HL Deb 27 June 1991 vol 530 cc706-9

3.31 p.m.

The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare)

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

I should like to draw special attention to the first item in the report on time-limited debates. Difficulties have arisen of particular concern to Opposition spokesmen winding up before the Minister replies to the debate. Sometimes they find themselves with less time than the limit set and sometimes with time to spare. When they have less time, it means that previous speakers have exceeded their limit. The Committee wishes to underline the point that is frequently made by the Chief Whip in announcing the time limit. When, for example, a 10-minute guideline is set, the time is up as soon as the figure "10" appears on the clock. I think that many of your Lordships believe that the figure is a warning that they should draw to a conclusion and they perhaps run on until the figure "II" turns up, but, if that happens, they have exceeded their time by one minute.

As regards Opposition spokesmen who find that they have more than the allotted time and can still leave the Government spokesman with his 20 or 25 minutes to wind up, the Committee recommends some flexibility. However, it stresses that the spirit of time-limited debates should always be respected and, in any case, the 15-minute guideline for all debates that is given in the Companion should never be exceeded.

Perhaps I may briefly mention two other points in the report which are of some importance. First, the Committee gave careful consideration to the matter of instructions to extend the scope of a Bill which the Companion suggests are no longer in use. The Committee confirmed that view. It considered that they were undesirable and could be used to undermine the rules on the relevance of amendments. Secondly, with reference to the advice given in its first report—that noble Lords should take care to avoid giving the impression that they represent outside interests in the Chamber—that should in no way restrain your Lordships from declaring any relevant interests. I beg to move.

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

Following is the Report:

ORDERED TO REPORT:—

TIME-LIMITED DEBATES

Winding-up Speeches

1. The Companion (p.86) stipulates the time allocated to the mover of a motion in a time-limited debate and the time when the Minister replying should rise. It explains that the remaining time is divided equally among the other Lords on the speakers' list. A Government whip announces a guideline for the length of these speeches, and explains that any Lord who breaches the guideline does so at the expense of subsequent speakers. Such arrangements apply equally to Short Debates and to motions to which a time limit has been applied.

2. On occasions, speakers exceed the guideline to the extent that those due to speak immediately before the Minister, the opposition front bench spokesmen, find themselves with almost no time left. The House, including whips of all parties, should make clear to a speaker exceeding the guideline that he should conclude swiftly.

3. On other occasions, speakers do not use up all of the time allocated. There has been confusion whether the opposition front bench spokesmen can extend their speeches into any spare time which has accumulated before the Minister rises, or whether the limit should be strictly applied in all cases. The limit remains a guideline which relies on the discretion of peers for its application. Opposition spokesmen speaking towards the end of a debate may sometimes find there is time for longer speeches before the Minister rises. Such speeches are not out of order, but it is desirable that the spirit of time-limited debates should be observed by all speakers. All speakers apart from the mover and the Minister in a time-limited debate are subject to the 15 minute maximum guideline for speeches given in the Companion (p.39).

Standing Order 35

4. Time-limited debates, with the limit set by motion in the House, are now an established feature of the House's proceedings. But at present, Standing Order 35 and the rules for the conduct of Short Debates have to be applied by business motion. The Committee proposes that Standing Order 35 should be amended to embrace all time-limited debates as follows: (1) If a Short Debate or a time-limited debate is continuing at the end of the time allotted to it, the Clerk at the Table shall rise and thereupon the Lord Speaker shall ask the mover whether or not he wishes to withdraw his Motion. If the mover does not ask leave to withdraw, or if leave to withdraw is refused, the Lord Speaker shall, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16, put the Question forthwith. (2) If an amendment is moved to a Motion which is the subject of a Short Debate or a time-limited debate, paragraph (1) shall have effect in relation to the amendment in like manner as it has in relation to the original Motion.

The Committee also considers that when the Companion is next revised, the rules for the conduct of Short Debates (pp 223–224) should be re-drafted to apply to all time-limited debates. The Companion should also make clear that the length of time available to the mover of the motion and the Minister in a 2 hour or 3 hour debate is the same as in a 21 hour debate; and that such limits in 4 hour debates are the same as for 5 hour debates.

