Fourth Report Of Session
2010-11 From The Procedure Committee
Election of the Lord Speaker
1. We have considered the arrangements for the
forthcoming election of the Lord Speaker. In particular, we have
considered the timing of the election, and the date at which a
new Lord Speaker, were one to be elected, should take office.
2. The timing of the election is provided for
in Standing Order 19(1), which states that:
19.(1)The
first election of the Lord Speaker shall be held no later than
30th June 2006. Thereafter elections shall be held (a) no more
than five years after the previous election, or (b) within three
months of the death of the Lord Speaker, or his giving notice
of resignation, if sooner. If, after a date has been set in accordance
with (a) or (b), a Dissolution of Parliament is announced, the
applicable deadline shall be extended to one month after the opening
of the next Parliament.
3. We consider that the wording of the Standing
Order is defective. The date of the election is fixed by reference
to the preceding election. The last election took place on Wednesday
28 June 2006; if the next election is to be held on a Wednesday
(the day on which attendance at the House is normally highest)
the latest possible date would be Wednesday 22 June 2011. Over
time, the date would be brought further forward. Moreover, if
a Lord Speaker were either to die in office or resign, the timetable
for all future elections would be re-set by reference to a one-off,
unpredictable event, which might not be convenient for the House
as a whole.
4. We have therefore come to the conclusion,
first, that the Standing Order should specify a fixed date, by
which an election should be conducted every five years; and, secondly,
that in the event of a Lord Speaker dying in office or resigning,
subsequent elections after the one required to fill the vacancy
should revert to the normal pattern. We suggest that the fixed
date by which elections would be held should be 15 July. This
would allow the election to be conducted and the result announced
before the House rose for the summer recess.
5. We have also considered the date at which
a new Lord Speaker should take office. Some time should be given
to allow a new Lord Speaker to rearrange his or her affairs, for
instance in order to comply with the rules on the Lord Speaker's
financial interests. There would also be benefit in allowing a
"handover" period, so that a new Lord Speaker could
be fully prepared before taking on the role. We therefore suggest
that a new Lord Speaker should take office on 1 September following
his or her election. In practice this would mean the new Lord
Speaker taking office in time for the first scheduled sitting
(whether in September or October) following the summer recess.
6. We consider that in all other respects the
forthcoming election should follow the same procedure as applied
in 2006.
7. To give effect to these conclusions, we
recommend that the House amend Standing Order 19 in the terms
set out in Appendix 1.
8. If the House agrees these changes, and on
the assumption that there will be a contested election, the timetable
and conduct of the election will be as follows:
By 5pm Thursday 23 June
| Candidatures to be registered. In accordance with SO 19(2), each candidate would require a proposer and a seconder.
|
Monday 27 June | List of candidates published and sent to all Members of the House, together with a statement of each candidate's Parliamentary service, their entry in the Register of Lords' Interests, and election addresses of up to 75 words.
|
Wednesday 29 June | Ballot papers sent to those requesting a postal vote, to be returned by 5pm on Wednesday 13 July.
|
Wednesday 13 July | Voting will take place from 10am to 8pm.
|
Monday 18 July | The Clerk of the Parliaments will report the result of the election to the House at the start of business. Her Majesty The Queen's approval of the House's choice of Speaker will be notified.
|
Thursday 1 September | Any new Lord Speaker will formally take office.
|
Monday 5 September | Any new Lord Speaker will sit on the Woolsack for the first time at the start of business.
|
Tabling of oral questions
9. We have considered proposals made by the Clerk Assistant
regarding the tabling of oral questions. At present four questions
are taken on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. There
are no oral questions on Fridays. The fourth question on Tuesdays,
Wednesdays and Thursdays is a topical question, drawn in a ballot
two working days earlier.
10. Standing Order 43 states that "No notice
of a Question or Motion, other than a Motion relating to a Public
Bill or Order, shall be put upon the Order Paper for a date more
than one month ahead". The result is that oral questions
(four for each Monday, three each for Tuesdays, Wednesdays and
Thursdays) may be tabled up to one calendar month ahead of the
day when the question will be asked. Questions are accepted when
the Table Office opens at 10.00am.
11. These rules mean, for instance, that in any
month with 31 days, four oral questions become available at 10
am on a Friday, and the other nine oral questions become available
at 10 am on a Monday. Priority is given to those Members who can
attend the Table Office in person at these times. These arrangements
are inconvenient for many Members, particularly for those who
live at some distance from London (and who may be travelling to
London on Monday mornings), or who for any other reason are unable
to come to the Palace in person at these times.
12. We consider that these difficulties are best
addressed, first, by amending Standing Order 43 so that the notice
period for questions is reduced from one month to four weeks.
This will mean that three or four questions become available each
working day from Monday to Thursday.
13. Secondly, we believe that the time for tabling
questions should be changed from 10 am until 2 pm, allowing more
Members, including those travelling to London or with outside
commitments in the mornings, to attend the Table Office in person.
A necessary consequence of this change will be that the ballot
for the topical oral question, which currently takes place at
2 pm[1] on Friday, Monday
and Tuesday, will be drawn instead at 1 pm.
14. We accordingly recommend:
- That Standing Order 43 be amended
in the terms set out in Appendix 1, to reduce the notice period
for questions and motions, other than those relating to legislation,
from one month to four weeks;
- That the time at which oral questions will
be accepted by the Table Office (or, in recesses, by the Duty
Clerk) on the day on which they become available should change
from 10 am to 2 pm;
- That the ballot for topical oral questions
(and therefore the deadline for entering the ballot) should be
brought forward by one hour, from 2 pm to 1 pm.
Criticism of individuals in House
of Lords select committee reports
15. On 5 July 2010 the Committee for Privileges
and Conduct published its First Report of 2010-11, Mr Trevor
Phillips: Allegation of Contempt.[2]
The Committee, in dismissing the allegation of contempt against
Mr Phillips, concluded that "in the interests of fairness,
persons who are subject to criticism of a damaging and personal
nature in select committee reports should have similar rights
to those afforded to persons who are criticised in inquiries".
Accordingly, the Committee recommended that "the Procedure
Committee be invited to consider the procedure to be followed
in a case where a committee intends to make a personal criticism
of a named individual (other than a Minister)".
16. The recommendation of the Committee for Privileges
and Conduct was agreed by the House on 27 July 2010. We have accordingly
considered the options for introducing additional safeguards for
individuals criticised in House of Lords select committee reports.
17. We have sought to balance the requirements
of procedural fairness with the necessary freedom of committees
to judge how to handle their own business. We are also conscious
that there are very few cases of such criticism in House of Lords
select committee reports. We are therefore not persuaded that
a formal rule requiring committees to afford similar rights to
those afforded to persons criticised in inquiries is necessary
or proportionate.
18. We therefore recommend that the issue
be dealt with by means of new guidance to select committees, which
would be issued by the Committee Office to clerks and chairmen.
This guidance will draw attention to the principles of procedural
fairness, and will encourage committees actively to consider on
a case-by-case basis whether it would be desirable to give notice
to an individual if a committee were minded to make criticisms
of them of a personal nature. The guidance will also indicate
when such notice might best be given; whether the individual concerned
should be invited to respond to the criticism; and whether that
response should be published along with the other evidence received
by the Committee.
1 See Companion to Standing Orders (2010),
paragraph 6.32. Back
2
Committee for Privileges and Conduct, Mr Trevor Phillips:
Allegation of Contempt, First Report, session 2010-11, HL
Paper 15. Back
|