§ Lord ABERDAREMy Lords, I beg to move that the Second Report from the Select Committee of last Session be agreed to. I think I should say a brief word in explanation of the first item in the report as it is a little obscure. It refers back to a full-scale debate that we held in this House on 5th July 1977 which I am sure your Lordships will remember. As a result of that debate a Sub-Committee of the Procedure Committee met and discussed what was best to be done following the debate. It recommended that a limited experiment should be conducted. However, the Procedure Committee itself thought that it was premature to take any action before it was known what the other place was going to do as a result of their deliberations of their Select Committee on Practice and Procedure. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee of last Session [HL 259, 1977–78] be agreed to.—(Lord Aberdare.)
§ Lord NORTHFIELDMy Lords, may I express the view that this is a most 660 unsatisfactory situation? It is now nearly 18 months since my noble friend the Leader of the House promised from the Box that during the ensuing Session we would have an experiment on the lines recommended by the Select Committee on Practice and Procedure. One whole Session has now gone by without that promise being fulfilled. We are now in the second Session and it seems, from the terms of the Motion on the Order Paper, that yet another Session is to go by with that promise unfulfilled. It really is not good enough, given the hard work put in by the Select Committee on Practice and Procedure and the very firm offer made from the Despatch Box by my noble friend the Leader of the House.
The position, as I understand it from the Chairman of Committees today, is that the Select Committee on Procedure now want to look at what the other place has decided to do in this matter of the Committee stage, particularly, so I understand, regarding the scrutiny of public legislation. There are two comments that one can make about that. The first is that in matters like this this House, as I understand it, has never waited unduly for the other place. Our procedures are separate. We are masters of our own system of procedure in this House; and this matter was carefully reported upon by the Select Committee on Practice and Procedure, recommending that we begin to move more clearly towards procedure which enables us to claim to be a revising body rather than merely a debating body, as is so often the case at the moment. In that sense we have an ancillary function to perform which, frankly, does not depend on what happens at the other end of the corridor. That is my first comment on it: I do not understand this continuous delay, waiting for the other place.
The second comment I would make is that, as I understood it from the words used by my noble friend when he made this offer to the House—indeed, this promise, as I say—all of eighteen months ago now, the Select Committee on Procedure was not being asked to report on the merits, the principles, of this change but merely on the mechanics, the procedure to be followed, to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee on Practice and Procedure. What 661 we seem to have now in this report is a report from the Procedure Committee, wanting to go over the whole principle again.
This really is not good enough, and I strongly protest and say that the House should not be treated in this way by one of its Committees and that an offer honestly made and honestly accepted by those who had worked hard on the Select Committee on Practice and Procedure should not take so long to be carried out. Indeed, it seems that it is going to be two or three years before a simple recommendation of one experiment is put into effect. I personally do not agree to accepting this Report from the Committee. It is time the House itself had in front of it a Motion to carry out the recommendation, and indeed the promise, made by my noble friend the Leader of the House.
§ Lord ABERDAREMy Lords, I have listened very carefully to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, and I am sure that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will also have taken note of what was said in regard to the undertakings, as the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, put it. All I can say is that the Sub-Committee that is mentioned in the Report, of which I had the privilege of being Chairman, was indeed the body that looked at the "mechanics", as the noble Lord described them. We put forward what we thought would be a way of conducting a limited experiment; but, indeed, when the matter came back before the Procedure Committee, that Committee took the view, and took it very strongly, that to go ahead at this moment, when there was another Committee in another place considering similar proposals, would not be in the best interests of the relations between the Houses. It is a very fundamental proposal that was before the Committee and has been considered by the House. Certainly the Procedure Committee took the view that it had very far-reaching implications and that this would not be the right time to go ahead with it, although they are continuing to keep it under review.
§ Lord NORTHFIELDMy Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he then tell us what timetable he now envisages? Am I right in suspecting 662 delay for another whole Session—indeed a Session in which this experiment would be very suitable, when there is a lot of legislation of a less contentious kind that could be examined in this way, as suggested? Could he tell us how long we are to wait and whether the Procedure Committee is going to give an early report so that we can have the experiment during this Session?
§ Lord ABERDAREMy Lords, it is not up to me. I am the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, but it is up to the Procedure Committee. The only thing I can say is that the Procedure Committee are well aware of what is going on. I will certainly undertake to draw to their attention what has been said by the noble Lord and I can assure him that they will be considering this matter again in the course of this Session.
§ 3.16 p.m.
§ The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones)My Lords, the Question is that this Motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"? To the contrary, "Not-Content"? I think the Contents have it. Clear the Bar.
Tellers for the Not-Contents have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 50. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the Contents have it.