INSTRUCTIONS TO EXTEND THE SCOPE OF BILLS

5. Instructions to Committees can be either mandatory or permissive. Mandatory instructions are now regularly tabled to require Committees of the whole House to consider bills in a certain order. Permissive instructions are most commonly used in private legislation, when Select Committees are instructed to give special consideration to particular issues. Such instructions usually occur two or three times a session. It is considered undesirable to give mandatory instructions to Select Committees, since that would pre-empt their consideration of the issue. In the case of public legislation, permissive instructions confer on a Committee authority to do something which, without the instruction, they would have no power to do; for example, to divide a bill into two bills, to consolidate two bills into one, or to extend the scope of a bill.

6. The last occasion when a permissive instruction to extend the scope of a public bill was passed in the House of Lords was in 1899. In 1906 such an instruction was moved, but the motion was withdraw. No similar instruction was tabled in the House until April 1991. A motion to extend the scope of the War Crimes Bill was tabled, but it was not moved because the bill was refused a second reading. The Companion suggests that the procedure has fallen into desuetude, but the precedents continue to be listed in Erskine May.

7. The Committee has examined the history of permissive instructions in the House of Lords, and the arguments for and against their continuing use. The purpose of an instruction to extend the scope of a bill is to allow the House to consider amendments to a particular bill which would, without the instruction, not to be relevant to the bill. Amendments to public bills are inadmissible if they are not relevant to the subject matter of a bill (Companion, p.98). The reason for restricting amendments in this way is that Parliament has an interest and a duty to legislate in a coherent manner and also to preserve orderly debate. It would not be in the interest of the House if amendments which were not relevant to a bill were tabled and discussed. Such amendments would take valuable time and, if passed, might create a situation where the Statute Book became increasingly illogical. A bill which is introduced into Parliament to achieve a particular purpose should remain for that purpose, and not be used as a vehicle for some other purpose. The Committee considers that instructions to extend the scope of bills are an undesirable challenge to the requirement that amendments must be relevant. Such an instruction could be seized upon as a means to circumvent advice that an amendment was not relevant. The Committee concludes that instructions to extend the scope of bills are undesirable.

WEARING OF ROBES BY BISHOPS IN DIVISION LOBBY

8. The Committee has considered the question of whether bishops should be obliged to wear robes in the division lobby as well as in the Chamber. It will report further when it has had the benefit of advice from the bishops.

PRIVATE NOTICE QUESTIONS

9. The Committee's First Report (Session 1990–91) confirmed that "proceedings on Private Notice Questions should follow the rules for Starred Questions". One difficulty with such a practice is that in certain circumstances, this may restrict proceedings more than the House would wish. The Committee therefore suggests that once a Private Notice Question has been accepted as of sufficient urgency to require an answer, the Leader of the House should consider whether the Government should make a statement to the House, rather than answer a Private Notice Question. Circumstances when a statement would be more appropriate include when a long answer was required, when the Lord answering was the responsible Minister, or when the House of Commons was not sitting.

SPEECHES ON BEHALF OF OUTSIDE INTERESTS

10. The Committee's First Report (Session 1990–91) reiterated the Companion guidance 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. The Committee concluded that "Lords should therefore take care to avoid the impression that they are representing outside interests in the Chamber." It wishes to make clear that this guidance should in no way prejudice the requirement that Lords declare their interests. Whilst Lords should make it clear that they are speaking on their own behalf, this should not restrain Lords from declaring any relevant interests to the House.

INDUCTION COURSE FOR PEERS

11. The Committee recommends an induction course to help new peers to learn about the House and its procedures. The first course should be an experiment, and should take place in the autumn.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION

12. The terms of reference of the Committee of Selection under Standing Order 61 limit its powers to the choice of members of Select Committees and the panel of Deputy Chairmen. The Committee recommends that these terms of reference should be extended to allow the Committee to choose Lords for bodies other than Select Committees. It accordingly recommends the following addition to Standing Order 61: (5A) The Committee of Selection shall also have power to select and propose to the House the names of the Lords to form any other body, not being a Select Committee, referred to it by the Chairman of Committees.

On Question, Motion agreed to.