Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report

– in the House of Lords at 11:39 am on 24 March 2005.

Alert me about debates like this

Votes in this debate

Photo of Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara Chairman of Committees, House of Lords, Deputy Speaker (Lords)

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 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 about 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 on 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 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.

Photo of Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank Liberal Democrat 11:45, 24 March 2005

rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, at end to insert "but with the omission of paragraph 20(a)".

Photo of Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank Liberal Democrat

My Lords, as the Chairman of Committees explained, I tabled the amendment to resolve the choice set out in paragraphs 17 to 21 of the report. As the Chairman of Committees said, the question of switching the general debate day was first discussed in the House on 22 March 1999 and, as the report explains, again on 23 January 2001. On that occasion four years ago, I moved the successful amendment. I have no complaint about revisiting the matter. Since then, we have almost 100 new Members in the House and we have lost some of our former colleagues. Other Members are entitled to change their views. I only ask newer Members in particular not to consider this as a trivial matter, a detail of procedure on the fringe of the larger issue of reform discussed in the House two months ago.

I agree that a switch between Wednesday and Thursday is almost certainly more convenient for a majority of Members. In effect, the House would have a two and a half day working parliamentary week and, except for a few days in the spring and summer, Members would have no further serious obligations on Thursdays. We would arrive, if we chose, on Monday afternoon, and more often than not we would leave just before dinner on Wednesday or probably soon after. In the debate six years ago the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, was eloquent on the case for change, and the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, among others, made a strong case for change on the basis of inconvenience for those living and working in the north, Scotland and the other territorial extremities. The case for change was repeated in the debate four years ago rather more forcefully. I fully understood then, and I understand now, the difficulties and irritation of travelling back and forth twice a week when that seems necessary. For Members coming from distant places, it would be much easier and more convenient to switch Wednesday and Thursday.

It would also be generally convenient for busy Ministers and Government Back-Benchers even if they live and work in or near London, although in that case I am rather less sympathetic about hardship. If there was a switch, a majority of Ministers would be free on Thursday to get on with their work in their departments or stretch their visits around the country or abroad. There would be fewer unexpected events to dislocate their orderly business. I readily admit that for 11 years as Minister in the Commons I occasionally found Parliament rather a nuisance that absorbed too much of my time, but Ministers should always remember that Parliament comes first and government follows. As for Back-Benchers, there is nothing more wearisome than hanging around just in case there might be an unexpected Division, but that is the price one pays when one party wins an election and implements its legislative programme.

Nowadays, the House is expected to pack up on Thursday about 7 p.m., but if there was a switch Thursday would become a relaxed day with few obligations; the beginning of a long, long-weekend. That begs the question of whether switching Wednesday and Thursday is significant. Are we making rather too much fuss? Many of our Members who make an immense contribution to the work of the Chamber and in committees successfully combine that with important obligations outside. I believe that they will not reduce their parliamentary work if the House effectively has a two and a half day week. But I also believe that sooner or later, perhaps imperceptibly or over a Parliament, Thursday will begin to die. There will be a poorer attendance at Questions and fewer speakers in general debates. There will be fewer Members in the Corridors and Lobbies, the Library, the Guest Room, the Bishops' Bar, the Dining Room and elsewhere. This place will be like any half-closed place of work—empty of life and flat.

The processes of Parliament are more complex and subtle than an office or institution in either the public or the private sector. The personal contacts and relationships within and across parties help to create the fabric of its effective role. A two and a half day legislative week will give this Executive or any executive—the government of the day—a little more freedom at a time when, by common consent, they are becoming much too dominant.

I recognise convenience. I also acknowledge the family-friendly spirit of the age. I accept the need to strike a balance between obligations and interests. But we should hold fast to Parliament, of which this House is an integral part, and not allow the erosion of its weight and influence. I beg to move.

Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, at end to insert "but with the omission of paragraph 20(a)".—(Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank.)

Photo of Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood Labour 11:52, 24 March 2005

My Lords, as the two amendments are being taken together, it is appropriate that I speak now. My amendment is of course contradictory to that of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. It would, in effect, sanction the changing of the general debates from Wednesday to Thursday. My arguments too are different from and contrary to his. I submit that the House is now being given a much greater opportunity to hold the Government to task in a number of ways, which I will explain. On the previous occasion when we debated the matter, it was a three-day working week; it is now a two and a half day working week. But the workload of the House has increased considerably, and there are many avenues through which Members make their contribution to the work of the House without sitting for any length of time in this Chamber.

The House has changed considerably. It has changed in its membership; as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said, nearly 100 Members—I think that it is 96—have entered it since we previously debated the issue. If we take the changes in membership and in how we work that have taken place since 1999, they are considerable and important.

In the 1999 discussion, the focus of the debate was on the importance of general debates on Wednesdays. It was even held by some that those debates were of equal importance to the scrutiny of legislation. I found that argument difficult to accept then, and it is impossible to accept it at present. Of course the Wednesday general debates are useful and of interest. On occasion, they are extremely important—when the House is looking at some issue that is non-partisan but perhaps political or social and emerging into the public arena, or when the matters are rather sensitive and difficult to debate in other forums.

However, general debates on Wednesdays have to be taken in the context of the business of the House as a whole. In all the consideration given to the role of this Chamber when we have debated the future of the House of Lords, there has been unanimity on the overriding importance of the House as a revising Chamber. The methods of revising and calling the Government to account have been extended, and I shall mention some of them.

We now take the Committee stage of some Bills off the Floor of the House and put them into Grand Committee. Some minor business of the House that does not necessarily require the whole attention of everyone takes place in the same way. That enables the House simultaneously to consider two sets of business. Many Members did not like the change to the way in which we handled Committees. I confess that I had reservations about it myself; I did not realise until I came to this House how many conservative strains there were in my nature. But that change has been very useful and valid. We need the time to deal, at different times of the week, with different sets of government and House business.

More draft Bills are now considered by a joint pre-legislative scrutiny committee. Many Bills are considered by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The House's own Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has grown in influence and power. That has all increased the opportunities of the House to influence policy and call the Government to account.

So too has the increased number of Select Committees. When I joined the House in 1978, there were only two Select Committees—those on science and technology and on Europe. There are now at least three permanent Select Committees—the Science and Technology Committee, the European Union Committee and the Economic Affairs Committee. Then there is the Constitution Committee, and from time to time other ad hoc Select Committees are set up to deal with specific issues of great importance.

That adds up to a much increased workload for the House. It cannot be spread over two and a half days and will not be. It will be spread over the week as it is now.

The general debates have to be considered in the context of the changes that I have mentioned. There is now more work competing for the prime day of Wednesday. It is not beyond the ingenuity of government business managers and the usual channels, because both have to agree, for a sensible allocation of time to be worked out, both for government business and for influencing the policies of the nation through all the other ways that I have suggested.

The House prides itself on being representative and I think that it is. All the professions, business people, people from the public sector, the voluntary sector and the charitable sector, and people involved in family affairs are represented in this House. But we are not so representative when it comes to regional representation. Again, in the consideration of reforms of this House, it was almost unanimously agreed that we need to have more regional representation.

I suggest that it might be a good idea for the House to start by becoming more region-friendly. When that issue was considered previously and again today, the question of the convenience of Members, particularly those such as myself who come from the north of England, have been mentioned. I would suggest that it is not a matter of personal convenience, but it is a matter to better facilitate all Members of your Lordships' House, so that they can bring in their important outside interests to add to the value of our debates in that way. I do not see that that would be diminished in any way by moving Wednesdays debates to Thursdays. It would give us greater flexibility, but would not bring about any great changes.

Attendance in this Chamber is no indication of the strength of involvement of your Lordships. Wednesday debates can be an example. On 16 March, I sat in for the whole of the first debate—apart from the last three minutes. I sat in because I thought that that debate on the future of our 16 to 18 year-olds was important, although I was not speaking. Yet, during that debate, putting aside the Front Benches, there were not more than 20 Members in the Chamber at any one time. The core was around 14 or 15 and other Members came in and out as they felt fit. It was not until the last few minutes of the debate, when other Members began coming in for the next debate, that there were more than 20 Members in the Chamber—and it was, again, probably less than 30.

So, we cannot take that as an indication, because on that very same day, according to the records of the House, some 399 Members were present in the House at some time on some aspect of your Lordship's business. I suggest that there would be little difference if we changed to Thursdays. Indeed, if we look at the record of daily attendances, there is a pattern. On Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays attendances are, by and large, fairly even—although they fluctuate. Tuesday is the best day of the week for them. I suggest that that type of pattern would continue.

I hope that Members will support my amendment, which is for the change to take place for one Session of Parliament. If it does not work, we will of course review the situation and decide what to do. So I hope that you will support my amendment. In order to do that, I must ask you to vote against the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, because only in that way can we resolve the question before us.

Photo of Lord Denham Lord Denham Conservative

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down—do the figures that she quoted for attendance on Thursdays refer to Thursdays before the 11 o'clock sittings started? In the old days, when Thursdays started in the afternoons, we had very good attendances indeed.

Photo of Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood Labour

My Lords, the figures to which I referred related to the present Session of Parliament.

Photo of Lord Denham Lord Denham Conservative

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness.

Photo of Baroness Amos Baroness Amos President of the Council, Privy Council Office, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Lords (Privy Council Office) 12:05, 24 March 2005

My Lords, I would like to speak briefly on two of the items in the report. I will touch on the Wednesday/Thursday issue in a moment, but I would like to start by saying a little about the issue of exchanges between this House and the other place on Bills. The issue is complicated, but it is of course of the greatest importance. It affects the contents of the statute book and the capacity of Members of both Houses to foresee the consequences of their actions in what can be complex parliamentary situations in terms of procedure and difficult situations in terms of the politics.

