CONCLUSIONS
84. There is general agreement
that more thorough parliamentary scrutiny of legislation is necessary
and long overdue. We have tried in this Report to begin to set
out how best to achieve this end. We have concluded that it would
be wrong to prescribe a single approach for all types of legislation.
We have stated some broad principles, in particular that the
Government of the day must be assured of getting its legislation
through in reasonable time (provided that it has the approval
of the House), and that the Opposition and all Members must have
a full opportunity to discuss and seek to change provisions to
which they attach importance. Each bill will be different and
its treatment should reflect this, with its passage to the statute
book designed to recognise the broad principles to which we have
referred. A higher quality of legislation must have substantial
benefits for all.
85. There is much that can
already be done by using to greater effect and with greater imagination
the existing procedures and practices of the House. Beyond that,
relatively minor changes could significantly improve the scrutiny
of legislation. We recommend greater use in appropriate cases
of more of the options already available and of others that could
easily be brought forward. Fundamental to this is a willingness
on the part of Government to experiment with such options. It
equally entails some greater flexibility on the part of the House.
If the new opportunities offered are wasted or abused, the chance
will have been missed.
86. If significant changes
are made to the scrutiny of legislation in the longer term, there
would be consequences for the overall framework within which Parliament
legislates. These could include in defined circumstances consideration
of the "rollover" of Bills from one parliamentary year
to another, and the shape and form of that year. Such matters
are in any event subject to alteration: for example, the Budget
was moved in 1993 from March to November, whereas it has recently
been announced that in 1998 there will be a spring Budget.
87. Flexibility is an inherent
strength of our system, and any attempt to impose a straitjacket
on it should be resisted.
88. The recommendations
we make below are based on options either already available, or
which would involve small changes in procedures.
Programming
of legislation
89. We have explored the
possibility of using arrangements for programming legislation
which are more formal than the usual channels but more flexible
than the guillotine. We believe that the spirit of these reforms
requires co-operation from all sides of the House. We recommend
to the House that, for a trial period, and in respect only of
some bills, the House adopt an alternative approach as set out
below -
(i) The Bills to be selected
for programming during this trial period should be agreed through
the usual channels, and should include some Bills of real substance,
including at least one Bill against which the Opposition proposes
to divide on Second Reading.
(ii) As soon as possible
after formal presentation of such a Bill or its receipt from the
House of Lords, discussions on a programme should take place between
the usual channels, taking account of representations from all
sides of the House, including backbenchers.
(iii) In the light of these
discussions the Government should move an amendable programme
motion directly after Second Reading, which could include-
(a) the Committee option
to be followed:
(b) the date by which the
Bill should be reported from committee. The Committee itself
would then decide how its time should be used to consider all
sections of the bill within this timetable:
(c) the amount of time proposed
for Report Stage and Third Reading:
(d) in defined circumstances,
provisions for carry-over to a subsequent session.
(iv) The questions necessary
to dispose of proceedings on a programme motion shall be put not
later than 45 minutes after the commencement of such proceedings.
(v) The question on any subsequent
motion to modify the original programme should be put forthwith,
provided that a motion proposing to reduce the time agreed in
the original programme motion or to bring forward the date for
reporting the bill from committee should be treated as a programme
motion.
(vi) A Bill subject to the
terms of a programme motion shall not subsequently be made subject
to an allocation of time motion in respect of those stages referred
to in the programme motion.
(vii) For any such Bill committed
to a Standing Committee or Special Standing Committee a programming
sub-committee would be appointed by the Committee of Selection,
to be chaired by the Chairman of the Standing Committee.
(viii) Programming sub-committees
would have power to meet before the first meeting of the Committee
to agree a programme for consideration of the Bill within the
limits agreed by the House.
(ix) In drawing up a programme
the sub-committee should take into account the need for all parts
of the Bill to receive proper consideration and the rights of
the Opposition and other parties and Members to be given adequate
time to discuss matters to which they attach particular importance.
(x) Sufficient time should
also be allowed in the programme for consultation with those outside
Parliament.
(xi) The conclusions of the
sub-committee should be embodied in a committee programming motion
to be moved at the beginning of the first sitting, and proceedings
on that motion should be concluded no later than one hour after
it is moved, together with any amendments selected: the question
on any subsequent such motions should be put forthwith.
(xii) The Chairman of a Standing
Committee on a Bill subject to a programme should be given discretion
to extend the time for debate on a particular Question for up
to one hour where it appears to him or her to be necessary to
ensure that all parts of the Bill are properly considered, within
the overall limits agreed by the House.
______________
90. The recommendations
and conclusions below apply in equal measure to programmed and
unprogrammed bills.
