, but that could have been done a long time ago. Those complaining about the lack of progress ought to reflect on their own contribution to the Bill not being in a state where we are able to make swifter progress and move to Report at an earlier opportunity.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
May I suggest we heed the very wise advice of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and proceed today, as the noble Baroness said, and get through as many groups as possible, making amendments as we see fit as a Chamber? We should do our job of scrutiny, which is exactly why we are here.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise because as this discussion started somebody in my vicinity said, “If this isn’t filibustering, I don’t know what is”. I want to point out that it is demoralising to have one’s reputation impugned and defamed with the suggestion that somehow all people are doing is playing parliamentary games, when actually we are acting in good faith. I have not spoken on amendments I put my name to, for example. I have cut speeches that I have written.
I want to refer to writing speeches. I do write speeches, and I read them out. Why is that? I am trying to be disciplined and keep to time and not just ramble on. This is a very important Bill with important issues that affect the lives of many people. I want to be sensitive to that, so I write down every word trying to make it count for something. I do not think that is filibustering.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer gave some very useful statistics to the House. I do not intend to comment on them further. I will make the list the noble Lord, Lord Harper, asked for available; I do so very happily. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made very good points about how we are a self-regulating House. We all treasure that self-regulation, but it does involve some self-discipline in how we operate. That is a very important thing.
I have accused nobody of filibustering from here. I think the Companion does help us. In terms of comments to the media, I was all over the media yesterday about this Bill and I have not commented at all, so I ignore the media now. There are all sorts of things I am accused of every day in this House; half are true and half are not true at all. Just forget about it and get on with the Bill.