Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice [25th ed.] 1474313361, 9781474313360

Citation preview

Introduction to the constituent parts of Parliament Contents History of representation in England History of representation in Scotland 1.1Parliament is composed of the Sovereign, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Collectively they form the legislature and as distinct constituent parts of the constitution exercise functions and enjoy privileges peculiar to each.

History of representation in England 1.2The word ‘parliament’ is first used in England in the thirteenth century to describe an enlarged meeting of the King's council, attended by barons, bishops and prominent royal servants, called together to attend the King, advise him on law-making and administrative matters and hear and assist with his judicial decisions. Although knights and burgesses were not invariably summoned to the earliest English Parliaments, by the middle of the fourteenth century they attended regularly, and the Commons (as they were known collectively) came to claim that their assent was a necessary prerequisite for royal taxation. By about the same period, the Lords and Commons began to deliberate separately. The King, Lords and Commons would meet together initially; afterwards the Lords and Commons would deliberate in separate rooms; and finally the Commons or their spokesmen would rejoin the King and the Lords. By the thirteenth century Westminster was the centre of English royal government and the Palace of Westminster the habitual meeting place of the English Parliament. From at least the mid-fourteenth century onwards, the Lords and Commons usually met for the opening of Parliament in the Painted Chamber, and after hearing the cause of summons were ordered to meet separately for deliberation. The Lords would withdraw to a room known as the White Chamber at the south-east corner of the old palace, where they continued to meet until the early nineteenth century, while the Commons would deliberate in either the Painted Chamber or the Chapter House of Westminster Abbey. After 1394 they often used the Abbey's refectory. They did not acquire a permanent meeting place until after 1547, when they were granted the use of St Stephen's Chapel within the Palace.1 There were spokesmen for the Commons from the mid-thirteenth century, though it is not known whether they also presided over the meetings of the Commons. Traditionally the first Speaker was Sir Peter de la Mare in 1376, though the first to be recorded on the Parliament Rolls is his successor, Sir Thomas Hungerford.2 The first reference to a Clerk is to Robert de Melton in 1363.3 The term ‘Member of Parliament’ was originally taken to refer to members of either House. Since the Restoration of 1660, however, it has usually referred to Members of the Commons only.4 The Parliamentary and Municipal Elections Act 1872 ended the use in the returns of the very old terms of knights (for county constituencies), citizens or burgesses (who sat for cities and boroughs), barons of the Cinque Ports, and burgesses of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge; and these distinctions ceased to figure in general use. (For the numbers of members of the Commons at various periods, see paras 1.7–1.11.)

Footnotes 1. For a full account of the meeting places of the Commons until 1547, see A I Dasent Speakers of the House of Commons (1911), p 41. 2. A I Dasent Speakers of the House of Commons (1911); P A C Laundy The Office of Speaker (1964). 3. O C Williams Clerical Organisation of the House of Commons (1953); W R McKay Clerks in the House of Commons, 1363–2002 (2002). 4. Ed H Hobhouse State Papers: Henry VIII (1830–52) iii, p 395; S R Gardiner History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate (1894) i, p 296, n 2. See, however, HL Deb (1916) 22, c 82.

History of representation in Scotland 1.3The pattern of development in Scotland before 1707 was rather different. Parliaments—originally called colloquia —emerged (as they did in England) in the middle of the thirteenth century, as more formal legal and judicial meetings of the King's council, attended by the various ranks of nobility. Other Estates of the community of the realm were added as time went on. The first Estate (bishops and abbots) were among the earliest members of Parliament. The abbots ceased to sit after the Reformation. The membership of the bishops was interrupted during the civil wars of the seventeenth century. They returned at the Restoration, only to be removed finally on the re-establishment of presbytery at the Revolution of 1688–89. Not long after the Wars of Independence in the early fourteenth century, representatives of the royal burghs began to attend, initially only when taxation was demanded. They later became full partners in Parliament. All freeholders who held of the King of Scots were bound to attend his court. The smaller barons were, however, frequently reluctant to do so, and an attempt in 1426 to overcome the problem by instituting shire representative elections on the English model failed. Following the large attendance of freeholding small barons at the Reformation Parliament in 1560 and a further Act of 1587 dealing with shire elections, the presence of shire commissioners, representative of the small barons and separate from the higher nobility, gradually became more regular. Though the Scottish Parliament was formally unicameral, each of the Estates had assigned to it a particular place in the Parliament House and was separately represented on committees.1

Footnotes 1. See Keith M Brown and Roland J Tanner (eds) The History of the Scottish Parliament, Volume 1: Parliament and Politics in Scotland, 1235–1560 (Edinburgh University Press, 2004); Keith M Brown, Alistair J Mann (eds) The History of the Scottish Parliament, Volume 2: Parliament and Politics in Scotland, 1567–1707 (Edinburgh University Press, 2005); Keith M Brown, Alan R MacDonald (eds) The History of the Scottish Parliament, Volume 3: Parliament in Context, 1235–1707 (Edinburgh University Press, 2010).

The Sovereign Contents Prerogative in connection with Parliament Limitations of prerogative 1.4The Crown is hereditary, subject, however, to special limitations by Parliament; and the King or Queen has always enjoyed, by prescription, custom and law, the chief place in Parliament and the sole executive power. The right of succession and the prerogatives of the Crown itself are, however, subject to limitations and change by legislative process with the consent and authority of the Sovereign;1 and in the exercise of the prerogatives and powers of the Crown the Sovereign now, by constitutional convention, depends on the advice of Ministers of the Crown, who continue to serve in that capacity only so long as they retain the confidence of Parliament.

Footnotes 1. For additions made by statute to the royal style and title, see the Royal Titles Acts 1876, 1901 and 1953, and see also, The Title of the Sovereign (Cmd 8748); and MacCormick v The Lord Advocate 1953 SC 396 at 403 and 409–10. The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 made provision about non-discrimination of heirs to the Throne on the basis of gender.

Prerogative in connection with Parliament 1.5The prerogatives of the Crown, in connection with the legislature, are of paramount importance. The legal existence of Parliament results from the exercise of royal prerogative (see para 8.2 ). As ‘supreme governor, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal’,1 the Queen appoints the archbishops and bishops of the Church of England who, as ‘Lords Spiritual’, form part of the House of Lords. All titles of honour are the gift of the Crown, and thus all ‘Lords Temporal’ in the upper House have been created by royal prerogative, and their number may be increased at pleasure. To a Queen's writ, also, Members of the House of Commons owe their election as the representatives of the people. The prorogation of Parliament is also a prerogative act of the Crown (see para 8.5 ). Other important powers will be described in the appropriate place. The Crown also has a close relationship with the presiding officer of each House. The Speakers of both Houses, though elected by them, are submitted to the approbation of the Crown (paras 4.48 and 8.20 ).2

Footnotes 1. 1 Eliz 1, c 1, s 19. 2. LJ (239) 1000.

Limitations of prerogative 1.6Many changes have been effected at different times in the legal succession to the Crown (a notable example are those that occurred at the Revolution of 1688–89). The power of Parliament over the Crown is distinctly affirmed by the statute law and recognised as an important principle of the constitution. The Act of Settlement (1700–01) affirms ‘that the laws of England are the birthright of the people thereof; and all the Kings and Queens1 who shall ascend the throne of this realm ought to administer the government of the same according to the said laws; and all their officers and ministers ought to serve them respectively according to the same’. The Succession to the Crown Act 1707 declares it high treason for anyone to maintain and affirm, by writing, printing, or preaching, ‘that the Kings or Queens of this realm, by and with the authority of Parliament, are not able to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to limit and bind the Crown, and the descent, limitation, inheritance, and government thereof’. The relationship between the Crown and Parliament had earlier been defined in the Bill of Rights, which declared, inter alia, that ‘the pretended power of suspending or dispensing with laws, or the execution of laws, without consent of Parliament, is illegal’, and that ‘levying money for or to the use of the Crown, by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament for longer time or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal’.2

Footnotes 1. For a statutory confirmation of the ancient right of females to inherit the Crown, see 1 Mar Sess 2, c 1; Queen Regent's Prerogative Act 1554 (1 Mar Sess 3, c 1); 1 Eliz, c 3; the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 ended the system of male preference primogeniture. For the form in which the accession of a Sovereign is recognised, see CJ (1837) 488; ibid (1901) 2; ibid (1910) 148; ibid (1935–36) 49; ibid (1936–37) 58; ibid (1951–52) 88. 2. 1688, c 2, arts 1 and 4.

Medieval and early modern representation: England and Wales 1.7The number of Members admitted to the House of Commons has varied considerably at different periods. In the early fifteenth century there were nominally over 250 Members of the Commons; there were two knights from 37 counties, two citizens or burgesses from each of 80 or so cities or boroughs which were by custom represented, and 14 Members from the Cinque Ports. It is, however, impossible to say how many actually attended any Parliament. At the beginning of Henry VIII's reign there were about 300 seats available.1 In that reign 27 Members were added by statute for Wales2 and four for the county and city of Chester,3 and in Charles II's reign four for the county and city of Durham.4 Between the reigns of Henry VIII and Charles II 180 new Members were added by royal charter.5 In 1673 Newark was the last constituency to be enfranchised in this way. There were then 513 Members in England and Wales.6

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

S T Bindoff (ed) History of Parliament 1509–1558 (1982). Laws in Wales Act 1535 (27 Hen 8, c 26). 34 Hen 8, c 13. 25 Cha 2, c 9. 2 Hatsell 413. B D Henning (ed) History of Parliament 1660–1690 (1983), p 104.

Modern representation: Great Britain and the United Kingdom Contents England and Wales Scotland Ireland and Northern Ireland 1.8Forty-five Members from Scotland sat in the Parliament of Great Britain after the Union of 1707, and 100 from Ireland following the Union of 1801 which created the Parliament of the United Kingdom. By these successive additions the number of the Commons was increased to 658; and notwithstanding the changes effected in the distribution of the elective franchise by the Reform Acts in 1832, that number continued unaltered, except by the disenfranchisement of certain cities and boroughs for corruption, until the year 1885, when the number of the House was raised to 670 by the operation of the Redistribution of Seats Act of that year. By the Representation of the People Act 1918 the number of Members was increased to 707, but the reduction of the number of Members for constituencies in Northern Ireland under the Government of Ireland Act 1920, and the cessation of representation of constituencies in the rest of Ireland consequential on the establishment of the Irish Free State, reduced the number of Members of the House of Commons to 615. As a result of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1944, which made temporary provision for the subdivision of certain abnormally large constituencies (specified in the second schedule to the Act),1 the number of Members was increased by 25 to 640. This number was reduced by the Representation of the People Act 1948, to 625, subject to variation by Order in Council on the recommendation of the Boundary Commissions; such Orders in Council were made under the authority of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 and since 1986 under the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 (see para 2.3 ). Although the 1986 Act states that the number of constituencies in Great Britain should not be ‘substantially greater or less than 613’, there has been an increase in the number of seats since 1948. Other rules for the redistribution of seats set down in the Act made it extremely difficult for the Boundary Commissioners to create 613 seats with electorates of broadly the same size.2 Accordingly the creation of new constituencies, because of the growth of population in some areas, was not offset to the same extent by the reduction of seats where population has fallen. There are currently 650 Members of the House of Commons. In 2010, the coalition Government undertook to create ‘fewer and more equal sized constituencies', and subsequently the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 made provision to reduce the number of Members to 600 and to ensure more equal-sized electorates to within 5% above or below the arithmetic norm. The 2011 Act required the Boundary Commissions to report their recommendations for achieving this reduction to the Secretary of State in September 2013; this deadline was delayed until September 2018 by the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013. (see para 2.3 ).3

Footnotes 1. This partial measure of redistribution was recommended by the Speaker's Conference on Electoral Reform and Redistribution of Seats 1944, in their first report. (Letter from Mr Speaker to the Prime Minister, 24 May 1944; Cmd 6534.) 2. See also Boundary Commissions Act 1992 (c 55), s 3. 3. Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 (c 6), s 6.

England and Wales 1.9From 1673 to 1832 there were 513 Members in England and Wales. Following the English Reform Act (the Representation of the People Act 1832) the number was reduced from 513 to 500. The number of knights of the shire was increased to 159. Many boroughs were disenfranchised, while new boroughs were created; after the Act the two universities and the several cities and boroughs elected 341 Members. Further changes were made by the Representation of the People Act 1867 and the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885. Under the Representation of the People Act 1918, England and Wales returned 528 Members. This number was temporarily increased to 553 under the provisions of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1944, but was reduced to 542, with provision for variation on the recommendation of the Boundary Commission, by the Representation of the People Act 1948, which abolished University representation and adjusted the boundaries of many constituencies. The number of constituencies in England and Wales following the general election of 2017 was 573.1

Footnotes 1. The Parliamentary Constituencies and Assembly Electoral Regions (Wales) Order 2006 (SI 2006/1041); the Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Order 2007 (SI 2007/1681); and the Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Amendment) Order 2009 (SI 2009/698).

Scotland 1.10The number of Members for Scotland was increased by the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act 1832 from 45 to 53, 30 of whom were commissioners of shires, and 23 commissioners of burghs. Further changes were made by the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act 1868 and the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885. Under the Representation of the People Act 1918, Scotland returned 74 Members: 38 Members for 21 parliamentary counties; 33 Members for 13 parliamentary burghs; and three Members for four universities in one university constituency. This representation was not affected by the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1944, but the abolition of university representation under the Representation of the People Act 1948 reduced the number to 71, with provision for variation on the recommendation of the Boundary Commission. In 1983 this number increased to 72, and in 2005 it was reduced to 59, following the creation of the Scottish Parliament and a subsequent review by the Scottish Boundary Commission.1

Footnotes 1. The Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) Order 2005 (SI 2005/250). The Scotland Act 1998 (c 46), s 86, abolished the minimum of 71 constituencies for Scotland and required the Boundary Commission for Scotland, in its next report, to calculate the number of constituencies by using the electoral quota for England.

Ireland and Northern Ireland 1.11By the Irish Reform Act (the Representation of the People (Ireland) Act 1832) the number of Representatives for Ireland in the British Parliament was increased from 100 to 105. The Government of Ireland Act 1920 reduced this number to 46 Members, 13 of whom were to represent constituencies in Northern Ireland.1 This reduction was not to take place before the dissolution of the Parliament then existing.2 The Irish Free State (Agreement) Act 1922, s 1(4), provided that after its passing no writ should be issued for the election of a Member to serve in the House of Commons for a constituency in Ireland other than a constituency in Northern Ireland, with the result that the representation of Ireland was reduced to the 13 Members returned by constituencies in Northern Ireland. The temporary provisions of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1944 did not affect this representation, but the abolition of university representation under the Representation of the People Act 1948 reduced the number to 12. Under the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1979, the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland was required, in framing its first report after the passing of the Act, to divide Northern Ireland into no fewer than 16 and no more than 18 constituencies. Since the general election of 1997 there have been 18 constituencies.

Footnotes 1. See Government of Ireland Act 1920, s 19 and sch V. 2. See Government of Ireland Act 1920, s 73(1).

The House of Lords Contents Lords Spiritual Lords Temporal Peers of Ireland 1.12The Lords Spiritual and Temporal sit together and jointly constitute the House of Lords.1 As Members of the House they enjoy the same rights and privileges.2

Footnotes 1. There is no limit to the number of Lords Temporal. In February 2019 there were 668 life peers and 92 excepted hereditary peers (including those subject to statutory disqualification, suspended or on leave of absence). 2. Lords Spiritual do not enjoy privilege of peerage (SO No 6); for the privilege of peerage, see para 12.2.

Lords Spiritual 1.13The Lords Spiritual are the archbishops and bishops of the Church of England having seats in Parliament by ancient usage and by statute.1 In 1847, on the creation of the bishopric of Manchester, it was enacted that the number of bishops sitting in Parliament should not be increased in consequence, and a similar provision has been made in the case of bishoprics which have been created subsequently.2 The following bishops now have seats in the House of Lords: the archbishops of Canterbury and York; the bishops of London, Durham and Winchester; and 21 other diocesan bishops of the Church of England. Previously, when a vacancy arose in one of the 21 spaces not reserved, the next most senior bishop replaced them.3 Under the provisions of the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015, until 2025 any such vacancy is now filled by a female English diocesan bishop, ahead of any male.4 A bishop may resign their see and therewith their seat.5 Bishops are obliged to retire at 70.6

Footnotes 1. They were excluded by Act 16 Cha 1, c 27, and did not resume their seats after the Restoration, in the Convention Parliament, but were restored in the next Parliament, by Act 13 Cha 2, c 2. The four bishops added to the House of Lords, at the Union, to represent the episcopal body of Ireland, were withdrawn after 1 January 1871 on the disestablishment of the Irish Church by the Irish Church Act 1869. On the disestablishment of the Church in Wales on 31 March 1920 (see the Welsh Church (Temporalities) Act 1919, s 2) bishops of that Church ceased, under the Welsh Church Act 1914, s 2(2), to be qualified to sit or vote as Lords of Parliament, and no bishop of the Church in Wales is, as such, to be summoned to the House of Lords. The vacancies caused by the withdrawal of the bishops of the Church in Wales who had seats in Parliament were supplied by the issue of writs of summons to bishops not disqualified by the Act who had not previously received writs of summons (Welsh Church Act 1914, s 2(3)). 2. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners Act 1847, s 2; Bishopric Acts relating to St Albans, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict, c 34); Truro, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict, c 54); Liverpool, Newcastle, Southwell, and Wakefield, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict, c 68); Bristol, 1884 (47 & 48 Vict, c 66); Southwark and Birmingham, 1904 (4 Edw 7, c 30); Chelmsford, St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, and Sheffield, 1913 (3 and 4 Geo 5, c 36); Bradford and Coventry, 1917 (7 & 8 Geo 5, c 57); Portsmouth and Guildford, 1923 (14 & 15 Geo 5, Measure No 2); Blackburn, 1923 (14 & 15 Geo 5, Measure No 4); Derby, 1923 (14 & 15 Geo 5, Measure No 5); Leicester, 1925 (15 & 16 Geo 5, Measure No 2). 3. Bishoprics Act 1878, s 5. The Bishop of Sodor and Man has no seat in Parliament, not having originally held his temporalities directly from the Crown. 4. Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015, s 1. 5. Bishops (Retirement) Measure 1986, s 12. 6. Ecclesiastical Office (Age Limit) Measure 1975.

Lords Temporal Contents By-elections 1.14The Lords Temporal1 may be divided into three categories. The first category comprises those hereditary peers excepted from the general provision in the House of Lords Act 1999, s 1, that holders of hereditary peerages should no longer be members of the House. Under s 2 of that Act, there are a maximum of 92 excepted hereditary peers.2 These are the holders of the offices of Earl Marshal (the Duke of Norfolk) and the Lord Great Chamberlain (the Marquess of Cholmondeley) and 90 other hereditary peers3 who, as the Act provides, will remain as Members for their lifetime or until a subsequent Act otherwise provides. Fifteen were elected by the whole House to act as Deputy Speakers and other officeholders, and the other 75 were elected by their party or group.4 The second and third categories comprise what may be collectively described as ‘life peers’.5 The first, and most numerous, category of life peer comprises peers created for life under the Life Peerages Act 1958. The remaining category consists of peers created for life under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876, as amended, who were appointed to serve as salaried Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. The 1876 Act was repealed, and the office of Lord of Appeal in Ordinary abolished, by provisions contained in sch 18 to the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which came into force at the same time as the United Kingdom Supreme Court was established, on 1 October 2009. Thus no new peers will be created within this category. However, existing peers created under the 1876 Act will remain Members. Lords Temporal usually retain their membership of the House for life. Under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, however, a Member is disqualified from attending the proceedings of the House (including the proceedings of a committee or joint committee) if they have resigned from the House or ceased to be a Member by virtue of not attending during a session lasting six months or more, or they have been sentenced to imprisonment indefinitely or for more than one year. Such persons do not receive a writ of summons and may not attend in pursuance of a writ already received. Under the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015 the House may pass a resolution to expel a Member for misconduct. Standing Order No 12 provides that a motion to expel a Member must follow a recommendation from the Committee for Privileges and Conduct after the Member has been found in breach of the Code of Conduct. Expelled Members do not receive a writ of summons and may not attend in pursuance of a writ already received.

Footnotes 1. For disclaimer of peerage, see Erskine May (22nd edn, 1997), pp 13–14. 2. Hereditary peers of first creation were excluded from membership of the House by the House of Lords Act 1999 but were offered life peerages to enable them to remain as Members. 3. SO No 9. 4. Two peers were elected by the Labour hereditary peers, 42 by the Conservative hereditary peers, three by the Liberal Democrat hereditary peers and 28 by the Cross Bench hereditary peers. 5. Following the decision in the Wensleydale peerage case (LJ (1856) 38; T E May (ed F Holland) Constitutional History of England (1908) i, pp 196–201), legislation was necessary to make it possible for life peers to be members of the House. The Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 was the first such legislation.

By-elections 1.15Under Standing Order No 10, any vacancy arising as a result of the death, expulsion or resignation of one of the 90 hereditary peers elected under the House of Lords Act 1999 must be filled by means of a by-election. By-elections are conducted in accordance with arrangements made by the Clerk of the Parliaments and take place within three months of a vacancy occurring. If the vacancy is among the 75, only the excepted hereditary peers (including those elected among the 15) in the relevant party or group are entitled to vote (Standing Order No 10(2)). If the vacancy is among the 15, the whole House is entitled to vote (Standing Order No 10(3)). The Clerk of the Parliaments maintains a register of hereditary peers who wish to stand in any by-election under Standing Order No 10. Any excluded hereditary peer is entitled to be included in the register, not just those who were previously Members of the House. Under Standing Order No 11, any hereditary peer not previously in receipt of a writ of summons who wishes to be included in the register petitions the House, and any such petition is referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report upon whether such peer has established their right to be included in the register (see also para 11.6 ).

Peers of Ireland 1.16By virtue of the Act of Union of 1800 the Peers of Ireland elected 28 of their number to sit in the House of Lords as representatives. Elections were, however, discontinued after 1922. In 1966 the House agreed to a report of the Committee for Privileges to the effect that the provisions of the Act of Union relating to the election of representative peers ceased to be effective on the passing of the Irish Free State Agreement Act 1922 and the right to elect such peers no longer existed.1 Peers of Ireland may petition the House to have their claims to succession established. Such petitions are referred to the Lord Chancellor, who reports his decision to the House.2 Since 1963 a peer of Ireland has been entitled to be elected a member of the House of Commons for any constituency in the United Kingdom and to vote at parliamentary elections.3

Footnotes 1. LJ (1966–67) 263; Report by Committee for Privileges on the Petition of the Irish Peers (HL 53 (1966–67)). 2. SO No 79. 3. Peerage Act 1963, s 5.

The electorate Contents Disqualification of electors Constituencies Registration of electors Electoral registration officers Postal and proxy voting 2.1The persons entitled to vote at a parliamentary election in any constituency are those registered in the register of parliamentary electors for that constituency, who are not subject to any legal incapacity to vote, are either Commonwealth citizens (as defined by statute)1 or citizens of the Republic of Ireland, and are aged 18 years or over on the date of the poll.2 Under the Representation of the People Act 1985 as amended by subsequent legislation, British citizens who are resident outside the United Kingdom can qualify as overseas electors at parliamentary elections in respect of the constituency for which they were last registered, for a period of 15 years after they leave. Overseas electors must make a declaration that they qualify as overseas electors.3 Questions as to residence fall to be determined under the Representation of the People Act 1983, ss 5–7, 7A, 7B and 7C, as interpreted by electoral registration officers.

Footnotes 1. See the British Nationality Act 1981, ss 37, 51(2); to register, Commonwealth citizens are required to be ‘qualifying’, as defined in the Representation of the People Act 1983 (c 2), s 4(6) (inserted by Representation of the People Act 2000 (c 2), s 1(2)). 2. Representation of the People Act 1983 (c 2), ss 1(1), 4. 3. Representation of the People Act 1985 (c 50), s 1. The period, originally five years, was increased to 20 years by the Representation of the People Act 1989 and reduced to 15 years by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c 41), s 141(a). Section 2 of the Representation of the People Act 1985 sets out the requirements of the declaration.

Disqualification of electors 2.2Certain categories of people are disqualified from voting at a parliamentary election. These are: peers with seats in the House of Lords,1 aliens, persons under 18 years of age, convicted persons during the period of their detention in a penal institution (or mental hospital) in pursuance of their sentence,2 and persons found guilty of corrupt or illegal practices at elections.3 The common law rule preventing those with mental impairments from voting was abolished by the Electoral Administration Act 2006 (c 22), s 73(1).

Footnotes 1. By the House of Lords Act 1999 (c 34), s 3, an hereditary peerage does not disqualify its holder from voting at parliamentary elections unless he or she has a seat by virtue of s 2 of that Act. As a result, the relevant sessional resolutions of the Commons, eg CJ (1998–99) 1, have been discontinued. Peers who cease to be Members of the House of Lords under either the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, s 4, or the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015, s 4, are also able to vote in parliamentary elections. (For general discussion, see HL Deb (23 March 2015) 760 cc 1224–26.) For peers not enfranchised by the 1999, 2014 or 2015 Acts, see Parl Deb (1852–53) 128, c 791; ibid (1857–58) 151, cc 926, 927; and opinion of the Attorney-General, ibid (1882) 275, c 12. The courts have conclusively decided that peers have no right to vote or to be entered upon the register of electors (Earl Beauchamp v Overseers of Madresfield and Marquess of Salisbury v Overseers of South Mimms (1872) LR 8 CP 245 and Re Bristol S E etc Election [1961] 3 All ER 354, and see Marquess of Bristol v Beck 71 JP 99, 51 Sol Jo 190. See also the Report of the Committee of Privileges in the case of the Earl of Roden, who before his succession to the title, had been placed on the parliamentary register for the South Down division of County Down, and voted at an election in that division after succeeding to the title, as his name remained on the register, HC 153 (1911); and Re Bristol SE etc Election [1961] 3 All ER 354 ). There is no bar to the Lords Spiritual voting in elections, but by long convention they do not do so (HL Deb (1983–84) 443, cc 242–45; for life peers voting, see HL Deb (23 March 2015) 760 cc 1224–26). Irish peers are entitled to vote under the Peerage Act 1963, s 5. 2. Representation of the People Act 1983, ss 3, 3A; following the ECtHR judgment in Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) [2005] ECHR 681, [2005] ECHR 74025/01 the Government announced that prisoners will be notified that on conviction they will lose the right to vote by amending the standard warrant of committal to prison to ensure that prisoners are notified of their disenfranchisement and that Prison Service guidance for prisoners released on temporary licence and prisoners released on home detention curfew will be clarified, allowing a limited number of convicted prisoners the vote (HC Deb (2 November 2017) 630, c 1007). 3. Representation of the People Act 1983, ss 160, 173.

Constituencies 2.3The Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, s 11 provides that for parliamentary elections, there shall be the county and borough constituencies, each returning a single Member, which are described in Orders in Council made under that Act. The same Act provides for four permanent Boundary Commissions, one each for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; each Boundary Commission is to keep under review the representation in the House of Commons of the part of the United Kingdom with which it is concerned. The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 amended the 1986 Act, so that boundary reviews take place on a five-yearly basis from 2013. It also amended the second schedule to the 1986 Act to give primacy to equalising the size of constituencies and set the number of constituencies at 600. Section 14 of the 2011 Act also provided for a review of the effects of the reduction in the number of constituencies, to be established in 2015, with a majority of the members of the review committee to be Members. The boundary review due in 2013 was postponed by the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013, s 6. The Boundary Commissions were required to report before 1 October 2018 but not before 1 September 2018, and at five-yearly intervals thereafter. The 2013 Act also provided that the review of the effects of the reduction in the number of constituencies should be established in 2020. The Speaker is nominated Chair of each Commission but all other Members of the House of Commons are excluded from membership of a Commission. As soon as may be after the submission of a report from any of the four Boundary Commissions recommending changes in the boundaries of constituencies, a Secretary of State must lay the reports before Parliament.2 As soon as may be after the submission of all four reports, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a draft of an Order in Council for giving effect to the recommendations within them; modifications may be made only on the recommendation of the relevant Boundary Commission. If modifications are made, a statement of the reasons for the modification must be laid at the same time.3 The draft of an Order in Council for giving effect to recommended boundary changes has to be approved by both Houses before it can be made by Her Majesty in Council. If the motion to approve the draft is negatived or withdrawn in either House, the Secretary of State may lay an amended draft before Parliament. The Order in Council has no effect until after the dissolution of the Parliament which approved the draft.4 The Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 provides that the validity of any Order in Council purporting to be made under the Act shall not be called in question in any legal proceedings whatsoever.5 Provisions in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, s 16 (to transfer the functions of the Boundary Commissions to the Electoral Commission appointed under that Act (see para 2.26 )) were repealed by the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (c 20), s 61, without having been brought into force.

Footnotes 1. That Act consolidated the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Acts 1949 to 1979. The 1949 Act substantially re-enacted the provisions of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1944 so far as concerned the creation of Commissions for the regular re-examination of constituency boundaries. Previously, such Commissions had been set up ad hoc, consequential on a change in the franchise. 2. Under the Transfer of Functions (Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986) Order 2018 (SI 2018/780) the functions of the Secretary of State are exercisable concurrently with the Minister for the Civil Service. 3. The Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, as amended by s 10(6) of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011. 4. Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, s 4. For details of earlier provisions for Boundary Commission reviews see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 21, fn 10. 5. Section 4(7). For actions under superseded legislation, see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 21, fn 11.

Registration of electors 2.4The Representation of the People Act 1983 requires that registers of parliamentary electors are maintained by electoral registration officers in Great Britain and by the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland.1 In Great Britain, electoral registration officers have to conduct an annual canvass by reference to residence on 15 October. However, there is no longer a qualifying date for residence: applications for registration may be made at any time and the register is updated on a monthly basis as such applications are received.2 All persons who claim to vote at a parliamentary election must be registered before voting.3 At a general election a person is not entitled to vote in more than one constituency, or more than once in the same constituency at any parliamentary election.4

Footnotes 1. The register is prepared in two versions. The full register contains details of all those registered to vote in a given locality. An open register is available for sale for commercial uses, and electors may choose to opt out of inclusion. Copies of the full register of electors are deposited in the British Library and local councils hold copies; the current full register may be looked at under supervision. The rules governing the supply and use of the registers are found in the Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/1871); see also the Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Description of Electoral Registers and Amendment) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/3198); Representation of the People Act 1983 as amended by the Representation of the People Act 2000, s 9. 2. Electoral Registration Act 1983, as amended by the Representation of the People Act 2000, ss 1–8 and sch 1. See also the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001 (SI 2001/341); The Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/497). Supplementary provisions relating to registration in Northern Ireland were inserted into the 1983 Act by the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. 3. Representation of the People Act 1983, s 1(1); individual registration was introduced by the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013. 4. Representation of the People Act 1983, s 1(2).

Electoral registration officers 2.5In England the council of every district and London borough, and in Wales every county or county borough, is required to appoint one of its officers to be electoral registration officer, to maintain the electoral register for any constituency or part of a constituency coterminous with or contained in the district or borough. In Scotland the appointments are made by the local authorities. In Northern Ireland the duties of registration officer for the United Kingdom parliamentary constituencies are performed by the Chief Electoral Officer.1 Appeal on any decision of the registration officer on any claim for registration or objection to a person's registration lies to a county court (sheriff court in Scotland) and thence on a point of law to the Court of Appeal (in Scotland to three judges of the Court of Session) whose decision is final.2

Footnotes 1. Representation of the People Act 1983, s 8. 2. Representation of the People Act 1983, ss 56 and 57.

Postal and proxy voting 2.6An elector votes in person unless shown in the absent voters list for the election as entitled to vote by post or by proxy.1 Eligibility for an absent vote is determined in accordance with the Representation of the People Act 2000, sch 4 (under which an applicant for a postal vote no longer has to give a reason), except in Northern Ireland, where the provisions remain as in the Representation of the People Act 1985, ss 6–9. These Acts recite the duties of the registration officer to allow applications to be treated as an absent voter, and to keep a record of absent voters and of those for whom proxies have been appointed (as well as of the names and addresses of the persons so appointed). An appeal against the registration officer's decision is the same as that in connection with registration of voters (see above).

Footnotes 1. Representation of the People Act 2000, sch 4 (England, Wales and Scotland); Representation of the People Act 1985, s 5(2) (Northern Ireland). If, however, a person entitled to vote by proxy applies for a ballot paper from the appropriate polling station before the ballot paper has been issued to enable him to vote by proxy, he may vote in person at the polling station.

The electoral timetable and holding of elections Contents Re-election of the Speaker at a general election Recall of MPs Election campaigns 2.7Elections of Members of the House of Commons are held by returning officers in obedience to the Queen's writ out of Chancery. The statutory provisions which determine who are the returning officers for England and Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland are to be found in the Representation of the People Act 1983, ss 24–26. At a general election, all polls must be held on one day, determined in accordance with either s 1 or s 2 of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. The dissolution of Parliament occurs at the beginning of the 25th working day before polling day.1 Within that period the timetable for elections is contained in the Representation of the People Act 1983, sch 1, as amended by the Representation of the People Act 1985, the Electoral Administration Act 2006, s 20, and the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013, s 14. The last day for receiving nominations should be the same in all constituencies, namely, the sixth day after the date of the dissolution of Parliament.2 For a by-election, the returning officer must give notice of the election not later than 4 pm on the second day after that on which the writ is received (Day 3). Nomination papers are delivered (between 10 am and 4 pm) on any day after the date of publication of the notice of election until a day fixed by the returning officer which must be not earlier than the third day after the date of publication of the notice of election (Day 6) nor later than the seventh day after that on which the writ is received (Day 8). The poll takes place on such day as the returning officer may appoint, not being earlier than the 17th, nor later than the 19th day after the last day for delivery of nomination papers. The poll therefore generally takes place between Day 21 and 27, depending on the day fixed as the last for the delivery of nomination papers. In practice, the period is normally towards the shorter end of that range. While there is no statutory provision providing for the cancellation of a by-election when a general election is in progress, it is usual to do this (see para 2.12 below).3 In reckoning time for all election proceedings, Saturdays, Sundays, Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, Good Friday and other Bank Holidays, and days appointed for public thanksgiving or mourning, are to be disregarded. Maundy Thursday was removed from this list in the Electoral Administration Act 2006, s 20. In the event of the death of a candidate after the publication of the statement of those nominated as candidates, the Representation of the People Act 1983, sch 1, provides for the returning officer to countermand the notice of the poll or, if polling has begun, to direct that it be abandoned; thereafter proceedings start afresh as if the writ had been received seven days after the day on which proof of the death was given to the returning officer. Separate provisions apply where an independent candidate dies after nomination, or where the Speaker seeking re-election dies after nomination.4

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, s 3 and Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013, s 14. Rule 1 of the Election Rules; Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983. Conference on Electoral Law: letter dated 26 November 1973 from Mr Speaker to the Prime Minister, Cmnd 5500, but see para 2.12. Representation of the People Act 1983, sch 1, rr 60–65, as amended by the Electoral Administration Act 2006, s 24. See CJ (2005–06) 82 and ibid (2010–12, Part I) 20 for the last occasions of a Member taking the oath after such a deferred election.

Re-election of the Speaker at a general election 2.8When a general election is called, if the Speaker wishes to remain a Member of the House of Commons, he or she must stand in the election. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, s 22, requires candidates to refer to a registered political party or be described on the ballot and nomination form as Independent or for the Speaker to stand under the description ‘the Speaker seeking re-election’. During dissolution the former Speaker retains certain residual statutory duties.1

Footnotes 1. See paras 4.28–4.29.

Recall of MPs 2.9Most by-elections occur through the sitting member dying or becoming disqualified (for which see Chapter 3). A by-election may also be triggered through the Recall of MPs Act 2015. This provides that a recall petition is triggered if any of three conditions is met. The conditions are: 1. A Member has, after becoming a Member, been convicted in the United Kingdom of an offence and sentenced or ordered to be imprisoned or detained, and the appeal period expired without the conviction, sentence or order having been overturned on appeal.1 2. Following a report from the Committee on Standards in relation to a Member, the House of Commons orders the suspension of the Member from the service of the House for a specified period of at least 10 sitting days, or of at least 14 days.2 3. A Member has, after becoming a Member, been convicted of an offence under section 10 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 (offence of providing false or misleading information for allowances claims), and the appeal period expired without the conviction having been overturned on appeal.3 If either the first or third condition is met, the court that imposes the sentence or order in relation to the conviction must notify the Speaker. Under the terms of section 5 of the Act, as soon as reasonably practicable after becoming aware that one of the conditions has been met, the Speaker is required to write to the relevant petition officer, informing them that a Member has met one of the conditions that make the Member subject to a recall petition under that Act.4 The Speaker is not required to give notice in the following circumstances: 1. within the period of six months ending with the polling day for the next parliamentary general election; 2. when the MP is already subject to a recall petition process; or 3. when the MP's seat has already been vacated (whether by the MP's disqualification or death, or otherwise). A recall petition is administered in accordance with the provisions of the Act by the petition officer for the constituency concerned. The petition officer has ten working days to set up and open the petition for signature, or longer if it is not practicable to do it within that time. The petition is made available for signing for a specified period of six weeks. The petition officer may designate a maximum of ten places at which the recall petition is made available for signing. Electors may sign the petition in person, by post or by proxy. If the petition achieves the necessary number of signatures—at least 10% of the number of eligible registered electors in that constituency—the petition officer notifies the Speaker and the seat is made vacant from the date of that notification.5 If a seat is vacated as a result of a recall petition, the Member is not prevented from standing in the ensuing by-election.

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

HC Deb (11 February 2019) 654, c 593. HC Deb (24 July 2018) 645, c 925. HC Deb (24 April 2019) 658, c 758. The Speaker was required to write to a petition officer, for the first time, after a Member was suspended from the service of the House for 30 sitting days on 24 July 2018: HC Deb (24 July 2018) 645, c 928. 5. Votes and Proceedings, 1 May 2019, and HC Deb (1 May 2019) 659, c 310.

Election campaigns 2.10The law on election campaigns is comprehensively set out in Part II of the Representation of the People Act 1983 as amended by the Representation of the People Act 1985, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009. The maximum expense which may be incurred by a candidate or the agent for a candidate is £8,700 for a county or a borough seat, plus a further 9p in a county constituency and 6p in a borough constituency for every entry in the electoral register. For a candidate in a by-election, the limit is £100,000.1 The personal expenses of the candidate are not taken into account in calculating the maximum. Where the Parliament sits for more than 55 months after the date on which it first sat, separate limits (termed pre-candidacy limits) also apply from that moment until the person becomes the candidate.2 The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 imposed, for the first time, limits on national expenditure by political parties and others to promote the election of candidates. The limits for parties are whichever is the greater of £30,000 per constituency contested or £810,000, £120,000 and £60,000 for elections contested in England, Scotland and Wales, respectively. There are special provisions if the campaign period for a general election overlaps with that for other elections.3 The Representation of the People Act 1983 also limits the amount that third parties can spend in support of a candidate. The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014, s 36, set out reporting requirements in connection with such thirdparty expenditure. Under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, s 5, the Electoral Commission is required to publish a report following each general election, and it has issued reports on each general election since 2001, giving the voting results, and the expenses incurred by candidates, political parties and third parties.4 The Commons sessional resolution regarding bribery is no longer passed, given that there is statute law on corrupt practices at elections.5

Footnotes 1. Representation of the People Act 1983, s 76; Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 2014 (SI 2014/1870). 2. Political Parties and Elections Act 2009, s 21. 3. Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, schs 9, 10. 4. This replaces a procedure whereby, shortly after a new Parliament was elected, an address was presented to the Sovereign for a Return showing the expenses of each candidate at the general election, together with the number of votes polled by each candidate, the number of polling districts and stations, the number of electors and the number of persons entitled to vote by post, eg HC 260 (1998–99). 5. For example, CJ (2002–03) 1; and cf CJ (1778–80) 507. The third report of the Procedure Committee HC 333 (2002–03) recommended that the passing of the Sessional Orders and Resolutions relating to elections, witnesses and the Votes and Proceedings should be discontinued. The last time they were moved was on 26 November 2003.

New writs Contents Vacancies of seats during a session Period for presenting election petitions Vacancy by peerage Supersedeas to writs Provisions of the Recess Elections Act 1975 Appointment of Members to issue writs Manner of issue of writs 2.11Whenever vacancies occur in the House of Commons after the original issue of writs for a new Parliament by the Crown, writs are issued out of Chancery by a warrant from the Speaker, which is issued, when the House is sitting, in pursuance of an order of the House of Commons. The causes of vacancy are the death of Members, the acceptance of a disqualifying office, the elevation of Members to life peerages, disqualification in relation to bankruptcy, the establishment of any other legal disqualification for sitting and voting in the House of Commons, and the determination of election judges that elections or returns are void. The various disqualifications for membership of the House of Commons are described in greater detail in the following chapter.

Vacancies of seats during a session 2.12When the House is sitting, and the death of a Member, or other cause of vacancy, is known, the Speaker may be ordered by the House, upon a motion made by any Member, to issue a warrant to the Clerk of the Crown for a new writ for the vacant constituency.1 A new writ is moved as a matter of privilege, without notice2 (see para 19.8 ). If objected to, such a motion may be debated.3 The Speaker has been ordered by the House to make out writs on a future day.4 The debate is taken immediately after questions.5 Writs for by-elections have occasionally been issued, and then superseded due to an ensuing general election.6 A writ was issued for Manchester, Gorton on 28 March 2017 for a poll on 4 May 2017 but Parliament was dissolved on 3 May. On 20 April 2017, the House agreed a motion which requested the Clerk of the Crown to issue a writ of supersedeas in respect of the by-election. In response to that request, the Clerk of the Crown did so. A Speaker's Conference on Electoral Law in 1973 recommended that the motion for a writ should normally be moved within three months of the vacancy in the first four years of a Parliament. This recommendation has not been implemented.7

Footnotes 1. By convention, the motion is moved by the whip of the party which last held the seat. This is followed even when the seat has most recently been won under the description of the Speaker seeking re-election, eg: CJ (2008–09) 631. If no other member of the party whose seat has been vacated has been elected, or has taken their seat, the Government moves the writ, eg Votes and Proceedings, Wednesday 28 March 2018. 2. For previous practice in respect of motions for a new writ where the seat was declared void on grounds of bribery or treating, see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 25, fn 27. 3. See HC Deb (21 July 2009) 496, c 757. 4. CJ (1985-86) 93; in 1983 proceedings at the normal time were postponed and the motion taken later on the same day and amended to order the Speaker to issue a writ on a future day (CJ (1982–83) 311–13); this writ was later discharged before issue. 5. CJ (2008–09) 582. 6. A writ was issued for Warwick and Leamington on 5 November 1923 for a poll on 22 November but Parliament was dissolved on 12 November and the by-election did not take place; a general election was held on 7 December. 7. Conference on Electoral Law, letter dated 26 November 1973 from Mr Speaker to the Prime Minister, Cmnd 5500.

Period for presenting election petitions 2.13Under the Representation of the People Act 1983, s 122, a parliamentary election petition has to be presented within 21 days after the writ has been returned to the Clerk of the Crown. If the petition questions the election or return upon an allegation of corrupt practice, and specifically alleges a payment of money, the petition may be presented within 28 days of the payment. Where a vacancy has occurred prior to, or immediately after, the first meeting of a new Parliament, the writ will not be issued until the time for presenting election petitions has expired.1 Nor will a writ be issued if the seat which has been vacated is claimed on behalf of another candidate. In such cases it has been ruled that the writ should be withheld until after the trial of the claim2 or until the petition has been withdrawn.3

Footnotes 1. For interpretation of this rule, see CJ (1922) 356; ibid (1924) 17; HC Deb (1950) 472, cc 1721–30. 2. Athlone Election, 1859. 3. CJ (1852–54) 161 (Durham); ibid (1866) 156, 158 (Louth).

Vacancy by peerage 2.14Succession to an hereditary peerage no longer disqualifies from membership of the House of Commons, although election to one of the places in the House of Lords reserved for hereditary peers would do so.1 The seat of a Member who is created a life peer is not vacated until the letters patent conferring the dignity have passed the Great Seal.2 When it is advisable to issue the writ without delay, the Member accepts the Chiltern Hundreds before the patent is made out3 (para 3.22 ).

Footnotes 1. House of Lords Act 1999 (c 34), s 3. 2. Parl Deb (1893–94) 13, cc 332, 540. 3. CJ (1880) 328; ibid (1907) 308; ibid (1908) 47, 160, 238, 292. As to the grant of the Chiltern Hundreds or Manor of Northstead to a Member who had succeeded to a peerage, see CJ (1895) 218; ibid (1911) 179; ibid (1912–13) 395, 495, 533; but see also Reports of Select Committees on House of Commons (Vacating of Seats), HC 278 (1894) and ibid 272 (1895). See also para 2.16, fn 3.

Supersedeas to writs 2.15If doubts should arise concerning the fact of the vacancy, the order for a new writ should be deferred until the House may be in possession of more certain information; and if, after the issue of a writ, it should be discovered that the House had acted on a false basis, the Speaker will be ordered to issue a warrant for a supersedeas to the writ.1

Footnotes 1. For example, CJ (1809) 48; ibid (1826) 223; ibid (1830–31) 134, 182; ibid (1851) 12; ibid (1880) 280, 286; and Parl Deb (1880) 253, c 1918. On occasions, other courses have been resorted to. When in 1765 a new writ was ordered for Devizes but doubt was expressed as to whether the sitting Member was dead, the messenger of the Great Seal was ordered not to deliver the writ until further directions. The Member proved to be alive and a supersedeas was ordered to be made out (CJ (1765–66) 391, 404; 2 Hatsell 20n; and 16 Parl Hist 95). See also the case of the city of Gloucester, 19 December 1702; and CJ (1770–72) 546 and 17 Parl Hist 322. See also para 2.12 above.

Provisions of the Recess Elections Act 1975 2.16The Recess Elections Act 1975 makes provision in certain circumstances for issuing writs when seats become vacant during recesses. The circumstances are: a Member's death or accession to the peerage, either during the recess or before it; a Member's acceptance of a disqualifying office (other than the Chiltern Hundreds or the Manor of Northstead)1 during the recess; or a Member's bankruptcy. If a certificate of vacancy is received, the Speaker is required to give notice of the fact and subsequently to issue the warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ.2 Except in cases of bankruptcy, the Speaker may not issue a warrant in respect of any seat that has been vacated by a Member against whose election or return a petition was pending at the last prorogation or adjournment. A new writ for the election of a Member to fill a seat which has become vacant because the Member has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding one year (see para 3.8 ) cannot apparently be issued during a recess. A certificate of vacancy is a certificate signed by two Members requesting the Speaker to cause the writ to be issued. A Member who has accepted a disqualifying office is required to inform the Speaker in writing, which can be done by signing a certificate of vacancy (see paras 3.11–3.21 ). A copy of the notification of the Member's appointment to the disqualifying office published in the London, Edinburgh or Belfast Gazette is also required. A different procedure is followed in the event of a Member's bankruptcy: the Speaker is required to act upon the issue of the certificate of the court, stating that the disqualification inflicted by the Insolvency Act 1986, ss 426A and 427 has not been removed (see para 3.5 ). The timing of the certificate is important. Under the 1975 Act the Speaker may not issue the warrant during the recess unless the certificate of vacancy is received so long before the next meeting of the House for despatch of business that the writ can be issued before the day of meeting. Before a writ is issued, the Speaker is required to publicise receipt of a certificate of vacancy in the Gazette and may not issue a warrant for the writ until six days after the insertion of the relevant notice. In the calculation of the six days, the day on which the notice appeared in the Gazette and any intervening Sunday are counted. The return of the former Member must also have been brought into the office of the Clerk of the Crown at least 15 days before the end of the last sitting of the House. Where it is a matter of the bankruptcy of the former Member, this time limit does not apply.3

Footnotes 1. The Recess Elections Act does not apply to Members who have accepted the Chiltern Hundreds or Manor of Northstead even if subsequently they are elevated to the peerage. 2. For example, CJ (2007–08) 567. Notifications have been made since 1981 (CJ (1980–81) 502); previous occasions when the Speaker issued such warrants during recesses are listed in the General Indexes to the Journals (since 1960–61 to 1969–70). 3. As an example, on Thursday 1 September 2005 the Speaker gave notice of his intention to issue a warrant for the Clerk of the Crown to issue the writ for a vacancy in the Livingston constituency, on the death of the sitting Member. This notice was published by the Gazette on Friday 2 September. The writ was issued on Thursday 8 September 2005.

Appointment of Members to issue writs 2.17At the beginning of each Parliament, the Speaker is required by the Recess Elections Act 1975 to appoint a certain number of Members, not exceeding seven and not fewer than three, to exercise the powers of the Speaker in reference to the issue of writs during a recess at any time when there is no Speaker or the Speaker is out of the United Kingdom. This appointment stands good for the entire Parliament. If the number is reduced to fewer than three, the Speaker is required to appoint one or more further Members.1 Any such appointment is ordered to be entered in the Journals2 and published in the London Gazette, and the instrument is to be preserved by the Clerk of the House, and a duplicate by the Clerk of the Crown. Any one of the Members so appointed may exercise the Speaker's power; if the publisher of the Gazette receives similar notices from more than one of them, only that first received is entered in the Gazette.

Footnotes 1. Recess Elections Act 1975 (c 66), s 4. 2. For example, Votes and Proceedings, 5 September 2017.

Manner of issue of writs 2.18For any place in Great Britain, the Speaker's warrant is directed to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery: and for any place in Northern Ireland, to the Clerk of the Crown in Northern Ireland. On the receipt of the Speaker's warrant, the writ is issued by the Clerk of the Crown, and transmitted in pursuance of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1983.1 Neglect or delay in the delivery of the writ, or any other violation of the Act, is an offence; and in the event of any complaint being made the House will also inquire into the circumstances.2

Footnotes 1. Sch 1, Pt II, rr 3 and 4; Parliamentary Writs Order 1983 (SI 1983/605); Parliamentary Writs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 (SI 1983/606). 2. CJ (1837–38) 410, 418. See also CJ (1840) 122, 127.

Return of writs Contents Correction of error in return to writ Failure to make return to writ 2.19Since the passage of the Electoral Administration Act 2006, s 22, it is no longer possible for a Member to be returned for two places. Previously, at the commencement of each session, the House agreed to resolutions dealing with the case of Members who were returned for two or more places in any part of the United Kingdom.1

Footnotes 1. See para 2.10, fn 5.

Correction of error in return to writ 2.20If any error should appear in the return to a writ, such as a mistake in the name of the Member returned,1 or in the date of the return,2 or in the description of the constituency,3 evidence is given of the nature of the error, either by a Member of the House, or by some other person who was present at the election or is otherwise able to afford information; and the Clerk of the Crown is ordered to attend and amend the return.

Footnotes 1. CJ (1831) 578; ibid (1875) 165; ibid (1878) 53; ibid (1884) 175; ibid (1886) 8; ibid (1887) 54; ibid (1889) 149; ibid (1892) 504; ibid (1895) 348; ibid (1911) 6. In the last case the Member himself directed the attention of the House to the error. 2. ‘November’ being inserted instead of ‘December’, CJ (1841) 3. 3. CJ (1846) 207; ibid (1859) 74; Parl Deb (1859) 152, c 855.

Failure to make return to writ 2.21If no return be made to a writ in due course, the Clerk of the Crown is ordered to attend and explain the omission; if it should appear that the returning officer, or any other person, has been concerned in the delay, he will be summoned to attend the House; and the House will resolve how to proceed.1

Footnotes 1. CJ (1806) 169, 175; Parl Deb (1806) 6, cc 536, 562, 751; CJ (1831) 758, 762, etc; Parl Deb (1831) 6, cc 95, 159, 294, 460. When at the general election of 1910 a returning officer mislaid a writ, he made a statutory declaration to that effect, and certified the names of the Members returned. The Speaker sent the declaration to the Clerk of the Crown, informing the House of its contents. The House instructed the Clerk of the Crown to receive the names as if they had been endorsed on the writ, and amend his certificate to the House (the Return Book, for which see para 8.15 ) accordingly (CJ (1911) 6). After the general election of 1955, the Clerk of the Crown mislaid a return. Before the Member in question was sworn, the Speaker read to the House a statutory declaration by the acting Returning Officer, giving the name which had been endorsed on the writ, and the Clerk of the Crown was ordered to attend the House and amend the certificate accordingly (CJ (1955–56) 13; and HC Deb (1955–56) 542, cc 36–38 and 1039–42).

Procedure under the Representation of the People Act 1983 2.22By the Representation of the People Act 1983, Part III,1 the trial of controverted elections is entrusted to judges selected by rota from the judiciary in the appropriate part of the United Kingdom.2 Petitions complaining of irregular elections and returns or of corrupt or illegal practices are presented to the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in England, in Scotland to the Court of Session, and in Northern Ireland to the High Court of Justice, and are tried by two judges of those courts within the area concerned. Although, under s 126, a shorthand writer of the House must be present to take notes of the evidence (the position of Shorthand Writer to the House is now held by the Editor of Hansard), the House has no cognizance of these proceedings until their determination, which the judges certify in writing, to the Speaker.3 The seat is vacated as from the date on which the judgment is conveyed to the Speaker. In a recent case the Administrative Court allowed an application for judicial review of the election court's determination on the grounds that: ‘Although it is plain that Parliament intended that a lawful decision of the election court must be final in all respects, we do not consider that Parliament intended to provide that a decision that had been made on a wrong interpretation of the law could not be challenged. An express provision to that effect would have been required.’4 Since the trial is not a proceeding of the House, an order of the House is not required to enable the shorthand writer who has attended such a trial to give evidence thereon elsewhere.5 The judges are to make a report in any case where a petition has charged that corrupt and illegal practice was committed at an election. The trial of a parliamentary election petition shall be proceeded with even if the respondent accepts an office vacating his or her seat in Parliament and notwithstanding the prorogation of Parliament. The judges may also make a special report on any matter arising which they think should be submitted to the House.6 Provision is also made for the trial of a special case, when required, by the High Court itself. Such special cases usually involve determination of points of law and may be analogous to appeals, although the scope of the power is not clear.7 In the case of a parliamentary election petition, the High Court should certify to the Speaker its decision on a special case.8 Procedure is laid down for the withdrawal of petitions9 and the judges are also to report the withdrawal of an election petition to the Speaker, with their opinion whether the withdrawal involved corruption.

Footnotes 1. Before 1770, disputed elections were determined in accordance with party strengths on the floor of the House of Commons. In subsequent years, however, the Grenville Act and others made provision for the selection of committees by lot, in an attempt to eliminate partiality. The enterprise was not wholly successful and in 1839 a further statute established a new system, on different principles, increasing the responsibility of individual Members, and leaving little to the workings of chance. These principles subsisted in general until 1868, when the jurisdiction of the House in controverted elections was passed by law to the courts through the Parliamentary Elections Act 1868 31 & 32 Vict. c 125. 2. Representation of the People Act 1983, s 123. 3. For the most recent cases, see CJ (1955–56) 97, 98; ibid (1959–60) 193; ibid (1960–61) 324; ibid (1983–84) 321; ibid (1992–93) 440; ibid (1997–98) 164; ibid (1998–99) 222, 269, 294; ibid (2001–02) 141; ibid (2010–12) 267 Part 1. In this last case the outcome of the judicial review of the decision of the election court was not conveyed to the Speaker or announced to the House. The Speaker may report to the House the outcome of the hearing of a petition by an election court, though the challenge to the sitting Member was not upheld (see eg HC Deb (1992–93) 219, c 764; ibid (2001–02) 373, c 145; ibid (2010–12) 517, c 26). 4. R (on the application of Woolas) v Parliamentary Election [2010] EWHC 3169 (Admin). 5. Speaker's private ruling, 7 February 1873. 6. Representation of the People Act 1983, s 144(4)–(6). For an example of a report relating to allegations of corrupt or illegal practices, see CJ (1964–65) 114 and for an example of a report of the election court after the 1992 general election, see ibid (1992–93) 440. For special reports presented since the Act of 1868, see ibid (1872) 258; ibid (1880) 211. 7. For discussion of the scope and use of the High Court's power to deal with special cases, see Electoral Law: A Joint Consultation Paper, Law Commission, Scottish Law Commission, Northern Ireland Law Commission, LCCP 218 / SLCDP 158 / NILC 20 (2014) paras 13.149–13.152. 8. Representation of the People Act 1983 (c 2), s 146. 9. Representation of the People Act 1983, ss 147–148. See also transcript of evidence of Election Court in re Parliamentary Election for North Kensington laid upon the Table by the Speaker, CJ (1959–60) 193.

Proceedings of the House in matters of election 2.23The Representation of the People Act 1983, s 120, provides that no election and no return shall be questioned except by a petition presented in accordance with the Act. This in no way supersedes the jurisdiction of the House in determining questions affecting the seats of its own Members not arising out of controverted elections. The House, in fact, takes notice of any legal disabilities affecting its Members (see Chapter 3), and issues writs in the room of Members adjudged to be incapable of sitting (see para 3.9 ). A petition relating to an election, but not questioning the return of the sitting Member, may properly be received.1

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1868–69) 194, c 1185.

Proceedings of House upon determination of election trials 2.24All certificates and reports of the election court are communicated to the House by the Speaker, and ordered to be entered in the Journals.1 It is then the duty of the House, under the Representation of the People Act 1983, s 144(7), to make orders for carrying out the determinations of the judges. Where it has been determined that the sitting Member was not duly elected, and that some other candidate was duly elected, and ought to have been returned, the Clerk of the Crown is ordered to attend, and amend the return, by substituting the name of the duly elected candidate for the name of the other candidate.2 When the election is void, a new writ is ordered.3

Footnotes 1. Cf HC Deb (1992–93) 219, c 764. 2. For example, CJ (1955–56) 97–99; ibid (1960–61) 324. 3. For example, CJ (1924) 195, 202; CJ (2010–12) 248–49, 317, 350.

Corrupt practices in elections 2.25The Representation of the People Act 1983 sets out various corrupt and illegal practices which may lead to criminal prosecutions. It is the duty of the Director of Public Prosecutions,1 when informed that an offence under the Act has been committed, to make such inquiries and institute such prosecutions as the circumstances of the case appear to require.2 For details of the consequence of conviction of corrupt practices, see Chapter 3.

Footnotes 1. Section 181 of the Act. Sections 161–163 of the Act contain further provisions regarding the action to be taken where a Justice of the Peace, a member of a profession regulated by law or a holder of a licence or certificate under the licensing acts is found by an election court to have been guilty of corrupt practice or knowingly permitted treating. 2. When general and notorious bribery and corruption have been proved to prevail in parliamentary elections, the House of Commons has suspended the issue of writs, with a view to further inquiry and possible disfranchisement of the corrupt constituencies by statute (see Erskine May (20th edn, 1983), pp 35–36 for occasions when writs have been suspended).

The Electoral Commission 2.26The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 established an Electoral Commission, consisting of between five and nine Commissioners appointed by the Queen on an Address by the House of Commons, moved with the agreement of the Speaker and after consultation with the leaders of each registered party to which two or more Members of the House belong.1 The provisions were amended by the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009, s 5, to add a further four Commissioners nominated by the main political parties represented in the Commons and increasing the maximum number of Commissioners to ten. The functions of the Commission include reporting on the administration of specified elections (including parliamentary general elections) and referendums, reviewing electoral law, provision of policy development grants to qualifying political parties, promoting understanding of electoral and political matters, registering political parties, scrutiny and investigation of parties' income and expenditure and the administration of referendums. To ensure independence from Government, the Commission's Estimate is presented to Parliament by a Speaker's Committee appointed under s 2 of the 2000 Act, consisting of the Speaker, the Chair of the Justice Committee, the Lord Chancellor, a Minister with responsibilities relating to local government (appointed by the Prime Minister) and five Members who are not Ministers (appointed by the Speaker).2 The Committee also approves the Commission's five-year plan, and fixes the maximum number of deputy Electoral Commissioners who may be appointed.

Footnotes 1. Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, ss 1, 3. Members who have not taken the oath do not count towards the specified two Members. For the first appointments, see CJ (2000–01) 50, 53. Commissioners may be reappointed, see CJ (2004–05) 100; see Votes and Proceedings 23 January 2018 for defeat of a motion to appoint a Commissioner. 2. For the first appointment by the Speaker, see CJ (2000–01) 93, and for the first annual report of the Committee, see HC 56 (2002–03). The Act provides that the select committee whose Chair is a member of the Speaker's Committee shall be the one with functions relating to electoral matters. The relevant Minister is also an ex officio member. This is currently the Minister for the Cabinet Office (SI 2016/997).

Overview of disqualification of membership 3.1In this chapter, the legal disqualifications for sitting and voting in either House of Parliament will be considered. Any disqualifications for the Parliament of England were, at the time of the union with Scotland, made applicable to the Parliament of Great Britain.1 Similarly, at the time of the union with Ireland, any disqualifications for the Parliaments of Great Britain or of Ireland were by statute extended to the Parliament of the United Kingdom.2 Some former disqualifications have been removed by statute. The House of Lords has been given powers to expel members in certain circumstances. Its members also now have the right to retire or resign permanently from the House of Lords.

Footnotes 1. Succession of the Crown Act 1707, s 29. 2. House of Commons (Disqualifications) Act 1801, ss 1–3; see also Minors Disqualification Act (Ireland) 1797, s 20.

Aliens 3.2Aliens are disqualified by statute from membership of the House of Commons. By the Act of Settlement 1700–01, ‘no person born out of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland or Ireland, or the Dominions thereunto belonging … (except such as are born of English parents)’ may be a member of either House (s 3). By virtue of a modification made by the British Nationality Act 1981 (sch 7), this provision does not apply to Commonwealth citizens or citizens of the Republic of Ireland. Under the latter Act (s 37) ‘Commonwealth citizen’ means a British citizen, a British overseas territories citizen, a British National (Overseas), a British Overseas citizen or a British subject; or a citizen of a Commonwealth country mentioned in sch 3 to the Act. A person who is non-domiciled for tax purposes may stand for election to the House, but once elected will be treated as domiciled.1

Footnotes 1. Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (c 25), s 41.

Persons under 18 3.3People under 18 years' old are disqualified for election to the House of Commons by the Electoral Administration Act 2006.

By-elections 1.15Under Standing Order No 10, any vacancy arising as a result of the death, expulsion or resignation of one of the 90 hereditary peers elected under the House of Lords Act 1999 must be filled by means of a by-election. By-elections are conducted in accordance with arrangements made by the Clerk of the Parliaments and take place within three months of a vacancy occurring. If the vacancy is among the 75, only the excepted hereditary peers (including those elected among the 15) in the relevant party or group are entitled to vote (Standing Order No 10(2)). If the vacancy is among the 15, the whole House is entitled to vote (Standing Order No 10(3)). The Clerk of the Parliaments maintains a register of hereditary peers who wish to stand in any by-election under Standing Order No 10. Any excluded hereditary peer is entitled to be included in the register, not just those who were previously Members of the House. Under Standing Order No 11, any hereditary peer not previously in receipt of a writ of summons who wishes to be included in the register petitions the House, and any such petition is referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report upon whether such peer has established their right to be included in the register (see also para 11.6 ).

England, Wales and Northern Ireland 3.5Under s 427 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (inserted by the Enterprise Act 2002, s 266 and amended by the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, sch 20, para 12), a person in respect of whom a bankruptcy restrictions order or a debt relief restrictions order has effect is disqualified from membership of the House of Commons. If returned as a Member, the return is void; if a sitting Member becomes disqualified, the seat is vacated. A new writ may then be moved for.1 A court making a bankruptcy restrictions order, or an interim order, or a debt relief restrictions order, or an interim debt relief restrictions order in respect of a Member is required to notify the Speaker. Similarly, the Speaker must be notified if the Secretary of State accepts a bankruptcy restrictions undertaking or a debt relief restrictions undertaking made by a Member. Under the Insolvency Act 1986, s 426C (inserted by s 266 of the 2002 Act), an enactment about insolvency applies to a Member ‘irrespective of any parliamentary privilege’.

Footnotes 1. The legislation is applied to Northern Ireland by the Insolvency Act 1986 (Disqualification from Parliament) Order 2012 (SI 2012/1544).

Scotland 3.6Under the Insolvency Act 1986, s 427, a person against whom sequestration of estate is awarded in Scotland is ineligible as a Member for any constituency. An existing Member is prohibited from sitting and voting in the House or any committee until discharged, or (if this happens first) the adjudication is annulled or the award is recalled or reduced; and if a Member continues under this prohibition for six months, his or her seat is vacated at the end of that period.

Treason 3.7The Forfeiture Act 1870 provides that persons convicted of treason are disqualified for election to or sitting or voting in either House till expiry of the sentence or receipt of a pardon.1

Footnotes 1. Sections 2 and 7.

Other crimes 3.8The Representation of the People Act 1981 provides (a) that any person who, in any country and for any offence, is sentenced or ordered to be imprisoned or detained indefinitely or for more than one year, shall be disqualified while they are detained anywhere in the British Islands or the Republic of Ireland (or are unlawfully at large when they would otherwise be detained), (b) that the election or nomination of such a person shall be void, and (c) that the seat of a Member who becomes so disqualified shall be vacated.1 Under the Recall of MPs Act 2015 any Member who is sentenced to imprisonment (including cases in which the sentence is suspended) and is not otherwise disqualified is subject to a recall petition once the appeal period has expired. If the petition reaches the required threshold, the seat is vacated.2 A Member whose seat has been vacated as a result of the recall process is not disqualified from standing in the subsequent by-election (see Chapter 2).

Footnotes 1. In the past, there was a distinction between felonies (more serious offences, which would attract expulsion) and misdemeanours. For previous examples of the House dealing with MPs found guilty of crimes, see CJ (1903) 40; Parl Deb (1903) 118, c 1121–25, when the House came to no resolution regarding the right to sit of the Member found guilty of an offence under the Forfeiture Act (which also covered felony until the term was abolished in 1967), nor was a motion for expulsion moved. A motion for the issue of a warrant for a new writ was moved forthwith. Cf, however, CJ (1954–55) 25, 29 and HC Deb (1954–55) 535, c 1986 where a Member found guilty of a felony was expelled before a new writ was moved. The House has expelled a Member convicted of a crime not attracting statutory disqualification (eg CJ (1890–91) 282; ibid (1922) 319; and see para 11.33 ). 2. Votes and Proceedings, 1 May 2019 and see para 2.9.

Corrupt practices at elections 3.9The statutory penalties inflicted for corrupt or illegal practices at elections under the Representation of the People Act 1983 may have the effect of disqualification for membership of the House of Commons.1 Following investigation by an election court, a candidate at a parliamentary election who is reported to be personally guilty of a corrupt or illegal practice, is incapable from the date of the report of the court of being elected to or sitting in the House of Commons for any constituency for five years (in the case of a corrupt practice) or three years (in the case of an illegal one). If a candidate who has been elected is found guilty of corrupt or illegal practices (whether personally or through agents) the election is void and the seat vacated.2 Criminal proceedings relating to corrupt or illegal practices may be brought some while after the immediate election period without there previously having been an election petition. On conviction by a criminal court, a person guilty of a corrupt or illegal practice is disqualified for the same periods as above. If already elected, there are provisions for the disqualification not to begin for a maximum of three months while an appeal is pending, during which time the person may not perform any of their functions as a Member of Parliament.3 Under s 174 of the 1983 Act there are provisions for the courts to mitigate and remit incapacities where such incapacities have arisen as a result of the report of an election court and there is a subsequent prosecution.

Footnotes 1. The list of such practices in the Representation of the People Act 1983 has been amended by subsequent legislation. Examples include offences relating to applications for postal and proxy votes in the Electoral Administration Act 2006 (s 40). 2. Following the 2010 general election, a Member was found guilty, by an election court, of illegal practices at the election and his election was ruled void. The Speaker confirmed that the Member had to vacate his seat from 5 November 2010, the date of the report of the court (HC Deb (5 November 2010) 518, c 1)). The High Court allowed a judicial review in which it was concluded that although one finding against the Member could be set aside, two other matters could not ([2010] EWHC 3169 (Admin), [2012] QB 1, [2011] 2 WLR 1362). Subsequently, the Speaker confirmed that the seat had been vacated from 5 November 2010. The Speaker also confirmed that once the report had been received, the matter was no longer sub judice: HC Deb (6 December 2010) 520, c 1. 3. See the Representation of the People Act 1983, s 173, as amended by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. In 1999, before the current provisions were made, a Member was convicted of a corrupt practice in relation to a declaration of election expenses, and the Speaker announced that the seat was accordingly vacated. The conviction was then overturned on appeal, and the Speaker asked the Attorney-General to seek a declaration by the High Court on whether the Member was entitled to resume her seat. The court determined that the Member was so entitled (CJ (1998–99) 222, 269, 294; HC Deb (1998–99) 328, c 1; 329, cc 571–72; 330, c 601; A-G v Jones [2000] QB 66 ).

Clergy 3.10Lords Spiritual (ie those archbishops and bishops who are members of the House of Lords) are disqualified from being (or being elected as) a Member of the House of Commons under s 1 of the House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Act 2001. The same Act lifted the bar on Church of England clergy, ministers of the Church of Scotland and Roman Catholic priests being (or being elected as) Members of the House of Commons.1

Footnotes 1. The Act repealed the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act 1801, which disqualified those ‘ordained to the office of priest or deacon’ and Ministers of the Church of Scotland, and the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829, s 9, which disqualified persons ‘in holy orders in the Church of Rome’. Holders of ecclesiastical office in the Church of Wales had been exempted from disqualification by the Welsh Church Act 1914, s 4. For details of the previous law, including the position of clergy in the Church of Ireland, see Erskine May (22nd edn, 1997), p 43.

Disqualification of certain office-holders Contents Public service disqualification Disqualification by particular office Chiltern Hundreds and Manor of Northstead Effect and disregard of disqualification Mental disorder Jurisdiction of the Privy Council in disqualification Limitation on the number of Ministers in the House of Commons Amendment of House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 3.11The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 replaced the large number of preceding statutory and common law disqualifications by a single flexible code, generally similar in scope to former provisions. Holding an office or place of profit under the Crown or any other office or place does not disqualify except as provided by that Act. The 1975 Act does not, however, affect the law of disqualification in respect of aliens, persons under 18 years of age, peers with seats in the House of Lords, those involved in bankruptcy proceedings, those convicted of treason or those implicated in corrupt or illegal electoral practices. Disqualification is defined in the 1975 Act partly by reference to employment in certain capacities in various branches of the public service and partly by reference to the holding of particular offices mentioned in sch 1 to the Act. Certain of these offices entail disqualification for membership for certain constituencies only. The schedule is subject to amendment by Order in Council following a resolution of the House of Commons.1 It is also amended, from time to time, by other primary legislation (see below).

