HL Deb 08 February 1993 vol 542 cc424-37
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill)

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

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

Following is the report:

OWNERSHIP OF ITEMS ON THE ORDER PAPER

1. Standing Order 40(2) states that a Lord may only move a Motion or ask a Question standing in the name of another Lord if he has been specifically authorised to do so. The Committee considers that there may be occasions when the Lord named on the Order Paper has not had an opportunity to authorise a substitute, but when it would be in the interests of the House for the Question or Motion to proceed. The Committee therefore recommends the following amendment to Standing Order 40(2):

At end insert (", unless unanimous leave is granted by the House.")

A Lord wishing to move a Motion or ask a Question in this way would therefore have to ask the House for leave. The Question would then be put, and a single dissentient voice would be enough to ensure that leave was not given.

SUPPORTERS AT INTRODUCTIONS

2. The Committee was asked to consider whether a new peer should be free to choose supporters from any degree of the peerage. The current practice is that supporters should be of the same degree of peerage as the new peer. The logic of this practice is that the new peer has to be led to the correct bench at the end of the introduction ceremony. The Committee believes that there is insufficient reason to change such an ancient ceremony, and recommends no change.

3. House of Lords precedence is determined by the House of Lords Precedence Act 1539. The Act lists the correct order of all Lords in detail, with a place specified for individuals such as the Lord President of the Council, the Lord Privy Seal and the Bishops of London, Durham and Winchester. The Committee recommends that although these Lords appear individually in the Roll of the Lords, they should be free to act as supporters for new Lords of the same degree. It also recommends that the precedence of the Lord President and the Lord Privy Seal as office holders should determine their seniority as supporters.

SPEAKERS LISTS

4. At present, any Lord who contacts the Government Whips' Office by 1 pm can be put on the lists of speakers compiled for most debates. The result is that lists of speakers are only available shortly before the sitting of the House. The Committee considers that this can inconvenience the House, particularly when Lords taking part in time-limited debates do not know the maximum time allowed for their speeches until shortly before the debate begins. The Committee therefore recommends that the deadline for names should be brought forward to 12 noon, and should be fixed at 6 pm the previous evening on days when the House is sitting in the morning.

DIVISIONS

5. On 29th October 1992, a Division was called on the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill [H.L.]. The Division bells failed to ring, and it was decided that the time allowed before the doors were locked should be extended. This was in line with practice in the House of Commons under similar circumstances. 1The Committee recommends that a discretion to extend the time required for a Division should be authorised. It also recommends that the opportunity should be taken to streamline Standing Order 51. The detailed arrangements for Divisions are already explained in the Companion (pp 53–62). The Committee proposes the following revision of Standing Order 51:

Standing Order 51

  1. 51 - (1) When, on the Question being put, a Division is called for, the Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair shall order the Bar to be cleared. Two Tellers shall be appointed by the Contents and two by the Not-Contents.
    2. 426
  2. (2) If, after a lapse of three minutes from the time when the Bar is ordered to be cleared, Tellers have not been appointed either for the Contents or the Not-Contents, a Division cannot take place. The Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair shall declare the Question decided in favour of the side which has appointed Tellers.
  3. (3) One Teller for the Contents and one for the Not-Contents shall be appointed for each Division Lobby without respect to their degree; and Clerks shall be in attendance in each Lobby to record the names of the Contents and Not-Contents respectively; the Tellers shall count the votes and announce the numbers to the Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair.
  4. (4) After the lapse of six minutes from the time when the Bar is ordered to be cleared, or longer at the discretion of the Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair, the doors of the Chamber shall be locked, and the Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair shall inform the House or the Committee of the Question which is the subject of the Division.
  5. (5) A Lord may vote in a Division although he did not hear the Question put.

DEBATES ON CONSOLIDATED FUND BILLS

6. On the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill on 17th December 1992, the House discussed whether debate should take place on consolidated fund Bills.2 The Committee endorses the guidance given in the Companion, p 124:

"It does not offend the privileges of the Commons for the Lords to discuss or even to decide upon consolidated fund Bills, but the House has habitually passed such Bills without printing them and without discussion or dissent. It is now a convention that proceedings upon them are taken formally."

