| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Northover: My Lords, will the noble Baroness comment on the position of the Lebanese president whose term of office was extended beyond what the Lebanese constitution allowed after Syrian pressure on the Lebanese parliament? Are there moves to challenge him now and, if so, what effect would that have on the stability of Lebanon?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it was, indeed, that extension of the Lebanese president's period
24 Mar 2005 : Column 363
of office which triggered UNSCR 1559, which this country supported. Sadly, it was at that stage as well that Rafiq Hariri, the then Prime Minister, resigned office and as we all know, tragically Mr Hariri was assassinated. There is much speculation about who was behind that assassination but it is clear that that assassination in itself has triggered the most enormous resurgence of Lebanese patriotism and a Lebanese desire to see foreign soldiers off their soil and to regain their own sovereignty. The noble Baroness asks what we are going to do. I think that it is happening at the moment in Lebanon, particularly in Beirut. I look forward to the elections in May when I hope that the voice of the Lebanese people will be heard clearly.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that even more menacing than the Syrian army, who at least behave correctly on occasion, as I have observed, are the thuggish plain clothes men to whom she very briefly referred—the secret policemen, agents provocateurs and so on? Is it not absolutely vital that those too be removed from Lebanon?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, yes, that is emphatically the case.
Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, later today, immediately after the debate on the Procedure Committee report, my noble friend Lady Symons, with the leave of the House, will repeat the Answer to a Question which is being asked in another place on the legal advice concerning military action in Iraq. Following that, with the leave of the House, my noble friend the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on the European Council of 22 to 23 March.
Members' Expenses
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos) rose to move to resolve, That for the purposes of the resolutions of the House relating to the entitlement to recover expenses of travel, office costs and day and overnight subsistence, attendance at the House on Friday 11 March shall constitute attendance at a separate Sitting of the House.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I think this is the most popular thing that I have ever done. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That for the purposes of the resolutions of the House relating to the entitlement to recover expenses of travel, office costs and day and overnight subsistence, attendance at the House on Friday 11 March shall constitute attendance at a separate Sitting of the House.—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
24 Mar 2005 : Column 364
Pensions Appeal Tribunals (Armed Forces and Reserve Forces Compensation Scheme) (Rights of Appeal) Regulations 2005
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13 January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Crawley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (Amendment) Order 2005
Extradition Act 2003 (Part 3 Designation) (Amendment) Order 2005
Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2005
Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) Regulations 2005
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (Code of Practice) Order 2005
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker) rose to move, That the draft orders and regulations laid before the House on 10, 23, 21, 7 and 21 February respectively be approved [9th, 11th, 10th, 10th and 11th Reports from the Joint Committee respectively].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move the five Motions standing in my name en bloc, all of which were debated in Committee a couple of afternoons ago. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft orders and regulations laid before the House on 10, 23, 21, 7 and 21 February respectively be approved [9th, 11th, 10th, 10th and 11th Reports from the Joint Committee respectively].—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
New Opportunities Fund (Specification of Initiative) Order 2005
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 9 February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].
24 Mar 2005 : Column 365
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order was considered in Grand Committee. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9 February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Contracting Out (Functions in Relation to Cultural Objects) Order 2005
Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24 February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order was considered in Grand Committee. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24 February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Child Benefit Bill
Read a third time, and passed.
Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara) rose to move, That the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the report before the House today has, as usual, a number of elements to it, and I shall seek to refer briefly to them all. However, the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, and of the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, will inevitably focus much of our attention on the issue of the general debate day. The House will recall that this matter has twice been debated in recent years. In 1999, the House voted 225–87 against a change. On the last occasion, in January 2001, it again voted against a change, that time by 130–128, a majority of just two.
The only significant changes to our procedures since then have been the move to sitting at 11.00 a.m. on Thursdays and the target rising time of 10.00 p.m. on other days. The Procedure Committee agreed that it would not be able to make a conclusive recommendation and recognised that it was a matter that the House as a whole should decide. Accordingly, I shall not seek to influence the debate, and I look forward to hearing what your Lordships have to say.
I shall, however, say a brief word about the procedure that your Lordships might observe today. Once I have sat down, and the Question has been put, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, will move his amendment. A debate will then follow in accordance with the speakers list that has been circulated. I know that some noble Lords would prefer discussion of the
24 Mar 2005 : Column 366
general debate day to be separated from discussion of other items in the report, but that is not our practice and it would, I venture to suggest, be likely to prolong proceedings. When noble Lords who wish to speak have done so, I shall attempt to reply. The House will then take a decision on the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. If it is agreed to, I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, will not move her amendment and the Question will then be put on the Motion as amended. If, on the other hand, the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, is rejected, the noble Baroness will move her amendment formally, and I recommend that your Lordships should then agree to it without further debate or division.
I turn now to the other matters in the report. The proposed amendments to the Standing Orders are to reflect the change in our proceedings on a Thursday and to reflect certain provisions of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. If your Lordships in due course approve the report, a Motion to give effect to the amendments will be tabled by the Leader of the House. The most complex item in the report is that on exchanges between the Houses on public Bills. The report proposes changes in the way that the House deals with the final ping-pong stages of Bills. Most importantly, it proposes that it should be possible to debate and take a decision on packages of related amendments together, instead of deciding separately on all elements of the package.
There are three main reasons for that proposal. First, the Commons has been dealing with amendments at the ping-pong stages in this way for some 10 years. It is therefore increasingly difficult for this House to maintain its traditional procedures, where each proposition from the Commons is decided separately. Secondly, there is a danger that the different procedures in the two Houses can lead to different views of the double insistence rule, and could, as in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill last Session, result in ambiguity as to whether a Bill has been lost. Thirdly, the Procedure Committee took the view that dealing with amendments in packages would allow some streamlining of the complex procedures at those stages. We considered that that could be beneficial to the House, as it would indicate more clearly than previously the connections between the different Motions on the Order Paper.
With the agreement of the usual channels, an experiment was carried out on the Prevention of Terrorism Bill two weeks ago using the procedures recommended in the report. I hope that the House will agree that the proceedings on those exchanges were considerably simplified as a result. I conclude by confirming that the Clerk of the House of Commons was consulted as to the terms of this passage in the report, and he agrees that it is consistent with the joint statement agreed by him and the Clerk of the Parliaments last year, which is appended to the report.
Finally, I come to the provision of time for debate of committee reports. Your Lordships may recall that when last we debated a report of the Procedure Committee that was the subject of considerable discussion, and I undertook to invite the Procedure
24 Mar 2005 : Column 367
Committee to examine the matter further. I am now happy to report a number of developments. New administrative arrangements for forecasting and monitoring the demand for debates have produced significant improvements, and I think I am right in saying that most Select Committee chairmen are satisfied that that is the case. The section of the Notices and Orders of the Day entitled No Day Named Part III now lists only those reports that are actually ripe for debate and so gives a more accurate picture of what one might reasonably describe as the queue.
We have also seen a successful debate in the Moses Room on a Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. We have therefore concluded that no procedural change is necessary at this time, but that the matter should be reviewed further next Session. We also concluded that Session 2003–04 is a reasonable base-line against which to measure whether any debates taken in the Moses Room are genuinely additional to debates in the Chamber. I beg to move.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
The text of the report can be found at: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldselect/ldprohse//48/4802.htm.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |