Modernisation: Carry-over of public bills

Standard Note: Last updated: Author: Section SN/PC/03236 21 December 2009 Richard Kelly Parliament and Constitution Centre

The carry-over of public bills from one session to the next was suggested by the Modernisation Committee as a way of reducing the fluctuations in legislative activity caused by Parliamentary sessions. After briefly summarising the Modernisation Committees views, this note describes the different approaches to allowing bills to be carried forward in this way in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. On 29 October 2002, the House of Commons introduced carry-over on an experimental basis until the end of the 2001 Parliament. In the House of Lords, an ad hoc procedure, following recommendations from the House of Lords Procedure Committee, was agreed on 24 July 2002. On 26 October 2004, the House of Commons agreed to make slightly amended arrangements for carry-over permanent. The permanent Standing Order was effective from the beginning of the 2004-05 Session of Parliament. The note includes details of the bills that have been carried over. Before the permanent Standing Order became effective, six bills were carried over. Since the Standing Order became permanent, further bills have been carried over. Under the Standing Order, proceedings lapse on bills that have not received Royal Assent within twelve months of their original introduction. However, the Standing Order does allow the period to be extended: these provisions have been used twice. The note also provides examples of the form of words used in carry-over motions.

This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual. It should not be relied upon as being up to date; the law or policies may have changed since it was last updated; and it should not be relied upon as legal or professional advice or as a substitute for it. A suitably qualified professional should be consulted if specific advice or information is required. This information is provided subject to our general terms and conditions which are available online or may be provided on request in hard copy. Authors are available to discuss the content of this briefing with Members and their staff, but not with the general public.

Contents
1 House of Commons 1.1 Background 1.2 Experimental procedures 1.3 Permanent procedures 1.4 Bills subject to carry-over motions Other proceedings on bills subject to a carry-over motion 2 House of Lords 3 3 4 4 6 8 9 11 12 12 12 12 12 12

Appendix A Bills subject to carry-over motions under permanent procedures Appendix B Carry-over motions: examples 1 House of Commons 1.1 a. Ad hoc motions 1.2 Motions based on temporary Standing Orders 1.3 Motions based on permanent Standing Orders 2 House of Lords

1
1.1

House of Commons
Background

In its first report, the Modernisation Committee examined The Legislative Process. It briefly considered the carry-over of Government bills and agreed:
the principle that, in defined circumstances and subject to certain safeguards, Government Bills may be carried over from one session to the next in the same way as hybrid and private Bills. Discussions should begin between the appropriate authorities in both Houses to determine how this might best be achieved, without infringing the constitutional implications of prorogation. 1

Following the Houses agreement to the Committees first report, 2 the Committee again considered the issue of carry-over. It examined a proposal from the Clerk of the House and the Clerk of Parliaments, on the procedural methods which might be used to carry over Government bills. It then proposed that:
If, after an experimental period, the procedure were subsequently embodied in a Standing Order or a sessional order, it would be necessary to specify precisely the conditions which would need to be fulfilled before a bill could be considered for carryover. We propose to look at this again once the House has had some experience of carrying bills over by means of ad hoc motions. 3

Although only one bill, the Financial Services and Markets Bill 1998-99, was subject to this ad hoc carry-over procedure, the Modernisation Committee, in its wide-ranging review of procedures after the 2001 General Election, argued that:
If we are serious about providing for better scrutiny then we must adopt a longer time perspective which permits more time and more thorough scrutiny. That can only come from the wider use of carry-over. The most often repeated criticism of programming of Bills is that the timetable is too tight. Carry-over would enable programming motions to allow Bills longer before committee. 4

Consequently, it recommended that:

Standing Orders be amended to permit carry-over of a Bill by resolution of the House for an experimental period, but that no Bill should be carried over for more than one extra Session. 5

and that:
for the experimental period on carry-over, if a Bill is not completed or arrives from the Lords more than twelve months after its introduction, it should not be further proceeded