WRITTEN ANSWERS FROM EXECUTIVE AGENCIES

7. Questions for Written Answer on matters within the detailed work delegated to executive agencies are customarily answered by the agencies themselves. However, answers given directly from an agency cannot be printed in the Official Report, which only prints answers from a member of the Government. A formula has therefore been adopted which filters the answer through a member of the Government, allowing the text of the letter to be given in the Official Report without endowing the answer with parliamentary privilege, which confers freedom from legal proceedings on statements by MPs and Lords in Parliament. The Committee recommends that this practice be endorsed.

CHANGES TO THE HOUSE OF LORDS JOURNALS

8. The Committee has considered two proposals for additions to the House of Lords Journals. The inclusion of new peers' Letters Patents, and of the reports of domestic committee reports such as the Procedure Committee, the Offices Committee, the Committee for Privileges and the Liaison Committee would make the Journal a more useful procedural tool, without adding significantly to its size. The Committee recommends that these changes take effect from the 1992–93 Journal. 1 Erskine May, 21st Edition, p 346. 2 H.L. Debs 17 December 1992, cols 654–656.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, I ask the indulgence of the House in referring to two questions which arise from the report of the Select Committee. I observe that the three pages of the report are available to the public at a cost of £2.10, which works out at quite a large sum, as against the cost of Hansard which works out at £4.20 for 51 pages.

Your Lordships will recall that when we were in the process of passing the Consolidated Fund Bill on 17th December last year I raised the whole question of the possibility of debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. That is referred to at paragraph 6 of the report in the following terms: The Committee endorses the guidance given in the Companion, p 124". I should like to quote from that because I shall refer to it. It states: It does not offend the privileges of the Commons for the Lords to discuss or even to decide upon consolidated fund Bills, but the House has habitually passed such Bills without printing them and without discussion or dissent. It is now a convention that proceedings upon them are taken formally". I ask the House whether it is really desirable in the current circumstances to continue with the convention.

I am well aware that on the raising of a Consolidated Fund Bill in your Lordships' House it is still quite in order for a debate to take place upon it because the rights of this House are, of course, reserved. Unfortunately, those who do desire a debate on the Bill when it comes to your Lordships' House suffer under the stigma of it being against the traditions of the House and its ordinary conventions. Nobody likes to talk to your Lordships under circumstances which are, as it were, disapproved of and against convention. Therefore, I ask that that convention now be removed.

It is common knowledge that your Lordships' House, its nature, functions and the whole reputation and aura surrounding it have changed substantially over the past 30 years. Gone are the times when your Lordships' House met at 2.30 p.m. and almost as a matter of routine terminated its proceedings at 5.30 p.m. Quite correctly, save on extremely important occasions, its activities did not attract very much attention in the country at large. However, since the passing of the Life Peerages Act in 1958, the situation has changed considerably.

I should be the last person to disparage in any way the activities or abilities of those descendants in your Lordships' House present with us who are the result of past patronage as distinct from those of us who are the result of present patronage. However, it must be agreed that over the past 20 to 30 years there has been an accretion to the House of a number of people, from which group I exclude myself, who are well versed in the professions and business and who bring a great variety of talents to the House, enriching its former structure.

Surely in those circumstances there should be one day per year on which any Member of your Lordships' House can raise a subject that he considers to be of public importance. In the Commons the procedure used to be to raise the matter on the discussions on the Consolidated Fund Bill, a practice which was sometimes continued here. I am instructed that another place has now ceased to do that. Therefore, it is all the more important that that should be carried on here. Surely there should be one day, outside the ordinary conventional procedure of tabling a Motion, on which matters of public interest could be aired publicly and discussed at the instance of any Back-Bencher of your Lordships' House.

