Mandate and powers

41.2Joint committees may be appointed to report on a specific matter (for example, parliamentary privilege, House of Lords reform or the conventions between the two Houses)1 or on a particular bill2 or draft bill.3 The date by which such committees must report is usually set out in the order when they are appointed, although this date can be extended.4 A committee has been instructed to report on a specific matter by a specified date, but otherwise given the freedom to report from time to time on other matters within its order of reference in the normal way.5 Joint committees may also be appointed with a permanent existence to undertake a continuing task. Most joint committees in the last category are established under standing orders in both Houses.6

A joint committee has only such authority, and can exercise only those powers, which have been given it by both Houses. A purpose given or a power delegated to it by one House would be ineffective until the other House conferred the same. A power may, however, be explicitly conferred only on the committee of one House where it is already by practice possessed by the committee of the other House.7 By the same token, a mandatory instruction could be given to a joint committee only with the concurrence of both Houses.8

The two Houses may each agree to give a particular joint committee unusual powers, specific to its task, in the same way as either House may choose to do for one of its own committees. A particularly clear illustration of this, to achieve a specific purpose, was the establishment of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards in 2012.9 In order to address a current issue of major political importance, the joint committee was set up with a range of unusual features intended to give it additional political weight, to provide for expert contribution from both Houses (but with Commons leadership) and externally, and to provide increased procedural flexibility. The unusual provisions included: titling the committee as a ‘Commission’, providing for Commons procedure generally to apply and for the Lords to agree with Commons' appointment of the Chair, low quorums (as low as one for evidence-taking sub-committees), powers for the committee to examine witnesses on oath (a power already possessed by Commons committees but not by Lords committees unless formally delegated), powers to allow specialist advisers (including counsel) to examine witnesses, and simplified reporting mechanisms in some circumstances. Provision was also made, unusually, for the costs of the Commission to be reimbursed to the two Houses by the Government.

Reports of, or evidence taken before, former committees10 and other papers11 may be referred by either House to a joint committee.12

A proposal for the appointment of a joint committee may originate in either House, except where the proposal is for the committal of a particular bill or bills to a joint committee, for which the proposal can originate only in the House in which the bill is pending. A bill may be committed to a joint committee on another bill,13 or to a joint committee considering other matters.14

Footnotes

  1. 1. For example, CJ (1997–98) 105, 128, LJ (1997–98) 156, 171, CJ (1998–99) 10, 250, LJ (1998–99) 15, 297 (Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege); CJ (2000–01) 587, 619, 660, 661, 669 (Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform); LJ (2005–06) 760, 847 etc, CJ (2005–06) 582, 612 etc (Joint Committee on Conventions); CJ (2010–12) 812–13, LJ (2010–12) 1359 (Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions); Votes and Proceedings, 16 July 2015, LJ (2015–16) 236 (Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster).
  2. 2. The most recent occasion on which a joint committee was set up to consider a specific bill pending in either House was for the Highways Bill [Lords] of Session 1958–59. See LJ (1958–59) 82, 97, 103, 105, 110, 113 and 120; CJ (1958–59) 77, 82, 88, 93, 96, 98 and 108.
  3. 3. Draft bills have commonly been considered in this way. For details, and other ways of considering draft legislation, see para 26.17.
  4. 4. For example, CJ (2010–12) 498, LJ (2010–12) 1152 (Joint Committee on the Draft Detention of Terrorist Suspects (Temporary Extension) Bills).
  5. 5. For example, the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards CJ (2012–13) 180–81 and LJ (2012–13) 233.
  6. 6. For more on permanent joint committees, see para 41.9 ff below.
  7. 7. As for instance power to agree with the committee of the other House in the appointment of a Chair, or to sit notwithstanding the adjournment of the House.
  8. 8. For example, CJ (1998–99) 284, LJ (1998–99) 352, 357 (Joint Committee on Financial Services and Markets instructed to report on questions relating to the European Convention on Human Rights).
  9. 9. CJ (2012–13) 180–81 and LJ (2012–13) 233.
  10. 10. LJ (1906) 117; CJ (1873) 178; ibid (1903) 232; Minutes of Evidence, CJ (1944–45) 20; ibid (1954–55) 47.
  11. 11. CJ (1872) 375; ibid (1883) 116; Memoranda, CJ (1962–63) 18; ibid (1969–70) 43.
  12. 12. In rare cases, petitions relating to the subject of inquiry have been referred to a joint committee: two petitions were referred to a joint committee considering the principle of a number of different private bills for railway construction, LJ (1864) 44, CJ (1864) 77; a joint committee was established specifically to consider a petition for a bill to give effect to the withdrawal of Western Australia from the Commonwealth of Australia, LJ (1934–35) 56, 94, CJ (1934–35) 103; the Commons ordered that if any petitions were deposited against a hybrid bill (Roosevelt Memorial Bill) they be referred to the joint committee on the bill, CJ (1945–46) 386.
  13. 13. CJ (1924–25) 209–10; ibid (1928) 67.
  14. 14. CJ (1924–25) 193, 203; ibid (1928) 62, 65. Where one House has proposed that a bill should be committed to a joint committee, the second House has made a counter-proposition that it should be committed to a joint committee already appointed to consider another bill or bills, see CJ (1894) 66, 77; ibid (1928–29), 182, 195; LJ (1928–29) 189, 202, 208.