2 3

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, The Legislative Process, 29 July 1997, HC 190 1997-98, para 102 HC Deb 13 November 1997 cc1061-1129 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, Carry-over of Public Bills, 9 March 1998, HC 543 1997-98, para 8 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, Modernisation of the House of Commons: A Reform Programme, 5 September 2002, HC 1168-I 2001-02, para 38 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, Modernisation of the House of Commons: A Reform Programme, 5 September 2002, HC 1168-I 2001-02, para 38

with in the Commons unless a fresh programme motion, debatable for one and a half hours, has been passed. 6

1.2

Experimental procedures

The House debated the Modernisation Committees reform programme on 29 October 2002, and agreed a temporary Standing Order which allowed Government bills to be carried over. Briefly, they provided for proceedings on a public bill not completed before the end of the session to be resumed in the next session of Parliament. However, the temporary Standing Order was only effective until the end of the 2001 Parliament. The House agreed to implement the Modernisation Committees recommendations on carrying over Bills, by 365 votes 147. 7 The procedure was detailed in the Appendix of the 2003-04 edition of the Standing Orders under the heading Temporary Standing Orders and Sessional Orders. 8 1.3 Permanent procedures

The Leader of the House tabled a motion, for debate on 26 October 2004, to make the potential use of carry-over motions for Government bills that start in the House of Commons a permanent feature of the Houses procedures. Different (ad hoc) procedures could be used to carry-over a bill that started in the House of Lords. In outlining the motion, Peter Hain said:
The fourth motion would make permanent the temporary Standing Order on carry-over of Bills, which was agreed by the House for this Parliament only in October 2002. As the Procedure Committee found in its report on programming, "carry-over increases flexibility and has the potential to lessen bottlenecks in the legislative process". The Committee commended the gradual way in which the Government have introduced carry-over. Two Bills were carried over from the previous Session to the current Session, and three from this House and another in the House of Lords are to be carried over from the current Session to the next. Those who believed that carry-over was an underhand method of undermining the Sessional cut-off have been proved wrong. [] Carry-over has been a helpful but modest measure to increase flexibility in legislative planning, facilitating pre-legislative scrutiny. That is important: it is not a coincidence that all three Bills to be carried over in this House this Session have been published in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny. 9

He concluded that:
We believe that it would be timely to make the Standing Order on carry-over permanent. A few amendments are proposed to make it clear that the Order would not apply to private Members' Bills or Lords Bills, and that any programming order agreed in the first Session would continue to apply in the second. 10

7 8 9 10

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, Modernisation of the House of Commons: A Reform Programme, 5 September 2002, HC 1168-I 2001-02, para 39 HC Deb 29 October 2002 c828 Standing Orders of the House of Commons, 26 November 2003, HC 3 2003-04, pp147-150 HC Deb 26 October 2004 c1316 HC Deb 26 October 2004 c1317

During the course of his comments, Peter Hain was pressed by Sir Nicholas Winterton, the then Chairman of the Procedure Committee, and Sir George Young to give an assurance that, in future, the Government will carry over only with cross-party agreement. 11 Paul Tyler, for the Liberal Democrats, also called for discussion between the parties before bills were carried over. 12 Peter Hain responded: I want to act by consensus, but I do not want to place a block on carry-over in the Standing Orders if consensus cannot be gained. 13 A range of views on carry-over were put forward during the course of the debate. Oliver Heald, for the Conservative Party, had mixed feelings about carry-over:
It seems sensible to have the definite benefits of increased flexibility that that facility can offer to the legislative process. It can be a waste of time if Bills fall at the end of a Session and have to be reintroduced in the same form in the next. I think that there is agreement on both sides of the House that such a situation can be undesirable. However, I have reservations about a mechanism being built into the procedure whereby the discipline of an annual cut-off point is removed from Government business managers. There is a great danger that the lack of pressure could encourage even more sloppiness in the drafting, programming and timetabling of legislation. That is clearly not desirable. On balance, the House should give the benefit of the doubt to carry-over, but it should be done only with the consent of the Opposition, not imposed by the Government. That is why I will oppose motion 5 tonight. 14

Gwyneth Dunwoody objected to the principle of carry-over. She argued:

The reality is that what the Government are seeking to enshrine in the Standing Orders will make [carry-over] an almost routine procedure. If the Minister believes that not operating with a cut-off point is a good idea, I recommend that he spend some time in the European Parliament. 15

