House of Lords: Committee Sittings (Hansard, 6 November 2000)

§ The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this issue. No one is more enthusiastic than I about improving the procedures of this House so that we use our time efficiently while retaining proper scrutiny. The noble Baroness will be aware that any change needs the agreement of the House, and that there is little scope for executive action. However, proposals are being discussed. One is to consider more Bills under the Grand Committee procedures in the Moses Room, which would certainly achieve the noble Baroness's aim. Unfortunately, at the moment, the opposition to that change comes from her side of the House.

§ Baroness Sharples
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for that reply. Does she accept that 134 hours in the spill-over have been spent discussing legislation in Committee? Many of the Bills under consideration have been badly drafted—indeed, a number of noble Lords have complained about this—which has resulted in an enormous number of government amendments being tabled. I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree that this, in turn, has led to a lot of very tired, and sometimes rather ill-tempered, Peers in the Chamber. This has also affected the staff, especially the Hansard writers, who are extremely tired.

§ Baroness Jay of Paddington
My Lords, I certainly agree that we have been sitting for longer than another place in the spill-over period. However, if the noble Baroness were to look at the comparative figures of the number of hours that we have been sitting, she would see that during the previous Session the House sat, on average, for seven hours and 36 minutes each day. Moreover, in each of the previous four Sessions, the average sitting day was also over seven hours. I agree with the noble Baroness that we need to be very aware of the stress and strain put on the staff who serve us so well.

§ Lord Tomlinson
My Lords, does my noble friend recall that we had a debate tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Peston earlier in the year, not only on the question of hours but much more besides? Perhaps my noble friend could advise the House what has been done since then, and tell us what has been achieved.

§ Baroness Jay of Paddington
My Lords, we have put forward various proposals, one of which was considered by the Procedure Committee last week. At that time, my noble friend the Government Chief 1233 Whip suggested that it might be sensible for the House to sit at different, not fewer, hours on a Thursday, beginning in the morning and ending in the evening. I am sorry to tell my noble friend that that proposal from the Government Chief Whip was rejected by the Procedure Committee.

§ Viscount Cranborne
My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House how many amendments have been proposed by the Government, both in Committee and on Report, to government legislation in this House during the current Session? If the answer to that question is what I suspect it will be, does the noble Baroness agree that the main culprit is not the procedures of this House but the inability of the Government properly to prepare their legislation? Indeed, when the Government realise that they have failed to do so, they use this House as a means of rewriting legislation wholesale and then ram it through another place without proper consideration. Does the noble Baroness further agree that the proposal that she has just made about taking a greater proportion of Committee stage business off the Floor of the House will actually make it easier for the Government to ram through more legislation, rather than it being considered properly?

§ Baroness Jay of Paddington
My Lords, I am afraid that I do not agree with any of the points made by the noble Viscount, especially the final one. I did not suggest—indeed, I have never suggested—that the majority of Committee stages should be held in the Moses Room: I simply said that the Government Chief Whip and the usual channels have discussed the possibility of more Bills being considered in the Moses Room. For example, during this Session it has been possible to agree that Committee stages in the Moses Room should be taken only on Bills that will last just one day. As I understand it, that has not been the situation in previous Sessions.
I turn now to the number of amendments passed this year. As I am sure the noble Viscount is aware, information on the number of government amendments, as opposed to other amendments, is not kept in that form. However, I can give the noble Viscount the total number of amendments: during this Session 3,936 amendments were tabled, compared to 2,002 in the previous Session and 2,164 in 1992–93. Although the number of amendments for this year is large, I am sure that both the noble Viscount and noble Lords will see that it is not out of proportion when compared with other years.

§ Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, in addition to taking more Committee stages off the Floor of the House—after all, Committee stages are intended to explore the ramifications and details of Bills—would it be of assistance to the House if we were to accept the proposal that votes should not be taken during Committee? Surely the taking of such votes on Report would be more appropriate for a part-time House, as this is.

§ Baroness Jay of Paddington
My Lords, that is another matter that my noble friend the Government Chief Whip has sought to raise. Indeed, it is something that I should very much support.

§ Lord Alexander of Weedon
My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that there is a strong case for increasing the number of Bills that are subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, because that is one way of seeking to improve legislation?

§ Baroness Jay of Paddington
Yes, my Lords. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestion. Reverting to the subject of the previous discussion about Bills being taken off the Floor of the House, the noble Lord was heavily involved in the financial services legislation that was considered this Session. I believe that that Bill was proposed as being suitable for detailed scrutiny off the Floor of the House, but, unfortunately, that could not be agreed.

§ Lord Mishcon
My Lords, does my noble friend the Leader of the House agree that one of the main contributing factors to the time taken both in Committee and on Report is that there are long debates in Committee, after which the amendment is withdrawn, but then the debate is repeated almost word for word on Report?

§ Baroness Jay of Paddington
My Lords, that problem has certainly seemed to arise fairly regularly in Bills with which I have been involved. I suspect that it is a matter that could be looked at if we had the capacity to consider the procedures and workings of this House in a general way.

§ Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, this has been a most unusual Session; indeed, the House has worked extremely hard, especially towards the latter part of it. Does the noble Baroness agree that the House has, on the whole, done its job extremely well? Will the noble Baroness take just a little bit of responsibility for the way that the Government have treated this House? Further, will she reconsider her answer to my noble friend Lord Cranborne? Is it not a fact that there have been a record number of amendments made to Bills brought forward by the Government? Bills have had their Second Readings months before being brought to the House for their Committee stages. There have also been massive gaps between the first and second days in Committee. All this has arisen because government Ministers have failed to make up their minds and decide what it is that they have to do. It culminated in, for example, over 100 pages of government amendments being tabled to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. Can the noble Baroness assure the House that that will not happen again?

§ Baroness Jay of Paddington
My Lords, I can certainly tell the noble Lord that I was responding to a point from his noble friend Lord Cranborne about the total number of amendments that have been 1235 passed. I hope that I was fair in my resume. As I said—I repeat it—the statistics are not produced in a form to show which are government amendments and which are others. A large number of amendments were tabled, for example, to the financial services legislation, which was referred to earlier.
As my noble friend the Chief Whip says so often when these matters are raised, this is a listening Government. I challenge the noble Lord's assertion that this is an unusual Session. At the risk of being repetitive, I refer to the statistics for third Sessions, going back to 1981–82. I have been challenged to recite those statistics. In the 1981–82 third Session, 46 Bills were passed: in 1985–86, 49 Bills; in 1989–90, 34 Bills; in 1994–95, 37 Bills, and we expect this year to pass 39 Bills.