Читать книгу The Times Guide to the House of Commons - Литагент HarperCollins USD, Ю. Д. Земенков, Koostaja: Ajakiri New Scientist - Страница 62

The Commons scrutiny of legislation has commonly been regarded as one of the least satisfactory aspects of Parliament. The formal procedures are unchanging. A Bill is introduced without discussion, its first reading, then about ten days later it is debated in principle on the floor of the Commons in its second reading. Most Bills then go “upstairs” to be scrutinised line-by-line in what used to be called standing committees and are now known as public Bill committees. (Exceptions are constitutional Bills, the committee stages of which are always taken on the floor of the Commons, and the most controversial parts of the Finance Bill, which are again taken on the floor.)

This is the most criticised part of the process because government backbenchers are whipped to toe the line and constructive debate has been discouraged. Until a few years ago, the committee stages were allowed to run for a certain number of hours (often about 80) before the Ggovernment put down a guillotine motion limiting the time for further debate. This often left large parts of the Bill undebated before it got to the Lords. After a committee stage, a Bill returns to the floor of the Commons for a report stage, when further amendments can be made. This is often the stage at which controversial changes are debated. There is then a, usually short, third reading before the Bill goes to the Lords, where it follows similar procedures.

The main differences in the Lords are that there are seldom votes or divisions on the committee stages of Bills, which are increasingly taken in the Moses Room or a similar committee room. So the Lords allows votes on amendments on the third reading of Bills as well as at report stage. Each year some Bills are introduced in the Lords rather than the Commons to even out the workload between the two Houses. Money Bills, such as the Finance Bill, cannot be changed in the Lords and receive only a formal debate before being passed.

There have been a number of changes in these procedures. First, more Bills are being published in draft form, which allows time for examination either by a select committee or by a special committee (often a joint one of both Houses). These inquiries can lead to changes to Bills before they are formally introduced and it becomes a matter of the government’s authority. The practice has been disappointing, however, with a marked decline over the past six years in the number of Bills published in draft form.

Secondly, the need for post-legislative scrutiny is now increasingly accepted, with Acts being examined five years after their passage. This is still in its early stages. Thirdly, Bills are now subject to formal timetables from their second reading onwards, with a programme motion stating when a committee stage has to be completed and how long there is for the report and third readings. This has led to complaints that opposition parties and backbenchers have been deprived of their rights to scrutinise, and occasionally, hold up Bills. Fourthly, standing committees were replaced in 2003 by public Bill committees, which permit brief scrutiny sessions when expert witnesses can give evidence immediately before the line-by-line examination of any measure. While, in theory, this offers scope for improving the scrutiny of Bills, the time allowed is often too short and the process needs to be reviewed.