Business of the House Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Leader of the House

Business of the House

Lord Mancroft Excerpts
Wednesday 4th September 2019

(5 years, 3 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lexden Portrait The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I should inform the House that if any of Amendments 2J to 2Q are agreed I cannot call Amendments 3 to 27 by reason of pre-emption.

Lord Mancroft Portrait Lord Mancroft (Con)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, my noble friend has made an important, useful and helpful point to the House, which needs addressing. When noble Lords introduce Motions or move amendments in your Lordships’ House, the normal course of events is that they explain their purpose—what wrong they are trying to right and what purposes and effects they will have. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in moving her Motion talked generally about its effect, and we understand that, but she did not mention this at all.

This is a significant change and it is not quite clear why it is necessary. This area of the Standing Orders—the arrangement of business—is quite an old one and the reason why it has not been changed is that it works very well. It is, as my noble friend said, a tradition, but that is probably not its most important point. Standing Orders are practicalities, there for the practical purposes and workings of the House so that we all know how business is arranged, how it is conducted and why it is set out. There is a helpful little book, which I am sure all your Lordships have read—the Companion to the Standing Orders—which explains why those things are and how they work.