Procedure and Privileges Committee

Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts

Wednesday 1st December 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[The Senior Deputy Speaker]

That the Report from the Select Committee Speakers’ lists for oral questions and ‘Secretary of State’ questions; Divisions: passreaders (4th Report, HL Paper 104) be agreed to.

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)]

My Lords, the Procedure and Privileges Committee report proposes ending the use of speakers’ lists for Oral Questions and Secretary of State Questions. It may assist the House if I briefly recount the background. Prior to the pandemic, there were no speakers’ lists for Oral Questions. Members who wished to ask a supplementary question stood and began to ask their question. If more than one Member stood, they gave way to each other. If there was a dispute about who should give way, the sense of the House, interpreted by the Leader of the House if necessary, determined which Member should speak.

During the operation of the hybrid House model, speakers’ lists were necessary for all business to manage proceedings; self-regulation was not an option with most of us participating remotely. In July, the Procedure Committee reported proposals to the House about which practices should be retained from the hybrid House model and where we should revert to pre-pandemic ways of working.

It is fair to say that the committee was split when it looked at the matter of speakers’ lists for Oral Questions in July. We decided to consult the House using the voting system on PeerHub to determine the preference of Members. That consultation found a majority in favour of keeping speakers’ lists, so we recommended that to the House and it was agreed on 13 July.

However, we undertook to keep these changes under close review, and in recent weeks it has become clear to us that many Members of the House are increasingly concerned over the effectiveness of Oral Questions. There is a strong sense that removing the element of spontaneity has limited the ability of Members to hold Ministers to account. On some occasions recently, speakers’ lists have not been full by the time they closed, and Members who might have wished to ask a supplementary question in the light of the Minister’s response have been unable to participate. The committee therefore recommends the removal of speakers’ lists for Oral Questions. If the House agrees the Motion, the use of speakers’ lists for Oral Questions will cease with effect from Monday 6 December.

As part of this change, we have considered how the House can continue to benefit from the perspectives of Members who are eligible to participate remotely. We propose that they give notice the day before of their intention to ask a supplementary on a particular Question, as they do currently to join the speakers’ lists. On the day, the normal rotation of supplementary questions between the groups and parties would take place, and at an appropriate point the Leader, on the basis of prior consultation with the usual channels, would stand and indicate that the House might wish to hear from an eligible Member belonging to the party or group whose turn it was.

There would, of course, be no guarantee that eligible Members would be called to ask a question, just as there is no guarantee that a Member physically present will be able to ask a supplementary question in the time allowed. But—and I emphasise “but”—we trust that the sense of the House, assisted by the Leader of the House, will support their continuing full participation.

The committee’s report notes that the conduct of Oral Questions before the pandemic was not immune from criticism. While it ensured spontaneity, it was often voluble and at times fractious. There were also concerns that some Members were discouraged from participating in Question Time as a result. We emphasise —and I underline “emphasise”—that it will be incumbent on all Members to respect the House’s traditions of self-regulation, mutual respect, forbearance and courtesy.

I turn to the amendments to the Motion. At the outset, I outline that all three raise broad issues about the conduct of Oral Questions and the role of the Lord Speaker and Leader—issues that are not addressed in the report before your Lordships. I am, of course, in the hands of the House. I have no mandate from the committee to express a view on the amendments, but I do have a duty to advise on the consequences if any of them is agreed.

The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, is incompatible with the recommendations contained in the report. The report recommends the reinstatement of the pre-pandemic procedure for Oral Questions, while the noble Baroness’s amendment would confer upon the Lord Speaker the task of calling on Members. If her amendment were agreed, my Motion as amended would be self-contradictory. I would therefore propose to withdraw my original Motion and invite the Procedure and Privileges Committee to consider urgently the fundamental changes the House had decided to make to the role of the Lord Speaker, the practical implications of such a change and the implications for the House’s tradition of self-regulation.

The amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Grocott, express regret but do not conflict with the report, so if either of them were agreed I would then propose to move my Motion as amended. I would, of course, also revert to the committee to explore how the concerns expressed could be addressed.

The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, proposes to give the Lord Speaker the power to call Members to speak during Oral Questions. The House has considered the role and powers of the Lord Speaker on a number of occasions, most recently on 13 July this year. On that occasion, the House debated an amendment along very similar lines tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and rejected it by 376 votes to 112, so the House has only recently voted by a considerable margin to retain self-regulation.

The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, expresses regret that the power to call Members participating remotely would be vested in the Leader of the House rather than the Lord Speaker. The view of most members of the committee is that this role sits best with the Leader as part of her task of assisting the House during Oral Questions, as stated in the Companion, and that prior consultation in the usual channels will help identify when to bring in remote participants.

