CHAPTER 4: The role of the Constitution
Committee
106. This report has been primarily concerned
with significant constitutional change. The terms of reference
of this Committee require us to examine all public bills for their
constitutional implications. We perform this role by scrutinising
and, if necessary, producing a report on, any bill with constitutional
implications before it is given a second reading in the House
of Lords.[140]
107. We take this opportunity to make two further
recommendations which would assist us in this scrutiny work. Since
the value of our work lies primarily in the assistance we provide
to Members of the House during their consideration of a bill,
we believe that these measures would also improve the parliamentary
scrutiny of bills on which we report or in relation to which we
write to the responsible minister.
MINIMUM INTERVAL BETWEEN FIRST AND
SECOND READINGS
108. The House of Lords Companion to the Standing
Orders states that there should be a minimum interval of two
weekends between the first and second readings of bills.[141]
In practice, this often means that a bill is introduced one week
and we must meet to consider it and, if necessary, agree a report
the following week if we are to publish a report before second
reading. This timescale constrains our ability to undertake the
scrutiny work with which the House has tasked us.
109. We recommend that the government, when
introducing a bill providing for significant constitutional change
into the House of Lords, allow a minimum of three weekends between
first and second reading. We believe there will rarely be a sound
justification for rushing a significant constitutional bill through
Parliament and that an extension of one week would not unduly
impact on the government's legislative timetable.
FULL AND TIMELY GOVERNMENT RESPONSES
TO OUR REPORTS
110. In conducting our scrutiny of all public
bills we would, if the government accept the earlier recommendations
of this report, closely examine a written ministerial statement
prepared by the government as outlined above. We reserve our right
to disagree with the government's assessment, both as to whether
a bill provides for significant constitutional change and as to
whether the bill has been subjected to the proper process. There
will also be bills in relation to which we accept the government's
assessment that they do not provide for significant constitutional
change but which nevertheless have constitutional implications
which we will wish to draw to the attention of the House.
111. Towards the end of 2010 we published reports
on two particularly significant constitutional bills: the Parliamentary
Voting System and Constituencies Bill and the Fixed-term Parliaments
Bill. In relation to the first of these bills, the Government
did not respond to our report until 10 February, just a few days
before the Bill was enacted on 16 February and four months after
our report was published.[142]
In relation to the second Bill, the response was published just
one day before second reading in the House of Lords, despite this
being over two months after publication of our report and over
five weeks after the Bill was brought from the House of Commons.[143]
We note that the Government's responses to the House of Commons
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee's reports on the
first of these bills was even more unduly delayed.[144]
The Government's responses thus proved to be of no value in assisting
the House in its scrutiny of these bills.[145]
112. The government's guidance to departments
on dealing with select committees, commonly known as the Osmotherly
Rules, states that:
"Departments should aim to provide the considered
Government response to both Commons and Lords Select Committee
Reports within two months of their publication. Where a report
is complex or technical in its nature, the response may on occasion
require a little longer: the Committee should be kept informed."[146]
113. We note that the Government have recently
been able to respond to two other constitutionally significant
bills, the Public Bodies Bill and the European Union Bill, within
two or three weeks of our reports on those bills being published.[147]
This demonstrates that quick responses are capable of being prepared,
approved and issued when ministers and departments wish to fulfil
their responsibilities to Parliament and its committees.
114. Our bill scrutiny reports, unlike many
committee reports which may follow a long and in-depth inquiry,
will not raise issues which the government could not be expected
to have previously considered. We therefore regard the two-month
time limit for responses to general committee reports to be longer
than that which should be available to departments for responses
to bill scrutiny reports. In the majority of cases, where we have
published a bill scrutiny report before second reading, we would
expect the government to respond to the report before the commencement
of committee stage.
140 Constitution Committee, Reviewing the Constitution:
Terms of Reference and Method of Working, op. cit., para 32.
Back
141
Companion to the Standing Orders and Guide to the Proceedings
of the House of Lords, (2010), para 8.03(a). Back
142
Constitution Committee, Parliamentary Voting Systems and Constituencies
Bill, op. cit., published 12 November 2010;
letter from the Chairman to Mark Harper MP, Minister for Political
and Constitutional Reform, dated 9 February 2011, http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/constitution/Scrutiny/LtrtoHarper09.02.11.pdf;
letter from the Minister to the Chairman dated 10 February 2011,
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/constitution/Scrutiny/LtrfromHarper100211.pdf;
Government Response to the House of Lords Constitution Committee's
Report on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill,
Cm 8016, published 11 February 2011. Back
143
Constitution Committee, Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, op.
cit., published 16 December 2010; Government Response to
the Report of the House of Lords Constitution Committee, Cm 8011,
published 28 February 2010; letter from the Chairman to Mark Harper
MP, Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform, dated 7
March 2011, http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/constitution/Scrutiny/LtrtoHarper07.03.11.pdf;
letter from the Minister to the Chairman dated 14 March 2011,
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/constitution/FTP/LetterfromMarkHarper140311.pdf Back
144
See press release by Chairman of the Political and Constitutional
Reform Committee: http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/political-and-constitutional-reform-committee/news/government-response/.
Back
145
See further, letter from the Chairman to Rt Hon Nick Clegg MP,
Deputy Prime Minister, dated 7 March 2011, http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/constitution/Corres%20with%20ministers/LtrtoClegg070311.pdf Back
146
Departmental Evidence and Response to Select Committees, Cabinet
Office, July 2005, para 99 http://interim.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/propriety_and_ethics/assets/osmotherly_rules.pdf. Back
147
Constitution Committee, 6th Report (2010-2011): Public Bodies
Bill [HL] (HL Paper 51), published 4 November 2011; letter
from Lord Taylor of Holbeach to the Chairman, dated 19 November
2010, http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/constitution/Scrutiny/LetterfromLordTaylor191110.pdf.
Constitution Committee, European Union Bill, op.
cit., published 17 March 2011;Government response published
30 March,
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/constitution/GovernmentResponse/GvtResEUBillReport.pdf. Back
| 
