HL Deb 19 November 2002 vol 641 cc254-7

2.58 p.m.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they intend to carry over public Bills from one parliamentary Session to another and what statutory authority this would require.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, Her Majesty's Government welcome the fact that both Houses have agreed that it should be possible for public Bills to be "carried over" from one Session to the next, as is already the case with private and hybrid Bills. Both Houses are masters of their own procedures and the law and proceedings of Parliament are not, for the most part, underpinned by statute.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that Answer. However, is it not a fact that at the moment, following the decision in the other place two weeks ago, any public Bill in the Commons could be carried over for a further Session, whereas in your Lordships' Chamber that applies only to Bills that have had pre-legislative scrutiny? Is that not likely to lead to some confusion between the two Chambers? Is not the greater, more important point that, without any doubt, the power of this Chamber is seen in the other place as at its greatest in the last few days of a Session when, rather than lose a Bill, a government will accept amendments because otherwise they fear that the Bill will disappear altogether? Is not that power likely to be put at risk by the changes that have just happened in Standing Orders?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, I do not believe that to be true. I believe that both Houses are rightly scrutinising their own procedures. Of course, the procedures in the Commons are a matter for the Commons—I take the noble Lord's point—but my experience of this place is that it tends to be increasingly mulish if it feels that a government of any complexion are not paying proper attention to the fact that we have a legitimate role of scrutiny and revision. I hope that in the next year or two we will be able to renew ourselves, as the Commons are seeking to do, moving co-operatively with the other Chamber.

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that no amount of pre-legislative scrutiny or carry-over makes up for the vast number of Bills that we currently see, often ill drafted and sometimes when Ministers are making up policy on the hoof? Secondly, can the noble and learned Lord confirm that there will be no carry-over in this House unless there has been pre-legislative scrutiny, and only when it has been agreed by Peers in all parties and of none in this Chamber?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, some legislation over the past years—I do not limit it to the period since 1997—has been voluminous and ill digested. The long-term solution to that is an increasing use of pre-legislative scrutiny.

The noble Lord is right in saying that we cannot have carry-over on a Bill in this Chamber unless this Chamber agrees it. That is a useful sanction which we all agreed knowing the consequences.

Lord Roper

My Lords, will the Lord Privy Seal also agree that the carry-over of any Bill if introduced initially in this House, irrespective of where it is at the end of the Session, will have to be agreed by this House?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, I thought I had said that, but, not being entirely familiar with English as a first language, I must have got it wrong.

Viscount Bledisloe

My Lords, have Her Majesty's Government given any further thought to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, that all Bills should have a 12-month life during which they have to pass, which is not tied arbitrarily to the end of a Session? Any Bill therefore not enacted within 12 months of introduction would lapse.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, I remember the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, making that suggestion and I said that I would consider it with the Lord President in the other place. At present, we are moving forward in a period of change—I hope renewal—and plainly that suggestion needs to be attended to.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord enlighten the House and tell us what is the role of the Parliament Act should a Bill be carried over? Can it still apply?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, in some circumstances, yes.

Baroness Williams of Crosby

My Lords, the Leader of the House will appreciate how grateful we are for the efforts he has made to bring about pre-legislative scrutiny of major Bills. Will he give the House an estimate of how quickly the difficulties of staffing pre-legislative scrutiny can be overtaken so that the House can assume that most major Bills will go to pre-legislative scrutiny within whatever period of years he can indicate?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, during previous discussions, I said that this was a long-term ambition and the Lord President has reaffirmed that in the House of Commons. I ought to echo what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said. The difficulty is often not a deficiency of resource in parliamentary drafting terms, because parliamentary counsel do admirable work and my noble and learned friend has applied extra resource to them and obtained extra numbers. Often—and I am whispering now—it is the fact that Ministers have not come to policy conclusions that is the difficulty.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord, who is usually most forthcoming in his answers, be a little more expansive and say what circumstances will apply to the use of the Parliament Act on a Bill that is carried over and what will not?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, if the Parliament Act is to bite, it could bite in some circumstances on a carry-over Bill. But that, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, pointed out, would depend as far as we are concerned to agreeing to carryover. It seems to me that whichever party is in government the power of this House to have its own way on carry-over is a very important check. That was, I understood, what your Lordships intended when we agreed on the new reforms.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

My Lords, in reply to me the noble and learned Lord used the word "mulish" in reference to some of the amendments passed in your Lordships' House. As a former Chief Whip in the other place, I have sometimes shared that feeling. But does he not feel that, for example, the Animal Health Bill and the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill left this Chamber a great deal better with our amendments than when they first came here from the other place?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, I used "mulish" as a term of approval. The mule is an admirable beast of burden, is patient and stubborn, persisting on very little by way of intake.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford

My Lords, echoing the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, will thought be given to having more Clerks available for pre-legislative scrutiny? I sat on the Communications Bill and the Clerks were very much overburdened. In fact, a Clerk had to be changed in the middle of consideration of the Bill. If we are to carry out a great deal of pre-legislative scrutiny, could thought be given to the matter so that we are serviced in the right way?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, that is a good point to which I know the House authorities have regard. They were able to be most flexible with the Communications Bill and we can proceed only if the resource is available. I remind myself that the mule is also incapable of reproduction, but that will not be a problem much longer.