The report offers a formula that gives to all sides reasonable certainty. I am grateful to the Chairman of Committees and to the Clerks for their hard work in helping us to resolve this. The report rightly says that the matter must be kept under review, but let us all hope that there will be no more problems of this kind. It is encouraging that there were no such problems in the recent ping-pong on the Prevention of Terrorism Bill and the Constitutional Reform Bill. Those were hard-fought battles, but in neither case was the status of the Bill ever in doubt.

Let me now turn to the issue of Wednesdays and Thursdays. It is of course a House matter, and I expect the debate to show that there are strongly held views on both sides of the argument in all parties and on the Cross Benches. But I have to say that I am in favour of an experiment with debates on Thursdays because the issue has been in the air for years. It was voted on in 1999 and again in 2001, when the proposal to change was defeated by just two votes. I do not believe that the issue will be resolved until we submit it to an experiment.

In this case, the experiment would run from the start of the next Session—whenever that may be—until the end of June 2006, when general debates will come to an end as usual. We will have from then until the end of the Session to review the experiment and to decide whether to make the change permanent. As the Lord Chairman has said, in the absence of a positive decision to make the change permanent, we will revert to the status quo.

I point to one consequence of change if the House were so to agree. If we can consider Bills only on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, it will be necessary sometimes to ask the House to consider the same Bill two days running, which is something that at present we try to avoid. The days in question now finish by around 10 p.m. If change occurs, there may be a case for moving party and group meetings from Thursdays to Wednesdays. That of course is a matter for each party or group. If it would help for the Forthcoming Business notice to come out earlier in the week, the Chief Whip has assured me that he will do his best.

I said at the outset that it is a House matter. That is the case, but it is my firm view that, without an experiment, the House will continue to come back to the matter time and time again.

Photo of Lord Gordon of Strathblane Lord Gordon of Strathblane Labour 12:09, 24 March 2005

My Lords, I rise to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Lockwood. As the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, mentioned, I unsuccessfully deployed the "proportionate inconvenience" argument in the debate back in 1999. I think that the noble Lord dealt with that issue very fairly, and I do not quarrel with him. However, I do want to take up one issue with him. I hope that, on reconsideration, he will agree that his description of a two-and-a-half day week is pretty wide of the mark. I understood that child labour and things such as that were abolished in the last century. I count coming to this place at 2.30 p.m. and working until 10 p.m. as a day's work, particularly if there is no meal break.

There is another point on which I quarrel with the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. It is not a question of the inconvenience of travelling up and down twice in one week; it is the physical impossibility of it. If we are here until 10 o'clock on a Tuesday, one tries to travel home on a Wednesday and gulp a bit of fresh air but then has to come straight back again to be here for Thursday morning. That is nonsensical.

It is important to remember that we are not talking about any change to the apportionment of time; we are simply talking about the distribution of that time. If the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, is correct and effectively we have a three-day legislative week, then I am in favour of discharging that obligation in three days and not spreading it over four, which is inefficient. Let us also remember, as I think the noble Lord acknowledged, that for a large part of the year we are not talking about three days; we are talking about four days because legislation comes in on a Wednesday as well.

However, my principal argument concerns the good of this House. What do we value about the House of Lords? I think we are all united in valuing it very much. One thing we value is obviously the degree of experience and wisdom in the House. That experience comes with age as well as being current practical experience. Another is the independence of mind, which I imagine government Whips and all party Whips rue at times. Another is the fact that we are virtually immune from pressure by party managers. People exercise their own judgment. My own feeling is that the fact that we are non-elected plays a part in that, but I have no wish to open up that particular debate at the moment.

I am sure I am not alone in this House in marvelling at the degree of current expertise, no matter how recondite the subject or the question raised. I sit in admiration as one noble Lord after another modestly declares an interest, which simultaneously shows real current knowledge of the subject under discussion. I am sure we all agree that current knowledge is what we are talking about, because the shelf-life of knowledge nowadays is very short indeed.

If we are to have Peers—not everyone in the House but at least a sufficient spattering—with current knowledge to make sense in debates, how will that come about if the knowledge is acquired outside London and they are spending at least four days in London? I am not trying to make any kind of anti-London point. London has a rich treasury of resources and experience in the people who live and work here, but surely this House does not want to fish exclusively in that pond.

If some noble Lords, whom we are proud to quote in debates, were combining their work here with work in, for example, a teaching hospital in the north of England, then frankly they could not attend the House as often as, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Winston, manages to do, coming from London. There will be a real loss to the House if we are not able to attract people who come from outside the M25 and who have practical current experience. I stress that I am not in any way underrating London.

