The committees of the House of Lords produce some excellent reports. The report of the Science and Technology Committee on Genomic Medicine has found a fan in the form of Mark Henderson, the scientific editor of The Times. His story can be read here. The report, he says, “is a quite remarkable summary of the state of the science, and the steps the Government must take if the NHS is to make the most of genomic medicine.”
For him, it demonstrates the value of the House. “There’s a reason why this report is so good: it was compiled by a committee of people with genuine experience and understanding of science, and not by career politicians.” As he goes on to say: “It is hard to imagine even a body like the US Senate producing a report of quite this quality and authority.”
Dear Lord Norton,
Yes, excellent reports are produced. Their contents can then be completely ignored – as we have just seen with the voting of your House on the Parliamentary Standards Bill.
Howridiculous.
Howridiculous: I agree that the reports produced on the Parliamentary Standards Bill by the Constitution Committee of the Lords, the Justice Committee of the Commons, and the Joint Committee on Human Rights were excellent. They were not ignored: they were read and drawn on by many members. They provided a valuable basis for challenging the need to fast-track the Bill. They may not have persuaded the House not to fast-track the Bill. They may, though, have provided the groundwork for amendments to the Bill.
The effects of Wednesday’s debate, incidentally, have already started to be seen, the Leader of the House having just announced that more time will be provided for consideration of the Bill.
When you say ‘more time’ how much more and to what extent is the extra meaningfully useful to go through the number of issues members have with the proposals.
On the quality of reports we’re back on familiar ground of needing a mechanism to force debate on the reports, force the government to give a position and where differing from the report justify it.
I do think howridiculous has a point, sadly. Many good reports do not seem to be accorded the respect they deserve when it comes to actual decision taking. Rather perversely, the fast tracking may actually result in the reports you mention perhaps having more clout, Lord N, as Members clamber for books of instructions to achieve the necessary(?) in the limited time available?
Croft: Here is what the Leader of the House said at the start of business today:
“During the Second Reading debate I received a very clear message about the concerns that many noble Lords hold about the Bill and about the timescale on which the Government intend to proceed. I have reflected on the debate and the strong views expressed about the Bill and it is my intention today to table amendments to the Bill which I hope will address those concerns. As soon as the amendments are tabled I will write to all noble Lords who took part in that debate explaining those amendments, and I will make copies of my letter available in the Library of the House and the Printed Paper Office.
On the timescale, I undertook to discuss the arrangements with the usual channels to see whether more time could be made available. If proceedings in Committee are not completed at the end of business on Tuesday 14 July, further time will be made available as first business after Oral Questions on Thursday 16 July. I take the views of this House very seriously and I have listened. I hope that the House will welcome what I propose.”
That, at least, is something. We shall see what the amendments are.
On the points you and stephenpaterson raise, it is worth making the point that select committees in the Lords have the option of making reports ‘for information’ or ‘for debate’. Reports on legislation are normally for information, as with the Constitution Committee reports on the Parliamentary Standards Bill: there is no point scheduling them for debate, as by the time a slot is found it is way after the relevant legislation has been discussed. However, with other reports, where they raise important issues (as with the Constitution Committee report on the Surveillance State), a committee can issue it for debate and time is then found to debate it. This way, a committee can get not only a written response from Government but also debate and have the minister come to the dispatch box, which can be an uncomfortable experience if the written response to the report has not been as thorough and helpful as members would wish.