Committee stage in the Lords
- Speaker
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)Labour- Quote
- My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to. House in Committee accordingly. [The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.] Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2 [Exercise of functions of the Corporate Officers]:
- Time
- 19:25
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord Cope of BerkeleyConservative- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 1:
- Time
- 19:25
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord Norton of LouthConservative- Quote
- I support my noble friend’s amendment, which I touched on at Second Reading. On the face of it, an asymmetrical relationship between the mechanisms will be adopted for the two Houses. It may be that there are legitimate reasons for that. As I mentioned at Second Reading, it may be a matter for the other House to determine its own procedures, but it would be interesting to tease out the reasoning, so that it is on the record.
- Time
- 19:25
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AmosLabour
- Quote
- I think that it would be helpful to clarify that this is not a government Bill. I am taking the Bill through this House because there is no mechanism for something which affects Parliament to be brought forward except through the Government. I confirm that this is not a government Bill, it is a parliamentary Bill. I recognise that this is an issue that has concerned the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, who raised this when we discussed the Bill at Second Reading. There are different governance arrangements between the two Houses. Clause 2 provides that in exercising certain functions under the Bill, the Corporate Officer of the House of Lords may act only in accordance with recommendations made by the House Committee of the House of Lords and approved by this House. That is the way that we do business. The Corporate Officers are the Clerks of the two Houses. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, suggested that the draft Bill should be amended to include the Floor of the House requirement. We were happy to agree that and the Bill was amended prior to its introduction. This amendment would require a decision on the Floor of the House in another place. It would be highly unusual for this House to amend a Bill in this way, given that it touches on a matter of internal House of Commons procedure. I hope, therefore, that having had the opportunity to raise the issue and my having explained that there are different governance arrangements between the two Houses, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
- Time
- 19:25
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Cope of BerkeleyConservative
- Quote
- I must first apologise if I appeared to be treating the Lord President as though she were speaking for the Government. I realise that she is actually speaking as Leader of the House. As far as the amendment is concerned, the Leader of the House is quite right to say that, in the end, it is for another place to decide how they wish to do things. Having drawn attention to the matter, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 2 agreed to.
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Cope of BerkeleyConservative
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 2:
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord McNallyLiberal Democrat- Quote
- I support the amendment. I speak as someone who strongly supports the idea of joint operations between the two Houses. A distinctive annual report would have transparency, which would give confidence to this project being widened.
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Norton of LouthConservative
- Quote
- I support my noble friend’s amendment. I added my name to it because it is a sensible way of addressing a point that came up at Second Reading. As my noble friend indicated, it anticipates the future if a joint department—not just PICT but any future joint department—is created. It is important that there is transparency and some reporting to each House and this would be one way of achieving that. I regard it as a necessary but not sufficient condition for informing the Houses about what a joint department is doing. One would assume that a department would want to disseminate material about what it is doing, keeping both Houses informed as a matter of course, but it is invaluable to have this on the record as part of the Bill itself. It would trigger some action on behalf of the joint department and serve as a reminder of the responsibility to both Houses. I therefore strongly support my noble friend’s amendment.
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AmosLabour
- Quote
- I have some sympathy with the spirit of the amendment proposed. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, is quite right: the amendment as currently drafted would provide for an 18-month rather than six-month delay between the end of year and the report. In terms of the practice envisaged here, the House of Commons Commission and the House Committee already publish annual reports. It is anticipated that the joint departments would include within those reports a report of their work. We do not need to legislate about an annual report, but in listening to what noble Lords have said about the importance of recognising that a joint department is somewhat different from other departments, I see no reason why we should not encourage the House Committee, for example, to ask the joint department to put a separate report on its work to the House Committee, which can then be available to Members of this House. Rather than including it in legislation in the way proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment and for there to be a very strong push from the House Committee—a number of representatives on that committee are in the Chamber—to ask that a separate report be produced for it which can then be made available to the House. In that spirit, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Cope of BerkeleyConservative
- Quote
- I seem to have support in principle from all three major parties in the House. As I confessed when moving the amendment, it is flawed. I will rest on the principles having been agreed and beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 3 [Staff]:
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Cope of BerkeleyConservative
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 3:
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AmosLabour
- Quote
- Again, I appreciate and understand the point that the noble Lord seeks to address through the amendment. If my memory serves me correctly, he made some reference to the matter on Second Reading. I assure him that the operation of PICT already takes account of the sitting hours of both Houses. Clause 3(2)(b) relates to staff terms and conditions, and it is not anticipated that a joint department would require significantly different terms and conditions from those of either House. The matter will remain subject to consultation with staff representatives in connection with any joint department. As the noble Lord knows, a key purpose of the Bill is to protect staff rights—that is precisely why we needed it—and staff representatives have been assured of management’s early intention to set up a Whitley committee structure for PICT. On the general issue of service levels and what might happen if the two Houses wanted different things, I do not think that we would get to the point of a lowest common denominator. For example, the two Houses have co-operated closely in relation to the IT strategy for a long time. Our House has made its own decisions about Members’ equipment and the levels of support required. If there are proposals for future joint departments, they will have to come to the Floor of the House, so I do not anticipate that we would agree anything that would prevent our House making our service needs clear. I recognise the noble Lord’s concerns—I am continuing to talk, but here is the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, so I can stop now—but I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Cope of BerkeleyConservative
- Quote
- I acknowledged that, so far as the Bill and the arrangements under it apply only to PICT, this is probably not a problem, but it can apply much wider. I had rather hoped that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House would say that “both Houses” meant that they both had to be satisfied—each individually. If that were so, my amendment would not be necessary. As matters stand, I am not entirely persuaded.
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AmosLabour
- Quote
- I am happy to say that both Houses would have to be satisfied. That is absolutely the case.
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Cope of BerkeleyConservative
- Quote
- That makes my position much easier. As “both” seems to mean much the same as “each”, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 3 agreed to. Clauses 4 to 6 agreed to. Schedule agreed to. House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