Footnotes 1. For example, CJ (2009–10) 224–31.

The Civil Service 3.12All persons employed either whole- or part-time in the Civil Service are disqualified; and it is immaterial whether they are serving in an established capacity (House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, s 1(1)(b)). This disqualification applies to the Home Civil Service, the Civil Service of Northern Ireland, the Diplomatic Service, and the Overseas Civil Service (s 1(3)). The Civil Service Code, published under s 5 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, states that civil servants must ‘comply with any restrictions that have been laid down on your political activities'.1 The Civil Service Management Code sets out restrictions that apply and provides guidelines and principles on participation in political activities. Staff at some grades can be reinstated following resignation to allow them to be candidates.2

Footnotes 1. The Civil Service Code, 11 November 2010 (amended 16 March 2015). 2. Civil Service Management Code, November 2016, s 4.4.

The armed forces 3.13Membership of the regular armed forces of the Crown is a disqualification (House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, s 1(1)(c)).1 The armed forces concerned are the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines, the regular army as defined by s 374 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, and the Royal Air Force. Officers on the retired or emergency list of any of the regular armed forces and those holding emergency commissions or belonging to any reserve of officers are not, however, disqualified (s 3(1)). Members of the reserve forces are not disqualified. Admirals of the Fleet, Field Marshals, and Marshals of the Royal Air Force (all of whom are always on the active list) continue to be disqualified only if they actually hold an appointment in the naval, military or air force service of the Crown (s 3(2)). The position of recalled pensioners is safeguarded by the provision that any pensioner recalled for service for which he is liable as such shall not be disqualified (s 3(1)(b)). In addition, members of the armed forces of the Crown on the active list in normal times, ie in periods not affected by emergency legislation, are prohibited from announcing themselves as candidates at a parliamentary election by their own service regulations, as are members of the reserve service on a full-time service commitment or additional duties commitment.2

Footnotes 1. For the position of those who before 1 July 1992 were members of the Ulster Defence Regiment, see Army Act 1992 (c 39), s 3. Members of the Royal Observer Corps, who are technically civil servants rather than members of the regular armed forces, are not disqualified unless they are employed on a whole-time basis (s 3(3)). 2. Members of the armed forces may apply to retire voluntarily, to resign, or to seek a free discharge if they wish to contest an election. For previous arrangements relating to discharge, see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 37, fn 14.

Police 3.14Persons employed as members of any police force maintained by a police authority within the meaning of the Police Act 1996 (as amended by the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, sch 16, para 123), by the Scottish Police Authority or by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, are disqualified under the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (s 1(1)(d) and (3)). The effect of the definition of ‘police authority’ is to disqualify members of all public police forces in England and Wales. The inclusion of the Scottish Police Authority and the Police Authority for Northern Ireland brings the Police Service of Scotland and the Police Service for Northern Ireland within the scope of the disqualification. Members of police forces not maintained by a police authority (for which see Police Act 1996, s 101) are not included in the disqualification.

Members of legislatures outside the Commonwealth 3.15Members of a legislature of any country or territory outside the Commonwealth (other than the Republic of Ireland)1 are disqualified for membership of the House of Commons under s 1(1)(e) of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. Under EU law, membership of the European Parliament is incompatible with membership of any EU national parliament.2

Footnotes 1. The Republic of Ireland was exempted by the Disqualifications Act 2000, s 1. 2. Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Council Decision of 25 June and 23 September 2002 amending the Act concerning the election of the representatives of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage, annexed to Decision 76/787/ECSC, EEC, EURATOM (2002/772/EC, Euratom) Cm 6093, December 2003, pp 5–6.

Judicial office 3.16The holders of the judicial offices1 specified in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, sch 1, Pt I are disqualified for membership (s 1(1)(a)). Judges of the Supreme Court, the High Court, Court of Appeal and Court of Session, together with their counterparts in Northern Ireland, Circuit Judges and District Judges (Magistrates' Courts), Sheriffs Principal and Sheriffs in Scotland are all disqualified, as are certain Commissioners appointed under (for example) tax or social security legislation. Justices of the peace are not included and so are eligible for membership.

Footnotes 1. For the complete list see the certified copy of sch 1, Pt I (see para 3.27 ) or the Act at www.legislation.uk.

Constituencies 2.3The Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, s 11 provides that for parliamentary elections, there shall be the county and borough constituencies, each returning a single Member, which are described in Orders in Council made under that Act. The same Act provides for four permanent Boundary Commissions, one each for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; each Boundary Commission is to keep under review the representation in the House of Commons of the part of the United Kingdom with which it is concerned. The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 amended the 1986 Act, so that boundary reviews take place on a five-yearly basis from 2013. It also amended the second schedule to the 1986 Act to give primacy to equalising the size of constituencies and set the number of constituencies at 600. Section 14 of the 2011 Act also provided for a review of the effects of the reduction in the number of constituencies, to be established in 2015, with a majority of the members of the review committee to be Members. The boundary review due in 2013 was postponed by the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013, s 6. The Boundary Commissions were required to report before 1 October 2018 but not before 1 September 2018, and at five-yearly intervals thereafter. The 2013 Act also provided that the review of the effects of the reduction in the number of constituencies should be established in 2020. The Speaker is nominated Chair of each Commission but all other Members of the House of Commons are excluded from membership of a Commission. As soon as may be after the submission of a report from any of the four Boundary Commissions recommending changes in the boundaries of constituencies, a Secretary of State must lay the reports before Parliament.2 As soon as may be after the submission of all four reports, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a draft of an Order in Council for giving effect to the recommendations within them; modifications may be made only on the recommendation of the relevant Boundary Commission. If modifications are made, a statement of the reasons for the modification must be laid at the same time.3 The draft of an Order in Council for giving effect to recommended boundary changes has to be approved by both Houses before it can be made by Her Majesty in Council. If the motion to approve the draft is negatived or withdrawn in either House, the Secretary of State may lay an amended draft before Parliament. The Order in Council has no effect until after the dissolution of the Parliament which approved the draft.4 The Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 provides that the validity of any Order in Council purporting to be made under the Act shall not be called in question in any legal proceedings whatsoever.5 Provisions in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, s 16 (to transfer the functions of the Boundary Commissions to the Electoral Commission appointed under that Act (see para 2.26 )) were repealed by the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (c 20), s 61, without having been brought into force.

Footnotes 1. That Act consolidated the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Acts 1949 to 1979. The 1949 Act substantially re-enacted the provisions of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1944 so far as concerned the creation of Commissions for the regular re-examination of constituency boundaries. Previously, such Commissions had been set up ad hoc, consequential on a change in the franchise. 2. Under the Transfer of Functions (Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986) Order 2018 (SI 2018/780) the functions of the Secretary of State are exercisable concurrently with the Minister for the Civil Service. 3. The Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, as amended by s 10(6) of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011. 4. Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, s 4. For details of earlier provisions for Boundary Commission reviews see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 21, fn 10. 5. Section 4(7). For actions under superseded legislation, see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 21, fn 11.

Police and Crime Commissioners and elected mayors 3.18Members of the House of Commons may stand for election as a Police and Crime Commissioner. However, if they are elected they must resign their seat before taking up the post of Police and Crime Commissioner. If a Police and Crime Commissioner becomes a Member of the House of Commons, he or she is automatically disqualified from holding office as Police and Crime Commissioner. Members of the House of Lords are not disqualified from being a Police and Crime Commissioner.1 Directly elected mayors are not disqualified unless they also exercise the functions of Police and Crime Commissioners.2

Footnotes 1. Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (c 13), s 67. 2. The Local Government Act 2000, s 39, which provides for directly elected mayors in England and Wales, the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016, s 2, which provides for directly elected mayors in combined authorities in England, and the Greater London Authority Act 1999, s 2, which provides for a directly elected mayor of London, do not add directly elected mayors to the list of disqualifying offices in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. However, if the elected mayor of a combined authority exercises the functions of a Police and Crime Commissioner, that person cannot be a Member of the House of Commons. The Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016, sch 2(9), applies the disqualifications in ss 64–68 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 to mayors for combined areas with Police and Crime Commissioner functions.

Bodies of which all members are disqualified 3.19Part II of sch 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 contains a list of public bodies all of whose members are disqualified1 (s 1(1)(f)). Among those are executive and regulatory boards in a wide range of areas, and certain quasi-judicial and other statutory bodies whose members are appointed by the Crown.

Footnotes 1. For the complete list see the certified copy of sch 1, Pt II (see para 3.27 ) or the Act at www.legislation.uk.

Other disqualifying offices 3.20Part III of sch 1 contains a long list of residual offices which disqualify either on the grounds that their holders are appointed by the Crown or that their holding is incompatible with membership of the House of Commons1 (s 1(1)(f)). Among those listed are Ambassadors and High Commissioners, chairmen (and sometimes their deputies) of a number of public boards, councils, committees or tribunals, Police and Crime Commissioners and Boundary Commissioners. Church Estates Commissioners are not, however, disqualified. Indeed it has been the practice for many years that a Member of Parliament has been appointed Second Estates Commissioner (see paras 18.42, 20.3 fn 1, 22.10 ).

Footnotes 1. For the complete list see the certified copy of sch 1, Pt III (see para 3.27 ) or the Act at www.legislation.uk.

Offices disqualifying for particular constituencies 3.21Certain offices disqualify for particular constituencies1 (s 1(2)). Thus the Lord Lieutenant or high sheriff of a county in England or Wales is disqualified for any constituency comprising the whole or part of the area for which he or she is appointed. Returning officers used to be disqualified from being elected for the constituency for which they made returns. In England and Wales statute has transferred the duties of returning officers to electoral registration officers as acting returning officers, and so the former are no longer disqualified.

Footnotes 1. For the complete list see the certified copy of sch 1, Pt IV (see para 3.27 ) or the Act at www.legislation.uk.

Chiltern Hundreds and Manor of Northstead 3.22It is a settled principle of parliamentary law that a Member, after being duly chosen, cannot relinquish his or her seat;1 and, in order to evade this restriction, a Member who wishes to retire is appointed to an office under the Crown, which legally vacates the seat and obliges the House to order a new writ. The offices usually selected for this purpose are the office of steward or bailiff of Her Majesty's three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham, or that of the steward of the Manor of Northstead. These were undoubtedly offices or places of profit in former times,2 and the legal fictions of their existence and their disabling effect on Members have been carefully preserved in the subsequent statutes relating to disqualification.3 Under s 4 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 it is provided that for the purposes of the provisions of that Act relating to the vacation of the seat of a Member of the House of Commons who becomes disqualified by the Act for membership of that House, the office of steward or bailiff of Her Majesty's three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham, or of the Manor of Northstead, shall be treated as included among the offices described in Pt III of sch 1 to the Act. The practice is to issue the appointment to the Chiltern Hundreds and the Manor of Northstead alternately, so that, if desired, two Members can vacate their seats at the same time. A Member may vacate a seat by appointment to one of these offices in order to stand for re-election in the same or another constituency.4 These offices are today purely nominal and are ordinarily given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to any Member5 who applies for them6 or who otherwise indicates to the Chancellor an intention to retire.7 Each office is retained only until the Chancellor appoints another Member who wishes to retire, or until the holder applies for release from it.8 These offices can be granted during a recess.9 The appointment to any of them during a recess at once vacates the seat of the Member, but the statutory power conferred on the Speaker for the issue of a writ to fill up a vacancy caused by acceptance of office (see para 2.16 ) does not extend to vacancies caused by appointment to these stewardships, so no writ can be issued until the House returns.

Footnotes 1. CJ (1547–1628) 724; ibid (1640–42) 201. 2. According to Hatsell, the practice of applying for the Chiltern Hundreds began about 1750 (2 Hatsell 54n). The offices of steward of the manors of East Hendred and of Hempholme were previously also used for the purpose, the last occasions of their use being respectively 1840 and 1865. For the history of the offices, see HC 278 (1894) pp 57–58. 3. See, for example, Re-election of Ministers Act 1919, sch; and HC 120 (1940–41) pp xix–xx. 4. A sitting Member cannot stand for election to another seat without vacating the first one: for examples of where this has been done, see Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), p 52. For examples of acceptance of these offices for the purposes of re-election, see CJ (1852) 178, 185; Votes and Proceedings (1852) p 285; CJ (1865) 4, 50; ibid (1878) 402; ibid (1972–73) 137, 184; ibid (1985–86) 93, 94 (acceptance of office by 15 Members). In 1955, a Member accepted one of these offices in order to present himself at a by-election in his former constituency, but Parliament was dissolved before the new writ was issued (London Gazette, 25 March 1955, p 1780). Cf also the discharge of an order for the issue of a writ for a by-election caused by the death of a Member which would have been overtaken by the general election announced subsequent to the order being made (CJ (1982–83) 365; HC Deb (1982–83) 42, c 727). In 2008, a Member accepted one of these offices for the purpose of campaigning in the subsequent by-election on a specific issue of public policy (CJ (2007–08) 461, 466, 543). 5. Unsworn Members may be granted these offices (CJ (1849) 340; ibid (1857) 343). When in 1884, Bradlaugh sat and voted without being sworn, he was granted the Chiltern Hundreds, which enabled a new writ to be issued to fill the vacancy which his action had created (ibid (1884) 46). In 1847–48, a Member who had doubts about whether or not he was qualified to sit applied for the Chiltern Hundreds. As the time for challenging his return had expired and as the House had no official cognisance of his probable disqualification, there could be no objection to his accepting the office. See also CJ (2010–12) 400; CJ (2012–13) 440; Votes and Proceedings, 16 June 2018. 6. Parl Deb (1893–94) 8, c 50; ibid (1902) 103, c 212. The grant of the Chiltern Hundreds has been refused (see 18 Parl Hist 418n; HC 544 (1842); Lord Dalling Life of Lord Palmerston (1874) iii, p 103.) See the Memorandum of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Select Committee on House of Commons (Vacating of Seats) (HC 278 (1894) 57–58) on the power to grant or withhold an appointment. 7. HC Deb (2010–12) 522, c 404. 8. Appointments to either office are seriatim, HC Deb (2012–13) 551, c 857. 9. Parl Deb (1892) 1, c 462.

Effect and disregard of disqualification 3.23The first subsection of s 6 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 declares that if a Member of the House becomes disqualified under any of the provisions of the Act, the seat becomes vacant. Where a person disqualified under the Act is elected to the House while disqualified, the election is declared to be void. No special provision is made to cover the situation which arises from an election becoming void in this way; the normal procedure in the case of controverted elections will accordingly apply (para 2.12 ). But the House may itself provide relief from the effects of such disqualification (s 6(2)). If it appears to the House that the grounds of disqualification or alleged disqualification under the Act which subsisted or arose at the material time have been removed and that it is otherwise proper to do so, the House may by order direct that any such disqualification shall be disregarded.1 This power may not, however, be used so as to affect the proceedings on any election petition or any determination of an election court (see para 2.22 ); and under the Representation of the People Act 1983, s 144(7), it is the duty of the House to make the appropriate orders when informed of a certificate and of any report of an election court. Moreover, this provision for relief extends only to disqualification under the Act of 1975. The House cannot therefore employ this procedure in dealing with cases of disqualification arising in any of the ways described earlier, at paras 3.4–3.10. In any case where the Speaker would otherwise be required to issue a warrant during a recess (para 2.16 ) for a new writ for the election of a Member in the room of a Member becoming disqualified under the Act of 1975, the Speaker is authorised to defer the issue of a warrant if of the view that an opportunity should be given to the House of considering provision for relief (s 6(4)).

Footnotes 1. CJ (1974) 71, in accordance with the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957.

Mental disorder 3.24Mental disorder is no longer grounds for disqualification from the House of Commons. Formerly, the Mental Health Act 1983, s 141, provided a procedure whereby the seat of a Member detained under that Act for more than a specified period could be vacated.1 This provision was repealed by the Mental Health Discrimination Act 2013, following a recommendation from the Speaker's Conference on Parliamentary Representation in 2010.2

Footnotes 1. See Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 33. 2. HC 239-I (2009–10), 324–29.

Jurisdiction of the Privy Council in disqualification 3.25Section 7 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 provides that anyone who claims that a person purporting to be a Member of the House is disqualified by the Act or has been so disqualified since his election may apply to Her Majesty in Council for a declaration to that effect; and the application is then referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in accordance with the Judicial Committee Act 1833, s 3. No such application has been made and no rules for such a procedure have yet been made. The Judicial Committee is empowered to make a declaration whether the grounds of the alleged disqualification subsisted at the time of a person's election or arose subsequently, subject to two provisos: that no such declaration shall be made where an election petition is pending or has been tried unless the grounds for the alleged disqualification differ from those being tried by the election court; or where, in the case of disqualification incurred by any person on any grounds, an order has been made by the House of Commons directing that the disqualification shall be disregarded (see above). The House of Commons may itself resolve that a matter should be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council under the Judicial Committee Act 1833, s 4, as has been done on occasions in the past.1 It would appear that this procedure by application to Her Majesty in Council for a declaration by the Judicial Committee provides an alternative method to procedure by election petition under the Representation of the People Act 1983, Pt III so far as disqualifications imposed by the Act of 1975 are concerned. Furthermore, while the Representation of the People Act 1983 imposes a time limit for the presentation of petitions of 21 days after the return of the election has been made, there is no time limit fixed for an application to the Judicial Committee under the Act of 1975. The Judicial Committee has no jurisdiction to make a declaration on disqualification arising otherwise than under the Act of 1975; they cannot therefore hear cases involving disqualifications of the types mentioned at paras 3.2–3.10.

Footnotes 1. CJ (1912–13) 519; ibid (1950) 156. Further provisions are contained in s 7(3) and (4) of the 1975 Act regarding the security for the costs of the proceedings to be given; and the Judicial Committee may direct that issues of fact be tried in the High Court, the Court of Session, or the High Court in Northern Ireland, according to the constituency concerned.

Limitation on the number of Ministers in the House of Commons 3.26Under s 2(1) of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 not more than 95 holders of ministerial offices are entitled to sit and vote in the House of Commons at any one time. For the purposes of this provision ministerial offices are those specified in sch 2 to that Act.1 This schedule may be amended by Orders in Council made under the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975, s 1, in consequence of a transfer of ministerial function or the dissolution of a Department; but the aggregate number of ministerial offices contained in the schedule may not be increased by such an Order. Certain of the ministerial offices listed in the schedule (for example, the offices of Secretary of State and Minister of State) are commonly held by more than one person. The number of ministers who can be paid is controlled by the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975. In sch 1 to that Act the list of ministerial office-holders is sub-divided into four parts. Part I comprises the Prime Minister, the Secretaries of State and other office-holders who are members of the cabinet; Part II comprises Ministers of State and other Ministers not in the cabinet; Part III comprises the law officers; and Part IV the Parliamentary Secretaries, officers of the Royal Household and Assistant Government Whips. Not more than 21 salaries may be paid at the same time in respect of office-holders in Part I and not more than 50 in respect of office-holders in Parts I and II together; and the total number of office-holders in Parts I and II, taken together with the total number of Parliamentary Secretaries, must not exceed 83. The office of Lord Chancellor, which is also paid a salary by virtue of the Act, is not listed in the Schedule. Since passage of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 the post of Lord Chancellor has commonly been combined with that of Secretary of State. Additional Ministers may be appointed, but they may not be paid. If at any time the number of Ministers in the House of Commons exceeds 95, the Ministers appointed after the limit was reached are disqualified from sitting and voting until the numbers have been reduced by death, resignation or otherwise to the maximum permitted number (s 2(2)).2 Ministers are not disqualified by reason of an office held ex officio as the holder of the Ministerial office concerned (s 2(3)).

Footnotes 1. For the complete list see the latest amended copy (cf above) of sch 2. The limit applies whether or not the office-holders are paid. 2. See HC Deb (2010–12) 513, cc 811–12.

Amendment of House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 3.27Schedule 1 to the Act of 1975, in which the disqualifying offices are listed individually, is subject under s 5(1) of the Act to amendment by Order in Council on resolution by the House of Commons;1 and Acts creating new offices or official bodies commonly provide for the insertion of these offices or bodies in the relevant part of the schedule.2 A copy of the Act as amended from time to time by Order in Council or any other enactment is prepared and certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments and deposited with the rolls of Parliament; and the amendments, including any relating to the sections concerned with ministerial office (see above), are incorporated in all copies of the Act printed thereafter by the Queen's printer.3 The schedule is also regularly updated online on the legislation.gov.uk website.

Footnotes 1. For example, CJ (1996–97) 225–28; ibid (2009–10) 224–231. 2. For example, Land Registration Act 2002 (c 9), sch 9, para 9; Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011 (c 4), sch 1, para 24. 3. House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, s 5(2).

Aliens 3.28The disqualification rules for aliens are the same as for the House of Commons (see para 3.2 ).1 All Members of the House of Lords are treated as resident, ordinarily resident and domiciled in the United Kingdom for tax purposes.2

Footnotes 1. See also the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, s 47 which reinstated the modification made by the British Nationality Act 1981 in respect of membership of the House of Lords. 2. Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, s 41.

Persons under 21 3.29Under Standing Order No 2, made on 22 May 1685, no Lord under the age of 21 years shall sit in the House. This disqualification has not arisen since the passage of the House of Lords Act 1999.

Bankruptcy 3.30Under the Insolvency Act 1986, ss 426A and 427 as amended by the Enterprise Act 2002, a Member of the House of Lords in respect of whom a bankruptcy1 restrictions order or a debt relief restrictions order has effect, or in Scotland a Member of the House of Lords whose estate is sequestered, is disqualified from sitting and voting in the House. A writ is not issued to any person, who would otherwise be entitled to one, while they are so disqualified. A court making a bankruptcy restrictions order, or an interim order, or a debt relief restrictions order, or an interim debt relief restrictions order in respect of a Member is required to notify the Lord Speaker and it is recorded in the minutes of proceedings for that day.2 Under the Insolvency Act 1986, an enactment about insolvency applies in relation to a Member of the House of Lords irrespective of any parliamentary privilege.3

Footnotes 1. The relevant statutory provisions are contained in the Bankruptcy Disqualification Act 1871, the Bankruptcy Act 1883, s 32, the Bankruptcy Act 1890, the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1913, s 183, the Bankruptcy Act 1914, ss 106(1) and 128 and the Insolvency Act 1986, ss 426A and 427, as amended by the Enterprise Act 2002. 2. For notifications of bankruptcy, see LJ (1946–47) 358; ibid (1948–49) 257; ibid (1950) 212; ibid (1953–54) 161; ibid (2001–02) 69. The House is also notified in cases of discharge; see LJ (1957–58) 324; ibid (2001–02) 1026; for a case in which the certificate was rescinded, see LJ (1881) 24, 140. 3. Insolvency Act 1986, s 426C.

Treason 3.31The Forfeiture Act 1870 provides that anyone convicted of treason shall be disqualified for sitting or voting as a Member of the House of Lords until they have either completed their term of imprisonment or received a pardon.1

Footnotes 1. In 1919, following a report by a Committee of the Privy Council appointed under the Titles Deprivation Act 1917, two peers who during the First World War had ‘adhered to His Majesty's enemies’ were, in accordance with that Act, deprived of the right to receive writs of summons or to sit in the House of Lords, and of their privileges and rights to any dignity or title (LJ (1919) 107).

Membership of the European Parliament 3.32The European Parliament (House of Lords Disqualification) Regulations 20081 provide that any Life Peer who is elected to the European Parliament is disqualified for sitting and voting in the House of Lords. A writ of summons is not issued to a Life Peer who is disqualified under these regulations. The regulations were passed following the European Council decision that membership of the European Parliament was incompatible with membership of a national legislature (see para 3.15, fn 2).

Footnotes 1. SI 2008/1647.

Disqualifying judicial office 3.33Under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, s 137, a Member of the House of Lords who holds a disqualifying judicial office1 is disqualified for sitting and voting in the House. Such Members are not however disqualified for receiving a writ of summons.

Footnotes 1. Defined in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, as amended, and the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975, as amended.

Mental Health Act 1983 3.34There was never any statutory provision specifically applying the terms of the Mental Health Act 1983 to Members of the House of Lords, as there was to Members of the House of Commons. Therefore mental disorder has never been grounds for disqualification from the House of Lords. Members of the House of Lords are liable for detention under the mental health legislation.

Conviction for a serious offence 3.35The House of Lords Reform Act 2014 provides for Lords Members convicted of a serious offence to cease to be Members.1 Section 3 of the Act provides that a Lords Member is convicted of a serious offence if the Lord Speaker certifies that they have, while a Member of the House, been convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced or ordered to be imprisoned or detained indefinitely or for more than one year. A Member in such a position ceases to be a Member of the House, subject to any subsequent successful appeal. If the conviction takes place outside the United Kingdom, the Lord Speaker must only issue a certificate if the House resolves that the Member in question should cease to be a Member. Under s 4 of the Act, a person who ceases to be a Member under the Act is disqualified from attending any proceedings of the House and no longer receives a writ of summons. Such a Member may not subsequently become a Member again, except by virtue of a successful appeal against the conviction or sentence. If the Member is a hereditary peer excepted from s 1 of the House of Lords Act 1999, then they must be replaced through a by-election held in accordance with s 2 of that Act and Standing Order No 10 of the House of Lords.

Footnotes 1. The Act also provides for Lords Members formally and permanently to retire or resign from the House, and for those who do not attend the House during a Session of more than six months duration to cease to be Members. See para 3.4.

Disqualification by other means 3.36During the seventeenth century there were two cases in which the House of Lords, acting in its judicial capacity on impeachment, sentenced Lords of Parliament to permanent disqualification from sitting in Parliament.1 In 1725 a motion for a sentence to exclude an impeached Lord from Parliament was negatived and there have been no such proceedings since.2 In 2009 the House resolved that it had no power by resolution to expel a member of the House permanently.3 During the 2010 Parliament, two Acts provided the House of Lords with powers to expel Members. One of the two Acts also made provision for Members of the House of Lords to retire. Both Acts originated as Private Members' Bills in the House of Lords. The House of Lords Reform Act 2014 introduced a provision to allow Members to retire or resign from the House. A decision to resign or retire cannot be rescinded (s 1). The Act also provides that a Member of the House of Lords who does not attend the House of Lords during a session (unless that session was less than six months long) or a Member who is convicted of a serious offence ceases to be a Member. Section 1 of the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015 gave the House of Lords the power to expel Members and to suspend Members for any time period. Previously the House of Lords understood that it had the power to suspend a Member only until the end of a Parliament. For the powers of the House in relation to the temporary suspension of Members of the House of Lords, see paras 11.34–11.38. Individuals who cease to be Members of the House of Lords under any of these provisions become disqualified from attending the proceedings of the House of Lords. Accordingly, such individuals are not entitled to receive a writ to attend the House of Lords.4 Individuals who are suspended from the House of Lords are disqualified from sitting or voting in the House of Lords or a committee of the House of Lords during the period of suspension.

Footnotes 1. Viscount St Alban in 1621 and the Earl of Middlesex in 1624 (LJ (1620–28) 106a and 382b). 2. Sir W Anson Law and Custom of the Constitution (5th edn, 1922) i, p 228; L O Pike Constitutional History of the House of Lords (1894) 275; LJ (1722–26) 558. 3. Committee for Privileges, First Report, HL 87 (2008–09) para 8, agreed by the House on 20 May 2009 (LJ (2008–09) 537). See also the report by the Select Committee on the powers of the House in relation to the attendance of its members, HL 67 (1955–56) pp ix, 7–9. 4. House of Lords Reform Act 2014, s 4; the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015 refers back to the same section of the 2014 Act.

Introduction to Members and Elected Officers of Parliament 4.1Representation in the House of Commons and membership of the House of Lords have been described in Chapter 1, and the process of elections to the House of Commons in Chapter 2. This chapter describes the party machinery in each House, the arrangements for the payment of salaries and allowances to Members and the roles and responsibilities of those Officers of both Houses who are drawn from their memberships. A broad distinction can be drawn between officers drawn from the Members of the House concerned, and the permanent officers employed by each House. In both Houses these permanent officers, in all departments, are politically neutral. They have no party affiliation and their prime duty is to the House itself, not to the Government of the day. Their roles and responsibilities are considered in Chapter 6.

Recall of MPs 2.9Most by-elections occur through the sitting member dying or becoming disqualified (for which see Chapter 3). A by-election may also be triggered through the Recall of MPs Act 2015. This provides that a recall petition is triggered if any of three conditions is met. The conditions are: 1. A Member has, after becoming a Member, been convicted in the United Kingdom of an offence and sentenced or ordered to be imprisoned or detained, and the appeal period expired without the conviction, sentence or order having been overturned on appeal.1 2. Following a report from the Committee on Standards in relation to a Member, the House of Commons orders the suspension of the Member from the service of the House for a specified period of at least 10 sitting days, or of at least 14 days.2 3. A Member has, after becoming a Member, been convicted of an offence under section 10 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 (offence of providing false or misleading information for allowances claims), and the appeal period expired without the conviction having been overturned on appeal.3 If either the first or third condition is met, the court that imposes the sentence or order in relation to the conviction must notify the Speaker. Under the terms of section 5 of the Act, as soon as reasonably practicable after becoming aware that one of the conditions has been met, the Speaker is required to write to the relevant petition officer, informing them that a Member has met one of the conditions that make the Member subject to a recall petition under that Act.4 The Speaker is not required to give notice in the following circumstances: 1. within the period of six months ending with the polling day for the next parliamentary general election; 2. when the MP is already subject to a recall petition process; or 3. when the MP's seat has already been vacated (whether by the MP's disqualification or death, or otherwise). A recall petition is administered in accordance with the provisions of the Act by the petition officer for the constituency concerned. The petition officer has ten working days to set up and open the petition for signature, or longer if it is not practicable to do it within that time. The petition is made available for signing for a specified period of six weeks. The petition officer may designate a maximum of ten places at which the recall petition is made available for signing. Electors may sign the petition in person, by post or by proxy. If the petition achieves the necessary number of signatures—at least 10% of the number of eligible registered electors in that constituency—the petition officer notifies the Speaker and the seat is made vacant from the date of that notification.5 If a seat is vacated as a result of a recall petition, the Member is not prevented from standing in the ensuing by-election.

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

HC Deb (11 February 2019) 654, c 593. HC Deb (24 July 2018) 645, c 925. HC Deb (24 April 2019) 658, c 758. The Speaker was required to write to a petition officer, for the first time, after a Member was suspended from the service of the House for 30 sitting days on 24 July 2018: HC Deb (24 July 2018) 645, c 928. 5. Votes and Proceedings, 1 May 2019, and HC Deb (1 May 2019) 659, c 310.

Commons 4.3In the absence of any specific orders to that effect, Members are presumed to be in attendance in Parliament. It is not now considered necessary for a Member to be given leave of absence in the ordinary course of business, but such leave has been given to official delegations from the House, especially to those commissioned to present gifts to the Parliaments of newly independent Commonwealth countries.1 The Speaker has also asked the leave of the House to absent himself in order to pay official visits, to receive honorary degrees and appointments at universities, and to attend funerals of deceased Members,2 although the usual practice is now for the Speaker to be given leave in a motion for an Order tabled by the Government.3 Since October 2002, the Speaker has been entitled to leave of absence, if he thinks fit, on any Friday on which the House sits.4

Footnotes 1. See eg CJ (1983–84) 56; ibid (1987–88) 552. For `parental leave’, see para 20.88, fn 1. 2. CJ (1947–48) 51; ibid (1950–51) 193; ibid (1952–53) 179; ibid (1958–59) 158; ibid (1970–71) 470. 3. See eg CJ (1988–89) 329; ibid (1993–94) 359; ibid (1998–99) 386; ibid (2005–06) 262; Votes and Proceedings, 8 May 2018. For an occasion when such a motion was debated at length, see HC Deb (16 June 2003) 407, cc 43–78. 4. SO No 3(3); CJ (2001–02) 785

Lords 4.4Members ‘are to attend the sittings of the House’ or, if they cannot do so because of temporary circumstances, obtain leave of absence. A Member who has no reasonable expectation of returning as an active Member at some point in the future should retire under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. The House will not grant leave of absence to a Member whose application does not state that they have a reasonable expectation that they will return as an active Member. The procedure for leave of absence in the House of Lords is set out in Standing Order No 22.1 Before the beginning of every Parliament, the Clerk of the Parliaments in writing asks each Member who had leave of absence at the end of the previous Parliament whether they wish to apply for leave of absence for the new Parliament. The Clerk of the Parliaments draws the attention of such Members to s 2 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. The House grants leave to those Members who so apply, subject to the restrictions above. At any time during a Parliament, a Member may obtain leave of absence for the rest of the Parliament by applying in writing to the Clerk of the Parliaments. Members who have leave of absence are expected not to attend sittings of the House except for the purpose of taking the Oath of Allegiance. If a Member who has been granted leave of absence wishes to attend during the period for which leave has been granted, they are expected to give written notice. The leave is terminated one month from the date of this notice, or sooner if the House so directs. It is customary for the Lord Speaker to apply for leave when they are obliged to be absent from the House. The procedures by which House of Lords Members may retire, or be expelled, from the House under the provisions of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 and the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015 are described in para 1.14.

Footnotes 1. LJ (1957–58) 204. For amendments to the Standing Order, see ibid (1974–75) 352; HL Deb (1987–88) 494, cc 429–31, 805. See also Report from the Select Committee on Leave of Absence (HL 60 (1957–58)).

Party machinery Contents The Official Opposition Leader of the House of Commons Constitution and financing of party machinery Duties of Whips 4.5Many matters within the House of Commons, in particular the arrangement and conduct of business, are arranged on the basis of a clear-cut division between Government and Opposition. The normal condition for this arrangement is the division between two major parties. The fact that there may be several separately organised parties, supporting, opposing or in coalition with the Government (as was the case following the general election in May 2010) may complicate the working of these arrangements, but does not destroy the broad principle. The predominant share of the Government in controlling and arranging the time and business of the House is recognised by the standing orders of the House of Commons, but the fact that the Government is supported by a party, or combination of parties, and opposed by another party, or combination of parties, and that the machinery evolved by these parties performs important functions in the working of procedure, is still largely disregarded by the standing orders.

The Official Opposition 4.6The importance of the Opposition in the system of parliamentary government has long received practical recognition in the procedure of Parliament. Even before the first Reform Act, the phrase ‘His Majesty's Opposition’ had been coined by John Cam Hobhouse.1 In 1937, statutory recognition was accorded through the grant of a salary to the Leader of the Opposition.2 The prevalence (on the whole) of the two-party system has usually removed any uncertainty as to which party has the right to be called the ‘Official Opposition’; it is the largest minority party which is prepared, in the event of the resignation of the Government, to assume office.3 The Leader of the Opposition and some of the Leader's principal colleagues in both Houses form a group, known as ‘the Shadow Cabinet’, each member of which is given a particular range of activities on which it is their task to direct criticism of the Government's policy and administration and to outline alternative policies. Since 1975, the Official Opposition has been entitled to financial assistance (known as ‘Short Money’) to help meet, among other expenses, the running costs of the office of the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition is also provided with a suite of offices at Westminster. Since the strength of modern party discipline tends to reduce the effectiveness in the House of Commons of a direct attack upon a Government, the criticism of the Opposition is primarily directed towards the electorate, with a view to the next election, or with the aim of influencing government policy through the pressure of public opinion. The floor of the House of Commons provides the Opposition with its main instrument for this purpose. Accordingly, the Opposition has the right to exercise the initiative in selecting the subject of debate on a certain number of days in each session4 and on such occasions as the debate on the Address in reply to the Queen's speech (see para 8.37 ) or from time to time by putting down motions of no confidence. The Leader of the Opposition is by custom accorded certain rights in asking questions of Ministers (see para 19.15 ), and members of the Shadow Cabinet and other Official Opposition spokespersons are also given some precedence in asking questions and in debate. Those speaking on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition are almost invariably exempted from speech limits.5

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (10 April 1826) 15, c 135. For a history of the development of the Official Opposition, see Grégoire Webber, ‘Loyal Opposition and the Political Constitution’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 37.2 (2017), pp 357–82. 2. Ministers of the Crown Act 1937 (c 38), s 5; see para 4.43. 3. The Speaker's decision on the identity of the Leader of the Opposition is final (Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 (c 27), s 2(2)). For the Speaker's ruling on the identity of the Leader of the Opposition and the main Opposition party, see HC Deb (29 June 2016) 612, c 340. 4. Of the 20 Opposition days, 17 are at the disposal of the Leader of the Opposition and three at the disposal of the leader of the second largest opposition party (SO No 14(2)) who may decide to allow the leader of the next largest party to choose the topic of debate on one of these days; eg HC Deb (11 March 2015) 594, c 303; see also para 18.13. 5. SO No 47(2).

Leader of the House of Commons 4.7The member of the Government who is primarily responsible for the arrangement of government business in the House of Commons is known as the Leader of the House. The Leader manages the arrangement of business in that House while the programme and details are settled by the Government Chief Whip (see below). Each week, after a programme of business has been arranged, the Leader of the House states the business for the following week (and provisionally for a further week) in answer to a question, normally from the Shadow Leader of the House, at the end of departmental Questions on Thursdays, and, whenever necessary, makes further business statements from time to time. The Leader may also move procedural motions relating to the business of the House. In the absence of the Prime Minister, traditionally the Leader of the House has expressed the sense of the House on formal occasions, such as in moving motions of thanks or congratulation. The Leader of the House `has a particular responsibility to the House as a whole in leading and guiding it on procedural difficulties…and…has a general responsibility to safeguard what one may term the decencies and to ensure that Business arrangements have regard to what is right and proper in the interests of the House as a whole.’1 The title does not appear to have become established until about the middle of the nineteenth century2 although the institution is much older. The leadership of the House is not a statutory office, and nor is the Leader of the House formally appointed by the Crown. For these reasons the post has usually been held together with another office; recently this has usually been that of Lord President of the Council. Until 1942 the Prime Minister, if a Minister of the House of Commons, generally also acted as Leader of the House, although the day-to-day duties were frequently carried out after 1922 by an appointed deputy Leader. Since 1942 it has been the regular practice to have a separate Leader of the House, and in recent years it has become usual to appoint a deputy Leader of the House.3 Under the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, s 1, the Leader of the House of Commons, being ‘the Minister of the Crown for the time being nominated as such by the Prime Minister’, is appointed a member of the House of Commons Commission. Under the coalition Government formed after the general election in May 2010, the Leader of the House was for the first time not a member of the Cabinet.4

Footnotes 1. Herbert Morrison, Government and Parliament: a Survey from the Inside (1964), pp 130–31. 2. J Redlich and C P Ilbert Procedure of the House of Commons (1908) i, p 120. 3. See eg HC Deb (25 April 1968) 763, c 77W; official list of Her Majesty's Government, published by the Prime Minister, 12 May 2015. No Deputy Leader was appointed after the 2017 General Election. 4. The official list of Her Majesty's Government, published by the Prime Minister, 19 May 2010, made it clear that the Leader would attend Cabinet, rather than be a member of it.

Constitution and financing of party machinery 4.8Inside the House of Commons each party organisation is presided over by Members of the House and staffed by subordinate officials who are not Members. The officers, or Whips, of the party in office consist of the Chief Whip, who holds the official position of Parliamentary or Patronage Secretary to the Treasury, three officers of the Household and five Lords of the Treasury, with the addition of up to seven Members who act as Assistant Whips; all these Whips receive salaries.1 In addition, the party in office may appoint unpaid Whips in order not to exceed the statutory limit on the number of salaried ministerial posts. All Government Whips rank as Ministers of the Crown. The Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household is usually appointed Deputy Chief Whip. The Government Whips and the Whips of the Official Opposition and of the third largest party have offices as near the Chamber as may be. During the life of the coalition Government formed in May 2010, several Whips serving the second party of Government were appointed as party Whips only and did not receive an official salary or sit on the Treasury bench. Opposition parties are given financial assistance (known as ‘Short Money’) from public funds in respect of costs incurred exclusively on the party's parliamentary business. Funding of non-travel costs is an entitlement and normally paid in equal monthly instalments. Claims are required for travel expenses. Each party receiving financial assistance is required to provide the Accounting Officer with an annual audit report provided by an independent professional auditor certifying that the funding has been spent on the purposes for which it was provided. Under resolutions of the House passed in March and July 2016, the Official Opposition must identify everyone who received at least 50% of their salary from Short Money at any point during the year; the smaller parties must declare how many received such a salary.2 From November 2005, financial assistance was extended to opposition parties represented by Members who had chosen not to take their seats in respect of costs incurred exclusively in relation to the party's representative business.3 The amounts payable are calculated on the same basis as Short Money. Financial assistance is currently paid out of the House of Commons: Members Estimate following a resolution of the House.4

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 (c 27), s 1(1)(a) and sch 1. For the text of the resolutions, see: HC Deb (23 March 2016) 607, cc 1714–16 and HC Deb (7 July 2016) 612, cc 1146–47. CJ (2005–06) 424. See also para 8.28. The scale of payments for the financial year 2018–19 was £17,673.65 for every seat won by each party at the preceding general election, plus £35.30 for every 200 votes then cast for it. Under the resolution of the House passed in March 2016, payments were indexed to the Consumer Prices Index, rather than the Retail Prices Index. To qualify for such assistance a party is required either to have gained two or more seats at the general election or, if only one seat has been won, to have received at least 150,000 votes, CJ (1998–99) 350–52. Under the March 2016 resolution, there is both a floor and a ceiling to the amount of Short Money to assist with its parliamentary business to which a party with no more than five Members is entitled. The floor is set at 50% of the relevant IPSA staffing budget for non-London area MPs. The ceiling is set at 150% of the same budget. In addition, money is allocated to help opposition parties with travel costs and for the office of the Leader of the Opposition. For the terms of the original Resolution, see ibid (1974–75) 310; for annual publication of updated Resolutions see eg Members Estimate Committee, First Report of Session 2017–19, Consolidated list of provisions of the Resolutions of the House relating to expenditure charged to the Estimate for House of Commons: Members as at 16 July, HC 1442.

Duties of Whips 4.9The efficient and smooth running of the parliamentary machine depends largely upon the Whips. By far the most important duties devolve upon the Government Chief Whip. The Chief Whip is responsible for mapping out the time of the session; for applying in detail the Government's programme of business; for estimating the time likely to be required for each item; and for arranging the business of the individual sitting. In drawing up the programme, the Chief Whip is limited to some extent by the standing orders, which allot a certain number of days to the Opposition and to the Backbench Business Committee; and by statute law or standing orders, which require, or may require, certain business to be completed by specified dates; as well as by certain conventions which oblige them to consult the Whips of opposition parties and even to put down items of their selection (see para 18.11 ). In carrying out these duties, the Chief Whip is directly responsible to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House. It is also their duty to advise the Government on parliamentary business and procedure and to liaise closely with Ministers in regard to parliamentary business that affects their departments. The Chief Whip and the Chief Whip of the largest opposition party constitute the ‘usual channels’, through which consultations are held with other parties and Members about business arrangements and other matters of concern to the House. Certain duties are common to Whips of all parties: to keep their Members supplied with information about the business of the House; to secure the attendance of Members; to arrange, when possible, for those of their Members who cannot attend divisions to ‘pair’ with others on the opposite side of the House so that their votes might not be lost; to suggest Members to serve on general and certain select committees; and to act as intermediaries between the leaders and the parliamentary membership of their parties in order to keep each informed of the views of the other.

Payment of Members Contents Conditions of payment Members' expenses House of Commons Members' Fund Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund 4.10A salary was first paid to Members in their role as Members in 1911.1 The payment to Members was held to be salary or income within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Acts.2 An income payments order under the Insolvency Act 19863 may be made, requiring the whole or part of it to be paid to the trustee of the bankrupt's estate either directly or by the bankrupt. A Member of Parliament is classified as an office-holder and therefore also as an ‘employed earner’, for the purpose of the Social Security Acts.4 Salaries are now paid and their level set by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA), established under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009.5 IPSA may also pay higher salaries for Members holding an office or position specified for that purpose in a resolution of the House. It is required to review the existing determination at the beginning of every Parliament and at any other time it considers appropriate. In 2013, IPSA determined that the salary of a Member would increase to £74,000 in 2015, and in 2015 it determined that subsequent annual increases should be in line with changes in public sector average earnings. In 2016, following the first automatic uprating, a Member's salary rose to £74,962. As of 1 April 2018, it was £77,379.

Footnotes 1. From the thirteenth century, constituencies were liable for the maintenance of their Members during the time of Parliament (William Prynn Fourth Part of a Brief register of Writs (1664) pp 53, 495; and Edward Coke Fourth Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England (1797), p 46). The liability was referred to in the Laws in Wales Act 1535 (27 Hen 8, c 26), which established constituencies in Wales, but by the beginning of the seventeenth century it had ceased to be regarded, except in a few isolated cases. A nineteenth century movement for the payment of Members out of public funds culminated in a resolution of the Commons in 1895 in favour of the payment of a reasonable allowance to Members (Parl Deb (18 February 1830) 22, c 689; CJ (1839) 339; ibid (1888) 348; ibid (1892) 135; ibid (1893–94) 160; and ibid (1895) 108). For the decision of 1911, see ibid (1911) 400, 406. 2. Hollinshead v Hazelton [1916] 1 AC 428. (See also para 11.8, fn 1.) For the position of a Member of Parliament in respect of failure to pay local taxes, see HC Deb (1989–90) 159, c 642W. 3. 1986, c 45, s 310. 4. Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, c 4, s 2(1)(a). 5. For an account of the arrangements before IPSA took on responsibility, see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), pp 52–56.

Conditions of payment 4.11The salary of a Member becomes payable when they take the oath or make the affirmation required by law,1 and begins on the day following that on which the poll was held.2 (See para 8.28 on facilities for a Member who has not taken the oath.) Previously, a Member who had not taken the oath within six months of the return of their writ to the Clerk of the Crown was not entitled to claim any salary prior to the date when they took the oath.3 Since IPSA assumed responsibility for the payment of Members' salaries, this rule has not been followed. When a Member dies or is appointed to an office of profit under the Crown, their salary ceases to be payable from the end of the day on which the death or appointment occurs. A Member who is made a judge receives their salary up to, but not including, the date on which the letters patent or warrant of appointment are issued. The salary of a Member who is created a life peer is payable up to and including the day on which the letters patent are issued. The salary of a Member who is suspended from the service of the House is forfeited for the period of suspension.4 A person who is a Member at the time of a dissolution of Parliament continues to receive the basic salary until the end of the day of the poll in the consequent general election.5

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (26 February 1917) 90, cc 1691–92. An exceptional course was taken in 1945, following the postponement of polling day in certain constituencies, when the Speaker wrote to the Chancellor requesting a departure from convention; see HC Deb (20 August 1945) 413, c 276. 2. HC Deb (15 May 1959) 605, c 1569; ibid (6 July 1970) 803, c 335. 3. HC Deb (13 March 1924) 170, c 2556. 4. SO No 45A (see para 11.32 ). The period of forfeiture has been amended by a resolution of the House; see eg HC Deb (24 July 2018) 645, c 925. 5. Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, s 4, as amended by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.

Members' expenses Contents Working from two locations Office support Other support 4.12In addition to a salary, a Member may claim certain additional expenses. A Member who has not taken the oath or made the affirmation may nonetheless claim these expenses.1 Until the establishment of IPSA, these were paid from the House of Commons: Members Estimate in accordance with resolutions of the House. Details are given in Erskine May (23rd edn, 2004).2 Since 7 May 2010, Members' expenses have been paid by IPSA on the basis of a statutory scheme made under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. The scheme is regularly revised by IPSA and, following consultation, issued as a new document that does not require the agreement of the House. The latest scheme, for 2018–19, and detailed guidance, both of which it is statutorily obliged to publish, are available on IPSA's website at www.theipsa.org.uk. Under the 2018–19 scheme, the following expenses can be claimed:

Footnotes 1. See CJ (2001–02) 274 and Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, The MPs' Expenses Scheme (2010), HC 501 (2009–10). 2. Erskine May (23rd edn, 2004), pp 28–30.

Working from two locations 4.13Accommodation costs: the accommodation costs budget is designed to meet costs incurred by Members as a result of working from two permanent locations. They are not payable to Members who are London Area Members or who, by virtue of any particular office held, occupy ‘grace and favour’ accommodation in London. For Members claiming for rental costs in the London Area, the annual accommodation costs budget is £22,850. For Members claiming for rental costs in their constituencies outside the London Area, the annual accommodation costs budget is £15,940. London Area Living Payment (LALP): the LALP is intended to contribute towards the additional cost of living in the London Area and may be claimed by London Area Members only. The LALP is £3,940 per financial year, payable on a monthly basis. Members representing Outer London Area constituencies may claim an additional £1,395 per financial year.

Office support 4.14Office costs: all Members are eligible to claim for office costs, whether or not they rent actual office premises. Members can claim for the costs of more than one office provided that they stay within budget. For London Area Members, the annual office costs budget is £27,660. For non-London Area Members, it is £24,880. A start-up supplement of £6,000 is available to help new Members meet the costs of setting up one or more constituency offices. Staffing costs: staffing costs may be claimed to meet the cost of staff who support Members in performing their parliamentary functions. Until 2017, staffing costs could be claimed for the salary of only one employee who was a connected party unless the MP already employed more than one on 7 May 2010. In that case, the MP could continue to claim for the salaries of those connected parties.1 From the date of the General Election in 2017, IPSA has not permitted Members to enter into any new contracts of employment with connected parties. For London Area Members, the annual staffing costs budget is £164,460. For non-London Area Members, it is £153,620. Winding-up costs: the winding-up budget is designed to meet the costs of completing the outstanding parliamentary functions of former Members, including the cost of closing down constituency offices. For London Area Members, the winding-up budget is £57,150. For non-London Area Members, it is £53,950. Loss of Office payments: Members are eligible to receive a Loss of Office payment if they lose their seat at a general election. The payment is currently equal to double the prevailing statutory redundancy entitlement.

Footnotes 1. A connected party is defined by IPSA as a spouse, civil partner or cohabiting partner of the member; parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece of the member or of a spouse, civil partner or cohabiting partner of the member; or an individual or organisation where there exists a relationship as set out in the Companies Act 2006.

Other support 4.15Travel and subsistence costs: claims may be made for the costs of travel and travel-related subsistence incurred by Members or others in support of their parliamentary functions. Miscellaneous costs and financial assistance: depending on their circumstances, Members may also claim Disability Assistance, Security Assistance, Contingency Payments and for costs arising from recalls of Parliament and during dissolution. In addition to any other payments or assistance, IPSA may, at its discretion and on an individual basis, provide any additional financial assistance to Members it deems necessary to assist them in carrying out their parliamentary functions.

House of Commons Members' Fund 4.16The House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939, as amended by subsequent Acts of 1948, 1957, 1962, 1981, 1984, 1991 and 2016, provides for grants to past Members and their widows/widowers and children, ‘having regard to the financial circumstances of the persons to or in respect of whom the payments are made’ (House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939, s 1(2)). It created a fund by authorising an annual deduction from the salaries of all Members and made provision for the appointment of trustees to administer the fund.1 The House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948 increased the annual payments to past Members and their widows, extended the benefits of the scheme to widowers and authorised grants to alleviate special cases of hardship. The benefits were subsequently increased by resolutions of the House.2 The House of Commons Members' Fund and Parliamentary Pensions Act 1981 extended the scope of the fund by providing for periodical ‘as of rights' payments (effectively a pension) to past Members who were at least 65 years old or had an infirmity that prevented them from earning a living, provided they had completed ten years’ service and left the House before 16 October 1964, and to their widows or widowers, subject to certain conditions. It also empowered the trustees to make payments, following advice from the Government Actuary, in special circumstances where the period of service was less than ten years. A 2007 review of the fund's operation recommended that the trustees remain responsible for discretionary or hardship payments but that responsibility for the ‘as of rights' payments be transferred to a suitable Government Department, that the Treasury contribution cease and that future hardship payments be funded from the fund's existing resources, together with, if required, an increased monthly contribution from Members.3 The recommendations were endorsed by the trustees and the Members Estimate Committee. The House of Commons (Members' Fund) Act 2016 implemented the recommendations and empowered the trustees to cease deducting contributions from Members where they determined that the fund's surplus was sufficient to cover its costs.

Footnotes 1. For the appointment of trustees, see CJ (1938–39) 482; HC Deb (22 November 1939) 353, c 1279. 2. See CJ (1993–94) 217, 218. To assist in the payment of the increased benefits, the Exchequer made a grant of £10,000 a year to the Fund and, by a resolution of 18 July 1957, the amount deducted from the salaries of Members was increased to £18 a year. A resolution of 17 May 1961 empowered the trustees to make increased payments to former Members ‘having regard to length of service and need’, and increased the deduction from salaries to £24 a year; and the Exchequer grant was increased to a sum not exceeding £22,000 a year, ibid (1956–57) 264; SI 1961/988; CJ (1960–61) 232. 3. For a summary of the recommendations, see the Explanatory Notes to the House of Commons Members' Fund Bill 2013–14, Bill 145 EN.

Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund 4.17In its current form,1 the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund (PCPF) is a statutory defined benefit pension scheme that comprises the MPs' pension scheme and the Ministers' pension scheme. Since 24 October 2011, under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, IPSA has been responsible for determining MPs' pensions and the Minister for the Civil Service for determining ministerial pensions. The PCPF is administered by the trustees in line with IPSA's scheme rules. There are ten trustees: eight are nominated by the scheme members; one is appointed by IPSA; and one is appointed by the Minister for the Civil Service.2 On 8 May 2015, IPSA replaced the previous final salary Members' pension scheme with a ‘career average revalued earnings' (CARE) scheme. The scheme's benefits include: an accrual rate of 1/51st of pensionable earnings, revalued annually in line with the Consumer Prices Index; a single level of pension contribution for all Members, initially 11.09% of pay, but variable in line with the costs of the scheme; a normal pension age equal to the state pension age; spouses or partners eligible for a pension of 3/8ths of the Member's pension, with child pensions also payable; a lump sum death benefit of two times salary plus refund of member contributions; provision for ‘cost neutral’ early retirement reductions and late retirement increases to pensions; options to retire early due to ill health; an option to buy added pension, pay additional voluntary contributions or buy a reduction in pension age; and an option to exchange part of the pension for a tax-free lump sum at a fixed rate of £12 of lump sum for every £1 of pension commuted. On 17 December 2014, the Minister for the Civil Service announced his intention to replace the old final salary Ministers' pension scheme with a new CARE scheme. The scheme came into effect on 8 May 2015 and its benefits include: an accrual rate of 1.775% (approximately 1/56th), revalued each year in line with the Consumer Prices Index; a discretionary lump sum if the member dies while contributing to the scheme; pension benefits for dependants, including children, if the member dies while contributing; options to retire earlier or later than the scheme's Normal Retirement Age; tax relief on contributions; a balance of the costs of pension benefits met by the Exchequer; the ability to increase pension benefits; the option to transfer previous pension benefits into the scheme; and provision for early retirement due to ill health.

Footnotes 1. For an account of previous schemes, see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), pp 57–59. 2. For annual reports and accounts, see: www.mypcpfpension.co.uk

Association of Former Members of Parliament 4.18The Association of Former Members was established in 2001 with the objectives of facilitating and encouraging social contacts between former Members of both Houses and maintaining links with the two Houses and their administrative committees. The Association is provided with some financial and practical assistance from the House of Commons Administration Estimate.1

Footnotes 1. See CJ (2005–06) 634.

The Speaker of the House of Commons Contents The Speaker as representative of the House of Commons The Speaker as presiding Officer of the House of Commons The Speaker's administrative duties Resignation of Speaker 4.19The Speaker of the House of Commons is the representative of the House itself in its powers, proceedings and dignity. The Speaker's rank is defined by the Order in Council of 30 May 1919, in which it is provided that upon all occasions and in all meetings, except where otherwise provided by Act of Parliament, the Speaker shall have, hold and enjoy place, pre-eminence and precedence immediately after the Lord President of the Council.1 Until this time, the Speaker had taken precedence of all commoners, both by ancient custom and by legislative declaration.2 The Speaker's functions fall into three main categories. First, the Speaker is the spokesperson or representative of the House in its relations with the Crown, the House of Lords and other authorities and persons outside Parliament. Second, the Speaker presides over the debates of the House of Commons and enforces the observance of all rules for preserving order in its proceedings. Third, the Speaker has administrative responsibilities, including chairing the House of Commons Commission (para 6.2 ). In carrying out these duties, the Speaker is assisted by a small personal staff (see para 6.20 ).

Footnotes 1. London Gazette, 3 June 1919, p 7059. 2. The Great Seal Act 1688 (1 Will and Mary, c 21) enacts that the Lords Commissioners for the Great Seal ‘not being peers, shall have and take place next after the peers of this realm, and the Speaker of the House of Commons’. See also 2 Hatsell 249 n; and regarding the precedence between the Speaker and a peer of Ireland, whilst a Member of the House of Commons, see Colchester i, 413.

In relation to the Queen 4.20As stated elsewhere, the Speaker is elected by the House itself, but that election is subject to the approbation of the Queen (see para 8.20 ). At the same time as that submission for approval, the Speaker petitions the Queen for the continuance of the Commons' privileges. The Speaker leads the Commons when summoned to attend the Queen in the House of Lords, and at the opening of each session directs the recording of the Queen's speech in the Commons. The Speaker presents Addresses of the Commons to the Sovereign on ceremonial occasions1 as well as reading written messages from the Queen and presenting Bills of Aids and Supplies for the Royal Assent. By order of the House during a session, and under statute during a recess, the Speaker issues warrants to the Clerk of the Crown to make out writs for the election of new Members.

Footnotes 1. For example, on the occasion of the opening of the new House of Commons, CJ (1950) 244; HC Deb (26 October 1950) 478, cc 2935–38; the 700th anniversary of the Parliament of Simon de Montfort, CJ (1964–65) 319; the 300th anniversary of the Revolution of 1688–89, the Bill of Rights and the Claim of Right, ibid (1987–88) 677; the 50th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, ibid (1994–95) 320–1; the Queen's Golden Jubilee, ibid (2001–02) 521; and the Queen's Diamond Jubilee, ibid (2010–12) 1246–47.

In relation to the Lords 4.21The chief function of the Speaker in relation to the House of Lords is to consider bills brought from that House and Lords amendments to Commons bills to see whether they infringe the financial privileges of the Commons, and if so to draw them to the attention of the House, and, if necessary, to see that a special entry is made in the Journal. The Speaker also certifies bills under the Parliament Act 1911 (c 13), ss 1 and 2, as amended (see paras 29.78, 34.40, 37.29–37.32 ).

In relation to outside authorities 4.22The Speaker communicates the resolutions of the House to those to whom they are directed, and conveys its thanks and expresses its censure, its reprimands, and its admonitions. The Speaker issues warrants to execute the orders of the House for the commitment of offenders, for the attendances of witnesses in custody, and for giving effect to other orders requiring the sanction of a legal form (see paras 11.23–11.26 ). The Speaker has also on occasion held discussions with the Government on matters of concern to Members in general such as delays in answering parliamentary questions.1 On behalf of the House, the Speaker may also convey sympathies to other Parliaments and authorities.2 Whenever it seems appropriate,3 the Speaker communicates to the House letters and documents addressed to the Speaker, or to the House as a whole, such as expressions of congratulation and condolence and other messages from foreign countries and legislatures,4 letters acknowledging a vote of the thanks of the House,5 or relating to the rights and privileges of the House or its Members, such as communications announcing the arrest or imprisonment of a Member6 (see Chapter 14). Such documents may be entered in the Votes and Proceedings of the House and in the Journal, without motion made or question put.7 The Speaker represents the House, as an institution, in a wide range of public forums and takes a lead in the efforts made by the House service to engage with the public and inform them about the roles and work of the House.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (18 April 2000) 348, cc 829–30. 2. HC Deb (16 November 2015) 602, c 382. For an occasion when the Speaker arranged for a book of condolences to be made available for Members to sign, see HC Deb (3 December 2013) 571, c 781. 3. HC Deb (22 February 1944) 397, c 623; ibid (29 June 1962) 661, c 1539. 4. CJ (1888) 142; ibid (1977–78) 412. See also ibid (1914) 442. See para 7.36. 5. CJ (1844) 3. 6. For example, CJ (1970–71) 20, 209; ibid (1990–91) 356. 7. Parl Deb (5 July 1881) 263, cc 45–49; ibid (13 November 1882) 274, c 1327–28. A motion alleging a breach of privilege has been raised on the form of the document (CJ (1888) 222). A motion, once made, that a letter communicated by the Speaker be laid upon the Table (ibid (1883) 4), cannot be reckoned as a precedent.

The Speaker as presiding Officer of the House of Commons Contents Duties and Powers of the Speaker in relation to the business of the House 4.23The chief characteristics attaching to the office of Speaker in the House of Commons are authority and impartiality. As the symbol of the powers and privileges of the House, the Royal Mace is borne before the Speaker when entering and leaving the Chamber at the beginning and end of a sitting, and upon State occasions, by the Serjeant at Arms attending the House of Commons, and is placed upon the Table when the Speaker is in the Chair.1 In debate all speeches are addressed to the Speaker who also calls upon Members to speak—a choice which is not open to dispute. On rising to preserve order or to give a ruling on a doubtful point the Speaker must always be heard in silence and no Member may stand when the Speaker is on their feet. Reflections upon the character or actions of the Speaker may be punished as breaches of privilege (see para 15.14 ). No action may be criticised incidentally in debate or upon any form of proceeding except a substantive motion (see para 20.10 ). The Speaker's authority in the Chair is fortified by many special powers which are referred to below. Confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker is an indispensable condition of the successful working of procedure, and many conventions exist which have as their object not only to ensure the impartiality of the Speaker but also to ensure that that impartiality is generally recognised. The Speaker takes no part in debate either in the House or in committee, but makes occasional observations from the Chair.2 The Speaker votes only when the voices are equal, and then in accordance with rules which preclude an expression of opinion upon the merits of a question (see para 20.89 ). At a General Election the Speaker stands as ‘the Speaker seeking re-election’, as belonging to no party;3 in a reversion to a frequent previous practice, candidates from major parties have not contested the Speaker's seat in recent general elections.

Footnotes 1. The Mace is received by the Serjeant at Arms from the Lord Chamberlain of the Household; it is, therefore, in the first place a symbol of the Royal authority, and thence derivatively of the authority of the Speaker and the House. When the House is dissolved or prorogued it reverts to the custody of the Lord Chamberlain of the Household, but during an adjournment it remains in the control of the Serjeant at Arms. See also HC Deb (7 December 1961) 650, cc 1544–52, and P F Thorne The Royal Mace House of Commons Library Document No 18 (1990). 2. See eg HC Deb (30 October 2017) 630, cc 577–78. 3. See Report of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Elections (the Speaker's Seat), HC 98 (1938–39).

Supersedeas to writs 2.15If doubts should arise concerning the fact of the vacancy, the order for a new writ should be deferred until the House may be in possession of more certain information; and if, after the issue of a writ, it should be discovered that the House had acted on a false basis, the Speaker will be ordered to issue a warrant for a supersedeas to the writ.1

Footnotes 1. For example, CJ (1809) 48; ibid (1826) 223; ibid (1830–31) 134, 182; ibid (1851) 12; ibid (1880) 280, 286; and Parl Deb (1880) 253, c 1918. On occasions, other courses have been resorted to. When in 1765 a new writ was ordered for Devizes but doubt was expressed as to whether the sitting Member was dead, the messenger of the Great Seal was ordered not to deliver the writ until further directions. The Member proved to be alive and a supersedeas was ordered to be made out (CJ (1765–66) 391, 404; 2 Hatsell 20n; and 16 Parl Hist 95). See also the case of the city of Gloucester, 19 December 1702; and CJ (1770–72) 546 and 17 Parl Hist 322. See also para 2.12 above.

Speaker's powers by usage 4.25The Speaker may ensure orderly conduct of debate by repressing disorder when it arises, by refusing to propose the question upon motions and amendments which are irregular, and by calling the attention of the House to bills which are out of order (and securing their withdrawal). The Speaker has by usage a general power of suspension that can be used to ensure the orderly conduct of debate.1 The Speaker also rules on points of order submitted by Members on questions either as they arise or in anticipation, but generally refuses to rule on a hypothetical question. Any notice of a question seeking a ruling must be notified to the Speaker privately and not placed upon the Order Paper. The opinion of the Speaker cannot be sought in the House about any matter arising or likely to arise in a committee.2 The Speaker will also advise Members of all parties when consulted privately upon any action which they propose to take in the House or upon any questions of order which are likely to arise in its proceedings. Such private rulings of the Speaker generally settle the questions at issue, but they may, if necessary, be supplemented by rulings given from the Chair. The Speaker's rulings constitute precedents by which subsequent Speakers, Members, and officers are guided. Rulings not given on the floor of the House may be reported in the Official Report.3 Such precedents are noted and in course of time may be formulated as principles or rules of practice. They are an important source of determining how the House conducts its business. The Speaker also decides whether a Member who has raised a matter of privilege should be allowed to table a motion which would take precedence over the orders of the day on the following day (see paras 15.32, 19.30 ) and whether a Member should be allowed to make an application in the House that the House should debate a specific and urgent matter under Standing Order No 24 (see para 19.21 ).

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (12 July 2018) 644, c 1156; ibid (6 November 2018) 648, c 1395 (suspension to allow Members to attend the Remembrance service in St Margaret's Church). 2. HC Deb (22 April 1987) 114, c 676; ibid (14 January 1988) 125, c 464; see also ibid (1997–98) 300, c 114; HC Deb (19 October 2010) 516, c 827; HC Deb (8 July 2014) 584, c 164. 3. For example HC Deb (9 December 1981) 14, c 970; ibid (30 October 2001) 373, c 250WH.

Speaker's powers under Standing Order 4.26These powers may be divided into several kinds. General powers. Under Standing Orders Nos 4 and 85, the Speaker has the power to appoint a panel of Chairs to assist the Chairman of Ways and Means and to preside over general committees. Under Standing Order No 13, the Speaker has the power to recall the House in the event of an emergency. Power to determine the course of business in the House. Under Standing Order No 24, the Speaker has to decide whether a proposal to debate a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration conforms to the provisions of the standing order. Under Standing Order No 21(2), the Speaker can grant a Member leave to ask a question that does not appear on the Order Paper on the grounds that it is of an urgent character and relates either to a matter of public importance or to the arrangement of business. Under Standing Order Nos 83J, 83O and 83P, the Speaker has to decide whether bills, statutory instruments and certain motions relate exclusively to England, or to England and Wales, and should therefore be dealt with under the relevant standing orders (see para 27.13 ). Powers to restrict debate. The Speaker has the power to select the amendments which may be proposed on consideration of a motion or bill in the House (Standing Order No 32) and to forbid the tabling of amendments to certain neutrally worded motions (Standing Order No 24B). Various powers have been given to the Speaker to prevent obstruction in the proceedings of the House (see para 21.40 ff): the power to decide whether a dilatory motion is an abuse of the rules of the House (Standing Order No 35); to decide whether to accept and put a motion for the closure of a question when it has been adequately debated (Standing Order No 36); and the power to accept and put a motion ‘That the Question be now proposed’ (Standing Order No 29). The Speaker checks irrelevance or tedious repetition by ordering a Member to discontinue their speech (Standing Order No 42) and may direct that Members should restrict the length of their speeches at certain times (Standing Order No 47). The Speaker has powers to prevent a division if of the opinion that it is unnecessarily claimed (Standing Order No 40). Powers to prevent disorder. The Speaker represses disorder in the House by calling Members to order (paras 21.40 –21.46 ), when the offence is committed in plain sight; by putting into force Standing Order No 44(1) (the suspension of Members) (para 21.50 ); or by naming a Member, under the ancient usage of the House incorporated in Standing Order No 43. Under Standing Order No 45, both these actions require the Member concerned to withdraw from the precincts of the House (para 21.51 ). If grave disorder persists, Standing Order No 46 gives the Speaker power to suspend or adjourn the sitting. Under Standing Order No 163, the Speaker has power to order the withdrawal of strangers (see para 38.79 ). The Speaker's powers in the event of grave disorder arising in the House are described at para 21.46.

The Speaker's administrative duties Contents Duties under statute Functions of office after dissolution and during prorogation Speakers' Conferences on Electoral Law 4.27The Speaker has ultimate authority over many aspects of the accommodation and services in that part of the Palace of Westminster and precincts occupied by or on behalf of the House of Commons.1 In this the Speaker may be advised by the Domestic Committees (see para 6.2 ). The Speaker is responsible, through the Clerk of the House, for the accuracy of the Votes and Proceedings, and, through the Editor of Hansard, for the Official Report of Debates.

Footnotes 1. For a statement on the extent of the Speaker's authority over the Estate, see HC Deb (26 October 2017) 630, cc 477–78; and for permission to use the Chamber for informal events, see HC Deb (21 November 2017) 649, c 845. The Speaker has, for example, suspended the issue of a pass to a Member's research assistant (HC Deb (21 October 1987) 120, cc 757–64); suspended a journalist's pass (ibid (1995–96) 277, c 386); prohibited the showing of a film subject to a High Court injunction until the House had had an opportunity to come to a decision on the matter (ibid (22 January 1987) 108, cc 1023–26); directed that a Member's car be detained if parked in Speaker's Court (ibid (29 January 1993) 217, c 1297); and reinterpreted the dress code to permit male Members to speak in the Chamber without a tie (ibid (29 June 2017) 626, c 774).

Duties under statute 4.28The Speaker is, by statute, Chairman of the House of Commons Commission (see para 6.2 ). Various other duties are laid upon the Speaker by statute, for instance by the Parliament Act 1911 (paras 30.55, 37.28 ); by the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 (see para 31.47 ); by the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975; by the Regency Act 1937, s 2; by the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949, s 1(4) and (5); and by the Recess Elections Act 1975) (see para 2.16 ). Under the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, the Speaker is Chair of the four permanent Boundary Commissions, which keep under continuous review the distribution of seats at parliamentary elections. Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, ss 34 and 36, the Speaker may, on specified grounds, issue certificates of exemption (see para 6.21 ). The Speaker is Chair of the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission (Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, s 2). The Speaker is by statute a member, and by custom the elected Chair, of the Speaker's Committee on the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, sch 3, and the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, s 27).

