2 Sessional Orders and Resolutions: General
5. The paper from the Clerk of the House and the
Serjeant at Arms outlines the history of the Sessional Orders
and Resolutions.[2] All
the current ones date from 1713 or earlier. Until November 1842,
they were passed after the debate on the Queen's Speech had been
adjourned on the first day, or on the following day; since then,
they have been put to the House when it reassembles in the afternoon
following the delivery of the Queen's Speech at the State Opening
of Parliament, but before the moving of a humble address in reply.
On occasions, other motions such as writs for by-elections have
been taken at this point, but the only other item of business
regularly taken then is the first reading of the Outlawries Bill.
This item embodies a principle mentioned in a minute of 1609,
that when Parliament has been opened, the House should assert
its freedom to consider matters of its choosing, before turning
to the reason for its summons as expressed in the Queen's Speech.[3]
This practice takes only a few seconds and we recommend that
it should continue.
6. The Clerk pointed out that, in the absence of
an Order of Business for the first day of a Session, the Orders
and Resolutions are proposed to the House without notice and have
to be read out in full: they have on occasion given rise to debate
and even (in 1984) a division. During this time, Members are waiting
to debate the Queen's Speech, and the reading out of the Orders
and Resolutions sometimes proceeds against a level of background
noise that does not add to the dignity of the occasion.[4]
7. The Orders and Resolutions are not immutable.
The Clerk's paper lists several Sessional Orders that have been
either converted into standing orders or abolished, in the light
of changing circumstances,[5]
and we therefore need to consider whether the remaining Orders
and Resolutions perform any useful function. Even though—as
suggested to the Clerk by one of our members[6]—there
is an argument for the House to begin a new Session by reminding
itself and others of matters which it considers important, the
current procedure makes no distinction, for example, between the
protection of witnesses (which the House can enforce) and taking
action against those acting corruptly at elections (responsibility
for which was transferred to the courts in 1868). It cannot improve
the standing of the House for it to assert, year after year, that
it "will proceed with the utmost severity" against persons
involved in corrupt practices at elections when it has no intention
of, or responsibility for, doing so. Nor do the current Orders
and Resolutions encompass the full range of rights and privileges
to which the House might wish periodically to draw attention.
8. Putting to one side for a moment the Order relating
to the Metropolitan Police, with which we deal at length in the
next section of our Report:
— the
Resolution about bribery and the provision for Members to withdraw
during any debate on any dispute on their return are obsolete
and misleading, as responsibility for election offences and disputes
now belongs to the courts, not to the House;
— the provision about double returns (two
Members returned for the same seat) relates to an event which
cannot now take place;
— the provision about Members returned
for more than one place (which last happened in 1910) is unlikely
ever to be needed but could be dealt with once and for all (see
below);
— the Order for the printing of the Votes
and Proceedings (the formal daily minutes of the House) is unnecessary
(the Order of Business and the Journals are printed without such
an Order) and the provision that the Speaker should peruse them
before they are printed is not normally carried out;
— the Resolutions against tampering with
witnesses and giving false evidence have some value as statements
of intent, but they do not add anything to the House's powers
to deal with contempts or (in the case of tampering with witnesses
or the giving of false evidence on oath) the statutory powers.[7]
9. We therefore recommend that—
a) the passing of the Sessional Orders and
Resolutions relating to elections, witnesses and the Votes and
Proceedings be discontinued;
b) the House should decide, by agreeing to
this Report, that all Members who are returned for two or more
places in any part of the United Kingdom should choose for which
of the places they will serve, within one week after it appears
that there is no question about their election for that place.
10. The survival of the Sessional Orders and Resolutions
for so long may reflect a desire by the House to begin the Session
with a reminder of matters which it considers important. As we
have explained, the Sessional Orders and Resolutions are no longer
appropriate for this purpose, but we recommend that they should
be replaced by a statement of the duties and responsibilities
of Members, possibly the seven principles of public life as set
out in the Code of Conduct[8]
together with historic claims to privilege including those of
freedom of speech and freedom from legal challenge embodied in
the Bill of Rights 1689; however, we believe that the details
might be left to the Speaker's discretion, perhaps after taking
such soundings as seemed appropriate.
2 See Ev 1-2, 4-5; Q 20 Back
3
See Ev 1, para 4 and footnote 3; also Q 20. The House of Lords
gives the Select Vestries Bill a first reading before the debate
on the Queen's Speech for the same reason. Back
4
Ev 1-2, Qq 1, 13, 20 Back
5
Ev 5-6 Back
6
Q 19 Back
7
Ev 4-5; see also Qq 40-4 about witnesses and Qq 46-7 about Members
returned for more than one place in elections. Back
8
These are: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability,
openness, honesty and leadership (HC 841 (2001-02)). Back
| 
