HL Deb 07 February 1991 vol 525 cc1279-83

3.32 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. This meeting was mainly concerned with a review of the 1989–90 Session. As it is of considerable importance to us all, I arranged for it to be available in the Prince's Chamber as well as in the Printed Paper Office. I hope that your Lordships will read it because it covers a wide variety of matters that gave cause for difficulty in the last Session. I do not think that your Lordships would wish me to go through them in detail. They include criticism of officials; speeches on behalf of outside interests; attendance at debate; interventions in time-limited debates; Private Notice Questions; Questions for Written Answer; non-fatal amendments and Motions; Starred Questions and time-limited debates.

In particular I draw your Lordships' attention to two new recommendations. The first concerns Starred Questions where the present guidance in the Companion is that: Question Time should normally be concluded in 20 minutes, and should not exceed half an hour". That has not proved satisfactory and the 20-minute target, as your Lordships well know, is very rarely met. I believe that today it was 30 minutes. The Committee considered that it would be better to have a 30-minute target and to adhere strictly to it even though this may entail more interventions in earlier Questions to ensure that later Questions do not suffer from shortage of time. We recommend that the new guidance should read: It is undesirable that Question Time should exceed half an hour". The Committee emphasises that it is the responsibility of the House as a whole to enforce this limit.

Secondly, we discussed a paper by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, on the subject of Time-Limited Debates. The Committee wishes to emphasise that the subject matter of these debates should be limited in scope if reasonable time is to be allowed to each speaker. We recommend as an experiment greater flexibility in the timing of those Short Debates which are arranged by a Business Motion, which is not those chosen by ballot. At present such debates are limited to either one five-hour debate or two, two-and-a-half hour debates. The Committee suggest two other alternatives—that is to say, either one four-hour debate or one three-hour debate and one two-hour debate. I beg to move.

Moved, That the first report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

Following is the report:

ORDERED TO REPORT:—

REVIEW OF SESSION 1989–90 1. The First Report of the Procedure Committee (Session 1987–88) endorsed a recommendation of the Group of the Working of the House that the Committee should conduct an annual review of procedure, to determine whether any difficulties occurred which warrant report to the House. The Committee has now completed its review for session 1989–90. It has concluded that the attention of the House should be drawn to the matters discussed below.

Criticism of Officials 2. Some confusion arose last session concerning the convention that officials should not be criticised in the House. Criticism of the Government should be directed at Ministers, who take full responsibility in Parliament for the actions of their departments. Criticism of officials, who cannot defend themselves, is undesirable.

Speeches on Behalf of Outside Interests

3. The Companion (page 44) makes it clear that Lords speak only on behalf of themselves: When speaking in the House, Lords may indicate that an outside body agrees with the substance of the views that they are expressing; but they speak for themselves and not on behalf of outside interests. Lords should therefore take care to avoid the impression that they are representing outside interests in the Chamber.

Attendance at Debate

4. The Companion (page 38) is also clear on the subject of attendance at debate: A Lord who is taking part in a debate is expected to attend the greater part of the debate. It is considered discourteous for him not to be present for the opening speeches, for at least the speech before and that following his own, and for the winding-up speeches. A Lord who leaves early cannot expect to be answered by the Minister. Lords who fail to respect this guidance are committing a grave discourtesy to the House.

Interventions in Time-Limited Debates 5. The Committee's First Report (Session 1989–90) concluded that a Lord might be justified in refusing to give way to an intervention during a time-limited debate. But a Lord who has just spoken has little or no control over interventions "before the noble Lord sits down". It is therefore particularly important for Lords to use their discretion when seeking to intervene "before the noble Lord sits down" in time-limited proceedings. Lords attempting to intervene in such circumstances may find that the sense of the House is against them if time is short.

Private Notice Questions

6. Some confusion was apparent last session concerning the correct procedure for Private Notice Questions. The reason for this confusion may be that Private Notice Questions asked in the House of Commons are often repeated in the House of Lords as Ministerial Statements. On those occasions, the procedure for Statements is followed.

7. A Private Notice Question originating in the House of Lords and allowed by the Leader of the House should be treated as an additional Starred Question, with the same procedure applying. Hence Ministers should answer Questions from the opposition front benches in turn, not after both opposition front benches have spoken. The Committee recommends that the following should be added to the Companion guidance: Proceedings on Private Notice Questions should follow the rules for Starred Questions. In particular, supplementary questions should be short and confined to not more than two points. Comment should be avoided.

Questions for Written Answer

8. The Committee recommends that a new practice should be followed concerning the printing of answers to Questions for Written Answer. Since the beginning of the session, Written Answers have appeared in the Official Report at the end of each daily part, rather than at the end of each day's proceedings. This has the advantage that, when the report of proceedings has to spill over into a second daily part, answers can be published more quickly, and found more easily.

Non-Fatal Amendments and Motions

9. Some confusion arose last session when Lords moved amendments or motions expressing criticism of Government legislation, notably subordinate legislation, without challenging it directly. There are two different ways in which Lords can table amendments or motions with this effect.

10. First, an amendment or a separate motion may be moved regretting some element of a bill or a statutory instrument but in no way requiring the Government to take action. This gives an opportunity for critical views to appear on the Order Paper, and be divided upon, which would otherwise simply be voiced in the debate. Even if carried, the motion or amendment has no practical effect. Such motions are used as an invitation to the House to put on record a particular point of view at the same time as the legislation is agreed.