I invite the noble Lord and the Procedure Committee to see whether something can be done to remedy the position. Either the committee should eliminate from the Companion that convention, which I believe inhibits the activities of the House, or it should produce a convincing and valuable substitute for it.

I say no more about that and I pass to paragraph 7 of the report which raises questions of more fundamental importance. It will not surprise your Lordships to know that I have had an opportunity to discuss this matter with the chairman of the committee. I do not think he will mind if I anticipate the view that he will express to your Lordships; namely, that he does not believe this to be a matter for the committee at all. However, it must be a matter for his committee because the concluding sentence of paragraph 7 reads: The Committee recommends that this practice be endorsed". I should have recommended to the committee that it does not endorse paragraph 7.

Perhaps I may refresh the memory of those of your Lordships who have not had an opportunity to see the Select Committee's report. It states: Questions for Written Answer on matters within the detailed work delegated to executive agencies are customarily answered by the agencies themselves. However, answers given directly from an agency cannot be printed in the Official Report, which only prints answers from a member of the Government. A formula has therefore been adopted which filters the answer through a member of the Government, allowing the text of the letter to be given in the Official Report without endowing the answer with parliamentary privilege, which confers freedom from legal proceedings on statements by MPs and Lords in Parliament". This is a very important matter because those who examine that paragraph carefully will observe that a Minister cannot therefore be held responsible for the Written Answer. The whole business of withholding parliamentary privilege from the Answer is to do precisely that. I had the opportunity of speaking on the Bills from the Front Bench in an earlier and younger role. I understood clearly that the establishment of these new agencies would not in any way detract from the Government's responsibility for the Answers that were given to Parliamentary Questions. This matter we are discussing goes beyond that. It means that any agency that replies on behalf of its Minister to a Parliamentary Question must have regard to the fact that no parliamentary privilege attaches to it. I suggest that might result in the Answers that are given being somewhat less forthright than they might normally have been had they been covered by parliamentary privilege. I do not need to leave it to your Lordships' imagination to suggest that. I therefore hope that the Select Committee will take another look at this matter.

I agree that the Government are responsible for this because they have adopted the procedure. I shall be interested to hear today whether a representative of the Government will say that Answers to Questions in another place or here will not be given on the responsibility of Ministers as Ministers. If they cannot say that, I would invite the House as a whole to reject paragraph 7.

Lord Aberdare

My Lords, I hope I may ask a rather shorter question on the revision of Standing Order 51, paragraph (4), which leaves it to the discretion of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack or the noble Lord in the Chair to allow the doors to remain open longer than six minutes before a Division. What is the guide for the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack or the noble Lord in the Chair as regards how much longer the doors should remain open?

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

My Lords, I venture to second what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has said about Consolidated Fund Bills. When the previous Consolidated Fund Bill came before your Lordships before Christmas, two noble Lords with exceptional experience of public finance, the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, pleaded that there might be occasions when it would be desirable to debate a Consolidated Fund Bill. My plea is that there can be an occasion when its financial implications should be debatable. I say that for two reasons, which are interconnected. The first is that economic and financial circumstances may have changed greatly between the time when your Lordships debate a Finance Bill and the time at the end of the year when the Consolidated Fund Bill is introduced. This year is a very good example because I think the general opinion is that it is extraordinarily difficult to know how things will look economically at the end of the year.

The second reason is that your Lordships' House commands an exceptional knowledge and experience in this field. Among the Members are seven former Chancellors of the Exchequer; four former Chief Secretaries of the Treasury; a former Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee; a former Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means; a former Governor of the Bank of England; a former Deputy Governor of the Bank of England; and a great many other departmental heads who have had intimate knowledge of public finance so far as it affects their departments.

In addition to that, there are a number of noble Lords who bring professional knowledge to bear on problems of public finance. With respect, we should leave the matter open for an appropriate occasion when the financial implications at least of the Consolidated Fund Bill may be debated. There will be possibly many occasions when that is not necessary: for example, when there is an Autumn Budget and a second Finance Bill. However, there will be other occasions when, for the reasons I venture to give, it will be highly desirable. Therefore I second what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce has said—that is, that the matter should not be so categorically closed as it seems to me it is at the moment.