Pre-legislative
scrutiny
91. We welcome the Government's
intention to publish 7 draft bills in the course of this Session,
and recommend that some, or even all, be considered by the House,
using one of the easily available avenues-
(i) an ad hoc Select
Committee to consider a particular draft bill: or
(ii) following a discussion
with the House of Lords, an ad hoc Joint Select Committee to consider
a particular draft bill: or
(iii) consideration of a
particular draft bill by the appropriate departmental select committee.
Presentation
and First Reading
92.(i) We have invited
First Parliamentary Counsel to explore as soon as possible ways
in which the explanatory memorandum accompanying each bill can
be made more user-friendly.
(ii) We recommend that the
Government should also consider the production of a simpler explanatory
guide, along the lines of that produced by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer for the Budget, to be made available to interested parties,
including via the Internet.
After First
Reading
93. While we recognise that
the first session of a new Parliament, with a new Government,
constrains what can be achieved, we recommend that the Government
seek an opportunity to appoint an ad hoc First Reading Select
Committee to consider an appropriate bill, which had not previously
been published in draft form.
Second Reading
94. We agree that the great
majority of bills should be subject to a Second Reading debate
on the floor of the House. We also consider however that greater
use should be made of Second Reading Committees to consider "non-controversial
bills which do not raise substantial issues of principle",
or those non-controversial Bills which may have been subject to
previous committee scrutiny. To facilitate this the Government
should bring forward proposals to amend Standing Order No. 90
so as to relax some of the provisions governing the procedures
for sending bills to Second Reading Committees, and to permit
all Members of the House to attend and speak.
Committee
Stage
95. The committee stage
of any bill should be handled in whatever way is most appropriate
for that bill. Following the Second Reading of a bill, there
is a range of committal options open to Government with decisions
usually being taken following discussions. These options have
been used very sparingly in the past, and we recommend greater
use in future of:
(i) committal of appropriate
bills to a Special Standing Committee, under Standing Order No.
91, which should be amended so as to give these committees greater
flexibility in their operations ; or
(ii) committal of appropriate
bills to ad hoc Select Committees; or
(iii) splitting a bill on
committal between the floor of the House and a Standing Committee,
a procedure which we consider could be extended to make it possible,
subject to agreement, to split bills between different sorts of
committees, as deemed appropriate.
96. Where a pre-legislative
or First Reading Committee has been used the Committee of Selection
should so far as possible nominate the same core of Members to
the subsequent committee stage, supplemented as necessary.
97. There are several changes
to existing procedures and practices in Standing Committee which
could lead to a more effective use of time, including:
(i) a sensible agreement
to ensure that all parts of a Bill are discussed:
(ii) an amendment to Standing
Orders so that the consideration of the existing Clauses of a
bill can follow the practice currently used for new Clauses:
(iii) removal of many of
the constraints and conventions on the times during which a committee
may meet and the number of timings of sittings, including the
extension to Standing Committees of the facility available to
select committees to meet during recesses: and
(iv) the Chairman to be given
powers similar to those given to the Speaker under Standing Order
No. 47 to impose a limit on the length of speeches.
98. Notes on Clauses should
be available to members of Standing Committees in time for them
to be able to frame and table amendments which would be open to
selection.
Report Stage
99.We recommend that, for
a certain number of appropriate bills, the Standing Committee
which had considered the bill should be reconvened to consider
non-controversial Government amendments, such as those giving
effect to assurances given at committee stage, with the reported
Bill considered as at present on the floor of the House.
Lords Amendments
100. We recommend that the
House should also explore the possibility of referring appropriate
Lords Amendments to the Standing Committee which considered the
bill. This would be followed by consideration in the House, normally
on a formal motion to agree with the Committee's resolutions.
Post-legislative
scrutiny
101. The Liaison Committee
should encourage the monitoring by departmentally-related Select
Committees of legislation newly in force. The option should remain
open for the appointment of ad hoc Select Committees to consider
and report on the operation of a particular piece of legislation
causing concern which affects more than one Department.
The sessional
cycle
102. (i) The Committee
agrees the principle that, in defined circumstances and subject
to certain safeguards, Government Bills may be carried over from
one session to the next in the same way as hybrid and private
Bills. Discussions should begin between the appropriate authorities
in both Houses to determine how this might best be achieved, without
infringing the constitutional implications of prorogation.
(ii) In drawing
up detailed proposals the appropriate authorities should consider
in particular the need to ensure (a) the identification by the
Government as early as possible of any Bill it wished to be subject
to a carry-over procedure (b) that the procedure should only be
used for Bills which are either to be subject to select committee
type scrutiny or are introduced after a certain period in the
session and (c) that no Bill should be carried over more than
once.
| 
