Third Reading
93. By the time they have completed committee and
report stage, most bills are different from the bill which the
House approved at second reading. In some cases, significant
new provisions will have been inserted, or the original provisions
of the bill will have been modified to such an extent that there
are major new questions relating to the principle of the bill.
The purpose of the third reading debate is for the House to
consider the principle of the bill, as amended, and to reach a
final decision on whether or not to allow it to proceed.
94. One undesirable feature of programming has been
the contraction of third reading debates. The usual practice
is now to leave an hour for third reading at the end of the report
stage but in practice, some of this time is taken up with divisions
so that there is often little more than half an hour for debate.
In 2002-03, the longest third reading of an ordinary Government
bill was one hour and 21 minutes, including a division.[99]
Twelve bills in that Session had third reading debates lasting
half an hour or less.[100]
Third reading debates are often no more than an opportunity to
offer perfunctory congratulations to all those involved in the
bill's passage; they are rarely if ever now an opportunity for
substantial debate on the bill, as amended. Some witnesses argued
that this trend should be reversed, with adequate time made available
for third reading; others argued that, rather than a perfunctory
third-reading debate of a few minutes, it would be better to make
that time available for debate on amendments at report stage.[101]
95. As with second reading, there may be cases where
a shorter debate is all that is required. If a bill has not been
significantly amended, it is likely that any points which might
be made at third reading will already have been made at second
reading. But where significant changes have been made to a bill,
the House should be given the opportunity for a substantive debate
on the bill, as amended. As we have already noted, the contraction
of third reading debates is largely due to the fact that Programme
Orders invariably require them to be completed by a particular
hour, rather than after a specific period of time. The time available
is thus often eaten up by divisions at the end of Report stage.
We recommend that, where
a substantial debate on third reading is warranted—as will
usually be the case when a bill has been significantly amended—the
programming sub-committee should consider recommending the allocation
of an appropriate period of time after the end of Report stage
for the third reading debate, but not necessarily on the same
sitting day.
Post-legislative scrutiny
96. The question of post-legislative scrutiny—systematic
appraisal of the impact of Acts of Parliament some time after
they have come into force—is currently being considered
by the Law Commission.[102]
Though there have been suggestions that post-legislative scrutiny
might be conducted by some external body, we believe that this
is an area where Parliament has a role to play, and a substantive
third reading debate might in some circumstances present an opportunity
for Members to express a view on the criteria by which an Act
might be judged to have succeeded or failed.
99 The Extradition Bill, on 25 March 2003.This discounts
the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Bill for which, as a tax
law re-write bill, third reading was the only effective stage
on the floor of the House. Back
100
Health (Wales) (9 Jan 03); Regional Assemblies (Preparations)
(23 Jan 03); N.I. Assembly Elections (17 Mar 03); Railways and
Transport Safety (31 Mar 03); Industrial Development (Financial
Assistance) (7 Apr 03);N.I. Assembly (Elections and Periods of
Suspension) (12 May 03); E.U. (Accessions) (5 Jun 03); Anti-Social
Behaviour (24 Jun 03); N.I. (Monitoring Commission, etc.) (17
Sep 03); Crime (International Co-operation) [Lords] (14
Oct 03); Courts [Lords] (20 Oct 03); and Arms Control and
Disarmament (Inspections) [Lords] (11 Nov 03). Back
101
QQ 31 & 100. Back
102
Post-legislative Scrutiny, Law Commission Consultation
Paper No. 178, January 2006. Back
|
