Select Committee on Procedure of the House Fifth Report

FIFTH Report of Session 2006-07 from the Procedure Committee

QUESTIONS FOR SHORT DEBATE IN GRAND COMMITTEE

1.  Since 2004 it has been possible to debate Questions for Short Debate in Grand Committee. The time limit for a Question for Short Debate in Grand Committee is currently 90 minutes. This was set by Resolution on 31 January 2005.

2.  In the interests of flexible business management, we recommend that it should also be possible for the limit to be 60 minutes, if the Lord asking the Question so wishes. The time limit, either 60 or 90 minutes, would appear in House of Lords Business and on the list of speakers; and the Chairman would announce it at the start of proceedings.

SITTING TIME ON FRIDAYS

3.  The Leader of the House has proposed that Friday sittings should start at 10am, with a firm convention that the House normally rises by about 3pm. At present Friday sittings start at 11am, with no convention as to rising time. We recommend in favour of this change, to take effect immediately.

4.  The deadline for applying for a Private Notice Question on a Friday is 10am; and, if one were granted, it would currently be taken as first business. If the time of sitting is advanced to 10am, then the time when a Private Notice Question is taken should be flexible, at the discretion of the Lord Speaker, the Lord asking the Question and the usual channels, on the same basis as a Statement.

THIS DAY SIX MONTHS

5.  The Companion to the Standing Orders says,

Opposition to second reading

7.36 A bill may be opposed on second reading in three ways:

o  by an amendment to the motion "that this bill be now read a second time", to leave out "now" and at end insert "this day six months";

o  by a "reasoned amendment", i.e. an amendment setting out the reasons why the House declines to give the bill a second reading;

o  by negativing the motion "That this bill be now read a second time". (It is now uncommon for such opposition to take place, because notice of it, which is desirable in the interests of good order, cannot be given on the order paper.)

7.37 The agreement of the House to any of the above means automatic rejection of the bill. The question as amended is not put, and the bill is removed from the list of bills in progress.

6.  The "6-months amendment" does not mean what it says. A bill defeated on such an amendment may not in fact be brought back 6 months later, even if the Session lasts that long. It is a time-honoured procedure, originating in an era when parliamentary sessions lasted less than 6 months.

7.  Now, however, 6-month amendments have become comparatively rare (only 4 cases since 2000), and many members do not understand their purpose. More importantly, most of those outside the House are confused by the formula. This led to particular uncertainty and anxiety in the case of the second reading of the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill [HL] on 12 May 2006, which was a matter of great public interest.

8.  We therefore recommend that the 6-months amendment is no longer a suitable procedure, and should be replaced with a new form of words which means what it says. We recommend the following form: "that this House declines to give the bill a second reading."

9.  We also recommend strengthening the guidance against simply opposing the question for second reading without giving notice. For the House to divide on second reading without notice could have unfortunate unintended consequences.

10.  The following revised guidance would express both these changes:

7.36 A bill may be opposed on second reading by an amendment to the effect that "this House declines to give the bill a second reading". The amendment may add a reason (a "reasoned amendment"). The agreement of the House to such an amendment, with or without a reason, means automatic rejection of the bill. The question as amended is not put, and the bill is removed from the list of bills in progress.

7.36A It is possible simply to oppose the motion "That this bill be now read a second time". However it is undesirable in the interests of good order for such opposition to take place, because notice of it cannot be given on the order paper.

7.37 The amendment to put off second reading for six months is an obsolete procedure.

EXPLANATORY NOTES ON COMMONS AMENDMENTS

11.  The Leader of the House has made proposals for explanatory notes to be published on Commons amendments to Lords bills. This follows the decision of the House of Commons in November last year to start printing explanatory notes on Lords amendments to Commons bills. We recommend agreement to this proposal, which will help the House to scrutinise Commons amendments. As with a bill, the explanatory notes will consist of neutral explanations of the amendments and their effect; they will be drafted by the Government (or the Lord in charge of the bill).

12.  This will require amendment of Standing Order 51, in order to allow explanatory notes to be printed if Commons amendments are received when the House is not sitting. The amendment would be as follows:

"Printing of Bills brought from the Commons

51.—(1) If a Public Bill is passed by the Commons and is carried up to the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments at a time when this House is not sitting, and if it is for the convenience of this House that copies of the Bill should be circulated before the Bill is read a First time, the Bill shall be deemed to have been brought from the Commons and the Clerk of the Parliaments shall arrange for the printing and circulation of copies of the Bill and any Explanatory Notes thereto.

(2) Likewise, if a Public Bill is returned from the Commons with amendments or Reasons at a time when this House is not sitting, the Clerk of the Parliaments may, pursuant to this Standing Order, arrange for the printing and circulation of any such amendments and Reasons and any Explanatory Notes on the amendments."

OTHER AMENDMENTS TO STANDING ORDERS

13.  We recommend the following amendments to Standing Orders. They are all consequential on recent legislation.

14.  First, following the passage of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, Standing Order 41(6) should say,

"Any motion relating to a report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on a draft order laid under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, or a subordinate provisions order made or proposed to be made under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, shall be entered before a motion to approve that draft order."

15.  Secondly, Standing Order 52(6) refers to "any Affirmative Instrument which but for the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 2000 would have been enacted by a Consolidation Bill, whether public or private, or by a Statute Law Revision Bill". Since the Northern Ireland Act 2000 has been repealed, this sub-paragraph should be deleted.

16.  Finally, Standing Order 74 sets the remit of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The remit excludes devolved Statutory Instruments (SIs) which are not laid at Westminster. The original definition of a Scottish devolved SI was "any SI made by a member of the Scottish Executive". This was too narrow; it excluded SIs made by non-Ministers, eg the President of the Court of Session. Therefore in July the House agreed to substitute "any SI made by the Scottish Ministers or otherwise under an Act or Act of the Scottish Parliament". We are now advised that this is too broad; it catches some non-devolved SIs which are not laid but are nonetheless subject to scrutiny by the Joint Committee. The following amendment is therefore recommended:

"every general statutory instrument not within the foregoing classes, and not required to be laid before or to be subject to proceedings in the Commons only; but not including any Scottish statutory instrument or any statutory instrument made by the Scottish Ministers or otherwise under an Act or Act of the Scottish Parliament or by the Welsh Ministers unless it is required to be laid before Parliament or either House of Parliament"

---