Procedure of the House (Hansard, 22 February 1988)

HL Deb 22 February 1988 vol 493 cc937-40 937

§ 2.57 p.m.

§ The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare)
My Lords, I beg to move that the First Report from the Select Committee on Procedure of the House be agreed to.
The meeting of the Procedure Committee was almost wholly devoted to considering the report by the group on the working of the House. It also took into account the very full debate in this House on 4th November. The report makes it clear that in the main the committee accepts the group's proposals, except in one particular respect. It recommends a significant change to the proposals in connection with Statements. Your Lordships will see that the committee's recommendations do not go as far as the group had suggested. However, it recommends that discussion on a Statement should be limited to 20 minutes after the Statement has been made.
Perhaps I may mention one other matter. The committee has accepted the proposal that in future no noble Lord may have more than two Starred Questions on the Order Paper at any one time. However, that provision will not be introduced retrospectively. I beg to move.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

§ The report read as follows:

§ 1 REPORT FROM THE GROUP ON THE WORKING OF THE HOUSE

§ In December, 1986, following complaints about the proceedings in the previous session, the then Leader of the House appointed a small informal Group, drawn from all parties and the Cross-Benches, to "examine the working of the House in present circumstances and to suggest improvements in the conduct of the business of the House" (HL. Deb., 4 Dec. 1986, col 935–6). The Group made their report (HL. Paper 9) in April 1987, which was printed and debated last autumn (HL. Deb. 489, No. 29). The Committee make their recommendations on each conclusion of the Group, in the light of the debate, as follows:—

§ SELF-REGULATION

§ Group Recommendations

(a) That the present system of self-regulation should continue, but that it can be made to work better (para. 16);
(b) That a Speaker with controlling powers is undesirable (para. 15);
(d) That all back-benchers have a duty to call attention to breaches of order and procedure (para.16b).

§ The Committee note the overwhelming support in debate for the principles of self-regulation. They endorse recommendations (a), (b) and (d) without qualification.

(c) That it is the responsibility of the Leader (or in his absence his Deputy, the Government Chief Whip or other senior Minister) to draw attention to transgressions of Order, with the support of the Opposition Front Benches (para. 16a)

§ The Committee note the suggestions made in debate (col. 1000) that a senior Minister should always be on the Front Benches in the Leader's absence. However, there are few Ministers in the Lords, and it is one of the duties of the Whips to be familiar with the rules of procedure. The Committee accept the Group's recommendation, with the proviso that, in the absence of the Leader, his Deputy, the Government Chief Whip or his Deputy it should be the senior Whip who tenders procedural advice to the House, or, when occasion demands, sends word to the Leader, the Chief Whip or one of their Deputies, to attend in the Chamber. The Committee agree that the Opposition Front Benches should play their part in drawing attention to transgressions of Order.

(e) That the Brief Guide requires revision and greater emphasis on order and procedure; and should be given wider currency; a revised text is offered for consideration (para. 18 ).

938

§ The Committee recommend acceptance of this proposal, which entails revision of the Companion to Standing Orders, to prevent discrepancies between the two procedural guides. They have invited the Clerk of the Parliaments to undertake a new edition of the Companion, which, when completed, will permit the Committee to consider and approve both texts at the same time.

(f) That an annual report from the Procedure Committee should draw attention to procedural difficulties in the previous session (para. 20).

The Committee traditionally look at procedural problems as they arise, and would prefer not to be committed to an annual report to the House. They undertake to give annual consideration, at the beginning of each session, to the proceedings of the House in the previous session and, where appropriate, to make a report on procedural difficulties which may have arisen.

§ LEGISLATIVE WORK

§ Public Bill Committees

(g) That Public Bill Committees should be used only when the House faces acute time pressures, for Private Members' Bills or technical and non-controversial Government Bills (para. 27);
(h) That proposed changes in Public Bill Committee procedure should be considered by the Procedure Committee (para. 28).

§ The Committee believe that the inherent problem of Public Bill Committees is that they are suited only to non-controversial Bills which take up little time on the floor of the House in any event. The Chief Whip has undertaken to continue to try to identify Bills suited to this procedure for the future. In preparation for such an eventuality the Committee will review the procedure for Public Bill Committees, and in particular their timing, and the manner in which Divisions are conducted.

§ Other proposals on legislation

(i) That there should be no selection of amendments, but that the informal system of grouping amendments should be improved by wider circulation (para. 29–31);
(j) That there should he no extension to the Report stage of the rule restricting the raising of issues on Third Reading that have already been fully debated and decided upon (para. 34);
(l) That there should no change in the rules for Third Reading amendments which should be strictly interpreted (paras. 38 and 40);
(m) That the debate at the, final stage on a Bill should be relevant to the Bill in the form in which it has emerged ( para. 41);
(n) That, when possible, reasonable notice should be given for the consideration of Commons' amendments (para. 42).

§ The Committee endorse all these recommendations.

(k) That only the mover of an amendment should speak after the Minister at Report and Third Reading stages (para. 33).

§ The Committee believe that this recommendation by the Group is in accordance with the practice of the House, with the provisos that it does not refer to short questions for elucidation, and that, where a Minister wishes to speak early to assist the House, this should not prevent subsequent debate.

