Mr SPEAKEROn the Thursday before the House adjourned, members raised a number of points of order about the status of committees, their reports, and proceedings. Standing Order 180(3) makes it clear that a select committee established for a particular purpose continues in existence until the completion of that task by the presentation of its final report on it. Members raised with me Speaker’s ruling 92/2. This ruling from 1892 is relevant now only in so far as it protects a committee’s report once it is finally agreed. This is the report that must be presented; it cannot be revisited. Standing Order 180(3) prevails in terms of extinguishing the life of the committee.
The ruling recognises that a committee can reconsider a report if the final report has not been fully agreed. Committees should take great care if they intend to use the practice of agreeing a final report by “round robin” or subject to certain conditions, because there is always a real possibility that it will result in uncertainty.
Where doubt arises about the form of a committee’s final report, the only way it can be resolved is by the committee. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 93/6: “If doubts arise as to what the chairperson was directed to report, the report should be deferred for the committee to meet again and clarify the position.” It is a matter for the committee, not for the House. The House has no cognisance of matters before a committee until they are reported to the House by the chairperson. I refer to Speaker’s ruling 87/2. The Speaker intervenes only when invited to do so by resolution of the committee. Again, I refer to Speaker’s ruling 87/4.
Once the committee adopts its final report, the chairperson must report to the House within a reasonable time. This does not mean at once or even at the first opportunity. Indeed, it is desirable to hold back a report for a few days so that the necessary preparation can be made to print the report. A delay of about 1 week in reporting to the House is quite acceptable. I refer to Speaker’s ruling 93/5. The responsibility for reporting lies with the chairperson of the committee. Another member of the committee may present a report, but only where authorised to do so by the chairperson. If a chairperson did not report within a reasonable time, the House may order the report to be presented.
Finally, where a committee, as part of its deliberation, sets a specific deadline for receipt of amendments to a report or minority views, it has in effect agreed a closure. In doing so a committee should be careful to ensure the effect of the closure resolution is very clear.
A committee cannot require a member to submit a minority view, nor can it amend one, but one having been proposed a committee must decide whether to agree to its inclusion in the report. The setting of a closure does not presuppose that the amendments or minority views that are the subject of it will be agreed to. A committee’s deliberation must include a specific resolution providing for their agreement. In agreeing to resolutions to conclude deliberation outside a committee meeting, a committee should also give careful consideration to including a resolution to deal with the situation where agreement cannot be reached.
The setting of a closure during a committee’s deliberation is a somewhat unusual practice for select committees. Where the Standing Orders do not provide directly for committee procedure, a committee must rely on the Committee of the whole House procedure, and Standing Order 200 covers that. The effect of a closure in the Committee of the whole House is that amendments handed in at the time the closure is agreed are in the possession of the committee and may be withdrawn only by leave. I refer to Speaker’s ruling 114/7.
A minority view can be considered as if it were an amendment. Once it is received by the clerk of the committee, it becomes part of the committee’s proceedings. It may be withdrawn up until the time agreed for the closure. A member wanting to withdraw a minority view after that time would need the leave of the committee.
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much for that very thorough ruling, which I think is very helpful on the issues that we considered on that Thursday, and we will reflect on what you have said. The one immediate question that the Opposition would raise is that you said a week is quite an acceptable period for delay, but you also said the delay of a presentation of a report to the House is not a matter for the House itself in the first instance. In the specific case that led to this ruling from you, I understand there was a delay of 2 weeks and 1 day between the committee resolving to take a course of action and the report finally being presented. I wonder at what point members can bring it to you for your intervention, once that week, which you have signalled is a reasonable period of delay, has been breached to the extent that this report was.
The member raises a perfectly fair point of order. This is not a well-defined area in the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings. What is quite clear is that the chair has responsibility to report to the House, although at the end of the day, if the chair refuses for whatever reason to present to the House the report of the committee, the House can order that it be done, and the question then becomes how the House goes about ordering that.
It seems to me that there are two possible mechanisms. The first is for a member to raise it by way of a point of order, and to seek leave that the House require the report to be presented. Of course, the danger with that procedure is that it takes only one member to dissent and then the House cannot order the report to be presented. A second, more complex procedure that would perhaps give a more certain result is for a notice of motion to be lodged, which would be a debatable motion, obviously, and which would ultimately be voted on. Then the majority of the House could order that the report be presented. There are those two mechanisms, and certainly the second of those two mechanisms, although more complicated, has the certainty of following the will of the majority of the House.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I accept your ruling, particularly in respect of the committee itself not being functus officio, which was not a point that I had made. The third way in which that problem could be resolved would be, on a point of order, for the Speaker to enforce the Standing Orders and to require that the report be produced forthwith. It does not seem to me that it is a matter where members have discretion as to whether those reports are eventually tabled; the Standing Orders require that they are. So it becomes an enforcement issue for you rather than an issue of the discretion of the House, I would suggest.
I am very happy to look further into that particular issue, but I believe that such a matter is actually in the first case one for the committee, and then, at the end of the day, it is one for the authority of the House. The Speaker can only enforce the Standing Orders, and it would be my interpretation, having looked fairly carefully at this issue, that a Speaker could require that a report be presented only where the House has set a deadline for that. Ultimately it is the House that must rule on these matters. The Speaker cannot set a deadline for that. I have looked fairly carefully at the Standing Orders and at Speakers’ rulings on these issues, and that is why I have outlined the two mechanisms that I believe are available to members to ensure that a committee chair presents a report. Once the majority of the House rules on the matter, then of course the Speaker can enforce it that the report be presented by that deadline.