Eric Forth also objected to carry-over:

One of the main disciplines on a Government is Sessional discipline, which is the tradition that at the end of a Session, a Government have either legislated on a matter or they have not. That was a key discipline on my Government and it used to be one on this Government. The Government want to escape from that discipline so that they can legislate in any year without limit, but that is a bad thing. We have far too much legislation. The few controls that exist on the Government are diminishing, and Sessional discipline was one of the last remaining ones. For the Government to say, "Oh, by the way, if we run out of time at the end of a Session, let's just go on into the next one so that we can do what we want", without any restriction or discipline strikes me as extremely bad. That is the main reason why the carry-over of Bills is wrong. 16

The motion agreed on 26 October 2004 amended the temporary Standing Order of 29 October 2002 and made it a Standing Order of the House (permanent). The motion was agreed to on a division by 296 votes to 137. It said:

11 12 13 14 15 16

Ibid HC Deb 26 October 2004 c1337 HC Deb 26 October 2004 c1317 HC Deb 26 October 2004 c1325 HC Deb 26 October 2004 c1330 HC Deb 26 October 2004 c1367

That, with effect from the beginning of the next Session of Parliament, the Order of the House of 29th October 2002 relating to Carry-over of Bills be a Standing Order of the House, with the following amendments: (1) After paragraph (4), insert '(4A) A carry-over motion may be made only in respect of a bill presented by a Minister of the Crown. (4B) The provisions of this order shall not apply to a carry-over motion made in respect of a bill brought from the Lords.' (2) In paragraph (8)(a), after 'committed', insert 'to a standing committee', and leave out from first 'Session' to end of the sub-paragraph. (3) After paragraph (9) insert '(9A) A programme order relating to a bill which is carried over to the next session of Parliament shall continue to apply in the next session.' 17

The full Standing Order (No. 80A) is available on the internet. 18 Both the temporary and permanent standing orders included provisions that proceedings on any bill subject to a carry-over motion would lapse one year after the Bills first reading in the House of Commons. 19 In its 2005-06 report on The Legislative Process, the Modernisation Committee endorsed the existing provisions for carry-over and commented on the question of cross-party support for individual carry-over motions:
We recommend that, where a bill is introduced late in a Session because it has been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, the assumption should be that it will be carried over to the next Session, subject to the same restrictions which currently apply, including the twelve-month time-limit. It is hoped and expected that this would be done with cross-party support. 20

1.4

Bills subject to carry-over motions

The table below and Appendix A provide a brief summary of the public bills that have had carry-over motions associated with them. Table 1 details bills that were carried-over in accordance with ad hoc or temporary procedures. Appendix A shows those bills carried-over since the provisions were enshrined in permanent standing orders.

17 18

19 20

HC Deb 26 October 2004 cc1398-1399 House of Commons, Standing Orders of the House of Commons Public Business, November 2007, HC 105 2007-08, SO No. 80A, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmstords/105/105.pdf The Standing Order was amended on 1 November 2006 to take account of the establishment of public bill committees Standing Order No. 80A (13) Modernisation Committee, The Legislative Process, 7 September 2006, HC 1097 2005-06, para 29

Table 1: Bills subject to carry-over motions under ad hoc or temporary procedures Bill Financial Services and Markets Bill 1998-99 Date of carry-over motion 25 October 1999
[HC Deb 25 October 1999 c737]

Other details An ad hoc motion was used to facilitate carry-over. The motion was agreed to without a division, but see Appendix A 1a A motion under the temporary SO was used to facilitate carry-over. It was agreed to on a division: 279 votes to 162. A motion under the temporary SO was used to facilitate carry-over. It was agreed to on a division: 349 votes to 125. A motion under the temporary SO was used to facilitate carry-over. It was agreed to without a division. A motion under the temporary SO was used to facilitate carry-over. It was agreed to on a division: 245 votes to 130. A motion under the temporary SO was used to facilitate carry-over. It was agreed to on a division: 295 votes to 172.

