1-12 of 12 results for subject:"House of Commons"
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.392 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.006 seconds
- Search query
- subject:"House of Commons"
- We searched for
- subject_t:"House of Commons" OR subject_t:HC OR subject_t:House OR subject_t:UKC OR subject_ses:25259
Answering member
X
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
Primary member
Answering member
More
Falconer of Thoroton, Lord (12)
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
My Lords, naturally, I reflected on the fraud Bill. I looked at the Joint Committee’s report, which said: "““In addition the evidence points to the emergence in recent years of a practice that the House of Lords will usually give a Second Reading to any government Bill, whether based on the manifesto or not. We offer no definition of situations in whichan attempt to defeat a Bill at Second Reading might be appropriate””."
So it might be regarded as unusual. I also reflected on the casino order. The report concluded, on the basis of the evidence, that: "““The House of Lords should not regularly reject statutory instruments, but in exceptional circumstances it may be appropriate for it to do so””."
One of the exceptional circumstances is whenspecial attention is drawn to an instrument by the Lords Select Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments, so it might be okay. However, I am worried that there was a fatal Motion supportedby the Liberal Democrats on 11 December 2006, another one on 9 January 2007, another one on 21 January 2007, another one on 27 March 2007 and another one on 28 March 2007. It is quite difficult to see that as being exceptional. The Liberal Democrats continue to exercise power without responsibilityin this House—the prerogative of the noble Lord,Lord McNally, throughout the ages.
My Lords, naturally, I reflected on the fraud Bill. I looked at the Joint Committee’s report, which said: "““In addition the evidence points to the emergence in recent years of a practice that the House of Lords will usually give a Second Reading to any government Bill, whether based on the manifesto or not. We offer no definition of situations in whichan attempt to defeat a Bill at Second Reading might be appropriate””."
So it might be regarded as unusual. I also reflected on the casino order. The report concluded, on the basis of the evidence, that: "““The House of Lords should not regularly reject statutory instruments, but in exceptional circumstances it may be appropriate for it to do so””."
One of the exceptional circumstances is whenspecial attention is drawn to an instrument by the Lords Select Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments, so it might be okay. However, I am worried that there was a fatal Motion supportedby the Liberal Democrats on 11 December 2006, another one on 9 January 2007, another one on 21 January 2007, another one on 27 March 2007 and another one on 28 March 2007. It is quite difficult to see that as being exceptional. The Liberal Democrats continue to exercise power without responsibilityin this House—the prerogative of the noble Lord,Lord McNally, throughout the ages.
Answered by
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
(Labour)
Type
Oral answers to questions
Subjects
Legislative process; House of Lords; House of Commons; Parliamentary procedure; Joint Committee on Conventions
Date
25 April 2007
Reference
691 c655-6
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, the Government welcomed the report of the Joint Committee on Conventions when it was published in October last year. Both Houses approved the report unanimously in January. The Government believe that it is too soon after the publication of the report to make any full assessment of the operation of the conventions.
My Lords, the Government welcomed the report of the Joint Committee on Conventions when it was published in October last year. Both Houses approved the report unanimously in January. The Government believe that it is too soon after the publication of the report to make any full assessment of the operation of the conventions.
Answered by
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
(Labour)
Type
Oral answers to questions
Subjects
Legislative process; House of Lords; House of Commons; Parliamentary procedure; Joint Committee on Conventions
Date
25 April 2007
Reference
691 c655
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, on the first point, I agree on the excellence of the Cunningham committee’s report. I am sorry that my noble friendis not in his place today to be congratulated onit yet again. Secondly, I agree, as I said, that the conventions report allows, in exceptional cases,for there to be a defeat at Second Reading. Whethera defeat is exceptional, in relation to Bills and to statutory instruments, cannot be looked at in isolation; it has to be looked at over a long period. That is why I draw attention to the number of fatal Motions that are currently being proposed. Finally, it could not be said that anyone was acting irresponsibly not to vote at all, let alone not to vote for a fatal Motion, which appeared to be the implication of the noble Lord’s last question.
My Lords, on the first point, I agree on the excellence of the Cunningham committee’s report. I am sorry that my noble friendis not in his place today to be congratulated onit yet again. Secondly, I agree, as I said, that the conventions report allows, in exceptional cases,for there to be a defeat at Second Reading. Whethera defeat is exceptional, in relation to Bills and to statutory instruments, cannot be looked at in isolation; it has to be looked at over a long period. That is why I draw attention to the number of fatal Motions that are currently being proposed. Finally, it could not be said that anyone was acting irresponsibly not to vote at all, let alone not to vote for a fatal Motion, which appeared to be the implication of the noble Lord’s last question.