It is also important for Peers in an unsalaried House to continue to earn a living. There is nothing ignoble about that. But let us leave the economics out of the debate and just talk about the experience angle. It is vitally important that we continue to have access to current experience, and the current programme of business in the House means that that experience can be acquired only within the M25. I think that that is bad for the House and bad for the country.

The general debate days are extremely important and I value them. Some years ago, I was fortunate enough to secure a debate on the Communications Bill, which I think played a part in bringing about some pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. I particularly enjoy, for example, the almost annual fixture of the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, making a speech about electricity generation and pointing out that it is the same speech as he made the previous year but that the Government have done nothing in the intervening year. I have no doubt that we shall hear exactly the same speech next time.

So Wednesday debate days are great and highly enjoyable. Sometimes, frankly, for Back-Benchers they are far more enjoyable than scrutinising legislation. But, to be honest, they are not as important as our legislative work. That, as I think we all recognise in this House, has become increasingly true over recent years when the burden of scrutiny has fallen increasingly on this House rather than the other place. Therefore, I commend the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood.

Photo of Lord Williamson of Horton Lord Williamson of Horton Convenor of the Crossbench Peers 12:15, 24 March 2005

My Lords, although the main point of interest today is obviously the question of the Wednesday/Thursday debate, I want, first, to say a word about the inclusion in the report of the important step forward on exchanges between the Houses on public Bills. That really should not be underrated. The report clarified that packages from the Commons should be considered only if they are confined to single or closely related issues. It thus puts a block on a possible slippery slope to inappropriate packaging of issues, which would otherwise risk diminishing the powers of this House. That point should not be underrated; it is important and I very much commend it to the House.

Like the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, I want to congratulate the Clerk of the Parliaments and his colleagues, who discussed this rather difficult issue with their colleagues in the other place. We saw the advantage of that during debate on the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, when we were able to go on for what I describe as "a good long time" expressing our view without ditching the Bill. I think that that was an important step forward and it is a real improvement in the protection of our powers in this House.

I now turn to the question of a possible exchange of business between Wednesdays and Thursdays, which has been raised by the committee and in the Motions today. It is clearly an issue for individual Members. There are differences of view within the party-political groups and—surprisingly enough!—within the Cross-Bench group. This was shown by our earlier discussion and votes, including the last very narrow majority, and it is shown by the way in which the Procedure Committee did not attempt to reach an agreed view but passed the issue to the House. I speak as an individual and I want to comment briefly.

First, we have to consider the effect on the business of the House of a change, which would no doubt be experimental and subject to review after a period of time. I express the view that, if we make the change and return to the matter later, perhaps we should also consider an issue which is not on the Order Paper today—that is, the possibility of a debate day on a Monday. I do not want to press that point but, if we are to review the subject later, we might consider it.

Changing the business from one day to the other would not in itself reduce the time available for the House's principal functions of scrutiny of legislation and debate on issues of importance to Parliament and the public. It might even increase it if there were no longer a lunch break on a Thursday. But we should be realistic. We should foresee, as some already have done, that the attendance of Members in the House on a Thursday as a debate day would be likely to be lower than it presently is on a Wednesday as a debate day. I believe that that would be the case.

So far as Cross-Benchers are concerned, the difference would probably be slight as we are rather good attenders at debates. We probably number 18 or the 20 referred to; I do not count them but often there are that many present. In the last Session, 23 per cent of those participating in debates were Cross-Benchers, and so we are fairly steady attenders. I do not think that that would change too much but overall there would be a change.

Secondly, we have to keep in mind that many Members of the House have no salary here—poor things—and they have to work for a living, or they hold a wide range of posts, often honorary but time-consuming, in many non-governmental organisations or charities. Some of us also attach a great deal of importance to our responsibilities in parts of the UK far from Westminster—in my case, in the "territorial extremity", as it has been referred to and which I love dearly. The territorial extremity should be given full attention, and those of us from those parts do not like to become too London-based. The change of day would be welcome to some of those Members.

Finally, we need to take account of practical consequences. The most evident would be timing of the meetings of the political party groups and of the Cross-Benchers. If there were a change, it would probably be necessary to change the political and Cross-Bench meetings to Wednesday and it would be necessary to have available a day earlier the Forthcoming Business. I do not know whether that is possible, but it would be difficult to organise those meetings without it.

Those seem to me to be the considerations on which we should individually vote today. Like other noble Lords, I shall vote as an individual on this matter.

Photo of Lord McNally Lord McNally Leader In the House of Lords, Leader, House of Lords, Liberal Democrat Leader in the House of Lords

My Lords, it has become abundantly clear that this is a matter of individual opinion. I am pleased to hear about the freedom on the Labour Benches. It was not quite so clear at four o'clock on a Friday morning a short time ago, but there we go.

Noble Lords:

Oh!