Functions of office after dissolution and during prorogation 4.29By the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, s 1(3) it is provided that in the case of a dissolution the then Speaker shall be deemed to be the Speaker, for the purposes of that Act, until a Speaker has been chosen by the new Parliament. Similar provision is made in the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, schs 1 and 2. The provisions of the Recess Elections Act 1975 relating to the issue of warrants for new writs for by-elections apply during any recess of the House, whether by a prorogation or adjournment.

Speakers' Conferences on Electoral Law 4.30The Speaker has also presided over the Conferences on Electoral Law following an invitation from the Prime Minister to do so. Such Conferences have examined various matters of electoral law. The Speaker has formally appointed the members of the Conference on receipt of party nominations. Conferences have been served by a joint secretariat from the House of Commons and the Civil Service.1 In the past, they did not enjoy the powers and privileges of select committees. They sat in private and did not publish their proceedings. The most recent conference, however, the Speaker's Conference on Parliamentary Representation, was established in November 2008 as a select committee by resolution of the House. It heard evidence in public and published its proceedings. It published its final report in January 2010 (see para 38.85 ).

Footnotes 1. For Speakers' Conferences set up in 1972 and 1977, see HC Deb (2 August 1972) 842, cc 560–61; ibid (24 July 1973) 860, cc 1412–14; ibid (13 January 1977) 923, c 540W; ibid (30 June 1977) 934, c 642; ibid (19 July 1977) 935, cc 1379–80.

Resignation of Speaker 4.31Frequently, the Speaker's retirement takes effect at the beginning of a new Parliament, where the retiring Speaker has not stood for reelection. In these cases the Speaker announces an intention to retire, and the House expresses its thanks in a resolution toward the end of the Parliament, and makes Addresses to the Queen, praying for some signal mark of favour for the retired Speaker, early in the next Parliament.1 When the Speaker retires in the course of a session, that decision is announced in a formal statement and the thanks of the House are expressed, and a new Speaker elected, on later days.2 The Speaker, on vacation of office, is usually created a peer in response to the House's request for a signal mark of favour. The procedure for the election of a new Speaker is described at para 8.18.

Footnotes 1. For Mr Speaker Thomas's retirement, see HC Deb (29 January 1980) 977, c 1124; CJ (1982–83) 381; ibid (1983–84) 28, 43. For Mr Speaker Weatherill's retirement, see HC Deb (7 March 1991) 187, c 457; ibid (12 March 1992) 205, cc 973–90; CJ (1991–92) 292–93; ibid (1992–93) 47, 64. For earlier examples, see Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), p 184. 2. CJ (1872) 9, 22, 23; ibid (1975–76) 95, 125, 126, 127. Madam Speaker Boothroyd announced her retirement on 12 July 2000, to take effect immediately before the House's return from the summer adjournment on 23 October (HC Deb (12 July 2000) 353, c 869; see also Queen's reply to address (ibid (24 October 2000) 355, c 107). Mr Speaker Martin announced his retirement on 19 May 2009, to take effect from 22 June 2009 (ibid (19 May 2009) 492, c 1323). He made a valedictory statement, which was followed by tributes, on 17 June 2009 (ibid (17 June 2009) 494, cc 310–338). See also Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), p 184.

Deputy Speakers Contents The Chairman of Ways and Means Deputy Chairmen of Ways and Means Temporary Chairmen Chairmen in Westminster Hall 4.32In 1855, on the report of a select committee, a standing order was agreed to which enabled the Chairman of Ways and Means (see para 4.33 ), as Deputy Speaker, to take the Chair during the unavoidable absence, or absence by leave of the House, of the Speaker, and perform the Speaker's duties in relation to all proceedings in the House. The sanction of the consent of the Crown was given to the appointment of this committee, to the standing order and to its amendment.1 The provision of this standing order received statutory authority by the Deputy Speaker Act 1855. The standing order has since been amended by a provision for the appointment of a First and Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.2 Since the start of the 2010 Parliament these three posts have been filled by election (see para 8.30 ). Whenever the House has been informed by the Clerk at the Table of the unavoidable absence or absence by leave of the House both of the Speaker and of the Chairman of Ways and Means, the First Deputy Chairman is entitled to perform the duties and exercise the authority of the Speaker in relation to all the proceedings in the House, and should the First Deputy Chairman also be thus absent, then these powers devolve upon the Second Deputy Chairman (Standing Order No 3(4)).3 When the Chairman of Ways and Means takes the Chair as Deputy Speaker in the Speaker's unavoidable absence or absence by leave,4 the Serjeant, accompanied by the Chaplain, enters the House with the Mace, which is placed upon the Table. The Clerk informs the House of the Speaker's unavoidable absence or absence by leave, and if necessary of that of the Chairman of Ways and Means.5 The Chairman of Ways and Means, or in their absence a Deputy Chairman, then proceeds to the Table, and, after prayers, takes the Chair. If the House goes into committee and the Chairman of Ways and Means takes the Chair, when the question for reporting progress has been agreed to, the Chairman returns to the Chair of the House, and a Deputy Chairman6 or a government Whip7 makes the report of the committee. The unavoidable absence of the Speaker may be announced by the Clerk at the Table at any time during a sitting;8 but an opportunity is usually taken which interferes as little as possible with the progress of debate. When the Speaker was absent for several months because of illness, the Clerk informed the House of the Speaker's absence only on the first day of each sitting week.9 Unless the absence of the Speaker is thus formally announced (or the Speaker is absent on a Friday), Deputies in the Chair may not perform any duties of the Speaker, such as those in connection with the issue of writs, which do not arise from the course of debate, although they may, on behalf of the Speaker, grant an application for an emergency debate made under Standing Order No 24.10 After the unavoidable absence of the Speaker has been announced and the Chair has been occupied for some time by the Deputy Speaker, the Speaker is not precluded from resuming the Chair, if they wish to.11 Standing Order No 3(1) empowers the Speaker, without any formal communication to the House, to request the Chairman of Ways and Means or a Deputy Chairman to take the Chair, either temporarily or until the adjournment of the House.12 Deputies in the Chair have by convention when a decision is necessary the authority to exercise powers of selection for separate decision under Standing Order No 32; and speech limits under Standing Order No 47.

Footnotes 1. CJ (1852–53) 758, 766; ibid (1854–55) 395; ibid (1902) 65; HC 478 (1852–53). 2. CJ (1902) 59; ibid (1909) 337. Now SO No 2. For details of the creation and development of the post, see Procedure Committee, Second Report, HC 770 (2001–02), especially Appendix 2. 3. The Deputy Speaker Act 1855 (c 84) does not explicitly refer to the exercise by the Deputy Speaker of any powers placed upon the Speaker by statute during the latter's absence: such a provision is made in the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, sch 2, para 2, in relation to that Act. The Recess Elections Act 1975 lays down that the Speaker should appoint between three and seven Members, any one of whom may exercise the Speaker's duties under that Act when there is no Speaker or the Speaker is absent from the United Kingdom (s 4). 4. For example, CJ (1870) 265; ibid (1998–99) 413; ibid (2002–03) 463. 5. CJ (1903) 6; ibid (1994–95) 389. 6. CJ (1950–51) 146. 7. Votes and Proceedings, 20 November 2018. 8. CJ (1881) 50; ibid (1994–95) 389. 9. For example, CJ (2005–06) 450. 10. HC Deb (13 July 2017) 627, c 462. 11. CJ (1947–48) 309, HC Deb (5 April 1982) 21, cc 669, 685; CJ (2001–02) 308. 12. CJ (1889) 393, 394; ibid (1890) 539, 580; ibid (1981–82) 286.

The Chairman of Ways and Means Contents Impartiality Resignation of the Chairman of Ways and Means 4.33In Committee of the whole House, the Chair (at the Table) is generally taken by the Chairman of Ways and Means or, in their absence, by a Deputy Chairman or a Member of the Panel of Chairs (see paras 4.38–4.39, 28.85 ). In addition to roles in committee and as Deputy Speaker, the Chairman has certain responsibilities in connection with private bills (see paras 43.12, 45.14 ). The Chairman or a Deputy Chairman is also authorised, in the event of the Speaker's inability to act, to exercise the power of recalling the House during an adjournment (Standing Order No 13(3)). The Chairman of Ways and Means or a Deputy Chairman1 has final authority over all points of order arising when they are in the Chair and there is no appeal from such a ruling to the Speaker. They can be criticised only by a substantive motion.2 The Chairman of Ways and Means or a Deputy Chairman has power in committee to accept a motion for the closure and a motion to propose the question (Standing Order No 29) and to select amendments, though when a Deputy Chairman exercises the power of selection they normally consult the Chairman beforehand. They have only a casting vote in committee (see also para 20.94 ). Under the terms of Standing Order No 82, the Chairman of Ways and Means is Chair of any Business Committee and under Standing Order No 83B of any Programming Committee that may be set up in respect of proceedings on bills.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (16 December 1958) 597, c 1088. 2. CJ (1992–93) 569.

Impartiality 4.34The Chairman of Ways and Means while in office follows the same tradition of abstention from party controversy as the Speaker.1 By convention the Chairman does not vote either in divisions of the House or in ballots. The Chairman of Ways and Means does not exercise the rights of the ordinary Member to participate in debates and divisions of the House, although they have occasionally made speeches when moving motions relating to private business.2 The Chairman's seat is liable to be contested and their salary is placed upon the House of Commons: Members Estimate and not the Consolidated Fund. The House has assented, following a report from a select committee, that the Chairman and Deputy Chairman should refrain from acting in a professional capacity on behalf of or against any Member of the House.3

Footnotes 1. For a statement of the Chairman's impartiality, see HC Deb (14 March 1984) 56, c 408. For motions of censure of the conduct of the Chairman, see para 20.10. 2. For example, motion to reduce the quorum of the Committee in the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, HC Deb (1985–86) 81, c 1013. On that occasion the Chairman did not vote. 3. CJ (1947–48) 188; HC Deb (17 June 1948) 452, c 663.

Resignation of the Chairman of Ways and Means 4.35If the Chairman of Ways and Means resigns the Chair during the sitting of Parliament, they either personally announce their retirement to the House, or address a letter to the Speaker making the announcement.1 In the former case observations are made by Government and Opposition leaders.

Footnotes 1. For examples of Chairmen of Ways and Means announcing their retirement, see Parl Deb (5 April 1853) 125, c 591; ibid (8 April 1872) 210, c 892; ibid (1 March 1883) 276, c 1247; and ibid (19 January 1943 ) 386, c 49. In the 1911 session, the resignation was announced by a letter addressed to the Speaker, CJ (1911) 436; see also ibid (1930–31) 406, 407; ibid (1944–45) 139; ibid (1961–62) 85; and ibid (1968–69) 6.

Deputy Chairmen of Ways and Means Contents Temporary appointment of a Member to act as Deputy Chairman 4.36In addition to the Chairman of Ways and Means, the House has power under Standing Order No 2 to appoint two Deputy Chairmen of Ways and Means who are entitled to exercise all the powers vested in the Chairman of Ways and Means, including the latter's powers as Deputy Speaker. Under Standing Order No 2A they are elected at the same time as the Chairman of Ways and Means or, when necessary, on other occasions, such as following the resignation of a previous Deputy Chairman.1 Their office ends on Dissolution. If they contest their seats they do so under a party label and, if re-elected, are subject to re-election in the new Parliament. The office of Deputy Chairman was first created in 1902 and its occupants follow the same tradition of abstention from party controversy as the Chairman of Ways and Means, and the same procedure is followed on their resignation as on that of the Chairman.2 Since 2010, the House has regularly authorised the Speaker to nominate no more than three Members as Deputy Speakers to serve at the start of a Parliament until the House has elected Deputy Speakers under Standing Order No 2A. Such Members exercise all the powers vested in the Chairman of Ways and Means as Deputy Speaker. To date, the Speaker has nominated only two such Members at the start of each Parliament.3

Footnotes 1. CJ (2010–12) 26. For an occasion when a motion to appoint the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman was divided and separately decided upon, see CJ (1968–69) 6; HC Deb (30 October 1968) 772, c 4. For the election of a Deputy Chairman, following resignation of the First Deputy Chairman, see ibid (8 October 2013) 568, c 58. See also Chapter 8. 2. For example, CJ (1930–31) 407; ibid (1948–49) 3; ibid (1972–73) 494; ibid (1980–81) 160; ibid (1981–82) 380; HC Deb (11 September 2013) 567, c 959. 3. CJ (2010–12) 13; Votes and Proceedings, 26 March 2015, 27 May 2015, 21 June 2017.

Temporary appointment of a Member to act as Deputy Chairman 4.37On occasions when the Deputy Chairman has been absent, the House has resolved that another Member should be entitled to exercise all the powers vested in the Deputy Chairman including the Deputy Chairman's powers as Deputy Speaker.1

Footnotes 1. CJ (1928–29) 57; ibid (1971–72) 500.

Temporary Chairmen 4.38Under Standing Order No 4(1) it is the Speaker's duty to nominate at the commencement of every session a panel of not fewer than ten Members to act as temporary Chairmen of committees when so requested by the Chairman of Ways and Means. The Speaker may add further Members to the panel, or make substitution, during the course of the session.1 Temporary Chairmen may take the Chair in Committee of the whole House during the passage of bills which require a significant amount of debating time, at the request of the Chairman of Ways and Means. From this same panel the Speaker appoints the Chairs of general committees (see para 39.6 ). The Panel of Chairs has the power to meet under the chairmanship of the Chairman of Ways and Means to discuss matters of procedure relating to general committees and to report its opinions to the House.2

Footnotes 1. CJ (1945–46) 55, 278; ibid (1947–48) 43; ibid (1951–52) 147; ibid (1960–61) 127; ibid (1961–62) 105. 2. SO No 85(4); CJ (1990–91) 13.

Chairmen in Westminster Hall 4.39Members of the Panel of Chairs regularly take the chair at sittings in Westminster Hall in the same manner as they chair general committees (Standing Order No 10).1

Footnotes 1. Originally, provision was made for the House to appoint four other members of the Panel of Chairs to sit as Deputy Speakers in Westminster Hall. The first such Deputy Speakers were appointed on 25 October 1999, CJ (1998–99) 519 and the last such appointments were made in 2003; the provision was ended alongside other standing order changes made on 24 February 2015 (Votes and Proceedings, 24 February 2015).

Additional salaries paid to certain Members Contents Salary of the Speaker Salaries of Chairman and Deputy Chairmen of Ways and Means Salaries of Leader of Opposition and Opposition Whips Salaries of select committee Chairs and members of the Panel of Chairs House of Lords 4.40Under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, the Speaker, Ministers of the Crown, the Leader of the Opposition and Opposition Whips receive a salary which was set down by the Act and which can be and has been amended by Order in Council, following a resolution of both Houses, or in the case of the Speaker by a resolution of the Commons. All those in receipt of an additional salary are entitled to receive a full salary as a Member of Parliament.

Salary of the Speaker 4.41The payment of a fixed salary ‘for the better support of the dignity of the Speaker of the House of Commons’ was first authorised by an Act of 1790.1 In addition to a salary as a Member of Parliament, the Speaker is entitled to a salary of £77,208 (as at 1 April 2018). To ensure the independence of the Speaker, the Speaker's salary is a charge upon the Consolidated Fund and so not subject to annual approval by Parliament.2 After vacating the office of Speaker, the holder is granted a pension under the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972, Part 2, and in any case invariably relinquishes membership of the House. Under the 1972 Act, the widow or widower of the Speaker is also entitled to a pension.3

Footnotes 1. 39 Geo 3, c 10. The payment of £6,000 in the Act was reduced by the House of Commons Officers Act 1834 (4 & 5 Will 4, c 70) to £5,000 in 1834. No change was made until 1965, when the salary was increased to £8,500 (Ministerial Salaries and Members' Pensions Act 1965). In 1972 there was a further increase, by virtue of the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1972, which was re-enacted as the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975. 2. House of Commons (Speaker) Act 1832 (2 & 3 Will 4, c 105), s 1. 3. Section 27.

Salaries of Chairman and Deputy Chairmen of Ways and Means 4.42Salaries are payable to the Chairman and Deputy Chairmen of Ways and Means in respect of their offices. They are usually increased at the same time as those salaries determined under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975. On 1 April 2017, the Chairman received £41,981 and the Deputy Chairmen £36,896, in addition to their salary as Members of Parliament. If not re-elected to office in a new Parliament, they qualify for equivalent loss of office payments to those given to Ministers.

Salaries of Leader of Opposition and Opposition Whips 4.43A salary was first granted to the Leader of the Opposition (see para 4.6 ) by the Ministers of the Crown Act 1937. On 1 April 2017, the salary was worth £64,029.1 Since 1965, provision has been made for the payment of a salary to the Opposition Chief Whip, and in 1972 this provision was extended to cover not more than two Assistant Opposition Whips.2 On 1 April 2017, the salary of the Opposition Chief Whip was worth £33,490 and that of the Assistant Opposition Whips £19,523. These salaries are in addition to their salary as Members of Parliament.

Footnotes 1. 1937, c 38, s 5; 1975, c 27, sch 2; Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 1996 (SI 1996/1913). 2. Ministerial Salaries and Members' Pensions Act 1965, s 2; Ministerial and other Salaries Acts 1972, sch 2; 1975, sch 2; 1997, s 1. See Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 1996 (SI 1996/1913).

Salaries of select committee Chairs and members of the Panel of Chairs 4.44Since Session 2003–04, the Chairs of certain select committees have been entitled to an extra annual salary, generally uprated in the same way as Members' salaries. Payment of an additional salary is subject to provisions made by the Committee on Standards regarding financial interests of Chairs (see para 5.13 ).1 In 2005, the House agreed to additional salaries for the members of the Panel of Chairs, to be paid at four different rates, eligibility for which was determined by length of service on the Panel. The maximum, earned by five years or more of service, was equal to the amount paid to the Chair of a relevant select committee.2 Since 2012, IPSA has determined the level of the additional salaries. On April 2017, the amount paid to Chairs of select committees and members of the Panel of Chairs was £15,235. Since April 2016, in line with IPSA's determination, members of the Panel of Chairs have received a flat rate equal to that for select committee Chairs. Members qualifying for payment under more than one category receive only a single payment. Select committee Chairs elected by the House qualify for the additional payment not on their election but on the appointment by the House of the committee membership.3

Footnotes 1. The Chairmen concerned are those of select committees related to government departments, the Environmental Audit Committee, the European Scrutiny Committee, the European Statutory Instruments Committee, the Finance Committee, the Committee of Public Accounts, the Select Committee on Public Administration, the Regulatory Reform Committee, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, the Administration Committee, the Liaison Committee, the Procedure Committee, the Selection Committee, the Committee on Standards and the Committee on Members' Allowances: CJ (2002–03) 658–59; HC Deb (2002–03) 412, cc 448–507; CJ (2005-06) 126; HC Deb (13 July 2005) 436, c 929; CJ (2008-09) 175; HC Deb (3 March 2009) 488, cc 807–18; CJ (2010–12) 1218; HC Deb (12 March 2012) 542, cc 69–84. For the recommendations of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, see HC 1150 (2002–03) para 16 and HC 1292 (2002–03). 2. CJ (2005–06) 121. 3. HC Deb (10 June 2010) 511, c 465.

House of Lords 4.45The organisation of government and opposition parties in the Lords mirrors that in the Commons, save for the existence of a substantial body of Members not affiliated to any party (Crossbench peers, see para 6.52 ). The conduct of government business in the Lords is entrusted to the Leader of the House, who is appointed by the Prime Minister and is generally a member of the Cabinet. The Leader's role in the Chamber is described at para 25.56. The Leader and the Leader's private office are available to assist and advise all Members, irrespective of party. The Government Whips, who hold salaried offices as members of the Royal Household, are the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms (Government Chief Whip), the Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard (Deputy Government Chief Whip) and five Lords-in-Waiting.1 The Leader of the Opposition2 and Opposition Chief Whip, who have functions similar to the corresponding figures in the House of Commons, receive statutory salaries paid out of the Consolidated Fund.3

Footnotes 1. Additional Whips may be appointed as Lords-in-Waiting, but by virtue of the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 they cannot draw a ministerial salary. 2. Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, s 2(1) defines the Leader of the Opposition in the Lords, and s 2(3) provides that the Lord Speaker's decision on which Lord is Leader of the Opposition is final. 3. Ministerial Salaries and Members' Pensions Act 1965, s 2; Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, sch 2; SI 1996/1913.

Financial support for Members of the House of Lords 4.46Members of the House of Lords do not receive a salary.1 However, all Members, except those who receive a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 and the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees, have been entitled to an allowance. This allowance is payable in respect of each day of attendance at a sitting of the House or a committee of the House, and in respect of attendance on such other parliamentary business as may be determined by the House of Lords Commission. The allowance is £300. A lower allowance of £150 is payable if the Member elects to receive a lower amount. Members are required to certify that they are receiving the allowance in respect of parliamentary work. Those who do not wish to receive the allowance need not claim it. Members participating in certain categories of business away from Westminster are also entitled to receive a daily allowance of £150. Other costs, such as travel, accommodation and subsistence, may also be reimbursed.2 Lords Members who live outside Greater London may claim reimbursement for travel to and from Westminster. Where Members do not use a House of Lords travel credit card, reimbursement for travel by public transport is on the basis of receipts or tickets. Claims for vehicle mileage are accompanied by details of individual journeys and only one claim can be made per journey, per vehicle. The arrangements for the allowances scheme are supervised by the House of Lords Commission.

Footnotes 1. The arrangements described in this section are set out in the First Report of the House Committee, HL 18 (2010–12), agreed by the House on 20 July 2010 (HL Deb (2010–12) 720, cc 915–46). For earlier resolutions of the House regarding expenses and allowances, see LJ (1945–46) 282; ibid (1956–57) 244; ibid (1960–61) 256; ibid (1964–65) 91; ibid (1969–70) 93–94; ibid (1971–72) 105; ibid (1974–75) 864; ibid (1979–80) 190, 647; ibid (1981–82) 347; ibid (1983–84) 85, 746–47; ibid (1985–86) 551; ibid (1987–88) 89, 576; ibid (1990–91) 587–88; ibid (1992–93) 529; ibid (1993–94) 598–600; ibid (1996–97) 93; ibid (1999–2000) 823; ibid (2001–02) 76–77; ibid (2003–04) 850–851; ibid (2004–05) 364; ibid (2006–07) 117. 2. First Report of the House Committee, HL 18 (2010–12), Annex A.

The Lord Speaker Contents Election of Lord Speaker Role of the Lord Speaker 4.47The House resolved on 12 July 2005 to ‘elect its own presiding officer’.1 The first election was held on 28 June 2006 with the result announced on 4 July 2006. The Lord Speaker thus replaced the Lord Chancellor, who until 2006 had been Speaker of the House of Lords ex officio.

Footnotes 1. LJ (2005–06) 152.

Election of Lord Speaker 4.48The process of election is governed by Standing Order No 19. A new election is to be held no more than five years after the previous election, or within three months of the death of the Lord Speaker or of their giving written notice of their resignation to the Leader of the House, if sooner. The result of the election is subject to the approval of the Queen. If the House passes a motion for an Address to Her Majesty seeking the Lord Speaker's removal from office, the Lord Speaker shall be deemed to have resigned. All Members who have taken the oath and are not disqualified, suspended or on leave of absence are entitled to stand and vote.1 However, a Member who has been successful in two previous elections is not entitled to stand. The election itself is conducted in accordance with arrangements made by the Clerk of the Parliaments. The alternative vote system is used,2 according to which candidates are numbered in order of preference, and the first-preference votes for the least successful candidates are successively reallocated until one candidate has at least half the total number of valid votes.

Footnotes 1. SO No 19; see Procedure Committee, Second Report, HL 51 (2009–10). 2. Report of the Select Committee on the Speakership of the House of Lords, HL 92 (2005–06).

Role of the Lord Speaker 4.49The primary role of the Lord Speaker is to preside over proceedings in the Chamber, including Committees of the whole House (Standing Order No 62). They take the oath first at the opening of a new Parliament and take part in the ceremonies accompanying oath-taking, the State Opening of Parliament, and royal commissions. The Lord Speaker seeks the leave of the House for any necessary absence of a full sitting day or more. The Lord Speaker has no power to act in the House without the consent of the House. They observe the same formalities as any other Member of the House, addressing the House as a whole, and not an individual Member, and not intervening when a Member is on their feet. The Lord Speaker's function is to assist, and not to rule. The House does not recognise points of order. Any advice or assistance given by the Lord Speaker is subject to the view of the House as a whole.1 The Lord Speaker has specific responsibilities with regard to Private Notice Questions and the application of the sub judice rule (see paras 25.33 and 25.74 ). Outside the Chamber, the Lord Speaker chairs the House of Lords Commission, which oversees the administration of the House (see paras 6.27, 40.58 ) and is a member of the Procedure Committee. They have formal responsibility for the security of the Lords part of the parliamentary estate and they are one of the three persons in whom control of Westminster Hall is vested (see para 6.49 ). In addition, they have a wide role representing the House at home and overseas. The Lord Speaker may, after consultation with the Government, recall the House whenever it stands adjourned (Standing Order No 17(1)). The Lord Speaker is a salaried office-holder and is required to lay aside outside financial interests falling into specific categories, including remunerated directorships and other employment.2 The Lord Speaker is also expected to lay aside any party or group affiliation on appointment and to refrain from political activity, including voting in the House.3

Footnotes 1. Procedure Committee, Third Report of Session 2005–06, Speaker of the House; Introductions, HL 153. 2. Committee for Privileges, Second Report of Session 2009–10, Guide to the Code of Conduct, HL 81. 3. Procedure Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2005–06, Speakership of the House, HL 172.

Senior Deputy Speaker (formally the Chairman of Committees) 4.50At the beginning of every session, or whenever a vacancy occurs, a Member is appointed by the House to fill the salaried office of Senior Deputy Speaker, formally appointed as the Chairman of Committees.1 As a salaried office-holder, the Senior Deputy Speaker is required to lay aside outside financial interests falling into specific categories, including remunerated directorships and other employment. They are also expected to lay aside any party or group affiliation on appointment and for the duration of their time in office.2 The Senior Deputy Speaker deputises for the Lord Speaker in all their duties and is empowered, for example, to recall the House during a period of adjournment in the absence of the Lord Speaker. The post holder is Chairman ex officio of all committees unless the House otherwise directs. In practice, this means that they chair the following ‘domestic’ committees: a. b. c. d.

Liaison Committee; Committee for Privileges and Conduct; Procedure Committee; Committee of Selection.

The Senior Deputy Speaker speaks and answers questions in the House on matters relating to the internal administration of the House, to the work of the Commission (of which they are a member), or to the work of any of the committees they chair. All business on matters relating to the Services and Finance Committees is tabled to the Senior Deputy Speaker, who may delegate responsibility for answering written questions or debates to the relevant Chairmen. The Senior Deputy Speaker also chairs the Freedom of Information Panel. The Senior Deputy Speaker also exercises general supervision and control over private bills and hybrid instruments.3 In these functions, they are assisted by counsel, who is a permanent official of the House.4 The Senior Deputy Speaker is ex officio the first of the Deputy Speakers appointed by Commission (see below).

Footnotes 1. Leader's Group on Governance Report, HL 81 (2015–16) and House Committee, First Report of Session 2016–17, Implementing the Recommendations of the Leader's Group on Governance, HL 19. 2. Committee for Privileges, Second Report of Session 2009–10, Guide to the Code of Conduct, HL 81. 3. In principle, the Senior Deputy Speaker exercises similar responsibilities in respect of provisional order confirmation bills. However, no such bill has been introduced since 1980. 4. LJ (1808) 792.

Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees 4.51The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees is a salaried office-holder appointed in the same manner as the Senior Deputy Speaker (formally the Chairman of Committees). As a salaried office-holder, they too are required to lay aside outside financial interests falling into specific categories, including remunerated directorships and other employment, and are expected to lay aside any party or group affiliation on appointment and for the duration of their time in office. In addition to assisting the Senior Deputy Speaker, this post holder is appointed to act as Chairman of the European Union Committee1 (see also paras 32.14 and 40.51 ). A second counsel to the Chairman of Committees is appointed for the purpose of providing legal advice to this committee.2

Footnotes 1. LJ (1974) 75, 97. 2. LJ (1974) 181.

Deputy Speakers and Deputy Chairmen of Committees 4.52Certain Members of the House are appointed by the Crown by Commission under the Great Seal to act as Deputy Speakers of the House of Lords in the absence of the Lord Speaker (Standing Order No 18). In addition, at the beginning of every session, the House on motion appoints a number of Members, proposed by the Committee of Selection, to serve as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for the remainder of that session.1 In practice, the duties of Deputy Chairmen and Deputy Speakers are indistinguishable, and it is customary for Deputy Chairmen to be appointed Deputy Speakers at a convenient opportunity after their appointment as Deputy Chairmen. In the absence of the Lord Speaker, their place on the Woolsack may be taken either by a Deputy Speaker or by a Deputy Chairman. If neither a Deputy Speaker nor a Deputy Chairman is present, the Members may on motion choose their own Speaker during the vacancy (Standing Order No 18).2 Deputy Chairmen or Deputy Speakers may not recall the House in an emergency.

Footnotes 1. SO 63(5). 2. LJ (1947–48) 244; ibid (1948) 357.

Salary of the Lord Speaker, Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees 4.53In 2016, the Lord Speaker was eligible to claim a salary of £102,101. Salaries of £84,524 and £79,076 were payable to the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees in 2017–18.

Financial assistance to opposition parties 4.54Financial assistance to the two main opposition parties has been provided from House of Lords funds since 1996. Similar assistance has been provided to the Crossbench peers since 1999. The two opposition parties are the Official Opposition and the opposition party with the largest number of Members in the Lords, other than the Official Opposition. This assistance was approved by resolution of the House and any changes are subject to similar approval. The sums payable are uprated annually. From 1 April 2017, a sum of £605,318 was available to the Official Opposition, £302,229 to the second opposition party,1 and £91,929 to the Convenor of the Crossbench Peers.

Footnotes 1. Following formation of a coalition Government, the House resolved that the resolution should have effect as if references to the second largest opposition party had been omitted, with the result that the Liberal Democrat party had available £27,808 in 2010–11. See LJ (2010–12) 112. This resolution was rescinded by a further resolution on 9 July 2015 (LJ (2015–16) 177–76.)

Background to the rules on Members' conduct Contents Bullying and harassment: background 5.1Each House asserts its right to control the behaviour of its Members in the discharge of their parliamentary and public duties as an aspect of exclusive cognizance (see Chapter 11). The internal rules on conduct, including on the disclosure of relevant financial interests, derive their authority from resolutions of the House, rather than from statute or the common law, and are therefore enforceable only by the House itself. These rules do not exempt Members from the operation of the criminal law or common-law duties to others (see para 11.8 ). Provisions to ensure good behaviour amongst Members have a long history (for example, in 1695 the House of Commons passed a resolution against offering bribes to Members) but development has been piecemeal and has largely followed a pattern of reacting to perceived crises. In response to one such crisis, in 1995 the Government set up the Committee on Standards in Public Life, an advisory body which includes independent and political members and which, alongside its wider responsibilities, provides a mechanism for regular review of issues relating to standards and the arrangements for governing Members' conduct. Similarly, in 2009 the concerns over the propriety of MPs' expense claims and the expenses system as a whole led to the division of responsibilities within the House of Commons, with the oversight and administration of Members' expenses and allowances being transferred to the statutory Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) and the House itself retaining oversight for all other aspects of Members' conduct, albeit with a strengthened independent lay element incorporated. Both the House of Lords and the House of Commons have agreed to a Code of Conduct and guidance governing the conduct expected of Members. The two Houses operate an inquisitorial system. Each has appointed an independent investigating officer who reports to a Committee of the appropriate House. Although the principles upon which they are founded are common to both codes, their provisions are not identical. This chapter therefore deals with the arrangements in each House in turn.

Bullying and harassment: background 5.2In 2017–18, in response to reports of sexual harassment and bullying in Parliament, the Prime Minister convened a cross-party working group on an independent complaints and grievance procedure. That group reported in February 2018.1 On 28 February 2018 the House of Commons endorsed the recommendations of that working group, and ordered further work to be undertaken to implement them by a working group of House staff and experts, under the supervision of a cross-party Steering Group of Members and others, such as staff and union representatives. On 21 March 2018 the House of Lords Commission referred the recommendations of the original working group to the subcommittee on Lords Conduct.2 In parallel with the work to establish an independent complaints and grievance scheme, the external members of the House of Commons Commission commissioned Dame Laura Cox QC to inquire into allegations of bullying and harassment of House of Commons staff. The Steering Group completed its task in summer 2018, when the programme team produced a Delivery Report, which put forward a new behaviour code for all in Parliament, and arrangements for reporting bullying and harassment and (separately) sexual harassment, and for independent investigation of such allegations.3 The Delivery Report was endorsed by the House of Commons on 19 July 2018, in a motion which also: amended the Code of Conduct to ensure it covered bullying and sexual harassment;4 approved a further independent inquiry into allegations of bullying of Members' staff; endorsed reviews of the new arrangements after six months and eighteen months. Dame Laura Cox reported on 15 October 2018.5 Her report considered that the arrangements endorsed in July 2018 should be revised and, of particular relevance for this Chapter, recommended that: ‘Steps should be taken, in consultation with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and others, to consider the most effective way to ensure that the process for determining complaints of bullying, harassment or sexual harassment brought by House staff against Members of Parliament will be an entirely independent process, in which Members of Parliament will play no part.’ The House of Commons Management Board and the House of Commons Commission have accepted Dame Laura's recommendations, but, at the time of writing, the scheme for implementing them has not been fully worked out. The House of Lords already had some scope within its existing Code of Conduct for Members to investigate allegations of bullying and harassment that were connected to the discharge of a Member’s parliamentary duties if that behaviour was considered to be a breach of the requirement that a Member should act always on their personal honour. At the time of publication one Lords Member had been investigated for sexual harassment under this provision.6 In December 2018, the House of Lords Commission appointed Naomi Ellenbogen QC to inquire into bullying and harassment in the House of Lords. She is due to report in July 2019. Separately, the House of Lords agreed in April 2019 to incorporate the Behaviour Code into its Code of Conduct for Lords Members and Lords Members’ staff, at the same time the House agreed to appoint a new Conduct Committee with lay members and to adopt a new standing order limiting the House’s ability to debate reports on the conduct of individual Members.7

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (8 February 2018) 635, c 1668WS. 2. House of Lords Commission, Minutes, 21 March 2018. 3. Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy Programme Team, Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme Delivery Report, July 2018. 4. See Committee on Standards, Second Report of Session 2017–19, Complaints and Grievance Policy: Implementation, HC 1396; see paras 5.3 and 5.6 below. 5. The Bullying and Harassment of House of Commons Staff: Independent Inquiry Report. 6. Second Report of the House of Lords Committee for Privileges and Conduct, The conduct of Lord Lester of Herne Hill, HL 220 (2017–19). 7. Committee for Privileges and Conduct, Fourth Report of Session 2017–19, Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme: Changes to the Code of Conduct, HL 335 (2017–19) and HL Deb (30 April 2019) 797, cc 862–87.

The Code of Conduct and other rules Contents Committee on Standards Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards 5.3The Code of Conduct is agreed by the House, on the basis of recommendations from the Committee on Standards. It is reviewed, where appropriate, once a Parliament. The review is usually led by the independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who makes proposals to the Committee on Standards, which considers them before making its report.1 The draft Code as proposed by the Committee can be, and has been, amended by the House before agreement.2 The most recent version was published in 1 August 2018.3 It states that the purpose of the Code of Conduct is to ‘assist all Members in the discharge of their obligations to the House, their constituents and the public at large’. It ‘applies to Members in all aspects of their public life’. The Code sets out Members' public duties: to owe allegiance to the Crown, to uphold the law, and to act in the interests of the nation as a whole and their constituents in particular. As to their personal conduct, it requires observance of seven general principles identified by the Committee on Standards in Public Life as applicable to holders of public office, and stipulates that any conflict between personal and public interest should always be resolved in favour of the latter. It also states that: ‘Members shall never undertake any action which would cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole, or of its Members generally.’4 The Code of Conduct is accompanied by the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members. This sets out in detail the rules which Members are obliged to follow and how alleged breaches will be investigated. As with the Code, these rules are normally reviewed once a parliament and are agreed by the House.5 The Code makes clear that ‘the obligations set out in this Code are complementary to those which apply to all Members by virtue of the procedural and other rules of the House and the rulings of the Chair, and to those which apply to Members falling within the scope of the Ministerial Code.’ The additional rules include internal regulations on the use of House facilities. The Code does not seek to regulate how Members choose to fulfil their role as a Member of Parliament. Nor does it regulate what Members do in their purely private and personal lives. However, MPs are required to treat their staff and all those visiting or working for or with Parliament with dignity, courtesy and respect. Like others working within Parliament, they are subject to the Behaviour Code, and the associated independent complaints and grievance scheme.6 Behaviour in the Chamber is a matter for the Chair and alleged breaches of privilege are a matter for the Committee of Privileges to investigate.

Footnotes 1. The way in which successive Commissioners and Committees have consulted on their proposals has varied over time. At the time of preparation, the Commissioner and Committee are conducting concurrent reviews: see www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/standards/inquiries/parliament-2015/inquiry/. See Committee on Standards and Privileges, Nineteenth Report of Session 2010–12, HC 1579 for a description of the review process in earlier Parliaments. 2. See CJ (2010–12) 275. 3. House of Commons, Code of Conduct, HC (2017–19) 1474. 4. HC 1076 (2014–15) Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members. For the possibility of corruption or impropriety constituting a contempt, see paras 15.26–15.29. 5. The Guide to the Rules referred to in this work was approved by the House on 17 March 2015 (HC 1076 (2014–15)). A change to the Guide was agreed on 7 January 2019 and it will be reprinted, together with the Code, as HC 1882. For details of the rules in operation at earlier dates, see previous editions of Erskine May. For an account of the background to the introduction of the Code and Guide, see Erskine May (22nd edn, 1997), pp 419–20. 6. Votes and Proceedings, 19 July 2018.

Committee on Standards 5.4The operation of the Code of Conduct is overseen by the Committee on Standards (previously the Committee on Standards and Privileges). In 2009 the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended that there should be at least two lay members on the Standards and Privileges Committee.1 Three lay members were first appointed in January 2013.2 Since Session 2015–16 the Committee has consisted of seven lay members and seven elected members.3 A quorum of both lay members and elected members is needed for a meeting of the Committee. The House appoints the lay members on motion following a fair and transparent recruitment process for a non-renewable term of up to six years. The recruitment process is run by the House of Commons Commission which is responsible for laying a report on the Table of the House on the outcome of each round.4 The lay members have similar rights to elected members and play a full part in proceedings. They now have the right to vote and move motions. Previously, lay members were unable to move any motion or amendment to a motion or draft report, and did not have a formal vote. The restriction arose from caution about whether the Committee's proceedings would fall within the scope of proceedings in Parliament if lay members had voting rights, a matter on which there were divergent views.5 In December 2018 the Committee recommended that lay members should be given a formal vote, without prejudice to any further decisions that might be taken to implement the Cox report. It considered that the desirability of this outweighed the small risk of challenge in the courts.6 The Committee on Standards noted the previous advice from Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, former Chair of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, that: ‘The rationale on which immunity from court process is accorded to a committee composed entirely of parliamentarians is equally apt, no less and no more, to a committee onto which Parliament has chosen to invite non-parliamentarians to serve, whether in a purely advisory capacity or in a voting capacity. The presence and participation of lay members does not change, or detract from, the essential nature of the function being exercised by the committee.’7 Referring to previous recommendations that there should be legislation on voting rights, the Committee also noted that: ‘legislation is not required in order to confer voting rights on lay members, but to provide a precautionary safeguard in relation to privilege if those rights were conferred.’8 In January 2019 Standing Order No 149 was amended to remove restrictions on the way in which lay members could participate in Committee meetings.9 In one respect, lay members may retain a stronger role than elected members on the Committee. The right to append an opinion to a draft report remains: any lay member who is present at a meeting where a report is agreed has the right to submit a paper setting out their opinion on that report which will then be published as an appendix.10 Each report records whether or not the lay members wished to submit such a paper. This was introduced to ensure that the views of lay members could not be ignored. Similarly, as an interim measure before full voting rights were introduced, it was an instruction to the Committee that before proceeding to a vote on a motion, the Committee should hold an indicative vote including both lay and elected members conducted as any other division, with the results recorded in the Minutes of Proceedings. There was no requirement that the Committee should proceed to a formal division of elected Members alone after such a vote.11 This provision has now been removed.12 The Committee on Standards is also responsible for oversight of the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. In its report on the Implications of the Cox Report, the Committee set out the principle that `that the Committee does not seek to direct the Commissioner's operational decision-making’ and put forward proposals to allow her to decide whether to open investigations into cases more than seven years old or involving former Members, and formally to remove the requirement that the Commissioner should seek the Committee's approval before referring a matter to the police, saying that in advance of such change, it would not regard her as under any obligation to seek the Committee's approval before referring any matter.13 In January 2019, these proposals were agreed to by the House.14

Footnotes 1. Committee on Standards in Public Life, MPs' expenses and allowances, Cm 7724, November 2009. 2. CJ (2012–13) 417. 3. See Committee on Standards, Sixth Report of Session 2014–15, The Standards System in the House of Commons, HC 383 for background; CJ (2014–15) 637; Votes and Proceedings, 7 March 2015. 4. See for example, House of Commons Commission, Lay members of the new Standards Committee: Nomination of Candidates, HC 709, October 2012; House of Commons Commission, Additional Lay Members of the Committee on Standards: Nomination of Candidates, HC 848, April 2016. 5. For an account of the history of the proposal for lay members, including the potential privilege issues, see Procedure Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2010–12, Lay membership of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, HC 1606. 6. Committee on Standards, Fifth Report of Session 2017–19, HC 1726. 7. Ibid, para 47. 8. Ibid, para 44. 9. Votes and Proceedings, 7 January 2019; HC Deb (7 January 2019) 652, c 124. 10. SO No 149. An elected member could, in principle, bring forward an alternative draft report which could be entered on the Minutes of Proceedings relating to the report, but this would have to be prepared before the meeting, and could not contain reflections on the process.

11. SO No 149; Votes and Proceedings, 19 July 2018; see Committee on Standards, Fifth Report of Session 2017–19, Implications of the Dame Laura Cox report for the House's standards system: Initial proposals, HC 1726; Minutes of Proceedings for an example of such an indicative vote. 12. Votes and Proceedings, 7 January 2019. 13. Committee on Standards, Fifth Report of Session 2017–19, HC 1726, paras 55–61. 14. Votes and Proceedings, 7 January 2019.

Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards 5.5The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is appointed to monitor the operation of the Code of Conduct; to maintain the Register of Members' Financial Interests and any other registers approved by the Committee on Standards; to advise that Committee on the interpretation of the Code; to provide confidential advice to Members and others subject to registration; and to investigate, if they think fit, specific matters which have come to their attention relating to the conduct of Members and to report on those investigations to the Committee on Standards.1 The Commissioner is appointed by a resolution of the House for a five-year, non-renewable term, and may be dismissed only by a resolution following a report from the Committee on Standards.2 This is to ensure that the Commissioner can act without fear or favour.

Footnotes 1. SO No 150. 2. CJ (2002–03) 489.

Personal behaviour 5.6While the rules relating to financial matters are complex and detailed, the Code now specifies that ‘Members are also expected to observe the principles set out in the Parliamentary Behaviour Code of respect, professionalism, understanding others' perspectives, courtesy, and acceptance of responsibility’, and an associated rule of conduct stipulates: ‘Respect 18. A Member must treat their staff and all those visiting or working for or with Parliament with dignity, courtesy and respect.’1 The general House of Commons bullying and harassment and sexual harassment policies apply to Members as they do to others in the parliamentary community, which ‘comprises all those working for or with Parliament either on the Parliamentary Estate, in constituency offices or elsewhere in the course of their employment and/or parliamentary work.’ The policies and procedures apply: ‘to behaviour by members of the Parliamentary Community anywhere where they would not be other than for the purposes of their employment or parliamentary work. […] this includes on the Parliamentary Estate, at constituency offices or other places of work, or in the course of parliamentary duties and activities (eg UK or overseas travel or social events related to parliamentary business).’2

Footnotes 1. Code of Conduct, HC (2017–19) 1474, paras 9, 18. 2. Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy Programme Team, Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme Delivery Report, July 2018, Annex B: Bullying and Harassment Policy, para 4.4.

Disclosure of personal financial interest Contents Registration Declaration 5.7The House has two distinct but related methods for the disclosure of the personal financial interests of its Members: registration of interests in a Register which is publicly available; and declaration of interests in the course of debate in the House and in other contexts. The main purpose of the Register is to give public notification on a continuous basis of those financial interests held by Members which might be thought to influence their parliamentary conduct or actions. The main purpose of declaration is to ensure that fellow Members of the House and the public are made aware, at the appropriate time when a Member is participating in the proceedings of the House, of any past, present or expected future financial interest which might reasonably be thought to be relevant to those proceedings.

Register of Members' financial interests 5.8The Register of Members' Financial Interests is compiled on the basis of the returns made by Members. The task of collating the returns is carried out under the authority of the Commissioner. It is the Commissioner's duty to send out the appropriate form for Members to complete at the beginning of each Parliament; a form is similarly sent to every Member returned at a by-election. It is the responsibility of Members to return the completed form within one month of their election to the House;1 it is also their responsibility to notify any changes in their registrable interests within four weeks of the changes occurring. The Register is published, and regularly updated, on the parliamentary website. Entries which relate to single benefits or to interests which are no longer held remain in the Register for twelve months after such interests are received or relinquished. The rules on the registration of financial interests are set out in the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members. The registration form specifies categories of registrable interests, including remunerated company directorships or other employment, financial sponsorship, gifts or other benefits above a specified value, shareholdings, land and property. In some cases, these categories include financial interests of a spouse or partner. Members are also required to register family members employed and paid through parliamentary allowances.2 Before 2015 any Member who was party to an existing agreement or who proposed to enter into a new agreement involving the provision of services in the capacity of a Member of Parliament was required to deposit a written copy of any such agreement with the Commissioner. This provision was dropped from the 2015 Guide to the Rules on the grounds of simplification, being replaced by a requirement to register the annual salary and hours worked.3

Footnotes 1. HC 1076 (2014–15), Chapter 1, para 2. 2. See HC 1076 (2014–15) for requirements from April 2015. See the most recent Code and Guide for up-to-date information on categories and definitions. 3. Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members, HC (2008–09) 735, para 68. See appendix to Standards and Privileges Committee, Third Report of Session 2012–13, Proposed revisions to the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members, HC 636, para 23.

Other registers 5.9Three other registers are also kept which require respectively that: 1. those holding permanent passes as lobby journalists, as journalists accredited to the Parliamentary Press Gallery or for parliamentary broadcasting, register not only the employment for which they have received their pass, but also any paid occupation or employment where their privileged access to Parliament is relevant; 2. holders of permanent passes as Members' staff register any relevant gainful occupation which they may pursue other than for which the pass is issued and, in the same way, any visits, gifts or benefits which they receive and which are covered by certain categories of the registration form for Members; and 3. the Commons Chair of All Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs) must register a range of matters, including the names of the officers of the group, the source and extent of any benefits financial or in kind from outside sources which they may enjoy.1 These registers are published on the parliamentary website. Chairs of cross-party groups which are not APPGs must include any benefits above the registrable threshold received by the group in the last twelve months in their own register entries.2

Footnotes 1. Resolutions establishing these registers were agreed in 1985, CJ (1985–86) 97; 1989, ibid (1988–89) 218; and 1993, ibid (1992–93) 709; see Committee on Standards, Sixth Report of Session 2013–14, All Party Parliamentary Groups, HC 357, CJ (2013–14) 902, and the Guide to the Rules relating to All-Party Parliamentary Groups published on the parliamentary web pages for further details of the transparency arrangements for APPGs. 2. Guide to the Rules relating to All-Party Parliamentary Groups, para 6.

Requirements for declaration 5.10A Member is required to declare ‘any relevant pecuniary interest or benefit of whatever nature, whether direct or indirect, that he may have had, may have or may be expecting to have’.1 Thus the rule relating to the declaration of interests is broader in scope than the rules relating to registration in requiring the declaration of relevant past interests, indirect financial interests, expected future interests and registered non-financial interests.2 Members should also declare non-registrable interests which might be thought to influence them such as blind trusts and interests which fall below the registrable threshold, and any financial interests which require registration but have yet to appear in the published Register. In addition, Members may declare non-financial interests which are not registered if they think it is appropriate.3 It is the responsibility of the Member, having regard to the rules of the House, to judge whether a financial interest is sufficiently relevant to require declaration. The basic test of relevance is similar to that for registration: that a financial interest should be declared if it might reasonably be thought by others to influence the Member's actions or words. Where, however, a particular interest was shared by Members at large (in this case as employers of staff), the Speaker has ruled that Members should be expected to indicate a relevant interest only where that was ‘plainly additional to their interests as Members of the House’.4 The Committee on Standards and Privileges made it clear that it would regard it as a very serious breach of the rules if a Member failed to register or declare an interest which was relevant to a proceeding that Member had initiated.5

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

CJ (1974) 143. HC 1076 (2014–15) Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members, p 33. HC 1076 (2014–15) Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members, p 34. HC Deb (2001–02) 375, c 858. HC 478 (2000–01) para 15.

Occasion of declaration 5.11The House has always recognised that there are certain proceedings where declaration of interest may not be practicable, for example during oral questions or in the case of exchanges following a ministerial statement or an urgent question.1 Members are, however, advised to declare any relevant interest where such a declaration does not unduly impede the business of the House, including interventions.2 In debate a declaration should be succinct but should provide sufficient information to convey the nature of the interest without the listener or reader having to have recourse to the Register or other publication.3 A Member should declare an interest when it is most relevant to do so, normally at the beginning of their remarks.4 Where a Member has omitted to make a declaration, they should correct the record by making the necessary declaration on a point of order as soon as possible.5 The rule on declaration applies not only to debates in the House, but to almost all proceedings of the House or its committees in which Members have an opportunity to speak, such as debates in general committees,6 or presentation of a public petition.

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

See, for example, HC Deb (15 March 2005) 432, c 136. HC 1076 (2014–15) Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members, p 34; HC Deb (1 May 2018) 640, c 227. HC 1076 (2014–15) Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members, p 33. HC 1076 (2014–15) Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members, Ch 2. HC Deb (24 July 2018) 645, c 982. Stg Co Proceedings (1986–87) Co A (Local Government Bill) c 4.

Declaration in giving notice 5.12Declaration of a relevant interest is required on the Order Paper (or Notice Paper) when tabling any written notice, including: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

questions (for oral or written answer); early day motions, amendments to them, or any names added in support of such motions or amendments; a notice of a motion for leave to introduce a ‘ten-minute rule’ bill; a notice for presentation of a bill (including a ‘ballot’ bill); any other motions, amendments, or added names in support of them; amendments to bills (whether to be considered in the House or in a committee) and any names added in support of them; nomination as a candidate for election as a select committee Chair under Standing Order No 122B.

Whenever such an interest is declared, the symbol ‘[R]’ (for ‘relevant’) is printed on the Notice Paper or Order Paper,1 except that in the case of nominations for election as select committee Chairs, for the convenience of Members, the full entry from the Register is published with the nomination. A similar requirement is placed on the supporters of a bill, in which case the ‘[R]’ appears after their name on the back of the bill. ‘Relevant interests’ which should be declared include any interest which the Member is required to register, or which the Member should declare in debate. It will therefore usually be the case that the interest to which the Member is drawing the attention of the House will already be entered in the Register. Provided it is readily apparent which of the Member's registered interests are applicable, the Member need take no further action. If this is not the case, the Member when giving notice should attach to that notice a brief written description of the interest which is being declared, which will then be available for inspection by Members in the office where the notice was given. In the case of urgent questions, the Member with a relevant interest should declare the interest in the application to the Speaker and, if the question is allowed, declare the interest when the question is formally asked in the House.2 Similarly, applications to the Speaker for emergency debates under Standing Order No 24 and for adjournment debates and debates in Westminster Hall should be accompanied by a declaration of any relevant interest.

Footnotes 1. HC 688 (1995–96) paras 43–45. 2. HC 1076 (2014–15) Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members, p 36.

Declaration in select committees 5.13By a resolution of 13 July 1992, the House approved certain sections of a report by the Select Committee on Members' Interests relating to the financial interests of Chairs and members of select committees.1 The main effects of that resolution, briefly summarised, are as follows: 1. At the first meeting of a select committee and, in the case of a committee which elects its own Chair, before it proceeds to that election, its members are required to give details of their financial interests for circulation to the committee. (This requirement does not apply to committees of a wholly procedural nature.) 2. Declarations of relevant financial interest should be made, and minuted in the committee's formal minutes, both when the committee is deciding on a subject of inquiry and in the presence of witnesses each time evidence is taken during an inquiry. 3. When a member of a committee, particularly the Chair, has a financial interest which is directly affected by a particular inquiry or when they consider that a personal interest may reflect upon the work of the committee or its subsequent report, the Member should stand aside from the committee proceedings relating to it. The Guide to the Rules makes it clear that declarations should also include any non-registrable interests which meet the test of relevance.2 From the start of the 2003–04 parliamentary session, the Chairs of certain select committees received an additional payment (see para 38.19 ). When the House agreed to these payments it also endorsed the statement of the Committee on Standards and Privileges that: ‘As a matter of principle, there should be no question of, nor any appearance of, any double payment—from both a chairman's salary and an outside interest—for an outside activity arising primarily as a result of the chairmanship. Nor, like Ministers, should chairmen gain private benefit from work done, in whole or in part, with any assistance from public resources.’3 From 1 November 2005 the Chairs of general committees also received additional payments. The Committee on Standards and Privileges, while recognising that, in this case, opportunities to receive financial advantage as a consequence of duties performed were ‘likely to occur very infrequently if at all’, recommended that Chairs should adopt an analogous approach to payments for outside activities.4 The rules on lobbying for reward or consideration apply in particular ways in select committees (see below).

Footnotes 1. First Report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, HC 108 (1990–91) paras 8–16, 24 and 25. See para 5.12 for the procedure where the Chair is elected by the House. 2. HC 1076 (2014–15) Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members, p 35. 3. CJ (2002–03) 659–70; Sixth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, HC 1150 (2002–03) para 16. 4. Standards and Privileges Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2005–06, Pay for Standing Committee Chairmen, HC 568, para 9.

Other declarations 5.14There is a requirement to disclose any relevant interest in any ‘transactions or communications which a Member may have with other Members or with Ministers or servants of the Crown’.1 The term ‘servants of the Crown’ is interpreted as applying to the staff of executive agencies and any other public bodies as well as those employed in government departments.2 Members must also declare any relevant interests when booking dining rooms or any other rooms for functions on the parliamentary estate.3

Footnotes 1. CJ (1974) 143. 2. HC 688 (1995–96) para 37, see also Committee on Standards and Privileges, Ninth Report of Session 2010–12, Sir John Butterfill, Mr Stephen Byers, Ms Patricia Hewitt, Mr Geoff Hoon, Mr Richard Caborn and Mr Adam Ingram, HC 654, paras 60–62. 3. HC 1076 (2014–15) Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members, p 36.

Committees on opposed private bills 5.15Under Standing Order 120, each member of a committee on an opposed private bill, before being entitled to attend and vote, is required to sign a declaration that their constituents have no local interest, and that the Member has no personal interest, in the bill; that the Member recognises the obligation to attend every meeting of the committee; and that the Member will never vote on any question which may arise without having duly heard and attended to the evidence relating to it. If a Member who has signed this declaration should subsequently discover a direct interest in a bill, or in a company who are petitioners against a bill, that Member will withdraw from the committee, after stating the fact, and may, if necessary, be discharged by the House (or by the Selection Committee) from further attendance.1 (See also para 45.10.)

Footnotes 1. CJ (1945–46) 237.

Votes on matters where Members have a financial interest 5.16Members are not required to declare an interest when voting, either in the House or a committee. This rule was formalised by a resolution of the House of 12 June 1975: ‘That, for the purposes of the Resolution of the House of 22 May 1974 in relation to disclosures of interests in any proceeding of the House or its Committees, any interest disclosed in a copy of the Register of Members' Interests shall be regarded as sufficient disclosure for the purpose of taking part in any division in the House or in any of its Committees.’1 The Speaker has made it clear that the right of Members to vote on matters of public policy remains the same during the period which occurs at the beginning of each Parliament before a new Register is published.2

Footnotes 1. CJ (1974–75) 480. 2. HC Deb (1987–88) 119, cc 195–97.

Motions to disallow votes 5.17A motion may be made to object to the vote of a Member who has a direct, immediate and personal financial interest in a question. On 17 July 1811 the rule was explained thus by Mr Speaker Abbot: ‘This interest must be a direct pecuniary interest, and separately belonging to the persons whose votes were questioned, and not in common with the rest of his Majesty's subjects, or on a matter of state policy’.1‘ State policy’ may be equated with ‘public policy’ and is not confined to public bills introduced by the Government, but is also the subjectmatter of private Members' bills.2 An objection to a vote on the ground of personal interest can be raised only on a substantive motion; it cannot be brought forward as a point of order.3 The motion must be made as soon as the division is completed and cannot be heard at a later stage.4 The Speaker then rules on whether the motion objecting to a vote is in order, and if the motion is allowed the Member whose vote is under consideration is heard in their place, and then withdraws immediately, before the question founded on the objection has been proposed.5 Such an objection on the same ground against a vote in Committee of the whole House must be determined by the committee on a motion made in committee that the vote be disallowed,6 and a motion to report progress, in order to bring such an objection before the House, has not been permitted.7

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1811) 20, cc 1001–12 (votes of bank directors on the gold coin bill). See also HC Deb (1932) 261, c 193 (order made under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act 1931); ibid (1946–47) 431, cc 1614–15 (Transport Bill). The Speaker has ruled that the question of the Lord Chancellor's salary was a matter of public policy upon which a Member who was his son was entitled to vote (ibid (1983–84) 64, cc 669–70). 2. See the Speaker's statement HC Deb (1983–84) 50, c 679. 3. Parl Deb (1884) 285, c 1222; ibid (1892) 2, c 90; HC Deb (1912–13) 48, c 607. But see Parl Deb (1872) 212, cc 1134–37; CJ (1872) 276. A motion for a committee to inquire into the legality of votes given in a division has also been held to be out of order, Parl Deb (1901) 92, c 419. 4. HC Deb (1912–13) 48, c 747; ibid (1926) 191, c 1937. 5. CJ (1825–26) 110; ibid (1836) 271. See also ibid (1883) 189; ibid (1886) 83. 6. HC Deb (1912–13) 48, cc 607, 609, 745–47. 7. Parl Deb (1890) 345, cc 1232–35; CJ (1892) 98; HC Deb (1911) 29, c 1679. For more detail of objections overruled by the Chair and personal interests in votes on public policy, see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), pp 84–85.

Personal interest in votes on private bills 5.18The votes of Members, who were subscribers to undertakings proposed to be sanctioned by a private bill,1 or who were otherwise interested in a private bill, have been disallowed. Motions to disallow the votes of shareholders in the company which was promoting the bill on which the division was taken have been negatived.2 In 1980 when a Member raised a point of order on whether the 53 Members who were also members of Lloyd's were permitted to vote on the Lloyd's Bill, the Member who was steering the Bill through the House advised Members who were also members of Lloyd's to refrain from voting. In the division on second reading only two members of Lloyd's were recorded as voting or telling. Their votes were not challenged.3

Footnotes 1. CJ (1825–26) 110; ibid (1836) 271. For consideration of personal interest in votes on competing bills, see Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), pp 356–57. 2. CJ (1883) 189; ibid (1884) 103. 3. HC Deb (1980–81) 1, cc 811–12, 893–94.

Procedural motions: no interest involved 5.19As no financial interest is involved in procedural motions such as closure, and dilatory motions,1 Members have been allowed to vote for the closure on bills in which they may have a financial interest.2

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1989–90) 169, c 423. 2. HC Deb (1980–81) 1, c 859.

Lobbying for reward or consideration (the advocacy rule) 5.20The holding of outside interests by Members is a matter of controversy, which received attention from the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL) in 2009 and again in 2017.1 The CSPL concluded in 2009 that ‘MPs should remain free to undertake some paid activity outside the House of Commons, provided it is kept within reasonable limits and there is transparency about the nature of the activity and the amount of time spent on it’.2 This remains the basis of the current rules. The question of outside interests can be complex and the House has repeatedly tried to distinguish in its rules between representation and corruption. On 6 November 1995 the House agreed to the following resolution relating to lobbying for reward or consideration: ‘It is inconsistent with the dignity of the House, with the duty of a Member to his constituents, and with the maintenance of the privilege of freedom of speech, for any Member of this House to enter into any contractual agreement with an outside body, controlling or limiting the Member's complete independence and freedom of action in Parliament or stipulating that he shall act in any way as the representative of such outside body in regard to any matters to be transacted in Parliament; the duty of a Member being to his constituents and to the country as a whole, rather than to any particular section thereof: and that in particular no Members of the House shall, in consideration of any remuneration, fee, payment or reward or benefit in kind, direct or indirect, which the Member or any member of his or her family has received or expects to receive— i. advocate or initiate any cause or matter on behalf of any outside body or individual, or ii. urge any other Member of either House of Parliament, including Ministers, to do so, by means of any speech, Question, Motion, introduction of a Bill or Amendment to a Motion or a Bill.’ In May 2002 the resolution was amended by including approaches to Ministers and civil servants within its scope.3 The resolution extends and reinforces an earlier resolution of the House in 1947 that a Member may not enter into any contractual arrangement which fetters the Member's complete independence in Parliament by any undertaking to press some particular point of view on behalf of an outside interest.4 Nor, by virtue of the same resolution, may an outside body (or person) use any contractual arrangement with a Member of Parliament as an instrument by which it controls, or seeks to control, their conduct in Parliament, or to punish that Member for any parliamentary action.5 Rules relating to lobbying agreed by the House in 2015 distinguish between initiation of proceedings or approaches to a Minister, other Members or public officials, and participation in such proceedings or approaches. Members must not engage in lobbying by initiating a proceeding or an approach which seeks to confer a benefit on a particular individual or organisation from which they or a family member receive payment in some kind. Initiating a proceeding includes presenting a bill,6 presenting a petition, tabling a question, motion or amendment, applying for an adjournment or other debate and proposing a draft Report or moving an amendment to a draft Report in a select committee. Where proceedings or approaches have been initiated by other Members, and provided that they do not seek to confer exclusive benefits on that individual or organisation and that the event has not been initiated by that same person or organisation, it is permissible for Members to participate in those proceedings or approaches even if they confer benefit on an individual or organisation from which they receive payments.7 Participating in proceedings includes making a speech in the Chamber or a committee, intervening in a debate, statement or other proceeding or asking a supplementary question to another Member's question and asking a question of witnesses before a select committee.8 The restrictions on lobbying apply for six months after the benefit was received and can be lifted at any time if the Member repays the full value of the benefit. The restrictions do not apply in the case of approaching a Minister or a public official in the exceptional circumstance where a Member has evidence of a serious wrong or substantial injustice.9

Footnotes CSPL report on MPs' Expenses and Allowances, Cm 7724, November 2009, ch 11; review announced March 2017. CSPL report on MPs' Expenses and Allowances, Cm 7724, November 2009, ch 11. CJ (2001–02) 557. Committee of Privileges, Report, HC 118 (1946–47) paras 11–15. Second Report of the Committee of Privileges, HC 634 (1974–75) para 3. This rule does not apply where a Member, who has been successful in the ballot for private Members' bills, receives free or subsidised assistance from an organisation connected with the purposes of the bill, provided that there is no pre-existing financial relationship between the Member and the body in question. 7. HC 1076 (2014–15) Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members, p 38. 8. HC 1076 (2014–15) Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members, p 39. 9. HC 1076 (2014–15) Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members, p 38. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Complaints and investigations Contents Complaints under the Code of Conduct 5.21Since the House agreed to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, there are now two routes by which complaints may arise.

Complaints under the Code of Conduct Contents ICGS investigations Publication of information Role of the Committee on Standards 5.22It is open to any Member1 or to a member of the public to complain to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards that a Member has not properly registered or declared their interests or is in breach of the rule on advocacy, or is otherwise in breach of the Code of Conduct. All such complaints must be addressed to the Commissioner in writing.2 The Commissioner will not entertain anonymous complaints. Complaints about Members' expenses claims paid by IPSA must be made to the Compliance Officer appointed under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, s 3. The Commissioner may reject the complaint without reference to the Committee on Standards if the allegation does not fall within the Code of Conduct or insufficient evidence is provided. If the Commissioner considers that an inquiry would be disproportionate given the nature and seriousness of the allegation made, the Commissioner may also decide not to inquire into that matter. The receipt of a complaint by the Commissioner, or the initiation of an inquiry, is not to be interpreted as an indication that a prima facie case has been established. If the Commissioner is satisfied that sufficient evidence has been tendered in support of the complaint to justify taking the matter further, a preliminary inquiry is conducted. The Commissioner may ask the complainant for further information and will ask the Member to respond to the complaint. Parliamentary privilege is not considered to extend to communications between a member of the public and the Commissioner unless and until the Commissioner has accepted the matter for inquiry. The House agreed on 2 December 2010 to allow the Commissioner, if they think fit, to investigate matters which have come to their attention other than as the subject of a formal complaint.3 This enables the Commissioner to accede to a request by a Member for an investigation into an allegation against them in the absence of a complaint – so called self-referral – and to investigate cases where the Compliance Officer appointed under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 reported a breach of the rules relating to Members' allowances which might also constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct.4 In cases of admitted failures to register or declare interests, where the interest involved was minor or the lapse inadvertent, the Commissioner has discretion to allow the Member to rectify the matter. Rectification of non-registration requires the insertion of a belated entry in the current Register, with an appropriate explanatory note. In the case of non-declaration, an apology to the House, either on a point of order or in an intervention in a relevant debate, is required.5 Members making an apology on a point of order following the rectification procedure, as agreed with the Commissioner, should give prior notice of their intention to apologise to the Speaker and should raise the point of order at the normal time for doing so.6 In other cases the Commissioner may conclude that it is necessary to conduct a full investigation. In these circumstances the Commissioner would usually interview the Member concerned and may interview others and collect additional evidence as required. While the Commissioner has no power to compel the production of documents or witnesses, the Committee on Standards made clear its expectation that Members should cooperate fully and frankly with the Commissioner. The Committee also indicated that it would exercise its powers to send for persons, papers and records in support of the Commissioner if that proved to be necessary.7 Members and other witnesses may be accompanied by a legal adviser (or other ‘friend’), but they will be expected to answer for themselves (and not through their adviser) any questions put to them. Once the Commissioner has completed the investigation, a report is made to the Committee on Standards setting out the facts as found and the Commissioner's conclusions on whether the Code of Conduct has been breached. Accordingly, the Commissioner's report normally comprises a description of the complaint and of the relevant aspects of the Code or Rules; an account of the evidence; findings of fact; and a conclusion along with any relevant recommendations, for example for the amendment of procedures. In June 2003 a procedure was introduced for the investigation of the most difficult cases, where proof of the complaint would be likely to lead to the imposition of a serious penalty on the Member concerned, and there appeared to be significant contested issues of fact which could not be properly decided unless the Member was given the opportunity to call witnesses or examine other witnesses. In such cases, the Commissioner may appoint an Investigatory Panel. The Commissioner would sit on this with two assessors, who would advise the Commissioner, but have no responsibility for the findings. One would be a legal assessor, and the other a senior Member of the House, who would advise on parliamentary matters. The Commissioner would determine the procedures and might appoint counsel to assist the panel. The Member against whom the complaint had been made would be entitled to be heard in person, and would have the opportunity to call witnesses and to examine other witnesses. At the conclusion of proceedings, the Commissioner would report as usual, the legal assessor would report as to the extent to which the proceedings had been consistent with the principles of natural justice, and the Member assessor might report on the extent to which the proceedings had regard to the customs and practice of the House and its Members.8 To date, however, this procedure has not been used.9

Footnotes 1. The Speaker has stated that, although there was nothing in rules of the House which prohibited it, in her view it was discourteous, unjust and unfair for a Member who complained to the Commissioner about the conduct of another Member to inform the media that they had done so, HC Deb (1999–2000) 346, c 323. The Speaker has also made it clear that allegations about a breach of the code of conduct or misuse of resources should not be made on the Floor of the House but as a complaint to the Commissioner, ibid (14 November 2011) 535, c 579; ibid (7 December 2011) 537, c 305.

Scotland 3.6Under the Insolvency Act 1986, s 427, a person against whom sequestration of estate is awarded in Scotland is ineligible as a Member for any constituency. An existing Member is prohibited from sitting and voting in the House or any committee until discharged, or (if this happens first) the adjudication is annulled or the award is recalled or reduced; and if a Member continues under this prohibition for six months, his or her seat is vacated at the end of that period.

ICGS investigations 5.23The Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (IGCS) provides a single channel for complaints about behaviour which may breach the codes relating to bullying and harassment, and sets up a panel of investigators into such complaints. The aim of the scheme is to resolve complaints quickly and informally where possible. Where this is not possible, or would be inappropriate, it provides independent investigation of such complaints. Where the complaint is against a Member, the investigator works under the oversight of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. If there is a finding that there has been bullying or misconduct as the result of an ICGS investigation, the Parliamentary Commissioner can agree a remedy with the Member concerned, under a framework agreed by the Committee on Standards. In serious cases, the Commissioner will make a report to the Committee, as in other cases where the Code has been breached.

Publication of information 5.24The Commissioner has power to publish an annual report and statistical information about complaints and cases.1 For complaints under the broader Code of Conduct, the Commissioner will not publish any information until an investigation is concluded. If a complaint is accepted for investigation and has not been upheld or rectification has been agreed, papers relating to that investigation may then be published on the Commissioner's webpages. If a complaint results in a memorandum to the Committee on Standards, then the memorandum and related evidence will be published by the Committee in association with its report. The procedures under the ICGS are designed to ensure a high level of confidentiality for the complainant. It will be for the Commissioner to decide whether publication is proportionate, and necessary, but as general principles: there should be no publication of the fact that an investigation has commenced; if an unpublicised complaint is not upheld, the Member's name should not be published; in deciding whether to publish details of individual complaints which have proceeded to the stage of investigation by the Commissioner and have been remedied, the Commissioner should consider: i. the potential effect on the reporter and respect any desire for confidentiality on the reporter's part; and ii. whether naming the responder is proportionate in relation to the finding, bearing in mind the effect on the responder's reputation.2

Footnotes 1. See HC Deb (19 July 2018) 645, c 627 ff. 2. Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme Delivery Report, July 2018, para 63.

