Procedure and Privileges
Debate between Lord Gardiner of Kimble and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, the genesis of the changes proposed in the report was a letter from the Leader of the House containing various suggestions to make business clearer and easier for Members to navigate. The changes fall into three broad areas—Questions for Short Debate, time limits and deadlines for speakers’ lists, and explanatory statements for amendments. The committee gave these proposals full and detailed consideration and recommends the following changes to your Lordships.
The five proposals relating to Questions for Short Debate are intended to provide clarity and certainty for Members and to provide greater opportunities, particularly for Back-Bench Members, to ask QSDs. The first recommends increasing the flexibility for scheduling QSDs to allow them to be taken between other items of business and not just as lunch break, dinner break or last business.
The second proposal is that for a trial period, balloted topical QSDs should no longer be scheduled on a Thursday and instead a QSD from the reserve list of QSDs which is drawn from a ballot every five weeks should be tabled. This reflects that the number of entries into the topical QSD ballot has generally been low and on more than a quarter of occasions there has been no valid entry. To ensure that topicality is not lost, the usual channels will be able to select a debate from the reserve list which is particularly topical. If agreed by the House, the impact of this change will be reviewed by the committee by the end of the next Session.
The third proposal clarifies that only the final QSD on the Order Paper should be treated as last business, with the resulting hour and a half time limit. The fourth proposal aims to rebalance the allocation of time so that Back-Bench and Opposition Front-Bench speakers have a greater proportion of the time available. The final proposal on QSDs would add emphasis to the existing Companion guidance that QSDs should be limited in scope to ensure that the Member in whose name the QSD stands can articulate the issues clearly and comprehensively in the time permitted.
The next set of proposals relate to debates. The committee proposes that when Select Committee reports are scheduled for Thursdays, they should automatically be time limited to a total of five hours in the same way as party and balloted debates, thus giving greater predictability to timings on Thursdays. These time limits will not apply to Select Committee reports debated on other days.
The committee also proposes that speakers’ lists for debates should close at 5 pm rather than 6 pm from Monday to Thursday so that Peers participating are informed of the length of time for their contribution as early as possible. This has been happening on a trial basis since January and has received positive feedback.
The final proposal for your Lordships’ consideration relates to explanatory statements for amendments, on which the committee recommends that the guidance in the Companion
“should ‘strongly encourage’ explanatory statements for amendments”
when they meet the criteria in the report. The committee believes that this will be helpful to the House where the meaning of amendments is less clear. Clerks in the Public Bill Office will continue to be able to offer assistance in drafting these statements.
As with all changes, the committee will keep the operation of these latest proposals under review. Our intention, as always, is to assist the smooth running of the House.
I will not speak to the section of the report on resignation and powers of attorney, because it has been superseded by the amendment to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill which was moved by the Leader of the House at Third Reading. When the Bill receives Royal Assent, that amendment will provide an explicit statutory authority for notice of resignation to be given by a person acting on behalf of a Peer who lacks capacity. The committee will bring a Standing Order to the House to implement this provision once the Bill has passed. Until then, no change is proposed in this area.
I commend the report to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I welcome all the provisions in the report, but could the committee turn its attention to the time we are given to consider important subjects at Second Readings and elsewhere? The most egregious example, where the Chief Whip has been excellent in his response, is the Bill currently before the House, tomorrow’s Private Member’s Bill, where our speaking time is reduced to four minutes to talk on what is a highly complex issue. The four minutes has arisen only because of the action of the Chief Whip in ignoring the rule that we finish at 3 pm on a Friday and by providing two days for discussion, which was a sensible way forward and which I very much welcome. However, increasingly, we find at Second Readings of Bills that our speaking time is reduced to two minutes or less. That is because people put their names down to speak. Can the committee not look at this issue? There are a number of possible alternatives.
The great thing about this House is that it has people who know what they are talking about. It also has people such as me who do not always know what they are talking about. To squeeze out people engaging seriously because of the way in which the system operates is a great disappointment.
Given that the Government have a manifesto commitment to deal with ensuring that people participate in this House, I can see this becoming a bigger problem, because people will put their names down to speak and the result will be that our debates are less informed and less able. Surely, this is a matter the committee should turn its attention to.
Conduct Committee
Debate between Lord Gardiner of Kimble and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, as noble Lords know, the Conduct Committee is made up of five Peer members and four external members. The first group of four external members was appointed in autumn 2019 for an initial three years, renewable for a further three years—in other words, until later this year. To help maintain continuity, two of the external members have kindly agreed to step down a few months early, and I thank them for their service to the committee. The appointment of their successors has followed an open competition. That process was delayed by the sad loss of the late noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. The noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, kindly agreed to step in to chair the interviewing panel. She was supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Stowell of Beeston and Lady Prashar, and by one of the continuing external members, Cindy Butts.
I ask the House to approve the appointment of Sir David Steel and Tracey McDermott on the same terms as their predecessors: for three years in the first instance with the possibility of renewal for a further term thereafter. Biographical details are available in the Printed Paper Office. I am confident that both will bring valuable experience and wisdom to the work of this important committee. The final two appointments will be made towards the end of the year. I beg to move.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, may I ask the Senior Deputy Speaker a question? When we debated the excellent report produced by the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, there was an issue that there was a differential in the terms of office between the Peers who were appointed. He is suggesting that this appointment will be for three years, with the opportunity of renewal for another three years. Would that apply to Peers who are appointed to the committee?
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. To clarify, the rotation of Peer members is a matter that will be coming before the Procedure and Privileges Committee. My understanding is that it was originally not intended that Peer members should be subject to the three-year rotation rule for this committee. That appears at some time to have blended into the three-year rotation. This matter arose, as noble Lords will know, from the review. It will come before the Procedure and Privileges Committee for consideration and will obviously come back to the House for clarification. That is the position; we are going to look at the procedure to clarify what I think was an error some years ago about the term of the Peer members.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I am grateful for that answer but it seems to suggest making an appointment for three years, with which I very much agree, and holding out the possibility of a further three-year term. Is the Senior Deputy Speaker not pre-empting the committee’s decision? Or is it the case that, should it decide that Peers appointed to the Conduct Committee should have only a three-year appointment, the offer of an extension would be withdrawn?
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
I am seeking to say that it was originally not intended that the Conduct Committee membership should be subject to the three-year rotation rule. It appears that this needs to be resolved, and that is why it has come up for consideration by the Procedure Committee. Obviously, I cannot pre-empt what the Procedure Committee or your Lordships may decide—I am very well aware of that—but I am setting out the parameters of what the Procedure Committee and the House may need to resolve so that the Peer members are not subject to the three-year rotation rule if that is what the House, and before that the Procedure Committee, should wish.