3.15 p.m.

Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe

My Lords, I wish to associate myself with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, on the Consolidated Fund. I welcome the provision in paragraph 4 of the document concerning speakers' lists which suggests that names for debates should be given by noon on the previous day and by six p.m. the previous evening on days when the House is sitting next morning. However, as that brings the time forward, I must ask the noble Lord the Lord Chairman how it is intended to promulgate this information. Until it becomes established usage, I can envisage some noble Lords being disappointed at that change. I hope everyone will be informed of it.

I sometimes believe Select Committees feel they have to recommend change otherwise people will not think a committee is doing its job. I feel the procedures of Parliament have been tried and tested over a long period of time and therefore change should only be undertaken after careful consideration. Paragraph 1 relates to the ownership of items on the Order Paper. This deals with the case where a noble Lord has put his name down to a Motion or a Question and is then absent and is unable to notify a substitute in time. The House is given the right to appoint another person to ask the Question. The paragraph states: The Committee considers that there may be occasions when the Lord named on the Order Paper has not had an opportunity to authorise a substitute, but when it would be in the interests of the House for the Question or Motion to proceed. That seems to me to be an impossible caveat. What do the following words mean: when it would be in the interests of the House"? Who makes that decision? What consideration did the Procedure Committee give to this? Did it consider examples of Questions where it would be in the interests of the House to proceed? Did it consider a list of Questions where it would not be in the interests of the House to proceed? This matter constitutes rather a "pig's ear"—but I should not really use that expression as it is not suitable language for your Lordships' House.

This matter seems to me to be such a muddle that I wonder very much whether it is wise to proceed with it. Suppose one day we have three Questions instead of four. Is that the end of the world? Is it not sometimes a luxury for your Lordships, when there are only three Questions, to spend perhaps 12 or 15 minutes on one of them? That might be in the interests of the House. This matter seems to me vague and subjective and I wonder whether we are going down the right road.

I thank my noble friend Lord Bruce for his comments as regards paragraph 7 on Written Answers from the executive agencies. He has explained the implications of that matter. I welcome his explanation because I could not make head nor tail of it. I do not wish to make too much of that because when I was in another place one of the qualifications for entering the Labour Whips' Office was to fail the intelligence test.

Noble Lords

Speak for yourself!

Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe

My Lords, I do not associate all my noble friends with that remark. However, it certainly applied in my case.

I say again that I wonder what consideration was given to this matter. What kind of estimate has been made as regards the number of insertions that would now appear in Hansard and their length? Would we have impossibly long Written Answers to Questions? I hope we can be given some more information on the research that went into this. If it does not concern us, as my noble friend Lord Bruce remarked, why is the committee endorsing this document? Where do we stand on it? I do not understand it. It is an important matter because executive agencies now have a great deal of power and control over people's lives. What does this mean? Are we going down the right road?

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, I wish to register my unhappiness with paragraph 6 of the report concerning the treatment of Consolidated Fund Bills. As some of your Lordships may recall, I raised the question briefly a few weeks ago during consideration of the last Consolidated Fund Bill. I ask your Lordships to consider very carefully what the Procedure Committee says. The committee quotes with approval the words in the Companion to the Standing Orders: It does not offend the privileges of the Commons for the Lords to discuss or even to decide upon Consolidated Fund Bills, but the House has habitually passed such Bills without printing them and without discussion or dissent. It is now a convention that proceedings upon them are taken formally". It seems illogical to say that because a right has not been exercised for a considerable time it has lapsed. Circumstances change. The matters covered by a Consolidated Fund Bill have become increasingly important in recent years and have posed perhaps even more difficult problems, as noble Lords on both sides of the House are only too well aware.

As my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale said, your Lordships' House contains people who speak with great authority on matters of finance, business, economics and so on. The Consolidated Fund Bill offers a proper opportunity for that expertise to be deployed. It seems a pity that simply because the right has not been exercised over recent years—as the Companion says—the right should be taken away.

