Chapter 6: List of Recommendations
Oral questions
1. We recommend that consideration be given to
conferring upon the Lord Speaker the role currently performed
during question time by the Leader of the House, for a one-year
trial period in the first instance, beginning no sooner than 5
September 2011. In the event of the Lord Speaker's unavoidable
absence from the House, we recommend that the same task be performed
by the Chairman of Committees. [Paragraph 38]
2. We recommend that the procedure adopted in
early 2010, whereby Secretaries of State sitting in the Lords
should answer three oral questions, on one Thursday each month,
directed to them in their ministerial capacity, should be made
permanent, with a view to its revival as appropriate. [Paragraph
41]
3. We further recommend that there should be
a monthly question time dedicated to questions on House of Lords
matters addressed to the Leader of the House. [Paragraph 42]
Private notice questions
4. We recommend that the Lord Speaker interpret
the criteria for allowing Private Notice Questions more liberally.
We believe that the presumption should be that if an issue is
an urgent matter of national importance, the application should
be granted. [Paragraph 45]
Saving time
5. We recommend that instead of Members seeking
leave to ask the questions "standing in their name on the
Order Paper", Members should read out the text of the question,
using the formula "My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's
Government ...." To ensure that this does not take up too
much time, we further recommend a mandatory limit of 40 words
for oral questions (excluding the introductory formula given above).
[Paragraph 48]
6. To ensure best use of question time, we re-affirm
the existing guidance in the Companion on the conduct of
question time, while recommending that it be supplemented by the
following guidance, based on that already found in the Guide
to the Code of Conduct:
- Members should not take up the time of the House
making trivial declarations of non-financial and non-registrable
interests. [Paragraph 49]
7. Finally, we recommend the addition of the
following new guidance:
- Questioners should not thank the Government for
its answers, nor ministers thank questioners for their questions.
[Paragraph 50]
Statements
8. We recommend that the usual channels should,
in deciding whether to repeat a statement in the Lords, also consider
whether it would be a good use of the House's time for the statement
to be read out. In exceptional cases (for instance a long statement,
which has been publicly available for some hours) it may be appropriate
for the text of the statement to be reproduced in the Official
Report without being read out; the remaining oral exchanges would
take place in the Chamber as at present. [Paragraph 57]
9. We recommend that, on days when more than
one oral statement needs to be taken, the option should be available
to take the second and subsequent statements in the Moses Room.
Such statements would take precedence over other business scheduled
in the Moses Room. [Paragraph 59]
10. We recommend that the guidance on backbench
contributions on oral statements be clarified, by removing the
reference to "brief comments". To avoid speech-making,
and with a view to increasing the number of Members who can intervene
on statements, we recommend that backbench contributions should
be limited to questions to the minister. [Paragraph 62]
11. We support the practice of increasing the
time available for backbench questions to 30 or 40 minutes in
exceptional circumstances. [Paragraph 63]
12. We recommend that consideration be given
to conferring upon the Lord Speaker the role currently performed
during oral statements by the Leader of the House or the Government
front bench, for a one-year trial period in the first instance,
beginning no sooner than 5 September 2011. In the event of the
Lord Speaker's unavoidable absence from the House, this task would
be performed by the Chairman of Committees or by another Deputy
Speaker. [Paragraph 64]
Who speaks for the executive?
13. We recommend that renewed consideration be
given, possibly by the Procedure Committees of the two Houses,
to the means whereby ministers sitting in either House may be
enabled to make statements to and answer questions in the other
House. [Paragraph 69]
Pre-legislative scrutiny
14. We recommend that there should be a presumption
that all bills embodying important changes of policy (particularly
constitutional bills) should be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny.