Photo of Lord McNally Lord McNally Leader In the House of Lords, Leader, House of Lords, Liberal Democrat Leader in the House of Lords

You independent-minded lot! My Lords, we are looking for some independent minds today. As the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, rightly said, this is not just a matter of moving business to another day. There are much wider issues to be thought about. Ever since I have been in this place, I have been naturally suspicious of arguments for tidiness and good order in relation to how Parliament works.

The family-friendly arguments do not carry much weight with me. I have looked at what has happened in another place and, like Nye Bevan, I ask why we should look into a crystal ball when we can read the open book. Many of the family-friendly reforms in the other place have taken away a lot of its life, vibrancy and effectiveness. I was told that MPs do not now like three-line Whips on Wednesdays because they ruin two weekends, but I am not sure that I would go as far as that. However, if one goes to the other place and looks at the empty rooms and the echoing Chamber then one must worry about the operation of—I shall be generous to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood—a three-day week. But that is what we are proposing.

Parliament should be a little bit messy and unpredictable. Ministers should not be able to rely on certainty. Too much certainty breeds complacency and puts too much power in the hands of an already powerful Executive. This House won great plaudits for its 36-hour Thursday.

If we put three days of Government business in sequence, it puts a strain on the resources of Opposition parties to marshal their teams and do business. The Wednesday breather is also an opportunity to regroup and scrutinise.

I know the attractiveness of the neatness of this arrangement for the out-of-towners, but we would be sacrificing effectiveness for convenience. We are an anachronism, but an anachronism that works. We work in both senses of the word. We work very hard—we are the most hard working advisory and revising Chamber in the world—and, as we have shown in recent weeks, we are, if not the only, certainly the most effective check and balance to the over-mighty Executive that apparently still exists in our constitution.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, offers the House neatness, good order and long weekends. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, offers a lifeline to the awkward squad on all Benches. I believe that this move would weaken the authority of the House and undermine our reputation. If the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, is defeated, I would rather have the opportunity to consider the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, of a general debate on Monday. It has better merit than the idea put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood.

Let me put something into the minds of the serried ranks opposite. John Major said, towards the end of the Conservatives' 17 years in power that, one day, a leader of the Conservative Party would have the duty of taking his party back into opposition. That applied to the Conservative Party; it will apply to the Labour Party. In making these decisions, noble Lords should make them on behalf of an effective Parliament, not for the convenience of the Whips. We shall see where they go.

I have accepted various changes in this House, such as referrals to Grand Committees, but if we want to come to this House to do the job of a parliamentarian, not merely that of a party supporter, we must guard extremely jealously the capacity to cause inconvenience. Our present structure does that. Reform as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, would be to the convenience of the Executive and to the weakening of this House.

Photo of Lord Lipsey Lord Lipsey Labour

My Lords, I do not think any noble Lord on these Benches will be surprised that the main opposition to the proposal tabled by my noble friend Lady Lockwood comes from the Liberal Democrat Benches. They have put her suggestion down to its convenience to government, but they are not likely to have any experience of that and we would not expect that argument to weigh much with them. As a matter of fact, it does not weigh much with me. I find it hard to see why the convenience of government is greatly increased. As my noble friend Lady Lockwood said, this House has, over time, become hugely more effective in scrutinising the Executive. It is extraordinary to believe for a moment that a switch from Wednesday to Thursday would affect that fundamental reality. It would not affect it in the least.

I am moved to rise by the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, about long, long weekends. I am proud to say that the noble Lord has been a friend of mine for a very long time. But those of us who have the pleasure of having homes in London and who can go home to our family at night should be a little chary of prescribing a more bitter mechanism and a more bitter lifestyle to those who always have to go to some not very pleasant little hotel on a Wednesday night. That does not improve the role that they can play in this House and it is not something that we should dismiss lightly.

On the noble Lord's phrase, "the long, long weekend", there are Members of this House for whom that is true, particularly the older Members. I do not refer to my noble friend Lady Lockwood, who is a mere stripling in this place, as an older Member—

Photo of Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood Labour

My Lords, I am probably one of the oldest Members of the House, but, unlike what my noble friend was suggesting, my weekends are very busy doing things in Yorkshire which enable me to contribute to this House.

Photo of Lord Lipsey Lord Lipsey Labour

My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend as what she said goes absolutely to my point. I thought that my noble friend could not be much above my age of 56, but it appears that I have misassessed that.

Like most Members of this House, I have a large portfolio of jobs. Some of them are paid, because this House does not provide an income sufficient to support someone with a family who does not have any resources of his own, and some are unpaid. I do not have a long, long weekend. I devote parts of the weekend directly to the affairs of this House and parts to affairs outside this House that bear on my work here and to the contribution that I hope to make to its debates.

