First Report of Session
2005-06 from the Procedure Committee
ROTATION RULES FOR COMMITTEES
1. The Companion to the Standing Orders
(paragraph 9.12) sets out a rotation rule for select committees,
such that "committee members retire after three sessions'
service". However, over the years a number of exceptions
and variations have been adopted and the three-session rule is
now far from generally applied. We have therefore reviewed the
rule in order to achieve consistency, to reduce uncertainty and
to minimise the number of exceptions and special cases which are
subject to negotiation. We have also considered the position of
those committees which meet only rarely, from which it is possible
for a member to be rotated off without ever attending a meeting.
2. We recommend that the following committees,
which meet only rarely, should be exempt from any rotation rule—
Joint Committee on Tax Law Rewrite Bills
Committee for Privileges
Standing Orders (Private Bills) Committee
Personal Bills Committee
Hybrid Instruments Committee.
3. We recommend that the House Committee,
being the principal domestic committee of the House with responsibility
for long-term financial planning, should retain its five-session
rotation rule.
4. We recommend that all other committees
of the House should be subject to a four-session rotation rule,
with the Chairman exempt for three sessions after appointment.
5. We further recommend that the Leaders,
Chief Whips, Convenor of the Crossbench peers, Chairman of Committees
and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees should continue to
be exempt from the rotation rule.
EN BLOC MOTIONS
6. Affirmative instruments are now frequently
considered in Grand Committee. Each instrument is referred on
a motion moved by the Leader of the House and each is then approved
by the House, after the debate, on another separate motion. The
desirability of taking such motions en bloc has been mentioned
in the House.
7. We recommend that motions to refer affirmative
instruments to a Grand Committee, and motions to approve affirmative
instruments after they have been debated in Grand Committee, should
normally be taken en bloc in the House. We recommend that
the requirements for two days' notice and for the unanimous leave
of the House, as set out in the Companion to the Standing Orders
in relation to other en bloc motions, should be observed.
MERITS OF STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS COMMITTEE
8. Following its first appointment on 17 December
2003, the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee has been conducting
regular scrutiny since April 2004. We have now conducted the intended
review of its terms of reference, having particular regard to
matters brought to the attention of the House by the Committee[1].
9. We draw to the attention of the House the
excellent contribution of the Merits Committee to the effective
scrutiny of delegated legislation, and remind the House of the
exceptional resource which the Committee's reports represent.
The Merits Committee requires significant resources, not least
the work of members, and it is debatable whether the House makes
sufficient use of its output.
10. Sessional committees, in the terms of Standing
Order 65, continue in existence over prorogation until their reappointment
in the following session. This is clearly desirable for a scrutiny
committee where a considerable backlog of work arises from any
break in continuity in the existence of the Committee. We therefore
recommend that the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee should
be added to the list of sessional committees contained in Standing
Order 65.
11. We recommend that the Committee should
have new terms of reference, as set out in the Annex. The
changes are to simplify the drafting; to permit the Committee
to report to the House on first-stage super-affirmative instruments
where they are not previously assigned to another committee; to
make plain that the Committee is required to draw attention to
instruments which may be faulty on prescribed grounds,
rather than to make a conclusive finding; specifically to exclude
from consideration by the Merits Committee Church of England Measures
and instruments made under them; and to permit the Committee to
conduct broader enquiries from time to time.
GRAND COMMITTEE
12. On 28 June there was an exchange in the House
(col. 130) about the use of the title "Grand Committee".
We conclude that "Grand Committee" is not a procedural
description, but the term used for a meeting of the House elsewhere
than in the Chamber. The procedure in a Grand Committee is the
same for each type of business as the procedure would have been
in the House when such business is considered, except that
divisions may not take place in Grand Committee.
1 Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee 25th Report,
2003-04, HL Paper 206, and 17th Report, 2004-05, HL Paper 106. Back
| 