Where such bills have not previously been the subject of wide
consultation, by means of green and white papers, this presumption
should be a requirement. If the Government does not publish a
bill in draft, it should formally explain and justify its approach
to the House. [Paragraph 84]
15. We recommend that the Leader of the House,
along with the Leader of the House of Commons, explore ways in
which the process for reaching decisions on pre-legislative scrutiny
can be improved, so as to make best use of the knowledge and experience
of Members of the House of Lords. [Paragraph 85]
Legislative standards
16. We recommend the establishment of a Legislative
Standards Committee, either as a Joint Committee or as a Select
Committee of the House of Lords, to assess, immediately after
introduction and before second reading, the technical and procedural
compliance of Government bills with standards of best practice
in bill preparation, on which we have made proposals in paragraph
94 of this Report. We recommend that the Committee be appointed
for the remainder of the current Parliament in the first instance,
and that its effectiveness be reviewed towards the end of the
Parliament. [Paragraph 97]
17. We recommend that the Legislative Standards
Committee should report on all Government bills before second
reading. If the Committee were set up as a Lords-only Committee,
it would report only on bills introduced in this House. If the
Committee reported that a bill was not compliant without good
reason, it would be for the House to decide whether or not to
grant a second reading. [Paragraph 98]
Taking evidence on Lords bills
18. We recommend that the Legislative Standards
Committee be tasked with advising the House, in respect of each
Government bill introduced in the Lords, whether an evidence-taking
stage is required, and, if so, whether it should be in the form
of a one-day hearing with the Government or committal to
a Public Bill Committee. We suggest that the last option should
be used only on those occasions where consultation has been inadequate,
or major elements of policy have not been fully explained. [Paragraph
109]
19. We have used the term "Public Bill Committee"
to describe a 14-day evidence-taking procedure, as this term is
familiar both in the Commons and beyond Parliament. We recommend
that, with a view to simplifying the House's procedures, the existing,
obsolete Public Bill Committee procedure be abolished and replaced
by the procedure outlined above. The Special Public Bill Committee
procedure would continue to be used for consideration of Law Commission
bills. [Paragraph 110]
Grand Committee
20. We recommend that a rule be established,
and included in the Companion, that all Government bills
introduced in the Commons should be considered in Grand Committee,
apart from major constitutional bills and emergency legislation
and other exceptionally controversial bills. In the case of such
bills, the minister in charge of the bill should, when moving
the committal motion to Committee of the Whole House, make a brief
statement explaining to the House why the bill was deemed unsuitable
for Grand Committee. [Paragraph 122]
21. We recommend also that all private Members'
bills be committed to Grand Committee. At the same time, the rule
that only one bill per day may be considered in Grand Committee
should be lifted, allowing private Members' bills to be scheduled
after other business, which might include Government bills. If
no amendments were tabled by the deadline of 5pm the previous
day, it would be open to the Member in charge of the bill to move
a motion in the Chamber to discharge the order of commitment.
[Paragraph 123]
22. We recommend that the sitting hours of the
Grand Committee should in future be more predictable and longer.
We propose that, with the exception of a period of around two
weeks at the start and end of each session, there should be a
presumption that the Grand Committee will sit on Tuesday, Wednesday
and Thursday of each sitting week, from 10.30am to 12.30pm, and
from 2.30 until 6.30pm. [Paragraph 124]
Clauses not considered by the Commons
23. We recommend that, in cases where clauses
or parts of a Government bill are not debated in the Commons,
the Government should submit a memorandum to the Legislative Standards
Committee, flagging up which clauses have been affected. The Legislative
Standards Committee should review the Government's memorandum,
and report its findings to the House in order to assist Members
in subsequent scrutiny of the bill. [Paragraph 128]
Speaking times
24. We recommend that the guidance in Chapter
4 of the Companion on speaking limits should be repeated
in Chapter 8, and thereby extended unambiguously to proceedings
on legislation. [Paragraph 132]
25. We further recommend, as the Chamber clocks
are currently used to time debates on amendments rather than individual
speeches, that consideration be given to improving the number
and visibility of annunciator screens in the Chamber, so that
Members can more easily keep track of the length of individual
contributions. [Paragraph 133]
Post-legislative scrutiny
26. We recommend that the House of Lords appoint
a Post-Legislative Scrutiny Committee, to manage the process of
reviewing up to four selected Acts of Parliament each year. [Paragraph
141]
Delegated legislation
27. We recommend that the House should adopt
a resolution asserting its freedom to vote on delegated legislation,
