TB 06

(2008-09)

 

 

Memorandum submitted by Andrew Dismore MP, Chair,

Joint Committee on Human Rights

 

I am writing on behalf of the Commons Members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, in response to your Committee's call for evidence on the timetabling of business in the House of Commons.

 

As you may know, we have recently commenced tabling amendments to Bills at Report Stage in order to give effect to some of the recommendations in our legislative scrutiny reports. This is intended to connect our scrutiny of Bills with the normal process by which legislation passes through Parliament; to require the Government to respond to our recommendations while the Bill is being debated in Parliament; and to raise the profile of our work and of human rights compatibility issues.

 

On four occasions over the last two sessions, JCHR amendments have been selected for debate but not reached during the time provided for debate under a programme motion. These are as follows:

 

2007-08

 

Bill	Number of groups of amendments affected, and issues raised by amendments
Children and Young Persons	1 (scope of Human Rights Act in relation to social work)
Counter-Terrorism	3 (charging threshold; bail; disclosure of information involving intelligence and security services)

 

2008-09 to date

 

Bill	Groups of amendments affected
Coroners and Justice	3 (Coroners' duties and powers; inquest juries; scope of Public Order Act)
Policing and Crime	1 (extradition)

 

Report stage provides the only opportunity for select committee Members (other than those who may have served on the Bill Committee) to move and debate amendments. We changed our working practices earlier in this Parliament to aim to publish our reports in time for Report Stage in the first House so that our views, which usually relate to specific aspects of a Bill, can be taken into account during debate. Where Report Stage is curtailed by the operation of a programme motion, the House is denied the opportunity to hear our views and to scrutinise the Government's response. In the examples given above, our concerns about whether legislation on matters such as coroners' inquests, extradition and counter-terrorism adequately protected human rights were not addressed by the Minister in debate because of lack of time.

 

We recognise that there is considerable pressure on time in the House of Commons and that precedence must be given to the most important issues raised in Bills, on which many Members will wish to speak. It is unsatisfactory, however, for other significant issues to go undebated, especially when raised on behalf of a select committee. We support calls for there to be more involvement by backbenchers, including select committee Members, in discussions about programme motions. It should not be the Government alone that decides which amendments are debated on its own Bills. We also invite your Committee to consider whether programme motions could operate more flexibly, so that if a little extra time is needed to ensure that all groups of amendments are debated it would be possible for the House to vary a programme motion on the day.

 

June 2009