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill 2002-03 European Parliament and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill 2002-03 Mental Capacity Bill 2003-04 School Transport Bill 2003-04

10 June 2003
[HC Deb 10 June 2003 cc543570]

21 October 2003
[HC Deb 21 October 2003 cc611-613]

11 October 2004
[HC Deb 11 October 2004 c122]

28 October 2004
[HC Deb 28 October 2004 cc1668-1671]

Gambling Bill 2003-04

1 November 2004
[HC Deb 1 November 2004 cc138-141]

On 14 October 2004, during the course of Business Questions, Peter Hain, the Leader of the House of Commons, announced that he intended that three further bills would be introduced during the 2003-04 session and would be subject to carry-over motions:
As the House will have noted, I have announced the Second Reading of the School Transport Bill for Thursday 28 October. The House will also wish to know that we intend to introduce the Gambling Bill and, subject to the progress of business in the Lords, the Disability Discrimination Bill. All three Bills will be carried over into the next Session. 21

The Disability Discrimination Bill was not introduced in the 2003-04 Session. However, it was introduced in 2004-05 and completed its passage through Parliament in that Session. The first bill to be the subject of a carry-over motion under the permanent procedures was the Welfare Reform Bill 2005-06. A list of bills subject to the permanent carry-over procedures is given in Appendix A. Appendix B provides some examples of the form of carry-over motions.

21

HC Deb 14 October 2004 c425

Other proceedings on bills subject to a carry-over motion (i) Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill 2006-07 In connection with the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill 2006-07, on 18 July 2007, the House agreed to a motion moved by Jack Straw, the Secretary of State for Justice, that:
the period on the expiry of which proceedings on the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill shall lapse in pursuance of paragraph (13) of Standing Order No. 80A shall be extended by the period of seven days. 22

He provided the following explanation for the motion:

I think I owe the House a brief explanation of the motion [ Interruption. ] No, just a brief presentation. The short story is that the business motion will extend the deadline for the Bill by just seven days. I am moving the motion because the Government have tabled quite significant amendments, which I hope will meet the anxieties expressed both in this House and the other place. If we are to complete the business, it is important that we allow ourselves an extra week beyond the existing deadline. Let me explain the situation to hon. Members who might not be aware of it. There is a deadline because this is a carry-over Bill. Under Standing Order No. 80A, such Bills usually last for only one year; tomorrow would be this Bills deadline. The slight paradox is that hon. Members on both sides of the House support the principle of the Bill. 23

The motion was supported by both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat front benches; and, despite some concerns from the Conservative back benches, the motion was agreed to without a division. 24 The Bill received Royal Assent on 26 July 2007. 25 (ii) Political Parties and Elections Bill 2008-09 On 13 July 2009, the House agreed to a motion to extend the period of time available to the House to complete its consideration of the Political Parties and Elections Bill 2008-09:
That the period on the expiry of which proceedings on the Political Parties and Elections Bill shall lapse in pursuance of paragraph (13) of Standing Order No. 80A shall be extended by 15 weeks until 29 October 2009.

Michael Wills provided the following explanation for the motion:

The House will be aware that because this is a carry-over Bill, which was introduced on 17 July 2008, it will fall if it does not receive Royal Assent before 17 July 2009. It should receive Royal Assent before that date, or before the House rises for the recess at the very latest. However, it is only prudent for us to take precautions to ensure that it will endure in the event of parliamentary timetablingwhich is always strained at this

22 23 24 25

HC Deb 18 July 2007 c326 HC Deb 18 July 2007 c326 HC Deb 18 July 2007 cc326-330 HC Deb 26 July 2007 c1069

point in the Sessionmaking it impossible for it to complete its passage within that time frame. 26

There was opposition to the motion. Concern was expressed about the need for the Bill to receive Royal Assent before the Summer Recess and about the amount of time that elapsed between the bills stages in both Houses. The Bill received Royal Assent on 21 July 2009. 27 Table 1: Bills subject to other motions under Standing Order No 80A on the carry-over of bills Bill Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill 2006-07 Political Parties and Elections Bill 2008-09 Date of motion 18 July 2007 [HC Deb 18 July 2007
cc326-330]