and affirming its intention to use such votes to delay, rather
than finally to defeat, such legislation. Such a resolution would
establish the House's role as a revising chamber in respect of
delegated as well as primary legislation. [Paragraph 155]
28. We recommend that the resolution should contain
the following elements:
- That the House asserts its freedom to decline
to approve any draft affirmative instrument, or to pass a prayer
to annul any negative instrument, laid before it by the Government;
- That the purpose of the House's use of this power
is to enable the Government of the day to reconsider the policy
set out in the instrument;
- That in the event that the House has declined
to approve an affirmative instrument, and the Government has laid
a substantially similar draft instrument, and this instrument
has been approved by the House of Commons, the House will agree
to the approval motion without amendment;
- That in the event that the House has passed a
prayer to annul a negative instrument, and the Government has
laid a substantially similar instrument, the House will not vote
on a prayer to annul the second instrument. [Paragraph 156]
The tabling and scheduling of debates
29. We recommend the establishment of a House
of Lords Backbench Business Committee. We recommend that the committee
be charged with selecting specific types of backbench business,
which are set out in detail below. [Paragraph 178]
30. We recommend that the Committee be made up
of 12 Members, all sitting on the backbenches. It would be for
the parties and the Crossbenchers to determine the mode of appointment,
though we see merit in parties and groups electing representatives,
as they have done to the House Committee. Membership should be
subject to regular rotation (or re-election). [Paragraph 179]
31. We believe that the Committee will strengthen
self-regulation, by bringing greater transparency and accountability
to the process whereby backbench business is scheduled. The aim
of the Committee would be to take account of the views of all
Members, as well as the concerns of the public, in selecting topical
or important subjects for debate. In so doing, it would consider
applications from any Member or Members of the House, and might
invite those Members to present their applications in person.
[Paragraph 180]
32. In particular, we recommend that the Backbench
Business Committee should, initially, be tasked with selecting:
- Subjects for debate on those Thursdays (from
autumn 2011, one each calendar month up until the end of January
in any given session) currently set aside for balloted debates.
- A one hour topical Question for Short Debate
each week. We suggest that the Committee should select the Question
for Short Debate on Thursday, from a list of suggestions submitted
to the Committee by Members in the course of that week. The question
would be asked the following Tuesday or Wednesday.
- Questions for Short Debate to be taken in Grand
Committee on a predictable day set aside for such debates (for
instance, the first Monday each month). [Paragraph 181]
33. We recommend that Members be limited to one
Question for Short Debate in House of Lords Business at
any one time. We further recommend that each Question for Short
Debate should indicate the date on which it was tabled; after
six months it should be removed from the list. [Paragraph 184]
34. We recommend that, in allocating those Questions
for Short Debate for which it is responsible, the Backbench Business
Committee should give priority to Members who have not previously
asked a Question for Short Debate in the current session. [Paragraph
185]
35. We recommend that a ballot, on the day of
State Opening, should be conducted to determine the order of priority
of those Questions for Short Debate tabled at the start of the
session. [Paragraph 186]
Neutral wording
36. We endorse the principle that motions for
debate should normally be worded neutrally. However, we note that
substantive motions for resolution, incorporating statements of
opinion, are already admissible, and therefore recommend that,
in selecting topics for debate, the Backbench Business Committee
should also consider proposals for such motions, whose purpose
would be to allow the House to express an opinion on important
issues of the day. [Paragraph 192]
37. We suggest that during the trial period short
debates on motions for resolution, held either in the dinner break
or at the end of business on Mondays, Tuesdays or Wednesdays,
might be appropriate. It would be for the Committee, in discussion
with the usual channels, to consider this matter further. [Paragraph
193]
Time-limits and speakers' lists
38. We recommend that the guidance in the Companion
on the wording of Questions for Short Debate should be clarified
as follows: "Questions for short debate last for a maximum
of 1½ hours and should therefore be limited in scope."
[Paragraph 200]
Simple language
39. We recommend that the next edition of the
Companion incorporate guidance confirming that the House of Commons
may be referred to by name rather than as "the other place".
[Paragraph 207]
40. We recommend that the current convention
on appellations be discontinued. Instead, we recommend that Members
should refer to other Members by title ("Baroness xxx",
"Lord xxx", "the Bishop of xxx"); where Members
do not know or choose not to use the title, they should refer
simply to "the noble Lord", "the noble Baroness",
"the right reverend Bishop" or "the minister".