Role of the Committee on Standards 5.25If the Committee on Standards agrees with the Commissioner in a case where the latter has concluded that the Code has been breached, it considers what if any penalty is appropriate. In some cases it may seek further information from the Commissioner or decide to take evidence from the Member or others. It will always give the Member an opportunity to comment in person or in writing. The Committee reports its conclusions, including any recommendations as to penalties, to the House, along with the memorandum from the Commissioner. In case of moneys wrongly claimed from parliamentary allowances, the Committee has commonly required the Member to repay a sum calculated to be equivalent to the difference between the sums received by the Member and the sums to which they were entitled under the rules. Separately, under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 (as amended by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010), the Compliance Officer appointed under the 2009 Act has the power to direct a Member to repay any sum that should not have been paid by IPSA.

Procedure in the House in standards cases 5.26Penalties recommended by the Committee fall into two categories. Some penalties do not require any decision by the House, such as a requirement to make a financial repayment or to make an apology to the House by way of personal statement or on a point of order.1 In other, more serious, cases, it is the House which makes the final decision on penalties. Recommendations, such as suspension (which entails loss of salary and pension contributions for the relevant period), and withholding of salary without suspension, or withholding of resettlement grant, require a motion on the floor of the House.2 The motion is moved formally by the Government. The Member concerned may be heard first, in which case they then withdraw, following which the Chair of the Committee on Standards sets out the Committee's findings. Alternatively, and more commonly in recent cases, the Member concerned has made a personal statement on a previous day.3 When a Member, who spoke at the start of the debate on a motion to approve the report of the Committee into his conduct and to suspend him for a period, was judged by the Committee not to have made an adequate apology to the House, the Committee returned to the matter in a subsequent report in which it recommended that the Member should make a full apology in a personal statement to the House by a certain date, failing which the House should suspend him until such time as he agreed to do so.4 The Member subsequently apologised in accordance with the recommendation.5 Where a Member has resigned after the publication of a report but before the motion to agree the sanction has been made in the House, the report has been debated notwithstanding the resignation and the House has agreed to approve the report's conclusions and endorse its recommendations.6 Under the Recall of MPs Act 2015, a Member suspended from the service of the House for at least ten sitting days or for a period of at least 14 days, where sitting days are not specified, following on from a report from the Committee on Standards in relation to the Member, becomes liable to the recall petition process (see para 2.9 ).

Footnotes 1. See Committee on Standards, Twenty-second Report of Session 2010–12, Jack Dromey, HC 1766, para 18, for an explanation of the distinction between an apology on a point of order and a personal statement; see also HC Deb (11 December 2017) 633, c 67; HC Deb (6 December 2018) 650, c 1080. 2. HC Deb (1 February 2010) 505, cc 38–41. In the case of a number of former Members whose actions the Commissioner found to breach the Code of Conduct, the Committee recommended and the House agreed to the suspension for defined periods of their entitlement to use or to be issued with a parliamentary photopass, Committee on Standards and Privileges, Ninth Report of Session 2010–12, Sir John Butterfill, Mr Stephen Byers, Ms Patricia Hewitt, Mr Geoff Hoon, Mr Richard Caborn and Mr Adam Ingram, HC 654; and Votes and Proceedings, 15 December 2010. 3. For example, HC Deb (29 January 2010) 504, c 1044. 4. Committee on Standards and Privileges, Fifth Report of Session 2004–05, Conduct of Mr Jonathan Sayeed: Further Report, HC 473. 5. HC Deb (23 March 2005) 432, c 893. 6. HC Deb (6 November 2012) 552, cc 754–57; HC Deb (8 May 2014) 580, cc 302–10.

House of Lords Contents Oversight and advice General principles and rules of conduct Registration and declaration of interests Private bills Financial support, facilities and services Imprisonment Enforcement Lords Members' staff Members and employees of public boards 5.27The current version of the House of Lords Code of Conduct was adopted on 30 November 2009, and the latest edition, which incorporates a series of amendments agreed by the House over time, was published in April 2017.1 An accompanying Guide to the Code of Conduct was adopted on 16 March 2010 and the latest version was published with the Code in April 2017.2 The Code applies to all Members of the House of Lords who are not: (a) on leave of absence; (b) suspended from the service of the House; or (c) subject to statutory disqualification. The stated purpose of the Code is: (a) to provide guidance for Members of the House of Lords on the standards of conduct expected of them in the discharge of their parliamentary duties; and (b) to provide the openness and accountability necessary to reinforce public confidence in the way in which Members of the House of Lords perform their parliamentary duties. The Code does not extend to their performance of duties unrelated to parliamentary proceedings, or to their private lives, except in cases where a Lords Member is sentenced to imprisonment.3 Members of the House of Lords sign an undertaking to abide by the Code as part of the ceremony of taking the oath upon introduction and at the start of each Parliament.4

Footnotes 1. See www.parliament.uk/hl-code. For the 2009 version and the subsequent amendments, see HL Deb (30 November 2009) 715, cc 645–48; HL Deb (30 March 2010) 718, cc 1290–92; HL Deb (12 June 2014) 754, cc 512–13; HL Deb (25 February 2016) 769, cc 396–400; HL Deb (9 February 2017) 778, cc 1863–65; and HL Deb (3 April 2016) 782, cc 861–64. For the previous Code of Conduct, agreed in 2001, see HL Deb (2001–02) 626, cc 630–87 and 1849–1862. For practice before 2001, see Erskine May (22nd edn, 1997), pp 448–50. 2. For the 2010 version, see HL Deb (16 March 2018) 718, cc 567–88; the Guide to the Code of Conduct was annexed to the Committee for Privileges, Second Report, HL 81 (2009–10). For the subsequent amendments, see HL Deb (9 November 2011) 732, c 240; HL Deb (6 March 2014) 752, cc 1441–44; HL Deb (13 May 2014) 753, cc 1776–80; HL Deb (24 March 2015) 760, cc 1309–10; HL Deb (25 February 2016) 769, cc 396–400; HL Deb (9 February 2017) 778, cc 1863–65; and HL Deb (3 April 2017) 782, cc 861–64. 3. Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Lords, para 3(a). For further details about the treatment of Lords Members sentenced to imprisonment, see para 5.38. 4. Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Lords, para 5.

Oversight and advice 5.28The operation of the Code of Conduct and Guide to the Code of Conduct is overseen by the Sub-Committee on Lords' Conduct, a subcommittee of the Committee for Privileges and Conduct. The Sub-Committee keeps the Code and the Guide under regular review. Any recommendation for change to the Code or Guide must be reported through the Committee for Privileges and Conduct to the House and no change can take effect until agreed by the House.1 The Registrar of Lords' Interests advises Members of the House. A Member of the Lords who acts on the advice of the Registrar in determining what is a relevant interest satisfies fully the requirements of the Code of Conduct in that regard.2 The Registrar is also available to advise Lords Members on other matters relating to the Code. However, as paragraph 25 of the Code states, the final responsibility for deciding whether or not to participate in proceedings to which a particular interest is relevant rests with the Member concerned.

Footnotes 1. Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Lords, para 26. On 30 April 2019, the House of Lords agreed to establish a separate Conduct Committee with lay members, see para 5.2. 2. Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Lords, para 25.

General principles and rules of conduct Contents Paid advocacy The ‘seven general principles of conduct’ Participation in proceedings 5.29Members of the Lords are required both ‘to comply with the Code of Conduct ’ (paragraph 8(a) of the Code), and to act always ‘on their personal honour’ in the discharge of their parliamentary duties (paragraph 8(b)). These paragraphs of the Code, taken together, mean that Lords Members are required not only to obey the letter of the rules, but to act in accordance with the spirit of those rules and the sense of the House. Paragraph 8 of the Guide states accordingly that ‘a Member who expresses a clear willingness to breach the Code … demonstrates a failure to act on his or her personal honour, and is thus in breach of paragraph 8(b) of the Code’. Conduct such as sexually harassing a complainant and offering corrupt inducements to sleep with a Lords Member has been considered a failure to act on personal honour when closely connected to the discharge of parliamentary duties.1 Lords Members are required under paragraph 7 of the Code to base their actions on consideration of the public interest and to ‘resolve any conflict between their personal interest and the public interest at once, and in favour of the public interest’. Acceptance of financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence would necessarily contravene this principle. Paragraph 8(c) of the Code therefore states that Lords Members ‘must never accept or agree to accept any financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence’. Paragraph 8(d) of the Code describes the specific application of the principles described in paragraphs 7 and 8(c): Lords Members ‘must not seek to profit from membership of the House by accepting or agreeing to accept payment or other incentive or reward in return for providing parliamentary advice or services’. The prohibition on accepting payment in return for parliamentary advice means that Lords Members may not act as paid parliamentary consultants, advising outside organisations or persons on process, for example how they may lobby or otherwise influence the work of Parliament. The prohibition on accepting payment in return for parliamentary services means that Lords Members may not, in return for payment or other incentive or reward, assist outside organisations or persons in influencing Members of either House, Ministers or officials. This includes seeking by means of participation in proceedings of the House to confer exclusive benefit upon the organisation (the ‘no paid advocacy rule’); or making use of their position to lobby, or to help others to lobby, Members of either House, Ministers or officials.2

Footnotes 1. Committee for Privileges and Conduct, Second Report of Session 2017–19, The conduct of Lord Lester of Herne Hill, HL 220. 2. Guide to the Code of Conduct, paras 19–22.

Paid advocacy 5.30Paragraph 14 of the Code states that a Lords Member ‘must not act as a paid advocate in any proceeding of the House; that is to say, he or she must not seek by parliamentary means to confer exclusive benefit on an outside body or person from which he or she receives payment or reward’. This ‘exclusive benefit’ principle would mean, for instance, that a Lords Member who was paid by a particular company would be barred from seeking to confer benefit exclusively upon that company by parliamentary means. The nature of the ‘exclusive benefit’ is interpreted narrowly. The same Lords Member would not be debarred from tabling an amendment, speaking or voting on matters relevant to, for instance, the general sector or regulatory framework within which the company operated.1 A Lords Member who seeks to confer benefit on an organisation in which they have a financial interest, but who considers that this does not constitute an ‘exclusive benefit’, should make it clear in debate how they are acting not only in the interest of the organisation, but also the wider sector or community of which that organisation forms a part.2 Paragraphs 8(c) and 8(d) of the Code (which prohibit payment for exercising parliamentary influence and payment for providing parliamentary advice and services) and paragraph 14 of the Code (which prohibits paid advocacy for exclusive benefit) do not apply to the Lords Spiritual, to Ministers of the Crown, or to members or employees of non-departmental public bodies (whether commercial or non-commercial in character) in relation to those specific roles. Members and employees of public boards may take part in proceedings affecting the boards of which they are members or employees, subject to the usual rules on declaration of interests.3

Footnotes 1. Guide to the Code of Conduct, paras 24–25. 2. Guide to the Code of Conduct, para 28. 3. Guide to the Code of Conduct, para 29.

The ‘seven general principles of conduct’ 5.31Paragraph 9 of the Code requires Members of the House to observe seven general principles of conduct set out by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. These principles apply to all aspects of public life, and provide the context within which the House of Lords Code of Conduct is read and implemented. Thus complaints are not entertained solely on the basis of alleged failures to abide by the seven principles (unsupported by specific evidence of a breach of the Code). However, these principles are taken into account when investigating any alleged breach of the provisions in other sections of the Code, and ‘should act as a guide to Members in considering the requirement to act always on their personal honour’.1

Footnotes 1. Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Lords, para 9; Guide to the Code of Conduct, paras 10–11.

Participation in proceedings 5.32In accordance with paragraph 15 of the Code, a Lords Member with a relevant interest is free to take part in the business of the House subject to: 1. 2. 3. 4.

the rules on financial inducements and parliamentary influence (paragraph 8); the rules on paid advocacy (paragraph 14); the rules on the registration and declaration of interests (paragraphs 10–13); and the resolution of any conflict between personal and public interest in favour of the public interest (paragraphs 7 and 15).

Registration and declaration of interests Contents Registration Declaration 5.33Under paragraph 10 of the Code, Lords Members are required to register and declare certain relevant interests. A relevant interest is one which might be thought by a reasonable member of the public to influence the way in which a Member of the House of Lords discharges their parliamentary duties:1 in the case of registration, the Member's parliamentary duties in general; in the case of declaration, duties in respect of the particular matter under discussion. Thus the House of Lords, like the Commons, has two distinct but related methods for the disclosure of the relevant interests of its Members. Registered interests are published in the Register of Lords' Interests, which is updated daily online2 and published in hard copy annually. The main purpose of the Register is to give public notification on a continuing basis of those interests held by Lords Members that might reasonably be thought to have a general influence upon their parliamentary conduct or actions. The main purpose of declaration of interest is to ensure that fellow Members of the House, Ministers, officials and the public are made aware, at the point at which the Member participates in proceedings of the House or otherwise acts in a parliamentary capacity, of any present or expected future interest that might reasonably be thought relevant to that particular action by the Lords Member.3

Footnotes 1. Code of Conduct, para 11. 2. See www.parliament.uk/hlregister. 3. Guide to the Code of Conduct, paras 87–89.

Registration 5.34The Guide to the Code of Conduct lists ten categories within which Members of the House of Lords are required to register all financial or non-financial interests which are relevant for the purposes of registration. These categories are: 1. Remunerated directorships in public and private companies, including non-executive directorships, and including directorships which are not directly remunerated, but where remuneration is paid through another company in the same group. 2. Employment, office, trade, profession or vocation which is remunerated or in which the Lords Member has a pecuniary interest. 3. In respect of remunerated interests registered in categories (1) or (2), any provision to clients of public affairs advice or services. 4. (a) Any shareholding amounting to a controlling interest in a company. (b) Any shareholding not amounting to a controlling interest, but exceeding £50,000 in value. (c) If the member is on the central Register of People with Significant Control of a company, a statement to that effect with the name or names of the companies or organisations in question. 5. Any land or property: (a) which has a capital value of more than £250,000 (but excluding any personal residences of Lords Members and their spouses or partners);1 or (b) from which an income of more than £5,000 a year is derived. 6. Any form of financial or material support received as a Member of the House of Lords, the value of which amounts to more than £500, from a single source, whether as a single donation, multiple donations, or services in kind. 7. Overseas visits made by the Lords Member or the Lord Members' spouse or partner substantially arising out of membership of the House, except where the cost of the visit was wholly borne by the Member or by United Kingdom public funds. 8. Any gift to the Lords Member or the Lords Member's spouse or partner, or any other material benefit, of a value greater than £140, from any company, organisation or person, within the UK or overseas, which relates substantially to membership of the House. 9. Any relevant financial interest not falling within one of the above categories, but which might be thought by a reasonable member of the public to influence a Lords Member's parliamentary conduct. 10. The following non-financial interests are always relevant and must be registered: (a) unremunerated directorships or other regular employment; (b) membership of public bodies such as hospital trusts, the governing bodies of universities, colleges or schools, local authorities and other spheres of government; (c) trusteeships of museums, galleries or similar bodies; (d) acting as an office-holder or trustee in pressure groups or trade unions; and (e) acting as an office-holder or trustee in voluntary or not-for-profit organisations. Other nonfinancial interests are not normally registered, though it may be necessary in certain circumstances to declare them. All interests worth more than £500 (or the relevant threshold)2 which fall into one of the above categories are required to be registered, except in those categories where a higher threshold is specified. Interests worth less than £500 (or the relevant threshold) are not required to be registered unless they fall into one of the various categories of non-financial interests for which registration is mandatory under category (10), or unless they could be thought by a reasonable member of the public to affect the way a Member of the House discharges their parliamentary duties. Financial interests of a value below £500 may in certain circumstances also be declared. Under paragraph 13 of the Code of Conduct, Members of the House of Lords are required to notify changes in their registrable interests within one month of each change occurring. In cases where Members vote in a division where they have a relevant interest which they have yet to register, they must register the interest within 24 hours of the division.3 All interests stay in the register for one year after the date of the interest ceased.4

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

For more information about registering or declaring the interests of family and friends, see Guide to the Code of Conduct, para 41. For the value of interests required to be registered, see Guide to the Code of Conduct, paras 43–46. Guide to the Code of Conduct, para 39. Guide to the Code of Conduct, para 42.

Declaration 5.35Under paragraph 10(b) of the Code of Conduct, Lords Members must ‘declare when speaking in the House, or communicating with Ministers or public servants, any interest which is a relevant interest in the context of the debate or the matter under discussion’. This provision should be interpreted broadly.1 Thus ‘speaking in the House’ covers Lords Members' participation in the work of select committees of the House. ‘Public servants’ includes servants of the Crown, civil servants, employees of government agencies or non-departmental public bodies, and members, officers and employees of local authorities or other governmental bodies. The ‘matter under discussion’ is normally the item of business as it appears on the Order Paper. Thus in the case of a bill, the subject-matter is the bill as a whole. A full declaration of any interests relevant to a bill should be made at least on the occasion of the Member's first intervention at each stage of the bill's progress. Members of the Lords should declare interests briefly, but in such a way that their declaration is comprehensible, specific, and unambiguous, without either demanding prior knowledge of their audience or requiring reference to other documents, including the Register. They should not normally make a declaration simply by referring to ‘my interests which are published in the Register’. However, during proceedings on oral questions, private notice questions and ministerial statements, a brief reference to the Member's interests in the Register suffices. During other time-limited proceedings, or where the advisory speaking time in a debate is short, Members should not take up time by making lengthy declarations of interest. Declarable interests are usually current interests, but they may occasionally include future interests or, exceptionally, former interests. Lords Members must declare relevant non-financial interests if they are in the Register; other non-financial interests may be declared if the Member thinks it appropriate. Lords Members should not take up the time of the House, particularly during time-limited proceedings, by declaring trivial, frivolous or irrelevant interests. Lords Members are also required to draw attention to any relevant registrable interests when tabling written notices in House of Lords Business. The symbol [I] appears after the Member's name in House of Lords Business.

Footnotes 1. See Guide to the Code of Conduct, paras 87–105 for full details.

Private bills 5.36In accordance with the general principles governing participation in proceedings, Members with financial interests that are relevant to private legislation should exercise particular caution, and seek advice before deciding to participate in proceedings on that legislation. Members of the House of Lords with an interest in a private bill may not normally serve on an opposed bill committee1 (see para 46.17 ).

Footnotes 1. SO 96.

Financial support, facilities and services 5.37For financial support arrangements for Members of the House of Lords, see paras 4.16, 4.53. The House also provides various facilities and services for its Members, the cost of which is either met in full or subsidised by public funds. These facilities and services are provided primarily to support them in their parliamentary work. The domestic committees and House of Lords Commission are responsible for proposing rules on the use of facilities by Lords Members, which are reported to and agreed by the House. The available facilities and services and the rules relating to their use are set out in the Handbook on facilities and services for Members and their staff. Paragraph 10(c) of the Code of Conduct states that Lords Members shall ‘act in accordance with any rules agreed by the House in respect of financial support for Members or the facilities of the House’. A breach of such rules therefore constitutes a breach of the Code of Conduct and could lead to an investigation by the House of Lords Commissioner for Standards. The Handbook identifies which official is responsible for the provision of each facility or service and a Member who acts on the advice of that official in determining what use to make of a facility satisfies fully the requirements of the Code of Conduct in that regard.1

Footnotes 1. Guide to the Code of Conduct, para 107.

Imprisonment 5.38The law makes provision permanently to remove from the House a Lords Member who is convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to imprisonment for more than one year. In the case of a United Kingdom conviction, this process is automatic; whereas in the case of a conviction outside the United Kingdom, it only applies if the House so resolves.1 By contrast, Lords Members who are sentenced to imprisonment for a lesser term, or to a suspended term of imprisonment, are dealt with through the Code of Conduct.2 A Lords Member who is sentenced in the United Kingdom to a term of imprisonment of up to and including one year, or a suspended term of imprisonment of any length, is automatically deemed to have breached the Code and the case is referred to the SubCommittee on Lords’ Conduct which recommends a sanction.3 A Lords Member who is sentenced to any term of imprisonment outside the United Kingdom, whether suspended or not, ‘shall be presumed to have breached the Code’; it is for the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct to decide whether the presumption should apply in each case and, if it should, to recommend a sanction.4

Footnotes 1. House of Lords Reform Act 2014, s 3. See also paras 11.34–11.38. 2. Committee for Privileges and Conduct, Fifteenth Report of Session 2013–14, Further amendments to the Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Code of Conduct, HL 182. 3. Code of Conduct, para 16. 4. Code of Conduct, para 17.

The House of Lords Commissioner for Standards 5.39The House of Lords Commissioner for Standards is an independent officer, appointed by the House as a whole.1 The Commissioner's task is to investigate alleged breaches of the Code, including breaches of the rules governing Members' financial support or use of parliamentary facilities. Any such investigation is conducted in accordance with procedures set out in the Guide. The Committee for Privileges has recommended replacing the current system with a new Conduct Committee, including lay members, which would be responsible for hearing appeals from the Commissioner’s findings and, in appropriate cases, reporting to the House its recommendations for sanctions. If the proposals are agreed in full, when the Conduct Committee reports to the House on an individual case, the report and any resolution relating to sanction would be decided without debate.2

Footnotes 1. House of Lords Minutes of Proceedings, 26 May 2016. 2. Committee for Privileges and Conduct, Fourth Report of Session 2017–19, Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme: Changes to the Code of Conduct, HL 395.

Complaints 5.40Any complaint alleging that a Member of the House of Lords has breached the Code of Conduct, whether made by another Member of the House or by someone outside the House, should be sent in writing to the Commissioner.1 The complaint must make clear in what respect the Lords Member may have breached the Code, and the complainant must supply as much evidence as possible in support of the complaint. The Commissioner conducts a preliminary assessment of all complaints, screening out those which fall outside the scope of the Code. The Commissioner may not investigate a complaint against a former Member of the House, and can only consider complaints made within four years of the conduct in question unless the Sub-Committee on Lords' Conduct agrees otherwise. If a Member applies for leave of absence in order to avoid an impending investigation, the request may be refused; and a Lords Member who took leave of absence after the conduct in question may have that leave ended with immediate effect. The Commissioner may choose not to consider complaints which are clearly trivial or vexatious, or which substantially repeat allegations which have already been the subject of inquiry (unless there is significant fresh evidence in their support). Complaints must be supported by evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case that the Code has been breached. Following this preliminary assessment, the Commissioner decides whether or not to investigate the complaint, and informs both the complainant and the Lords Member concerned accordingly. The Commissioner may continue an investigation into an alleged breach of the Code if the police or another agency are investigating a related allegation of criminal misconduct, but in such circumstances the Commissioner will not finalise a report on the case until the criminal process concludes. Before finalising a report the Commissioner will take account of any relevant issues which arose during the criminal process. An investigation will be suspended if related proceedings (criminal or civil) become sub judice (within the meaning of the House's sub judice resolution). Paragraph 21 of the Code states that ‘in investigating and adjudicating allegations of non-compliance with this Code, the Commissioner, the Sub-Committee on Lords' Conduct and the Committee for Privileges and Conduct shall act in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fairness'. Proceedings are not adversarial, but inquisitorial in character. The Lords Member has a right of appeal from the Commissioner and SubCommittee, first to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct and then to the House. The civil standard of proof is adopted at all stages in the enforcement process.2 The Commissioner is an officer of the House of Lords and parliamentary privilege extends to them in carrying out the duties of the office and to their reports. It also extends to witnesses and parties to investigations. A complaint is however not regarded as covered by parliamentary privilege unless and until the Commissioner has decided to undertake an investigation.

Footnotes 1. Guide to the Code of Conduct, paras 109–130. 2. See Committee for Privileges and Conduct, Fifth Report of Session 2010–12, The Conduct of Lord Bhatia, HL 38, paras 30–36 and Committee for Privileges and Conduct, Third Report of Session 2017–19, Further report on the conduct of Lord Lester of Herne Hill, HL 252, paras 43–45.

Investigation 5.41The Commissioner first informs the Lords Member concerned of the nature of the complaint, and provides copies of the evidence offered in support, at the same time inviting the Member to respond in writing with a full and accurate account of the matters in question.1 After considering the Member's written submission, the Commissioner may decide either to dismiss the complaint, or to agree remedial action. Remedial action may be agreed if the complaint, though justified, is minor and is acknowledged. It involves ‘putting the record straight’, for instance by making an amendment to the Register; the Lords Member will also normally be expected to make a formal apology in writing to the Chairman of the SubCommittee on Lords Conduct. If the Lords Member's written response is not sufficient to enable the Commissioner either to dismiss the complaint or agree remedial action, the Commissioner may pursue the investigation by seeking further information, either from the Member concerned or others, including the complainant, third parties, or public or private bodies. Such information is usually requested in writing in the first instance, though the Commissioner may also decide to interview witnesses, either informally or by means of formal oral evidence. The Committee for Privileges and Conduct decides to what extent such evidence is published. The Committee for Privileges and Conduct and its Sub-Committee on Lords' Conduct have the power to send for persons, papers and records, and may exercise this power as necessary in support of any investigation by the Commissioner. If the Commissioner's investigation has uncovered material evidence that is at variance with the Lords Member's version of events, this will be put to the Member, who will have a chance to challenge it. Before finalising a report, the Commissioner will also share with the Member a draft of those parts of the report dealing with issues of fact, so that the Member has an opportunity to comment on it. If, having considered the Member's comments, the Commissioner considers that there remain significant contested issues of fact, the Commissioner will prepare an account of the facts of the case, while drawing attention to those points which are contested. Where the Commissioner upholds a complaint concerning non-declaration of a relevant interest, they will then examine whether there were other possible instances of non-declaration of that interest by the Lords Member in the four years preceding the complaint. The Commissioner will reach a finding on any such instances identified.

Footnotes 1. Guide to the Code of Conduct, paras 131–38.

Commissioner's report and consideration by the Sub-Committee on Lords' Conduct 5.42If the Commissioner finds the Lords Member not to have breached the Code, or if remedial action has been agreed,1 the report is normally published only on the Commissioner's website – although they do have discretion in such instances to submit a report to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct if the case is particularly serious or gives rise to matters of wider interest.2 In cases where the Commissioner upholds a complaint and remedial action has not been agreed, the Sub-Committee considers the Commissioner's report and must report it without amendment to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct. The Sub-Committee, in its report, may comment on the Commissioner's report and on the case. The task of the Sub-Committee is to recommend any appropriate action that the Member should take to regularise the position (including repayment of money) and any sanction that the House should apply. Where a Lords Member has been sentenced to imprisonment (suspended or not) in the United Kingdom but has not ceased to be a Member under the provisions of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, they are automatically in breach of the Code and the Sub-Committee recommends a sanction. Where a Lords Member has been sentenced to imprisonment (suspended or not) outside the United Kingdom, the Sub-Committee must consider whether the presumption that a Member in such a position is in breach of the Code should apply in that particular case and, if so, recommend a sanction. In the case of a breach of the Code, the Sub-Committee can decide that no further action is required, or it can recommend to the House that the Lords Member should be: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

required to take action to regularise the position; required to make a personal statement of apology to the House; suspended from the service of the House; denied access for a specified period of time to the system of financial support for Members or the facilities of the House; expelled from the House.

For further information about the powers of the House to punish its Members, see paras 11.34–11.38.

Footnotes 1. Code of Conduct, para 19, and Guide to the Code of Conduct, paras 139–40 and 149–52. 2. Committee for Privileges and Conduct, Fifth Report of Session 2016–17, Process for publishing Commissioner reports; Commissioner and police investigations; Minor amendments to the Code, HL 99, para 7.

Report to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct and appeal 5.43The Sub-Committee makes its report to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct.1 At the same time, a copy is sent to the Lords Member concerned, who, if the complaint has been upheld, is informed of the deadline by which they may lodge an appeal to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct against either the Commissioner's finding of a breach of the Code or the recommended sanction. If the Lords Member does not appeal, the Committee for Privileges and Conduct initially considers the sanction recommended by the SubCommittee. If it endorses the sanction, it reports to the House accordingly. Alternatively and exceptionally, it can decide that the recommended sanction needs further consideration. If so, it then invites representations from the Lords Member concerned and decides whether to endorse, reduce or increase the recommended sanction. If the Lords Member wishes to appeal, they must do so in writing, setting out the grounds for the appeal, and enclosing such supporting material as the Member thinks appropriate. A meeting is scheduled to hear the appeal, and the Member is given an opportunity to appear in person. The Committee may also take evidence from the Commissioner. On appeal, the Committee will not reopen the Commissioner's investigation. Rather, the Committee members use their judgment to decide whether, on the balance of probabilities, they endorse the conclusions of the Commissioner. They also consider whether or not the recommended sanction is appropriate, or whether it should be reduced or increased.

Footnotes 1. Guide to the Code of Conduct, paras 141–44.

Report to the House 5.44Where a case is referred to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct, the Committee makes a report to the House.1 The agreement of the House is required if it is proposed that a Lords Member be required to regularise the position or that they be sanctioned. The House has remitted a report back to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct. That Committee made a further report, reiterating the same recommendations, which was accepted by the House.2

Footnotes 1. Guide to the Code of Conduct, paras 145–48. 2. See Committee for Privileges and Conduct, Second Report of Session 2017–19, The conduct of Lord Lester of Herne Hill, HL 220; Committee for Privileges and Conduct, Third Report of Session 2017–19, Further report on the conduct of Lord Lester of Herne Hill, HL 252.

Lords Members' staff Contents Investigations 5.45There is also a Code of Conduct for House of Lords Members' Staff and an associated Register of Interests.1 Members' staff are required to register: a. all employment outside the House; b. any other financial interest in businesses or organisations involved in parliamentary lobbying; and c. any gift (eg jewellery) or benefit (eg hospitality, services or facilities) they receive in the course of a calendar year, if the value of the gift or benefit exceeds £140 and if it relates to or arises from the individual's work in Parliament. Members' staff may not take advantage of their position to further the interests of an outside person or body from whom they have received or expect to receive payment or other incentive or reward.

Footnotes 1. The Register of Interests of House of Lords Members' Staff was established when the House agreed to Committee for Privileges, First Report of Session 2006–07, A Register of Interests of Members' Research Assistants and Secretaries, HL 140; see HL Deb (26 July 2007) 694, cc 912–14. A Code of Conduct for House of Lords Members' Staff was established when the House agreed to Committee for Privileges and Conduct, Fifteenth Report of Session 2013–14, Further amendments to the Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Code of Conduct, HL 182; see HL Deb (13 May 2014) 753, cc 1776–80. The Code was amended in 2015: see Committee for Privileges and Conduct, Third Report of Session 2014–15, Amendments to the Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Code. Redaction of written evidence to defunct select committees, HL 143.

Investigations 5.46The Commissioner for Standards investigates alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct for House of Lords Members' Staff. Available sanctions include suspension or withdrawal of the individual's security pass and cancellation of the individual's parliamentary email account.1

Footnotes 1. See House of Lords, Code of Conduct for House of Lords' Members Staff, HL (2016–17) 157.

Members of legislatures outside the Commonwealth 3.15Members of a legislature of any country or territory outside the Commonwealth (other than the Republic of Ireland)1 are disqualified for membership of the House of Commons under s 1(1)(e) of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. Under EU law, membership of the European Parliament is incompatible with membership of any EU national parliament.2

Footnotes 1. The Republic of Ireland was exempted by the Disqualifications Act 2000, s 1. 2. Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Council Decision of 25 June and 23 September 2002 amending the Act concerning the election of the representatives of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage, annexed to Decision 76/787/ECSC, EEC, EURATOM (2002/772/EC, Euratom) Cm 6093, December 2003, pp 5–6.

Introduction to the administration of Parliament and the Parliamentary Estate 6.1Each House has full responsibility for managing its own internal administration and the Estimates for each House cover all its administrative expenses.1 The Clerk of the House and the Clerk of the Parliaments are Accounting Officers and Corporate Officers for their respective Houses.2 This chapter describes the administration of both Houses, including departmental structures, jointly managed services, some associated statutory bodies and officers, management of freedom of information and data protection, and arrangements for broadcasting of proceedings. It also gives an account of the Parliamentary Estate. For historical information about the administration of Parliament, see earlier editions of this work.3 The House of Commons Administration Annual Report and Accounts give a comprehensive account of the expenditure and performance of the House service.4

Footnotes 1. This excludes the salaries and allowances of Members of the Commons, responsibility for which passed to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) in 2010, following the passage of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. The expenses of Members of the Lords are, however, paid out of the Lords Estimate. Financial assistance to opposition parties in each House is paid out of the Estimate for the House concerned. 2. Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Act 1992. 3. Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), Ch 6, pp 101–22; (23rd edn, 2004), Ch 12, pp 229–47. 4. See eg House of Commons Administration Annual Report and Accounts, HC (2017–18) 1381, 23 July 2018.

House of Commons Commission 6.2The current statutory framework for the governance of the House of Commons was created by the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, which established the House of Commons Commission. The Act was most recently amended on 26 March 2015 by the House of Commons Commission Act 2015. This Act, which was passed following recommendations in a report from the Committee on the Governance of the House of Commons,1 provided for an expanded membership of the Commission, to include two external and two official members, and introduced a statutory responsibility for the Commission to set strategic priorities and objectives for the services provided by the House departments. The Commission employs the staff of the House (other than the Clerk, Clerk Assistant, the Serjeant at Arms and the Speaker's personal staff), ensures that their terms and conditions remain broadly in line with those of the home Civil Service, appoints an Accounting Officer, lays the annual House of Commons: Administration Estimate (budget) for House of Commons services before the House2 and determines the structure and functions of the departments of the House. The membership of the House of Commons Commission is specified in section 1 of the 1978 Act, as amended by section 1(2) of the House of Commons Commission Act 2015. There are seven parliamentary members, two external members and two official members. The Act specifies that the parliamentary members are to be the Speaker (who chairs the Commission)3, the Leader of the House of Commons, a member of the House of Commons nominated by the Leader of the Opposition and four other members of the House of Commons appointed by the House of Commons, none of whom shall be a Minister of the Crown. The two external members (who may not be Members or staff of either House) are appointed by resolution of the House of Commons. The two official members are the Clerk of the House of Commons and the Director General of the House of Commons.4 The 1978 Act provides for the Commission to continue during a dissolution of Parliament.5 The Commission is not responsible for expenditure on Members' salaries, pensions and expenses nor those of their staff, which are a matter for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA).6 The Members' Estimate Committee, which consists of those Members of Parliament who are members of the Commission, retains responsibilities for some expenditure on Member services. It is appointed under Standing Order No 152D to consider matters relating to the House of Commons: Members' Estimate. The Commission is advised and supported in its work by the Finance Committee, the Administration Committee and the Audit and Risk Committee, and the Commons Executive Board.

Footnotes 1. HC (2014–15) 692, 17 December 2014. 2. For an account of the development of the House's financial systems since the passing of the 1978 Act, see previous editions of Erskine May (eg 23rd edn, 2004, p 23). 3. HC(A)A 1978 sch 1(4). 4. HC(A)A 1978, s 1(2C). 5. HC(A)A 1978, sch 1(3). 6. See para 6.47.

Finance Committee 6.3The Finance Committee is appointed under Standing Order No 144 to consider expenditure on, and the administration of services provided from, the Estimates for the House of Commons. With the assistance of the Commons Executive Board, it prepares the Estimates for House of Commons: Administration for submission to the House of Commons Commission; and with the assistance of the Accounting Officer, it prepares the Estimates for House of Commons: Members for submission to the Members Estimate Committee. The Committee monitors the financial performance of the House Administration and reports to the House of Commons Commission and the Members Estimate Committee, or the Speaker, on the financial and administrative implications of recommendations made to them by other Committees of the House. The Committee (and its predecessor, the Finance and Services Committee) has published reports on the House of Commons Financial Plan.1 The Chair of the Committee has customarily been a member of the Commission.2 The Committee meets at least once a month when the House is sitting. Meetings are held in private and the Committee is assisted by the Finance Director and other House staff.

Footnotes 1. Eg First Report of Session 2017–19, HC (2017–19) 1761. The report was debated in Westminster Hall, HC Deb (11 December 2018) 651, cc 12–34WH. 2. This was not the case in the first years of the 2017 Parliament.

Administration Committee 6.4The Administration Committee is appointed under Standing Order No 139 to consider the services provided for and by the House, and to make recommendations about them to the House of Commons Commission or to the Speaker. Its work covers topics such as visitor services, catering, rules of access and use of facilities and the management of buildings and facilities and it meets at least monthly. Since 2015, the Chair of the Committee has customarily been a member of the House of Commons Commission.

Audit Committees 6.5The Clerk of the House is supported and advised in his or her role as Accounting Officer by two audit committees. The objective of the Administration Estimate Audit and Risk Assurance Committee is to give assurance to the Accounting Officer on: the effectiveness of the system of governance, risk management and internal control (referred to collectively as the ‘system of internal control’); the integrity of the Annual Accounts; the work of the internal audit service; the external audit by the external auditor; other matters as may be referred to it by either the Accounting Officer or the Commission. The Committee receives and considers reports from Internal Audit and other sources and produces a report to be published with the House of Commons Annual Report and Accounts. The Members Estimate Audit Committee supports the Accounting Officer in discharging his responsibilities under the Members Estimate, particularly in maintaining an effective system of internal control. The Committee receives and considers reports from Internal Audit and other sources and produces a report to be published with the Members Estimate Annual Report and Accounts. The Committees share the same membership, which consists of three external members (two of whom are also members of the House of Commons Commission, and one of whom is the chair) and three parliamentary members, of whom one must be a member of the Commission and one a member of the Finance Committee.

Commons Executive Board 6.6The Commission has delegated the management of day-to-day operations to the Commons Executive Board by an Instrument of Delegation.1 The Commons Executive Board provides leadership for the House of Commons Service. It acts as a sub-committee of the Commission and is accountable to it. Its responsibilities are: to assist the Commission in setting strategic objectives for the House of Commons Administration, and to be accountable to the Commission for the delivery of the strategy; to assist the Finance Committee in the preparation of the Estimates and to carry out other functions relating to expenditure on the administration of House of Commons services which the Commission allocates to it; to fulfil the statutory responsibilities delegated to it by the House of Commons Commission in relation to the employment of House staff; to direct the House of Commons Administration, deciding policy and operational issues as delegated to it by the Commission, the Speaker or the Clerk; to provide assurance to the Audit and Risk Committee; to support the Clerk and the Director General. The members of the Commons Executive Board are the Director General (Chair), the Clerk of the House, the Managing Directors of the House of Commons Service, the Director of Parliamentary Security and the Head of the Parliamentary Digital Service.

Footnotes 1. The most recent Instrument was made on 20 November 2017; see www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/offices/commons/theboard/instrument-of-delegation-20171120.

Clerk of the House of Commons 6.7The Clerk of the House is the chief permanent Officer of the House of Commons and head of the House of Commons Service. The Clerk is appointed by the Crown, by letters patent, in which they are styled ‘Under Clerk of the Parliaments … to attend upon the Commons’.1 The Clerk of the House is appointed by the Commission as Accounting Officer for the House of Commons. Under the Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Act 1992, the Clerk of the House is a corporation sole known as the Corporate Officer of the House of Commons. As such, the Clerk is empowered to acquire, hold, manage and dispose of land and other property of any description for any purpose of the House of Commons and to enter into contracts for any purpose of the House.2 As Corporate Officer the Clerk has responsibilities relating to the House's obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Clerk is the data controller for personal data processed by the House of Commons. Under the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, as amended by the House of Commons Commission Act 2015, the Clerk is a member of the House of Commons Commission. The Clerk makes a declaration before the Lord Chancellor on entering office: this includes a duty ‘to make true entries, remembrances, and journals of the things done and passed in the House of Commons'.3 The Clerk assists the Speaker and advises Members on questions of order and the proceedings of the House, and has the custody of all records or other documents. The Clerk signs the Addresses, votes of thanks, and orders of the House, endorses the bills sent or returned to the Lords, and reads whatever is required to be read in the House.4

Footnotes 1. 2 Hatsell 255; for example, London Gazette, 9 January 1998, 8 January 2003, 5 October 2006; see also CJ (1642–44) 54, 57. For the earliest grant of appointment by letters patent, 1 Edw 4, see HC 96 (1856). 2. Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Act 1992, s 2. 3. The Clerk's oath, of very ancient form and administered similarly to the Clerks of both Houses, was converted into a declaration by virtue of s 12 of the Promissory Oaths Act 1868. 4. CJ (1547–1628) 306; ibid (1648–51) 542; ibid (1711–14) 724, etc.

Director General 6.8The Director General works with the Clerk of the House to ensure that the House of Commons Service has the capability and capacity to deliver all aspects of its business plan, and is responsible for the delivery and development of the day-to-day operations, administration and performance of the House of Commons Service. The Director General is a member of the House of Commons Commission under the provisions of the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, as amended by the House of Commons Commission Act 2015, and chairs the Commons Executive Board. The post of Director General was created following a recommendation from the Committee on the Governance of the House of Commons in 2014.1 The first Director General took up office in October 2015.

Footnotes 1. HC (2014–15) 692, paras 156–57.

The House of Commons Service Contents Chamber and Committees Corporate Services In-House services Research and Information Participation Strategic Estates Governance Office Parliamentary Security Department 6.9The current structure of the House of Commons Service was established following the Director General's review which reported in 2016. The Commons Service consists of some six principal teams, together with some other senior staff who report directly to the Clerk of the House. Their work is described briefly below.

Chamber and Committees 6.10The Chamber and Committees Team supports the business of the House and its committees through the provision of the procedural assistance necessary for the orderly conduct of their work, administrative and specialist support, for example in the drafting of reports, and records of their proceedings, including broadcasting. It is headed by the Clerk Assistant, who is Managing Director of Chamber and Committees. The Clerk Assistant is appointed by the Crown, under the sign manual, on the recommendation of the Speaker, and is removable only upon an address of the House of Commons.1 The Clerk Assistant may also act as Corporate Officer of the House, if the office of Clerk of the House is vacant.2 The Clerk Assistant is the Clerk of the Committee of the whole House. The Clerk Assistant and other Principal Clerks in Chamber and Committees also regularly sit at the Table of the House, and from time to time assistance at the Table is also given by other Clerks. Chamber and Committees consists of three main teams. The Chamber Business Team, which includes the Journal Office, Table Office, Vote Office, Public Bill Office, Private Bill Office and the Ways and Means Office, is responsible for matters relating to parliamentary privilege and procedure, including legislation, motions, questions and petitions, preparation and publication of the House's business papers and the preparation of the records of the House in the daily Votes and Proceedings and the annual volumes of the Journals. The Committee Office comprises the staff of most select committees, and provides support to select committee chairs and members. The Official Report (generally known as `Hansard’) produces an edited verbatim record of debates in the House, Westminster Hall and committees.3 The Broadcasting Unit, which manages the conduct of the televising and webcasting of the proceedings of both Houses and their Committees, is part of the Official Report (see para 6.22 ). In addition, the Overseas Office has responsibility for the House's relations with overseas parliaments and supports Parliament's delegations to certain inter-parliamentary assemblies.4

Footnotes 1. The appointment and tenure of two Clerks Assistant is provided for in the House of Commons Offices Act 1856, but see Report to the Speaker on House of Commons (Administration) HC 624 (1974–75) paras 6.4, 6.5 and p 58. First mention of the Clerk Assistant, CJ (1640–42) 12; of the Second Clerk Assistant, ibid (1802–03) 7. 2. Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Act 1992, s 2(4). 3. The Editor of the Official Report is also the Shorthand Writer to the House. 4. For an account of the House's international relations, see Chapter 10.

Corporate Services 6.11The Corporate Services Team is headed by the Managing Director, Corporate Services, who is also the Director of Finance for the House of Commons. The Director of Finance supports the work of the Accounting Officer and the Finance and Audit Committees. Corporate Services is responsible for corporate strategy and planning. It is also charged with providing efficient, accurate and customer-focused management of human and financial resources. The Corporate Services Team also develops human resources and finance policies for the House Service, and provides support for organisational development and monitoring of performance. The four principal teams in Corporate Services are Corporate Finance, People, Strategy Planning and Business Performance, and Diversity and Inclusion. The Enterprise Portfolio Management Office (EPMO), which provides support to both Houses on programmes and project management, is also part of Corporate Services. Plans were announced in 2018 to divide the work of Corporate Services into separate departments covering finance and human resources.

In-House services 6.12The In-House Services team is headed by the Managing Director, In-House Services. It is responsible for delivering a comfortable, safe and efficient environment for Members, their staff and staff of the House, and providing a welcoming and functional environment for visitors to the House of Commons. Its services include accommodation and moves for Members and staff of the House, cleaning, catering, fire safety and emergency evacuation and general maintenance for both Houses. The Parliamentary Art Collection for both Houses is managed by the Curator's Office. The Business Resilience team also sits in In-House Services and provides business continuity and business resilience services to both Houses, working with the Parliamentary Digital Service and the Parliamentary Security Department. The Client and Engagement team is responsible for engaging with all users of the Estate to define the brief for major estate projects and programmes, including the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. The Serjeant at Arms team is also part of In-House Services. The Serjeant at Arms is responsible for keeping order within the Chamber and the Commons parts of the Parliamentary Estate. The Serjeant at Arms has ceremonial duties, including attending the Speaker, with the Mace, on entering and leaving the House, or going to the House of Lords, or attending Her Majesty with addresses. The Serjeant, or a Deputy Serjeant, sits in the Chamber when the House is sitting.1

Footnotes 1. The appointment of the Serjeant at Arms is in the gift of the Queen, under a warrant from the Lord Chamberlain, and by patent under the Great Seal, ‘to attend upon Her Majesty's person when there is no Parliament; and at the time of every Parliament, to attend upon the Speaker of the House of Commons’; but after appointment the Serjeant is the servant of the House and may be removed for misconduct, CJ (1675) 351. The House places duties on the Serjeant in Standing Orders (Nos 43, 44(4), 126 and 161).

Research and Information 6.13The Research and Information Team is headed by the Librarian of the House of Commons, as Managing Director, Research and Information. It delivers research and information services for Members, their staff and House staff. This includes dealing with confidential enquiries from Members in their parliamentary duties, producing briefing papers on legislation, other House business and topical issues, and maintaining the Library's collections of books, periodicals and online subscriptions. Many briefings are publicly available, and the Library increasingly summarises its work through short insights. The Library conducts a regular series of training sessions for Members, their staff and parliamentary staff. Information Rights and Information Security is responsible for the House Service's compliance with legislation relating to data protection and information by ensuring that requests are handled in line with the House's obligations and that information is made publicly available where appropriate (see para 6.21 ). It also advises on information security risks. The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) sits within the Commons Research and Information team, and provides services to both Houses of Parliament. It is overseen by a Board of Members of both Houses and external experts and provides research for Members of both House from across the biological, physical and social sciences, and engineering and technology. It also acts as a knowledge broker between academia and Parliament.

Participation 6.14The Participation Team is headed by the Managing Director, Participation. It is responsible for delivering programmes that inspire and involve the public and is made up of three principal teams. The Communications and Audiences team promotes understanding of and engagement with the work of the House of Commons. The Education and Engagement Service works with people, schools and communities to increase public understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament. Its work includes running educational programmes and activities, including UK Parliament Week, and supporting Members of both Houses of Parliament in their work with young people. Visitor and Retail Services is a bicameral function which is responsible for free and paid-for public tours of the Parliamentary Estate and access arrangements for those wishing to attend debates. The Retail team is responsible for retail outlets on and off the Parliamentary Estate.

Strategic Estates 6.15The function of Strategic Estates is to maintain and improve the buildings of the Parliamentary Estate. It is part of the Commons House Service, but provides services to both Houses. The head of Strategic Estates is the Managing Director, Strategic Estates. The Project Delivery Team is responsible for the delivery of all construction projects, and some programmes, on the Estate. The Property, Planning and Design team comprises specialist roles including estates surveying, asset planning and systems development, engineering conservation and architecture, and development of systems. The Portfolio Management Office supports successful project delivery, and works closely with the corporate Enterprise Portfolio Management Office (EPMO). The Restoration and Renewal Team provides the programme management for the Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster, pending passage of the bill to put it on an independent footing, and the Northern Estate Programme Team delivers the Northern Estate building refurbishments.

Governance Office 6.16The Governance Office supports the Clerk of the House of Commons and the Director General of the House of Commons. Its key functions are to: provide the secretariat for the Commission and Commons Executive Board and domestic committees; coordinate strategic business planning and performance management; provide assurance through risk management, and internal audit; and coordinate communications to Members, Members' staff and House staff. The Internal Audit and Risk Team and the bicameral Parliamentary Safety Team are also part of the Governance Office.

Parliamentary Security Department 6.17The Director of Security for Parliament, who is employed by the House of Commons, heads the Parliamentary Security Department (PSD), which is established as a bicameral service. It is responsible for physical and personnel security for both Houses, working in partnership with the Metropolitan Police Service, which provides armed and unarmed policing for Parliament, and for security vetting within Parliament and for the issue of security passes. The Director of Security for Parliament, although a Commons employee, is accountable to both Houses.

Speaker's Counsel 6.18The Counsel to the Speaker is the head of the Office of Speaker's Counsel, and has the general duty of advising the Speaker and Officers and Departments of the House on legal questions arising in the course of public business or arising out of the administration of the affairs of the House and in relation to legal proceedings in which the House may be concerned. Speaker's Counsel assists the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Standing Orders Committee in relation to private business and is a member of the Court of Referees (see para 44.4 ). Speaker's Counsel is assisted by Counsel for Domestic Legislation and Counsel for European Legislation, who advise the Joint and Select Committees on Statutory Instruments (see paras 31.22 –31.23 ), the Regulatory Reform Committee1 (see para 36.38 ), the Committees on Opposed and Unopposed Private Bills (see paras 45.9 –45.10 ), the European Scrutiny Committee and the European Statutory Instruments Committee (see paras 38.71 –38.72 ). Counsel for European Legislation also assists the House and its Committees on questions of European Union law (see Chapter 32). Speaker's Counsel reports directly to the Clerk of the House.

Footnotes 1. SO No 141(11); CJ (1994–95) 20–22.

Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards 6.19This office was established in 1995 following reports from the Committee on Standards in Public Life1 and the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life.2 The Commissioner is appointed by the House of Commons under Standing Order No 1503 and can be removed from office only by a substantive resolution of the House.4 The Commissioner's principal tasks are to maintain the register of Members' financial interests and any other registers of interests established by the House; to give confidential advice, when necessary, on registrable interests; to advise individuals on the interpretation of the Code of Conduct, or on more general matters of propriety; to make recommendations to the Committee on Standards and Privileges about the Code of Conduct and the registers of interests; and to receive and to investigate, if they think fit, specific matters related to the propriety of a Member's conduct. For details of the procedures followed, see paras 5.21 –5.24. The Commissioner reports directly to the Clerk of the House.

Footnotes 1. First Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Cm 2850. 2. HC 637 (1994–95); see also CJ (1994–95) 469, 529. 3. CJ (1994–95) 554–5; appointments made, ibid (1994–95) 555; ibid (1997–98) 816; ibid (2001–02) 355; ibid (2007–08) 23; Votes and Proceedings, 20 July 2017. 4. Such a resolution is required to be moved by a member of the House of Commons Commission, after the Committee on Standards has reported to the House that it is satisfied that the Commissioner is unfit to hold office or unable to carry out their functions (CJ (2002–03) 489).

Speaker's personal staff 6.20The Speaker has a personal staff who are appointed by the Speaker and not by the House of Commons Commission.1 Its principal members are: the Speaker's Secretary who is in charge of the Speaker's Office and, besides assisting the Speaker in the House, deals with their official and social relations with Members and outside bodies and persons; an Assistant Secretary; the Speaker's Chaplain, who reads prayers at the beginning of every sitting; and the Trainbearer who attends the Speaker on all ceremonial occasions including entering and leaving the House.

Footnotes 1. See the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, s 2. Although the Speaker has power to appoint such staff and determine their tenure of office, other provisions of the Act apply to them.

Management of Freedom of Information and Data Protection 6.21The Freedom of Information Act 2000 gives a general right of access to information held by public authorities, sets out exemptions from that right and places a number of obligations on public authorities. The right of access to information was brought into force for all public authorities in January 2005. The Houses are separate public authorities under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and therefore have separate schemes and arrangements for implementing and complying with the Act. The Act requires every public authority to adopt and maintain a publication scheme setting out the classes of information which it publishes or intends to publish, the form in which it intends to publish the information, and details of any charges. The House of Commons' publication scheme was approved by the Information Commissioner in July 2002, and, in accordance with new requirements, a revised version was published in 2009. The House of Lords' publication scheme was approved by the Information Commissioner and was laid on the Table by the Clerk of the Parliaments in November 2002 and a revised version published in 2014. Both schemes are available on the Parliament website. Either House may refuse to disclose information on the ground that exemption is necessary for the purpose of avoiding an infringement of the privileges of either House. The Speaker of the House of Commons or the Clerk of the Parliaments as the ‘appropriate authority’ may certify that an exemption is required for that purpose and the certificate is then conclusive evidence of that fact (s 34 of the Act). Either House may also refuse to disclose information if in the reasonable opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Clerk of the Parliaments as a ‘qualified person’ disclosure of the information would, or would be likely to, inhibit the free and frank provision of advice or the exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation or would otherwise prejudice or be likely otherwise to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. A certificate signed by the ‘qualified person’ is conclusive of the fact that disclosure would, or would be likely to, have such effects (s 36). In the House of Lords, the Commission has appointed a Freedom of Information Advisory Panel to advise the Clerk of the Parliaments on the application of exemptions under ss 34 and 36. The panel is chaired by the Chairman of Committees. Other members are drawn from each of the parties and the Crossbenches.

Broadcast coverage and online publication of parliamentary proceedings 6.22The Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit (PBU) within the House of Commons Chamber and Committees service is responsible for audio recording, filming and distribution of public proceedings. The PBU is a bicameral unit and offers the same level of service to the House of Lords under a memorandum of understanding. The PBU films and distributes live coverage of the main chambers of both Houses, Lords Grand Committee and Westminster Hall, and distributes coverage of committee meetings. The Unit is also a publisher of content, streaming live coverage of proceedings online via www.parliamentlive.tv. Audio/video coverage of Chambers and committees is complete from the start of public business to its close, including divisions, when ambient sound is provided. Coverage is, by its nature, verbatim and no alterations to the video or corrections to the audio are permitted. No audio video recording takes place where the House has resolved to sit in private.

Broadcasting 6.23Broadcasters were first granted access to sound feeds from both Houses on 3 April 1978.1 The House of Lords granted access to television cameras on 23 January 1985 and the Commons on 21 November 1989. The Administration Committee in the Commons and Services Committee in the Lords oversee provision of broadcasting services, proposing rules of coverage for the Houses to agree to ensure full, balanced and accurate coverage, and guidelines on use of excerpts from the broadcasts. The Director of Parliamentary Audio/Video, who is an officer of both Houses, is responsible for ensuring that the arrangements authorised by these committees, and the guidelines for coverage that they agree, are adhered to.

Footnotes 1. The decision to broadcast proceedings of the House was, in each case, taken first on an experimental basis—see Erskine May (21st edn, 1989) p 217. The decision was approved in principle by both Houses in 1976 (LJ (1975–76) 247, CJ (1975–76) 214), and resolutions authorising sound broadcasting and setting out the conditions on which it would take place were made subsequently (LJ (1976–77) 820; CJ (1976–77) 452).

Online publication 6.24In January 2002 both Houses began their own online publication of audio/video coverage via a website overseen by the PBU (www.parliamentlive.tv ). This service differs from televised coverage. The website provides live coverage and recordings of all public proceedings of both Houses. Members and the public can download video clips from the website and re-upload them to the Internet, on social media websites, for example. It is possible to take a video clip from the live video stream or download a clip from recorded proceedings. Licence terms and guidance on privilege appear on an associated help page.

Editorial control 6.25Both Houses retain control over live video feeds of proceedings. Television directors working for the PBU and abiding by the Broadcasting Rules of Coverage control the pictures from the two main Chambers and Westminster Hall. The main UK broadcasters also have access to a separate `wide-shot’ of the Chambers. In the event of serious disruption, the television director is required to cut this feed and remain on a shot of the occupant of the chair. In committees, the clerk has control over when the video coverage of a committee meeting is made public, suspended or ended. Broadcasting will cease in the event of any adjournment or suspension. Broadcasting is prevented only when either House or a committee sits in private, or should either House resolve to suspend or end it.

Retention of records 6.26In 2017 digitisation of archive video tapes dating back to 1989 began. Audio recordings dating back to 1978 are preserved by the British Film Institute. Recordings may be supplied, on a commercial basis, to broadcasters and those seeking them for private use or other legitimate purposes.1 They are also available to Members and officials of both Houses. The Official Report remains the authoritative record of what is said in the Commons, and the Speaker has stated that the video recordings cannot be used for the purposes of casting doubt on the validity of the Official Report.2

Footnotes 1. For example, the making of an educational video on the work of Parliament. 2. HC Deb (1990–91) 190, cc 629–30; ibid (1997–98) 314, cc 704–5.

House of Lords Commission 6.27The House of Lords Commission is the main domestic Committee of the House. It provides high-level strategic and political direction for the House of Lords Administration on behalf of the House. In addition, the Commission: agrees the annual Estimate; supervises arrangements relating to financial support for Members; and works with the Management Board to develop, set and approve the strategic business plan, annual business and financial plans and monitor the Administration's performance against agreed targets. The Commission is chaired by the Lord Speaker, and its members include the Senior Deputy Speaker (who also speaks on the Commission's behalf in the House), the leaders of the three main parties, the Convenor of the Crossbench peers, two backbench Members, and two external non-executive members. The current governance arrangements stem from the recommendations of the 2015–16 Leader's Group on Governance chaired by Baroness Shephard of Northwold.1 The Commission delegates certain responsibilities to the Finance Committee, Services Committee, and Management Board and appoints the Audit Committee.

Footnotes 1. HL Paper 81 (2015–16); following a debate on the recommendations of the Group, a report on the implementation of these recommendations was published (HL 19 (2016–17)). For an account of previous governance arrangements, see Erskine May (23rd edn, 2004), p 114.

Finance Committee 6.28The Finance Committee is appointed by the House and supports the House of Lords Commission. It considers expenditure on services provided from the Estimate; with the assistance of the Management Board, prepares the forecast outturn, Estimate and financial plan for submission to the Commission; monitors the financial performance of the House Administration; and reports to the Commission on the financial implications of significant proposals. The Committee has ten members. The Chair of the Committee is nominated by the Committee of Selection and is a member of the House of Lords Commission. The Chair of the Finance Committee presents any committee reports to the House and may answer debates on those reports. The Chair may answer written questions and debates on Finance Committee matters if so delegated by the Senior Deputy Speaker.

Services Committee 6.29The Services Committee is appointed by the House. The Commission delegates decision-making authority on day-to-day policy on Memberfacing services to the Services Committee. The Committee also supports the Commission by providing advice on strategic policy decisions when the Commission seeks it and overseeing implementation and delivery of both day-to-day and strategic policy. The Committee has ten members. The Chair of the Committee is nominated by the Committee of Selection and is a member of the House of Lords Commission. The Chair of the Services Committee presents any committee reports to the House and may answer debates on those reports. The Chair may answer written questions and debates on Committee matters if so delegated by the Senior Deputy Speaker.

Audit Committee 6.30The Audit Committee was established in 20021 and is appointed by the Commission. The Audit Committee is comprised of five Members of the House plus two external members; its membership and terms of reference are the responsibility of the Commission.2 The Chair of the Committee is appointed from among the external members and serves on the Commission. Save for the Chair, members of the Audit Committee do not sit on any other domestic committee.3 The Committee advises the Clerk of the Parliaments in the role of Accounting Officer, considers internal and external audit reports and reviews the annual financial statements and accounts.

Footnotes 1. HL 105 (2001–02). 2. Unlike Finance and Services Committees, the Audit Committee is not a select committee but is treated as a body analogous to a select committee. 3. HL 105 (2001–02).

Management Board 6.31The Management Board, established in October 2002, takes strategic and corporate decisions for the House Administration within the policy framework set by the Commission. It is chaired by the Clerk of the Parliaments, and the remaining members represent the following five functional areas: Corporate Services; Facilities; Financial Resources; Human Resources; and Parliamentary Services. The Director of the Parliamentary Digital Service is also a member of the Management Board and the Director of Parliamentary Security attends the Board.

The Clerk of the Parliaments 6.32The Clerk of the Parliaments is the head of the House Administration, consisting of the permanent staff of the House. The Clerk of the Parliaments is ex officio Chairman of the Management Board and is in effect the House's ‘Chief Executive’. The Clerk of the Parliaments holds the appointment as Accounting Officer for the House of Lords. Under the Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Act 1992, the Clerk of the Parliaments is a corporation sole known as the Corporate Officer of the House of Lords and is empowered to acquire, hold, manage and dispose of land and other property for any purpose of the House of Lords, and to enter into contracts for that purpose.1 The Clerk of the Parliaments employs all the staff in the administrative departments of the House. Clerks are appointed by and are removable by the Clerk of the Parliaments.2 The Clerk of the Parliaments has responsibilities in relation to freedom of information (see para 6.21 ). The Clerk of the Parliaments attends the Commission and the other domestic committees. The Clerk of the Parliaments is appointed by the Crown by letters patent under the Great Seal. Duties must be exercised in person, and the Clerk of the Parliaments can be removed from office only by the Sovereign upon an Address of the House of Lords for that purpose.3 The Clerk makes a declaration at the Table of the House upon entering office ‘to make true entries and records of the things done and passed’ in the Parliaments and to ‘keep secret all such matters as shall be treated therein and not to disclose the same before they shall be published but to such as it ought to be disclosed unto’.4 Prior to the enactment of the Promissory Oaths Act 1868, the Clerk swore an oath to the same effect. The first record of such an oath being administered is from March 1531.5 The Minutes of Proceedings of the House are prepared under the direction of the Clerk and issued in the Clerk's name, In the House, the Clerk is responsible for calling each item of the day's business as it is reached and keeping watch generally over the course of business. The Clerk gives advice to Members of the House on order and procedure and has the custody of manuscripts and printed records stored in the Parliamentary Archives. The Clerk signs all orders of the House and other official communications and endorses all bills sent to the Commons. Into the custody of the Clerk are also placed bills that have passed through both Houses and await the Royal Assent6 and the Clerk is responsible for the preparation of the texts of Acts of Parliament. At the ceremony of the Royal Assent to bills by commission, the Clerk pronounces to each Act the words by which the Royal Assent is signified and has the duty by statute to endorse on every Act the date on which it received the Royal Assent.7

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Act 1992, s 1. Clerk of the Parliaments Act 1824, s 5. Clerk of the Parliaments Act 1824, s 52. LJ (1974) 428; ibid (1983–84) 95; ibid (1990–91) 103; HL Deb (1996–97) 577, c 9. The National Archives (TNA) C193/1, f 80v. With the exception in certain cases of bills of aids and supplies, see para 30.38. Acts of Parliament (Commencement) Act 1793.

The Clerk Assistant and Reading Clerk 6.33The Clerk Assistant and Reading Clerk are appointed by the Lord Speaker, subject to the approbation of the House on their appointments being notified, and, when appointed, they cannot be suspended or removed from their offices without an order of the House. They sit at the Table of the House on the right hand of the Clerk of the Parliaments and in general assist the Clerk in the performance of the Clerk's duties.1 The Clerk Assistant keeps the Minutes of Proceedings of the House and prepares House of Lords Business, containing the next day's Order Paper and future business. The Minutes of Proceedings have been issued daily since 1825 and form the basis of the Lords Journals, which are compiled from them subsequently. The Clerk Assistant exercises the functions of the Corporate Officer of the Lords during any vacancy in the office of Clerk of the Parliaments.2 The Reading Clerk records the daily attendances, reads aloud the letters patent and writs of summons of newly created peers on the occasion of their introduction and administers the oath. The Reading Clerk also reads the commissions for Royal Assent and prorogation. In addition to these invariable duties, the Clerk Assistant and the Reading Clerk undertake such other functions as the Clerk of the Parliaments assigns to them. In performing their duties at the Table of the House, the Clerk of the Parliaments, Clerk Assistant and Reading Clerk are assisted by other senior Clerks who sit at the Table according to a rota.

Footnotes 1. Other Clerks may also sit at the Table (see LJ (1964–65) 448; HL Deb (1964–65) 269, cc 395–96; LJ (1970–72) 406; ibid (1974–75) 122). 2. Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Act 1992 (c 27), s 1(4).

Gentleman or Lady Usher of the Black Rod and Serjeant at Arms 6.34The Gentleman or Lady Usher of the Black Rod (‘Black Rod’) is appointed by the Crown by letters patent under the Garter Seal.1 Black Rod, or the deputy, the Yeoman Usher, is on duty when the House is sitting, and acts as the Messenger of the Sovereign whenever the attendance of the Commons is required.2 Black Rod is responsible for administrative arrangements whenever the Sovereign is in Parliament. Black Rod also acts as Secretary to the Lord Great Chamberlain and as such is responsible for certain ceremonial duties and arrangements, including daily management of the Sovereign's residual estate in the Palace (see para 6.49 ). Black Rod takes part in the introduction of a new peer. By Standing Order No 13, Black Rod is responsible for giving effect to such orders and rules as the House may make for the admission of the public to the Chamber and the precincts of the House and executes the orders of the House in cases of contempt.3 Since 1971, Black Rod has also held the office of Serjeant at Arms and is appointed to that office by the Crown by letters patent under the Great Seal. Black Rod attends the Lord Speaker in the capacity of Serjeant at Arms. The Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod and Deputy Serjeant at Arms acts as the Deputy of Black Rod for such of the above functions as Black Rod may assign. In particular, the Yeoman Usher attends the Lord Speaker in carrying the Mace in and out of the Chamber.

Footnotes 1. In addition to parliamentary functions, Black Rod has duties in connection with the Order of the Garter. See the Report of Select Committee on the Office of Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod (HL 140 (1906)). 2. For the Commons practice regarding the admission of Black Rod, see para 8.16. 3. LJ (1972–73) 55–65.

Offices in the House of Lords Contents The Clerk of the Parliaments Corporate Services Financial Resources Human Resources Parliamentary Services Support Services 6.35The House of Lords administration is structured by the five administrative functions represented on the Management Board. Within these functional areas are the offices set out below.

The Clerk of the Parliaments 6.36The Clerk of the Parliaments' Office supports the Clerk of the Parliaments in carrying out the Clerk's functions and responsibilities. Additionally, the office provides administrative and private office support for the Lord Speaker, Senior Deputy Speaker, and the bodies within the governance structure.

Corporate Services 6.37The Reading Clerk is responsible to the Management Board for Corporate Services. Communications aims to increase public understanding of the role, work and membership of the House. Parliamentary Archives provides archives and records managements services for both Houses; and preserves and provides public access to records which date from 1497. The Archives also enable effective information management across both Houses. The Overseas Office is responsible for relationships with and visits from and to overseas legislatures. The Reading Clerk is also responsible for support for the Lord Speaker (provided by the Lord Speaker's Office).

Financial Resources 6.38The Finance Department, represented on the Management Board by the Finance Director, is concerned with: financial management and administration; provision of financial advice; financial reporting; resource and cash management; payments to Members, suppliers and staff; and accounting for receipts from Members, staff and the public.

Human Resources 6.39The Human Resources Department, represented by the Director of Human Resources, advises on human resources matters and is responsible for the recruitment of staff employed by the Clerk of the Parliaments.1

Footnotes 1. It is also responsible for pay, grading and conditions of service of the staff, staff postings, promotion arrangements, superannuation and negotiations with the staff associations.

Parliamentary Services 6.40The Clerk Assistant oversees Parliamentary Services, covering the work of all the main procedural offices. The Committee Office is responsible for supporting the select committees of the House (see Chapter 40). The Journal Office comprises the Registry, Table Office and Printed Paper Office plus the conduct functions. The Registry is responsible for the collection and analysis of data on the membership and work of the House and for the compilation and issue of the Journals of the House. The Table Office advises on the tabling of parliamentary business and has responsibility for the production of the House of Lords Business, including the Minutes of Proceedings. The Printed Paper Office is responsible for the provision and digital publication of parliamentary papers and other documents that Members need to discharge their parliamentary duties. Another group of staff within the Journal Office supports the House of Lords Commissioner for Standards, the Registrar of Lords' Interests and the Sub-Committee on Lords' Conduct. The Legislation Office supervises the passage of primary and secondary legislation through the House. The office prepares procedural briefs in respect of public bills, and is responsible for the printing of bills and amendments and Public Acts and Measures, and for the transmission to the House of Commons of all official messages. The office supervises the passage of private bills through the House. The Clerk of Private Bills is appointed one of the two Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.1 The Department of the Official Report (Hansard) provides a daily and weekly record of debates, statements and written answers. A fuller description is given at para 7.20. The Library provides research, information and bibliographic services to support the legislative and deliberative functions of the House. Black Rod's Department controls access to the Chamber and the precincts of the House and is responsible for maintaining order within them. Black Rod's Department is also responsible for ceremonial occasions in the House of Lords and for State ceremonial in the Palace of Westminster.

Footnotes 1. The office also supports the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

Support Services 6.41The Director of Facilities is responsible for support services, which are grouped under two headings. Property and Office Services manage the provision of accommodation, works services and cleaning. Catering and Retail Services, under the day-to-day management of the Head of Catering Services, are responsible for the catering services of the House.

Parliamentary Digital Service 6.42The Parliament (Joint Departments) Act 2007 permits the Corporate Officers of the two Houses to establish joint departments. The first such department was the Parliamentary Digital Service, which was created in 2015 through a merger of the former Department of Parliamentary Information and Communications Technology and the Web and Intranet Service, formerly part of the House of Commons Library. The Parliamentary Digital Service provides technology and intranet services to Members and their staff and staff of both Houses. It is also responsible for the strategic direction of Parliament's digital offering through Parliament's Digital Strategy, and the delivery and management of parliamentary digital platforms, including the Parliament website. The Digital Service provides a support function for all users of the Parliamentary Network; develops new and replacement applications to support the work of Parliament; and monitors and manages the Parliamentary Network, and its renewal as necessary, which underpins the availability and performance of all of Parliament's computer systems. It provides day-to-day management, support and oversight of the parliamentary website, intranet and social media channels, and monitoring, management and renewal of Parliament's telecommunications infrastructure.