Other details A motion to prevent proceedings on the bill expiring on the anniversary of its introduction was agreed to without a division. A motion to prevent proceedings on the bill expiring on the anniversary of its introduction was agreed to on a division by 283 votes to 196

13 July 2009 [HC Deb 13 July 2009

cc44-52]

House of Lords

On 15 July 2002, the House of Lords Procedure Committee published its Fifth Report, which included the Committees response to the recommendations of a Group appointed to consider how the working practices of the House can be improved, and to make recommendations. 28 The Committees recommendation on carry-over of bills was made in paragraph 7 of its report. It emphasised the link between carry-over and pre-legislative scrutiny. However, it expected that carry-over would be achieved, after discussion in the usual channels, by a motion agreed by one or both Houses, depending on where the bill had been introduced. Paragraph 6 is included in the following quotation because it is referred to in paragraph 7:
6. This is not a procedural issue. We support Group recommendation (a), provided that the quality of pre-legislative scrutiny is maintained at a high level and also that pre-legislative scrutiny committees are not required to work to unreasonably tight timetables or to consider draft bills that are incomplete. We draw attention to the resource implications, especially the number of members of the House needed to undertake additional regular pre-legislative scrutiny. Group recommendation (b): subject to the right of the House of Commons to determine its own procedures, bills that have received pre-legislative scrutiny in either House should, on a motion moved in the House in possession of the bill at the end of the session, be allowed to be carried-over into the next session; but if a bill that has been carried over does not reach the statute book by the end of the session following carryover it should fall, as now (paragraph 10)
26 27 28

HC Deb 13 July 2009 c44 HC Deb 21 July 2009 c801 Procedure Committee, Fifth Report, 15 July 2002, HL 148 2001-02, para 1

7. The Procedure Committee endorsed the principle of carry-over in 1998. We recommend that the House should now take this endorsement a stage further and agree to Group recommendation (b), but only for Government bills and subject to the provisos on pre-legislative scrutiny in paragraph 6 above. At present, carry-over is restricted to bills that have not yet left the House in which they originated; eligibility of bills for carry-over is settled by informal discussion in the usual channels; and bills are carried-over by ad hoc motions. If Group recommendation (b) is implemented, as we propose, carry-over would no longer be restricted to bills that had not yet left the House in which they originated: any bill that had been subject to prelegislative scrutiny in either House would be eligible for carry-over. Carry-over would be achieved, after discussion in the usual channels, by a motion agreed by one or both Houses, depending on where the bill had been introduced. We would expect the fact that a bill had been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny would influence significantly the judgment by the usual channels in this House on whether the bill should be carriedover. 8. The question of the application of the Parliament Acts to a bill that is to be carried over was raised in the House's debate of 21 May 2002. In theory, the Parliament Acts could be applied to a bill which, having been received by the Lords at least one month before the end of a session, was carried-over but not passed by the end of the next session. In the case of the Lords carrying-over a Commons bill, in order to avoid the Parliament Acts being implemented, the Commons should be invited to agree, before the Lords agrees to the carry-over, to a formal direction that section 2 of the Parliament Act 1911 should not apply to the bill in the ensuing session. 29

The House of Lords agreed to the Committees report on 24 July 2002. 30 During the course of the debate, the late Lord Williams of Mostyn, the then Leader of the House of Lords said:
Each House would decide as to whether it was satisfied that the pre-legislative scrutiny had been of sufficient quality to justify carry-over. 31

In a subsequent question on the procedure of carry-over in the House of Lords, Lord Williams confirmed that a bill originating in the House of Lords would have to have the agreement of the House of Lords before it could be carried over:
Lord Roper: My Lords, will the Lord Privy Seal also agree that the carry-over of any Bill if introduced initially in this House, irrespective of where it is at the end of the Session, will have to be agreed by this House? Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I thought I had said that, but, not being entirely familiar with English as a first language, I must have got it wrong. 32

The Leaders Group in the House of Lords published a Review of Working Practices in September 2004. Despite only one bill, the Constitutional Reform Bill 2003-04 [HL], having been subject to a carry-over motion, it recommended that the existing arrangements for carry-over (that is that carry-over is possible whenever there is general agreement that it would be in the interests of good legislation) should be continued. 33