I ask your Lordships to consider a further point. It is well known that there are elements of opinion in this country which wish to dispense with the services of this House, or certainly with most of its membership. It is therefore particularly important that this House should be able to deploy its expert knowledge and to discuss serious matters, particularly on finance and economics, in a way which enables opinion outside the House to realise that your Lordships' House is a considerable body, containing people of the highest knowledge and experience who have something to contribute to the discussion of such matters. To wipe out an opportunity for doing so simply because the right has not been exercised for some time seems to me a somewhat irresponsible line to take. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships' House will feel that the Committee should reconsider its recommendation in this instance and restore to the House the rights which it used to have.

It must be recognised that times have changed. The demands of public opinion change and circumstances change with the years. Again, simply to freeze out the possibility of debate because it was not thought useful to exercise it in the past seems to me an irresponsible line to take. I hope that your Lordships will give serious consideration to the matter. We are dealing with one debate a year; the Establishment need not worry too much about calls on parliamentary time. However, it is a very valuable debate and it would be a pity if your Lordships' House were, of its own decision, to forgo the right to deploy its knowledge and allow the public to see and hear its knowledge on these matters. I hope that the proposal will be reconsidered.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I should like to associate myself with everything that has been said by every noble Lord so far. I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to the inherent danger of adopting recommendations of the Procedure Committee on the nod where curtailment of your Lordships' privileges relating to debate is involved. I refer in particular to paragraph 6 of the report, and accept what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said about paragraph 7.

The concept that an established precedent is lost by disuse could fetter freedom of debate in circumstances where debate could serve a useful and constructive purpose. This is a question of some importance which transcends this particular occasion or this particular report. For, if disuse is to be elevated by the Procedure Committee into a convention not to use, that will result in a Humpty-Dumpty approach which turns the system of precedent on its head.

A recent example of the approach is that adopted by the Procedure Committee in its second report of 1990–91. I mention it to illustrate that this is not the first occasion on which the approach has been adopted within living memory. It concerned an amendment which was tabled to extend the Long Title of a Public Bill. The amendment was entirely in order and was accepted by the Table as such. Paragraph 6 of that report gives the reasoning behind the approach. It reads: 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 withdrawn. 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". I shall not trouble your Lordships with the findings of the committee, which were adverse. They are set out in paragraph 7 of the report. The recommendation was accepted by the House, virtually on the nod. That precedent has now gone.

Is this the right approach? I agree with the suggestions which have been made today by noble Lords who have far more knowledge and experience than I that this matter should receive further consideration.

Lord Finsberg

My Lords, I should like to turn to paragraph 7 and approach the matter from a different direction from that taken by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. Perhaps I may suggest the following example to illustrate my reading of the report. A noble Lord receives a letter which alleges that an individual has failed to pay his social security or is employing illegally a Filipino child minder. To conjure up a name, let us suppose that the person is a Mr. Carter-Ruck. If the noble Lord then writes to the agency, as I understand it the response will come via a Minister. If that reply says that in response to the allegation made by the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, Mr. Carter-Ruck was breaking the law, then as I read the report I, as a Member of this House, would not be protected because parliamentary privilege has been removed. If it has been removed both from the Minister and an individual Member of the House, perhaps there is something wrong. I may not have understood the issue. If I had never entered a Whips' Office in another place, I might have had the same disability as the noble Lord, Lord Cocks. I should like an answer on this point. It seems to me somewhat odd and, as I read the report, rather dangerous.

3.30 p.m.

Lord Elton

My Lords, I refer to the first paragraph of the report and to the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I draw the attention of the noble Lord and the House to the fact that the paragraph refers not only to Questions but also Motions. It may be very much in the interests of the House that a Motion is discussed. Many noble Lords from all over the country may have assembled to discuss it but the proposed mover of the Motion may not be present although he would not have known that in advance.

