| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene. There are different interpretations of the new wording depending on to whom one talks in the House. The new wording states:
23 Jan 2006 : Column 953
"The practice of the House is normally to resolve major points of difference by the end of report stage, and to use third reading for tidying up the bill".
As far as I can see, "tidying up the bill" includes clarification and improvement, as under the existing arrangements. It does not include fulfilment of undertakings. The Chairman of Committees said that it does include the fulfilment of undertakings. If that is the case, why is the amendment not more specific? Given that "tidying up the bill" might be narrowly interpreted by Members in future, and may well lead to arguments about what that phrase constitutes, should this matter not be referred to the committee for greater clarification?
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, given that I instigated in the committee a much more robust amendment, it might be useful if I commented on what the Lord Chairman and my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours said. I would like something more robust, but there was no majority in the committee for that and I accept that the wording proposed by the committee is right in the circumstances.
I draw the attention of my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours to what the Companion to the Standing Orders actually says. It states:
"The principal purposes of amendments on third reading are: to clarify any remaining uncertainties; to improve the drafting; and to enable the government to fulfil undertakings given at earlier stages of the bill".
That has not changed. All that has changed is that, in addition, there will be some minor adjustments to the admissibility of amendments at Third Reading, about which I hope the Public Bill Office will be robust.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I want to help my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, as he specifically referred to any amendments that the Government might bring forward at Third Reading. I am a member of the Procedure Committee, as is my noble friend the Chief Whip. We agreed with the proposals because they emphasise and reinforce the current guidelines—it does not take away what currently exists with respect to Third Reading amendments.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, will the proposal apply to Bills considered in Grand Committee? If so, does that mean that Report will be the only stage where there can be serious votes?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, it applies to all Bills, including those dealt with in Grand Committee. I do not think that one should make too much of this. The principal purposes stated in the Companion remain exactly the same, including the third point,
All that the amendment does is to strengthen the words slightly so, it is hoped, it will prevent noble Lords introducing entirely new issues before the House at Third Reading. I am afraid that I saw an example of that only a few days ago, which was quite out of order.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, it will strengthen the hand of the Public Bill Office in the advice that it gives to noble Lords when they table amendments at Third Reading. However, the Public Bill Office cannot refuse an amendment if a noble Lord insists on tabling it. It remains the case that the House is self-regulating and it is up to the House to deal with such matters itself. As the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said, there is no disadvantage to the Government in what is proposed; the measure is merely to try to prevent noble Lords introducing completely new issues at Third Reading.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may draw attention to a matter relating to item 6, where the Procedure Committee suggested that the House meets on Wednesdays at 3pm. I congratulate the committee on coming to that conclusion.
We have seen many alterations to the sitting times of the House, most of which have not been very good. Moving Thursday sittings from 3 pm to 11 am has been disastrous. It was done to make it convenient for people to get back home to their wives and children at a more reasonable time, which one can understand. But in the good old days, there used to be party meetings at 2.15 pm and the House met at 3 pm. The House was packed on Thursday afternoons. If you were answering questions on a Thursday afternoon, it was a dead scaring business—in the days when Ministers were dead scared of answering questions.
If you come in at 3 pm now, the House is dead. The other day I came along at 3.30 pm and there were about seven people in the House. There was not even a Doorkeeper in the Princes Chamber. The whole place was completely dead, which is a great pity. The only people in the Chamber were those taking part in the debate.
It is a great mistake. In the old days, government business was on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, and Wednesdays was the set-piece debate day. People enjoyed that. Nowadays people come in at 11 am on Thursdays, register their attendance, and by 1 pm most have gone. I hope that the Procedure Committee will regard this as a great step forward—one of the first of many great steps to make us come back to a reasonable form of existence.
Parliament has less prominence than it used to have, which is a great pity. The times of sittings have changed in another place, which now sits in the mornings. Prime Minister's Questions take place in the morning, on one day a week instead of two. It is not the same. The same is happening here. The stuffing is going out of Parliament by those alterations. I hope that the Procedure Committee will consider building on the excellent move to change the sitting time on Wednesdays to 3 pm, and change it further to
23 Jan 2006 : Column 955
Thursdays at 3 pm so that set-piece debates can take place on Wednesdays and be well attended, as they always were.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I was interested to hear what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said, but I think that he is tending to go over old ground. The House itself took the decision to move the debating day from Wednesday to Thursday, and to sit at 11 am on Thursdays. That original time was changed from having a break at lunch to not having a break at lunch. If the report is agreed to, which I hope it will be fairly quickly, the decision will have been made by the House to sit at 3 pm on Thursdays—
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, on Wednesdays. The House made the decision to sit at 11 am on Thursdays, and it was its decision that Thursday should become the debating day.
I admit that I am fascinated to know what will happen after Whitsun when we go back to doing Government Whip business on Thursdays. It will be quite difficult to get a large House on that day, but that will be for the Government to decide.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I have only one question, which I have not had time to check out, so I do not know whether the facts are correct. Currently, on Thursdays judgments take place at 10 am and the House sits at 11 am. There is a small gap between the two. I am led to believe that judgments will now take place on Wednesday mornings, and there will be a long gap between that business finishing and the House sitting. That means that the Chamber will be closed because the Mace is here. Doorkeepers will have to be here, and the Line of Route will be closed. I am not sure whether that is correct, so I hope my noble friend can explain.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, that the Line of Route will be open from after judgments until the House sits at 3 pm, and the Mace will be taken care of.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Identity Cards Bill
3.14 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 4 [Designation of documents for purposes of registration etc.]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 35:
23 Jan 2006 : Column 956
Page 4, line 31, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert "documents which any of the persons mentioned in subsection (2A) is authorised or required to issue, whether by or under an enactment or otherwise.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |