HL Deb 19 July 2000 vol 615 cc1014-6
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham)

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

Moved, That the Third Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 85) be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

Following is the report referred to:

1. Humble Address for Queen's Consent

When a Private Member's Bill in the Lords is directed substantially to the Queen's prerogative, the practice is for the private Member to move an Address seeking the consent of the Crown before the Bill is introduced. This motion may be debated and opposed.

The origins of this procedure are unclear and it is confined to Private Members' Bills. The procedure does not exist in the Commons. The procedure can have the effect of denying the House any sight of the Bill because the Bill cannot be introduced if the Motion for the Humble Address is successfully opposed.' In the opinion of the Committee, it is not desirable that the House should, on a technicality, be able to reject a Bill before seeing it and debating it.

The Committee therefore recommends that the practice relating to Queen's consent should be the same for Private Members' Bills as for government Bills. In the case of a Bill substantially affecting the prerogative, the Government should, on behalf of the private Member, seek Queen's consent and, if it is granted, a Minister who is a privy counsellor should announce it to the House before Second Reading.

Her Majesty the Queen has been consulted about this recommendation and is content to let the House decide the issue.

2. Human Rights: changes to Standing Orders arising from the appointment of a Joint Committee

In the expectation that the two Houses of Parliament will agree to appoint a Joint Committee on Human Rights before the summer recess, and in view of the coming fully into force of the Human Rights Act 1998 on 2 October 2000, the Committee recommends amendments to Standing Orders consequential on such an appointment. A motion to amend the Standing Orders would only be tabled after the House has agreed to the appointment of a Human Rights Committee.

The changes proposed are set out below. They would have the following effects:

— to add the new Joint Committee to the list of sessional committees whose business is not interrupted by prorogation; and

— to make the Joint Committee responsible for scrutiny of remedial orders made under the Human Rights Act 1998, and to relieve the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments of that responsibility.

The Committee also recommends that the rotation rule should be applied to the new Joint Committee, giving Lords Members a maximum period of service of four sessions. An extension of three years should be given to any Lord who may be chosen as chairman of the Joint Committee.

The Committee recommends one further amendment to Standing Order 73 (Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments) to bring it into line with an amendment already made in the House of Commons. The amendment is consequential on the devolution legislation. It would exclude from the consideration of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments any statutory instrument mad, by a member of the Scottish Executive or by the National Assembly for Wales, unless such a statutory instrument is required to be laid before the United Kingdom Parliament or either House of it.

    cc1015-6
  1. Proposed amendments to Standing Orders 445 words