Members of the same party or group could still be referred to
as "my noble friend". [Paragraph 208]
41. We recommend that the practice of debating
"motions for papers" be discontinued, and that in future
all general debates not inviting the House to reach a positive
decision take place on "take note" motions. [Paragraph
209]
Measuring influence
42. We recommend that, instead of ministers offering
to write to participants in debate and to place copies of such
letters in the Library of the House, there should be an obligation
on ministers to publish written responses to all substantial points
raised in House of Lords debates (and not answered orally) in
Hansard, as Written Ministerial Statements. Such responses
should be signed by the minister who replied to the debate. [Paragraph
213]
Public initiation of debate: petitions
43. We recommend the abolition of the procedure
for public petitions to the House of Lords, which is archaic and
has fallen into disuse. We consider that in the longer term it
may be desirable to introduce a more effective procedure for public
initiation of business in the House of Lords, but, in view of
recent developments in the Commons, we make no recommendation
in that regard. [Paragraph 220]
44. In the interim, we recommend that evidence
of support from outside bodies, such as non-governmental organisations
and the voluntary sector, be adopted by the Backbench Business
Committee as one of its criteria in selecting subjects for debate
in the House. [Paragraph 221]
Committees
45. We recommend that the House establish two
additional sessional select committees, with the intention of
enhancing its capacity to scrutinise Government policy. In determining
the remit of these committees, we recommend that particular regard
be paid to the need for Lords committees to:
- Make best use of the knowledge and experience
of Members of the House;
- Complement the work of Commons departmental select
committees;
- Address areas of policy that cross departmental
boundaries. [Paragraph 236]
46. We recommend that in future the work of all
investigative select committees of the House should be subject
to regular and systematic review, and that, following the appointment
of the two additional committees recommended above, any further
sessional committees should only be appointed to replace existing
committees, without creating extra demands on resources. [Paragraph
237]
Committee chairmen: mode of appointment
47. We recommend that House of Lords select committees
be charged with electing their own chairmen. Chairmen of sessional
select committees would be elected for three sessions, unless
before completion of that term they either resigned or the Committee
passed a formal vote of no confidence. [Paragraph 240]
Chairman of Committees and Principal Deputy Chairman
of Committees
48. We recommend that the Chairman of Committees
and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees should in future be
elected by secret ballot of the whole House. The detailed rules
governing such elections should be embodied in Standing Orders.
[Paragraph 248]
Debates on committee reports
49. We welcome the willingness of committees
to hold debates on committee reports in the Moses Room, and recommend
that, in order to assist in planning timely debates, one day a
month in Grand Committee be set aside for such debates. [Paragraph
254]
50. We recommend that, in order to promote wider
Member interest in select committee work, the scheduled publication
of committee reports be listed on the Order Paper, and that, for
a trial period, up to five minutes after the end of oral questions
should be made available for committee chairmen to draw Members'
attention to newly published reports. [Paragraph 255]
Business management and self-regulation
51. We reaffirm the longstanding convention that
the House should consider Government business in "reasonable
time". This convention creates obligations for all. The Government
should allow the House a "reasonable" time to consider
any bill—that is to say, an amount of time proportionate
to the complexity and importance of the bill, so that the House
can scrutinise it thoroughly. In so doing they should respect
the minimum intervals between stages of legislation, In exchange
the House, in particular the main opposition parties, should respect
the convention that the Government is entitled to have its business
considered in reasonable time. [Paragraph 272]
52. We urge the Leader of the House to consider
ways in which the work of the usual channels could be made more
accessible to the House as a whole. There should be a more clearly
defined role for the Convenor of the Crossbench Peers, and also
a role for the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee. [Paragraph
273]
53. We recommend that the usual channels communicate
information on business scheduling more widely. They could do
so, for instance, by indicating in Forthcoming Business the number
of days (possibly within a range discussed by the usual channels)
anticipated for stages of Government bills. Such indications would
not be binding, but would assist the House in judging what, in
the context of each bill, constituted "reasonable time".
[Paragraph 274]
54. We remind all Members of the "firm convention"
that the House should normally rise by around 10pm on Mondays,
Tuesdays and Wednesdays; target rising times should reflect this
convention. Whenever there is a reasonable expectation that the
House will sit significantly later, we recommend that the Government
Chief Whip should make a business statement, explaining the reason
for the late sitting, after oral questions. [Paragraph 275]
55. We recommend also that the House should in
future sit at 2pm on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, so allowing
up to an additional two hours sitting time each week. [Paragraph
276]
| 