Clerk of the Crown in Chancery 6.43The Clerk of the Crown in Chancery (who is also the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Justice) is appointed under royal sign manual.1 The Clerk of the Crown and their Deputy are officers of both Houses.2 The Clerk of the Crown in Chancery has responsibilities in the House of Lords relating to the issue of Writs of Summons and for the preparation of Letters Patent creating a peerage, and in the Commons for issuing writs for parliamentary elections, directed to the returning officers for all constituencies in Great Britain.3 It is also the Clerk of the Crown's duty to prepare certain documents (Commissions for Royal Assent and Prorogation, Commissions for the Opening of Parliament, Deputy Speakers' Commissions) by which the Sovereign's commands are conveyed to one or other House or to Parliament. The Clerk of the Crown or their Deputy also takes part in the signification by Commission of Royal Assent to Acts of Parliament, and in the introduction of a Clerk of the Parliaments.4

Footnotes 1. Great Seal (Offices) Act 1874, s 8. 2. See Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), pp 177, 191. 3. Representation of the People Act 1983, sch 1; Parliamentary Elections Rules, r 3. In relation to an election for a constituency in Northern Ireland, ‘Clerk of the Crown’ means the Clerk of the Crown for Northern Ireland, who has to transmit the name of the elected candidate to the Clerk of the Crown in England: Parliamentary Elections Rules, r 51(5). 4. For further information, see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), pp 119–20.

The Comptroller and Auditor General 6.44The Comptroller General of the Receipt and Issue of Her Majesty's Exchequer and Auditor General of Public Accounts is appointed by letters patent under the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866 (c 39). By the National Audit Act 1983, s 1, as amended by the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, Her Majesty's power of appointment is exercisable on an Address presented by the House of Commons, and no motion shall be made for such an Address except by the Prime Minister1 acting with the agreement of the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts.2 The Comptroller and Auditor General's salary is a charge on the Consolidated Fund and they are removable from office only on an Address from the two Houses. The Comptroller heads the National Audit Office and assists the House of Commons by controlling the issue of money granted by Parliament from the Exchequer on demand of the Treasury and by auditing the accounts of government departments and a wide range of public sector bodies on behalf of the House. The Comptroller's reports on the Resource Accounts (see para 34.5 ) and examinations of economy, effectiveness and efficiency under the National Audit Act 1983, Pt II, form the basis of the work of the Committee of Public Accounts (see para 38.65 ).3 Under s 12(2) of the 2011 Act, the Comptroller and Auditor General continues to be an Officer of the House of Commons, but the Comptroller, and the National Audit Office, are not under the control of the House of Commons Commission. The Public Accounts Commission has various duties with respect to the National Audit Office (see para 6.45 ). There is also a Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland, who heads the Northern Ireland Audit Office, established by the Audit (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. When the Northern Ireland Assembly has been suspended, the Comptroller has reported to the House of Commons. The Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland is also accorded the status of an Officer of the House of Commons.4

Footnotes 1. No other Minister may act for the Prime Minister, in contrast to the usual practice. 2. See HC Deb (1987–88) 124, cc 1185–205; 20 May 2009: CJ (2008–09) 376, HC Deb (2009) 492, c 1521; ibid (6 March 2019) 655, cc 1000–05. 3. See HC Deb (1997–98) 312, c 359W, in regard to the C&;AG's access to contractors' records. 4. See Committee of Public Accounts, Second Report, HC 116 (1986–87) para 3.

The Public Accounts Commission 6.45The Public Accounts Commission was established by the National Audit Act 1983. It consists of the Chair of the Committee of Public Accounts, the Leader of the House of Commons, and seven other Members of the House of Commons, none of whom shall be a Minister of the Crown. The Commission has power under the 1983 Act to choose its own chair. The Commission's functions are: (a) to lay before the House the estimate of the expenses of the National Audit Office prepared by the Comptroller and Auditor General, after examining it and making any modifications it thinks fit, having regard to any advice received from the Committee of Public Accounts and the Treasury; (b) to appoint the Accounting Officer for the National Audit Office;1 and (c) to appoint an auditor for the National Audit Office. The Commission has power to report to the House from time to time on the exercise of its functions.2 By agreement with the Department of Finance and Personnel, Northern Ireland, the Commission undertakes similar duties as regards the Northern Ireland Audit Office on a non-statutory basis, the Government obtaining the Commission's views before laying the estimate or appointing an Accounting Officer or auditor.3 This function is now statutorily devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly, but, during periods when the Assembly is suspended, reverts on an informal basis to the Public Accounts Commission.

Footnotes 1. The Comptroller and Auditor General holds the appointment. 2. See eg HC 754 (1999–2000); HC 1251 (2001–02); HC 907 (2017–19). 3. See HC 604 (1987–88) paras 15–21.

The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration 6.46The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (PCA), an independent statutory officer widely known as the Ombudsman, is appointed by letters patent under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, and is removable only on an Address from the two Houses. The post has invariably been held by the same person as holds the post of Health Service Commissioner for England.1 The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration's function is to investigate complaints referred by Members of the House of Commons from members of the public who claim to have sustained injustice in consequence of maladministration in connection with actions taken by or on behalf of those government departments or specific non-departmental public bodies under sch 2 to the 1967 Act, as amended. Considering the PCA's reports to Parliament under s 10(3) and (4) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 forms a significant part of the work of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (see para 38.66 ).

Footnotes 1. See Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, and the Health Service Commissioners (Amendment) Act 1996.

Bankruptcy 3.30Under the Insolvency Act 1986, ss 426A and 427 as amended by the Enterprise Act 2002, a Member of the House of Lords in respect of whom a bankruptcy1 restrictions order or a debt relief restrictions order has effect, or in Scotland a Member of the House of Lords whose estate is sequestered, is disqualified from sitting and voting in the House. A writ is not issued to any person, who would otherwise be entitled to one, while they are so disqualified. A court making a bankruptcy restrictions order, or an interim order, or a debt relief restrictions order, or an interim debt relief restrictions order in respect of a Member is required to notify the Lord Speaker and it is recorded in the minutes of proceedings for that day.2 Under the Insolvency Act 1986, an enactment about insolvency applies in relation to a Member of the House of Lords irrespective of any parliamentary privilege.3

Footnotes 1. The relevant statutory provisions are contained in the Bankruptcy Disqualification Act 1871, the Bankruptcy Act 1883, s 32, the Bankruptcy Act 1890, the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1913, s 183, the Bankruptcy Act 1914, ss 106(1) and 128 and the Insolvency Act 1986, ss 426A and 427, as amended by the Enterprise Act 2002. 2. For notifications of bankruptcy, see LJ (1946–47) 358; ibid (1948–49) 257; ibid (1950) 212; ibid (1953–54) 161; ibid (2001–02) 69. The House is also notified in cases of discharge; see LJ (1957–58) 324; ibid (2001–02) 1026; for a case in which the certificate was rescinded, see LJ (1881) 24, 140. 3. Insolvency Act 1986, s 426C.

Other bodies 6.48Parliament provides financial (and other) support to a number of otherwise independently-run bodies with parliamentary purposes. Those with an international remit are described in Chapter 10. The two Houses finance the History of Parliament Trust through grant in aid. The History of Parliament is a project to produce detailed studies of elections and electoral politics in each constituency, and closely researched accounts of the lives of everyone who was elected to Parliament in the period, together with surveys drawing out the themes and discoveries of the research and adding information on the operation of Parliament as an institution. The project is governed by the History of Parliament Trust,1 and the work of its staff is supervised by an editorial board of historians. The Trust is largely financed through grant in aid from the House of Commons Administration Estimate and the House of Lords Estimate.2 For information about the History's publications to date, see its website: www.historyofparliamentonline.org/

Footnotes 1. The members of the Trust include (ex officio) the Senior Deputy Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerk Assistant of the House of Commons, together with senior Members of both Houses and others. 2. The Trust was established in 1940. Between 1951, when payment of the grant in aid was first made, and 1995, the payment was made by the Treasury. In 2017, the two Commissions sponsored an independent review of the work of the Trust by Professor Mike Braddick, which was concluded in January 2018.

General arrangements 6.49The Palace of Westminster, within which both Houses meet, stands on the site of the palace founded by Edward the Confessor. Following the destruction by fire of most of the buildings on the site in 1834, the present building was constructed between 1840 and 1852. The Palace of Westminster was formerly controlled on the Sovereign's behalf by the Lord Great Chamberlain, an hereditary officer of State, but each House, while in occupation of the part assigned to it, had the custody and service of that part, this control being exercised in the Lords through the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, and in the Commons by the Serjeant at Arms. On 26 April 1965, with the consent of the Queen, control of the Palace passed to the two Houses, except that control of Westminster Hall became vested jointly in the Lord Great Chamberlain as representing Her Majesty and in the two Speakers on behalf of the two Houses. Invitations to foreign dignitaries to address both Houses in Westminster Hall will ordinarily be issued only by the agreement of all three keyholders.1 The Lord Great Chamberlain also retains his previous functions on royal occasions, and control of Her Majesty's Robing Room (and the staircase and ante-room adjoining), the Royal Gallery and the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft remains in his hands.2 The Corporate Officers of both Houses have been able to acquire, hold, manage and dispose of land and other property since 1992, by virtue of the Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Act 1992. The accommodation used by the Houses is a combination of freehold, leasehold and leased buildings. Most of the buildings on the estate are historic and listed and sit within several conservation zones and sites of archaeological importance. The Palace itself is located within a UNESCO world heritage site. The Palace of Westminster contains accommodation in which the proceedings of the two Houses and their committees are conducted, accommodation specially set aside for royal and other important occasions, and accommodation reserved for serving the needs of the Members and staff of each House and of the media. The principal rooms used on royal and other important occasions are Westminster Hall and the Royal Gallery.3 The remaining accommodation in the Palace includes rooms for Ministers and other Members of both Houses and their staffs, office accommodation for the staff of both Houses and the party Whips, the Libraries of each House, meeting rooms, post offices and refreshment areas set aside for Members, staff and the public.4 There is further accommodation for the meetings of committees, for Members and their staff, and for staff of the House of Commons, in premises close to but not forming part of the Palace itself. The House of Lords has further accommodation for Members and staff of the House in several buildings to the south of the Palace. In 2018, both Houses agreed resolutions which accepted the ‘clear and pressing need to repair the services in the Palace of Westminster in a comprehensive and strategic manner’ and agreed that a ‘full and timely decant of the Palace’ was the best and the most cost-effective option for addressing this need.5 The draft Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill was subsequently published (Cm 9710) and a Joint Committee of both Houses appointed to consider the Bill and report on it by 28 March 2019.6

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (6 February 2017) 621, cc 47–48. 2. HL Deb (1964–65) 264, cc 524–29; HL Deb (1964–65) 709, cc 328–33. 3. In recent years Westminster Hall has been used for the presentation of Addresses to Her Majesty the Queen by both Houses on such occasions as the seven hundredth anniversary of the Parliament of Simon de Montfort, the fiftieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War, the anniversary of the Revolutions of 1688–89 and Bill of Rights and Claim of Right and the Golden Jubilee, for the lying-instate of Sir Winston Churchill and of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, for an address to both Houses by the President of the French Republic, for the opening by Her Majesty the Queen of the Inter-Parliamentary Union Conferences, Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conferences, and the North Atlantic Assembly in 1982, and for addresses to both Houses on the occasion of the visit of the President of South Africa in 1996. In the Royal Gallery, formal speeches have been made to Members of both Houses by visiting Heads of State or government. 4. For a detailed account of the principal accommodation in the Palace of Westminster, see M H Port The Houses of Parliament (1976). For the rules on the use of committee and conference rooms for purposes other than official business, see HC Deb (1995–96) 268, cc 843–44W. 5. HC Deb (31 January 2018) 635, c 932; HL Deb (6 February 2018) 788, c 2000. 6. Votes and Proceedings, 26 November 2018 and 12 March 2019; House of Lords Minutes of Proceedings, 27 November 2018 and 13 March 2019.

Treason 3.31The Forfeiture Act 1870 provides that anyone convicted of treason shall be disqualified for sitting or voting as a Member of the House of Lords until they have either completed their term of imprisonment or received a pardon.1

Footnotes 1. In 1919, following a report by a Committee of the Privy Council appointed under the Titles Deprivation Act 1917, two peers who during the First World War had ‘adhered to His Majesty's enemies’ were, in accordance with that Act, deprived of the right to receive writs of summons or to sit in the House of Lords, and of their privileges and rights to any dignity or title (LJ (1919) 107).

Commons 6.51In the Commons no place is allotted to any Member, but by custom the front bench on the right hand of the Chair (called the Treasury bench or government front bench) is appropriated for the members of the administration.1 The front bench on the opposite side, though other Members occasionally sit there,2 is reserved by convention for the leading members of the Opposition.3 It is not uncommon for senior Members who are in the habit of attending in one place to be allowed to occupy it as a matter of courtesy. Members who have no such claim to a seat must be present at prayers if they wish to secure the right to a particular seat until the rising of the House (Standing Order Nos 7 and 8). Members may leave cards upon seats to indicate that they intend to attend prayers (and so secure seats for the remainder of the sitting).4 These ‘prayer cards’ are dated and must be obtained personally by the Member who wishes to use them from an attendant who is on duty in the House for that purpose from 8 am until the House meets.

Footnotes 1. On certain formal occasions the Members for the City of London have claimed the privilege of sitting on this bench. The separate constituency of the City of London was abolished by the Representation of the People Act 1948, and the right was exercised in subsequent Parliaments by the Members for the Cities of London and Westminster. 2. HC Deb (1984–85) 77, cc 755–56. 3. For the allocation of seats to a party by arrangement, see Mr Speaker's remarks HC Deb (1912–13) 44, cc 2267, 2507; ibid (1914) 58, cc 49, 1092; ibid (1919) 112, c 755; ibid (1939–40) 361, cc 27–28; ibid (1997–98) 297, cc 215–18; ibid (2001–02) 378, c 402. 4. HC Deb (1983–84) 55, c 21. In addition, by Resolution of the House, Members serving on departmental or select committees may secure seats by fixing pink cards thereto (obtained from the attendants) (CJ (1888) 121; ibid (1927) 242). (The significance of the term ‘departmental committee’ in the resolution is not that given to certain select committees by SO No 152 (select committees related to government departments) but refers to certain committees established by government departments on which some Members served.) In 2015, this provision was extended to Westminster Hall Chairs on the authority of the Speaker.

Lords 6.52The arrangements for the seating of Members of the House of Lords are, in theory, governed by the House of Lords Precedence Act 1539.1 In practice, these arrangements have been modified for the sake of convenience in debate on modern party lines, with the Government and its supporters sitting to the right of the Throne and the opposition party or parties sitting to the left. Members of the House who are not members of any particular party usually sit on the Cross Benches or in the block of seating on whichever side of the House there is most space. The bishops sit together on the first two benches closest to and to the right of the Throne, in accordance with the Act of 1539. Thanks to the presence of the bishops, the Government's side of the House, to the right of the Throne, is known as the Spiritual side. The side to the left of the Throne, occupied by the opposition, is known as the Temporal side.

Footnotes 1. 31 Hen 8, c 10: Ordered to be added to the Book of Standing Orders by way of Appendix, 9 February 1825. Examples of the enforcement of these arrangements can be found on the following occasions: 20 January 1640, 10 February 1640, and 1 February 1771; LJ (1736–41) 572, 593; ibid (1770–73) 47.

Ensuring access to the Houses of Parliament 6.53To ensure access to Parliament, discretion is given to constables by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis under the Metropolitan Police Act 1839, s 52 to disperse all assemblies and processions causing or likely to cause obstruction or disorder on any day on which Parliament is sitting or has sat.1 Restrictions on protest around Parliament were introduced under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (SOCPA 2005), ss 132–138. The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, s 141, repealed ss 132–138 and replaced them with restrictions applying only to the controlled area of Parliament Square.2 Under s 143 of the 2011 Act it is no longer an offence for demonstrations to be held without the authorisation of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, but `a constable or authorised officer who has reasonable grounds for believing that a person is doing, or is about to do, a prohibited activity may direct the person…to cease doing that activity, or…not to start doing that activity’. In the past, both Houses passed Sessional Orders at the beginning of each session of Parliament intended to give directions to the Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis that, during that session, they should keep the streets leading to the Houses of Parliament free and open, and that no obstruction should be permitted to hinder the passage thereto of the Lords or Members.3 In 2003, the House of Commons Procedure Committee concluded that passing the Sessional Order did ‘not confer any extra legal powers on the police’ and that the only way to ensure that the police had the adequate powers to achieve the result intended by the Sessional Order was through legislation. The committee recommended that until such legislation came into force the House should continue with a Sessional Order, in modified form, in order ‘to reflect the House's concerns and to act as a marker that it expects Members' access to Parliament to be maintained as far as the existing law allows’.4 The Government included provisions in SOCPA 2005 intended to meet the requirement identified by the committee, and the modified Sessional Order was passed for the last time in the House of Commons at the start of the 2005–06 session. The House of Lords has continued to pass its Sessional Order. In 2013, the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege recommended that the practice of passing Sessional Orders in the House of Commons be restored. In its response, the Government said it was `not convinced that their revival would serve any legal or practical purpose.’5

Footnotes 1. See Report of the Law Commission on Offences relating to Public Order, Part VIII (HC 85 (1983–84)) and Papworth v Coventry [1967] 2 All ER 41. See also HC Deb (1998–99) 334, c 603W. Since 1 October 2000 the ‘care, control, management and regulation’ of the central area of Parliament Square has been the responsibility of the Greater London Authority (Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c 29), s 384(3)). 2. For a discussion of the issues, see Joint Committee on Draft Constitutional Renewal Bill Report HL 166, HC 551 (2007–08) paras 10–73. 3. For interpretation of this order, see Parl Deb (1903) 124, c 1494; HC Deb (1937–38) 329, cc 1390, 1417–19; ibid (1950–51) 491, cc 1527–40; ibid (1966–67) 727, cc 41–42; ibid (1978–79) 961, c 205; ibid (1999–2000) 344, cc 249; 350, 674–76; also ibid (1998–99) 329, cc 27–8W as regards public gatherings in Parliament Square. The powers of the police derive from the Metropolitan Police Act 1839 (c 47), s 52. 4. House of Commons Procedure Committee, Sessional Orders and Resolutions, Third Report HC 855 (2002–03) paras 15, 24 and 25. 5. Cabinet Office, Government Response to the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, Cm 8771, December 2013, p 6.

Public access Contents Commons Lords 6.54By the ancient custom of Parliament, and by orders of both Houses, members of the public were not admitted while the Houses were sitting.1 Both Houses subsequently significantly modified their practice in this regard, as set out below.

Footnotes 1. Until 1845, the Commons by a Sessional Order maintained the exclusion of the public from every part of the House. In practice, the public were usually admitted on payment of a fee; the back row of the gallery was reserved for reporters by a decision of Mr Speaker Abbot in 1803.

Disqualifying judicial office 3.33Under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, s 137, a Member of the House of Lords who holds a disqualifying judicial office1 is disqualified for sitting and voting in the House. Such Members are not however disqualified for receiving a writ of summons.

Footnotes 1. Defined in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, as amended, and the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975, as amended.

Intrusion of persons other than Members into the Chamber 6.56By Standing Order Nos 161 and 162, the Serjeant is directed to take into custody non-Members who are in any part of the House or gallery reserved for Members, and members of the public who misconduct themselves or do not withdraw when directed to do so; and Members of the House are forbidden to bring a visitor, during the sitting of the House, into any part of the House or gallery reserved for Members, although Members may, as necessary, bring children under five into the division lobbies and, for the purposes of getting to and from the lobbies, into the Chamber.1 The Serjeant has taken members of the public into custody who have come irregularly into the House, or have misconducted themselves there.2 Officers of the House, and certain officials on duty, are not normally regarded as ‘the public’ or ‘visitors'.

Footnotes 1. Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons, November 2018, para 42. A Member has taken an infant into the Chamber with the Speaker's permission: HC Deb (13 September 2018) 646, c 961. 2. CJ (1818–19) 537; ibid (1830–31) 323; ibid (1833) 246. In 1983 the Standing Order was extended to include misconduct by members of the public present at sittings of select or standing committees, having previously been interpreted in that way by the authority of a Speaker's private ruling published in HC Deb (1981–82) 19, c 385. See also HC Deb (15 September 2004) 424, c 1337 ff.

Exclusion of the public from the galleries 6.57Under Standing Order No 163, a Member may move ‘that the House sit in private’; the Speaker or occupant of the Chair puts the question forthwith, and it may be decided after the expiration of the time for opposed business (see para 17.8 ).1 If fewer than 40 Members take part in a division on the motion, the business before the House is adjourned and the House moves to the next scheduled business. For this reason, the motion has regularly been moved during consideration of Private Members' Bills as a way of blocking progress on a bill. The motion may not be made more than once in any sitting.2 It is therefore common for such a motion to be moved at the start of business on a day set down for consideration of Private Members' Bills, before any question is before the House, to ensure it cannot be used to impede the progress of a bill.3 The Standing Order reserves to the Speaker, or the chairman, the power, whenever they think fit, to order the withdrawal of the public from any part of the House.4 Although usually defeated,5 on certain occasions the question that the House do sit in private has been agreed to.6 Such an order extends to the Press Gallery and requires broadcasting to cease. Following the private sitting in 2001, the sound amplification system has been modified so that it can be used when broadcasting has been turned off. In Session 1917–18, the Lords agreed to a resolution declaring that the privilege of being present at debates by long custom accorded by each House of Parliament to the Members of the other House should not be withdrawn on the occasion of a secret sitting, and requesting the House of Commons to make a similar order if it concurred in this proposal. The House of Commons agreed to the Lords' resolution and amended Standing Order No 163 by adding a proviso excepting Members of the House of Lords from its operation.7 In the Lords there is a corresponding provision under Standing Order No 15.8

Footnotes 1. CJ (1988–89) 166. For an occasion when the Speaker declined to hear the motion moved during questions to the Prime Minister, see HC Deb (13 June 2018) 642, cc 888–89. 2. Until 1998 (CJ (1997–98) 597), the Standing Order required Members to take notice of strangers, usually by means of the formula ‘I spy strangers’ and the question was put ‘that strangers do now withdraw’, but the older formula is no longer accepted (HC Deb (1998–99) 322, c 1193). Before the Standing Order was originally made as a resolution in May 1875, the exclusion of members of the public from the galleries could, at any time, be enforced without an order of the House; for, on a Member taking notice of their presence, the Speaker was obliged to order them to withdraw, without putting a question (Parl Deb (1810) 15, c 309; ibid (1845) 77, c 138). See also para 17.22. 3. For examples, see Votes and Proceedings, 6 July 2018, 8 February 2019. 4. CJ (1875) 243; ibid (1888) 85. 5. For an example of the motion being moved on grounds of national security, and negatived on the voices, see: HC Deb (23 January 2017) 620, c 22; for an example of its being moved on a Friday, see ibid (6 Jul 2018) 644, c 595. 6. CJ (1876) 77, 79; Parl Deb (1876) 227, cc 1405, 1420; CJ (1876) 348; Parl Deb (1876) 230, c 1555; CJ (1878) 186, 236; ibid (1924–25) 432; ibid (1958–59) 32; ibid (2001–02) 242. 7. LJ (1917–18) 278; CJ (1917–18) 250, 302. 8. For proceedings in secret sessions, see para 17.22 and Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), pp 172–73, 252.

Withdrawal of the public during a division 6.58During a division in the House, members of the public are not required to withdraw from the galleries, from the seats below the Bar of the House or from those reserved for officials, but they are required to withdraw from the Members' lobby.1 The broadcast sound is switched off and the broadcast video is switched to a wide-angle shot of the Chamber.

Footnotes 1. The public were entirely excluded from the Commons Chamber during divisions until 1853, but from 1853 until 1906 were merely directed to withdraw from below the Bar.

Misconduct of the public in the galleries 6.59Individual instances of misconduct on the part of visitors admitted to the galleries of the House of Commons have occurred from time to time. On such occasions, the offenders have been removed from the galleries, the galleries have been closed on the Speaker's direction1 or the Speaker has issued a warning of an intention to clear the galleries if disorderly behaviour were to continue.2 The Speaker has suspended the sitting while the Public Gallery has been cleared.3 The Serjeant and their staff, with or without an express direction from the Speaker, remove from the gallery of the House any visitor behaving in a disorderly manner.4 Disorder in the galleries should not as a general rule be noticed by the House.5

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

Parl Deb (1906) 155, c 1584; ibid (1908) 195, cc 364, 368, 403; HC Deb (1920) 135, c 931; ibid (1921) 147, c 9. HC Deb (1972–73) 850, c 1372. HC Deb (1987–88) 124, c 1039. The gallery was reopened later at the same sitting, ibid (1987–88) 124, c 1044. Parl Deb (1898) 63, c 221; HC Deb (1919) 117, c 1258. For occasions when a person was taken into custody on the authority of the Speaker, see ibid (1977–78) 953, c 677; ibid (1978–79) 959, c 1700. 5. HC Deb (1996–97) 286, c 1045.

Lords 6.60Standing Order Nos 13 and 14(1) provide: ‘13. When the House is sitting, no person shall be on the floor of the House except Lords of Parliament and such other persons as assist or attend the House. Upon an Order of the House, the persons in all or any of the galleries or in the spaces about the Throne and below the Bar are to withdraw. 14. (1) The admission of strangers to the Chamber and the precincts of the House, whether or not the House is sitting, shall be subject to such orders and rules as the House may make. The Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod shall give effect to such orders and rules and shall have such powers (including the power to take into custody) as are necessary for that purpose.’1 Provision is made for the admission to the precincts of the Chamber of various categories of persons. There is a Public Gallery. Lords Members' spouses and guests, members of the Diplomatic Corps, and others are regularly admitted below the Bar and in the galleries. There are places below the Bar and in the galleries for Members of the Commons. There is a box at the Throne end of the Chamber on the Temporal side, where staff of the House may sit. The press have their own gallery and technical facilities and access is provided for the broadcasting authorities. Government and (as long as the space is not needed by staff of the House) Opposition advisers are admitted to boxes in the House to enable them to communicate briefing material. Instances of misconduct by members of the public have occurred from time to time and the offenders have been removed.2

Footnotes 1. For the rules governing the admission of the public, see LJ (1972–73) 56. On 25 April 1916, the Lords resolved that the sitting of that day should be secret and the public was not admitted. A similar procedure was adopted on 20 June 1940 and on frequent occasions after those dates during the two World Wars (LJ (1916) 90; HL Deb (1916) 21, c 811; LJ (1939–40) 165). For war-time regulations relating to exclusion of the public during secret sessions of either House, see para 17.22. See also proceedings of the House of Lords with regard to a member of the Privy Council who had abused his privilege of admission to the steps of the Throne during a debate, LJ (1920) 405; HL Deb (1920) 41, cc 1026, 1237. 2. For example, 11 July 1957, 23 January 1985, 2 February 1988.

Introduction to parliamentary papers, publications and records 7.1Parliamentary papers and publications fall into four categories: business papers, which record debates and decisions and set out future business; bills and associated documents; papers laid before Parliament by external bodies, such as government departments, often in accordance with statute or at the request of one or the other House; and papers reported to Parliament by committees or others within Parliament to whom one or both Houses have delegated particular responsibilities. This chapter considers papers in the first three categories only; papers in the fourth category are considered in the chapters relevant to them. Many other documents are produced by the administrations of both Houses, such as guides for visitors, which are not parliamentary papers and are therefore not considered in this chapter. All business papers, bills and associated documents are available in digital formats on Parliament.uk and via apps.1 Printing and electronic publishing of papers has, since 2015, been undertaken directly by the administration of the two Houses rather than by an external contractor.

Footnotes 1. The HousePapers app carries all business papers organised on a daily basis.

House of Commons Contents Order Paper Amendment Papers Private Business Questions and Answers Publications Early Day Motions Grand Committee Order Papers Motions relating to EU documents Private Members' Bills set down for non-sitting days Proposals for instruments reported on by the European Statutory Instruments Committee The Vote Bundle Documents published for Members' information Votes and Proceedings The Journals of the House of Commons 7.2House of Commons Business Papers and the publishing conventions that govern them are listed below. As a general rule, documents relating to that day's business are printed on white paper, documents relating to private business or notices for future days on blue. An exception to this general rule is Future Business A (the Calendar of Business) which is printed on white paper but lists provisional forthcoming business.

Order Paper 7.3The main Business Paper is the Order Paper, which is published each sitting day and which consists of two parts: The first part lists the business to be considered by the House, both in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall, in the course of the day. In addition to the Summary Agenda on the first page, the items which this paper contains are arranged as follows: 1. Private Business (the part of the Private Business Paper (see below) which relates to the business, if any, to be taken in the House on the current day). 2. Motions for unopposed returns (if any). 3. Substantive and topical Questions for oral answer. 4. Ministerial statements of which advance notice has been given1 and select committee statements granted by the Backbench Business Committee. 5. Any notices of public bills which are to be presented to the House under Standing Order No 57(1). 6. A section—‘Business of the Day’—which comprises any notices of certain motions which may be moved at this time and any motions for leave to bring in bills or nominate select committees under Standing Order No 23, all followed by the orders of the day and notices of motions. Indications are given, in notes, of the timing and duration of a debate. In appropriate cases, details are given of relevant documents (such as a select committee report2 ), or of a relevant standing order or procedure to be followed.3 7. A section—‘presentation of public petitions’—comprising any petitions scheduled to be presented and read by a Member, with the name of the Member. 8. A section—‘adjournment debate’—setting out the subject of the end-of-day half hour adjournment debate and the name of the Member who has secured it.4 9. Notices of written ministerial statements to be made that day, the texts of which are published online on the written questions and answers webpage. 10. Notices of general, select and joint committees which are meeting that day, together with time and place of meeting. When such meetings are to take place in public, the list of those due to give evidence is published, but it is not the practice to publish the names of witnesses who are to be examined in private.5 11. Select committee reports scheduled to be published during the day. 12. An Announcements section setting out deadlines for applications for Adjournment and Westminster Hall debates, business decided by the Backbench Business Committee, information on tabling amendments and questions during Recesses and other useful information for Members. The second part consists of Future Business A and B. Future Business A (‘Calendar of Business’) consists of business scheduled for future days in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall. Future Business B (Remaining Orders and Notices) consists of Remaining Orders of the Day and Notices. These are items which have been formally set down for consideration on the current day, but in respect of which the Government has not indicated that it intends to proceed with them on that day. Most Remaining Orders and Notices are Government business. A full version of Future Business B for each sitting day is available electronically and is printed and distributed, once a week, as part of Monday's Order Paper.6 Subject to the arrangements described above for Future Business B, the Order Paper is printed on white paper and distributed to Members and others on the Parliamentary Estate and published electronically. On the day after the House rises for any periodic adjournment and on non-sitting Fridays, the Order Paper for the next sitting day is printed on blue paper and distributed, and electronically published.

Footnotes 1. Notice is also given of the regular weekly business statement made by the Leader of the House which is normally given in response to an Urgent Question. 2. A note drawing attention to a relevant select committee report does not affect the scope of debate, which continues to depend on the relevant motion (HC Deb (1987–88) 122, cc 1326–28). See para 38.86 3. Amendments to bills or amendments or Motions relating to Lords amendments are printed separately and a reference is placed immediately below the order concerned. 4. If a debate were to take place on a Motion for the adjournment (which has not been the practice since the introduction of general debates), the proposed subject would be noted. 5. HC Deb (1979-80) 988 cc 1769–71. 6. Although for the sake of convenience, the ‘remaining orders’ have since 1966 been printed on a sheet not consecutive with that day's proposed business, the Speaker made it clear in his statement explaining the change in printing arrangements that ‘procedurally it would still be possible, as it always has been, to take a non-effective order by reading through the non-effective orders on a sheet which is published separately’, HC Deb (1966-67) 734, c 41; and see CJ (1990–91) 494.

Amendment Papers 7.4Amendment papers consist of amendments, new clauses and new schedules and motions relating to public bills to be taken on the day of the paper's publication, whether in Committee of the whole House, public bill committee, or in the Chamber. They are printed on white paper and distributed by the Vote Office and published on the Parliament website. For each bill on which proceedings are to be taken on a future date, a marshalled list of amendments (known as the ‘up to and including’ list) is maintained. Notices of amendments and motions given in respect of the bill are integrated into that list as they are tabled. This applies to all the stages mentioned above. A small number of each of these documents is printed and distributed on blue paper on the following day and the document is electronically published. An up-to-date marshalled list is printed, distributed and published electronically, whether or not there is new content, two days before the start of each stage of a bill. Legislative Grand Committee Consent Motions are published online and in hard copy immediately after the Speaker's formal certification following report stage (see para 27.10 ).

Private Business 7.5The Private Business paper usually deals with the private business due to be considered in the Chamber on the date of the document's publication, although items considered elsewhere (eg in Committee or before the Examiners) can also be listed. This document is printed on blue paper and distributed, and electronically published. Notices of Deposited Private Business include notices relating to private bills to be taken on future days, and memoranda of various kinds submitted by the parliamentary agents acting on behalf of the promoters or petitioners. It has recently become customary for amendments proposed to private bills and to private business standing orders to appear in the Private Business document with a reference appearing against the relevant item in Part 1 or 2 of the Order Paper. This document is printed on blue paper and distributed, and electronically published.

Questions and Answers Publications 7.6Written questions awaiting answer are published on the Question and Written Answers website on the day they are tabled. This page also includes written ministerial statements. Answers from government departments are published on the webpage when they are available. The policy on amplification of written answers and statements that applied when these were published only in the Official Report (see para 7.19 ) now applies to material published on the Questions and Written Answers website. A document listing questions tabled on the previous sitting day (Questions Tabled) is printed on blue paper and distributed, and electronically published. The results of Oral Question ‘shuffles’ (see para 22.3 ) are published in the Questions Tabled document and also in the Future Day Orals document which is printed on white paper and distributed, and published electronically.

Early Day Motions 7.7Early Day Motions (EDMs) are published on the day they are tabled by being added to a searchable database on the Parliament website, which contains all EDMs in the current session, and all signatories to them. A document entitled ‘Early Day Motions’ containing new motions and names added to motions tabled in the previous two weeks is printed on blue paper and distributed, and published on the Parliament website.

Grand Committee Order Papers 7.8Grand Committees have their own Order Papers, consisting of oral questions to the relevant Secretary of State and any motions to be considered. This paper is printed on blue paper and distributed, and published on the Parliament website two days before the Grand Committee sits. On the day on which it sits, a Grand Committee Order Paper is printed on white paper and distributed, and published on the Parliament website.

Motions relating to EU documents 7.9The European Business Order Paper, which lists EU documents due to be considered on the floor of the House or in European Committee A, B or C, is printed on blue paper and distributed, and electronically published, on each sitting Thursday and additionally whenever significant new material is added (see para 32.13 ). A Notice Paper consisting of any motion to be taken in a European Committee on the date of publication is printed on white paper for distribution to Committee members and published on the Parliament website.

Private Members' Bills set down for non-sitting days 7.10A document listing Private Members' Bills that have been set down for days when the House is not expected to sit is published electronically.

Proposals for instruments reported on by the European Statutory Instruments Committee 7.11While the UK prepared to leave the European Union, a document was printed weekly on white paper, distributed and published electronically, providing updates on the work of the European Statutory Instruments Committee which was established to scrutinise statutory instruments relating to leaving the EU.1

Footnotes 1. Specifically, negative instruments laid in accordance with para 3(3)(b) or 17(3) of sch 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

Commons 4.3In the absence of any specific orders to that effect, Members are presumed to be in attendance in Parliament. It is not now considered necessary for a Member to be given leave of absence in the ordinary course of business, but such leave has been given to official delegations from the House, especially to those commissioned to present gifts to the Parliaments of newly independent Commonwealth countries.1 The Speaker has also asked the leave of the House to absent himself in order to pay official visits, to receive honorary degrees and appointments at universities, and to attend funerals of deceased Members,2 although the usual practice is now for the Speaker to be given leave in a motion for an Order tabled by the Government.3 Since October 2002, the Speaker has been entitled to leave of absence, if he thinks fit, on any Friday on which the House sits.4

Footnotes 1. See eg CJ (1983–84) 56; ibid (1987–88) 552. For `parental leave’, see para 20.88, fn 1. 2. CJ (1947–48) 51; ibid (1950–51) 193; ibid (1952–53) 179; ibid (1958–59) 158; ibid (1970–71) 470. 3. See eg CJ (1988–89) 329; ibid (1993–94) 359; ibid (1998–99) 386; ibid (2005–06) 262; Votes and Proceedings, 8 May 2018. For an occasion when such a motion was debated at length, see HC Deb (16 June 2003) 407, cc 43–78. 4. SO No 3(3); CJ (2001–02) 785

Documents published for Members' information 7.13During the period after a General Election, but before the first Order Paper is published on the day after the State Opening, ‘Chamber Information’ is printed and distributed on white paper, and electronically published. It is an informal account of likely events in the Chamber when the House first sits, such as the swearing in of Members. Nominations received for Chairs of Select Committees at the beginning of a Parliament are electronically published and updated, with the names of new nominees and supporting Members, in the period leading up to the election of Chairs.

Votes and Proceedings 7.14The Votes and Proceedings are a record of the previous day's proceedings in the House and Westminster Hall. (These used to be published under a Sessional Order first passed in 1680, and passed regularly on the first day of the session between 1689 and 2003, but following a report by the Procedure Committee the practice was ended in 2004.1 ) The entries are compiled on the responsibility of the Clerk of the House by the Journal Office, mainly from the entries in the minute books of the Clerks at the Table, and are printed and circulated on the Speaker's authority. They are printed on white paper and distributed, and published electronically. The Votes and Proceedings record the formal proceedings of the House, such as motions moved, resolutions made or the occurrence of divisions. In particular, they record all that is, or is deemed to be, decided by the House. Formal orders on which no question is put in the House are recorded, since they have the same force as those which the House is actually asked to decide. The Votes and Proceedings do not record debate, or even note the fact that it occurred, except where it records motions for the adjournment of debate, when a Member claims to move closure of debate, or if debate stands adjourned at the moment of interruption. Questions and statements are recorded. If motions are agreed to without a division and without any other intermediate proceeding arising, only the decision of the House is recorded. The texts of amendments to bills in committee or on report are not set out. The business on the floor of the House is followed by any messages from the Lords which are not immediately considered by the House and any other formal business such as the reviving of a ‘dropped’ order, an order for considering and printing Lords amendments, or the first reading of a Lords bill. Reports from and appointments to general committees appear next, followed by reports from select committees. Then come proceedings in Westminster Hall. A list of papers laid before the House appears in an appendix. Certificates of various characters may be published at the end (for example relating to Money bills or legislation on matters of devolved legislative competence). The accuracy of the Votes and Proceedings can be challenged only by a substantive motion.2 Other decisions on bills are recorded by two similar documents which are published only on the Parliament website. The first, the Supplement to the Votes and Proceedings, records the decisions of the House, in Committee of the whole House, at Report Stage and on Lords amendments and messages, on amendments, new clauses and new schedules and clauses and schedules agreed to or disagreed to.3 This is in the form of an annotated version of the Amendment Paper (see above). The second, the Public Bill Committee Proceedings, does the same for those public bill committees which sat on the previous day. A document recording proceedings up to and including the latest sitting is published on the Parliament website.

Footnotes 1. Procedure Committee Sessional Orders and Resolutions, Third Report of Session 2002–03 (HC 855) para 9; CJ (2003–04) 591. 2. CJ (1960 61) 101–2. 3. Printing of the Supplement was discontinued at the end of the 2010–11 financial year.

The Journals of the House of Commons 7.15The Commons Journal forms the permanent official record of the proceedings of the House. It is published sessionally, and one volume usually contains the record of one session, though if there are two sessions in one year (as in 1922 and 1948) the second session is included in the same volume. Where a session has extended over more than one year (as in 2010–12 and 2017–19) it may be published as two volumes. The first extant Journal of the House of Commons records the Parliament of 1547. Thereafter, the series is nearly complete to the present day.1 The Journal is compiled from the daily Votes and Proceedings. The words of the Speaker, or of another occupant of the Chair, have been entered in the Votes and in the Journal, with2 or, more usually, without the order of the House, as have the texts of documents communicated to the House. Among the statements so entered have been the admonition of a Member and the reprimand of a non-Member and a Member,3 explanations from the Chair relating to the previous day's business, acknowledgments of resolutions of the House thanking the occupant of the Chair,4 statements announcing the disqualification5 and reinstatement of a Member6 and statements on historic occasions, such as the rekindling of the light in the clock tower after five and a half years of war.7 Documents entered without an order of the House have included an extract from the records of the Assemblée Nationale of France describing its proceedings on the occasion of a visit by the Speaker of the House of Commons.8 Letters announcing the retirement of the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Deputies, or of the Clerk of the House and the Serjeant at Arms, may also be published.9 Entries in the Journal and the Clerks' Minute Books have occasionally been ordered to be expunged,10 and if such entries are challenged, the proper course is to give notice of a motion to expunge them.11 A printed copy of the Journal is accepted as evidence in a court of law under the Evidence Act 1845, s 3.12 When a cause is tried in London, it was usual for an officer of the House to attend with a printed Journal; if the trial is elsewhere, a party may either obtain from the Journal Office a copy of the entries required, without the signature of any officer, and swear that it is a true copy; or, with the permission of the House, or, during the recess, of the Speaker, an officer may attend to produce the printed Journal, or extracts which the officer certifies to be true copies.

Footnotes 1. No official record at all survives for the Parliaments between 1584 and 1601, and some of the Elizabethan and Jacobean ‘Journals’ which do exist are probably drafts and not the finished version (if a perfected copy was ever made). For some of these gaps the ‘journals’ given in D'Ewes may be adequate alternatives. 2. CJ (1983–94) 477. 3. CJ (1929–30) 503; ibid (1947–48) 22, 23. 4. CJ (1912–13) 409; ibid (1917–18) 56; HC Deb (1917) 92, c 569. 5. Votes and Proceedings, 8 November 2010. 6. CJ (1998–99) 222, 269, 294. 7. CJ 1944–45) 106. 8. CJ (1947–48) 71; see also ibid (1987–88) 716. 9. See Votes and Proceedings, 4 May 2011, 30 April 2014, 14 November 2018. 10. CJ (1644–46) 397, etc; ibid (1646–48) 197; ibid (1651–59) 317; ibid (1693–97) 210; ibid (1770–72) 509. In addition, some earlier entries seem to have been struck out of the Journal without any traceable order (eg the Crown's refusal to approve the election as Speaker in 1679 of Sir Edward Seymour, for which see W R McKay Observations, Rules and Orders (1989), pp xxxiii–iv). When the resolution of 17 February 1769, affirming the incapacity of Wilkes, was ordered to be expunged on 3 May 1782, ‘The same was expunged by the Clerk, at the Table, accordingly’ (CJ (1780–82) 977) and the entry was erased in the manuscript Journal of that day; but the printed Journal still contains the resolution. On 16 May 1833, a motion was made by Mr Cobbett, impugning the conduct of Sir Robert Peel. Lord Althorp moved ‘That the resolution which has been moved be not entered in the minutes’, but the Speaker put the question thus, ‘That the proceedings be expunged’ on the ground that the minutes had already been entered in the Clerk's book. The question was carried and no entry of the motion was made in the Votes and Proceedings (Sir Robert Peel Speeches in the House of Commons 1810–1850 (1853) ii, p 704; Parl Deb (1833) 17, c 1324). On 6 March 1855 a motion was made relative to the appointment of a recorder for Brighton; and on proceeding to a division the mover was left alone, the Member who had seconded his motion pro forma declining to vote with him. It was immediately successfully moved that the motion should not be entered in the Votes and Proceedings and there is no entry of either motion in the Votes and Proceedings (Parl Deb (1855) 137, c 202). The House resolved that the resolutions of 22 June 1880 (CJ (1880) 233), which debarred Mr Bradlaugh from taking the oath of affirmation, be expunged from the Journals; and accordingly the Clerk passed a red line through that resolution in the volumes preserved in the Library and Journal Office of the House, and annotated the margin of the page accordingly (CJ (1890–91) 45). The Clerk also requested that the copies of the Journal in the copyright libraries in London, Edinburgh and Dublin should be altered (see Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), pp 209–10). On 16 July 1909 the House ordered that the entry of a previous day concerning the naming of a Member by the Chairman should be expunged. The entry ordered to be expunged was printed in the Journal in erased type (CJ (1909) 304, 311, 567). 11. HC Deb (1960–61) 634, cc 795, 938. 12. Under the Evidence Act 1845, s 3 (which does not extend to Scotland) all copies of the Journals of either House, purporting to be printed by the printers of either House of Parliament, are to be admitted as evidence by all courts, and others, without proof being given that such copies are so printed.

Lords Business 7.16House of Lords Business is published after each sitting day. It contains the following sections: the Order of Business for the next sitting day (also printed separately as the Order Paper); a list of Future Business; notices of motions and questions for which no day has been named; questions for written answer; lists of bills, measures and delegated legislation and other instruments in progress; notice of committee meetings; and the daily Minutes of Proceedings. Since the session of 18251 the Minutes have been circulated in printed form. The printed Minutes, which are issued over the name of the Clerk of the Parliaments, are based on the Minutes kept by the Clerks at the Table as a contemporaneous record of the business of the House. However, the printed Minutes are in some respects more detailed, in particular including lists of those Lords Members who have voted in divisions in the House. In principle, the Minutes of Proceedings record what is done or deemed to be done as opposed to what is said in the House. They follow the order of business as it is taken in the House but they also include certain formal entries relating to committee proceedings off the floor of the House, retirements, leave of absence, parliamentary papers and private bills. Various supplementary papers and notices are from time to time circulated with House of Lords Business. When necessary, notices concerning changes in business and other matters of interest to the House are also circulated.

Footnotes 1. Following a resolution of the House (LJ (1824) 369).

The Journals of the House of Lords 7.17Journals of the proceedings of the House of Lords are known to have been kept as early as 1461.1 The earliest to survive in the custody of the House record the proceedings of the session of 1510. The series is complete from that time with the exception of some gaps in the sixteenth century. The Journals were originally kept in manuscript. The process of printing them began in 1767.2 The Journals are now compiled from the Minutes of Proceedings. They differ from the Minutes in including a daily record of the Lords Members present, the full text of the Letters Patent of any peer introduced and an index. On occasion the House orders the texts of documents which would not otherwise be set out in full to be entered in the Journals. Such orders have been made in respect of communications from foreign States, received by the Lord Chancellor (in their former role as Lord Speaker) and communicated by them to the House3 as well as in respect of other documents.4 Where entries in the Journals have been found to be incorrect, orders have been made for them to be corrected.5 When the Journals are required as evidence, a party may have a copy or extract, authenticated by the signature of the Clerk of the Parliaments, and, if necessary, the Lords have allowed an officer of their House to attend a trial with the original Journal.

Footnotes 1. See William Dumham, The Fane Fragment of the 1461 Lords Journal (1935). 2. LJ (1765-67) 509; the present practice is founded on the resolution of 1824 (LJ (1824) 369). 3. See eg LJ (1943–44) 20 (Chinese Mission); ibid 148 (Invitation to United States Congress); ibid (1945–46) 48 (Unconditional Surrender of Japan; Death of President Roosevelt); ibid (1951–52) 82, 90 (Death of King George VI); ibid (1954–55) 157 (Austrian Republic); ibid (1963–64) 89 (Death of President Kennedy). No such communications have been received since the Lord Speaker replaced the Lord Chancellor as Speaker of the House in 2006. 4. See Report Under Special Commission Act 1888 (LJ (1890) 90). 5. LJ (1843) 107; ibid (1904) 110, 116; ibid (1905) 105; ibid (1917–18) 136.

Party machinery Contents The Official Opposition Leader of the House of Commons Constitution and financing of party machinery Duties of Whips 4.5Many matters within the House of Commons, in particular the arrangement and conduct of business, are arranged on the basis of a clear-cut division between Government and Opposition. The normal condition for this arrangement is the division between two major parties. The fact that there may be several separately organised parties, supporting, opposing or in coalition with the Government (as was the case following the general election in May 2010) may complicate the working of these arrangements, but does not destroy the broad principle. The predominant share of the Government in controlling and arranging the time and business of the House is recognised by the standing orders of the House of Commons, but the fact that the Government is supported by a party, or combination of parties, and opposed by another party, or combination of parties, and that the machinery evolved by these parties performs important functions in the working of procedure, is still largely disregarded by the standing orders.

The Commons’ Official Report 7.19The responsibility for producing the Official Report rests with the staff of the Official Report in the Chamber and Committees team and its head, the Editor. The Official Report is the record of speeches made in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall. It also includes written ministerial statements, ministerial corrections and the texts of public petitions (but not e-petitions) and of government responses to them.1 The responses to questions for written answer are published online only.2 Separate daily reports are also issued of debates in general committees. It has never been the practice of the House to allow any speech material not actually delivered in the House to be published in the Official Report.3 However, it has been the practice for many years to publish material in amplification of an answer to a written parliamentary question or of a ministerial statement in order to save the time of the House. Successive Speakers have been vigilant in ensuring that this expedient has not been used to publish material of excessive length or dubious relevance. Thus material in amplification of ministerial speeches as opposed to ministerial answers and statements must not be included in published answers to written questions.4 This principle governs the publication of written answers and ministerial statements on the Questions and Written Answers website. However, in respect of the annual financial statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Speaker has ruled that, subject to prior notification having been given to the Speaker, essential material in amplification of that statement may also be published in the Official Report.5 The Official Report is a full report, in the first person, of all speakers alike, a full report being defined as one ‘which, though not strictly verbatim, is substantially the verbatim report, with repetitions and redundancies omitted and with obvious mistakes corrected, but which on the other hand leaves out nothing that adds to the meaning of the speech or illustrates the argument’.6 (See para 8.26 for the position of the Official Report vis-à -vis the audio recordings of debates.) Corrections are allowed to be made in the reports of speeches in the daily part for reproduction online and in the bound volume, but only if, in the opinion of the Editor, they do not alter substantially the meaning of anything that was said in the House.7 A Member may quote the remarks of another Member during a current sitting once the record made for the Official Report is available.8 A Member has sometimes been allowed to point out at a subsequent sitting an error in the report of their speech in the Official Report.9 No Official Report is made, or shorthand note taken, of speeches delivered in secret session or when the House has resolved to sit in private, the Official Reporters being excluded.10 The Official Report is printed (as a `Daily Part’) and published on the Parliament website. Online text is available within two to three hours of delivery. The Daily Parts are later made up into final bound volumes, each containing the debates for a two or three-week period.

Footnotes 1. SO No 156. 2. At www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-questions-answers/ 3. Questions for written answer and the answers to them, written ministerial statements and ministerial corrections, insofar as they may be considered to be time-saving substitutes for speaking, may be considered to be exceptions to this rule. 4. Speaker's private ruling, November 1972. 5. Speaker's private ruling, May 1975. 6. This definition was adopted in 1907 by the Select Committee on Parliamentary Debates (HC 239 (1907)). See HC Deb (1997–98) 314, cc 704–05, for an occasion on which editorial changes were upheld by the Speaker, and ibid (2002–03) 407, c 1051, where the Speaker confirmed that it was the practice to correct obvious mistakes. 7. See HC Deb (1914) 60, c 1632; ibid (1942–43) 386, c 217; ibid (1982–83) 53, cc 624–27; ibid (1985–86) 92, cc 377, 498–99 and ibid (1987–88) 139, c 494. The Speaker has reaffirmed the practice of not recording interruptions from a sedentary position which are not taken up by the Member who has the floor or by the Chair (ibid (1983–84) 53, c 626 and ibid 60, cc 1260–61). 8. Speaker's Private Ruling, October 2005, in HC Deb (2005–06) 437, c 824. 9. For example, HC Deb (1927) 208, c 866; ibid (4 February 2019) 653, c 967. 10. For the secret sessions held during the Second World War, the Speaker issued a short ‘Report of the Proceedings in secret session’, which was included in the Official Report, and when divisions occurred, this Report included the question put from the Chair and the names of the Members voting (see HC Deb (1941–42) 379, cc 1218–20, and ibid (1942–43) 388, cc 200–4). The Report was also printed in the Votes and Proceedings. The fact of the secret session and the results of any division are recorded in the Journal.

The Lords' Official Report 7.20In the Lords the reporting staff, headed by the Editor of Debates, is appointed by the Clerk of the Parliaments. The Official Report is published daily and later made up into bound volumes. Since the introduction of questions for written answer in 1928, the answers to such questions have been printed in the Official Report,1 but the official version of each Answer is now published online,2 while the Official Report makes a printed version available for the convenience of Members. The publication of additional matter, which is too lengthy or too complicated to be given orally in the House, is permitted in the case of answers to oral questions and of ministerial statements.3 A separate volume containing reports of debates in Grand Committee is also produced. The Official Report is a full report as defined above for the Commons' Official Report. Members are expected, in submitting corrections, not to ‘attempt to alter the sense of words spoken by them in debate’.4

Footnotes 1. LJ (1928–29) 56. Since May 2013 written answers have been published in a separate daily volume and collected in a single section in the bound volumes. For the official online version, see www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/writtenquestions-answers. 2. At www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-questions-answers/ 3. LJ (1963–64) 381. 4. Companion to the Standing Orders and Guide to the Proceedings of the House of Lords 2017, 3.57 p 42, available online at: www.parliament.uk/documents/publications-records/House-of-Lords-Publications/Rules-guides-for-business/Companion-to-standingorders/Companion-to-Standing-Orders-2017.pdf.

Second reading copy 7.21Government bills, and any associated explanatory notes, are generally published immediately following presentation in the Chamber. At the same time as printed Government Bills are distributed, they are published online. Private Members' Bills, and any associated explanatory notes, can in principle also be published immediately following presentation, if a text is ready, but it is common for Private Members' Bills to be presented without a text having been agreed. If the text of the bill has not been printed and delivered to the Vote Office by the rising of the House on the day before the date set down for second reading, the order for second reading lapses.1 In some cases Private Members' Bills are published online in advance of printed copies being delivered to the Vote Office. Where a bill is brought from the Lords, it is published when a Member has informed the Clerks at the Table of their intention to take charge of the bill, on which day the bill is deemed to be read the first time and is ordered to be printed. Each House of Commons public bill is given a unique number when it is published, and a new number if the bill is re-published at subsequent stages with amendments.

Footnotes 1. SO No 14 (13).

As Amended in Committee copy 7.22If amendments are agreed, or new clauses or new schedules are added to a Bill at Committee Stage, an As Amended in Committee version of the Bill is printed and published on the Parliament website.

As Amended on Consideration copy 7.23An As Amended on Consideration copy is published only if Third Reading takes place on a day later than the day on which Report Stage is concluded.1

Footnotes 1. See eg Terrorism Bill 2005–06, CJ 262, p 258; Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill 2005–06, CJ 262, p 521; and Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Bill 2017–19, Votes and Proceedings, 25 June 2018; in the latter cases a Private Members' Bill completed consideration but ran out of time in the subsequent Third Reading debate.

Lords copy 7.24After its Third Reading in the Commons, any amendments, new clauses or new schedules that have been agreed since the last print of the bill, are made to the text of the bill to produce the Lords copy. This is signed by the Clerk of the House and delivered to the Lords.

Editorial corrections 7.25Whenever a new copy of a bill is produced, there is an opportunity for editorial corrections to be made. The policy of the Public Bill Office is that minor editorial changes may be made by way of silent correction, where a failure to correct would leave a minor imperfection, where the proposed correction plainly reflects what would be generally assumed to be the intention of the author of the text and where the correction is not of a nature to require the authorisation of the House. There must be no change in the intended meaning of the text.1

Footnotes 1. The Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill was reprinted in this manner in Session 2017–19.

Supplementary documents relating to bills 7.26Certain supplementary documents are published relating to bills. The most important of these are the Speaker's and Chairman of Ways and Means's provisional selection and grouping of amendments, which is published in hard copy and on the Bills before Parliament webpage ahead of each day of consideration of a Public Bill at Committee and Report stages (see paras 28.84 –28.140, 39.11 –39.31 ), the Speaker's certifications relating to English Votes for English Laws (‘EVEL’) (see para 27.10 ) which are published in the Votes and Proceedings and on the Parliamentary website, and Library briefing notes which are produced before Second Reading and after Committee Stage in the Commons, and published on the Parliament website.

Bills in the Lords 7.27Lords practice is similar to Commons practice, save in two respects. Bills are published the day after First Reading, not the same day; and Lords Private Members' Bills are always published after Introduction in the same way as government bills. In the Lords, grouping of amendments is published by the Government Whips Office on the day of debate.

Papers presented to Parliament Contents Command Papers Act Papers Returns Presentation of papers Contingent liabilities Ratification of treaties 7.28Papers presented to Parliament by external bodies may be divided into three categories: Command Papers, Act Papers and Returns. These are all presented formally, and are described as being laid upon the Table of the House. For the requirement on Ministers to lay papers from which they have quoted in debate, see para 21.26. In addition, papers may be deposited in the Library of either House, but this does not constitute laying.

Command Papers 7.29Command Papers are presented to Parliament as by command of the Queen. In practice, the responsibility for presentation is that of the Minister in charge of the relevant department. In general, Command Papers are those papers which are considered by the Government to be of interest to Parliament but which are not required by statute to be presented. They include annual reports of government departments, agreements and exchanges of notes with foreign states; other papers give information concerning the relations of the Government with international organisations. Statements of government policy or proposals for government legislation or administrative action are often laid before Parliament in this form. In certain cases they are presented following an undertaking given in Parliament for a White Paper on a particular subject. Green Papers, ie policy proposals issued for purposes of debate or consultation prior to final government decision, are also normally laid before Parliament in this form. The great majority of Command Papers are published under a contract managed by The National Archives. They are published on the authority of the Minister presenting them and are included in a numbered series.1 Some papers are presented by command which do not form part of this series, and may be referred to as unnumbered/unprinted Command Papers.2 Some Command Papers are presented to the House of Commons alone, for example, the annual Estimates which are printed by order of the House.

Footnotes 1. Command Papers are numbered: No (1) in 1833 to No (4222) in 1868–69; (C 1) in 1870 to (C 9550) in 1899; (Cd 1) in 1900 to (Cd 9239) in 1918; (Cmd 1) in 1919 to (Cmd 9888); (Cmnd 1) in 1956 to (Cmnd 9927); Cm 1-9999 from beginning of Session 1986–87; and CP 1-9999 from January 2019. 2. These include departmental minutes drawing attention to contingent liabilities (see para 7.34 ) and, since March 2002, explanatory memoranda relating to affirmative statutory instruments.

Act Papers 7.30A large variety of papers are presented to Parliament pursuant to statutory requirements. Of these, delegated legislation and the parliamentary procedures relating to it are described separately (see Chapter 31). The remainder, which are described generically as ‘Act Papers’, include the annual reports and accounts of a wide range of statutory bodies, including executive agencies and trading funds; statistical reviews; and reports to Parliament on the exercise of particular statutory powers, including those of the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Some Act Papers are printed by order of the House of Commons, most particularly those papers which relate to the financial responsibilities of that House.1 Other Act Papers are published under the authority of the government department or other body which has the statutory responsibility for their preparation. As in the case of Command Papers, the responsibility for presenting Act Papers usually rests upon a Minister of the Crown, though certain other Members, such as the Speaker,2 the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, also present papers.3 Where such a liability falls upon a person who is not a Member of the House of Commons, and where there is no directly relevant Ministerial responsibility, the papers are laid on the Table, by practice, by the Clerk of the House.4 Papers printed by order of either House are numbered in the sessional series of papers of that House. These papers and Command Papers printed in their numbered series together form a category commonly known as ‘Parliamentary papers’.

Footnotes 1. Thus, those annual reports of the executive agencies on which the Comptroller and Auditor General is required by statute to make a report to the House of Commons are ordered to be printed by that House, see eg CJ (2008–09) 587. 2. The Speaker also lays papers giving the detailed results of elections, such as for Deputy Speakers and Chairs of Select Committees, see Votes and Proceedings, 3 June 2015, 28 June 2017 and 13 July 2017. 3. A few papers are laid pursuant to statutory instrument or Measure, rather than by Act. For example, the Annual Report and Accounts of the Churches Conservation Trust was laid pursuant to s 57(21) of the Mission and Pastoral Measure 2011, Votes and Proceedings, 12 July 2017. Others are laid by standing order, such as SO No 160, relating to notification of statutory instruments which have come into force before being laid before the House. For example, the Common Agricultural Policy (Control and Enforcement, Cross-Compliance, Scrutiny of Transactions and Appeals) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2017 (SI 2017/655) were made on 12 May 2017 (during Dissolution) and came into force the next day. The paper was laid on 15 June 2017, along with an Explanatory Memorandum recording the reasons for the Instrument coming into force before being laid, and a notification was laid by the Speaker, by Standing Order, of a communication setting out those reasons (Votes and Proceedings, 21 June 2017). 4. Thus, the Clerk of the House of Commons lays papers before that House on behalf of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (who are officers of the House of Commons). See eg Votes and Proceedings, 20 December 2018.

Opposed returns 7.31The power to call for papers was frequently exercised until about the middle of the nineteenth century but has been used less frequently since then because much of the information previously sought in this way is now produced in Command Papers or in Act Papers, or in response to questions. The power has a continuing importance since it is regularly delegated to select committees, thus enabling them to send for papers and records (see para 38.32 ) although the House has itself ordered that certain papers be provided to a specified committee or under specified conditions. A return from the Privy Council or from departments headed by a Secretary of State is called for by means of a motion on the Order Paper for an humble address. If such a motion is agreed, an humble address is sent to the Queen requesting that she direct that the papers be supplied as set out in the motion. A return from a department not headed by a Secretary of State is sought directly by means of an Order of the House rather than via an humble address. The use of motions calling for a return of papers, both as a basis for debate and in pursuit of the papers themselves, has been revived in the House of Commons in recent years.1 The long-standing practice of the House has been that papers should be ordered only on subjects which are of public or official character. Orders for returns of papers which it transpired did not fall into such categories have been withdrawn or rescinded.2 The power itself, however, is not so limited. In the case of a select committee with power to send for papers and records, for example, there is no restriction on its power to require the production of papers by private bodies or individuals, provided that such papers are relevant to the committee's work as defined by its order of reference (see para 38.32 ). Although the opinions of the law officers of the Crown given to Ministers have generally been withheld from Parliament (see para 21.27 ), the failure of the Government to comply with a resolution calling for the production of the Attorney-General's legal advice to the Government has been judged to be a contempt.3

Footnotes 1. For example, in Session 2017–19, the House resolved that the so-called Brexit Impact Assessments (sectoral impact assessments) should be provided to the Committee on Exiting the EU, see Votes and Proceedings, 13 November 2018. 2. Eg CJ (1884) 336. 3. Votes and Proceedings, 4 December 2018; the Government published the advice the next day.

Unopposed returns 7.32In the Commons the procedure also survives in the form of ‘Motions for Unopposed Returns’ (see para 19.12 ) for particular documents which the Minister responsible for the government department concerned wishes to make public—hence they are ‘unopposed’—but in respect of which the protection of statute afforded by an order of the House for printing or other publication is sought.1 Certain annual returns are, by custom, also presented to the House in the form of returns to orders.2 The power to send for papers by means of a Motion for Unopposed Return extends to papers which are in the possession of Ministers or which Ministers have the authority to obtain.

Footnotes 1. Recent examples of papers presented as Returns to Addresses include Report of the Savile Inquir y, Votes and Proceedings, 15 June 2010; Report of the Redfern Inquiry, Votes and Proceedings, 16 November 2010. See also para 13.6, fn 5 and the Reports of the Iraq Inquiry, Votes and Proceedings, 6 July 2016. 2. For example, the Financial Statement and Budget Report, where the order for the return is made by book entry, and the account of the Contingencies Fund, CJ (2008–09) 289, 294, 549, 557; CJ (2009–10) 370, 377; Votes and Proceedings, 22 June 2010, 22 July 2010, 23 March 2011.

Returns in the House of Lords 7.33In the Lords, orders are still occasionally made which result in the production of a specific document.1 If Returns to Orders or Addresses are to be printed (or published), it is usually done by the House which calls for their production. In common with other notices, notice for a return to be moved on a subsequent day may be given only on a sitting day. If one House desires a return relating to the business or proceedings of the other, it is not customary for it to be ordered. An arrangement is generally made for the necessary motion to be moved in the other House.2

Footnotes 1. See LJ (1974) 440 (House of Lords furniture); ibid (1974–75) 955 (community land policy); ibid (1976–77) 85 (computers), 220 (library); ibid (1981–82) 323 (Crown Agents Tribunal). 2. See Return of Lords Attendances, LJ (1968–69) 166.

Presentation of papers 7.34The presentation of papers to the House of Commons is effected by their delivery to the Votes and Proceedings Office (Journal Office), and to the House of Lords by their delivery to the Printed Paper Office.1 If the delivery of papers takes place at a time when Parliament is sitting, their titles are entered in the Appendix to the Votes and Proceedings and the Minutes of Proceedings for the day on which they are presented. Following presentation, papers are generally ordered by the two Houses to lie upon the Table. Under Standing Order No 158 of the House of Commons and Standing Order No 69 of the House of Lords, the delivery of Command Papers during periods when the House is not sitting is deemed to be for all purposes the presentation of them to each House; and in such cases the lists of their titles are entered in the Votes and Minutes when sittings are resumed. Similar provisions enabling presentation when the Houses are not sitting extend also to certain statutory instruments (see paras 31.11 –31.12 ), but not to other Act Papers. If a department which has presented a paper wishes subsequently to withdraw it, the order that the paper do lie upon the Table may be discharged, and the paper withdrawn. This has also been done on the initiative of the House, after notice was taken that the paper presented was not a correct copy.2 A motion has been made to withdraw a paper presented in a previous session.3 Papers are presented to Parliament in a complete form, either printed or in typescript.4

Footnotes 1. Strictly speaking, papers are presented to each House by command, and laid before each House by Act. This distinction is observed in the Minutes of Proceedings of the House of Lords but not in the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons and for convenience has been disregarded in this account. 2. CJ (1945–46) 258. 3. CJ (1945–46) 334. 4. In exceptional circumstances, and with the prior agreement of the Journal Office concerned, papers may be presented ‘in dummy’, normally a sheet of paper bearing only the title of the document.

Contingent liabilities 7.35Following a report of the Committee of Public Accounts asking for Parliament to be notified of substantial guarantees, when a government department wishes to give a guarantee for which there is no statutory authority, and the liability under the guarantee could exceed £250,000, it is the normal practice for a Minute to be laid before Parliament. Approval of the guarantee is usually withheld for 14 sitting days after the date of laying. If in that period a Member signifies objection by the tabling of a question or motion, or otherwise, such as by writing to the relevant Minister, final approval is not usually given until the government has considered the objection.1 A similar practice is followed in the case of gifts of public stores, or of property of an unusual nature or of a value exceeding £250,000.2

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1989–90) 162, cc 581–82; ibid (1989–90) 164, c 251W. Departments attempt to ensure that the period falls when Parliament is in session; if this is not possible, the chairs of the Committee of Public Accounts and of the relevant departmental select committee should be notified (Managing Public Money 2013 (updated 2017) paras 5.5 1–4 and Box 5.1 and Annex 5.4 para A5.4, paras 29–33). The same procedure should be followed if the liability is confidential, see HC Deb (11 June 2018) 642, WS748. 2. Committee of Public Accounts, Tenth Report (HC 536 (1976–77)) paras 57–67.

Ratification of treaties 7.36Under the provisions of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, all treaties (defined as written agreements between States or between States and international organisations which are binding under international law) must be laid in each House by a Minister, together with an explanatory memorandum. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office also sends a copy of the treaty and the memorandum to the Foreign Affairs Committee, and to relevant departmental select committees. A treaty may be ratified if within 21 sitting days neither House has resolved that it should not be. (This period may be extended by the Minister for further periods of up to 21 sitting days.) If either the House of Commons or the House of Lords does pass such a resolution, the treaty can still be ratified if the Minister lays a statement explaining why the treaty should nonetheless be ratified and the House of Commons does not pass a second resolution against ratification within 21 sitting days of the Minister's statement being laid.1 The Act also provides for certain exemptions, such as double taxation agreements,2 and for exceptional cases, in which a Minister determines that a treaty should be ratified without being laid before Parliament, in which cases the treaty must still be laid before Parliament at the first opportunity, together with a statement explaining the Minister's determination.

Footnotes 1. Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (c 25), Part 2, s 20. 2. This practice, which was known as the ‘Ponsonby rule’, had its origin in a departmental minute dated 1 February 1924 and signed by Mr Arthur Ponsonby, then Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, see HC Deb (1924) 171, cc 2001–04. On 6 May 1981 (ibid (1980–81) 4, c 82W) the Lord Privy Seal announced a minor modification to the rule under which the texts of bilateral double taxation agreements would no longer be tabled in the Country Series of Command Papers but would continue to be published in the Treaty Series of Command Papers after entry into force. In the Lords the rule has been extended by analogy to the acceptance by the Government of amendments to ratified international agreements: see Sixth Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (HL 40, HC 15-viii (1981–82) p 5).

Payment of Members Contents Conditions of payment Members' expenses House of Commons Members' Fund Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund 4.10A salary was first paid to Members in their role as Members in 1911.1 The payment to Members was held to be salary or income within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Acts.2 An income payments order under the Insolvency Act 19863 may be made, requiring the whole or part of it to be paid to the trustee of the bankrupt's estate either directly or by the bankrupt. A Member of Parliament is classified as an office-holder and therefore also as an ‘employed earner’, for the purpose of the Social Security Acts.4 Salaries are now paid and their level set by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA), established under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009.5 IPSA may also pay higher salaries for Members holding an office or position specified for that purpose in a resolution of the House. It is required to review the existing determination at the beginning of every Parliament and at any other time it considers appropriate. In 2013, IPSA determined that the salary of a Member would increase to £74,000 in 2015, and in 2015 it determined that subsequent annual increases should be in line with changes in public sector average earnings. In 2016, following the first automatic uprating, a Member's salary rose to £74,962. As of 1 April 2018, it was £77,379.

Footnotes 1. From the thirteenth century, constituencies were liable for the maintenance of their Members during the time of Parliament (William Prynn Fourth Part of a Brief register of Writs (1664) pp 53, 495; and Edward Coke Fourth Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England (1797), p 46). The liability was referred to in the Laws in Wales Act 1535 (27 Hen 8, c 26), which established constituencies in Wales, but by the beginning of the seventeenth century it had ceased to be regarded, except in a few isolated cases. A nineteenth century movement for the payment of Members out of public funds culminated in a resolution of the Commons in 1895 in favour of the payment of a reasonable allowance to Members (Parl Deb (18 February 1830) 22, c 689; CJ (1839) 339; ibid (1888) 348; ibid (1892) 135; ibid (1893–94) 160; and ibid (1895) 108). For the decision of 1911, see ibid (1911) 400, 406. 2. Hollinshead v Hazelton [1916] 1 AC 428. (See also para 11.8, fn 1.) For the position of a Member of Parliament in respect of failure to pay local taxes, see HC Deb (1989–90) 159, c 642W. 3. 1986, c 45, s 310. 4. Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, c 4, s 2(1)(a). 5. For an account of the arrangements before IPSA took on responsibility, see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), pp 52–56.