11. Second, a motion or amendment may be moved calling upon the Government to take some specific action. In particular, such motions have been used to invite the Government to amend subordinate legislation, thereby obviating the need to divide on such legislation itself. If carried, the effect of such a motion is to invite amendment of the subordinate legislation in question.

12. In all cases where there is a likelihood of a division on a motion or amendment concerning subordinate legislation, the House should be given adequate notice.

Starred Questions

13. The Committee also considered the length of Question Time. The Companion currently states that "Question Time should normally be concluded in 20 minutes, and should not exceed half an hour". This guidance was consistently breached during the past session, and its ambiguity makes it difficult for the Leader of the House and other Lords to judge an appropriate moment to intervene. The Committee therefore recommends that the Companion guidance (page 81) should be revised as follows:

"It is undesirable that Question Time should exceed half an hour."

It should be noted that the strict application of this guidance may entail more interventions early in Question Time, to prevent all the pressure to conclude within the half hour falling on the third and fourth questions‥

14. The Committee is aware of the danger that this limit, too, may be breached. It stresses that responsibility for drawing attention to any transgressions should not fall exclusively on the Leader of the House. It is the responsibility of the House as a whole to secure observance of the limit.

Time-Limited Debates

15. The Committee noted that on some occasions, Lords wishing to speak in the Short Debates chosen by ballot find that they can each speak for only a few minutes. It therefore wishes to draw attention to the convention that the subject matter for Short Debates should be limited in scope.

16. The Committee's Second Report (Session 1983–84) recommended that the House should be able to time limit debates by the application of a business motion. The balloted Short Debates are automatically time-limited and need no business motion. At present, business motions are applied ad hoc to limit debates chosen by the parties or the cross benches to 5 hours, or to limit two such debates to 2½ hours each.

17. The Committee considers that there may be occasions when greater flexibility would be appropriate. It therefore recommends that, on an experimental basis, the options should be extended to allow for one 4 hour debate, or one 2 hour and one 3 hour debate. There remains a responsibility on the business managers to ensure that the motions applying the limits are put down in good time, so that Lords wishing to take part are aware of the length of the debate.

Lord Shackleton

; My Lords, I am a Member of the Committee. I am concerned about Private Notice Questions. I blame myself for not raising this issue. If the noble Lord answering the Question is the responsible Minister—and there is recognition for this in the Companion—then to treat it as if it were a Starred Question would be mistaken. There was an occasion when I answered for the principal Minister on a matter concerning Aden. The Secretary of State allowed me to do so. That may happen in the House. To limit the House to two supplementary questions would be wrong.

I am not opposing the provision now. I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House to bear in mind the circumstances before he seeks to apply this restrictive rule, which is applied in theory to Starred Questions but not in practice. I am strongly in favour of the Government showing firmness on this matter to both sides of the House. This is a real problem. Perhaps the Chairman can look at the matter again. We could even talk about it at another meeting of the Procedure Committee. In the meantime I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House to be tolerant on such an occasion.

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, I shall certainly take into account what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. I am very grateful to him.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, at the moment I am not a Member of the Committee, as I have rotated-off in the ordinary way. I understand that during recent discussions the question was raised of amendments at Third Reading. A little bird tells me that the Committee was of the view that the present rules were all right, provided that they were strictly enforced. I ask the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees whether that is so and, if it is, why was it not included in the report? Overt reference in the report would presumably make it easier for those who have strictly to enforce the rule.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, paragraph 2 of the report from the Select Committee draws the attention of the House to the convention that officials should not be criticised in the House. I believe that most of us would support a continuance of that convention. Will the noble Lord the Leader of the House confirm that the protection offered by the observance of this convention does not extend to members of the European Commission? They go well outside the terms of their appointment and functions as set out in Sections 155 to 163 of the Treaty of Rome. They enter into party politics and criticise individual Ministers within member states and also individual governments. Will the noble Lord confirm that any Member of this House or of another place who ventures to reply to these entirely unauthorised strictures in kind will not be regarded as having broken the convention as endorsed in paragraph 2?

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, I also wish to ask a question about paragraph 2 of the report. I understand the basis for the convention in that it is there to protect the confidentiality of the relationship between Ministers and officials. I have always understood that where the subject matter of the complaint is purely administrative and not a matter of policy, a Member can complain of the conduct of an official, provided that he does not name the particular official. Can the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees confirm that that is a point at which the Committee can have another look or that we can have guidance as to whether officials are to be protected from criticism in the context to which I have referred?

The Chairman of Committees

; My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that there was some consideration of the question of Third Reading amendments. It was felt that the present guidance is as far as we can go and is much easier to enforce than going any wider. At the moment it is only when a decision has been taken that an amendment cannot be put down at Third Reading. This can be easily interpreted by the Clerks or by the House. It is open for further discussion at Third Reading if it has only been discussed at previous stages. We are of the opinion that the present guidance should remain unaltered.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, will my noble friend deal with the point that I raised? Why was this not in the report so as to aid those who would have strictly to enforce it?

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, surely it is not the intention of a report of this kind to reinforce everything that has gone before with which we agree. We do not have to report on everything that does not need changing.

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. We came to no decision other than that the present arrangements should stand. That is why it is not brought out in the report.

I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that the same convention does not apply to officials of the European Commission. They are not responsible to Ministers here. It is where a Minister here is responsible for a department that it would be wrong to criticise the civil servants.

Perhaps I may say in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that the convention has always been that Ministers are responsible for their departments—both for the policy of their departments and the administration of their departments. It would apply equally to administrative matters as well as policy matters.

On Question, Motion agreed to.