I shall give an example that might appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, because he is a distinguished former chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority. It has a two-day "away day" each year. I cannot attend that because I do not have two successive days for an away day at the times when it is possible for that authority to meet. I cannot devote two days solely to important meetings outside the House. It is not a matter of my personal convenience but of discharging and balancing the extraordinarily difficult, conflicting pressures on time. I do not think that there is anything ignoble in taking those into account in making the decision today. I very much hope that the House will vote to make the change.

Photo of Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire Shadow Minister, Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs, Deputy Leader, House of Lords 12:30, 24 March 2005

My Lords, we are voting from a personal not a party standing. I strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. I support it for two strong reasons: first, when I was recruited to the House, I was assured that it was a part-time House. It remains a part-time House, and I have continued to earn a salary and—thank goodness—a pension, to which I shall shortly be entitled—since I entered it. Secondly, it is very important that this place should be regionally diverse. To be regionally diverse, we have to ensure that it is possible for new Members—we will recruit new members in the next two or three years—to continue to work and live with their families outside London as well as contributing to the House.

I was extremely lucky when I was appointed to the House. Three months earlier, I had been offered a job at a university in London—10 minutes from the House. It has therefore been possible for 10 years to continue teaching my students, sometimes seeing them here and occasionally—I hope no one has noticed—marking essays on the Bench; and thus to combine the two. If I had still been at the University of Manchester, where I was first employed, or perhaps at the University of Hull, which has contributed a remarkably large number of people to the House, it would be much more difficult.

I realised as soon as I came here that some of the best Members of the House had been or remained members of county councils—in Lancashire, North Yorkshire, as well as in Suffolk and Sussex. It is important that we continue to attract such people, who bring a range of political experience that enriches what we do.

There is a danger of a romantic view about the Wednesday debates. I took part on the second debate on 16 March. Throughout that debate, there were two people on the Conservative Benches: a Front-Bench spokesman and a Whip. It was a Wednesday. Would there have been more if it had been a Thursday? There certainly could not have been fewer.

The current distribution of Members of the House is not as diverse as it might be. I have spent some time over the past two or three days trying to organise visits for Members to Yorkshire, the north-west and the north-east during what have been kindly described as the "county council elections" on 5 May. I have been struck by the number of times that I have had to ask people to travel up from the south-east to the north, rather than being able to draw on people who come from the area. That is not the people who live outside London. I was accused by a member of my own group in one of our early discussions of belonging to the Tuscan Yorkshire tendency. Many of us have families who work some distance away. We also like to spend a little time with them at weekends.

One Member who stayed until Friday evening during the great confrontation between the two Houses remarked to me in the course of rearranging her life that it took her seven and a half hours to travel back from the House to her home in Scotland and that the decision therefore to stay on from a Thursday afternoon to a Friday evening was not one that she wished to take lightly. Nevertheless, I want such people to remain active Members of the House and to be attracted to the House. For those reasons, I shall support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood.

Photo of Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton Labour

My Lords, my contribution will be brief, but it is based on Membership of the House for more than 20 years.

In 1983, when I came to the House, I can recall that the decision of the business managers was not to meet on a Monday. We did not meet on Monday because that was the weight of business. Too often, Members in all parts of the House are hidebound either by protocol or heritage in such matters. Let us examine our own convenience and contribution.

I am enormously grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, for the admirable way in which he pitched the arguments that he advanced. I see no virtue in sticking to Wednesday for debate day for the sake of sticking to it. I decided to come in last Wednesday. I sat in for the two debates—not for all of them, but I popped in—and I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who has been a good friend of mine over the years, that I sat here and looked at the completely empty Benches on that side of the House in the second debate, which was on a modest topic called Iraq. There was only one Member, a Back-Bencher. That was the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. He is often in his place. He was here earlier; I am sorry he is not here now. I should like to pay tribute to him. He came in and took part.

There is far too much romantic thought about the value and importance of debates in this House. There are good debates, there are passionate debates and there are well attended debates, but we should not forget that there are debates like those held last Wednesday. I do not make a party point; I have been the only person on my side on subjects like housing, when I have bemoaned the fact that the interest on our Benches in housing seemed to have declined over the years. We try to support our own side. We do that very well, but I welcome the opportunity for change.

The noble Lord, Lord Denham, who is still in his place, drew attention to the change of a Thursday and how that change from 2.30 pm to 11 am could very well affect attendance. Of course it could, but I suggest that there are some people who would not take part in a debate on a Wednesday but might well take part in a debate on a Thursday because the House starts at 11 o'clock. We just do not know. The Motion asks to change an arrangement for our convenience. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said that it was likely that the majority of Members of the House would find it more convenient to switch from a Wednesday to a Thursday. That remains to be seen.