Answered by
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Strathclyde
(Conservative)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that this House should reject aBill at Second Reading only in the most unusual circumstances and only after a great deal of reflection? Can he confirm that what happened with the jury trials Bill did not break the Salisbury convention in any way and that the excellent Cunningham report did not say that a Second Reading should be given every time a Bill is presented to the House? Furthermore, on the casino vote, was it not the case that the business management between the House of Commons and the House of Lords was not done as wisely as it could have been, with the vote in this House coming before that in another place? Is it not also true that the majority of three would have been reversed if all Members of the government Front Bench had voted?
Subjects
Legislative process; House of Lords; House of Commons; Parliamentary procedure; Joint Committee on Conventions
Date
25 April 2007
Reference
691 c656
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, I have always understood that Motions are rejected or not by people either voting against them or in favour of them. The critical step in rejecting things is people voting against them. You cannot distinguish, as the noble Lord seeks to do, between people voting against a Motion and the Motion being defeated.
My Lords, I have always understood that Motions are rejected or not by people either voting against them or in favour of them. The critical step in rejecting things is people voting against them. You cannot distinguish, as the noble Lord seeks to do, between people voting against a Motion and the Motion being defeated.
Answered by
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
(Labour)
Asked by
Viscount Bledisloe
(Crossbench)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord recognise that the report says that neither House should regularly reject secondary legislation but that it may be appropriate to do so in exceptional circumstances? Surely the test is how often the House has rejected secondary legislation, not how often the Liberal Democrats have put down Motions. We all know that most Liberal Democrat Motions stand no chance of getting passed anyhow.
Subjects
Legislative process; House of Lords; House of Commons; Parliamentary procedure; Joint Committee on Conventions
Date
25 April 2007
Reference
691 c657
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, that is for others to judge. All that I thought we had agreed toin January was to comply with what was said bythe conventions committee of the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham. The House made that commitment in January. I make it clear that I am not saying that the House has broken that—we must look at it over time—but it must be clear that we stand by our commitments.
My Lords, that is for others to judge. All that I thought we had agreed toin January was to comply with what was said bythe conventions committee of the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham. The House made that commitment in January. I make it clear that I am not saying that the House has broken that—we must look at it over time—but it must be clear that we stand by our commitments.
Answered by
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Howarth of Newport
(Labour)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, if it is anticipated that the second Chamber is to be elected in the future, is it not unsurprising that it starts to flex its muscles? On the other hand, if we were to be assured that the second Chamber will be appointed in the future, would it not be more likely to resume its habit of deferring to the authority of the democratically elected House of Commons?
Subjects
Legislative process; House of Lords; House of Commons; Parliamentary procedure; Joint Committee on Conventions
Date
25 April 2007
Reference
691 c657
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, I would regard the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, as being not in the autumn of his years but in the spring of his years. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, had signed up to a report that said that there were certain exceptional circumstances at Second Reading and with statutory instruments where it was quite legitimate for this House to say no. I completely agree with that. As I understand it, every time the Liberal Democrats disagree with something on civil liberties grounds, they will regard that—despite what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, signed up to—as a legitimate reason to say no. The critical aspectof the Cunningham report on conventions is that disagreement in this House is not of itself sufficient reason to say no. I am worried about what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is prepared to sign up to, when he then does something different.
My Lords, I would regard the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, as being not in the autumn of his years but in the spring of his years. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, had signed up to a report that said that there were certain exceptional circumstances at Second Reading and with statutory instruments where it was quite legitimate for this House to say no. I completely agree with that. As I understand it, every time the Liberal Democrats disagree with something on civil liberties grounds, they will regard that—despite what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, signed up to—as a legitimate reason to say no. The critical aspectof the Cunningham report on conventions is that disagreement in this House is not of itself sufficient reason to say no. I am worried about what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is prepared to sign up to, when he then does something different.
Answered by
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord McNally
(Liberal Democrat)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor not find it faintly sad that so distinguished a parliamentarian as the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, should in the autumn of his years see it as his job to play nightclub bouncer to this authoritarian Government? Does the noble and learned Lord not recall that one of the Cunningham report’s key recommendations, without which I would not have signed the report, was that the House of Lords should retain the right to say no? Is he aware that we on these Benches will exercise that right every time civil liberties or good governance are in question?
Subjects
Legislative process; House of Lords; House of Commons; Parliamentary procedure; Joint Committee on Conventions
Date
25 April 2007
Reference
691 c656-7
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
Whether they have assessed the extent to which the report and recommendations by the Joint Committee on Conventions, Conventions of the United Kingdom Parliament (HL Paper 265, Session 2005-06), endorsed by both Houses of Parliament, are being observed.