The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, expresses a more general regret about a diminution of the role of the Lord Speaker. I assure your Lordships that the committee is absolutely not seeking any such diminution. The Lord Speaker will continue to preside at Oral Questions and to call the Members with Questions on the Order Paper and all items of business from the Woolsack.

Lastly, I should note that the report contains a short section reflecting on the debate in the House on 25 October—a debate I shall not forget—on moving to pass reader Divisions. I am very grateful to many noble Lords whom I have spoken to since that debate for the very constructive feedback received. The committee will bring revised proposals on pass reader voting to the House in due course. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, on the spontaneity, we are being asked to do a U-turn, of which I am broadly in favour, but the point made by the tablers of the amendments could also be taken into consideration. It was not the case, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, might feel was obvious to everybody, that there was no need for the change made two years ago. It was not made lightly; it was made because the shouting match was a major problem. Is it not possible to tweak what is being proposed? A six-month trial period has a lot of merit to it. We can have the spontaneity as long as we deal with the shouting match.

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)]

My Lords, we have had a very interesting consideration by many noble Lords with very strong experiences of the development of the House.

I must be one of the few Ministers who, when I was a Minister, actively enjoyed Question Time, because the House was at its most electric and boisterous, but civilised. That is the really important point that I take from many of the comments made by noble Lords concerned about the committee’s very clear majority view in its consideration of how Question Time flourishes, not just for noble Lords but for the discourse we should have. I remember looking at the newspaper and thinking, “This is going to come up today”, so I always read the papers before Question Time. Indeed, if I had a fishing Question I always knew that the noble Lord, Lord West, would be there, so I had the statistics on the number of vessels at our disposal. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that I endeavoured to be Lady Trumpington’s Whip. All I can say is that one of the things I remember, and which I put to myself, was the sense and mood of the House.

We have something here that we all cherish, which is the ability for us all to make a contribution. We all come here with a voice. One of the things that we all desperately need, with which I agree and if the House agrees with the committee’s report, is to see how it can be taken more actively on board that noble Lords who have a contribution to make, and for whom the sense of the House is that they should be heard, can be heard.

I pick up the point about Lady Trumpington. There was always a shout of “Trumps!” because she had something to say that was of interest and often of humour. That blend of a civilised Question Time, whereby Members are able to ensure that Ministers give a good account of themselves, their departments and Her Majesty’s Government, is really what the committee was seeking in bringing back this proposal. I am, as I say, the servant of the House and whatever it decides I will do my utmost to facilitate. But there are some lessons that I take back from this.

I also want to say to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, which relates to my feeling the sense of the House, that he may think that he has a loud voice but my view is that he is able to ask questions and the House actively wants to hear from him. Given that sense of when a noble Lord has something important to say, the House should actively encourage hearing it because that is how we get the dynamic that is so important.

I should quickly say to the noble Baroness, Lady Quin —I think she understands this—that if her amendment were agreed, I would have to withdraw the report that the committee has brought before your Lordships because it and her amendment are contradictory. One cannot have a report seeking self-regulation but come back to a situation, if the House were to agree with her amendment, where regulation should come from the Lord Speaker and the Woolsack. I should say to the House that that would be my response, only because the committee would have to give urgent consideration to how such a view might be expressed if the noble Baroness were to press her amendment and be successful. We would need to address considerable issues of procedure and the practical implications.

I hope, however, that noble Lords will understand that all of us on the committee—indeed, the clear majority as well as those who did not share our view—have gone about our endeavour with the best intent, which is to enable noble Lords to flourish and for Question Time to flow with electricity. I was mindful of that and thought that the PNQ on HIV/AIDS was a perfect example of every noble Lord getting in and giving their experience and understanding to the House. That was also pertinent. I am obviously in the hands of the House but, for those reasons and in seeking to reply to the opinions expressed, all of which I respect, I hope that the House will understand the reasons why the committee came back with the report that it has.

[Baroness Quin (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken in this debate, particularly those who said words in support of my amendment. I am also grateful to those who, although they did not agree with the amendment, at least conceded that if we revert to the old system it will be possible to reconsider how it works in practice after an interval of, say, a few months. I hope that the Senior Deputy Speaker and the committee will be responsive to the fact that there were many criticisms of the old system—criticisms that still exist. Perhaps if we accept the committee’s report, we can revisit that issue within a fairly short time, particularly if it does not seem to be working satisfactorily, as I suspect it will not. I may be proved wrong and I would be quite happy to be proved wrong if suddenly Question Time allows in all those who are trying to get in rather than just a few.

Having said that, and being conscious of the fact that we can come back to this decision, I sense the weight of opinion in the House. There is also the fact that the only people who can vote are those present on the estate. When we previously voted on the system, it was a full electronic vote. Given all those considerations and the tenor of the debate, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.