§ QUESTIONS

(o) That there should be a reduction in the permitted number of Starred Questions by any Lord on the Order Paper at any time from three to two (para. 52).
(p) That supplementary questions should be brief and confined to not more than two points (para. 48);
(r) That there should be no change in the rules for Unstarred Questions and Questions for Written Answer (paras. 58 and 56.).

§ The Committee recommend acceptance of these suggestions. The Committee have considered the practice which has recently arisen whereby the Lord asking a question appears to expect, as of right, the opportunity of putting a final supplementary. The Committee deprecate this practice and suggest that the further supplementary would sometimes be better put earlier in the exchanges. There is no right for the original questioner to ask a final supplementary question.

(q) That the 20 minute target for Question Time should continue, and that it should not exceed half an hour; in such an eventuality the Leader should intervene ( para. 53).

§ The Committee endorse the Group's recommendations with the exception of that referring to the intervention of the Leader of the House, which is a matter best left to his judgment.

939

§ DEBATES

(s) That there should be no mandatory time limits, but other measures to discourage long speeches, including recommended maxima of twenty minutes for Lords opening or winding up debates from either side and fifteen minutes for other speakers: Lords being encouraged to protest against breaches (para. 64).

§ The Committee recommend acceptance of this recommendation in the form given in paragraph 64 of the Report. The suggested maxima would only be guidelines and, on occasion, a speech of outstanding importance, or a Ministerial speech winding up an exceptionally long debate, might be permitted to exceed the limit except in time-limited debates.

(t) That the digits of the clocks should turn red after fifteen minutes (para. 64d).

§ The Committee note the lack of unanimity on this subject in the debate. They will report further on this matter to the House at a later stage.

(u) That Peers who leave debates early should not be answered by the Minister (para. 64c).

§ In the body of the Group's Report this is expressed in paragraph 64c as that "Peers who leave early cannot expect to be answered by the Minister", and in this form the Committee endorse this recommendation.

(v) That more 5-hour time-limited debates should be held (para. 71).

§ The Committee note that the House is holding more time-limited debates than previously, and hope that the usual channels will continue with this welcome development.

§ STATEMENTS

(w) That most Commons' Statements should not be delivered orally, but printed in Hansard (para. 78);
(x) That in exceptional cases where a Commons Statement is repeated orally it should be given at a time which so far as possible avoids unnecessary interruption of the day's business (para. 78).

Statements were the only issue on which there was a marked difference of opinion in the debate. Those in support of continuing with present arrangements argued that discussion of Statements adds vitality to the proceedings of the House; allows topical issues to be raised in the House without delay; and that dimunition in numbers would restrict Opposition rights. They think that printing in Hansard provides an inadequate substitute, and that it is better to read the exchanges in the Commons Hansard, than to get the stale repetition of a reprinted Statement. Those in favour of the Group's proposal argued that repeated Statements interrupt the main business; cause unforeseen delays in the daily timetable, which prevent members from participating in the main business; merely repeat arguments given in the Commons and are better suited to the temper and political divisions of that House; fail to receive media interest; and that the proceedings on Statements are often long and unruly, and degenerate into mini-debates, without adequate preparation, despite the wording of Standing Order 33. In the light of views expressed in the debate, the Committee feel that the Group's recommendations go too far. Instead they recommend that Commons' Ministerial Statements should continue to be repeated in the Lords, when, in the opinion of the Leader of the House, after consultation through the usual channels, they are on a matter of national importance, and that, in such cases, they will continue to be repeated at the first convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. In accordance with Standing Order 33, such Statements "should not be made the occasion for immediate debate". But, in view of the strongly held views of many members of the House critical of present practice, the Committee suggest that the criterion for oral repetition of a Statement should be strictly interpreted, so that the number of Statements taken orally is substantially reduced. The Committee further recommend that, in seeking to reduce the incidence and time taken by Statements, the procedure whereby Statements may, by leave, be included in the Official Report without being given orally should continue. Additionally, they recommend that, where a Commons' Statement is not repeated either orally or in printed form, an italic reference to the Statement in question giving the appropriate reference to the Commons Hansard should be included in the Lords Hansard.

940

§ Proceedings on Statements

(y) That discussion on a Statement should not exceed 20 minutes (para. 78).

The Committee recommend acceptance of this recommendation.

§ PRIVATE NOTICE QUESTIONS

(z) That answers to a Commons PNQ should no longer be given as a Lords Statement (para. 85).

The Committee do not accept the Group's recommendation, as it might lead to an increase in the number of PNQs tabled in the House. The present practice should be retained.

§ SELECT COMMITTEES

(aa) That SO.38(4) and (5) should be amended to permit debates on Select Committee reports to be taken as early business where desired (para.95).

The Committee accept this recommendation. Points made in the debate about the allocation of resources and an innovation in the use of Specialist Assistants for Select Committees will be considered by the Staff of the House Sub-Committee.

§ 2. MANUSCRIPT AMENDMENTS ON THIRD READING The Committee have considered a suggestion by Lord Simon of Glaisdale that Standing Order 46 (Amendments on Third Reading) should be repealed so as to permit manuscript amendments of a short, technical and uncontroversial character to be moved on Third Reading. They recommend no change.

§ On Question, Motion agreed to.