Some years ago I was sitting on the Bench opposite when the next item on the Order Paper was the Farriers Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Newall. He was inexplicably detained. I tried to save the Bill. The way to do that was obscure because I could not speak on the Motion since it had not been moved; nor could I speak away from it because that would have been out of order. I was able to speak for two-and-a-half minutes about nothing and the Bill was brought in. But that is not a satisfactory procedure.

The procedure suggested in the report is the same as that which allows a noble Lord to withdraw an amendment during Committee proceedings in the House. The Question is, "Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?". If a single noble Lord objects, it cannot be withdrawn; it must he voted on. It seems to me that this provision slightly extends an existing and precedented procedure to facilitate the proceedings of the House when necessary.

The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, referred to paragraph 6. He said that it was a great pity that committees felt that they had to change things. I merely draw to your Lordships' attention the fact that the proposal by the committee is not to change procedures but to keep them as they are.

Lord Denham

My Lords, perhaps I may add my support to the noble Lord, Lord Elton. Since I have been a Member of this House the Consolidated Fund Bill has never been debated. I believe that it would be a great mistake, without a great deal of consideration, for your Lordships' House to change the position on this matter to allow such a debate to take place even once a year. On occasions there are two Consolidated Fund Bills in a year. Therefore such debates might occur twice in a year.

Traditions in this House are extremely important. We are largely governed by conventions. If we did not rely on the conventions in the Companion to the Standing Orders we would virtually have to rewrite the volume to a much more expanded edition. I hope that after the short debate today the recommendation of the Procedure Committee will not be rejected.

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the easier points first. That description may apply to the question by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, regarding the revision of Standing Order 51: how will the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, or anyone who has taken his place, know that noble Lords have been roused in the absence of the bells? That is not likely to occur frequently. I have consulted with my predecessor and his predecessor; the bells had not failed to ring in over 20 years. It was presumably therefore my fault that the bells failed to ring on 29th October. We hope that it will not happen again.

In the event, Doorkeepers flush through the covers where Peers may be present and with good fortune everyone will be roused. If it came to a very close Division, the House might well wish to refer the matter in question back. However, I do not believe that it is a matter about which we need worry too much. On the previous occasion an extra three minutes was given and it is thought that everyone who was in the precincts of the House managed to reach the Chamber.

Several noble Lords have referred to ownership of items on the Order Paper. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, that covers not only Questions but also Motions. The matter arose for the consideration of the Procedure Committee as a result of an incident on 10th June last. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, came to the rescue. He moved a Motion in order to save a debate which otherwise would have collapsed. The noble Lord was in fact in breach of standing orders in so doing but was nevertheless regarded as the hero of the hour. A number of noble Lords would not otherwise have been able to speak in the debate. Noble Lords who were participating in the subsequent business might not have been present. Therefore it seems to us that it would be a good plan that this new procedure should be introduced. It will enable a Question or a Motion to be put provided that the unanimous leave of the House is given. That would prevent a noble Lord hijacking somebody else's Question or Motion. I commend the recommendation to the House.

I refer now to the more complex matters of Consolidated Fund Bills and the convention by which they are not debated. I am glad that no noble Lord suggested that the convention should not be abided by. It is as strong a force in most of our minds as if it were in standing orders. However, I have heard what has been said strongly in all quarters of the House —that over the years things have changed. Perhaps the House might wish—several noble Lords have suggested it—that the matter should be referred back to the Procedure Committee.

Several noble Lords

Hear, hear!

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, I emphasise that the convention has been the custom of the House for many years. My noble friend Lord Denham mentioned that it was so for as many years as he can remember, and that is quite a few. Therefore it is not a change that should be made too lightly. There may be other ways forward for having debates about financial matters, not necessarily on the three occasions each year when the Consolidated Fund Bill is brought to the House. Naturally the Procedure Committee will be very pleased to reconsider the matter at its next meeting. If the House cares to allow the issue to stand in the report of the Select Committee for the time being I shall ensure that it is on the agenda of its next meeting.