Copyright 7.38The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 established the category of parliamentary copyright. Parliamentary copyright subsists in works made by or under the direction or control of the House of Commons or the House of Lords. This includes any work made by an officer or employee of either House in the course of their duties and any sound recording, film or live broadcast of the proceedings of each House. The House by or under whose direction and control the work is made is the first owner of copyright in the work; if it is made under the direction and control of both Houses, they are joint first owners of copyright. A work is not `made under the direction or control of’ either House merely by being commissioned by or on behalf of that House. The term of protection for parliamentary copyright works is 50 years from the end of the year in which the work was made. The functions of the House of Commons as owner of copyrights are exercised by the Speaker, and those of the House of Lords by the Clerk of the Parliaments. Provisions are made for the delegation of the functions and for their discharge in vacancies of those offices and (as regards the Commons) at times of dissolution. Parliamentary copyright also subsists in every bill introduced into Parliament from the time when the text of the bill is handed in to the House in which it is introduced. Once the bill has been carried to the second House, copyright is owned by both Houses jointly. No other copyright subsists in the bill after it has been introduced into Parliament. Parliamentary copyright in bills ceases when they receive Royal Assent: Acts of Parliament are protected by Crown copyright. The re-use of material in which parliamentary copyright subsists is governed by the terms of the Open Parliament Licence, which allows third parties to copy, publish, distribute, transmit, or adapt Parliamentary information commercially or non-commercially provided they acknowledge the source and comply with a number of conditions. The Open Parliament Licence does not apply to certain types of information, including material in which third party rights subsist and information protected by other intellectual property rights (eg patents, trade marks and design rights).1 Under s 45 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, copyright is not infringed by anything done for the purposes of parliamentary or judicial proceedings, or for the purposes of reporting such proceedings, but this does not authorise the copying of a work which is itself a published report of the proceedings.

Footnotes 1. www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/parliamentary-licence-01-00.pdf.

Parliamentary papers Contents Printing of papers Electronic publication 7.39Copies of parliamentary papers are made available to Members of Parliament as soon as they are laid.1 No copies of parliamentary papers may be delivered to any department, or otherwise published, until the paper is available to Members.2 No copies may be delivered to any department or otherwise published until they have been made so available. Papers printed by order of one House are available to Members of the other House. The Vote Office supplies documents to Members for their own use in the conduct of their parliamentary duties. The Vote Office stocks a wide range of parliamentary and government documents for the current session, and older papers may also be available or will be printed on request. Publications available in digital form may also be available or will be printed on request. Members of the Lords are entitled to one copy of parliamentary papers and working papers of the House (eg Minutes of Proceedings, Notices and Hansards) by application to the Printed Paper Office.

Footnotes 1. CJ (1871) 96; HC Deb (2009–10) 508, c 307. For a case where an Act Paper, having been presented to the House of Commons, was publicly released before being made available to Members, see HC Deb (1984–85) 83, cc 884–85. 2. In exceptional cases arrangements have been made for those closely affected by a report to be able to read it before it became available to Members and the public: for example, the Reports of the 2006 Deepcut Inquiry (Report of a review by Nicholas Blake QC of the circumstances surrounding the deaths of four soldiers at Princess Royal Barracks, Deepcut, between 1995 and 2002, HC 795, CJ (2005–06) 560) and the 2010 Saville Inquiry into Bloody Sunday (Principal Conclusions and Overall Assessment of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, HC 30, and Report of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, HC 29 -I to -X, Votes and Proceedings, 15 June 2010).

Printing of papers 7.40Papers presented to Parliament by or on behalf of the Government are printed through a contract managed by The National Archives, which incorporates the office of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. All papers published as Command or House of Commons Papers must comply with parliamentary standards, and be provided to the House of Commons and the House of Lords.1 The National Archives manages parliamentary copyright on behalf of both Houses.

Footnotes 1. CJ (1945–46) 334; ibid (1952–53) 246.

Electronic publication 7.41Virtually all documents printed by Parliament are also published electronically and posted on the parliamentary website. An increasing number of documents are published only on the website. Parliamentary copyright can also subsist in works only published electronically.1

Footnotes 1. Examples include written evidence to and formal minutes of select committees and records of proceedings on public bills in the House of Commons (see paras 38.40, 38.26, 7.14 ).

Non-parliamentary publications 7.42The Vote Office issues printed copies of certain non-parliamentary publications where they are likely to be of wide interest to Members. Members are entitled to two hard copies of each such publication, provided these are required in connection with parliamentary duties.

European Union publications 7.43Designated European Union publications are available at the Vote Office and Members may receive one copy on request. European Union documents relevant to a debate in the House are available in the same way as parliamentary documents.

Introduction to a new Parliament 8.1This chapter, which is principally concerned with the arrangements for holding a session of Parliament, presents an outline of the general forms employed in summoning, dissolving and proroguing Parliament, and in the adjournment of each House. It also describes the procedure in opening a session of Parliament, and the procedure peculiar to the opening of the first session of a new Parliament.

Parliamentary and sessional periods Contents Summons of Parliament Prorogation and adjournment Alteration of the opening of Parliament after prorogation 8.2A Parliament is taken to be the period between the date on which a new Parliament has met, under the terms of a proclamation made by the Queen on the advice of her Privy Council, and the date of dissolution of that Parliament under the terms of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. In 2015 and 2017 the proclamations setting the day and place of the first meeting of the new Parliament were on 30 March 2015 and 3 May 2017 respectively. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 establishes a fixed five-year term for Parliament, with General Elections held on the first Thursday in May five years after the previous election, except in the event of an early General Election being triggered.1 The Act provides two mechanisms by which an early General Election may take place. The first is where two-thirds of the whole membership of the House of Commons votes in favour of the motion ‘That there shall be an early parliamentary General Election’.2 Alternatively, an early election may arise if 14 days after resolving ‘That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government’, the House of Commons fails to pass a motion ‘That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government’.3 The Act also provides that a General Election must take place 25 working days after Parliament is dissolved. In the case of an early General Election, the date of the election is set by royal proclamation and dissolution takes place 25 working days before that date. The date of the first meeting of the new Parliament is fixed by proclamation which may be issued once the previous Parliament has been dissolved.4 A session is the period of time between the meeting of a Parliament, whether after a prorogation or a dissolution, and its prorogation. During the course of a session, either House may adjourn itself on its own motion to such date as it pleases. Sessions are of indeterminate length. Since the passing of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, sessions have generally run from May of one year to May of the next. Previously, sessions, with the exception of the sessions immediately before and after a dissolution, tended to run from October or November of one year to October or November of the next. The first session of both the 2010 and the 2017 Parliaments ran for two years. The period between the prorogation of Parliament and its reassembly in a new session is termed a ‘recess’, while the period between the adjournment of either House and the resumption of its sitting is properly called an ‘adjournment’ (although in practice the word ‘recess' is generally also used in this sense). A prorogation terminates a session; an adjournment is an interruption in the course of a single session.

Footnotes 1. Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, s 1. 2. This happened on 19 April 2017 when the House voted by 522 to 13 in favour of an early General Election under the terms of the 2011 Act (Votes and Proceedings, 19 April 2017). 3. Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, s 2. 4. Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, s 3(4).

Date and place of meeting of Parliament 8.3A new Parliament is summoned to meet by a proclamation issued by the Queen on the advice of the Privy Council. This proclamation appoints a day and place for the meeting of the new Parliament.1

Footnotes 1. The London Gazette (5 May 2017), p 334. The timetable for elections is set out the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, as amended by the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013. Although an interval between dissolution and the summoning of a new Parliament still remains possible, writs have to be issued within three years of dissolution (16 Cha 2, c 1, and 6 & 7 Will & Mary, c 2) and the practice of providing money for the public service by annual enactments renders it necessary for Parliament to meet every year. When Parliament temporarily sought other accommodation during the Second World War (see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 10, fn 43), its place of sitting was always within Westminster, and therefore within the terms of its summons. For the power to postpone the date on which Parliament is summoned to meet, see para 8.10.

Dissolution of Parliament 8.4Parliament is automatically dissolved at the beginning of the 25th working day before the polling day which has been fixed for the General Election under the terms of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011.1 Previously, Parliaments were dissolved either by the passage of time or by proclamation. Under the Septennial Act 1715,2 a Parliament ceased to exist after seven years from the day on which, by writ of summons, it was appointed to meet; this period was reduced to five years by the Parliament Act 1911 (s 7). In the exceptional circumstances of world war, the Parliaments which assembled in 1911 and 1935 were prolonged beyond this limit by annual statutes to 1919 and 1945 respectively. Parliament is not dissolved by the demise of the Crown.3 For the procedure applicable to dissolution prior to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, see Erskine May (23rd edn, 2004), pp 272–74.

Footnotes 1. Fixed-term Parliaments Act, c. 3, as amended by the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 (c 6), c 14. In 2017, a proclamation was issued appointing 8 June as polling day (The London Gazette (25 April 2017) p 8774). For an example of a dissolution under the provisions of s 2(7) of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, see Votes and Proceedings, 3 May 2017. 2. The Septennial Act was repealed by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. 3. Representation of the People Act 1867 (c 102), s 51. Before the Triennial Act 1694 there was no limit to the duration of a Parliament.

Prorogation and adjournment Contents Effect of prorogation Effect of adjournment Procedure of prorogation 8.5The prorogation of Parliament is a prerogative act of the Crown. Just as Parliament can commence its deliberations only at the time appointed by the Queen, so it cannot continue them any longer than she pleases. But each House exercises its right to adjourn itself independently of the Crown and of the other House.1 In the Commons, the duration of a periodic adjournment, as opposed to the adjournments which occur each day, is determined by Resolution. The Question on the Resolution is put forthwith (Standing Order No 25). In the Lords there is no special procedure for determining the periodic adjournment (see para 25.45 ).

Footnotes 1. See also paras 8.11 and fn 1 and 8.13, fn 1, regarding the effect on adjournments of the Meeting of Parliament Act 1799 as amended by the Meeting of Parliament Act 1870. In the past, the Crown (in person or by message, commission or proclamation) has signified its desire that both Houses should adjourn. For examples, see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 144, fn 6.

Effect of prorogation 8.6The effect of a prorogation is at once to suspend business, including committee proceedings, until Parliament shall be summoned again, and to end the sittings of Parliament. Most proceedings still pending at a prorogation are quashed (eg questions to Ministers, notices of motions, public bills not subject to ‘carry-over’ orders).1 Some, however, may be suspended and continued with in the new session by decision of either or both Houses, and others (eg delegated legislation) continue without intervention. In both Houses, private and hybrid bills are regularly suspended from one session to another. In the House of Commons, public bills may also be carried over by order from one session to another, subject to certain restrictions.2 The Lords have also endorsed the carry-over of public bills in certain circumstances.3

Footnotes 1. Impeachments by the Commons were not quashed at the end of the session, see 2 Hatsell 336n. 2. SO No 80A, which replaced a Sessional Order introduced first on 29 October 2002. 3. Procedure Committee, Third Report (HL 106 (1997–98)), Fifth Report (HL 148 (2001–02)); LJ (1997–98) 817–18 and 862; HL Deb (2001–02) 638, c 508; in the Lords the procedure is based on guidance issued pursuant to the adoption by the House of the Fifth Report of the Procedure Committee (HL 148 (2001–02)) on 24 July 2002.

Effect of adjournment 8.7An adjournment does not have the same effect on parliamentary proceedings as does a prorogation. Upon reassembling, each House proceeds to transact the business previously appointed, and all proceedings are resumed at the stage at which they were left before the adjournment. Select committees are regularly given the power to meet during adjournments.

Procedure of prorogation 8.8Parliament is prorogued either by a commission (preceded by a proclamation) or by a proclamation alone. At the close of a session, according to the usual procedure, the prorogation of Parliament is effected by an announcement made to both Houses in the House of Lords of the Queen's command that Parliament should be prorogued by one of the commissioners of a royal commission.1 The royal functions at prorogation are now exercised by certain Lords acting by virtue of a commission under the Great Seal.2 If there are any bills awaiting Royal Assent the commission authorises it to be signified.3 In this case Royal Assent is pronounced before the reading of the Queen's speech.4 Otherwise the senior member of the Government present proceeds immediately to the reading of the speech after the commission has been read by the Clerk. At the conclusion of the speech the Commissioners prorogue Parliament to the date named in the commission.5 On the return of the Commons to their own Chamber, the Speaker, sitting in the Clerk's place at the Table, reads to the House the terms of the commission and directs the terms of the speech to be entered in the Votes and Proceedings.6

Footnotes 1. A short suspension of the House of Commons, followed by a resumption, may occur while the House awaits the message to attend the House of Lords: HC Deb (12 May 2016) 609, cc 761–62. 2. Parliament was last prorogued by the Sovereign in person in 1854. For procedure when the Sovereign attends in person, see Erskine May (16th edn, 1957), p 294. 3. LJ (1967–68) 667. 4. For cases of prorogation without a speech see LJ (1783–87) 383; CJ (1820) 485; ibid (1892) 422; ibid (1895) 391; ed Sir Henry Maxwell The Creevey Papers: A selection from the correspondence and diaries of the late Thomas Creevey MP (1903) i, 341, ii, 5. 5. For procedure when a dissolution is contemplated, see Erskine May (23rd edn, 2004), p 274. 6. For example, HC Deb (27 April 2017) 624, c 1231.

Alteration of the opening of Parliament after prorogation Contents Meeting of Parliament postponed Meeting of Parliament accelerated during prorogation Demise of the Crown Recall of Parliament during adjournment 8.9The Queen is empowered both to postpone and to accelerate the meeting of Parliament.

Meeting of Parliament postponed 8.10When Parliament stands summoned (after a dissolution) or prorogued to a certain day, it may be prorogued or further prorogued to a later day, under the Prorogation Act 1867, by a proclamation made by the Queen on the advice of the Privy Council. The interval prescribed by this Act between the date of the proclamation and the day to which it prorogues Parliament is not less than 14 days.1 When it is intended that on the day to which it is so prorogued, or further prorogued, Parliament shall meet for the dispatch of business, the proclamation states that Parliament will then ‘assemble and be holden for the dispatch of divers urgent and important affairs'. Even when Parliament stands prorogued to a specified day ‘for the dispatch of business’ it may similarly by proclamation be prorogued to a later day.2

Footnotes 1. For use of these powers, see CJ (1924–25) 2 (after a summons); ibid (1887) 2; ibid (1950) 2 (after a prorogation). See also CJ (1878–79) 2; ibid (1922) 2, where the date specified for meeting was fewer than 14 days after the date of the proclamation. 2. CJ (1887) 2; ibid (1922) 2.

Meeting of Parliament accelerated during prorogation 8.11When Parliament stands prorogued to a certain day, the Queen may issue a proclamation, giving notice of her intention that Parliament shall meet for the dispatch of business on any day after the date of the proclamation; and Parliament then stands prorogued to that day, notwithstanding the previous prorogation.1 The power cannot be used to advance the meeting day specified in the summons of a new Parliament. It is provided by statute2 that whenever the Crown shall cause the reserve forces to be called out on permanent service, when Parliament stands prorogued or adjourned for more than five days, the Queen shall issue a proclamation for the meeting of Parliament within five days. The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 also requires that where emergency regulations are made and Parliament stands prorogued for more than five days, the Queen shall issue a proclamation for Parliament to meet on a specified day in that period.3

Footnotes 1. Under the Meeting of Parliament Act 1797, as amended by the Meeting of Parliament Act 1870 and the Parliament (Elections and Meeting) Act 1943. Pursuant to the first of these Acts, Parliament was assembled in September 1799 (CJ (1798–99) 745; ibid (1799–1800) 3). On 12 December 1854 Parliament assembled, having been previously been prorogued to 14 December; and in 1857 in consequence of the suspension of the Bank Act of 1844, a proclamation was issued on 16 November assembling Parliament on 3 December. In 1900 the new Parliament which had been prorogued from 1 November, the day for which it had been summoned, to 10 December, was summoned to meet for the dispatch of business on 3 December by a proclamation dated 26 November (CJ (1900) 404). In 1921 Parliament, which had been prorogued until 30 January 1922, was summoned to meet on 14 December by a proclamation dated 7 December (CJ (1921) 402). 2. Reserve Forces Act 1996, s 68(10). 3. Civil Contingencies Act 2004, s 28. The same Act as amended by the Lord Chancellor (Transfer of Functions and Supplementary Provisions) (No 3) Order 2006), provides that the Speaker and the Lord Speaker shall arrange for each House to meet within five days if emergency regulations are made when the Houses are adjourned for more than five days. The Emergency Powers Act 1920 made a similar provision for recalling Parliament when adjourned for more than five days if a state of emergency were declared – the Lords were recalled under these powers on 1 April 1921 to meet on 4 April (the day to which the Commons had already agreed to adjourn). In 1926, proclamations were issued under the Act on 25 August, 22 September and 20 October recalling both Houses on 30 August, 27 September and 25 October respectively. The 1920 Act was repealed by the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.

Demise of the Crown 8.12The demise of the Crown is the only contingency upon which Parliament is required to meet without summons in the usual form. By the Succession to the Crown Act 1707, on the demise of the Crown, Parliament, if sitting, is immediately to proceed to act; and if adjourned or prorogued is immediately to meet and sit. In such circumstances, Parliament has met on Sunday.1 The case of a demise of the Crown after a proclamation has been given summoning a new Parliament is governed by the Representation of the People Act 1985, s 20 (as amended by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, s 1); polling day is postponed by a fortnight. By the Representation of the People Act 1867,2 the Parliament in being at the demise of the Crown continues as long as it would otherwise have done.

Footnotes 1. CJ (1714–18) 3; ibid (1757–61) 933; ibid (1820) 89. For other occasions of the demise of the Crown, see ibid (1727–32) 5; ibid (1830) 589; ibid (1837) 490, ibid (1901) 5; ibid (1910) 147; ibid (1935–36) 50; ibid (1936–37) 59; ibid (1951–52) 88. 2. Section 51.

Recall of Parliament during adjournment 8.13When Parliament is dispersed through the adjournment of both Houses, its reassembly is generally effected under powers specifically conferred by each House on its Speaker.1 In the Commons, under Standing Order No 13, the Government may make representations to the Speaker that the House should meet at an earlier time during an adjournment. If the Speaker is satisfied that the public interest requires such a meeting, they may give notice accordingly, whereupon the House meets at the time stated in the notice.2 The Chairman of Ways and Means, or a Deputy Chairman, may act instead of the Speaker, in the event of the latter being unable to act owing to illness or other cause. The business on the day of recall is appointed by the Government3 and any government order of the day or notice of motion standing on the Order Book may also appear on the Order Paper.4 Once the House has been recalled there must be a new Resolution to re-establish any adjournment after the recall.5 In the Lords, Standing Order No 17(1) provides for a recall of the House during a period of adjournment. This empowers the Lord Speaker (or in their absence the Senior Deputy Speaker) after consultation with the Government, to give notice for the meeting of the House on a day earlier than that to which it stands adjourned if they are satisfied that the public interest so requires. On certain occasions when one House has already arranged a sitting for a particular day, a notice has been necessary only in respect of the other.6

Footnotes 1. A power of interfering with adjournments in certain cases has been conceded to the Crown by statute. The Meeting of Parliament Act 1799, amended by the Meeting of Parliament Act 1870, provides that when both Houses of Parliament stand adjourned with more than 14 days still to run, the Queen may issue a proclamation, with the advice of her Privy Council, declaring that the Parliament shall meet on a day not less than six days from the proclamation; and the Houses then stand adjourned to the day and place declared in the proclamation; and all the orders which may have been made by either House and appointed for the original day of meeting, or any subsequent day, stand appointed for the day named in the proclamation. Subsections (2)–(4) of s 28 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 require the Speakers of the two Houses, or those authorised by the Standing Orders of each House to act in their absence, to recall them within five days of the making of emergency regulations under s 20 of the Act if either House is adjourned beyond that time. 2. Both Houses met pursuant to such notices on 12 September 1950, 4 October 1951, 12 September 1956, 18 September 1959, 17 October 1961, 26 August 1968, 22 September 1971, 9 January 1974, 3 June 1974, 3 and 14 April 1982, 6 September 1990, 24 September 1992, 31 May 1995, 2 and 3 September 1998, 14 September, 4 and 8 October 2001, 3 April and 24 September 2002, 20 July 2011, 11 August 2011, 10 April 2013, 29 August 2013, 26 September 2014, and 20 June 2016. For earlier examples, see Erskine May (22nd edn, 1997), p 235, fn 3. 3. See eg HC Deb (2001–02) 390, cc 24–25. 4. Notices of motion and Orders of the day may be preceded by a ministerial statement: see eg HC Deb (2001–02) 372, c 604ff, c 671ff; ibid (2001–02) 390, c 1 ff. 5. For example, CJ (2001–02) 110, 120, 124 and 732. The House of Commons made sessional resolutions giving power to the Speaker to recall the House after consulting the Government before the summer adjournments of 1920, 1921, 1922 and 1924 (eg 7 August 1924). The only recall under such provisions was for the Commons on 30 September 1924, to give legislative effect to the Irish peace treaty. This practice fell into desuetude until the beginning of the Christmas Adjournment in 1931 when a motion was made again giving power to the Speaker to recall the House after consulting the Government; from the summer Adjournment of 1932 the power of the Speaker was restricted by these resolutions to occasions on which the Government asked for a recall. Both Houses met pursuant to such orders on 8 September 1931, 18 October 1932, 22 October 1935, 28 September 1938 and 13 April, 24 August, 29 August and 1 September 1939. In 1947, these ad hoc resolutions were replaced by the standing order. 6. Thus the Commons met pursuant to notice on 30 September 1924, 16 January 1968 and 26 May 1970, and the Lords on 21 September 1931, 8 December 1941, 25 November 1963, 25 January 1965 and 22 January 1968.

Meeting of a new Parliament Contents Certificate of return Black Rod attends the Commons Commons attend in the House of Lords Election of a Speaker by the Commons Taking the oath Election of Deputy Speakers in the Commons 8.14The principal proceedings which distinguish the meeting of a new Parliament from the opening of any subsequent session are the election of a Speaker, and the taking and subscription of the oath by Members of both Houses. On the day appointed by royal proclamation for the first meeting of a new Parliament for dispatch of business (see para 8.3 ), the Members of both Houses assemble in their respective chambers. In the House of Lords, the Leader of the House or another government Minister acquaints the House that, ‘it not being convenient for Her Majesty to be personally present here this day, She has been pleased to issue a Commission under the Great Seal in order to hold this Parliament’. The Lords Commissioners (normally five in number), robed and seated on a bench between the Throne and the Woolsack, then command Black Rod to let the Commons know that ‘the Lords Commissioners desire their immediate attendance in this House, to hear the Commission read’. In the House of Commons the Members assemble shortly before 2.30 pm and the Member present in the House, not being a Minister of the Crown, who has served for the longest period continuously takes the Clerk's place at the Table (the Clerk sitting on his left).

Certificate of return 8.15At the beginning of a Parliament, the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery delivers to the Clerk of the House of Commons a Return Book of the names1 of the Members returned to serve in the Parliament (see para 6.43 ); the book is received from the Clerk of the Crown by the Clerk Assistant standing below the Bar. This book is sufficient evidence of the return of a Member.

Footnotes 1. The Committee of Privileges recommended that a Member who has disclaimed a peerage should appear in the official records and be addressed in the House without his previous style or courtesy title (HC Deb (1971–72) 830, cc 975–76; HC 324 (1971–72)).

Black Rod attends the Commons 8.16When Black Rod attends the Commons on this, or any other occasion, it is customary that the door is shut in their face, and they are admitted only after knocking three times. Successive Speakers have ruled that this custom is to allow the Commons to establish Black Rod's identity rather than being, as is often supposed, a direct assertion of that House's right to deny Black Rod's entry.1

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1962–63) 669, c 408; ibid (1989–90) 160, c 188; see also M Bond and D Beamish The Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod (1981), pp 13–14.

Commons attend in the House of Lords 8.17On receiving the message from Black Rod, the House of Commons, accompanied by the Clerk, go up to the House of Lords. The presiding Commissioner there addresses the Members of both Houses, and acquaints them that Her Majesty has thought fit, by letters patent under the Great Seal, to empower several Lords Members, therein named as Commissioners, ‘to do all things in Her Majesty's name, which are to be done on Her Majesty's part in this Parliament’. The letters patent are then read, after which the presiding Commissioner, acting in obedience to these general directions, again addresses both Houses, and acquaints them: ‘That, as soon as the Members of both Houses shall be sworn, the causes of Her Majesty calling this Parliament will be declared to you; and it being necessary that a Speaker of the House of Commons should be first chosen, it is Her Majesty's pleasure that you, Members of the House of Commons, repair to the place where you are to sit, and there proceed to the choice of some proper person to be your Speaker; and that you present such person whom you shall so choose, here, for Her Majesty's royal approbation.’1

Footnotes 1. HL Deb (13 June 2017) 783, c 1; HC Deb (13 June 2017) 626, c 1.

Election of a Speaker by the Commons Contents Speaker elect returns thanks Royal approbation of the Speaker elect Claim to privileges Election of Speaker in course of session 8.18The Commons then proceed to the election of their Speaker.1 In accordance with Standing Order No 1, the senior backbencher resumes their place. The Member taking the Chair under these circumstances is granted all the powers which would be exercisable by the Speaker if, following a decision to relinquish that office during the course of a session, the Speaker were presiding over the election of a successor (see para 8.22 ).2 Under the procedure under Standing Order No 1A, if at the commencement of a Parliament the Member who was Speaker at the dissolution of the previous Parliament is returned to the House and is willing to be chosen once more as Speaker, the question that they do take the Chair of this House as Speaker is moved by a single Member and the question is then put forthwith.3 Under Standing Order No 1B, if the question for the re-election of a former Speaker is negatived, or where it is necessary to choose a new Speaker, the election is by secret ballot. The ballot procedure was used for the first time on 22 June 2009 for the election of Speaker Bercow.4 Nominations (by not fewer than twelve nor more than fifteen Members, at least three of whom must be of a party different from that of their candidate) and statements of consent from the candidates shall be received by the Clerk of the House on the day of election. When the House meets, if there is only one nomination, the Member presiding will invite that candidate to submit themselves to the House, then put the question that the Member ‘do take the Chair of this House as Speaker’. In the case of a contested election, the candidates' order of speaking is determined by lot, following which the ballot takes place and the count is held under arrangements to be made by the Clerk. Successive ballots are held until either one candidate has an overall majority or the other candidates' names have been removed from the ballot, whereupon the Member presiding shall put forthwith the question that the Member ‘do take the Chair of this House as Speaker’.5 Between each ballot, candidates who have not been eliminated are given the opportunity to withdraw.6 The Member in whose favour the House has decided stands up in their place and expresses a sense of the honour proposed to be conferred and submits themself to the House; supporters then take the Member out of their place and conduct them to the Chair.7

Footnotes 1. For a description of the previous procedure, see Erskine May (22nd edn, 1997), pp 237–38. 2. For the background to the making of the Standing Order, see HC 111 (1971–72) and HC 40 (2000–01). 3. This procedure was followed on 13 June 2001, 18 May 2010, 18 May 2015 and 13 June 2017. In accordance with custom, the Speaker elect was conducted from their place by two Members from different sides of the House, HC Deb (2001–02) 370, cc 3–5; ibid (2010–12) 510, cc 1–4; ibid (18 May 2015) 596, cc.1–4; and ibid (13 June 2017) 626, cc 2–5. 4. HC Deb (2008–09) 494, c 617 ff; The Procedure Committee endorsed the procedure after its first use in its First Report HC (2009–10) 341. 5. The adoption of the secret ballot procedure followed a recommendation of the Procedure Committee (Second Report, HC 40 (2000–01)). 6. HC Deb (2008–09) 494, c 634. 7. CJ (1983–84) 3–4; ibid (1992–93) 2; HC Deb (1997–98) 294, c 7; ibid (1999–2000) 355, c 99; ibid (2001–02) 370, c 5; ibid (22 June 2009) 494, cc 635–36.

Speaker elect returns thanks 8.19The Speaker elect, on being conducted to the Chair, stands on the upper step and expresses thanks for the honour bestowed, and then takes the Speaker's seat. The Mace, which up to this time has been under the Table, is now laid upon the Table, where it is always placed during the sitting of the House with the Speaker in the Chair. The Speaker elect is then congratulated by some leading Members; then puts the question for adjournment and, when the House adjourns, leaves the House without the Mace before them.

Royal approbation of the Speaker elect 8.20Both Houses meet on the following day. In the Lords the House adjourns after prayers to allow the Lords Commissioners to robe. They then instruct Black Rod to summon the Commons. In the Commons the Speaker elect takes the Chair and awaits the arrival of Black Rod from the Lords Commissioners. When that officer has delivered the message, the Speaker elect, accompanied by the Clerk and followed by Members of the House, goes up to the House of Lords, and acquaints the Lords Commissioners, ‘That in obedience to Her Majesty's command, Her Majesty's most faithful Commons have, in the exercise of their undoubted right and privileges, proceeded to the election of a Speaker and that their choice has fallen upon myself. I therefore present myself to your Lordships' Bar and submit myself with all humility to Her Majesty's gracious Approbation.’1 In reply, the presiding Commissioner assures the Speaker elect of Her Majesty's sense of their sufficiency, and ‘that Her Majesty most readily approves and confirms [the Speaker elect] as the Speaker’.2

Footnotes 1. HL Deb (14 June 2017) 783, cc 3–4. 2. The only instance of refusal of the royal approbation was in the case of Sir Edward Seymour in 1679, an impasse which was ended only by a prorogation. The Journal record was expunged but is to be found in ed W R McKay Observations, Rules and Orders (House of Commons Library Document No 12, 1989), pp xxxiii–iv.

Claim to privileges 8.21Once approved, the Speaker lays claim, on behalf of the Commons, ‘by humble petition to Her Majesty, to all their ancient and undoubted rights and privileges’ (see paras 12.3–12.7 ), which being confirmed, the Speaker, with the Commons, retires from the Bar of the House of Lords.

Election of Speaker in course of session 8.22The Speaker, thus elected and approved, continues in that office during the whole Parliament, unless in the meantime they resign or are removed by death. This section sets out the procedure for the election of a Speaker during the session. If the vacancy in the Chair is caused by the Speaker's death at a time too late to enable arrangements to be made for the election of a successor at the next sitting, the Clerk announces the death of the Speaker at the earliest opportunity. Immediately after the announcement has been made, the Mace is brought into the House by the Serjeant and is laid under the Table.1 A Member then rises, and, addressing the Clerk, moves the adjournment of the House, and the Clerk puts the question, ‘by the direction of the House’. If sufficient time has elapsed for arrangements to be made for the election of a new Speaker, a motion for the adjournment is not moved after the Clerk's announcement, but the House proceeds instead to the election.2 The Speaker, on other occasions, informs the House of the cause that compels their retirement from the Chair.3 Standing Order No 1 provides that a Speaker who has intimated a wish to relinquish that office shall continue to exercise its authority until a successor has been chosen. The Select Committee on Procedure of 1971–724 recommended that, wherever possible, the Speaker should retire in the middle of a session, giving at least ten days' notice of the impending retirement and, if circumstances permitted, occupying the Chair until a successor had been elected. On the last two occasions in 2000 and 2009, considerable notice of the retirement of the Speaker was given (three months in the case of Speaker Boothroyd and a month in the case of Speaker Martin). In the event of a vacancy during the session, instead of Her Majesty's desire being signified by a Minister of the Crown in the House of Lords, a Minister of the Crown in the Commons, acquaints the House that Her Majesty ‘gives leave to the House to proceed forthwith to the election of a new Speaker’.5 If present, the retiring Speaker remains in the Chair until the House has come to a decision upon a successor, at which point they leave the Chair and the Mace is placed under the Table; but if the Speaker has already ceased to be a Member of the House, or in the event of the announcement of unavoidable absence (or at an election following upon the Speaker's death), the election is conducted in the same manner as at the beginning of a session, with the Member of longest service in the Chair (see para 8.18 ).6 When the Speaker has been chosen,7 a Minister acquaints the House that it is Her Majesty's pleasure that the House should present their Speaker at a specified hour in the House of Lords, for Her Majesty's royal approbation.8 If the royal approbation is to be announced on a future day, the Speaker elect puts the question for adjournment, and, when the House adjourns, leaves the House without the Mace before them. On the following day the Speaker elect takes the Chair, after prayers have been read, and awaits the arrival of Black Rod from the Lords Commissioners, by whom the royal approbation is given under a commission for that purpose, with the same forms as at the meeting of a new Parliament, except that the claim of privileges is omitted.9 Otherwise, after election the Speaker elect awaits the arrival of Black Rod from the Lords Commissioners, and, when the message to attend the commissioners has been received, goes up with the House (but without the Mace before them) to the House of Lords to hear the royal approbation.10 On returning from the House of Lords the new Speaker reports their approbation by the Queen, and repeats their acknowledgments to the House. The appointed business for the day is then entered upon or the House adjourns to the next sitting day depending on the lateness of the hour. The first business transacted after the ceremonial speeches is the moving of a formal motion regarding the outgoing Speaker which is customarily agreed without debate.11

Footnotes 1. CJ (1788–89) 45; ibid (1942–43) 57. 2. CJ (1964–65) 412. 3. Mr Speaker Manners-Sutton CJ (1831–32) 534; Mr Speaker Abercromby ibid (1839) 271; Mr Speaker Shaw-Lefevre ibid (1857) 89; Mr Speaker Denison ibid (1872) 9; Mr Speaker Brand ibid (1884) 68; Mr Speaker Peel ibid (1895) 139, Mr Speaker Gully ibid (1905) 243; Mr Speaker Lowther ibid (1921) 109; Mr Speaker Whitley ibid (1928) 210. Mr Speaker Lloyd informed the House of his intention to relinquish his office on a future date (CJ (1975–76) 95); for his speech on this date see ibid 125. Speaker Boothroyd informed the House of her intention to relinquish her office on a future date (CJ (1999–2000) 500); for her speech on this date see ibid 549 ff. Speaker Martin announced his proposed retirement in a short statement on 19 May 2009 (CJ (2008–09) 371, HC Deb (2008–09) 492, c 1323). 4. HC 111 (1971–72) p xiii. 5. This was most recently done by the Prime Minister, HC Deb (2008–09) 494, c 617; see also CJ (1839) 274; ibid (1964–65) 412; ibid (1999–2000) 567, when the announcement also was made by the Prime Minister. For early instances of proceedings on the death of a Speaker, see D'Ewes 95, 120; CJ (1547–1628) 116; Parl Hist (1066–1625) 1, c 811. 6. For the most recent occasion, see CJ (2008–09) 265, cc 1–2. 7. In the early nineteenth century it was considered that a Member who had not yet taken the oath and his seat could not be elected to the Speakership (see Parl Hist 35, c 951 and the entry on Charles Dundas in R G Thorne The House of Commons 1790–1820 (1986) iii, pp 633–34). 8. In 1895 and in 1905 the Speaker was elected on the day upon which the House adjourned for Easter and Whitsuntide respectively, and was presented for the Sovereign's approbation on the first day on which the House met after the adjournment, CJ (1895) 149; ibid (1905) 249. See also ibid (1970–71) 184–85 for an instance where approbation was signified on the same day as the election of a Speaker. 9. LJ (1839) 308; CJ (1693–97) 272; ibid (1839) 274; ibid (1964–65) 412. On the election of Mr Addington, in 1789, the King himself came down to the House of Lords to signify his approbation in person, CJ (1788–89) 435. For more recent examples of the royal approbation, see HC Deb (22 June 2009) 494, c 641; ibid (19 May 2015) 596, c 9; ibid (14 June 2017) 626, c 13.

10. CJ (2008–09) 451 and (1999–2000) 570. 11. CJ (2008–09) 452. However, in 1992 the House divided on a motion for a humble address to be presented to Her Majesty marking the retirement of Speaker Weatherill, by a margin of 247 to 15 (CJ (1992–93) 47).

Oath in the Commons 8.23At the commencement of a Parliament, on returning from the Lords, the Speaker reports to the House the approbation by the Queen and the confirmation of their privileges and ‘repeats his most respectful acknowledgements to the House for the high honour they have done him’. The Speaker then informs the House that the first thing to be done is to take and subscribe the oath required by law; and first, alone, standing upon the upper step of the Chair, takes and subscribes the oath as administered by the Clerk. Members of the House then follow. Following a recommendation from the Select Committee on Procedure1, since the start of the 1997 Parliament, Members have been called to take the oath in order of seniority: first the Father of the House, then Members of the Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet, other Privy Counsellors, other Ministers and other Members according to seniority.2 On the following day the daily prayers are read, for the first time, by the Speaker's chaplain. Members normally continue to take the oath on that day and on one or more subsequent days, after which the greater part are sworn and qualified to sit and vote. Members are able to take the oath at subsequent sittings, if necessary.3 Immediately after taking the oath, Members are invited to confirm to the House service how they wish their name to appear in official publications.

Footnotes 1. First Report HC 386 (1995–96). 2. HC Deb (1995–96) 281, c 632; ibid (1997–98) 294, c 14; ibid (2001–02) 370, c 12 (on this occasion the Father of the House was unable to be present); ibid (2010–12) 510, c 10; ibid (19 May 2015) 596, c 10; ibid (14 June 2017) 626, c 14. 3. HC Deb (1997–98) 294, c 27; ibid (27 June 2017) 626, c 461.

Oath in the Lords 8.24A new Parliament is summoned to meet a few days before the Queen's Speech. During this period, the House of Lords usually sits for two or three `swearing in’ days. Only business which does not require the House to take a decision on a motion may be taken on these days. The principal business is proceedings relating to the election of a Speaker of the House of Commons and administering the oath of allegiance to Members of the House. On the first meeting of the House after State Opening, oaths are taken at the end of business. On subsequent sitting days, Members of the House of Lords can take the oath after the daily prayers are read.1 Oath taking begins with the Lord Speaker, who is followed by the archbishops, the party leaders and the occupants of the front benches (including those used by Privy Counsellors nearest the Bar). Precedence is then given to Members with disability or impaired mobility.

Footnotes 1. House of Lords Procedure Committee, Fourth Report, HL 135 (2017–19).

Oath on demise of Crown 8.25In the event of the demise of the Crown, Parliament meets immediately, pursuant to the Succession to the Crown Act 1707 (see para 8.12 ), and all Members of both Houses may again take the oath.1 There is no statutory obligation to take the oath in these circumstances, although it has been the custom of Parliament and continues to be obligatory in the House of Lords. On the death of Edward VII the House of Commons met on Saturday 7 May 1910 but, owing to the unavoidable absence of the Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Deputy Chairman, adjourned to the following Monday, the Clerk of the House fulfilling the role which, in the now superseded procedure, he played in the election of a Speaker.2 The Chairman of Ways and Means, acting as Deputy Speaker, and other Members then took the oath. The Speaker took the oath at the first sitting of the House at which he was present.3

Footnotes 1. LJ (1837) 420, etc; CJ (1837) 490, etc; LJ (1936–37) 59, etc; CJ (1936–37) 59, etc; LJ (1951–52) 77, etc; CJ (1951–52) 88. The proposition that the obligation to take the oath in these circumstances rests merely upon the custom of Parliament has been stated with authority in the House of Commons, HC Deb (1936–37) 319, c 762. 2. For which see Erskine May (18th edn, 1971), pp 259–60. 3. CJ (1910) 147, 150, 154.

Manner of taking the oath or making the affirmation required by law 8.26The ordinary form and manner of administering and taking the oath are prescribed by the Oaths Act 1978, s 1, which allows for the oath to be administered ‘in any lawful manner’. This means that Members of either House may swear on any holy text they request. Under the Act the person taking the oath holds the holy text in their uplifted hand, and says or repeats after the officer administering the oath the words, ‘I swear by Almighty God that ….’ followed by the words of the oath prescribed by law. By law the oath or affirmation must be made in English1 but Members may, if they wish, subsequently repeat it in another language. For swearing in following the General Election in 2017, oath and affirmation cards were made available in Cornish, Irish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic, Ulster Scots and Welsh in addition to English. The oath may be repeated in any language and, following the 2017 General Election, one Member repeated it in Urdu and another in Scots Doric. Members of either House may also take the oath with uplifted hand in the form and manner in which an oath is usually administered in Scotland.2 Under the Oaths Act 1978, s 5, Members or Lords who object to being sworn may make a solemn affirmation instead of taking an oath.3

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1966–67) 732, cc 879–80. 2. Oaths Act 1978, s 3. 3. See also SO No 5. The permission to substitute for an oath a solemn affirmation was first accorded by the Oaths Act 1888 (c 46), s 5.

Time for taking the oath 8.27A definite time at the beginning of a sitting, usually immediately after prayers, is reserved for Members returned after a General Election who desire to take the oath or make the affirmation required by law on any day after the days set aside for taking the oath at the beginning of a Parliament.1

Footnotes 1. CJ (1886) 5; Parl Deb (1886) 302, c 21. See also SO No 6. The Speaker has stated that to object to any Member taking the oath except on grounds public or notorious, or within the cognizance of the House, would be simply vexatious, Parl Deb (1882) 267, c 441; see also CJ (1886) 5–8.

Penalties for omission to take the oath 8.28By the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866, s 5, any Lords Member voting, or sitting in the House of Lords without having taken the oath, is subject, for every such offence, to a penalty of £500, to be recovered by action in the High Court. Any Member of the House of Commons who votes as such, or sits during any debate after the Speaker has been chosen, without having taken the oath, is subject to the same penalty, and their seat is also vacated in the same manner as if they were dead.1 The £500 penalty may be recovered upon the suit of the Crown alone.2 In the Lords, if a Lords Member attends the House or votes without having taken the oath or affirmed, their attendance is not recorded and their vote is invalidated, but no further action is taken.3 In the Commons, however, it is necessary to move a new writ immediately the omission is discovered, as the Member's seat is vacated.4 In the Commons, a Member may vacate their seat, before taking the oath, by being appointed to the Chiltern Hundreds or Manor of Northstead. In 1999 the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that the obligation to take the oath did not contravene the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights.5 By long custom, a Member of the Commons who had not taken the oath was entitled to all the privileges of other Members, save salary.6 On 14 May 1997, however, Speaker Boothroyd ruled that, in future, the services available to all other Members from the House service would not be open for use by Members who had not taken their seats by swearing or by affirmation.7 This situation persisted until the House resolved on 18 December 2001 that, with effect from 8 January 2002, Members who had ‘chosen not to take their seats’ might use the facilities of the House and the services of its departments, and claim support for their costs as set out in the Resolution of 5 July 2001 relating to Members' allowances, insurance etc and allowances for travel within the United Kingdom for Members, their families and staff.8 In May 2010 the responsibility for Members' pay and allowances was transferred to IPSA. Paragraphs 4.12–4.15 contain information about Members’ expenses.

Footnotes 1. In 1924, for example, the seat of Major Jacob Astor MP (Dover) was vacated after he was found to have sat and voted in the House without having taken the oath. Major Astor was returned unopposed in a by-election held six days after the writ was moved for a new election, HC Deb (6 March 1924) 170, cc 1563–65. 2. Bradlaugh v Clarke [1883] 8 App Cas 354. 3. Pursuant to a recommendation of the Procedure Committee (Second Report HL 58 (1993–94)), LJ (1993–94) 418, 422, 682. Previously, when peers had neglected to take the oaths from haste, accident, or inadvertence, Acts of indemnity were passed to relieve them from the consequences of their neglect: 45 Geo 3, c 5 (Lord J Thynne), 56 Geo 3, c 48 (Earl Gower), 1 Will 4, c 8 (Lord R Grosvenor), 5 Vict, c 3 (Earl of Scarborough), 1880 (Lord Plunket and Lord Byron). All are private Acts and none are printed. 4. CJ (1805–06) 148; ibid (1812) 286; ibid (1813–14) 144; ibid (1816–17) 42; ibid (1924) 74. In Bradlaugh's case, however, the Chiltern Hundreds (see para 3.22 ) were accepted. 5. McGuinness v United Kingdom (1999) ECHR No 39511/98. 6. Members of the Commons who have not taken the oath have been nominated to committees in exceptional circumstances, CJ (1714–18) 59; 6 Chandler Deb 19; Parl Hist (1714–22) 7, c 57; 2 Hatsell 88 n; CJ (1857–58) 162, 167; Parl Deb (1858) 150, c 430. In 1880, John Bright was appointed to the Parliamentary Oath Committee, on which he served and voted, though not then having made an affirmation. 7. See HC Deb (1997–98) 294, cc 35–36; ibid (2001–02) 370 c 12. Speaker Boothroyd's statement was challenged, first in the High Court of Northern Ireland and then on appeal to the European Court of Human Rights but was upheld: McGuinness v United Kingdom (1999) ECHR No 39511/98. 8. See HC Deb (2001–02) 377, c 151 ff; CJ (2001–02) 274.

Subscription of oath and affirmation 8.29As soon as a Member has been sworn, or has made their affirmation, they subscribe at the Table the ‘test roll’, which is a bound volume, headed by the oath and affirmation which they have taken or made; and the Member is then introduced to the Speaker by the Clerk of the House. The rules which provide for the time and manner of taking the oath by Members returned at by-elections are stated at para 19.20.

Election of Deputy Speakers in the Commons 8.30Standing Order No 2A provides for the election of the three Deputy Speakers at the start of each Parliament by secret ballot.1 Nominations, to be submitted between 10 am and 5 pm the day before the election, require the support of between six and ten Members and the candidate's declaration that they are willing to stand.2 No Member may sign more than three nominations. In a ballot to be held between 11 am and 12 noon, Members number the candidates in order of preference and the votes are counted under the single transferable vote system, with the constraints that two Deputy Speakers (the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Second Deputy Chairman) should come from the opposite side of the House to that from which the Speaker was drawn, that the First Deputy Chairman should come from the same side of the House as that from which the Speaker was drawn, and that among the Speaker and three Deputies there should be at least one man and one woman. The Standing Order gives the Speaker power to vary timings and to give final directions on any matter of doubt arising from the conduct of a ballot or from an individual ballot paper.3 The first election was held on 8 June 2010, and the Speaker announced that those elected would take office the following day.4 Pending the election of Deputy Speakers, orders have been made at the start of each Parliament since 2010 allowing temporary Deputy Speakers to be appointed. In each case two were duly nominated by the Speaker.5

Footnotes 1. Standing Order No 2A was passed by the House in March 2010 following a statement by the Speaker and reports by the Procedure Committee, see HC Deb (2 July 2009) 495, c 496; HC 1080 (2008–09); HC 341 (2009–10); CJ (2009–10) 294. 2. Candidates were permitted to include a statement of up to 500 words; the Procedure Committee had recommended that this should be in the form of a curriculum vitae rather than a personal manifesto: HC 341 (2009–10) paras 48, 57, 58. 3. In 2017, the Speaker announced that, in a case where there was only one Deputy Speaker candidate from the Government benches, and more than two candidates from the Opposition Benches, then the candidate from the Government side would not be included on the ballot paper and would instead be declared elected as First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, as in the case of Select Committee Chair elections where there is an unopposed candidate: HC Deb (27 June 2017) 626, c 300. In that case the Member elected as First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means was a woman, ensuring that the gender requirement in the Standing Order was met. 4. HC Deb (8 June 2010) 511, c 182; the Speaker used the powers in the Standing Order to lengthen the voting time to two hours, from 10 am to 12 noon, HC Deb (27 May 2010) 510, c 302. 5. Votes and Proceedings, 26 March and 21 June 2015, 25 May 2017. In 2015, the motion to permit the nomination of temporary Speakers was agreed at the end of the session preceding the General Election. In 2017, the motion was moved without notice, HC Deb (21 June 2017) 626, c 33. Prior to the election of Deputy Speakers in 2010 it was customary for the House to appoint the Chairman of Ways and Means and Deputies by motion, without notice.

Opening of new session Contents Opening by Queen in person Opening by Commission Report of Queen's speech Business taken before consideration of Queen's speech Address in reply to Queen's speech 8.31In every session but the first of a Parliament, as there is no election of a Speaker, nor any general swearing of Members, the session is opened at once by the Queen's speech, without any preliminary proceedings in either House. Until the causes of summons are declared by the Queen, either in person, or by commission, neither House can proceed with any public business: but the causes of summons, as declared from the Throne, do not bind Parliament to consider them alone, or to proceed at once to the consideration of any of them (see para 8.35 ). Both Houses assemble on the day and immediately before the hour1 appointed for the delivery of the Queen's speech. In the Commons prayers are said before the Queen's speech, but in the Lords not until their second meeting, later in the day. The Speaker, after prayers, normally waits in the Chair or suspends the sitting until Black Rod approaches the door, at which point the Speaker proceeds to the Chair to receive Black Rod. This practice is observed because no business can be transacted until Parliament has been opened by the Crown.

Footnotes 1. Before 1919 the usual hour was 2 pm; from 1919 to 1939, 12 noon; from 1940 to 1960, 11 am; since 1961, 11.30 am.

Opening by Queen in person 8.32When the Queen meets Parliament in person, she proceeds in state1 to the House of Lords, where, seated on the Throne, adorned with her crown and regal ornaments, and attended by her officers of State (all the Lords being in their robes, and standing until Her Majesty commands them to be seated), she commands Black Rod, through the Lord Great Chamberlain, to let the Commons know ‘it is Her Majesty's pleasure they attend her immediately, in this House.’ Black Rod goes at once to the door of the House of Commons, and strikes it three times with their rod. On being admitted, Black Rod advances up the middle of the House towards the Table, making two obeisances to the Chair, and says, ‘Mr Speaker, the Queen commands this honourable House to attend Her Majesty immediately in the House of Peers’. The Speaker, accompanied by the Clerk and followed by Members of the House, immediately goes up to the Bar of the House of Lords; upon which the Queen reads her speech to both Houses of Parliament, from a printed copy, which is delivered into her hands by the Lord Chancellor, kneeling upon one knee.2 When the speech has been delivered, the House of Lords is adjourned during pleasure. The Commons retire and, returning to their own House, pass through it, the Mace being placed upon the Table by the Serjeant, and the House reassembles at 2.30 pm.3

Footnotes 1. Between 1917 and 1919 and between 1939 and 1948 Parliament was opened by the Sovereign with less than the customary ceremony, a course followed in special circumstances in March 1974, when the Queen interrupted a foreign tour at short notice to open Parliament in person, and in June 2017 following the earlier than expected General Election. 2. There are also precedents, followed for many years by Queen Victoria and throughout his reign by George I, for the speech to be read by the Lord Chancellor in the presence and under the personal direction of the Sovereign. See eg LJ (1509–77) 3; ibid (1578–1614) 357; ibid (1620–28) 435, 470; ibid (1714–18) 22, etc. In the absence of the Lord Chancellor in 1927 and 1936 the speech was delivered for the King by Earl Balfour and Viscount Halifax respectively. 3. At 2.15 pm in the first session of a Parliament to permit Members to be sworn before the resumption of business at 2.30 pm.

In relation to outside authorities 4.22The Speaker communicates the resolutions of the House to those to whom they are directed, and conveys its thanks and expresses its censure, its reprimands, and its admonitions. The Speaker issues warrants to execute the orders of the House for the commitment of offenders, for the attendances of witnesses in custody, and for giving effect to other orders requiring the sanction of a legal form (see paras 11.23–11.26 ). The Speaker has also on occasion held discussions with the Government on matters of concern to Members in general such as delays in answering parliamentary questions.1 On behalf of the House, the Speaker may also convey sympathies to other Parliaments and authorities.2 Whenever it seems appropriate,3 the Speaker communicates to the House letters and documents addressed to the Speaker, or to the House as a whole, such as expressions of congratulation and condolence and other messages from foreign countries and legislatures,4 letters acknowledging a vote of the thanks of the House,5 or relating to the rights and privileges of the House or its Members, such as communications announcing the arrest or imprisonment of a Member6 (see Chapter 14). Such documents may be entered in the Votes and Proceedings of the House and in the Journal, without motion made or question put.7 The Speaker represents the House, as an institution, in a wide range of public forums and takes a lead in the efforts made by the House service to engage with the public and inform them about the roles and work of the House.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (18 April 2000) 348, cc 829–30. 2. HC Deb (16 November 2015) 602, c 382. For an occasion when the Speaker arranged for a book of condolences to be made available for Members to sign, see HC Deb (3 December 2013) 571, c 781. 3. HC Deb (22 February 1944) 397, c 623; ibid (29 June 1962) 661, c 1539. 4. CJ (1888) 142; ibid (1977–78) 412. See also ibid (1914) 442. See para 7.36. 5. CJ (1844) 3. 6. For example, CJ (1970–71) 20, 209; ibid (1990–91) 356. 7. Parl Deb (5 July 1881) 263, cc 45–49; ibid (13 November 1882) 274, c 1327–28. A motion alleging a breach of privilege has been raised on the form of the document (CJ (1888) 222). A motion, once made, that a letter communicated by the Speaker be laid upon the Table (ibid (1883) 4), cannot be reckoned as a precedent.

Report of Queen's speech 8.34When the Houses are resumed in the afternoon, the main business starts with the Lord Speaker in the Lords, and the Speaker in the Commons, reporting the Queen's speech. In the Lords, the Lord Speaker informs the House that the Queen has made a speech and that copies are available in the Printed Paper Office and directs that the terms of the speech be printed in the Official Report.1 In the Commons, the Speaker states that, for greater accuracy, a copy of the speech has been obtained, and directs it to be printed in the Votes and Proceedings.2

Footnotes 1. For example, HL Deb (2002–03) 641, c 5; HL Deb (27 May 2015) 762, c 8; HL Deb (21 June 2017) 783, c 8. 2. For example, HC Deb (2009–10) 501, c 1; ibid (18 May 2016) 611, c 3; ibid (21 June 2017) 626, c 34.

Bill read pro forma 8.35It is the practice, in both Houses, to read some bill a first time formally, in order to assert their right of deliberating without reference to the immediate cause of summons. In the Lords this practice is governed by Standing Order No 75. In the Commons the same form is observed pursuant to ancient custom. The Select Vestries Bill is read in the Lords and the Outlawries Bill in the Commons. Debate is out of order. In the Commons, the bill is recorded as having been read the first time and ordered to be read a second time, but no day is appointed for the second reading. In neither House is the bill ordered to be printed.1

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (2009–10) 501, c 1; ibid (1946–47) 430, c 3; ibid (1960–61) 629, cc 3–5; ibid (18 May 2016) 611, c 2; ibid (21 June 2017) 626, c 33.

Other business 8.36In the Commons other business may be entered upon before the report of the Queen's speech by the Speaker. The order of such business on the first day of a session is: 1. Motions for the issue of new writs. 2. Oral notices of introduction of bills. 3. Queen's speech.1 Urgent questions are not accepted on the first day of a session,2 nor may an application be made for an emergency debate under Standing Order No 24.3 There is no precedent for ministerial statements being made on such a day, since they can be made in debate on the Queen's speech. In the Lords, by contrast, other business may be taken only after the Lord Speaker has reported the Queen's speech and the debate on the Address has been adjourned. Such business is restricted to the appointment, by motion moved by the Leader of the House, of the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees, and to the agreement (by formal entry in the Minutes) to Sessional Orders relating to the maintenance of access to the Palace of Westminster, the laying on the Table by the Clerk of the Parliaments of a list of Members of that House and, pursuant to Standing Order No 10(5), of the register of hereditary peers (other than peers of Ireland) who wish to stand in any by-election for membership of the House held in accordance with the House of Lords Act 1999, s 2(4). No other business is normally taken at this sitting. The introduction of new bills takes place on the following day, though exceptionally they could be introduced on the first day if that were the last sitting day before a weekend (normally a Thursday).

Footnotes 1. It has become the practice of the House that at the start of each session the Speaker makes a statement about the duties and responsibilities of Members. See, for example, HC Deb (21 June 2017) 626, c 32. 2. Speaker's private ruling of 9 November 1965. 3. Speaker's private ruling of 3 November 1977.

Address in reply to Queen's speech Contents Presentation of Address Her Majesty's answer 8.37When the Queen's speech has been read, an Address in answer to it is moved in both Houses. Two Members in each House are selected by the Government for moving and seconding the Address, which is moved in the form of a resolution expressing thanks to the Sovereign for the most gracious speech addressed to both Houses of Parliament,1 and amendments by way of additions to the resolution may be moved.2 The debate on the Address in the Commons falls into three parts. Debate on the opening day (or days) covers the whole field of government policy, especially in relation to the contents of the Queen's speech. Thereafter debate is usually directed to more specific areas of policy chosen by the Opposition, of which the House is informed,3 although at that stage without prejudice to Members' right to raise other topics.4 The final part consists of a series of amendments, which are usually moved from the front bench of the main Opposition party. Standing Order No 33 (calling of amendments at end of debate) provides that on the final day, if an amendment to the motion for an Address has been disposed of at or after the expiration of the time for opposed business, any further amendments selected by the Speaker may be moved and disposed of forthwith. The Speaker may select up to four amendments in total, normally one on the penultimate day and up to three on the final day. On the final day, the first amendment is normally moved during the debate and the other two moved at the end without debate. Under this provision, the Speaker has selected amendments tabled by opposition parties other than the official Opposition and by others.5 Although the scope of debate is restricted by the normal rules once an amendment has been moved6 (see paras 20.37 –20.39, 21.15 ), by practice the last two speakers are allowed some latitude in replying to the debate as a whole.7 The transaction of public business is carried on while the proceedings on the Address are in progress, bills being introduced, committees appointed, and statutory instruments considered. The debate on the Address is normally given precedence but it has occasionally been postponed in favour of urgent business including a motion of censure and passage of government bills,8 and it may be interrupted in the course of a sitting by an emergency debate under Standing Order No 24 (see para 19.22 ). Under Standing Order No 10, Westminster Hall cannot sit until the Address is agreed. In the Lords the opening day's debate on the Address is brief. After the speeches of the mover and seconder, it is usual for the Leader of the Opposition to move the adjournment of the debate. On this motion they and the other party leaders congratulate the mover and seconder and comment generally on the Queen's speech.9 The debate is then adjourned. The debate is resumed on the following sitting day. Different topics (such as foreign affairs and defence, home and social affairs, and economic affairs) are taken on different days.

Footnotes 1. Addresses have also contained expressions of condolence on the deaths of members of the royal family (LJ (1892) 7; CJ (1892) 10; LJ (1896) 16; CJ (1896) 12). In Session 1921 (II) the Gracious Speech was confined to the Articles of Agreements signed by Ministers and the Irish Delegation, and the Address of each House declared its readiness to confirm and ratify those Articles (LJ (1921) 463, 470; CJ (1921) 405, 406). 2. In 1894 an amendment to the Address having been carried, the Address, as amended, was negatived, and another Address was proposed by the Leader of the House and agreed to (CJ (1894) 9, 11). In 1924 an amendment to the Address having been carried, the Address, as amended, was then agreed to (CJ (1924) 32). In 2016, an amendment was made to the Address, without division. The Address, as amended, was then agreed to, HC Deb (26 May 2016) 611, c 803. 3. HC Deb (2009–10) 501, c 5; ibid (1952–53) 507, c 150; ibid (1997–98) 294, c 45; ibid (2001–02) 370, c 35.; ibid (8 May 2013) 563, c 5; ibid (21 June 2017) 626, c 37. 4. HC Deb (1953–54) 520, c 153; ibid (1960–61) 629, c 185; ibid (1985–86) 86, cc 255–63. 5. Eg HC Deb (17 May 2012) 545, c 712; HC Deb (15 May 2013) 563, c 655. In 2016 the Speaker selected an amendment in the name of a backbench Member relating to the National Health Service which was agreed to without division, HC Deb (26 May 2016) 611, c 800. 6. HC Deb (2001–02) 370, c 676; ibid (3 June 2015) 596, cc 611, 621. 7. HC Deb (1960–61) 629, c 957. 8. In 2006, the debate on the Address was interrupted to facilitate passage of emergency legislation relating to Northern Ireland, HC Deb (2006–07) 453, c 414 ff. See also CJ (1884) 8, 9, 46, 66; ibid (1922) 354, 355, 357; ibid (1924–25) 27, 34; CJ (1928) 12. 9. On 25 May 2010, following the establishment of a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition Government, only the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the House spoke on the motion for adjournment. See HL Deb (2010–12) 719, cc 15–22.

Presentation of Address 8.38After the Address has been agreed to, it is ordered to be presented to Her Majesty. In the case of the Address of the House of Lords it is usual for the presentation to be ordered to be made ‘by the Lords with white staves' (that is, the Royal Household); and in the case of the Address of the Commons by ‘such members of the House as are of Her Majesty's most honourable Privy Council, or of Her Majesty's household’.

Her Majesty's answer 8.39Her Majesty's answer to the Address of each House is now invariably of a formal character.1 The procedure upon the reception of the Sovereign's answer to an Address by Parliament is described at para 9.14.

Footnotes 1. The inclusion of unusual matter in the Address has caused variations in the reply. Thus Queen Victoria's answer to the Address, 10 June 1859, which contained a paragraph affirming that Her Majesty's then present advisers did not possess the confidence of the House of Commons, stated that Her Majesty had thereupon taken measures for the formation of a new administration: CJ (1859) 219. When a paragraph similar in form was added to the Address, the usual order was made for the presentation of the Address; but no answer from Her Majesty was presented to the House. When an amendment which occasioned a change of administration was added to the Address, the Sovereign's answer was of a wholly formal character: CJ (1886) 57; ibid (1924) 32.

Overview of formal communications 9.1This chapter describes the types of formal communication between the Crown and Parliament and between the two Houses. In relation to communications from the Crown to Parliament, the chapter considers: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Communications by messages under the sign manual; The signification of the Queen's pleasure; The notification of the Queen's recommendation; The signification of the Queen's consent to Bills.

It also describes how certain communications from the Crown are acknowledged. It then turns to communications to the Crown originating in Parliament, principally Addresses to the Crown. Finally, it describes formal communications between the two Houses in the form of messages. The procedures for communicating the Royal Assent to bills agreed to by both Houses are described at paras 30.36–30.40.

Communications by messages under the sign manual 9.2On certain important occasions, communication from the Crown is by a written message under the royal sign manual (the Crown's personal signature), to either House singly, or to both Houses separately. These messages are usually communications relating to important public events which require the attention of Parliament;1 the declaration of a state of emergency2 or revocation of a previous declaration of a state of emergency;3 the making of provisions for the exercise of the royal authority;4 the prerogatives, or property of the Crown;5 provision for the royal family, and other occasions which compel the executive to seek pecuniary aid from Parliament. On 29 June 2011, the Queen sent a message to the House of Commons asking that it consider provision to be made by Parliament for the financial support of Her Majesty and other members of the royal household and to allow for the continuation of support in the reigns of her successors.6 The Queen sent a message on the same day to the Lords, asking that House to concur with any measures proposed by the Commons.7 The message is brought by a Member of the House who is a Minister of the Crown or one of the royal household. In the House of Commons, the Member who is charged with the message appears at the Bar, where they inform the Speaker that they have a message from the Queen to this House signed by Her Majesty. They bring the message up to the Table, where they read it before handing it to the Clerk of the House. The same procedure is followed in respect of a message signed on Her Majesty's behalf by the Counsellors of State.8 In the House of Lords, the Lords Member who is charged with the message, who is either a Minister or a member of the royal household, acquaints the House that they have a message under the royal sign manual, which Her Majesty has commanded them to deliver to their lordships. They then read it and hand it to the Lord Speaker. Messages under the sign manual are generally sent to both Houses; but when they are accompanied by original papers, they have occasionally been sent to one House only. The more proper and regular course is to deliver messages on the same day; but in circumstances when the two Houses were not sitting on the same day, or for other particular reasons, it has happened that messages have in the past been delivered on different days.9

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

LJ (1794–96) 186; ibid (1802–04) 74; CJ (1826–28) 111. LJ (1921) 95, 174; ibid (1973–74) 119; CJ (1921) 77, 164; ibid (1926) 151, etc; ibid (1966–67) 76, 109; ibid (1970–71) 51. CJ (1970–71) 180. LJ (1953–54) 6; CJ (1830) 466; ibid (1840) 520; ibid (1910) 171; ibid (1942–43) 169; ibid (1953–54) 7. CJ (1834) 189, 574. CJ (2010–12) 744; see para 34.24. LJ (2010–12) 1264. CJ (1971–72) 145; ibid (1973–74) 155. 2 Hatsell 366; LJ (1834) 958; CJ (1834) 574; LJ (1850) 368; CJ (1850) 539; LJ (1951–52) 191; CJ (1951–52) 236.

Other forms of communication: overview 9.3Other types of communication are made from the Crown to either House of Parliament for a variety of purposes. The three types, to which the names ‘Queen's pleasure’, ‘Queen's recommendation’ and ‘Queen's consent’ are regularly given, are described in detail in the following paragraphs. These communications are made by a Minister of the Crown to the House of which that Minister is a Member. At one time they were all delivered verbally; but, in the House of Commons, the Queen's recommendation is generally indicated in written form. Verbal messages may also be sent in other, special, circumstances.1

Footnotes 1. Arrest of a Member to be tried by a military court martial, CJ (1782–84) 479; ibid (1940–41) 178; attendance of the Speaker representing the House at Thanksgiving Service at St Paul's Cathedral, ibid (1872) 61, at Westminster Abbey, ibid (1887) 293, at the Coronation, ibid (1911) 75; ibid (1936–37) 134; ibid (1952–53) 227. For the royal consent to the appointment of a select committee affecting the Sovereign, see ibid (1901) 102. In 1964, the Speaker informed the House of Commons of the terms of a letter Her Majesty had received from the President of the United States, in reply to a communication from Her Majesty to the President, in respect of which the House had addressed Her Majesty, ibid (1963–64) 75.

Queen's pleasure 9.4The signification of the Queen's pleasure is the form employed for communicating to Parliament the Queen's wishes with regard to certain matters which are mostly of a formal and regularly recurrent nature and connected with the procedure of Parliament. Thus, the Queen's pleasure is signified at the commencement of each Parliament, by the Lords Member (a Minister of the Crown) who presides over the Royal Commission, that the Commons should elect a Speaker (see para 8.17 ); and when a vacancy in the office of Speaker occurs in the course of a Parliament, a communication of the same nature is made by a Minister in the House (see para 8.22 ). Her Majesty's pleasure is also signified for the attendance of the Commons in the House of Lords at the times which she appoints; and concerning matters personally affecting the interests of the royal family.1 At the end of a session, also, the royal pleasure is signified, by the presiding Commissioner, that Parliament should be prorogued. Although not using the same terminology, the royal approbation of the Speaker elect, signified by the presiding Commissioner, may be viewed as within this category.

Footnotes 1. CJ (1830–31) 460.

Queen's recommendation 9.5The Queen's recommendation is a technical form of great importance in financial procedure, as it is required in the Commons to sanction the proposal of a charge upon public funds and thus reserves the initiation of expenditure to the Crown, as embodied in the Government of the day. The Queen's recommendation is required for motions which involve any public expenditure or grant of money not included in the annual estimates, or which would have the effect of releasing or compounding any sum of money owing to the Crown.1 The Queen's recommendation is normally notified by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel on behalf of a responsible Minister to the Commons Public Bill Office when such a motion is tabled. The fact that the recommendation has been signified is entered on the Order Paper on which appears the notice of motion to which it relates.

Footnotes 1. See SO No 48 and paras 35.1–35.14.

Queen's consent on bills 9.6Bills affecting the prerogative (being powers exercisable by the Sovereign for the performance of constitutional duties)1 on the one hand, or hereditary revenues, personal property or interests of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster2 or the Duchy of Cornwall3 on the other, require the signification of Queen's consent in both Houses before they are passed. When the Prince of Wales is of age, his own consent as Duke of Cornwall is given.4 Church of England Measures may similarly require consent.5 See paras 30.79 –30.82 for circumstances in which consent has or has not been required. Prior to February 2015, consent was required to be signified prior to second reading if the interest or prerogative involved was fundamental to the bill.6 Signification of Queen's consent is now required only at third reading, whatever the nature and extent of the prerogatives or interests engaged.7 The need to secure Queen's or Prince of Wales's consent must nonetheless be indicated as soon as the requirement is known. This is done by a rubric under the relevant item in the Future Business section of the Order Paper (in the Commons) or in the Bills in Progress section of House of Lords Business (in the Lords). If amendments are tabled which would potentially introduce or remove a need for consent, a rubric has been inserted provisionally.8 Although in the case of the Queen's recommendation (see para 9.5 ), Ministers of the Crown give the necessary signification entirely on their own authority, Queen's consent is not signified unless authority to do so has first been obtained through individual application to Her Majesty. Such applications are submitted by a Minister of the Crown, normally the responsible Secretary of State. Accordingly, the consent must be signified by a Privy Counsellor who is almost invariably a serving Minister of the Crown. In the House of Lords this is an absolute requirement. In the House of Commons, consent to public bills has on rare occasions been signified by a Privy Counsellor who is not a serving Minister of the Crown, but this is acceptable only if the Privy Counsellor is in a position to give assurance that the consent has indeed been obtained.9 The Chairman of Ways and Means has signified consent to private bills.10 The Queen's consent is expressed in terms to the effect that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the bill, has consented to place her prerogative or interest, or both, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the bill. In the Commons, when the third reading of the bill is expected to be taken, a note indicating that consent is required appears by its title on the Order Paper, and consent is signified formally by a Privy Counsellor in response to a request from the Chair.11 In the Lords, consent is signified by a Privy Counsellor immediately before the motion for third reading is made. The fact that a bill affecting the interests of the Crown has been mentioned in the Speech from the Throne does not exempt it from the need for Queen's consent.12

Footnotes 1. For a fuller definition of the royal prerogative, see 20 Halsbury's Laws (5th edn) (2014), para 166, and guidance by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel on Queen's or Prince's Consent. 2. CJ (1998–99) 396. 3. On rare occasions the Queen, or Prince of Wales when of age, gives consent as Prince and Steward of Scotland, CJ (1847) 551; ibid (1969–70) 321; ibid (1978–79) 259. 4. For example, CJ (1994–95) 282, 408; ibid (2009–10) 332. See also HC Deb (1995–96) 276, c 419W. 5. CJ (1969–70) 220; CJ (1985–86) 197. 6. For an account of the criteria previously used to determine the stage at which consent should be signified, see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 165. 7. Both Houses agreed resolutions embodying recommendations to this effect from their respective Procedure Committees. See House of Commons Procedure Committee, Fourth Report, HC 871 (2014–15); House of Lords Procedure Committee, Third Report, HL 50 (2014–15); House of Commons Votes and Proceedings 24 February 2015; House of Lords Minute, 30 October 2014. 8. In the Commons, amendments to the Mineral Workings Bill 1950–51 were made both on re-committal and on consideration which affected the Crown's interests in the Duchy of Lancaster and in the Duchy of Cornwall. The King's consent, which had not previously been required, had to be given on third reading the same day, and a notice to this effect was placed on the Order Paper in anticipation of the amendments being made. The consent was signified separately in respect of each Duchy, CJ (1950–51) 262; Notices of Motions (1950–51) p 3283. In the case of the Diseases of Fish Bill 1982–83, an amendment made on consideration rendered it unnecessary to signify Queen's consent on third reading, although a notice that consent was required had appeared on the Order Paper and consent had been obtained, CJ (1982–83) 326; Supplement to the Votes (1982–83) Vol 5, p 466 (Amendment No 19). 9. CJ (1982–83) 376; ibid (1985–86) 213; HC Deb (1995–96) 281, c 756; Votes and Proceedings, 23 November 2018. 10. CJ (1993–94) 467; ibid (2003–04) 573. 11. In the absence of the Queen from the United Kingdom, the communication refers instead to Counsellors of State, acting on Her Majesty's behalf, CJ (1973–74) 146. 12. Parl Deb (1833) 17, cc 966–70; CJ (1833) 381.

