3rd Report from the Procedure
Committee
House of Lords Reform Act 2014:
further consequential changes
1. In our first report of this session we set
out a number of changes to the House's procedures consequent on
the House of Lords Reform Act 2014.[1]
In this report we recommend three further changes.
VALEDICTORY SPEECHES
2. Under section 1 of the House of Lords Reform
Act 2014 a member may resign from the House by giving the Clerk
of the Parliaments written notice of that; such a letter must
specify a date from which the resignation is to take effect. We
consider that a member who has formally notified his or her retirement
should have the opportunity of making a valedictory speech. Like
maiden speeches, certain conventions should apply to valedictory
speeches: they should be short (less than 10 minutes), uncontroversial
and made in a debate with a speakers list. The member speaking
immediately after a valedictory speech would pay tribute to the
departing member, plus the front benches if they wish. We also
consider that valedictory speeches should be marked in Hansard
in a similar way to maiden speeches.
3. We recommend that members who give written
notice of their resignation under section 1 of the House of Lords
Reform Act 2014 should be able to make a valedictory speech before
the resignation takes effect. Such speeches would be afforded
the same courtesies as maiden speeches and would be marked in
Hansard.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF A PEER CEASING TO
BE A MEMBER
4. We consider it appropriate for the House to
be notified by the Lord Speaker when a member leaves the
House under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. Such notification
would take place at the start of business on the day a peer ceases
to be a member.[2]
5. We recommend that the Lord Speaker
should inform the House before oral questions (or, on a Friday,
at the start of the sitting) when a peer ceases to be a member
of the House under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014.
OMISSION OF STANDING ORDER 22(5)
6. Under section 2 of the House of Lords Reform
Act 2014 a peer ceases to be a member of the House if he or she
does not attend during a session lasting six months or more. However,
this does not apply to members who are on leave of absence.
7. Standing order 22 provides for the House's
scheme of leave of absence. Under paragraph (3), at the start
of each Parliament the Clerk of the Parliaments writes to all
peers who were on leave of absence in the preceding Parliament
asking if they wish to apply for leave of absence for the new
Parliament. Under paragraph (4), the Clerk of the Parliaments
writes to peers who are not on leave of absence but who attended
very infrequently in the preceding session asking if they wish
to apply for leave of absence. If a peer does not reply to a letter
sent under paragraphs (3) or (4) within three months, under paragraph
(5) the peer is granted leave of absence. The effect is that a
peer who does not respond to letters about leave of absence is
automatically granted it. By not responding and so being granted
leave of absence the peer would not leave the House under section
2 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. We consider this to be
contrary to the spirit of that Act. We recommend that standing
order 22(5) be omitted.
8. The effect of this change would be that, if
a peer does not respond to a letter inviting him or her to take
leave of absence, and then does not attend in the following session,
he or she would cease to be a member. We note that if this change
is agreed to the Clerk of the Parliaments plans to alter the terms
of his letters so as to warn recipients of the effect of not replying
and then not attending.
Questions for short debate
9. Paragraph 6.44
of the Companion to the Standing Orders limits members
to having one question for short debate (QSD) in House of Lords
Business (whether set down for a day or in the list of QSDs
for which no day has been named) at one time. We are aware that
this rule caused a difficulty when a member seeking to ask a QSD
about a report of a committee which he chairs was unable to do
so because he had a QSD already set down in his own name. We do
not consider that the limit on QSDs was intended to cover this
scenario, as it can be for the convenience of the House for a
select committee report to be debated by means of a QSD rather
than on a "take note" motion. Nor do we consider that
the limit was intended to cover topical QSDs.
10. We recommend that questions for short
debate (QSDs) on select committee reports and topical QSDs should
not count towards the limit of each member having one QSD in House
of Lords Business at one time.
11. If the above change is agreed to, the following
text will be added as a footnote to paragraph 6.44
of the Companion:
"This limitation applies to questions for
short debate tabled by members in an individual capacity, either
in the list in House of Lords Business or on a named day;
it does not apply to motions to take note of select committee
reports which have been converted into questions for short debate,
nor to topical questions for short debate."
Queen's and Prince of Wales' consents
12. At present the Queen's and the Prince of
Wales' consents may be notified at second reading or at third
reading of a bill.[3] The
House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee
recently reported on the effect of consents on the legislative
process.[4] One of its
recommendations was that in all instances consent should be signified
at third reading in both Houses.[5]
The chairman of the House of Commons Procedure Committee has written
to us indicating that his committee is minded to agree with this
recommendation, and suggesting that it would be desirable for
both Houses to move in step on this issue. We agree.
13. We recommend that, should the House of
Commons agree likewise, where the Queen's or the Prince of Wales'
consent is necessary on a bill, it should in all cases be signified
at third reading.
1 Procedure Committee, 1st Report of Session 2014-15
(HL Paper 20). The report was agreed by the House on 24 July 2014. Back
2
If the House is not sitting or a sitting has already begun, the
announcement would be made on the next sitting day. If a peer
ceases to be a member between sessions or between Parliaments,
notice would be given on the first day of substantive debate on
the motion for an humble address. Back
3
Normal practice is that where a public bill affects the Royal
prerogative consent is signified before the motion for second
reading, and that where a public bill affects the interests of
the Queen or the Prince of Wales (usually in their capacities
as Duke of Lancaster and Duke of Cornwall, respectively) it is
signified at third reading. Consent on a private bill is normally
signified at third reading. Consent is notified by a minister
who is a privy counsellor; it places the Crown's prerogative and/or
interests at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the
bill. Back
4
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, The impact of Queen's and Prince's Consent on the legislative process
(11th Report, Session 2013-14, HC 784). Back
5
Ibid., paragraph 45. Back
|