Arrangement of Business

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Monday 4th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Chief Whip for making the announcement. When he last spoke about this and we pressed him on dates, he said that he was speaking in code and that if we looked at Hansard we might get a better idea. Many of us did, and still had no idea. Perhaps now we understand why. We certainly understand the volume of work that has to be undertaken. If the Government were to rule out no deal as an option—or, as the Prime Minister seems to think, a sword of Damocles if her deal is not accepted—the workload may be slightly less. Of course, we stand ready to play our part.

The Chief Whip will be aware that the business this week in this House is rather light. The House of Commons has risen early on several occasions recently, and there are two Bills currently stalled in the Commons that this House has been waiting for: the Agriculture Bill completed Committee on 20 November, but there is still no date in the other place for either Report or Third Reading; the Fisheries Bill finished Committee on 17 December, and there is no date scheduled for the Commons Report or Third Reading. Both need to be through Parliament by 29 March. The Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill has its Second Reading tomorrow, but there have been two months between Committee and Report in the Commons. It seems that while we will sit longer to undertake this business, the Commons and the Government have been rather tardy in bringing forward the needed legislation. I assure the Chief Whip that we stand ready to play our part, but we expect the Government to do so as well.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, I wonder if the Chief Whip might explain something to us. Under “Business of the House”, today’s Order Paper says:

“The Lord Privy Seal … to move that Standing Order 40(4) (so far as it relates to Thursdays) and (5) be suspended until Monday 3 June so far as is necessary to enable notices and orders relating to Public Bills, Measures, Affirmative Instruments and reports from Select Committees”.


What is the relevance of Monday 3 June?

House Committee

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Thursday 21st July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

In light of what the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, has just said, would it not be wise perhaps for the chairmen of the previous committees to speak to the new Services Committee when it finally meets? That might help us to take forward the agendas that are to be inherited.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader for her introduction and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for their comments, which are perhaps helpful in taking forward the kind of things that the House should consider.

Looking at the Order Paper and the Motions before us, I think that they are quite weighty issues for our last sitting day before the Summer Recess. The main part of the report is the governance business, but I also welcome, and have supported, the two proposals from the Procedure Committee. The first is to make the balloting of questions during recess permanent, which is certainly an aid to those Members not based in London who wish to take a full part in our proceedings. There is also the extremely radical proposal that the House of Lords Clocks will now show seconds, as well as minutes. That will be helpful to colleagues speaking in time-limited debates, but I am sure that the Whips’ Offices and the usual channels will find it extremely helpful.

Justice and Security Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Monday 19th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I wonder if we might be told when we can expect to see this memorandum of understanding.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, we have tabled Amendment 22, which replicates the one tabled in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and is very similar to one tabled by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours.

This amendment requires a memorandum of understanding that will further define the remit of the ISC and other elements of its functioning. We consider that this should be approved by Parliament. Throughout the debate we have been arguing for greater ties between the ISC and Parliament in order to underline its accountability to Parliament rather than the Executive. This is an important example of how we can assist in effecting such change.

If the ISC is ultimately accountable to Parliament, it seems right that Parliament should approve the MoU that governs the ISC’s relationship with the Government over and above that which is set out in the Bill. I am sure that we will replicate this debate next week in the Crime and Courts Bill about the framework document for the National Crime Agency. If something is outside the remit of what is in the legislation, it is very helpful to have sight of that and Parliament should have the opportunity to debate and approve it.

The Government have argued against the establishment of the ISC as a full Select Committee of Parliament. One of the arguments is that it is necessary to circumscribe in statute the rules under which the committee may operate. It seems justified and very reasonable that the MoU should be subject to greater scrutiny and formalisation by coming before the House and having formal parliamentary scrutiny and approval before it can be acted upon.

Justice and Security Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Monday 9th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I am glad the noble Baroness did not stipulate that the hearings should be in public because that would make it quite impossible for us to carry out this function, which in many ways I have great sympathy with. If we had had the opportunity when I was a member of the committee to interview proposed heads of the agencies prior to them taking over responsibility for the agencies, it would have been helpful to the committee. In so far as it had not been in public, no damage would have been done. Certainly we would have been able to make our concerns or satisfaction known to the agency, and during the questioning of the proposed appointee we could have raised subjects that would have given us, certainly in one case, a little more reassurance than perhaps I felt I had when the particular person was appointed. I think there is merit in this amendment as long as the hearings are in private.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, the issues that have been raised are the very ones that I listened to the noble Baroness to hear as she moved her amendment and to try to see what the aim was. Her amendment does not mention public or private, although in her original comments she spoke of public hearings. It was not until the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, intervened that she conceded that there could be private hearings, which have more value than a public hearing would. I am no wiser and very interested to hear what the Minister has to say. I assume that he will accept the principle. My favourite bedtime reading, the coalition agreement, includes a specific commitment to strengthen the powers of Select Committees to scrutinise major public appointments. I should have thought that this comes under the remit of a major public appointment. The noble Baroness might have done the House a service to tease out whether the Government intend to honour that part of the coalition agreement.