Queen's consent not signified or withheld 9.7If the Queen's consent has not been obtained, the question on the third reading of a bill for which consent is required cannot be proposed.1 On occasions when consent had been obtained but a bill had been allowed, through inadvertence, to be read the third time and passed without the Queen's consent being signified, the proceedings were formerly declared null and void.2 Under more recent practice, a failure to signify consent, if it had been duly obtained, has not been allowed to impede the progress of a bill when an opportunity remained to signify consent to the bill during its passage through Parliament.3 The Government's usual practice is to advise the granting of consent even to bills of which it disapproves.4 The understanding is that the grant of consent does not imply approval by the Crown or its advisers, but only that the Crown does not intend that, for lack of its consent, Parliament should be debarred from debating such provisions.5 Thus Ministers could not be charged with inconsistency for speaking and voting against a bill in respect of which they had signified the Queen's consent.6

Footnotes 1. CJ (1866) 423; HC Deb (1987–88) 136, c 1366; ibid (1998–99) 329, c 541. 2. CJ (1852) 157; ibid (1911) 388; ibid (1948–49) 323. 3. On 19 November 1987, where the Queen's Consent had been properly obtained in respect of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill but had not been notified to the House, the Bill was allowed to proceed, HC Deb (1987-88) 122, c 1233. Queen's consent to the Local Government Bill was not signified on third reading in the Commons but was signified in the Lords and subsequently in the Commons on consideration of Lords amendments, CJ (2002–03) 596. 4. For examples of occasions in the past when the Government has declined to advise the Sovereign to give consent to bills to which it was opposed, see Erskine May (22nd edn, 1997), p 605. 5. HC Deb (1966–67) 743, c 891. 6. See Lord Hailsham's statement on Life Peerages Bill [Lords] 1935, HL Deb (1935) 96, c 34; see also ibid (1911) 7, c 773, and Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), p 563, fn 4.

Messages under the sign manual, etc 9.8The forms observed on the meeting and prorogation of Parliament, the proceedings connected with the Address in answer to the royal speech (see paras 8.37 –8.38 ), and the Royal Assent to bills (see paras 30.36 –30.40 ) are described elsewhere. Messages under the royal sign manual are generally acknowledged by Addresses in both Houses, which are presented from the Lords by certain designated Members, by Members who are members of the royal household, or by Privy Counsellors; and from the Commons by Privy Counsellors, or members of the royal household, in the same manner as Addresses in answer to royal speeches at the opening of Parliament (see paras 8.37 –8.38 ).1 In the Commons, however, it is not always necessary to reply to messages under the sign manual seeking pecuniary aid by Address, as a prompt provision made by that House (see paras 34.24, 34.42 ) is itself a sufficient acknowledgement of royal communications for pecuniary aid.2 Orders for taking a Message into consideration, and for resuming an adjourned debate on a motion for an Address in answer to a Message, have been discharged.

Footnotes 1. CJ (1854) 169; Parl Deb (1854) 132, c 308. 2. In 1931 the reply of the House of Commons to a message under the sign manual expressing the need for additional taxation was to set up the Committee of Ways and Means, CJ (1930–31) 407.

On royal pleasure, recommendation and consent being signified 9.9The matters upon which the royal pleasure is usually signified need no Address in answer, as immediate compliance is given by the House; and the recommendation and consent of the Crown, as already explained, are signified only as introductory to proceedings in Parliament, or essential to their progress.

Addresses to the Crown Contents Subjects of Addresses 9.10An Address to Her Majesty1 is the form ordinarily employed by both Houses of Parliament for making their desires and opinions known to the Crown as well as for the purpose of acknowledging communications proceeding from the Crown.2 In the House of Commons the procedure upon a motion for an Address is the same as upon an ordinary substantive motion. It requires notice and can be debated, amended and divided upon. Usually, the motion for an Address is made in the form ‘That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty to …’ and the necessary prefatory words3 are inserted when the actual copy of the Address is prepared. An amendment to leave out the word ‘humble’ is not in order.4 In both Houses Addresses or resolutions are ordered to be presented by the whole House5 or by Privy Counsellors,6 or members of the royal household,7 or, in some cases, by Members specially nominated.8

Footnotes 1. Addresses have also been made to Their Majesties, CJ (1918) 150; ibid (1947–48) 246. 2. The last joint Address was in 1906, CJ (1906) 311. For details of their preparation and presentation, see Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), pp 565–66 and 567–68. 3. ‘Most Gracious Sovereign, We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, humbly pray Your Majesty’. 4. HC Deb (1918) 103, c 112. 5. CJ (1857–58) 31; ibid (1861) 16; LJ (1897) 255; CJ (1918) 250; ibid (1944–45) 128; ibid (1945–46) 18; ibid (1994–95) 294. See also ibid (1950) 241 and ibid (1964–65) 309, 317, 319 for occasions on which the House of Commons was accompanied in the presentation of an Address by invited representatives of Commonwealth Parliaments. 6. LJ (1948–49) 20; CJ (1995–96) 18, 85. 7. CJ (1904) 226; ibid (1999–2000) 21, 494, 570; ibid (2000–01) 19; ibid (2007–08) 19; ibid (2009–10) 25. 8. CJ (1688–93) 295; ibid (1812) 391 (after motion for presentation by whole House withdrawn, and for presentation by Privy Counsellors negatived); LJ (1947–48) 224; ibid (1972–73) 33; CJ (1989–90) 547.

Subjects of Addresses 9.11Addresses have comprised matters of foreign1 or domestic policy;2 the administration of justice;3 the expression of congratulation or condolence (which is agreed to nemine contradicente by the Commons and nemine dissentiente by the Lords);4 public appointments;5 and, in short, representations upon all points connected with the government and welfare of the country; but they ought not to be presented in relation to any bill in either House of Parliament.6 Addresses have been presented praying that Her Majesty will give directions for the presentation, on behalf of the House of Commons, of gifts such as ceremonial maces or parliamentary libraries to legislatures of new Member States of the Commonwealth.7 Addresses are regularly moved as ‘prayers’ in the exercise of powers to seek to annul or revoke orders or regulations made by the Privy Council, Ministers or other authorities (see para 31.8 ). A motion for the return of papers held by the Privy Council or a department headed by a Secretary of State takes the form of an Address (see para 7.31 ). An Address may be moved by any Member of either House.8

Footnotes 1. CJ (1823) 278; ibid (1826–28) 114; ibid (1833) 471; assassination of President Lincoln, ibid (1865) 229; invasion of Belgium, 1914, LJ (1914) 402; CJ (1914) 449. 2. CJ (1830) 472, 651; appointment of a royal commission with power to examine witnesses on oath, ibid (1888) 46 (as to the administration of an oath by a royal commission, see 2 Todd 99; Parl Deb (1905) 147, c 1341, and by a tribunal of inquiry appointed at the instance of both Houses of Parliament, see Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921; CJ (1921) 55; LJ (1922) 46; CJ (1922) 27); reference of questions of law relating to the alleged disqualification of a Member to the judicial committee of the Privy Council, ibid (1912–13) 519. 3. CJ (1830) 472 (an Address to remove a judge from office). 4. On the birth of royal children, see eg LJ (1948–49) 20; ibid (1959–60) 131; ibid (2013-14) 385; CJ (1981–82) 426. On the deaths of sovereigns and on succession to the throne, LJ (1901) 8; CJ (1901) 6; LJ (1951–52) 85; CJ (1951–52) 93. On succession to the throne, LJ (1936–37) 63; CJ (1936–37) 60. On the deaths of members of the royal family, see eg LJ (1951–52) 85; CJ (1951–52) 93; LJ (1952–53) 134; CJ (1952–53) 158; LJ (1964–65) 229; CJ (1964–65) 200; LJ (2001–02) 463; ibid (2001–02) 596–99; CJ (2001–02) 445, when the House observed a minute's silence. On royal marriages, LJ (1893–94) 325; CJ (1893–94) 434; ibid (1980–81) 450. On royal anniversaries, LJ (1897) 255; CJ (1976–77) 284; ibid (2001–02) 509; ibid (2010–12) 1204. On notable birthdays of the sovereign, CJ (2005–06) 570; LJ (2005–06) 749; Lords Minutes of Proceedings, 21 April 2016; Votes and Proceedings, 21 April 2016. On notable birthdays of the Queen Mother, Prince Consort and Prince of Wales, see eg LJ (1979–80) 1360; CJ (1979–80) 754; LJ (1989–90) 583; CJ (1989–90) 546; LJ (1999–2000) 584; CJ (1999–2000) 494; LJ (2010–12) 1180; CJ (2010–12) 685; Votes and Proceedings, 14 November 2018; Lords Minutes of Proceedings (2017–19), 14 November 2018. On the deaths of foreign royal personages or heads of State, see eg LJ (1914) 247; CJ (1914) 303; LJ (1963–64) 28; CJ (1963–64) 22. In respect of other public events: conclusion of the armistice, LJ (1918) 291; CJ (1918) 250; victory in Europe, LJ (1944–45) 114; CJ (1944–45) 128; victorious conclusion of the war, LJ (1945–46) 31; CJ (1945–46) 17; departure of Queen Elizabeth on Commonwealth tour and return, LJ (1953–54) 19, 187; CJ (1953–54) 26, 204; LJ (1961–62) 50; death of Sir W Churchill, CJ (1964–65) 110. The sympathy of the legislature on the occasion of royal deaths has been expressed in the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech, LJ (1862–63) 6; CJ (1862) 7; LJ (1892) 7; CJ (1892) 10; LJ (1896) 16; CJ (1896) 13. For fuller references, see Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), p 567. 5. A motion for an Address to make a public appointment has been disagreed on division, Votes and Proceedings, 23 January 2018. 6. LJ (1666–75) 72, 81, 88; CJ (1660–67) 67; 1 Grey Deb 5. For the application of this rule to legislation by the Tynwald, see HC Deb (1959–60) 620, c 678. 7. See eg CJ (1987–88) 253. An Address to Her Majesty from a recipient legislature relating to such a gift has been ordered to be entered in the Journal of the House of Commons, ibid (1967–68) 396. 8. See for example Votes and Proceedings, 24 January 2018.

Mode of presentation of Addresses Contents Addresses made in the Sovereign's absence 9.12When Addresses are ordered to be presented by particular Members, whether Privy Counsellors, members of the royal household or Members individually nominated to carry the Address, the Members concerned attend at the palace at a time appointed.1 Joint Addresses or Addresses by either House as a whole were formerly also so presented, but it is now common procedure for the Sovereign to appoint the Palace of Westminster itself as the place in which the House should attend.2 In November 1918, the King appointed the Royal Gallery of the Palace of Westminster as the place in which he would be attended with the Addresses of both Houses with regard to the armistice with Germany. The Houses proceeded there at the appointed time and awaited the arrival of His Majesty, who after the Addresses had been presented in the usual manner made a speech in answer.3 The same procedure was followed in May and August 1945 in answering Addresses regarding the victory in Europe and the victorious conclusion of the Second World War, and for Addresses marking the fiftieth anniversary of that War's conclusion.4 A similar procedure was followed in 1950, on the opening of the new House of Commons, when arrangements were made for the House of Commons to be accompanied while presenting the Address by the Speakers or other Presiding Officers of the lower Houses of the Legislatures of Commonwealth countries, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, and of certain colonial legislatures.5 On the occasion of the seven hundredth anniversary of Simon de Montfort's Parliament, the House of Commons sought and obtained Her Majesty's leave to present her with an Address in reply to a reference to the anniversary in the Gracious Speech, accompanied by invited representatives of Commonwealth parliaments.6 In 1988, a similar ceremony was held to mark the Revolution of 1688–89 and the Bill of Rights and the Claim of Right.7 In 2002 and 2012, Addresses on the occasions of the fiftieth and sixtieth anniversaries of Her Majesty's accession to the throne were presented in Westminster Hall.8 When the Speaker or Lord Speaker has read the Address, they present it to Her Majesty upon one knee.

Footnotes 1. Members of both Houses may attend Her Majesty in their ordinary attire, although they have not in the past been permitted to enter the royal presence with sticks or umbrellas, see 2 Hatsell 390 n; Colchester iii, 604–7. 2. For details, see Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), pp 567–68. See CJ (2001–02) 509 for an example of an Address from the whole House without a further message to ask when and where the House should attend. 3. LJ (1918) 291, 293; CJ (1918) 251; HL Deb (1918) 32, cc 167, 199; HC Deb (1918) 110, c 3239. 4. LJ (1944–45) 119; CJ (1944–45) 131, 132; LJ (1945–46) 32, 38; CJ (1945–46) 24, 26; ibid (1994–95) 294, 311, 320–322; LJ (1994–95) 355–56, 380, 387. 5. CJ (1950) 241, 244; HC Deb (1950) 475, cc 2240–41; ibid 478, cc 2703–10, 2793–94, 2929–37. 6. CJ (1964–65) 309, 317, 319. On the occasion of the Silver Jubilee of King George V, each House resolved to present an Address of congratulation, the terms of which were conveyed in speeches made by the Speakers of each House to His Majesty in Westminster Hall, the Speakers' words being afterwards entered in the Journals, LJ (1934–35) 161, 163–164; CJ (1934–35) 190, 191. 7. LJ (1987–88) 763, 809; CJ (1987–88) 639, 677. 8. CJ (2001–02) 521–2; ibid (2010–12) 1204; LJ (2010–12) 2208.

Addresses made in the Sovereign's absence 9.13When in the temporary absence of the Sovereign certain royal functions are by letters patent delegated to Counsellors of State, Addresses from the House of Commons to the Sovereign are presented to and the replies made by the Counsellors of State on her behalf.1

Footnotes 1. CJ (1946–47) 92, 161; ibid (1953–54) 40; ibid (1962–63) 103, etc.

Answers to Addresses 9.14When Addresses have been presented by the whole House, the Speaker in one House, and the Lord Speaker in the other, report the answer of Her Majesty; but when they have been presented in the ordinary way, the answer is reported, in the Commons, by a Member who holds an office as one of the royal household, usually the Vice-Chamberlain, who appears at the Bar and, on being called by the Speaker, reads Her Majesty's answer; and in the Lords, generally by the Lord Chamberlain or another member of the royal household.1

Footnotes 1. The proceedings of the House have sometimes been interrupted to receive the Sovereign's answer, CJ (1852–53) 438; ibid (1878–79) 23. On 19 November 1914, the King's answer was reported by a Privy Counsellor who appeared at the Bar in uniform, ibid (1914–16) 15.

Communications with the royal family 9.15It is to the reigning Sovereign, or Regent, alone that Addresses are presented by Parliament; but messages have frequently been sent by both Houses to members of the royal family, to congratulate them upon their marriage or other auspicious events;1 or to offer condolences on family bereavements.2 Resolutions have also been ordered to be laid before members of the royal family. Certain Members are nominated by the House to present the messages or resolutions, one of whom afterwards acquaints the House (in the Commons, at the Bar and, in the Lords, from the government front bench) with the answers which were returned.3 The Speaker has communicated an answer from the Chair.4

Footnotes 1. LJ (1794–96) 584; ibid (1840) 53; ibid (1842) 6; CJ (1818) 424; ibid (1840) 88; ibid (1893–94) 434; ibid (1979–80) 754; ibid (1989–90) 546–47; ibid (1999–2000) 494; ibid (2013–14) 261. Communications to both Houses have also been made by members of the royal family, ibid (1802–03) 211; ibid (1809) 86; ibid (1812–13) 253; ibid (1813–14) 324, 438; ibid (1819–20) 288; LJ (2010–12) 1180; CJ (2010–12) 685. 2. LJ (1820) 367; CJ (1819–20) 480; to the Duchess of Kent, ibid (1941–42) 164, to the Queen Mother, and Queen Mary, ibid (1951–52) 93. 3. LJ (1820) 369; ibid (1840) 53; ibid (1910–11) 144; CJ (1840) 95; ibid (1917–18) 48; ibid (1941–42) 167; ibid (1951–52) 94. In the case of the messages of condolence to the German Empress in 1888 and to the Duchess of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Duchess of Edinburgh, in 1900, the Speaker was directed to communicate the messages to Her Majesty's Ministers resident at their courts for presentation, CJ (1888) 293; LJ (1900) 398; CJ (1900) 380. A member of the royal household reported a reply by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to a message from the Commons congratulating them on the birth of Prince George, CJ (2013–14) 327. 4. CJ (1989–90) 565; ibid (1999–2000) 523.

Communications between the Lords and the Commons Contents Messages 9.16The modes of formal communication between the two Houses are: by message; by joint committees; and by select committees of both Houses communicating with each other (see paras 38.1 and 40.15 ). A further mode, that of a conference between the Houses, is now obsolete since its main function, that of providing an occasion for communicating reasons for disagreement to amendments to bills, has been taken over by the modern practice of sending messages.1 Only communication by message is considered in this section, as communication by joint committees and by select committees communicating with each other are more conveniently dealt with in the chapters on committees (Chapters 38, 40 and 41).

Footnotes 1. The last free conference (at which discussion was permitted) was in 1836, and its immediate predecessor in 1740. The last ordinary conference, when written communications were handed over without debate, was in 1860.

Messages 9.17A message is the most simple mode of communication. It is frequently used, for sending bills from one House to another, for the interchange of reports and other documents and for communicating about joint committees or private bills. Messages are carried from one House to the other by one of the Clerks of the House which sends the message.1 The receipt of a message does not interrupt the business then proceeding,2 but a message cannot be received by either House if it is in division. In the Commons, the receipt of a message from the Lords is recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and the Journal, and any action required to be taken is normally set down for a subsequent day. Notice is generally given of the proceedings to be taken. If the matter of the Lords' message concerns a bill, the House makes the necessary orders by book entry. In the case of a bill, these are, that it be read a first time3 and ordered to be read a second time on a named day; in the case of Lords amendments that the amendments be considered on a named day; and in both cases that the bill or amendments be printed. The subsequent proceedings are then set down as an order of the day (see paras 19.31 –19.33 ). Proceedings on other matters are set down as notices of motion. The Commons may proceed upon a Lords' message on the day of its reception in pursuit of a programme or other similar order (see para 30.6 ). Alternatively, the Speaker may inform the House between the orders of the day (or may even interrupt the business under discussion) of the receipt of a message from the Lords. The House may then order the Lords' message to be read and considered forthwith (see para 30.6 ). The House has resolved that it would not adjourn on a particular day until any Lords message received on that day either in general terms or on a specified bill had been dealt with.4 In the Lords a message from the Commons is recorded in the Minutes of Proceedings and the Journal. The message may, if desired, be received forthwith without notice (Standing Order No 41). A message that the Commons have passed a bill may be read by the Clerk at any convenient time, and the bill is subsequently read a first time (see para 29.7 ).5 When a message is sent that does not cause a bill to be printed, such as a message that a bill has been agreed to without amendment or a message relating to a joint committee, the message is sent while both Houses are sitting.6 If, however, a message would cause a bill to be printed, and the receiving House is not sitting, the message is carried directly to the Public Bill Office of that House rather than being taken to the Table, and the bill is printed under the relevant Standing Order.7 The bill as printed in the receiving House records the day on which the message was actually received, and records that it is printed under the relevant Standing Order.

Footnotes 1. LJ (1854–55) 159; CJ (1854–55) 254. But in 1950 the leaders of the three political parties in the Commons, the Leader of that House, and the Father of the House delivered to the Lord Chancellor at the bar of the House of Lords a message from the Commons thanking the Lords for placing their Chamber at the disposal of the Commons from 1941 to 1950. The message was considered forthwith and the reply handed by the Lord Chancellor to the bearers of the Commons message, who had remained in attendance; HC Deb (1950) 478, c 2716; HL Deb (1950) 168, cc 1289–91. 2. In the past business has on occasion been interrupted by the receipt of a message, see CJ (1854–55) 254; ibid (1871) 57. 3. A bill sent from the Lords can be read the first time only if a Member has indicated an intention to take it up (see para 28.11 ). 4. For example, Votes and Proceedings, 24 April 2017. For a Business of the House order with a similar effect in respect of an unspecified future day, see Votes and Proceedings, 3 April 2019. 5. See SO No 42(3). 6. On 18 April 2017, the Commons received from the Lords a message relating to a joint committee, even though the Lords were not sitting. 7. Commons SO No 57A; Lords SO No 50. The relevant Standing Order is cited in the record of the order to print: see Votes and Proceedings, 18 April 2017; Lords Minutes of Proceedings, 25 April 2017.

Introduction to Parliament and international assemblies 10.1The United Kingdom Parliament sends delegations of Members of both Houses to a number of international parliamentary assemblies. Staff of both Houses have regularly provided professional support for the plenary meetings of the assemblies. There are also international parliamentary organisations of which Parliament, either directly or through a group or branch, is a member. The UK delegations to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly are supported by a small team of House of Commons staff. The work of the UK branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the British Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly is supported by grants from the two Houses.

The Council of Europe 10.2The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is the parliamentary organ of the Council of Europe, an organisation formed in 1949. From ten original signatories, its membership now comprises 47 Member States.1 Its aims are the maintenance and further realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms and the facilitation of economic and social progress by discussion of questions of common concern and by agreements and common action in economic, social, cultural, scientific, legal and administrative matters. Member States are expected to accept the principles of the rule of law and of the enjoyment by all persons within their jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms and to collaborate sincerely and effectively in realising the aims of the organisation. Member States are parties to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, better known as the ‘European Convention on Human Rights’, and are bound by decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. The statutory organs of the Council of Europe are the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly.2 The Committee of Ministers is composed of Ministers for Foreign Affairs from each Member State or their Deputies, who are usually the Permanent Representatives to the Council of Europe of governments of Member States. It carries out executive functions, including the conclusion of conventions or agreements and the adoption by governments of a common policy with regard to particular matters. These conventions include the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which came into force in 1953 and which represents a collective guarantee of certain human rights principles supported by the European Court of Human Rights and the European Commission of Human Rights. The European Convention on Human Rights was incorporated into United Kingdom law under the Human Rights Act 1998. For information on the work of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, see paras 41.11. The Assembly meets in full plenary session four times a year in the Palais de l'Europe in Strasbourg. Its committees and sub-committees meet in Strasbourg and elsewhere, including on occasion in the UK.3

Footnotes 1. The original signatories of the Statute of the Council of Europe, which was signed in London in May 1949, were the five signatories of the Brussels Treaty (Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Netherlands and the United Kingdom), Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Norway and Sweden. The other Member States with their years of accession in parentheses are: Greece, Turkey (1949/50); Iceland (1950); the Federal Republic of Germany (1951); Austria (1956); Cyprus (1961); Switzerland (1963); Malta (1965); Portugal (1976); Spain (1977); Liechtenstein (1978); San Marino (1988); Finland (1989); Hungary (1990); Czechoslovakia, Poland (1991); Bulgaria (1992); Estonia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Romania (1993); Andorra (1994); Latvia, Moldova, Albania, Ukraine, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (now the Republic of North Macedonia) (1995); Russia; Croatia (1996); Georgia (1999); Armenia, Azerbaijan (2001); Bosnia and Herzegovina (2002); Serbia and Montenegro (2003); Monaco (2004). Greece withdrew from the Council of Europe on 31 December 1970, but became a member again in 1974. The Czech and Slovak Federal Republic (Czechoslovakia) was dissolved on 31 December 1992 and Czechoslovakia ceased to be a Member State. The Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic were both admitted as Member States in 1993. The Parliaments of Canada, Israel and Mexico have Observer status and the Parliaments of Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Morocco and Palestine have Partner for Democracy Status. The Belarusian Parliament's Special Guest status was suspended in 1997. See www.assembly.coe.int. 2. In the Statute of the Council of Europe, the Parliamentary Assembly is referred to as the Consultative Assembly. In July 1974 the Standing Committee of the Assembly decided that the name ‘Parliamentary Assembly’ should be used in place of ‘Consultative Assembly’ since it reflected more accurately the role and composition of the Assembly. In February 1994 the Committee of Ministers decided to use in future the denomination ‘Parliamentary Assembly’ in all Council of Europe documents in conformity with the practice previously followed in statutory resolutions and in a certain number of conventions and recommendations adopted by the Committee of Ministers. 3. For example, the joint meeting of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, Sub-Committee on Refugee and Migrant Children and Young People, and the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, Sub-Committee on Culture, Diversity and Heritage at Westminster on 26 March 2018.

Representation and credentials 10.3The Statute of the Council of Europe provides that the Assembly shall consist of Representatives of each Member State elected by its Parliament from among its Members or appointed from among the Members of that Parliament in such manner as it shall decide.1 A Representative who is prevented from attending a sitting of the Assembly may be replaced by a Substitute of the same nationality. Thus for each Delegation there is an equal number of Representatives and Substitutes. In January 2018 the total number of members of the Assembly was 648, plus 12 observers and 15 representatives of Parliaments with Partner for Democracy status. In the absence of a Representative, a Substitute may sit, speak and vote in the Representative's place and enjoy the same rights in the Assembly. Substitutes may be full members of committees. The credentials of each Delegation are ratified by the Assembly following its appointment; thereafter, the credentials of Delegations are presented annually to the Assembly for ratification. The composition of the United Kingdom Delegation, which contains Members of both Houses, broadly reflects the balance of parties in the House of Commons. The names of the Delegation are announced by the Prime Minister, normally in a written ministerial statement, after consultation with the political parties.2 This list of names is then transmitted by the Speaker to the Assembly.3 The composition of the Delegation is altered by the same means when necessary.4 It is usual for the party composition of the United Kingdom Delegation to be changed and a new Delegation Leader nominated on a change of Government.5 Following controversy over the omission of several long-serving Members from the Delegation, the House debated the procedure for appointing the UK delegation on 16 November 20156 and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee published reports on the issue in 2016.7 The procedure remained unchanged.

Footnotes 1. Subject to the right of each member government to make any additional appointments necessary when Parliament is not in session and has not laid down the procedures to be followed in that case, see article 25. 2. For example, HC Deb (2002–3) 396, c 24WS; ibid (2005–06) 436, c 2225W; ibid (10 November 2010) 518, c 18WS; ibid (3 November 2015) 601, c 23WS; ibid (14 November 2017) 631, c 8WS. 3. For example, HC Deb (3 November 2015) 601, cc 893–94; (4 November 2015) 601, c 994; (24 October 2016) 616, c 71. 4. For example, HC Deb (13 January 2016) 604, c 22WS. 5. For example, HC Deb (1979–80) 968, cc 381–82W; ibid (1997–98) 299, c 494W; ibid (10 November 2010) 518, c 18WS. Both Houses have adopted resolutions confirming the existing procedure for the nomination of the delegation, LJ (1992–93) 112; HL Deb (1992–93) 538, cc 288–90; CJ (1992–93) 54. 6. HC Deb (16 November 2015) 602, cc 408–27. 7. Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Second Report, Session 2015–16, Appointment of the UK's delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, HC (2015–16) 658; and Ninth Report, Session 2015–16, Democracy Denied: Appointment of the UK's delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe: Government Response to the Committee's Second Report of Session 2015–16, HC (2015–16) 962.

The NATO Parliamentary Assembly Contents Membership 10.4Members of both Houses have attended meetings of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly1 since its inception in 1955. The NATO Parliamentary Assembly, unlike the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, has no statutory basis as the official consultative organ of the related inter-governmental organisation, although links with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have been strengthened and the North Atlantic Council (the principal decision-making body of NATO) examines and comments on the recommendations and resolutions of the Assembly. The Assembly aims to provide a link between the NATO authorities and national Parliaments and to promote a common feeling of Atlantic solidarity in the various legislative assemblies and to further the aims of the Atlantic Alliance. The Assembly holds two sessions each year, in spring and autumn, hosted by Member States, and its permanent headquarters is in Brussels.2

Footnotes 1. Until 1966 it was known as the Assembly of NATO Parliamentarians and until 1999 as the North Atlantic Assembly. 2. See www.natopa.int.

Speakers' Conferences on Electoral Law 4.30The Speaker has also presided over the Conferences on Electoral Law following an invitation from the Prime Minister to do so. Such Conferences have examined various matters of electoral law. The Speaker has formally appointed the members of the Conference on receipt of party nominations. Conferences have been served by a joint secretariat from the House of Commons and the Civil Service.1 In the past, they did not enjoy the powers and privileges of select committees. They sat in private and did not publish their proceedings. The most recent conference, however, the Speaker's Conference on Parliamentary Representation, was established in November 2008 as a select committee by resolution of the House. It heard evidence in public and published its proceedings. It published its final report in January 2010 (see para 38.85 ).

Footnotes 1. For Speakers' Conferences set up in 1972 and 1977, see HC Deb (2 August 1972) 842, cc 560–61; ibid (24 July 1973) 860, cc 1412–14; ibid (13 January 1977) 923, c 540W; ibid (30 June 1977) 934, c 642; ibid (19 July 1977) 935, cc 1379–80.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Contents Membership 10.6The Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) has its origins in a part of a declaration by Heads of State and Government of the then Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) adopted in November 1990 in Paris: ‘Recognizing the important role parliamentarians can play in the CSCE process, we call for greater parliamentary involvement in the CSCE, in particular through the creation of a CSCE parliamentary assembly, involving members of parliaments from all participating States.1 In April 1991, parliamentarians from all CSCE participating States agreed the basic principles of procedure, working methods and distribution of seats for the Assembly. The Assembly's inaugural annual session was held in Budapest in July 1992 when Rules of Procedure were agreed. The Assembly changed its name to the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE following the Summit of Heads of State and Government of the CSCE in December 1995 which established the current permanent organs of the OSCE. The aims of the Assembly are to contribute to the development of OSCE institutions and the implementation of OSCE objectives and to support the strengthening and consolidation of democratic institutions in the OSCE participating States. The Assembly holds three meetings each year. The winter meeting is held in Vienna; the main Annual Session and the autumn meeting are hosted by member states. The Secretariat of the Assembly is based in Copenhagen.2

Footnotes 1. Charter for A New Europe Cm 1464, p 10. 2. See www.oscepa.org.

Membership 10.7The Assembly is composed of 323 delegates distributed proportionally from among the Parliaments of the 56 OSCE participating States. The United Kingdom Delegation, which contains Members of both Houses, has 13 full members as well as substitutes who may attend annual sessions in place of full members. The Delegation is appointed in a written ministerial statement by the Prime Minister.1

Footnotes 1. For example, HC Deb (20 December 2017), 633 c 63WS. See ibid (2001–02) 379, cc 1193–94W and ibid (2005–06) 436, c 2225W, for examples of announcements in the form of a reply to a question for written answer tabled to the Prime Minister.

The Assembly of Western European Union 10.8Following the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon at the end of 2009, the European Union Member States announced on 31 March 2010 their intention to terminate the modified Brussels Treaty of 1954 under which the Assembly of Western European Union was established and thus bring the Assembly to an end.1 The final meeting of the Assembly was held in May 2011. Much of the work of the Assembly has been taken forward by the Inter-parliamentary conference for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), an inter-parliamentary platform for debate on EU actions in the areas of foreign, security and defence policies. This meets twice a year as part of the parliamentary dimension of each Presidency of the Council of the European Union.

Footnotes 1. See www.weu.int/.

The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association 10.9The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) is a charity registered under the laws of the United Kingdom. Its stated purpose is to promote knowledge and understanding of the constitutional, legislative, economic, social and cultural systems within a parliamentary democratic framework. It provides the means of regular consultation among Members of Commonwealth Parliaments; fosters co-operation and understanding among them; and promotes the study of and respect for Parliament. The CPA's main activities comprise an annual Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, from which the main views expressed are summarised and sent to Members, Commonwealth governments and international agencies; regional conferences; programmes focused on parliamentary development and strengthening; and inter-parliamentary visits. The CPA also publishes a journal, The Parliamentarian, the journal of Commonwealth Parliaments. The CPA was founded in 1911 as the Empire Parliamentary Association, and its affairs were administered by the United Kingdom branch. Evolving with the Commonwealth, the CPA adopted its present name in 1948, and established a separate Secretariat to manage its affairs. The CPA is composed of autonomous branches formed in legislatures in Commonwealth countries which subscribe to parliamentary democracy. Both national and state or provincial Parliaments, as well as the legislatures of dependent territories, may be members.1 Association branches now exist in over 180 national, state, provincial and territorial Parliaments, with a total membership of over 17,000 parliamentarians. The General Assembly of the CPA is the Association's supreme authority and is constituted by delegates to the annual Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference. The Constitution vests in an Executive Committee the control and management of the activities and business of the CPA. This Committee consists of 35 members, comprising the Officers of the Association (including the Chairperson of the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians and the Chairperson of Small Branches) and regional representatives from each region of the Commonwealth.2 The Secretariat of the CPA is located in London in premises provided by the House of Commons. A small staff is headed by the SecretaryGeneral, the Association's chief executive officer. The CPA is financed mainly by membership fees paid annually by branches, as well as income from investment funds and other sources. The activities of the United Kingdom branch are overseen by a Committee drawn from Members of both Houses of Parliament.3 The Society of Clerks-at-the-Table of Commonwealth Parliaments (SOCATT) brings together Clerks and some other senior officials of Commonwealth legislatures. The Society usually meets during the CPA's annual Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, although it has held a free-standing meeting, and publishes an annual journal, The Table. Under the rules of SOCATT, the Principal Clerk of the House of Commons Overseas Office is ex officio the secretary of the Society.4

Footnotes 1. In the United Kingdom, the Scottish Parliament and the devolved assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland, and the Crown Dependencies, are members. 2. See www.cpahq.org. 3. See www.uk-cpa.org. 4. See www.societyofclerks.org.

The Inter-Parliamentary Union 10.10The Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), which was established in 1889, brings together parliamentary representatives of some 178 sovereign States. Its stated purpose is to work for peace and co-operation among all peoples and for the firm establishment of representative institutions. The IPU is composed of national parliaments or groups representing their national parliaments. The IPU's twice-yearly Assembly convenes a standing body of the world's parliamentarians to engage in debate on issues on the international agenda. The Assembly is the IPU's main political body, debating and adopting resolutions to promote parliamentary action on global issues with a specific focus on peace and security, democracy and human rights and sustainable development. These Assemblies usually alternate each year between Geneva, where the IPU has a permanent Secretariat, and a host member parliament. The IPU's principal administrative and policy-making body is the Governing Council, which meets at each Assembly. The Governing Council is made up of three MPs from each Member Parliament. Such delegations must include both men and women. Single-sex delegations are limited to two MPs. The Governing Council decides on membership issues, oversees the IPU budget and approves its work programme. It also elects the IPU President and Secretary General and decides on the mandate and composition of committees, working groups and ad hoc bodies and sets the timing and venue of IPU Assemblies and other events. Representatives of international organisations may be invited to follow the Council's work as observers. The IPU's Executive Committee oversees the organisation's administration and makes recommendations to the Governing Council on various matters, including on membership issues. The Committee sets and oversees the IPU's annual work programme and budget. It meets at least twice a year in association with Assemblies but can also hold extraordinary sessions if required. It is made up of the IPU President, 15 elected members from six different geopolitical groups, the President of the Bureau of Women Parliamentarians and the President of the Board of the Forum of Young Parliamentarians. No fewer than 12 members of the Executive Committee must be elected from among members of the Governing Council and each sex must be represented by no less than one-third of the elected members.1 The UK Parliament's membership of the IPU is exercised through the British Group of the IPU (BGIPU) which (with French counterparts) was one of the two founding members of the IPU. BGIPU's activities are funded jointly by both Houses of Parliament and overseen by an Executive Committee comprised of backbench Members elected by colleagues from both Houses of Parliament.2 The Association of Secretaries General of Parliaments (ASGP) is a consultative body of the IPU. It meets twice a year at the same time as the IPU Assembly. It seeks to facilitate personal contact between holders of the office of Secretary General in any Parliamentary Assembly, whether or not a member of the IPU. The ASGP publishes a review, Constitutional and Parliamentary Information, twice a year.3

Footnotes 1. See www.ipu.org. 2. See www.bgipu.org. 3. See www.asgp.co.

The British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly 10.11The British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Assembly was first established as the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body in February 1990 with the consent and co-operation of the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, and at the request of Members of both Parliaments. Originally, the Body was established to bring together Members of the two sovereign Parliaments on a regular basis to participate jointly in parliamentary activities of a non-legislative character. However, at the meeting of the plenary in February 2001, the membership of the Body was expanded to include representatives of the National Assembly for Wales, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the legislatures of the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey, in order that the Body could develop as an inter-parliamentary tier of the British-Irish Council established under the Belfast Agreement concluded between the British and Irish governments in 1998. In 2008 the body changed its name to the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. The Assembly consists of a maximum of 25 members from each sovereign Parliament, five members each of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament and one from each of the High Court of Tynwald, States of Jersey and States of Guernsey, together with a number of associate members who may replace members unable to attend. Plenary sessions are held twice each year, alternating between Ireland and the United Kingdom, at which members discuss reports from committees, the formal replies of administrations, and motions. There are also regular addresses from, and opportunities for questions to, Ministers from the Governments of Ireland and the United Kingdom, and from other non-governmental interlocutors.1 In addition to a Steering Committee,2 the Assembly may appoint up to six standing committees at any one time. There are currently four such committees: Committee A (the Committee on Sovereign Matters), on political and security issues and other matters that fall within the competence of the two sovereign governments; Committee B, on European and international affairs; Committee C, on economic and social matters; and Committee D, on education, culture and the environment. Each consists of six members from each sovereign Parliament and (in the case of Committees B, C, and D) up to six members on each committee from the other bodies represented. The committees meet regularly between plenary sessions and may hold hearings at any location (with the consent of the Steering Committee in the case of travel outside the two jurisdictions). The Assembly has a small independent secretariat, and its work is supported by staff drawn from the House of Commons and the House of Lords, as well as from the Oireachtas.

Footnotes 1. See www.britishirish.org. 2. The members of the Steering Committee are the two Co-Chairmen and in each case their two Vice-Chairmen and three other members elected by the members of the Assembly representing the non-sovereign administrations.

Introduction to the power and jurisdiction of Parliament 11.1Parliament is composed of the Sovereign, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. This chapter gives an overview of the powers of Parliament and of each House in particular, of the limitations set on those powers and in each case the scope of the jurisdiction. Those powers can be briefly described as: (for the Commons in particular) the power to control taxation and expenditure and to authorise numbers for defence services; the power to legislate; powers to enforce the authority of each House (penal jurisdiction); and power to control their own precincts and proceedings, and power to control aspects of their own membership (exclusive cognizance). Many of these powers stem from parliamentary privilege, which is discussed further in later chapters.

Extent of the prerogative of the Crown in reference to Parliament 11.2The Crown's prerogative in summoning and proroguing Parliament is considered in Chapter 8 (paras 8.3 –8.11 ).1

Footnotes 1. Under the provisions of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, the Crown prerogative to dissolve Parliament was replaced by a statutory process.

Principal power of the Commons 11.3The dominant influence enjoyed by the House of Commons within Parliament may be ascribed principally to its status as an elected assembly, the Members of which serve as the chosen representatives of the people. As such, the House of Commons possesses the most important power vested in any branch of the legislature, the right of imposing taxes upon the people and of voting money for the public service. The exercise of this right ensures the annual meeting of Parliament for redress of grievances, and it may also be said to give to the Commons the chief authority in the State. As part of the annual process of authorising money for the public service, the House also sets the maximum numbers of the defence services. The financial powers and privileges of the Commons are described more fully in Chapters 33–37.

Rights and functions of the House of Lords Contents Judicial function of the House of Lords 11.4The House of Lords, as the unelected chamber, recognises the primacy of the House of Commons. It does, however, retain substantial powers, particularly over legislation (see Part 4). The House uses its powers to legislate and to scrutinise primary and secondary legislation, to hold the Government to account, to investigate matters of public policy, and to exercise a residual judicial function.

Judicial function of the House of Lords Contents Peerage claims 11.5Since the establishment of the Supreme Court,1 the sole remaining judicial function of the House of Lords is in respect of peerage claims. In discharging its role in determining peerage claims, the House remains responsible, in certain circumstances, for determining individuals' rights and liabilities under the law.2 The House's jurisdiction in impeachments by the Commons has fallen into disuse.3

Footnotes 1. Constitutional Reform Act 2005, s 24. For a history of Appellate Jurisdiction, see Erskine May (23rd edn, 2004), pp 69–73. 2. Lords Procedure Committee, First Report of Session 2009–10, Oral questions to Secretaries of State, Committee for Privileges, and Standing Order 78 Personal Bills Committee, HL 13. 3. For impeachment by the Commons, see Erskine May (19th edn, 1976), pp 65–66.

Peerage claims 11.6Jurisdiction to determine a claim to a dignity resides only with the Crown.1 The Lord Chancellor, on behalf of the Crown, maintains a Roll of the Peerage, which is the official register in which those inheriting peerages seek inclusion as evidence of their dignity and rank.2 Any person succeeding to or claiming a peerage should apply to the Lord Chancellor, through the Crown Office, for inclusion in the Roll. If the applicant does not wish to be included in the register of hereditary peers wishing to stand in by-elections (see para 1.15 ), and if the case is straightforward, this application direct to the Lord Chancellor is sufficient. However, if the claimant wishes to be included in the register, the application is formally made by petitioning the House. The petition is referred to the Lord Chancellor (Standing Order No 11), who then reports their findings to the House. In the case of a peerage of Ireland (Standing Order No 79), the claim is similarly made by petition direct to the House, which is then referred by the House to the Lord Chancellor for report. If the claim is a difficult one, or if the Lord Chancellor is not satisfied that the claimant has established a right to succession, the matter is referred to the House of Lords, which then refers it to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct. In hearing such claims the Committee sits with three current holders of high judicial office, who are granted the same speaking and voting rights as members of the Committee (Standing Order No 77). Once the Committee has reported to the House, the House usually resolves in the terms of the Committee's decision and the resolution is then reported to the Crown.3

Footnotes 1. Previous editions of Erskine May noted that ‘the jurisdiction of the House of Lords in peerage claims … is not confined to cases in which a peerage claim is referred to the House by the Crown’ (23rd edn, 2004, p 68). This statement reflected the House's inherent jurisdiction, as guardian of its own privileges, to determine who are its members, for which see Palmer Peerage law in England (1907), p 11; R v Knowles (1694) 12 State Tr 1167–1207; R v Knollys (1694) 91 ER 434, 904 (and see also: Lord Banbury's case (1693) 90 ER 776); Lord Campbell Lives of the Chief Justices of England 1857, ii, 148; Wensleydale (Parl Deb (1856) 140, cc 263, 508, 591, 898, 977, 1022, 1121, 1152, 1289). Since the coming into force of the House of Lords Act 1999, the only context in which the House of Lords could declare the law on matters of peerage in the absence of any reference from the Crown would be on a petition to be entered into the register for by-elections where the Lord Chancellor has recommended the claim is proper to be considered by the Committee for Privileges and Conduct. 2. The Roll of the Peerage replaced the Roll of the Lords, which was maintained by the Clerk of the Parliaments until the enactment of the House of Lords Act 1999. The roll is the authoritative list of the complete peerage and is evidence in cases of dispute (LJ (1509–77) 23; ibid (1578–1614) 195; ibid (1628–42) 39–40). 3. The decisions of the Committee for Privileges and Conduct are not judgments and are not binding in another claim, even though the circumstances attending the claim and the point of law arising upon it may be precisely the same: see Wiltes Peerage Claim (1869) LR 4 HL 126 at 147 ff; Viscountess Rhondda's Claim [1922] 2 AC 339 at 377, HL. A fuller description of the process for determining peerage claims is contained in 79 Halsbury's Laws of England (5th edn) (2008).

Powers of the Houses in relation to each other 11.7Each House controls its own proceedings and obtains official knowledge of the proceedings of the other only through formal communications (see paras 9.16–9.17 ). Although the former rules of both Houses, which prevented reference in debate to speeches made in the same session in the other House, have been abolished, references to Members of the other Chamber are subject to restrictions (see paras 21.24 and 25.70–25.71 ). Neither may one House summon a Member or a person acting as an officer of the other to appear before it or one of its committees, although Members of one House may give evidence to another if they wish to do so. The relationship between the two Houses has developed over the long history of the British Parliament. It is formally expressed through a combination of practice, convention and rules (including statutory rules). Practice, for example, governs the proceedings of joint committees (see Chapter 41). The nature and limits of the principal conventions were described in the 2006 report of the Joint Committee on Conventions, Conventions of the UK Parliament. The report considered: the principle of the primacy of the House of Commons; the Salisbury Addison convention (on treatment of manifesto bills in the Lords); consideration of government business in the Lords in ‘reasonable’ time; as well as conventions governing the exchange of amendments between the Houses, on financial privilege, and on secondary legislation. The Committee expressed reservation about the codification of conventions which it considered a ‘contradiction in terms’.1 In 2015 Lord Strathclyde identified a convention that the House of Lords would not vote against secondary legislation, or would do so rarely, and regretted that this convention was ‘now so flexible it is barely a convention at all’.2 Standing Orders on occasion touch upon the relationship between the Houses, for example House of Commons Standing Order No 78(3) in respect of financial privilege and Lords Amendments (see paras 30.11 and 37.21 ). The Parliament Act 1911, as amended by the Parliament Act 1949, provides a statutory power under which bills which have passed the House of Commons may in certain circumstances acquire the force of law without passing the House of Lords (see paras 16.21 and 30.49 –30.56 ).3 The creation of the Supreme Court has removed the former concern that the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords, abolished by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, meant judicial determination of the privileges of the Commons would result in the privileges of the House of Commons being determined by the House of Lords.4

Footnotes 1. Joint Committee on Conventions, Second Report of Session 2005–06, Conventions of the UK Parliament, HL 265, HC 1212, para 279. 2. Strathclyde Review, Secondary legislation and the primacy of the House of Commons, Cm 9177, December 2015. 3. The Acts received judicial consideration in the case of R (on the application of Jackson) v A-G [2005] UKHL 56, [20016] 1 AC 262, [2005] 4 All ER 1253, see para 16.21. 4. See, for example, Stephen J in Bradlaugh v Gosset (12 QBD 271): appeals would lie from the lower court to the Court of Appeal ‘and thence to the House of Lords, which would thus become the judge in the last resort of the powers and the privileges of the House of Commons.’

Extent of legislative authority of Parliament 11.8Primary legislation is made by the assent of all constituent parts of Parliament; the Crown, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The authority of Parliament in this wide sense over all matters and persons within its jurisdiction was formerly unlimited.1 A statute law might be unjust or contrary to sound principles of government; but Parliament was not controlled in its discretion, and when it erred, its errors could be corrected only by itself. In the twentieth century, however, Parliament enacted a number of statutes which curtailed its unlimited legislative authority. First, in a series of statutes beginning with the Statute of Westminster 1931,2 Parliament formally recognised limitations on its powers over the Dominions (as they were then called); and after the Second World War it conferred independence on other countries and territories within the Commonwealth. A fuller description of this process is set out in Erskine May (23rd edn, 2004), pp 63–64. Second, in 1972 it passed the European Communities Act under which the authority of European institutions to adopt measures carrying the force of law in the United Kingdom was accepted. Section 18 of the European Union Act 2011 later specified that EU law was recognised in the UK only as a result of UK legislation.3 Section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 provides that the European Communities Act 1972 will be repealed on ‘exit day’ from the European Union. A description of the effect of the European Communities Act 1972 is set out in Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), pp 184–85. On the other hand, the legislative schema of the Human Rights Act 1998 preserves parliamentary legislative sovereignty by limiting the courts' powers, in respect of primary legislation, to making a declaration of incompatibility, rather than giving a judicial power to strike down such legislation. Ministers are given legislative authority to make delegated legislation solely through statute. The way in which Parliament controls each type of delegated legislation will depend on the provisions of the parent statute, and is further considered in Chapter 31.

Footnotes 1. Instances of the courts being invited to pronounce on the unchallengeability of legislation include Martin v O'Sullivan [1982] STC 416, where the plaintiff argued that because the Social Security Act 1975 changed the status of Members of the Commons from self-employed to employed, they became salaried civil servants and so disqualified. In consequence, the 1975 Act itself was (it was contended) invalid. The court found itself incapable of making such a declaration, the judge adding (at 419) that ‘it follows from the court's inability to inquire into what passed in Parliament that it cannot ask itself whether the members of one or the other House were disqualified in some way at the material time’. Scottish courts have on occasions taken a distinctive view of the justiciability of questions of the validity of some parts of statute law. In MacCormick v The Lord Advocate 1953 SC 396, which was an action in the Court of Session to interdict Her Majesty's Ministers from publishing a proclamation regarding the royal style and title, the Lord Advocate conceded that certain parts of the Acts which created the Union of 1707 ‘could not’ be changed by subsequent legislation (at 411). The Lord President reserved his opinion on the powers of the court regarding the validity of legislation relating expressly to the Court of Session and to laws which ‘concern private right’ in Scotland and were found by the courts to be contrary to articles XVIII and XIX of the Act of Union passed by the Scottish Parliament (at 419). In the instant case, however, the court found the matter at issue one of public, not private, right. See also Gibson v The Lord Advocate 1975 SC 136, where it was held that the question whether a particular Act of the United Kingdom Parliament was ‘for the evident utility of the subjects within Scotland’ (art XVIII) was not a justiciable issue in the Court of Session. For the special position of the Church of Scotland in respect of legislation on matters spiritual, see Church of Scotland Act 1921, s 1 and sch, para IV; Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia of the Laws of Scotland (2002 re-issue) Constitutional Law, para 618; and Ballantyne v Presbytery of Wigton 1936 SC 625 and Logan v Presbytery of Dumbarton 1995 SLT 1228. 2. 22 & 23 Geo 5, c 4. 3. European Union Act 2011; ‘Directly applicable or directly effective EU law (that is, the rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures referred to in section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972) falls to be recognised and available in law in the United Kingdom only by virtue of that Act or where it is required to be recognised and available in law by virtue of any other Act.’

Devolution Contents The progress of devolution Convention on legislating on devolved matters Powers to discuss non-legislative matters 11.9The House has restricted its role in respect of matters now devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. On 1 July 1999 the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998 came into force and, as a result, various powers were devolved to the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales. Under the Northern Ireland Elections Act 1998 a ‘New Northern Ireland Assembly’ had met for the first time in shadow form on 1 July 1998 and under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 it was given devolved powers as the Northern Ireland Assembly on 2 December 1999.1 In periods when the Northern Ireland Assembly has been suspended, legislative and executive powers in Northern Ireland have been exercised by the UK Government and Parliament.2

Footnotes 1. The Assembly replaced a previous body appointed under the Northern Ireland Assembly Act 1973, which had been dissolved under the Northern Ireland Act 1974, and briefly revived in 1982–83 under the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1982. That Assembly had itself replaced the Parliament of Northern Ireland, established under the Government of Ireland Act 1920, prorogued in 1972 and abolished under the Northern Ireland (Constitution) Act 1973. 2. The Northern Ireland Assembly was suspended (under the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 2000) between 11 February and 30 May 2000, on 10 August and 22 September 2001 and from 14 October 2002, followed by a dissolution on 28 April 2003. After the elections of 26 November 2003 the Assembly remained suspended, but the Members elected at that election were made members of a nonlegislative Assembly created under the Northern Ireland Act 2006. This was succeeded by a Transitional Assembly established under the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006 which was followed by the third election of the Northern Ireland Assembly on 26 March 2007. Devolved powers were restored to the Assembly on 8 May 2007. Following the resignation of the deputy first minister in January 2017, and the failure to form a functioning executive after the Northern Ireland general election in March 2017, the UK Parliament passed legislation to ensure the continued functioning and funding of public services in Northern Ireland, without, however, the Government resuming direct rule (Northern Ireland Budget Act 2017, Northern Ireland Budget Act 2018, Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018).

The progress of devolution 11.10The devolution settlements have been extensively modified since they were first introduced, and it is likely that they will be modified further as a result of UK withdrawal from the EU. Readers are referred to specialist texts for details. At the outset there was a distinction between the way in which powers were devolved to each of the devolved legislatures. The Scottish Parliament had the most extensive legislative powers of the three devolved legislatures in the UK. The Scotland Act 1998 defined the limits on the Scottish Parliament's powers by reserving particular matters to the UK Parliament and granting the Scottish Parliament authority to legislate in any non-reserved field, provided such legislation did not conflict with EU law and obligations.1 The Northern Ireland Act 1998 adopted a model defined in terms of ‘transferred’, ‘reserved’ and ‘excepted’ matters. The excepted matters can only be legislated by the UK Parliament or ministers. The reserved matters are set out in schedule 3 to the Act. Everything else is a transferred matter on which the Assembly can legislate. Reserved matters may be transferred (and transferred matters can also be reserved) by an Order in Council made under schedule 4 to the Act, but only with the consent of a cross-community majority of the Assembly. In contrast, the Government of Wales Act 1998 gave the National Assembly for Wales relatively limited powers. Unlike the other two devolved jurisdictions, where the scope of devolved powers was defined by exception (that is that the legislatures can make the law in any area other than those which are specifically excluded—‘reserved’, ‘excepted’, etc—by statute) the National Assembly could only legislate in areas where it had explicit statutory authority to do so, granted by Parliament either through primary or secondary legislation. This competence was enlarged through the Government of Wales Act 2006 and has been changed to a reserved powers model by the Wales Act 2017. The Welsh Parliament and Elections Bill (Wales) will use the powers in the Wales Act 2017 to change the name of the Assembly (to the Welsh Parliament) and make changes to the franchise and electoral and internal arrangements.

Footnotes 1. Reserved matters are set out in sch 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 and sch 4 sets out a list of enactments which the Scottish Parliament cannot modify.

Convention on legislating on devolved matters 11.11Even in the case of devolved matters, the United Kingdom Parliament retains the power to legislate on any matter affecting Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, although in November 1998 the Government expressed the view that it ‘would expect a convention would be adopted that Westminster would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the devolved body’ (the ‘Sewel Convention’) and would be likely to oppose a Private Member's Bill seeking to alter the law on devolved subjects in Scotland or Northern Ireland.1 This understanding has now been placed on a statutory footing in the Scotland Act 2016 and the Wales Act 2017, which each contain a provision to the following effect: ‘it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the [Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly]’2 Although this is now a statutory provision it does not prevent the UK Parliament legislating without the consent of the devolved legislatures, although it increases the political difficulty in doing so. This was recognised in the Miller case where the Supreme Court held that: ‘by such provisions, the UK Parliament is not seeking to convert the Sewel Convention into a rule which can be interpreted, let alone enforced, by the courts; rather, it is recognising the convention for what it is, namely a political convention, and is effectively declaring that it is a permanent feature of the relevant devolution settlement. That follows from the nature of the content, and is acknowledged by the words (“it is recognisedâ€​ and “will not normallyâ€​), of the relevant subsection. We would have expected the UK Parliament to have used other words if it were seeking to convert a convention into a legal rule justiciable by the courts.’3

Footnotes 1. HC 148 (1998–99) p vi, para 15. In respect of Scotland, this arrangement is called the ‘Sewel Convention’ after an undertaking by Lord Sewel during the passing of the Scotland Bill, HL Deb (1998–99) 592, c 791. For details of the method by which the government seeks the consent of the Scottish Executive, see HC Deb (2002–03) 399, c 291W, and Minutes of Proceedings of the Scottish Parliament, 17 and 31 January 2001. 2. Section 63A of the Scotland Act 1988, inserted by s 1 of the Scotland Act 2016; s A1 Government of Wales Act, inserted by s 1 of the Wales Act 2017. 3. R (on the application of Miller and another) (Respondents) v Secretary of State for Exiting the UK [2017] UKSC 5, [2017] NI 141, [2017] 1 All ER 593, at para 148.

Powers to discuss non-legislative matters Contents The ‘self-denying ordinance’ 11.12In principle, the freedom of speech in Parliament is absolute, and Members can raise whatsoever matters they wish. In practice, each House has voluntarily restricted its freedom of speech in certain areas, to ensure proper respect between constituent parts of the State. The sub judice rule, which prohibits reference to matters awaiting adjudication by the courts, is described more fully at para 21.19, and the restrictions on references to various offices of State are described at para 21.23. Apart from these, the most notable restriction on such discussions relates to business which is within the competence of the devolved legislatures.

The ‘self-denying ordinance’ 11.13Questions and adjournment debates in the House of Commons are procedures which are intended to engage Ministers on matters on which they are responsible to Parliament. After devolution, it was clear that the range of matters for which the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales were responsible was significantly reduced. Following a report from the Procedure Committee,1 the House passed a resolution on 25 October 1999 as follows: ‘That, subject always to the discretion of the Chair, and in addition to the established rules of order on the form and content of questions, questions may not be tabled on matters for which responsibility has been devolved by legislation to the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales unless the question: a. seeks information which the United Kingdom Government is empowered to require of the devolved executive, or b. relates to matters which: i. are included in legislative proposals introduced or to be introduced in the United Kingdom Parliament, ii. are concerned with the operation of a concordat or other instrument of liaison between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved executive, or iii. United Kingdom Government ministers have taken an official interest in, or c. presses for action by United Kingdom ministers in areas in which they retain administrative powers.’2 During those periods when the Executive and Assembly in Northern Ireland have been suspended, the restrictions imposed by this resolution have not been applied. Equally, changes in the devolution settlements have meant that the responsibilities of UK ministers have altered over time. The saving for matters which United Kingdom Government ministers ‘have taken an official interest in’ has encouraged a degree of flexibility in the interpretation of the resolution. In debate, the Chair has taken a generally permissive approach to references to devolved matters.

Footnotes 1. Procedure Committee, Fourth Report of Session 1998–99, The Procedural Consequences of Devolution, HC 185; First Special Report of Session 1998–99, Government Response, HC 814. 2. CJ (1998–99) 519; see also HC 148, 376, 185, 814 (1998–99); HC Deb (1998–99) 336, cc 606–74.

Jurisdiction of both Houses Contents Exclusive cognizance 11.14This section describes the jurisdiction of both Houses in respect of their powers over their own precincts and proceedings and their power to enforce their own authority (penal powers). Historically, Parliament's powers over its own affairs have come either from privileges granted to it by the Sovereign or from its status as one of the principal institutions of the nation. The term ‘privilege’ may nowadays be applied both to the immunities and exemptions afforded to either House and their Members individually or collectively and to the rights and powers exercised by either House in its institutional or corporate capacity. The historical development of the privileges still claimed by the Speaker of the House of Commons at the start of every Parliament is described in Chapter 12. The law and custom of Parliament, lex et consuetedo Parliamentarii, is now understood to be part of the common law, but its former existence as a separate entity not susceptible to examination by the courts has lent to it an air of mystery and exclusivity which continues to this day. It is further complicated by the relatively recent practice of the courts to rely on Article IX of the Bill of Rights as the statutory (and therefore authoritative) basis for the protections provided to formal proceedings of Parliament. The law and custom of Parliament is of wider scope. Consequently, matters which fall within that scope but not within the terms of Article IX are often described as being subject to the exclusive cognizance of Parliament. Correctly, exclusive cognizance applies to all matters within the scope of the law and custom of Parliament, whether covered by Article IX or not. The application of Article IX is described in Chapter 13.

Exclusive cognizance Contents Control of proceedings General application of legislation to Parliament Proceedings, precincts and criminal acts 11.15Each House has exclusive cognizance of its own proceedings and of certain matters related to the precincts.

Control of proceedings 11.16Both Houses retain the right to be sole judge of the lawfulness of their own proceedings, and to settle—or depart from—their own codes of procedure. This is equally the case where the House in question is dealing with a matter which is finally decided by its sole authority, such as an order or resolution, or where (like a bill) it is the joint concern of both Houses. The principle holds good even where the procedure of a House or the rights of its Members or officers to take part in its proceedings depends on statute. The fullest recognition has been accorded by the courts to the rights of both Houses to exclusive parliamentary cognizance of their proceedings even in matters prescribed by statute. In the judgment given in the case of Bradlaugh v Gosset in 1884, question arose whether Bradlaugh, who had been returned a Member, had qualified himself to sit by making an affirmation instead of taking the oath. Subsequently, following re-election, he was prevented from taking the oath by an order of the House. In the course of his judgment in an action seeking (inter alia) to have the order declared void, Stephen J declared that even if the House of Commons forbade a Member to do what statute required him to do and, in order to enforce the prohibition, excluded him from the House, the court had no power to interfere: ‘the House of Commons is not subject to the control of … [the] courts in its administration of that part of the statute law which has relation to its own internal proceedings … Even if that interpretation should be erroneous [the] court has no power to interfere with it, directly or indirectly.’1 It has been judicially recognised that Parliament is the master of the application of its own procedures to the business before it. A party before the House of Lords in 1973 argued that the promoters of a private bill had misled Parliament into granting certain rights to them. The House of Lords sitting judicially found that he was not entitled to examine proceedings in Parliament to show that the promoters had caused him loss. It was for Parliament to lay down procedures for considering bills, and to decide if they had been followed or to decide to depart from them. Parliament determined what documentary material or testimony might be required, and the extent to which parliamentary privilege might attach. ‘It would be impracticable and undesirable for the High Court of Justice to embark upon an inquiry concerning the effect or effectiveness of procedures in the High Court of Parliament, or an inquiry whether in any particular case those procedures were effectively followed’2 (see also para 16.10 ). In 1997, the Northern Ireland High Court rejected an application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Speaker's decision to withdraw certain facilities of the House from Members who had not taken the oath, on the grounds that the decision lay within the realm of internal arrangements of the House with which the courts would not interfere.3 The European Court of Human Rights ruled inadmissible an application to have the Speaker's decision overturned.4 The Speaker's decision was later superseded by resolution of the House.5 British courts will not review the acts—or omissions—of Members individually in connection with the proceedings of the House. It was decided in the courts in 1894 that no action at common law lay against a Member of the House of Commons who refused to present to the House a petition forwarded to him by a constituent.6 The Court of Appeal found in 1997 that the House, not the courts, was responsible for the activities of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.7 There have been occasions when the courts have appeared to trespass on matters otherwise recognised as exclusively within parliamentary cognizance. When this has happened, however, later decisions have usually commented on or explained the original judgment, as in the case of Adam v Ward before the House of Lords in 1917, which was commented on in Prebble v Television New Zealand.8 In 1990, it was held by the High Court that though the appointment of the chairman and members of a committee of the House of Commons formed part of proceedings in Parliament, and so could not be questioned in court, evidence regarding the practice of the House in respect of the registration of Members' interests was capable of being admitted.9 Notice was given of an appeal relating to the court's view of the meaning and scope of ‘proceedings in Parliament’ (see para 13.12 ), but the matter was not determined in a higher court, as the parties settled. In 2007, the European Council agreed a mandate for a new treaty, the Lisbon Treaty, which was signed in December 2007. The Government said that it did not intend to hold a referendum on the Treaty and made no provision for a referendum in the subsequent European Union (Amendment) Bill. In an application for judicial review of the Government's decision to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum, it was argued that an earlier promise to hold a referendum on the Constitution for Europe involved an implied representation that a referendum would be held in relation to any Treaty having equivalent effect.10 The applicant sought a declaration that the refusal to hold a referendum was in breach of his legitimate expectation and therefore unlawful. The Speaker intervened to argue that it was neither permissible nor appropriate for a court to grant any remedy which would require that particular steps be taken in the House by any of its Members or that Members must vote in a particular way. The applicant's case was reformulated and cut back in an attempt to respond to Parliament's position, but despite that reformulation the judges decided that any judgment which purported to place a duty or obligation on the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary to do an act within Parliament in their capacity as Members would plainly trespass impermissibly on the province of Parliament.11 This is distinct from the more recent decision in Miller,12 which held that if the Government wished to undertake an action which would result in a change to the regime of law, namely giving notice of intention to withdraw from the EU under Article 50 TEU, legislation would be required.

Footnotes 1. Bradlaugh v Gosset (1884) 12 QBD 271 at 278–86. See also the observations of Lord Coleridge CJ at 273–74. 2. British Railways Board v Pickin [1974] AC 765 at 790 and 1 All ER 609 at 620 per Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest. See also Fairfold Properties Ltd v Exmouth Docks (1990) TLR 660, in which Millett J observed (at 661): ‘Parliament has to be left in unfettered control of its own procedure’.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

8.

9.

10. 11. 12.

1997 NI 359. For the Speaker's statement, see HC Deb (1997–98) 294, cc 35–36. McGuinness v United Kingdom (App No 39511/98) (1999). CJ (2001–02) 274–75. Chaffers v Goldsmid [1894] 1 QB 186, esp 187. R v Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, ex p Al Fayed [1998] 1 All ER 93, [1998] 1 WLR 669. Cf a decision that the rulings of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, being concerned with the proper functioning of the public service outside Parliament, are subject to judicial review, while the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is focused on the propriety of the working and the activities of those engaged within Parliament, R v Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, ex p Dyer [1994] 1 All ER 375, [1994] 1 WLR 621. See para 12.1. Adam v Ward [1917] AC 309 esp at 319, 322, commented on in Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd [1995] 1 AC 321 at 335, [1994] 3 All ER 407 at 416–17. In a lower court, it was suggested that the House of Commons might have elected not to assert its privileges in Adam v Ward (Television New Zealand Ltd v Prebble (1993) 3 NZLR 513 at 520–23 ). There is no evidence to this effect and in any case, since the privilege concerned was enshrined in statute—the Bill of Rights—it is hard to see how, short of legislation, the House could of its sole authority have permitted the court to interfere. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ([1995] AC 321 at 336, [1994] 3 All ER 407 at 417) concluded that the questioning in court of the conduct in the House of a member of the New Zealand House of Representatives for the purposes of assessing a defendant newspaper's defence of provocation in a libel action ‘should not have been allowed’ in News Media Ownership v Finlay [1970] NZLR 1089. (Article IX of the Bill of Rights applies in New Zealand, and if it can be given a meaning consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990, that meaning is to be preferred to any other.) Rost v Edwards [1990] 2 QB 460, commented on in Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd [1995] 1 AC 321 at 337, [1994] 3 All ER 407 at 418. A more limited case of judicial hearing of evidence on matters which might be regarded as within the exclusive view of Parliament was that of the admission of evidence regarding advice given by an Officer of the Commons to a Member of that House concerning its procedure in Chaffers v Goldsmid [1894] 1 QB 186. This matter was not subject to any subsequent review. See also Allason v Haines (1995) TLR 438. R (on the application of Wheeler) v (1) Office of the Prime Minister (2) Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Speaker of the House of Commons [2008] EWHC 1409 (Admin). [2008] EWHC 1409 (Admin), para 49. R (on the application of Miller and another) (Respondents) v Secretary of State for Exiting the UK [2017] UKSC 5, [2017] NI 141, [2017] 1 All ER 593.

General application of legislation to Parliament 11.17The interplay between exclusive cognizance and statute law has meant it is not always clear whether statute applies to the precincts of Parliament. Actions in respect of which exclusive cognizance is claimed and has been admitted are not restricted to formal acts of either House. This privilege has been held to extend to the sale of intoxicating liquor within the precincts of the House, though those responsible did not hold a licence.1 As the Supreme Court said in the Chaytor case: ‘Following Ex p Herbert there appears to have been a presumption in Parliament that statutes do not apply to activities within the Palace of Westminster unless they expressly provide to the contrary.’2 While the Supreme Court noted ‘That presumption is open to question’, there is a history of legislative confusion. In 2002, the Treasury Solicitor issued guidance to the effect that the parliamentary authorities should be consulted on whether any legislation proposed to apply to the Crown should also apply to Parliament, but this guidance was not consistently followed. In 2013, the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege noted that this had led to many inconsistencies in statute law. The Committee considered that it was not practicable to resolve these inconsistencies without sweeping retrospective change, which might have unforeseeable consequences. It concluded that, in the absence of legislation, ‘the safest way forward, however undesirable it may be as a statement of principle, is to reiterate and formalise the current presumption that legislation does not apply to Parliament unless it expressly provides otherwise.’ It recommended that each House should adopt a Resolution ‘stating that the House of Commons and the House of Lords should in future be expressly bound by legislation creating individual rights which could impinge on parliamentary activities, and that in the absence of such express provision such legislation is not binding upon Parliament.’3 Each House subsequently agreed a motion that ‘legislation creating individual rights which could impinge on the activities of the House should in future contain express provision to this effect’.4 Certain statutes in employment law may give rise to actions where acts which might otherwise be regarded as within Parliament's exclusive cognizance or might fall within the definition of ‘proceedings in Parliament’ may, depending on the particular circumstances, properly be brought before a court or tribunal. For example, some provisions relating to employment are explicitly applied to staff of both Houses by the Employment Rights Act 1996 and by virtue of that Act nothing in any rule of law or practice of Parliament is to prevent a person from bringing proceedings under the Act before an employment tribunal.5

Footnotes 1. R v Graham Campbell, ex p Herbert [1935] 1 KB 594. For the views of the 1999 Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege on this case, however, see HL 43-I, HC 214-I (1998–99) paras 249–51. See also R v Chaytor [2010] UKSC 52, [2011] 1 AC 684, [2011] 1 All ER 805, paras 70–78. 2. R v Chaytor [2010] UKSC 52, at 78. 3. Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, First Report of Session 2013–14, Parliamentary Privilege, HL 30, HC 100, paras 223–25. 4. CJ (2013–14) 891 and House of Lords Minutes of Proceedings, 20 March 2014. 5. Employment Rights Act 1996, ss 194(4) and 195(4).