Reference has been made to the nature of the House. Of course, it continues to be a part-time House, more and more doing a full-time job. For the past few years—possibly for a few years more—we have been in the middle of effecting great change. It is not just since 1999 that we have considered a change. In all my time in the House, the question of whether the debate day should be a Wednesday or a Thursday has been talked about. I am conscious of the fact that we need to make a decision.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, chided those on this side of the House who may vote for the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and said that we should remember that governments change. Of course they do—oh ye of little faith on both the Liberal Benches and the Conservative Benches. There may be a feeling that there is some benefit on the margin to the government of the day from the change, but I am prepared to accept of course that this Government will one day not be the government and that it could very well be the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats—but not just yet.

I am all for change, provided it is done cautiously and in the direction in which I want to go. If there is no change, I shall still enjoy coming here and participating. If there is a change, it will make no difference to me. Of course, there are consequences for party meetings and so on. In the Labour Party—as those many Members on the other side who once were Members of the Labour Party will recall—the PLP used to meet on a Wednesday morning. Now it meets on a Monday evening. That was altered because of changes that were taking place. It has a bearing on when business is available. As a member of the usual channels, I know that such changes cannot be imposed; they must be made gradually.

I say to noble Lords on the other side of the House, whom I appreciate as colleagues, that we are about our own convenience. There is far too much romance in thinking that Wednesday debates per se are great and good; there are good and bad aspects. I support the change proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood.

Photo of Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde Leader of the Opposition In the House of Lords, House of Lords 12:42, 24 March 2005

My Lords, we have already been discussing this subject for an hour. It is Maundy Thursday, and there remains a lot of very serious and important business, including the Mental Capacity Bill. Perhaps I could say a few words, as I am the only Conservative, apart from my noble friend Lord Denham, to have spoken.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, I shall start by commenting on the rest of the report, particularly one small point of detail. In paragraph 15(c) the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees talks about committee reports that are "ripe for debate". What does he mean by that?

The most important part of the report is the provisions on packaging, which the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, and the noble Baroness the Leader of the House mentioned. It is not a subject that I approach with any enthusiasm, as it is extremely complicated and affects us only very rarely. But when it affects us, it is crucial to the relationship between the two Houses and to the power in this House. I am sure that we have all read the comments of Mr Hain in another place about the need to restrain the powers of this House. I have read too much loose spin about curbing and punishing the House for the stand that we took in defence of our liberties on the Prevention of Terrorism Bill.

Against that background, the increasing use by another place of packaging—the linking of generally unconnected amendments—which was done by mistake on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act and quite deliberately on the Hunting Act, to avoid having to offer amendments in lieu to a proposition put forward by your Lordships' House, could only be viewed with the gravest suspicion. One of the few points of resistance left to your Lordships' House is the ability to insist on a Lords amendment. Take that away and no government need ever listen to this House again. Whatever we do we must retain that power.

The negotiations between the officers of the two Houses and Parliamentary Counsel, so ably conducted on our behalf by the Clerk of the Parliaments, have clearly established that this House need not be bound by packaging, and that if two unlinked amendments are packaged in the House of Commons and sent back to us as an attempt to escape double insistence, that will not be effective. This House may still consider that double insistence has occurred and refuse further to consider a Bill. I very much welcome that position. It remains to be seen how long it will last and whether we can avoid double insistence, if that is required.

That is why an experimental period is desirable. There was something to be said for the former clarity with which an argument could be brought down to its essentials quickly and a solution therefore inevitably found. With that caveat, I commend these provisions to your Lordships' House.

Talking of experiments, in the past hour we have been debating another experiment regarding Wednesdays and Thursdays. I am sorry that we are debating the matter today, Maundy Thursday, when inevitably the House is not as full as it should be. It is an important House matter. I echo what the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said: there is a genuinely free vote. It is for Members of this House to decide, and there is no greater power for Members than to decide how we deal with our business daily. I expect that Conservative Peers will vote either way; they must do so, because it is their right.

I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, reminded us, almost incredulously, that when my noble friend Lord Denham was Chief Whip, for months of the year, at the start of the parliamentary Session, we did not meet on Mondays at all—partly because of the weight of business and partly because of how we dispatched the business that we had. It was a very civilised time, if I may say so to my noble friend.

Photo of Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton Labour

My Lords, those were the days.

Photo of Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde Leader of the Opposition In the House of Lords, House of Lords

My Lords, we might make them come back again. It shows that change does occur.

The second tremendous change that has taken place in the last couple of years is that the House sits at 11 o'clock on Thursdays. The noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, made a powerful and persuasive point about the change. I join those who have said that there does not seem to be an advantage to government in making this change, and I cannot see a great disadvantage to the opposition in making the change. In other words, the argument that somehow the House is hugely strengthened by having the debating day on a Wednesday rather than a Thursday is relatively arcane.

Photo of Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury Liberal Democrat

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he not think that shifting the debate day to the end of the week will devalue it even further?

