| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, not least for the charming way in which he alluded to what I believe he called my "courtesy". That is something which I always try to preserve in the best traditions of your Lordships' House. Noble Lords will be aware that an agreement has been reached through the usual channels to complete the Committee stage--
Viscount Cranborne: I beg your pardon, my Lords; it must have been an even later night than I remember. As I was saying, agreement has been reached to complete the Report stage of the Bill this evening, after the completion of the Committee stage of the Firearms Bill. The noble Lord is quite right to say that the date for the Third Reading of the Bill, which was agreed some time ago through the usual channels, is Tuesday next, 28th January.
Of course the Government, as is only right and proper, will urgently consider the effects of the amendments which were carried in this Chamber last night. They will want to consider those amendments and their effects with some care and with due deliberation. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that, as this House has spoken, it would only be right for us to continue with the timetable of the Bill as agreed between the usual channels. I should stress that I am extremely grateful to the Members of the official
Opposition for the co-operative way in which they have observed the traditions of this House and have taken part in constructive discussions regarding the timetable.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am sorry if I am embarrassing the noble Baroness in any way by paying her compliments; but I can hardly resist the temptation.
I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, that the situation is very clear. Your Lordships have amended the Bill twice. It will be up to your Lordships to consider the Bill further on Third Reading and then in due course it will be up to another place to decide what to do with the legislation. The Government are content to rest on the decision of Parliament as the Bill proceeds in the normal way through this place and, in due course, through another place, and eventually, when it comes to the point, to consider any messages from the other place in relation to the Bill.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, perhaps I could draw his attention to my first and central question; namely, what is the nature and outcome of the discussions which the Home Secretary engaged in this morning?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I have to say that I have not been privy to any discussions that have taken place. As far as I am aware, if discussions have taken place, no announcement has yet been made. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will be in a position to make a public announcement when the time is right. He is not in a position to do so as yet.
Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
3.14 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 20).--(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
- COMMITTEES ON LEGISLATION OFF THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE
- The Committee has conducted a further review of the procedures for committees on legislation off the floor of the House. As recommended by the Group on Sittings of the House (the Rippon Committee) in 1994, a number of procedures are now available. To avoid confusion and for the information of the House, we set out as an annex to this report a short description of each procedure, which will be included in the Companion to Standing Orders.
- A year ago the Committee noted that in Session 1994-95 the House of Commons had implemented certain recommendations of the Committee on Sittings of the House (the Jopling Committee). As a result, the Commons had risen on average substantially earlier each day. With the more limited reform programme proposed by the Rippon Committee, the House of Lords had also risen earlier although the trend was less marked than in the Commons. In Session 1995-96 the House of Commons continued to rise earlier but the
- House of Lords sat for longer hours--on average for 6 hours 53 minutes each day compared to 6 hours 22 minutes in Session 1994-95--and there were 47 sittings after 10.30 pm compared to 33 such sittings in Session 1994-95.
- We remind the House of our recommendation in 1994 (1st Report, 1994-95, HL 9) that "whenever possible business should be arranged so as to avoid the need for the House to sit beyond an agreed time, say 10 pm". We recognised then that a significant improvement in sitting hours could come only with general support throughout the House.
- The Committee makes the following observations on the new procedures for committees off the floor:
- (1) The Special Public Bill Committee procedure was not used in Session 1995-96. We remain of the view that it provides a useful addition to the scrutiny function of the House. We will at our next meeting consider certain proposed changes to this procedure.
- (2) In 1995-96 five Bills committed to a Committee of the Whole House were considered in Committees in the Moses Room in which no divisions can be held. Some 25 hours were spent in committees on these Bills. This procedure, which allows all Lords to attend and participate fully, continues to prove successful for suitable Bills and generally popular with those members of the House who take part. In order to differentiate these committees from committees on the floor of the House, we recommend that they are in future described as Grand Committees.
- (3) No further experiment was held in Session 1995-96 of Informal Committees of interested members of the House. A further experiment might help to determine whether this informal method of proceeding should be retained.
- (4) Two experiments in Scottish Select Committees, whereby a committee with a fixed membership takes evidence in Scotland on a Government Bill relating to Scotland, were held in Session 1995-96. The Committee agreed to this experimental procedure in December 1995 (2nd Report, 1995-96, HL 15). A third Bill, the Transfer of Crofting Estates (Scotland) Bill, has been committed to such a committee this session. The two committees last session were well received by those taking part in the proceedings. We accordingly recommend that the procedure should be made permanent. It will remain an option available to the House for suitable Scottish Bills, and could be adopted for the consideration of Welsh Bills, if appropriate.
I. Committee of the Whole House
This is the traditional method of proceeding with a Bill after Second Reading. A Bill is committed to a Committee of the Whole House taken on the floor of the House unless the House otherwise directs.
II. Grand Committee (in the Moses Room)
This procedure was recommended by the Group on the Sittings of the House (chaired by Lord Rippon of Hexham) in 1994 and first used in 1995. The Committee considers the Bill and amendments are tabled in the same way as a Committee of the Whole House, but no divisions may take place. All Lords are free to attend and participate.
III. Public Bill Committee
This procedure has been used on nine occasions since 1968 and was last used to consider the Trade Marks Bill in 1994. The procedure differs from Committee of the Whole House off the floor in that a limited number of Lords (proposed by the Committee of Selection) are appointed to undertake the committee stage. Divisions may take place. Lords who are not named of the Committee are entitled to participate in the proceedings but may not vote.
IV. Special Public Bill Committee
This procedure, which was first used in 1994, was initially recommended by the Committee on the Committee Work of the House (chaired by Earl Jellicoe) and later by the Rippon Committee. The Committee may take written and oral evidence within 28 days of its appointment. As in the case of a Public Bill Committee, a limited number of Lords are appointed to conduct the committee stage. After hearing evidence, Special Public Bill Committees proceed in the same way as Public Bill Committees: they consider the Bill clause by clause, amendments may be made and divisions may take place.
V. Select Committee
This procedure allows detailed investigation by a Select Committee (appointed by the House with the members proposed by the Committee of Selection) at any stage between Second and Third Readings. The Committee may take evidence and reports to the House on the provisions of the Bill, recommending whether or not it should proceed. If it recommends that the Bill should proceed, the Committee may make amendments to it. Thereafter the Bill is re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House. The Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill in 1995 was the last Bill to be committed to a Select Committee.
VI. Scottish Select Committee
This procedure was first used early in 1996. It allows a Select Committee (appointed by the House with the members proposed by the Committee of Selection) to take evidence on Scottish Bills. The Committee may take written and oral evidence in Scotland and reports its evidence to the House. The Bill is then recommitted to one of the committees described above. A Scottish Select Committee may not make amendments to the Bill. Lords not of the Committee may attend meetings and participate in the proceedings, whether at Westminster or in Scotland.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees just one question about the Committees in the Moses Room. I agree with the report of the Select Committee that these are working very well; indeed, I came in today expecting to chair the Committee on Scottish crofting to find that it had finished its deliberations yesterday. I believe that that is an example of the fact that the work is being dealt with expeditiously.
However, I just wonder whether this is the right way to describe it. The report suggests that such Committees should be called "Grand Committees". I have no quarrel with that because I am sure that all Committees of your Lordships' House are grand in the sense that they are distinguished. But is that not rather a grandiloquent title for what is a fairly small but important Committee? Why cannot it be called a "Standing Committee" as similar committees are called in another place?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page