On agencies, I refer to the mechanism devised for the benefit of the Members of both Houses which enables the reply that a Member of either House may have received from the chief executive of an agency to receive greater dissemination. The only way that one can introduce that reply into the Official Report is via the mechanism of a Minister. I suggest that this matter is not the responsibility of the Procedure Committee. The Minister is not taking responsibility for that reply. He merely provides the method by which the reply can be disseminated more widely. I believe that it is useful for that purpose. However, the principle as to whether there should be ministerial responsibility for what the chief executive of an agency states is a matter for the Government, I suggest, and not for the Procedure Committee.

I hope that I have answered the points raised by noble Lords. Perhaps I may be reminded of any that I have failed to answer. I commend the report to the House.

Lord Finsberg

My Lords, I refer to the point of privilege regarding a reply. For example, if the reply states that the noble Lord, Lord X, alleged that Mr. So-and-so broke the law, is that still protected?

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, my understanding is that if the chief executive of the agency states that, he is not protected.

The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham)

My Lords, I crave the indulgence of the House. I should like to say one or two words in support of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. I fully accept and share with him the undertaking that these matters will be referred back to the committee to be examined to see whether we have them right.

One or two of the points which have been raised could be said to help us reach the most satisfactory solution and I wish to say a word or two about paragraphs 6 and 7. The noble Lord, Lord Cocks, will be delighted to know that the Procedure Committee was not seeking to change anything in its comments in paragraph 6. We wished to suggest that the arrangements that had been agreed to in the Procedure Committee's Second Report of 1991–92 were continued. They have been reasonably successful up to now, from what I gather, but I recognise that things have changed.

Perhaps I may give one or two reasons why I wonder whether the Consolidated Fund Bill is necessarily the best way in which noble Lords should raise matters. That is at the heart of the problem. I totally agree that we must have adequate ways for noble Lords to raise issues which they believe are important and I wish to facilitate that. The difficulty with doing it under the Consolidated Fund Bill is that, first, other noble Lords have no idea what subjects will be raised. If a noble Lord rises, no notice is given. That means that other noble Lords will not have come prepared to comment on those points, although they may wish to do so. Also important is that Ministers will not have come prepared to give an answer to the noble Lord who raises a question. However, Questions and Motions which are put down with proper notice are a way of obtaining Ministerial responses from Ministers who have properly briefed themselves to answer those Questions.

Therefore, while the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill occurs not once but three times a year—and no doubt my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter will think that an advantage—perhaps the time spent on those debates is as well used as additional time in raising these matters, if that is what the House wishes. They will be raised in such a way that the House and Ministers will have notice and there can therefore be a better debate.

If the House thinks they are sensible, those are some of issues which the Procedure Committee might examine when it considers the matter again, with of course everything else that is said in this debate.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, will my noble friend allow me to intervene? Would the difficulty which he sees of straight debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill be resolved if it were understood that noble Lords intending to speak on the Bill should give to the Minister concerned and perhaps generally to the House some notice of the subjects that they propose to raise?

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, my noble friend's suggestion is worth considering. I prefer not to say here and now which is the best solution, I was just indicating some of the matters which the Procedure Committee ought to consider. Everything said in this debate is worthy of consideration, and we shall look at it again if that is what your Lordships wish.

With regard to Written Answers from the executive agencies, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, is unhappy about the policy that the Government adopted in the first place. The policy that the Government adopted was not the matter before the Procedure Committee. The committee was considering the consequences as regards informing your Lordships of important letters that had been replied to by agencies as a result of the Government's policy. I should be happy, if the noble Lord wishes to put down a Question, to do my best to answer him as regards the policy, and on how best to inform the House of the points that arise from these Answers. In dealing with the situation of executive agencies and the number of significant Answers from them, I believe that the Procedure Committee came to the right solution.

As has been said many times from this Dispatch Box, the replies from the executive agencies do not mean that Ministerial responsibility for the executive agencies is in any way lessened. It is a more effective way of dealing with matters. However, that is a separate question from the way in which the House should be informed.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Back to