Photo of Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde Leader of the Opposition In the House of Lords, House of Lords

My Lords, my point is that I do not think that it is hugely devalued. I can at least construct an argument that, given that our Wednesday debates clash with Prime Minister's Question Time, what we do on Wednesday afternoons is not reported at all. There may be an argument that moving the debates to Thursday may make them more attractive to journalists and other commentators, who might wish to come in to see noble Lords in action at prime time. One of the extraordinary features of the newspaper industry is that it is one of the few in which deadlines have come forwards rather than backwards. It is increasingly difficult to get items into newspapers later in the day. So there may well be an advantage in having debates on a Thursday.

The second advantage relates to Committees of your Lordships' House, as regards which there is always a certain amount of stress finding the right time. After the five-hour debating time on a Thursday there will be a good prime-time slot late in the afternoon for such debates, Unstarred Questions and so on.

There are also disadvantages, such as consecutive days for Committee and Report stages. I accept the noble Baroness's assurance that the usual channels will do everything that they can to avoid that. But the House should be aware that there is at least a possibility of the House sitting on consecutive days at important stages of Bills.

Photo of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Labour

My Lords, I accept that point, but does the noble Lord not agree that the experience of the House when we sit for four days to do government business towards the latter end of each Session shows that in general the usual channels manage to make very sensible arrangements?

Photo of Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde Leader of the Opposition In the House of Lords, House of Lords

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, and I see no reason why those arrangements should not continue. I welcome the words of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House on that.

Broadly speaking, therefore, I think that this is an experiment worth trying. We have had experiments in the past that have not worked and we have been able to go back. I see no reason why, in the next Session of Parliament, we should not be able to reverse this decision if it is seen not to serve the interests, not just of ourselves, but also of the House. I yield to no one in my admiration of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, as a fierce parliamentarian, but there are a few of us, on all sides, who wish to protect the importance of this House.

Nobody can deny that this is a hardworking House. It is recognised that people who sign up to become Members of this House sign up to giving up a great deal of their time and energy. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, if we agree to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, it will not stop our ability to make Parliament, particularly this House, messy and unpredictable. Therefore, I shall not support the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, but I will support the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood.

Photo of Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara Chairman of Committees, House of Lords, Deputy Speaker (Lords)

My Lords, I hope that noble Lords might feel that lunchtime approaches and we should bring this debate to an end, not least because there is very important business, including Statements, to follow. As I said in my opening remarks, the Procedure Committee was not able to make a recommendation on the principal issue before us today. Therefore, it is not for me now to attempt to reply to the very good-humoured debate put forward by noble Lords who are for or against the changes.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, very few noble Lords raised any other matters that were in the report. But I have to refer to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and to the noble Lords, Lord Williamson of Horton and Lord Strathclyde, who raised an extremely important matter; that is, packaging and double insistence.

Photo of Lord McNally Lord McNally Leader In the House of Lords, Leader, House of Lords, Liberal Democrat Leader in the House of Lords

My Lords, because I was trying to be brief, I omitted to say that these Benches warmly supported those initiatives. We are particularly grateful to the Clerk of the Parliaments for facilitating that agreement.

Photo of Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara Chairman of Committees, House of Lords, Deputy Speaker (Lords)

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I should like to extend those words of thanks on behalf of all those involved. This is an extremely important matter, and those efforts have made the proceedings very much easier for me and my fellow Deputy Chairmen. I think that they have also made it very much easier for the House as a whole to understand what was going on.

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked when committee reports were "ripe for debate". The report is now included when the committee in question instructs that it should be, because the committee now wishes to debate the report. That may be as soon as the government response has been received, or it may be after the committee has taken further evidence or undertaken further consideration of the subject. The answer is that it is up to the chairman and the committee to make the decision.

The noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, asked about the possibility of a further change in the debating day, to Monday. If he will excuse me, I do not intend to respond to that today. Let us deal with one thing at a time. So, with that, I leave it to the House to decide what it wishes to do with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers.

Photo of Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank Liberal Democrat

My Lords, perhaps I should simply put it on the record that I caught the 2.35 train from Euston to Manchester yesterday and returned at 8.15 from Manchester Piccadilly, and I have survived. I say that because I am quite familiar with what goes on beyond Watford.

We have had a good debate and all of the issues have been plainly set out. I shall do no more than take the necessary procedural steps by asking to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 98; Not-Contents, 135.

Division number 1 Private Parking: Ports and Trading Estates — Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report

Aye: 96 Members of the House of Lords

No: 133 Members of the House of Lords

Aye: A-Z by last name

Tellers

No: A-Z by last name

Tellers

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Photo of Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood Labour

rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion in the name of the Chairman of Committees, at end to insert "but with the omission of paragraph 20(b)".

Photo of Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood Labour

I am very grateful for all the support given to me during the course of the debate. I shall move formally the amendment standing in my name. I beg to move.

Moved, as an amendment to the Motion in the name of the Chairman of Committees, at end to insert "but with the omission of paragraph 20(b)".—(Baroness Lockwood.)

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.