Whether they have assessed the extent to which the report and recommendations by the Joint Committee on Conventions, Conventions of the United Kingdom Parliament (HL Paper 265, Session 2005-06), endorsed by both Houses of Parliament, are being observed.
Asked by
Lord Tomlinson
(Labour)
Answered by
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
(Labour)
Oral questions - Lead
Status
Answered
For answer on
25 April 2007
Answered on
25 April 2007
My Lords, the Government welcomed the report of the Joint Committee on Conventions when it was published in October last year. Both Houses approved the report unanimously in January. The Government believe that it is too soon after the publication of the report to make any full assessment of the operation of the conventions.
Subjects
Legislative process; House of Lords; House of Commons; Parliamentary procedure; Joint Committee on Conventions
Date
25 April 2007
Reference
691 c655
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
Parliament (Participation of Members of the House of Commons) Bill (HL). Lords second reading debate. Agreed to on question and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Parliament (Participation of Members of the House of Commons) Bill (HL). Lords second reading debate. Agreed to on question and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Lead member
Lord Baker of Dorking
Answering member
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Department
Department for Constitutional Affairs
Type
Debates on bills
Legislative stage
Second reading
Procedure
Private members' bills proceedings
Legislation
Parliament (Participation of Members of the House of Commons) Bill (HL) 2005-06
Subjects
Devolution; Constitutions; House of Commons; Legislation; Northern Ireland; Powers; Members; Scotland; Sovereignty; Wales; Voting rights; Speaker; West Lothian question; English votes for English laws
Date
10 February 2006
Reference
678 c902-56
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
Whether, in response to doubts expressed inside and outside Parliament, they propose to introduce legislation to validate the Parliament Act 1949. [HL 4484]. - No.
Whether, in response to doubts expressed inside and outside Parliament, they propose to introduce legislation to validate the Parliament Act 1949. [HL 4484]. - No.
Asked by
Lord Brightman
(Crossbench)
Answered by
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
For answer on
25 October 2004
Answered on
25 October 2004
Legislation
Parliament Act 1949
Subjects
Legislative process; House of Lords; House of Commons; Powers
Date
25 October 2004
Reference
HL 4484; 665 c103WA
House
House of Lords
Whether they have given consideration to the doubts expressed inside and outside Parliament concerning the validity of the Parliament Act 1949. [HL 4483]. - Inc ref to 19 January 2004, 620 c1328.
Whether they have given consideration to the doubts expressed inside and outside Parliament concerning the validity of the Parliament Act 1949. [HL 4483]. - Inc ref to 19 January 2004, 620 c1328.
Asked by
Lord Brightman
(Crossbench)
Answered by
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
For answer on
25 October 2004
Answered on
25 October 2004
Legislation
Parliament Act 1949
Subjects
Legislative process; House of Lords; House of Commons; Powers
Date
25 October 2004
Reference
HL 4483; 665 c103WA
House
House of Lords
What recommendations from departmental select committees in the House of Commons in (a) the 1997-8 and (b) the 1998-9 Sessions of Parliament have been accepted by them; and whether they will list those recommendations in the Official Report. [HL 47]. - Includes fact that will write.
What recommendations from departmental select committees in the House of Commons in (a) the 1997-8 and (b) the 1998-9 Sessions of Parliament have been accepted by them; and whether they will list those recommendations in the Official Report. [HL 47]. - Includes fact that will write.
Asked by
Lord Norton of Louth
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
For answer on
8 December 1999
Answered on
8 December 1999
Subjects
Disclosure of information; House of Commons; Select committees; Select Committee reports
Date
8 December 1999
Reference
HL 47; 607 c91WA
House
House of Lords
Whether it is their policy to answer within three weeks letters on Scottish matters which are revised and, if not, what is their policy on the speed of replies; and How many Written Questions, in both Houses of Parliament, on Scottish reserved matters have received holding replies since the establishment...
Whether it is their policy to answer within three weeks letters on Scottish matters which are revised and, if not, what is their policy on the speed of replies; and How many Written Questions, in both Houses of Parliament, on Scottish reserved matters have received holding replies since the establishment...
Asked by
Lord Selkirk of Douglas
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
For answer on
4 November 1999
Answered on
4 November 1999
Subjects
Devolution; Administrative delays; Correspondence; House of Lords; House of Commons; Scotland; Scottish Parliament; Parliamentary questions; Written questions; Reserved matters
Date
4 November 1999
Reference
HL 4275; 606 c97-8WA
House
House of Lords