---

Parliament (Joint Departments) Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 3: 3: Clause 3 , page 2, line 18, leave out ““both”” and insert ““each of the”” The noble Lord said: I now turn to a more significant point in some ways. It concerns what happens when there is a difference in the treatment of the staff from what would apply normally in the Home Civil Service. Under the Bill as it stands, when the requirements of both Houses make it necessary, the conditions of service of the staff can be varied and presumably will be varied to allow for the requirements of both Houses. But the Bill says ““both”” Houses. In some respects, the requirements of both Houses will be the same or similar, but in other respects they are different. If one House has different requirements, under the Bill as it stands, they cannot be accommodated. If the Bill were adjusted to say, as the amendment suggests, that the requirements of ““each”” House should to be accommodated, there would be less pressure for both Houses to go about their business in the same way and we would be freer to make our own arrangements. I will give an example. Take the hours of sitting. In your Lordships' House, we are much more flexible than another place these days in the hours of sitting and the way that we arrange our business. That is to our advantage. The Commons can predict its hours of sitting and voting with much greater precision than we can. Last night, for example, we sat on for an extra hour to finish off the Report stage of a Bill which had taken rather longer than had been expected. Of course that has an effect on the staff and their conditions of employment, which have to allow for it. We want to remain in charge of our arrangements of that sort. It is most important that Peers can raise whatever points they wish on Bills, and the flexibility of our timetable is part of that. Yesterday, as frequently happens, the Government gave way on various points, no doubt because of the time pressure among other things; I would like to think that the arguments were persuasive, but the time pressure may have contributed to the decisions made. In another place, there is no need for the Government to give way at all these days. Permanent universal guillotines make that unnecessary. The conditions of the staff obviously reflect that difference in arrangements between the two Houses. If we were to be changed to a substantially or all-elected House, no doubt the timing arrangements for sittings might change too, because the pressures on Members would be the same at both ends of the Corridor—but that is another matter. In any case, we should preserve the ability of each House to make the arrangements that suit them. The staff conditions should at any rate be able to be negotiated to accommodate that. This may not be so important in connection with the computer and IT staff but, as we know, the Bill can have a much wider effect. If it applies to some other departments, the issue could be particularly significant. I beg to move.