29 30 31 32 33

Ibid, paras 6-8 HL Deb 24 July 2002 cc371-405, cc421-465, cc479-508 HL Deb 24 July 2002 c442 HL Deb 19 November 2002 c255 House of Lords Leaders Group, Review of Working Practices, 9 September 2004, HL 162 2003-04, paras 8-9

10

Appendix A Bills subject to carry-over motions under permanent procedures

Bill Date of carry-over motion Other details

Welfare Reform Bill 2005-06 Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill 2005-06 Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill 2006-07 Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2006-07 Banking Bill 2007-08 Political Parties and Elections Bill 2007-08

24 July 2006
[HC Deb 24 July 2006 c706]

It was agreed to without a division. It was agreed to on a division: 292 votes to 26 It was agreed to without a division. It was agreed to on a division: 296 votes to 183 It was agreed to without a division. It was agreed to on a deferred division: 285 votes to 216 It was agreed to on a deferred division: 331 votes to 136 It was agreed to without a division. It was agreed to on a division: 273 votes to 113

10 October 2006 [HC Deb 10 October 2006

cc269-272]

4 July 2007 [HC Deb 4 July 2007 c1039] 8 October 2007 [HC Deb 8 October 2007 cc135138]

14 October 2008 [HC Deb 14 October 2008 c765] 20 and 22 October 2008 [HC Deb 20 October 2008 c131;
HC Deb 22 October 2008 c370 and cc425-428]

Equality Bill 2008-09

11 and 13 May 2009 [HC Deb 11 May 2009 c655;

HC Deb 13 May 2009 c910 and cc995-998]

Child Poverty Bill 200809 Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill 2008-09

20 July 2009 [HC Deb 11 May 2009 c680] 20 October 2009 [HC Deb 20 October 2009
cc880-883]

11

Appendix B Carry-over motions: examples 1

1.1

House of Commons
a. Ad hoc motions

Under the ad hoc procedures implemented following the Modernisation Committees initial proposals only the Financial Services and Markets Bill 1998/99 was carried over. The House agreed, without a division, 34 after a short debate, 35 to the following motion:
That the following provisions shall apply to the Financial Services and Markets Bill: 1. Standing Committee A shall report the Bill to the House, so far as then amended, not later than Thursday 11th November. 2. On the report of the Bill to the House in accordance with paragraph 1, further proceedings on the Bill shall be suspended until the next session of Parliament. 3. If a Bill is presented in the next session in the same terms as the Bill reported to the House in accordance with paragraph 1, it shall be read the first and second time without Question put, shall be ordered to be printed, and shall stand committed, in respect of those clauses and schedules not ordered to stand part of the Bill in this session, to a Standing Committee of the same Members as the Members of the Standing Committee on the Bill in this session. 36

1.2

Motions based on temporary Standing Orders

The first bill carried over following the Houses agreement to the temporary Standing Orders was the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill 2002-03. The carry-over motion was:
That if at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament proceedings on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.

1.3

Motions based on permanent Standing Orders

The first bill carried over following the Houses agreement to the permanent Standing Orders was the School Transport Bill 2003-04. The carry-over motion was: That, if at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament proceedings on the School Transport Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.

House of Lords

The only bill to have been agreed to be carried over in the House of Lords is the Constitutional Reform Bill 2003-04 [HL]. The carry-over motion was agreed on 22 March 2004:
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

34

35 36

A division was called for but: Mr. Mike Hall and Mr. David Jamieson were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, and Mr. Eric Forth was appointed Teller for the Noes; but no Member being willing to act as a second Teller for the Noes, Mr. Deputy Speaker declared that the Ayes had it. HC Deb 25 October 1999 cc706-737 Ibid, c737

12

Moved to resolve, That it is expedient that if the Constitutional Reform Bill [HL] (a) has not completed all its stages by the end of this Session of Parliament, and (b) is reintroduced in the next Session of Parliament, the new Bill shall, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 47 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day), be taken pro forma through all the stages completed in this Session.(Baroness Amos.) [] On Question, Motion agreed to. 37

37

HL Deb 22 March 2004 cc471-472

13