The convention that Government business in the Lords
should be considered in reasonable time is not currently codified,
save that it appears in the report of the Royal Commission and
the first report of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform
(HL Paper 17, HC 171, Session 2002-03).
11. Is there such a convention?
12. Has it been breached?
13. Could it be codified? In its codified form, how
could it be enforced?
The Labour manifesto for the last General Election
contained a commitment to "legislate to place reasonable
limits on the time bills spend in the second chamber - no longer
than 60 sitting days for most bills".
14. Would codification of the convention in the form
of a statutory time limit be practical? How could it be enforced?
What would be its practical consequences, including indirect consequences?
15. Would 60 sitting days be a practical limit? If
not, what time would?
16. Would there need to be provision for exceptions,
or for extending the time limit? How could this work?
EXCHANGE OF AMENDMENTS ("PING-PONG")
Ping-pong is a shorthand way of describing the procedures
used by both Houses for dealing with amendments proposed to legislation
by the other House.
17. What would be the consequences of codifying ping-pong?
18. What would codification cover?
19. Is codification necessary?
20. What effect has packaging of Lords amendments
had on the operation of ping-pong?
21. How far can the Lords push ping-pong before the
practice is considered to have been pushed too far?
Alternative procedures, eg reconciliation committees,
are outside the scope of this inquiry.
OTHER KEY CONVENTIONS
22. Are there other conventions which this Committee
ought to consider?