Proceedings, precincts and criminal acts 11.18Exclusive cognizance and the control of each House over its precincts do not extend to displacing the criminal law. Not everything said or done within the precincts forms part of proceedings in Parliament. The most striking example of this is the conclusion of the Privileges Committee in 1815 that the re-arrest of Lord Cochrane (a Member of the Commons) in the Chamber (the House not sitting) was not a breach of privilege.1 In 2008, the police searched the parliamentary office of a Member in pursuit of a criminal investigation into the leaking of documents from the private office of the Home Secretary. The search was conducted without a warrant, consent having been obtained from the Serjeant at Arms. The police also arrested the Member at his home. The Speaker made a statement to the House and issued a protocol requiring the issue of a warrant in all cases involving a police search within Parliament and specifying certain conditions for the execution of such a warrant.2 The committee appointed to consider issues of privilege relating to these events concluded that, while the conduct of the police fell below acceptable standards, nothing they did ‘amounted to a breach of privilege or a contempt of the House.’3 Subsequent searches of the estate have been made pursuant to a warrant.4 The Privileges Committee concluded in 1987 that there was no precedent for the House's affording Members any privilege on the sole ground that their activities were within the precincts of the Palace, and there were no grounds for believing that the showing of a film to Members or others under arrangements made privately by a Member ‘could of itself be held to be a proceeding in Parliament.’5 Moreover, though the Bill of Rights will adequately protect a Member as regards criminal law in respect of anything said as part of proceedings in Parliament, there is more doubt whether criminal acts committed in Parliament remain within the exclusive cognizance of the House in which they are committed. In the judgment of the House of Lords in Eliot's case6 (see para 12.4 ), it was deliberately left an open question whether the assault on the Speaker might have been properly heard and determined in the King's Bench. The possibility that it might legally have been so determined was admitted by one of the managers for the Commons in the conference with the Lords which preceded the writ of error. In Bradlaugh v Gosset, Stephen J said that he ‘knew of no authority for the proposition that an ordinary crime committed in the House of Commons would be withdrawn from the ordinary course of criminal justice’. Since he went on immediately to refer to Eliot's case and accepted the proposition ‘that nothing said in Parliament by a Member, as such, can be treated as an offence by the ordinary courts’, it must be supposed that what the learned judge had in mind was a criminal act as distinguished from criminal speech.7 In such cases, it will be essential to determine where the alleged criminal act stands in relation to the proceedings of the House. An officer carrying out an order of the House is in the same position as the Members who voted for the order. In Bradlaugh v Gosset, the Deputy Serjeant at Arms was held to be justified in committing the assault with which he was charged, since it was committed in Parliament, in pursuance of the order of the House, to exclude Bradlaugh from the House. As Lord Coleridge observed, ‘The Houses of Parliament cannot act by themselves in a body; they must act by officers’.8 It would be hard to show how a criminal act committed by a Member, however, could form part of the proceedings of the House.9 In 2010, three Members of the House (and one Member of the Lords) were charged with false accounting. The defence argued that the alleged offences—involving in the case of Commons Members allowance claims, originating in resolutions of the House—were matters of privilege over which the court had no jurisdiction. That argument was rejected in the Crown Court and in the Court of Appeal. It was also rejected by the Supreme Court where the leading judgment distinguished between the protection provided by Article IX and that provided by exclusive cognizance. In respect of the former, the judgment concluded that submitting claims did not form part of, nor was it incidental to, the core business of Parliament and was therefore not part of the proceedings of Parliament. As to the latter, whereas the allowances scheme itself was a matter that (at that time) fell with the House's exclusive cognizance, its implementation was not, so there was no bar in principle to the Crown Court considering whether the claims made by the defendants were fraudulent.10

Footnotes 1. Lord Cochrane had been committed following conviction upon an indictable offence. He escaped and made his way to the Commons Chamber and sat on a bench on the right hand of the Chair. No Members were present and prayers had not been read. Cochrane's rearrest in these circumstances was referred to the Committee of Privileges, which reported that the case was entirely novel, but that the privilege of the House did not appear to have been violated by the re-arrest (CJ (1814–16) 186; Parl Deb (1814–15) 30, cc 309, 336; and Colchester ii, 534, 536). 2. HC Deb (2008–09) 485, c 1. 3. HC 62 (2009–10) para 140. 4. HC Deb (20 May 2013) 563, c 881; where police have not wished to search a part of the precincts but have requested access to photograph an alleged crime scene, access has been allowed under supervision of a senior House official. 5. An interim injunction had been granted on grounds of national security against a named individual, restraining him from showing a film. A further injunction was sought and refused, which would have prevented Members from showing the film in a room within the precincts of the House of Commons. Though in the event, pursuant to an order of the Speaker, the film was not shown, the Privileges Committee considered that, had the showing proceeded, it would not have enjoyed the protection of privilege (Committee of Privileges, First Report, HC 365 (1986–87) paras 16 and 17). 6. LJ (1666–75) 166, 223; 3 State Tr 331–33. 7. [1883–84] 12 QBD 283, 284. 8. [1883–84] 12 QBD 276. 9. See Report of the Select Committee on the Official Secrets Acts, HC 101 (1938–39) paras 9–10. 10. [2010] UKSC 52, [2011] 1 AC 684, [2011] 1 All ER 805 at 62, 83 and 92. There can be cases where both the courts and the relevant House may have a role. The Supreme Court noted ‘The House can take disciplinary proceedings for contempt and a court can try the offender for the crime. Where a prosecution is brought Parliament will suspend any disciplinary proceedings. Conversely, if a Member of

Parliament were disciplined by the House, consideration would be given by the Crown Prosecution Service as to whether a prosecution would be in the public interest’ (at [81], see also [2010] EWCA Crim 1910 at [48], and Committee on Standards, Seventh Report of Session 2013–14, The House of Commons Code of Conduct and the Criminal Law, HC 903).

Temporary appointment of a Member to act as Deputy Chairman 4.37On occasions when the Deputy Chairman has been absent, the House has resolved that another Member should be entitled to exercise all the powers vested in the Deputy Chairman including the Deputy Chairman's powers as Deputy Speaker.1

Footnotes 1. CJ (1928–29) 57; ibid (1971–72) 500.

Former application of powers Contents Application of powers in recent times Procedural fairness 11.20The House of Commons has the power to send for persons whose conduct has been brought before the House on a matter of privilege by an order for their attendance, without specifying in the order the object or the causes for which their attendance is required;1 and in obedience to the order Members attend in their places, and other persons at the Bar2 (see paras 11.28 and 11.30 ). It was the ancient practice in both Houses that in appropriate cases persons were brought in custody to the Bar to answer charges of contempt3 and in the Lords to order them to be attached and brought before the House to answer complaints of breaches of privilege or contempt.4 While the Houses retain the undoubted right to exercise such powers of examination, they have not been used for many years and may be considered inappropriate in modern circumstances.5

Footnotes 1. See 2 Cav Deb 321 for the Speaker's suggestion that service of the order of the House by leaving a copy thereof at the usual place of abode of the person therein named should be deemed personal service. 2. CJ (1892) 157; Parl Deb (1892) 3, c 700; CJ (1897) 361; ibid (1901) 414. 3. LJ (1578–1614) 201, 256, 296; ibid (1660–66) 252 etc; CJ (1547–1628) 175, 680, 886; ibid (1667–87) 351; ibid (1727–32) 705; ibid (1774–76) 323; ibid (1825) 445; ibid (1826–27) 561; ibid (1840) 30, 56, 59; ibid (1880) 70; Gosset v Howard (1847) 116 ER 1582, and see also Appendix IX to Second Report of Select Committee on Printed Papers, HC 397 (1845) p 104. 4. See precedents collected in the Appendix to the Second Report of the Select Committee on Printed Papers, HC 397 (1845) p 104. 5. See Gosset v Howard (1847) 116 ER 172. For the use of these powers to admonish in modern circumstances, see memorandum from the Clerk of the House, published as unprinted written evidence for the Second Report of the Liaison Committee, Session 2012–13, Select Committee effectiveness, resources and powers, HC 697.

Application of powers in recent times 11.21In 1978, the House of Commons resolved to agree to a number of recommendations from the Committee of Privileges, most notably a recommendation that the House should exercise its powers as sparingly as possible and only when satisfied that it was essential to do so to prevent obstruction of its business1 (see para 12.9 ). The result of this has been a marked diminution in the use of penal powers.2 They are however of continuing relevance, particularly in respect of the powers regularly delegated by both Houses to their select committees to call for persons, papers and records. Their existence, and on occasion the threat of their use, has resulted in successful attempts to procure evidence, or to have confidential documents examined by an expert appointed by a committee.3 Penal powers were not deployed in these cases, because committees were able to achieve the results they sought, but the 2013 Joint Committee considered that the absence of limitation on committee powers enabled the committees to function effectively.4 Conversely, the House of Commons has exercised its power to admonish those who were considered to have misled a Committee, without requiring their attendance at the Bar of the House.5

Footnotes 1. CJ (1977–78) 170. 2. See for example Justice Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2012–13, HC 675, paras 7–12 where the Committee declined to report behaviour which might have been a contempt to the House as it did not significantly interfere with its ability to gather evidence. 3. See Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Minutes of Proceedings, 19 November 2018, House of Commons Treasury Committee correspondence with the Chair of the Financial Services Authority of 13, 15 and 17 December 2010 and 28 March and 11 July 2011, regarding FSA investigation of bank failures, published on the www.parliament.uk website. 4. Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, First Report of Session 2013–14, Parliamentary Privilege, HL 30, HC 100, para 60. 5. Votes and Proceedings, 27 October 2016.

Procedural fairness 11.22In considering the summary of both Houses' exercise of their powers in the past, it should be borne in mind that the 2013 Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege noted: ‘Modern concepts of fairness in the judicial process have radically changed since either House last used its penal powers. While there is an external imperative, in that the United Kingdom could potentially be challenged in the European Court of Human Rights, we consider that this is a secondary consideration. Parliament itself would expect to comply with modern expectations of fairness and due process, which are very different to those which applied in the late nineteenth century.’1 That Committee set out proposals for Standing Orders to ensure fairness, but asserted the continuing existence of each House's powers. This matter is currently being looked at afresh in the House of Commons by its Committee of Privileges. The Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 1999 drew attention to the need for procedural fairness in handling cases of Members of either House facing potential suspension and loss of reputation. Among the minimum requirements of fairness are for the Member accused of a contempt (which the Joint Committee recognised to be a serious matter) to be given: a prompt and clear statement of the precise allegations against the Member; adequate opportunity to take legal advice and have legal assistance throughout; the opportunity to be heard in person; the opportunity to call relevant witnesses at the appropriate time; the opportunity to examine other witnesses; the opportunity to attend meetings at which evidence is given, and to receive transcripts of evidence. In determining a Member's guilt or innocence, the criterion applied at all stages should be at least that the allegation is proved on the balance of probabilities. In the case of more serious charges, a higher standard of proof may be appropriate.2 These recommendations were consistent with those of previous committees.3 The 1999 Committee also recommended that ‘for practical reasons punishment of non-members for contempt of Parliament should, in general, now be transferred to the courts’, although each House's residual jurisdiction should remain.4 This recommendation was not implemented. In 2013, the recommendation was rejected by a subsequent Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, which considered that criminalising specific contempts ‘would entail a radical shift of power between Parliament and the courts', as well as introducing delay and uncertainty, and removing flexibility. Instead, the 2013 Joint Committee recommended that the two Houses should assert their continuing penal powers, and clarify the procedures they would use if called upon to exercise them.5 When in 2012 serious allegations of contempt were made in respect of evidence given to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in connection with its inquiry into phone hacking, the complaint was referred to the Committee on Standards and Privileges for investigation.6 That Committee agreed at the outset a procedure it considered fair, and communicated it to inquiry subjects. It was not based on a court process, but contained provisions for evidence to be shared and challenged, for inquiry subjects to have the opportunity to put evidence to the Committee, and for them to suggest witnesses, and questions to be put to those witnesses. The Committee restated its undoubted right to call witnesses to give oral evidence if it thought fit.7 When the Committee's proceedings were interrupted by a General Election, the matter was referred to the Committee of Privileges in the subsequent Parliament for a full re-examination.8 Ultimately, that Committee found that two of those accused had misled the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and recommended that the House should admonish them by resolution. The House duly did so.9 In the House of Lords, the requirements for fairness were addressed by the House of Lords Committee for Privileges and Conduct which considered that: ‘Natural justice and fairness require that the person complained against: a. shall be judged by a person who is both independent and impartial and who hears all sides of the argument; b. shall have fair notice of the case being made against him or her; and c. shall have a fair opportunity to answer to the complaint.’ The Committee did not consider that this required evidence to be tested by cross-examination or an adversarial procedure. It emphasised that the concept of fairness applied to the complainant as well as to the accused.10

Footnotes 1. Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, First Report of Session 2013–14, Parliamentary Privilege, HL 30, HC 100, para 78. 2. HL 43 (1998–99); HC 214 (1998–99) para 281. 3. Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, HC 34 (1967–68) paras 184–91; First Report of the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life, HC 637 (1994–95) Appendix 2 (b) ‘modus operandi ’. 4. Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, First Report of Session 1998–99, Parliamentary Privilege, HL 43-I, HC 214-I, para 306. 5. Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, First Report of Session 2013–14, Parliamentary Privilege, HL 30, HC 100, paras 61–69, 70, 99, 100. 6. CJ (2012–13) 28. 7. See para 15.35 (Examination of complaints: current practice) for a fuller description of the procedures adopted by the Committee.

8. Committee of Privileges, First Report of Session 2016–17, Conduct of witnesses before a select committee: Mr Colin Myler, Mr Tom Crone, Mr Les Hinton, and News International, HC 662. 9. Votes and Proceedings, 27 October 2016. 10. Committee for Privileges and Conduct, Third Report of Session 2017–19, Further report on the conduct of Lord Lester of Herne Hill, HL 252.

Committal Contents Committal without a warrant Warrants of committal Period of committal and discharge 11.23The origin of the power to punish for contempt is probably to be found in the medieval concept of the English Parliament as primarily a court. The power to fine or imprison for contempt belongs at common law to all courts of record. The House of Lords has been held to be a court of record,1 and as such has power not only to imprison but to impose fines (see para 11.27 ). It may also imprison for a fixed time, and order security to be given for good conduct; and their customary form of committal is by attachment. The Commons' power to commit offenders was exercised frequently until the end of the nineteenth century;2 and repeatedly recognised by the courts.3 Offenders committed by order of either House have been either detained in one of HM prisons4 or in the custody of Black Rod,5 or the Serjeant at Arms,6 as the case may be.7

Footnotes 1. Per Lord Mansfield, reminiscing obiter, in Jones v Randall (1774) 98 ER 708. It has been held, in R v Flower (1799) 101 ER 1408, that the Lords, while exercising a legislative (as opposed to judicial) capacity, are not a court of record. However, that case concerned a breach of privilege, and the court accepted that in punishing such a breach by committal to prison and a fine the House was ‘sitting in a judicial capacity’. In the absence of any explicit provision on this point in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, it appears likely that the House of Lords remains a court of record for certain purposes. 2. It was calculated in 1810 that the number of instances of committal of delinquents at the order of the Commons was ‘little less than a thousand’ (C W Williams Wynn Argument upon the Jurisdiction of the House of Commons (1810), p 7). Between 1810 and 1880 there were a further 80 committals. The latest case in the Commons of detention of a Member is that of Bradlaugh (CJ (1880) 235), and in respect of a non-Member, that of Grissell in the same year (CJ (1880) 77). 3. The Aylesbury Men, R v Paty (1704) 92 ER 232; Brass Crosby's case (1771) 95 ER 1005; Burdett v Abbot (1811) 104 ER 501; Sheriff of Middlesex (1840) 113 ER 419; Select Committee on Printed Papers, HC 305, 397 (1845); HC 39 (1847). CJ (1640–42) 960; 5 State Tr 948; The Protector v Streeter (1654) 82 ER 824; Burdett v Abbot (1811) 104 ER 558; Sheriff of Middlesex (1840) 113 ER 425; Gosset v Howard (1847) 116 ER 158 at 172. It was held in 1955 by the High Court of Australia that the full powers of the United Kingdom's House of Commons being enjoyed by the Commonwealth Parliament and a warrant having been issued for the committal of two persons stating simply that they were ‘guilty of a serious breach of privilege’, the warrant was sufficient and conclusive (R v Richards, ex p Fitzpatrick and Browne (1955) 92 CLR 157 at 162 ). For consideration of whether the House of Commons is a court of record, see para 11.27 and Erskine May (23rd edn, 2004), p 160. 4. LJ (1767–70) 189; ibid 575; ibid (1779–83) 191; ibid (1783–87) 613, 647; ibid (1787–90) 338; ibid (1790) 649; ibid (1794–96) 241; ibid (1796–98) 509; ibid (1798–1800) 182; ibid (1801–02) 105; ibid (1810–12) 371, 372; ibid (1850) 367, 478; CJ (1818) 289; ibid (1826–27) 582; ibid (1835) 501; ibid (1843) 528; ibid (1865) 336; ibid (1878–79) 435; ibid (1880) 77. 5. LJ (1828) 34; ibid (1830–31) 471; ibid (1831–32) 387; ibid (1834) 743; ibid (1845) 729; ibid (1849) 135; ibid (1870) 77. See also ibid (1972–73) 56 and SO No 13. 6. CJ (1825) 455; ibid (1835) 501; ibid (1843) 523; ibid (1851) 288–89; ibid (1865) 336; ibid (1878–79) 366; ibid (1880) 235. 7. When at the time of committal the place of punishment was not determined (Parl Deb (1819–20) 41, c 1014) or the person adjudged guilty of contempt was not in the Serjeant's custody (CJ (1835) 501; ibid (1843) 523), the Commons has made an order for the offender to be taken into the custody of the Serjeant and then committed him to prison.

Committal without a warrant 11.24The Serjeant, without specific order of the House of Commons,1 but by virtue of Standing Order No 161, takes into custody strangers who intrude themselves into the House or otherwise misconduct themselves (in the Gallery or elsewhere) (see paras 6.56 and 38.30 ).2 Black Rod has similar powers under Lords Standing Order No 13(1). Persons who are taken into custody of the Serjeant at Arms acting by virtue of the directions given by Standing Order No 161 are normally discharged by the rising of the House on the day in question. The Lords attaches and commits persons by order, without any warrant. Such an order, signed by the Clerk of the Parliaments, is the authority under which the officers of the House and others execute their duty. In the Commons also, in earlier times, it was not the custom to prepare a formal warrant for the execution of its orders, and the Serjeant arrested persons with the Mace as the only authority.3

Footnotes 1. CJ (1761–64) 23; ibid (1818–19) 537; ibid (1830) 461; ibid (1830–31) 323; ibid (1833) 246; ibid (1847) 99. 2. An account of the practice of the Serjeant at Arms in dealing with persons against whom complaints are made or who are adjudged to be in contempt of the House (including strangers who misconduct themselves in the Gallery of the House) is contained in the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, 1967 (HC 34 (1967–68) p 157). In the past, the Speaker, when accompanied by the Mace, has ordered persons into custody for disrespect or other contempts committed in his presence, without any order of the House (2 Hatsell 241; D'Ewes 629; CJ (1667–87) 352, 353; Parl Deb (1812) 23, c 166). Upon information that a Member had been assaulted in the Lobby, the Speaker directed the Serjeant to take the supposed offender into custody (CJ (1824) 483). 3. CJ (1547–1628) 109; 1 Hatsell 92; HC 397 (1854) p vi; and see W R McKay Observations, Rules and Orders of the House of Commons (1993), pp 93–99.

Warrants of committal 11.25No warrant or order for committal has been issued by either House for many years.1 However, as the 2013 Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege noted, desuetude is not a legal doctrine in England and Wales.2 When the Commons has ordered the committal of an offender, it has directed the Speaker to issue a warrant to the Serjeant at Arms and, if appropriate, also to the governor of a prison.3 Warrants issued by order of the House of Commons have not been vitiated by or reversible on the grounds of irregularities of form. The courts considered it their duty to presume that the orders of the House and their execution are according to law.4 Such warrants were construed on the same principles as the writs of a superior court, and not as the warrants of a magistrate.5 Resistance to the officers of either House, or others acting in execution of the orders of the House, has been treated and punished as contempt.6

Footnotes 1. For fuller details of the procedure used by the Commons to commit offenders, see Erskine May (22nd edn, 1997), pp 133–38. 2. Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, First Report of Session 2013–14, Parliamentary Privilege, HL 30, HC 100, para 77. 3. A refusal by the governor to receive and detain on the delivery of a warrant would be treated by the House as a gross contempt (Parl Deb (1819–20) 41, c 1017). 4. The Aylesbury Men, R v Paty (1704) 92 ER 232; Brass Crosby's case (1771) 95 ER 1014; Hobhouse's case (1820) 106 ER 716; Lines v Russell (1852) 16 JP 491, 19 LT (os) 364. 5. Gosset v Howard (1847) 116 ER 158, reversing Howard v Gosset (1845) 116 ER 139; and see Howard v Gosset (1842) 174 ER 553. 6. See eg LJ (1805–06) 340, 610; 1 Hatsell 53; CJ (1688–93) 227; and paras 15.18 and 16.2.

Period of committal and discharge 11.26The Lords has power to commit offenders to prison for a specified term, even beyond the duration of the session.1 The Commons abandoned its former practice of imprisoning for a time certain,2 and was subsequently considered as without power to imprison beyond the session;3 prisoners were accordingly released on prorogation. The practice was not to commit offenders for any specified time, but generally or during pleasure; and to keep them in custody until they presented petitions expressing proper contrition for their offences and praying for their release,4 or until, upon motion made in the House, it was resolved that they should be discharged.5 A similar course has been pursued by the Lords.6

Footnotes 1. LJ (1767–70) 575; ibid (1796–98) 509; ibid (1791–1800) 182; ibid (1801–02) 105; ibid (1850) 478. If, on the other hand, no time is mentioned in the order of committal, it has been said that prisoners committed by the Lords could not be discharged on habeas corpus, even after a prorogation (per Lord Denman CJ in Stockdale v Hansard (1839) 112 ER 1161; HC 283 (1839) 147); but in Lord Shaftesbury's case a doubt was expressed by one of the judges whether the imprisonment, which was for an uncertain time, would be concluded by the session; and another said that if the session had been determined the prisoner ought to have been discharged ((1677) 86 ER 792, and cf LJ (1741–46) 420). 2. CJ (1547–1628) 269, 333, 639, 655; ibid (1651–59) 531, 591; ibid (1667–87) 543, 687, 737. 3. Per Lord Denman CJ, in Stockdale v Hansard (1839) 112 ER 1112 esp at 1156; HC 283, 142 (1839). See also CJ (1688–93) 537. 4. It was customary to order such petitions to be printed and considered on a future day (CJ (1842) 180, 209; ibid (1851) 151; ibid (1857–58) 196; Parl Deb (1857–58) 150, c 1198; CJ (1878–79) 381). In one instance where a petition was presented from a person in the custody of the Serjeant expressing contrition for his offence and praying to be discharged from custody, the House ordered him to be brought to the Bar forthwith in order to his being reprimanded and discharged (CJ (1825) 469, 470). 5. CJ (1840) 291, 337; ibid (1842) 224; ibid (1880) 241. The earlier practice current in both Houses of requiring the offender to appear at the Bar to be reprimanded (eg LJ (1850) 380, 384; ibid (1870) 77; CJ (1842) 420; ibid (1851) 289) has been dispensed with. Where, however, the House considered that an offender who had thus regained his liberty had not been sufficiently punished, he was again committed in the next session and detained until the House was satisfied (Parl Deb (1879) 249, c 989; CJ (1750–54) 303; ibid (1860) 70, 73, 77). 6. LJ (1767–70) 189; ibid (1779–83) 191; ibid (1783–87) 613, 647; ibid (1787–93) 250, 338, 649; ibid (1794–96) 241; ibid (1801–02) 115, 221, 225, 230; ibid (1828) 34; ibid (1830–31) 471; ibid (1831–32) 387; ibid (1834) 745; ibid (1845) 730; ibid (1849) 135; ibid (1850) 367, 380, 384; ibid (1870) 77.

Fines 11.27The House of Lords in its capacity as a court of record has had power to inflict fines, either in substitution for, or in addition to, committal.1 The status of the House of Commons as a court of record has been doubted, and the Commons has not imposed a fine since 1666.2 Select committees in 1967 and 1977 and the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 1999 have recommended legislation to give the Commons a statutory power to fine.3 The 2013 Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege implied that, in its view, the Commons retained a power to fine, and noted that the New Zealand Parliament had recently exercised such a power, on the basis of its understanding of the powers of the UK House of Commons. The Joint Committee considered the disadvantages of legislating to confirm Parliament's penal powers outweighed the advantages and recommended further work in each House to set out clearly the powers they reserved the right to exercise.4

Footnotes 1. LJ (1620–28) 276; ibid (1660–66) 554; ibid (1666–75) 174; ibid (1685–91) 144; ibid (1760–64) 493 (Report of Precedents); ibid (1767–70) 575; ibid (1796–98) 509; ibid (1798–1800) 181; ibid (1801–02) 60, 105. Cases are recorded in which the Lords ordered security to be given for good conduct (ibid (1660–66) 554; ibid (1790–93) 331). 2. CJ (1660–67) 690; cf ibid (1547–1628) 609, and 1 Parl Hist 1250. In Jones v Randall (1774) 98 ER 708 at 944, Lord Mansfield remarked (obiter ) that the Commons were not a court of record, and in R v Pitt (1762) 97 ER 861, he said (again obiter ) that the Commons did not have power to fine. The Fines Act 1833 (c 99), ss 23–25, implicitly confirmed the understanding that the House of Lords imposes fines and the House of Commons does not, by requiring from the Clerk of the Parliaments a sessional return of fines and recognisances, and from the Clerk of the House of Commons a return of recognisances only. In Burdett v Abbot (1811) 104 ER 554, however, the court held that the House of Commons, whether or not it was a court, ought to have the power to protect itself from obstruction and insult, and to maintain its dignity and character. It is also notable that while the Commons did not impose fines, it had power to release prisoners on payment of fees. 3. HC 34 (1966–67) para 197; HC 417 (1976–77) para 15; HL 43-I, HC 214-I (1998–99) paras 279, 303. 4. Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, First Report of Session 2013–14, Parliamentary Privilege, HL 30, HC 100, paras 56, 77, 100.

Reprimand or admonition 11.28Although the powers to commit and to fine have not been used in modern times, the power to reprimand and admonish has been. Traditionally, the offender has been directed to be reprimanded1 or admonished formally2 by the Speaker or Lord Speaker.3 However, in recent years the House of Commons has not required the attendance of the culprit. Instead, the House has agreed to a resolution setting out the reprimand, which is subsequently recorded in the Journal and in Hansard.4 The text of the resolution was communicated to the culprits by the Clerk of the House. For details of the procedure used in earlier times, see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), pp 196–97.

Footnotes 1. LJ (1767–70) 187; ibid (1798–1800) 646; ibid (1801–02) 60; ibid (1810–12) 341, 399; ibid (1830–31) 335; ibid (1850) 89; CJ (1826–28) 399; ibid (1837–38) 316; ibid (1839) 278; ibid (1840) 23; ibid (1887) 306; ibid (1901) 418. 2. LJ (1826–27) 206; CJ (1831–32) 294; ibid (1833) 218; ibid (1842) 143; ibid (1874) 189; ibid (1892) 166; ibid (1929–30) 503. For formal admonishment in the Commons, see Votes and Proceedings, 27 October 2016 (HC Deb (27 October 2017) 616, c 459). 3. No such admonition or reprimand has been made since the first Lord Speaker was elected in 2006. The Lords have formerly ordered offenders to be taken into the custody of Black Rod and then to be called in and reprimanded by the Lord Chancellor and to be discharged upon payment of their fees (LJ (1805–06) 610), or to be continued in custody until they have entered into recognisances for good behaviour (ibid (1805–06) 340). In one instance, the Lords ordered that an offender should be discharged without any punishment but should be acquainted that if he repeated his offence he would not meet with such leniency (ibid (1767–70) 212). 4. Votes and Proceedings, 27 October 2016.

Prosecution of offenders 11.29In cases of breach of privilege which are also offences at law, where the punishment which the Commons has power to inflict would not be adequate to the offence, or where for any other cause the House has thought a proceeding at law necessary, either as a substitute for, or in addition to, its own proceedings, the Attorney General has been directed to prosecute the offender.1 In 2004 when protestors interrupted the Hunting Bill and in 2011 when a witness before a select committee was assaulted by a member of the public, charges were brought by the Crown, and the House did not invoke its own powers.2

Footnotes 1. CJ (1693–97) 734; ibid (1697–99) 288; ibid (1699–1702) 230–31, 735; ibid (1741–45) 394; ibid (1750–54) 304; ibid (1778–80) 902; ibid (1841) 394, 413; ibid (1854) 159; ibid (1857) 355; ibid (1860) 258; ibid (1866) 239; ibid (1889) 363. In two subsequent cases the House authorities informally invited the police to consider proceeding against those responsible for gross misbehaviour in the Gallery (ibid (1970–71) 68; ibid (1977–78) 438). 2. Disruption in the Chamber, 15 September 2004, offender bound over to keep the peace. Disruption at the Committee on Culture Media and Sport, 19 July 2011; the offender was sentenced to six weeks' custody.

Punishment of Members: House of Commons Contents Suspension Suspension and the salary of Members Expulsion 11.30The House has power to punish its own Members. In the past it has used reprimand or admonition, or has committed Members to custody.1 In modern practice, the House is most likely to exercise its power of suspension, although it retains its power to expel and has admonished.

Footnotes 1. Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 197.

Salaries of Chairman and Deputy Chairmen of Ways and Means 4.42Salaries are payable to the Chairman and Deputy Chairmen of Ways and Means in respect of their offices. They are usually increased at the same time as those salaries determined under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975. On 1 April 2017, the Chairman received £41,981 and the Deputy Chairmen £36,896, in addition to their salary as Members of Parliament. If not re-elected to office in a new Parliament, they qualify for equivalent loss of office payments to those given to Ministers.

Suspension and the salary of Members 11.32Since the passing of Standing Order No 45A in 1998, withholding of the Member's salary is an automatic consequence of suspension.1 Subsequently, the House agreed with a recommendation from the Committee on Standards and Privileges that, in appropriate cases, the Committee should recommend as a penalty the withholding of a Member's salary for a specified period without suspending the Member.2 In 2018, the House provided exceptionally for withholding a Member's salary for a shorter period than the suspension.3

Footnotes 1. CJ (1997–98) 596. Previously, some Orders for suspension also provided for the Member's salary to be withheld, eg ibid (1997–98) 191. For suspensions since this Order was made, see eg ibid (2001–02) 159, 355. 2. HC Deb (2002–03) 407, cc 1239–56; HC 403 (2002–03). 3. Votes and Proceedings, 24 July 2018 and HC Deb (24 July 2018) 645, c 925 ff.

Expulsion 11.33The expulsion by the House of Commons of one of its Members may be regarded as an example of the House's power to regulate its own constitution, though it is, for convenience, treated here as one of the methods of punishment at the disposal of the House. Members have been expelled for a wide variety of causes.1 In some cases, such as the last case in which expulsion was imposed, it was in consequence of a Member being sentenced to a term of imprisonment.2 In the previous case (and the only other since 1945), the case arose from a finding of contempt by the Committee of Privileges and the motion that the Member be suspended for six months was amended to substitute the penalty of expulsion.3 The Minister moving the original motion to suspend the Member concerned warned ‘Expulsion is a very serious step. It could be a step open to very great abuse.’4 Much more recently, similar concerns were expressed by the Committee on Standards, which noted in 2014: ‘There is a danger that the power of expulsion could be used to remove people because their opinions were unpopular, rather than because of misconduct. Members are elected, and the decision of the electorate should be respected.’5 In recent years, Members have resigned before debates on their conduct in cases where the Committee on Standards and Privileges6 or the Committee on Standards7 had recommended suspensions for terms of six months. Expulsion, though it vacates the seat of a Member and a new writ is immediately issued, does not create any disability to serve again in the House of Commons, if re-elected. The House's attempts in the mid-eighteenth century to be rid of John Wilkes, who was three times expelled and once had his return amended in favour of his defeated opponent, ended, some years later, only in the expunging from the Journal as ‘subversive of the rights of the whole body of electors of this kingdom’ of the earlier resolution that, following his expulsion, he was incapable of being re-elected in that Parliament.8 In 1882, when Bradlaugh was expelled and immediately re-elected, no question of the validity of his return arose.9 A Member whose seat is vacated under the Recall of MPs Act 2015 is not precluded from standing in the subsequent election.

Footnotes 1. Being in open rebellion (CJ (1714–18) 336, 467); being guilty of certain criminal offences, such as forgery (ibid (1722–27) 702; ibid (1954–55) 25), perjury (ibid (1782–83) 770), fraud or breach of trust (ibid (1718–21) 406, 412, 413; ibid (1727–32) 871; ibid (1812) 176; ibid (1892) 120; ibid (1922) 273, 276, 293, 319; and see Colchester ii, 373), conspiracy to defraud (CJ (1813–14) 433), misappropriation of public money (ibid (1702–04) 171; ibid (1810) 398), and corruption either in the administration of justice (ibid (1547–1628) 588) or in public office (ibid (1711–14) 30, 97); having misconducted themselves in the exercise of their duties as Members of the House (ibid (1667–87) 24; ibid (1693–97) 274 and 5 Parl Hist 900–910; CJ (1693–97) 283); having behaved in a manner unbecoming an officer and a gentleman (ibid (1795–96) 661; ibid (1890–91) 268, 272, 282); and being guilty of contempts, libels, or other offences against the House (ibid (1547–1628) 917; ibid (1640–42) 301, 537; ibid (1667–87) 431; ibid (1711–14) 513; ibid (1714–18) 411; ibid (1722–27) 391; ibid (1882) 61; ibid (1947–48) 22). See also Report of Precedents, HC 79 (1806–07). Further details of the procedure are given in Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), pp 198–99. 2. CJ (1954–55) 6 and 24–25. 3. Committee of Privileges, HC 138 (1946–47). 4. HC Deb (30 October 1947) 443, c 1160. 5. Committee on Standards, Eleventh Report of Session 2013–14, Patrick Mercer, HC 1225, para 28. 6. Committee on Standards and Privileges, Second Report of Session 2012–13, Mr Denis MacShane, HC 635. 7. Committee on Standards, Eleventh Report of Session 2013–14, Patrick Mercer, HC 1225. 8. CJ (1761–64) 721–23; ibid (1768–70) 178–79, 228–29, 385, 386, 387, 451; ibid (1780–82) 977. See also 1 Cav Deb 352. 9. CJ (1882) 62.

Punishment of Members: House of Lords Contents Findings of Committee for Privileges (2009) House Committee Reports (2011 and 2013) House of Lords Reform Act 2014 House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015 11.34The House of Lords has a range of sanctions which it can apply to its Members, ranging from denial of access to financial support or the facilities of the House, through to suspension for any period of time, and expulsion.1 These sanctions derive from three main sources: the historic intrinsic powers of the House, resolutions and Standing Orders of the House, and statute. The House's intrinsic powers were clarified by the Committee for Privileges in 2009, while the resolutions, Standing Orders and statutes were passed between 2011 and 2015.

Footnotes 1. In addition, a Member who is convicted of a criminal offence in the United Kingdom and sentenced to be imprisoned indefinitely or for more than one year automatically ceases to be a Member.

Findings of Committee for Privileges (2009) 11.35In 2009 the Committee for Privileges reviewed the House's disciplinary powers, following the appearance in January 2009 of allegations against four Lords Members.1 The Committee for Privileges concluded that the situation at that time was as follows: 1. The House has no power, by resolution, to require that the writ of summons be withheld from a Member otherwise entitled to receive it; as a result, it is not within the power of the House by resolution to expel a Member permanently. 2. The House does possess the power to suspend its Members for a defined period not longer than the remainder of the current Parliament. On 20 May 2009, the House formally adopted these conclusions.2 The same day, two Lords Members were suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of the 2008–09 Session of Parliament.3 Further suspensions were imposed in 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014 and 2016.4 Such suspensions take immediate effect. Any suspended Lords Member is expected to withdraw immediately from the precincts of the House, and is barred from access to the precincts for the duration of the suspension. They are not entitled to stand or vote in any election for the office of Lord Speaker (Standing Order No 19).

Footnotes 1. See Committee for Privileges, First Report, The Powers of the House in respect of its Members, HL 87 (2008–09) (LJ (2008–09) 390–405). 2. LJ (2008–09) 537. 3. See Committee for Privileges, Second Report, The Conduct of Lord Moonie, Lord Snape, Lord Truscott and Lord Taylor of Blackburn, HL 88 (2008–09) (LJ (2008–09) 406–509); and LJ (2008–09) 537. 4. LJ (2010–12) 422, 1699; LJ (2013–14) 1256, 1814; LJ (2015–16) 962–63.

House Committee Reports (2011 and 2013) 11.36In 2011, in the light of the House's findings that a number of Lords Members had wrongly claimed money under the system of financial support, the House Committee considered how to deal with Members in such a position who had not repaid the sums in question before the end of any period of suspension agreed by the House. The ensuing report1 proposed that in such situations the Chairman of Committees, on behalf of the Committee, should move a motion to suspend the Member until the debt had been repaid or until the end of the Parliament, whichever came sooner (in recognition of the limits on the House's powers at that time). The novel element of the report was the proposal that it should be possible for a new suspension to be imposed on the Member at the start of the following Parliament if the money had still not been repaid, and so on until the debt had been cleared. Essentially, ongoing non-payment was to be treated as an ongoing breach of the House's rules. When the debt was finally repaid, this would be recorded in the minutes of the House. The House agreed the Report on 20 December 2011 but it never proved necessary to use the mechanism.2 In 2013, the Committee proposed two new sanctions to the House: denial of access for a specified period to (a) the system of financial support for Members; and (b) the facilities of the House.3 The proposals were agreed by the House on 16 January 2014.4

Footnotes 1. See House Committee, Second Report, Recovery of money wrongly claimed by Members, HL 238 (2010–12) (LJ (2010–12) 1829). 2. HL Deb (2010–12) 244, cc 1670–84. 3. See House Committee, First Report, Sanctions for Breaches of the Code of Conduct, HL 91 (2013–14) (LJ (2013–14) 662). 4. HL Deb (2013–14) 98, cc 352–53.

House of Lords Reform Act 2014 11.37The next major change was brought about by the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, which provided for Lords Members convicted of a serious offence to cease to be Members (see paras 3.35–3.36 ). After the 2014 Act was passed by the House of Lords, the Code of Conduct was amended to complement the new imprisonment provisions.1 It does so by providing that a Lords Member sentenced to any term of imprisonment (including sentences of a year or less, and suspended sentences) is deemed to be in breach of the Code.2 This enables the House to apply sanctions to those Members sentenced to imprisonment but not caught by the 2014 Act.

Footnotes 1. See Committee for Privileges and Conduct, Fifteenth Report, Further amendments to the Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Code of Conduct, HL 182 (2013–14) (LJ (2013–14) 1775–79, 1814). 2. Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Lords, paras 16 and 17; Guide to the Code of Conduct, paras 149–52.

House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015 11.38In 2014–15, the former Lord Speaker Baroness Hayman introduced a Private Member's Bill to further increase the House's powers to punish its Members. The bill was supported by the Government and received Royal Assent on 26 March 2015 as the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015. The Act conferred on the House of Lords the power to expel Members or suspend them for any period of time, with the arrangements to be spelt out in Standing Orders. By so doing, it overcame the restrictions on the House's intrinsic powers which had been identified in 2009. The Committee for Privileges and Conduct accordingly published a report in July 2015 proposing what became Standing Order No 12.1 The Standing Order provides that a Lords Member may be expelled or suspended if (a) the Member has been found in breach of the Code of Conduct; and (b) the Committee for Privileges and Conduct has recommended that the Member be expelled or suspended (as the case may be). The power is restricted to misconduct which occurred on or after 26 June 2015, or which happened before then but only became public knowledge after that date. Misconduct which occurred before 26 June 2015 and was public knowledge before then is punishable by suspension for a specified period of time not longer than the remainder of the Parliament, under the House's historic powers. Expulsion or suspension takes effect as soon as the House agrees the motion. An elected hereditary peer who is expelled is to be replaced through a by-election.2

Footnotes 1. See Committee for Privileges and Conduct, Second Report, House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015: changes to standing orders, HL 15 (LJ (2015–16) 223–24). 2. SO No 10.

House of Lords 4.45The organisation of government and opposition parties in the Lords mirrors that in the Commons, save for the existence of a substantial body of Members not affiliated to any party (Crossbench peers, see para 6.52 ). The conduct of government business in the Lords is entrusted to the Leader of the House, who is appointed by the Prime Minister and is generally a member of the Cabinet. The Leader's role in the Chamber is described at para 25.56. The Leader and the Leader's private office are available to assist and advise all Members, irrespective of party. The Government Whips, who hold salaried offices as members of the Royal Household, are the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms (Government Chief Whip), the Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard (Deputy Government Chief Whip) and five Lords-in-Waiting.1 The Leader of the Opposition2 and Opposition Chief Whip, who have functions similar to the corresponding figures in the House of Commons, receive statutory salaries paid out of the Consolidated Fund.3

Footnotes 1. Additional Whips may be appointed as Lords-in-Waiting, but by virtue of the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 they cannot draw a ministerial salary. 2. Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, s 2(1) defines the Leader of the Opposition in the Lords, and s 2(3) provides that the Lord Speaker's decision on which Lord is Leader of the Opposition is final. 3. Ministerial Salaries and Members' Pensions Act 1965, s 2; Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, sch 2; SI 1996/1913.

Ministerial accountability to Parliament 11.40Following a recommendation of the House of Commons Public Service Committee,1 both Houses came to Resolutions to the following effect: ‘That, in the opinion of this House, the following principles should govern the conduct of ministers of the Crown in relation to Parliament: ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments and Next Steps Agencies; it is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister; ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be decided in accordance with relevant statute, and the government's Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (second edition, January 1997); similarly, ministers should require civil servants who give evidence before parliamentary committees on their behalf and under their directions to be as helpful as possible in providing accurate, truthful and full information, in accordance with the duties and responsibilities of civil servants as set out in the Civil Service Code.’2 The Resolutions were presented as clarifying the roles of Ministers in relation to Parliament.3 They were not intended to affect or derogate from the duties Ministers owe to Parliament in their capacity as Members of either of the Houses. The Ministerial Code also contains material about Ministers' duty to give information which regulates Ministers' duties in respect of accountability to Parliament. Adherence to the Code is a matter for the Prime Minister, not for the Speaker or the House authorities.4 Nonetheless, actions which may breach the Code may also be contempts and neither the Code nor the additional duty on Ministers to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister provided in the Resolutions above affect the right of either House to proceed against them in a case of alleged contempt, as it might proceed against any other Member. Each House could suspend or otherwise discipline a Minister; power to act against a Minister who was no longer a Member of either House would be more restricted. When the House found unspecified Ministers in contempt of the House for refusal to comply when the House had passed a motion for a return relating to the release of the Attorney General's final and full legal advice to Cabinet, the papers were published the next day.5

Footnotes 1. See Second Report, HC 313 (1995–96); First Special Report, HC 67 (1996–97); First Report, HC 234 (1996–97), HC Deb (19 March 1997) 292, cc 1046–47 and HL Deb (1996–97) 579, cc 1055–62. See also a resolution reaffirming the principle that Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament, CJ (7 July 1998) 667. 2. The Code was issued in 1996 under the Civil Service (Amendment) Order in Council 1995 and amended in 1999 to take account of devolution. Section 5 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 now stipulates that the Minister for the Civil Service must publish a Code of Conduct for the Civil Service. 3. HC 234 (1996–97) Qq 63–66. For a Speaker's statement on how Ministers' adherence to their obligations under the resolution could be enforced, see HC Deb (2001–02) 375, c 971. While the Speaker has made it clear that Ministers are responsible for the contents of their answers, Members are entitled to a response from a Minister when the accuracy of a ministerial answer has been reasonably challenged (HC Deb (2005–06) 442, c 1283). Ministers are also responsible for everything said by those within their department (HC Deb (17 April 2012) 543, c 192). Points of Order have been used to question Ministers' veracity (HC Deb (6 December 2017) 632, c 1068 ff); the matter was not given the precedence accorded to a matter of privilege (HC Deb (14 December 2017) 633, c 605). Ministers have also used a point of order to correct factually incorrect answers to questions in the House (HC Deb (26 June 2018) 643, c 793). 4. HC Deb (8 July 2014) 584, c 2014. 5. Votes and Proceedings, 13 November 2018, 3 December 2018, 4 December 2018; HC Deb (4 December 2018) 650, c 667 ff.

What constitutes privilege Contents Lords: privileges of Parliament and of peerage 12.1Parliamentary privilege is the sum of certain rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals. Some privileges rest solely on the law and custom of Parliament, while others have been defined by statute. Certain rights and immunities such as freedom from arrest or freedom of speech are exercised primarily by individual Members of each House. They exist in order to allow Members of each House to contribute effectively to the discharge of the functions of their House. Other rights and immunities, such as the power to punish for contempt and the power to regulate its own constitution, belong primarily to each House as a collective body, for the protection of its Members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity.1 Fundamentally, however, it is only as a means to the effective discharge of the collective functions of the House that the individual privileges are enjoyed by Members.2 The Speaker has ruled that parliamentary privilege is absolute.3 When any of these rights and immunities is disregarded or attacked, the offence is called a breach of privilege and is punishable under the law of Parliament. Each House also claims the right to punish contempts. These are actions which, while not necessarily breaches of any specific privilege, obstruct or impede it in the performance of its functions, or are offences against its authority or dignity, such as disobedience to its legitimate commands or libels upon itself, its Members or its officers. The power to punish for contempt or breach of privilege has been judicially considered to be inherent in each House of Parliament4 not as a necessary incident of the authority and functions of a legislature (as might be argued in respect of certain privileges) but by virtue of their descent from the undivided High Court of Parliament and in right of the lex et consuetudo parliamenti. Since parliamentary privilege is a means to the collective discharge by each House of Parliament of its functions, occasions have arisen and will continue to arise when one House or the other is content not to insist upon its privileges, either generally or in a particular instance.5 In 1607, the House of Commons gave leave, at his request, for a Member to be sued, a process against which Members were then protected by privilege.6 In current practice, tacit permission is normally given to Members of the Commons to attend a court on a day on which that House sits, though it is equally possible for the Member to insist on the undoubted privilege not to do so (see para 14.10 ). Similarly, though service of a writ within the precincts of Parliament on a sitting day is a contempt (see para 15.11 ), select committees of the Commons have contemplated an application to the House for leave to serve and execute process.7 Both Houses no longer prevent (and indeed arrange for) the publication of debates or proceedings except when these are held in private or publication is prohibited.8 There is, however, an area where such considerations do not arise. Article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689 lays on courts an obligation not to ‘impeach or question’ proceedings in Parliament. The prohibition is statute law and, unless there has been amending legislation, the protection it confers cannot be waived by either House (see para 13.14 ).9 In 1917, a court permitted the examination of what a plaintiff, who was a Member of the House of Commons, had said in Parliament, evidently in an attempt to assess the merits of an argument (which was based on a rebuttal of what had been said in the House) about the extent to which the defendant enjoyed a qualified privilege at law.10 It was subsequently judicially assumed that the court in 1917 considered that it was no more than taking notice of the fact that the speech had been made.11 Certainly, the House of Commons had taken no steps to ‘waive’ any statutory duty—which in any event rests on the courts and not on the House—not to impeach or question proceedings in Parliament. In 1994, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council implicitly endorsed the contention that the privilege enshrined in the Bill of Rights may be altered only by an amending statute. The committee reversed a conclusion reached by the New Zealand Court of Appeal to the effect that Article IX need not be interpreted so as to exclude the possibility of waiver by a resolution of a legislature to the proceedings of which it applied.12 Since then the Bill of Rights has been judicially recognised as a constitutional statute and as such not amenable to implied repeal.13

Footnotes 1. In this and the five following chapters, the term ‘privilege’ is used in the sense of fundamental right necessary for the exercise of constitutional functions. The use of the term in the context of the financial powers of the Commons, ie ‘financial privilege’, including rights both against the Crown and against the Lords, is dealt with separately in Chapters 33 to 37. 2. The Commons asserted in 1675 that privilege existed so that Members might ‘freely attend the public affairs of the House, without disturbance or interruption’ (CJ (1667–87) 342). 3. HC Deb (23 April 2008) 474, c 1313. The ruling related to the privilege of freedom of speech. 4. The position of Parliament in the United Kingdom thus differs from that of independent Commonwealth or colonial legislatures, for which see Kielly v Corson (1842) 12 ER 225. That decision was followed by the Privy Council in Fenton v Hampton (1858) 14 ER 727; Doyle v Falconer (1866) 16 ER 293; Barton v Taylor (1886) 11 App Cas 197; and Fielding v Thomas [1896] AC 600; and by the Supreme Court of Canada in Landers v Woodworth (1878) 2 SCR 158, esp 210–12. See also New Brunswick Broadcasting Corpn v Nova Scotia (Speaker of House of Assembly) (1993) 100 DLR (4th) 212, esp 243, 262. The doctrine was accepted that under the common law only such powers are inherent in a legislative assembly as were necessary to its existence, and the proper exercise of its functions and duties as a legislature. Among these necessary powers is the right to order the production of State papers, including those for which legal, professional or public interest immunity might be claimed (Egan v Willis and Cahill (1996) 40 NSWLR 650 and Egan v Chadwick (1999) 46 NSWLR 563 ). Wider power must depend on express grant by statute of constitutional power, as in the case of Victoria (Dill v Murphy (1864) 15 ER 784 ) and New South Wales (Harnett v Crick [1908] AC 470–77 and Armstrong v Budd (1969) 71 SR (NSW) 386 ). However, s 10 of the New Zealand Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014 (c 58) stipulates that ‘In determining under

5.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

13.

subsection (1) whether words are spoken or acts are done for purposes of or incidental to the transacting of the business of the House or of a committee, no necessity test is required or permitted to be used.’ In 1831, in the case of Wellesley v Duke of Beaufort (Mr Long Wellesley's case) (1831) 39 ER 538, Lord Brougham LC observed that ‘if a court of law or equity … entertains an opinion that a Member of either House of Parliament has privilege of Parliament, that court is … bound to give him the benefit of the privilege, and to give it to him with all its incidents’. This, his Lordship added, would be true even if a claim to the privilege had actually been abandoned by Parliament, because the court had no means of knowing judicially, short of a statute, what Parliament had decided (at 544). But no subsequent judicial authority seems to have followed Brougham's view in its entirety. CJ (1547–1628) 378. The decision was relatively soon regarded as significant, since it gained a place in Henry Scobell's Memorials (1656), p 95. Cf a case in 1559, where the House divided on whether a Member in outlawry should—as would normally have been the case—have privilege (CJ (1547–1638) 55). For example, Committee of Privileges, First Report, HC 31 (1945–46) p vii. No such application seems, however, to have been made. CJ (1970–71) 548: and see paras 13.3–13.5. It was held by Lord Hatherley LC in Duke of Newcastle v Morris (1870) LR 4 HL 661 that a privilege of Parliament, established by common law and recognised by statute, should not be abrogated except by express words in a statute. Adam v Ward [1917] AC 309, commented on in Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd [1995] 1 AC 321 at 335–36, [1994] 3 All ER 407 at 416–17 per Lord Browne-Wilkinson. Lord Dunedin LJ, however, explicitly recognised that absolute privilege attached to speeches in the House of Commons ‘for motives of high public policy’; but he added that it was not right that such privilege, intended to safeguard liberty of discussion, should be turned into ‘an abominable instrument of oppression’ (Adam v Ward [1917] AC 324 ). Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd [1995] 1 AC 321, [1994] 3 All ER 407. Both the New Zealand House of Representatives and its Privileges Committee had come to the conclusion reflected in the Privy Council's judgment (New Zealand Debates, vol 536, pp 16191–95, and Interim Report of the New Zealand Privileges Committee, 1991–93). For the reasoning of the New Zealand Court of Appeal in a contrary sense, see Television New Zealand Ltd v Prebble (1993) 3 NZLR 513, esp 520–21. See Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] EWHC 195 (Admin), [2003] QB 151, [2002] 3 WLR 247 for discussion of implied repeal of constitutional statutes.

Lords: privileges of Parliament and of peerage 12.2The Lords enjoy their privileges simply because of their immemorial role in Parliament as advisers of the Sovereign. In addition to privilege of Parliament, which is enjoyed by all Members of the House of Lords, whether they are bishops or peers, there is a separate privilege of peerage, which extends to all peers, whether or not they have seats in the House, including peers who are minors, and also to wives and widows of peers.1 Unlike privilege of Parliament, it is not interrupted by a long prorogation or dissolution.2 The extent of the privilege of peerage is not entirely clear, but it has been shown in recent times to confer immunity from arrest on civil process.3 The Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 1999 recommended its abolition.4

Footnotes 1. By the Acts of Union of 1706 and 1800 peers of Scotland and Ireland were accorded the same privileges as peers of England (Holiday et al v Colonel Pitt (1734) 27 ER 767, 93 ER 987; case of Viscount Hawarden (LJ (1828) 28–34)). If, however, a peer of Ireland is elected to the Commons they are not entitled to privilege of peerage so long as they continue to be a Member of that House (Union with Ireland Act 1800, art 4). The Peeresses Act 1441 (20 Hen 6, c 9) conferred the right of trial by the House of Lords upon peeresses; since that time it has been the law that women peers and wives and widows of peers have had the same immunity from arrest on civil process as peers (Countess of Rutland's case, ed J H Thomas and J F Fraser Reports of Sir Edward Coke (1826) vi, p 52; cases of Lady Purbeck (1625); Lady De la Warr (1642); Lady Dacre (1660); Lady Petre (1664); Countess of Huntingdon (1676); Countess of Newport (1699); Lady Abergavenny (1727); LJ (1828) 28–34). A peeress by marriage forfeits her privilege of peerage if she marries a commoner (SO No 83). 2. For interruption of privilege of Parliament, see paras 14.12–14.13; House of Lords SO No 82; Sir Edward Coke First Part of the Institutes (1823) s 9 [16b]; LJ (1660–66) 298; ibid (1691–96) 241; ibid (1666–75) 714; ibid (1675–81) 67, 79, 80, 659. 3. Stourton v Stourton [1963] P 302; Peden International Transport, Moss Bros, The Rowe Veterinary Group and Barclays Bank plc v Lord Mancroft (1989), see Patricia Leopold, ‘The freedom of peers from arrest’, Public Law (Autumn 1989). See also para 14.13. 4. HL 43-I, HC 214-I (1998–99) para 329.

Historical development of privilege Contents Freedom of speech Freedom from arrest Freedom of access Favourable construction Privilege with respect to membership of the House 12.3At the commencement of every Parliament it has been the custom for the Speaker, in the name, and on behalf of, the Commons, to lay claim by humble petition to their ancient and undoubted rights and privileges; particularly to freedom of speech in debate, freedom from arrest, freedom of access to Her Majesty whenever occasion shall require; and that the most favourable construction should be placed upon all their proceedings. The Speaker's pronouncement is of symbolic importance rather than of practical effect. The Presiding Commissioner of a Royal Commission under letters patent, replies to the Speaker's petition that, ‘Her Majesty most readily confirms all the rights and privileges which have ever been granted to or conferred upon the Commons, by Her Majesty or any of her royal predecessors’.1 By contrast with the Lords, the acquisition and enforcement of these privileges by the Commons was both complex and prolonged. The importance of privilege today cannot be entirely divorced from its past. Each of the Speaker's petitions is briefly considered in its historical context in this chapter, together with related powers and privileges. Subsequent chapters then develop each of the themes in current procedure.

Footnotes 1. LJ (1841) 571; Votes and Proceedings, 14 June 2017, HL Deb (14 June 2017) 783, c 4; for the form of words used at the opening of the first new Parliament after an accession to the throne, see LJ (1906) 18; ibid (1911) 9; ibid (1945–46) 22; ibid (1955–56) 13.

Freedom of speech 12.4The first claim in the Speaker's petition, and regarded as the most significant, is for freedom of speech in debate. By the latter part of the fifteenth century,1 the Commons of England seems to have enjoyed an undefined right to freedom of speech, as a matter of tradition rather than by virtue of a privilege sought and obtained. Earlier Speakers made no claim for such a privilege but instead to favourable construction of their remarks and those of the House.2 The earliest evidence of a shift of emphasis away from reliance on traditional assumptions and attempts to avoid the visitation of royal displeasure on the Speaker, and towards a distinct claim of privilege for the House, appears to be the petition of Speaker Sir Thomas More in 1523, asking Henry VIII ‘to take all in good part, interpreting every man's words, how uncunningly soever they may be couched, to proceed yeat of a good zeale towardes the profitt of your Realme’. More's plea may or may not have been answered,3 and what was sought in the immediately following Parliaments is not clear. By the first Parliament of Elizabeth I, however, a claim for freedom of speech in debate was certainly made,4 and in 1563 it was justified as ‘according to the old antient order’.5 Though no claim appears to have been made in 1566, by the end of the century the practice had become regular. Although it was recognised that freedom of speech was important and the Crown ought not to act against a Member directly for something said in the House, it seems to have been common ground that decorum and obedience to the Sovereign's wishes ought to be respected. Just as the House increased its ability to protect its Members from arrest and molestation, so it was frequently ready to take punitive action, without waiting for the Crown or Council, against those who overstepped the mark in debate.6 There was much in these views with which the Crown agreed. Lord Keeper Sir Edward Coke emphasised the executive's view in 1593 when he reminded the Speaker that: ‘Her Majesty granteth you liberal but not licentious speech, liberty therefore but with due limitation … To say yea or no to bills, God forbid that any man should be restrained or afraid to answer according to his best liking … which is the very true liberty of the House; not, as some suppose, to speak there of all causes as him listeth … No King fit for his state will suffer such absurdities.’7 Much of what was unresolved under Elizabeth remained debatable in the years before the civil war, though under Charles I the acuteness of successive political crises diminished the likelihood of resolution. Those who took the view that the basis of freedom of speech was inherent argued in the Apology of 1604 that it was erroneous to believe that the House's privileges were ‘of grace only, renewed every Parliament … upon petition and so to be limited’. The view was expressed in Committee on the Commons petition in 1610 that freedom of speech ‘could not well be taken from us without shaking the foundations of the liberties of Parliament’. In 1621, James VI and I challenged these assumptions. Privileges, he said, ‘were derived from the grace and permission of our ancestors and us’. To this the House rejoined: ‘that every Member of the House of Commons hath and of right ought to have freedom of speech … and … like freedom from all impeachment, imprisonment and molestation (other than by censure of the House itself) for or concerning any speaking, reasoning or declaring of any matter or matters touching the Parliament or parliament business.’ The Protestation of 1621 had much in common with Elizabethan views, not least because it explicitly contemplated the reference to the king of anything questioned or complained of in Parliament, provided it was ‘with the advice and assent of all the Commons’.8 The actions of Charles I appeared to challenge this tradition, particularly when in 1629 Sir John Eliot and two other Members were arrested and found guilty in King's Bench of seditious words spoken in debate and for violence against the Speaker, who had been physically restrained in the Chair in order to delay the adjournment of the House. Among the Crown's arguments were the contentions that parliamentary privilege did not protect seditious comments in the Chamber, and that King's Bench could properly take note of day-to-day events in the High Court of Parliament, such as the assault on the Speaker.9 By the time of the final breakdown in the early 1640s, the House had in practice bypassed Elizabethan conventions which denied Members the initiative in debate on great matters of State, and the limits of what was unacceptable in criticism of the Government had been drastically narrowed. When the 11 years of Charles I's personal rule came to an end, the attention of the Commons returned to free speech and the events of 1629. Consequently, in 1641, as the political relationship between Parliament and the King was on the verge of breakdown, the arrests of Eliot and the others were declared to be contrary to the law and privilege of Parliament.10 It is apparent that on the return of the Stuarts from exile in 1660, not only was Parliament anxious to preserve at least some of what had been gained in the years of the Republic and the Commonwealth but that the arrests of 1629 still rankled in some quarters. A bill for maintaining and confirming the rights and privileges of Parliament was read for the first time in the Commons within months of the re-establishment of the monarchy. Much of its purpose was of course to emphasise the illegality of the way the Commons had been treated in the 1640s and 1650s, but it also made the clear statement that ‘the Parliaments of England and the Members thereof shall forever hereafter fully and freely enjoy all their ancient and just rights and privileges in as ample a manner as … formerly’.11 The following year, the Treason and Seditious Practices Act repeated in statutory form the claim to freedom of speech in debate.12 In 1667, a Commons committee was nominated to review the issue of freedom of speech, and in particular the case of the arrests, then nearly 40 years in the past. The Commons declared that the Court of King's Bench should not have accepted jurisdiction in the cases of Eliot and the others, and that the judgment was illegal and against the privileges of Parliament.13 The Lords then took up the cause. One of those arrested in 1629, by then a peer, successfully moved to reverse the judgment.14 Though the decision of a court had been overturned, there remained the possibility of direct royal intervention in debate, in response to what Charles II or James II deemed politically unacceptable. In the event, such a threat failed to materialise.15 Nevertheless, when in the revolutionary circumstances of 1688–89 the constitutional initiative passed to Parliament, the opportunity was taken to repeat in the fullest form the claim to freedom of speech, and to protect its status by grounding it in statute, secure from royal interference in or through the courts. The assertion in Article IX of the Bill of Rights that freedom of speech and debates and proceedings in Parliament are not to be ‘impeached or questioned in any

court or place out of Parliament’ was intended to stifle both the courts and the Crown.16 Chapter 13 will illustrate the elaboration in practice of the principles confirmed in 1689.

Footnotes 1. Earlier cases indicating the establishment of a distinct privilege of freedom of speech in debate seem inconclusive. The first possibility is Haxey's case (1396–97) (Rot Parl iii, 339, 341, 407, 430, 434). The fact that Haxey was not a Member of the House must alter the significance of the grounds on which the House petitioned that judgment against him should be reversed, namely the ‘Libertes de lez ditz Communes’. The petition of Younge (a Member) in 1455, that he should be compensated for having suffered for a speech he made in the House, a punishment meted out contrary to ‘the olde liberte and fredom of the Comyns of this land … to speke and sey in the House … without any maner [of] chalenge, charge or punicion’, should be considered in the light of the fact that he was asking a Yorkist Parliament to compensate him for the effects of an untimely and unwelcome political proposal made to its Lancastrian predecessor. Finally, the case of Strode in 1513, who was punished in the Stannary Court for having proposed in Parliament measures to regulate Cornish tinners, is of limited significance, despite its popularity in the early seventeenth century. The statute which voided the proceedings and sanctions against Strode bore similarly, it is true, on other suits against Members of that or future Parliaments ‘for any bill, speaking or declaring of any matter concerning the Parliament’. But this can hardly be a manifesto directed at the most likely source of a limitation on freedom of debate, Henry VIII; nor was it probably intended to be such. A committee of the Commons concluded in 1667 that Strode's Act was: ‘general law extending to indemnify all and every the Members of both Houses of Parliament in all Parliaments, for and touching any bills, speaking, reasoning or declaring of any matters in or concerning the Parliament to be communed and treated of; and is declaratory … law of the ancient and necessary rights and privileges of Parliament.’

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

This is, however, a political understanding some century and a half after the event (CJ (1667–87) 19). What the case did undoubtedly establish was the privileged position of the Commons against inferior courts, as a full partner in Parliament. For comments on the cases mentioned, see Erskine May (20th edn, 1983), pp 78–79; and see also Sir John Neale ‘The Commons Privilege of Free Speech in Parliament’ in eds E B Fryde and Edward Miller Historical Studies of the English Parliament (1970) vol 2, p 147 ff, and G R Elton The Tudor Constitution (1982), p 260 ff. See eg the claim made by Mr Speaker Cheney in 1399, 3 Rot Parl 424, 425. See G R Elton The Parliament of England, 1559–81 (1986), pp 331, 341–49. CJ (1547–1628) 37. D'Ewes 66. Elton The Parliament of England, 1559–81 (1986), pp 342–49. Elton The Tudor Constitution (1982), p 274. See J P Kenyon The Stuart Constitution (1986), pp 24–27, 38–42. R v Eliot, Holles and Valentine (1629) 3 State Tr 293–336, esp 309–10. In R v Chaytor [2010] UKSC 52, [2011] 1 AC 684, [2011] 1 All ER 805 Lord Philips remarked that Eliot established that nothing said in Parliament by a Member as such could be treated as an offence by the ordinary courts, but that the House of Lords ‘had carefully avoided the question’ of whether the court could try a Member for an assault on the Speaker in the House, see para 11.18. CJ (1640–42) 203; 3 State Tr 294. CJ (1660–67) 42, 49, 80. Despite several reminders from the Commons, the Lords failed to return the bill before the end of the session (ibid 201). 1661, c 1. The Act included a proviso that its main provisions should not deny Members of either House ‘their just ancient freedom and privilege in debating any matters or business which shall be propounded or debated’. CJ (1667–87) 3, 19, 25. LJ (1666–75) 166, 223; 3 State Tr 331–33. It is, however, relevant to note the action taken in King's Bench in 1684–85 against Speaker Sir William Williams for licensing, in 1680 and on the order of the House of Commons, a pamphlet critical of the Duke of York, later James VII and II. Counsel for the Speaker argued that the court had no jurisdiction over the proceedings of the Commons, of which Williams' actions formed part. The court, however, found the publication a seditious libel, and went on to punish the former Speaker for his part in its publication (13 State Tr 1370 ff). The Commons subsequently declared the judgment to have been illegal and against the freedom of Parliament (CJ (1688–93) 215)—like that against Eliot—though it was never reversed. Lord Denman was to observe later that: ‘R v Williams was ill decided, because he—(the defendant)—was questioned for what he did by order of the House within the walls of Parliament. R v Dangerfield— the individual who sold the offending pamphlet—is undoubted law, because he sold and published beyond the walls of Parliament, under an order to do what was unlawful’

(Stockdale v Hansard (1839) 112 ER 1112 ). 16. The inclusion of the phrase ‘proceedings in Parliament’ as well as ‘freedom of speech and debates’ among those things protected by the Bill of Rights may reflect this distinction between direct royal interference with the business of Parliament, and indirect harassment of Members through the courts for what they had said in the House.

Freedom from arrest 12.5The second of the Speaker's customary petitions on behalf of the Commons at the beginning of a Parliament is for freedom from arrest. The development of this privilege is in some ways linked to that of other privileges. Arrest was frequently the consequence of the unsuccessful assertion of freedom of speech, for example. At the same time, there are some distinctive features in chronology and development which mark off freedom from arrest from other such claims made by the House. Some elements which still underpin the privilege are found at a very early period. In other areas, the House has subsequently voluntarily narrowed the scope of the privilege.1 Whatever the origin of the privilege of freedom from arrest, whether in some recollection of the liberties attached to attendance at traditional popular assemblies or in the principle that the King's servants doing their duty in a superior court should not be impeded by litigation in a lower tribunal, the principle was clearly established at a relatively early date. The first known assertion of freedom from arrest seems to date from 1340,2 when the King released a Member from prison during the Parliament following that in which he had been prevented, by his detention, from taking his seat. In 1404, the Commons claimed that it was privileged from arrest for debt, contract, or trespass of any kind, according to the custom of the realm.3 Though the principle may have been deeply engrained, its implementation was patchy and often beyond the power of the Commons alone to enforce. The delay in releasing the Member in 1340 amply illustrates this, as does the case of Mr Speaker Thorpe, a century later, in 1452. Thorpe had been imprisoned and retained in gaol by order of the House of Lords, despite advice from their assistants the judges that he was entitled to his release. In that instance, the Commons accepted the position and elected a new Speaker.4 Indeed in two separate cases in 1472, the courts disallowed writs of supersedeas staying actions for debt on the grounds that Members of Parliament and their servants were protected by custom from being arrested, imprisoned or impleaded for debt during the time of Parliament: the judges upheld the plaintiff's view that there was no such custom.5 Subsequent developments, however, were to establish relatively clearly, if slowly, the basis and the limitations of the privilege. In the first place, it had always been recognised that privilege could not be pleaded against criminal offences, then adequately summed up as treason, felony, and breach of the peace. The Commons accepted this in 1429,6 as did the judges in Thorpe's case in 1452.7 A resolution of the Commons in 1675 declared that ‘by the laws and usage of Parliament, privilege of Parliament belongs to every Member of the House of Commons, in all cases except treason, felony and breach of the peace’. In 1697, it was resolved ‘that no Member of this House has any privilege in case of breach of the peace, or forcible entries or forcible detainers’.8 In connection with John Wilkes' case, although the Court of Common Pleas had decided otherwise, it was resolved by both Houses in 1763 that privilege of Parliament does ‘not extend to the case of writing and publishing seditious libels, nor ought to be allowed to obstruct the ordinary course of the laws in the speedy and effectual prosecution of so heinous and dangerous an offence’.9 ‘Since that time’, said the Committee of Privileges in 1831, ‘it has been considered as established generally, that privilege is not claimable for any indictable offence’.10 The privilege as regards the Lords was explained by a resolution of 1626, ‘that the privilege of this House is that no peer of Parliament, sitting the Parliament, is to be imprisoned or restrained without sentence or order of the House, unless it be for treason or felony, or for refusing to give surety of the peace’.11 The current Standing Order of the Lords (No 82) prescribes that ‘when Parliament is sitting, or within the usual times of privilege of Parliament, no Lord of Parliament is to be imprisoned or restrained without sentence or order of the House, unless upon a criminal charge or for refusing to give security for the peace’. Notification of orders for imprisonment or restraint must be given to the House.12 It was not only the criminal law against which a plea of privilege would fail. In earlier days, the privilege could not prevail against more or less arbitrary detention at the order of the Crown. The most notable case under Elizabeth was that of Strickland in 1571, who was called before the Council and inhibited from attending the House (not strictly speaking arrested) for preferring a bill to reform the Book of Common Prayer, against the Queen's wishes.13 In the next two reigns, however, such activities became more common. In 1615, 1621 and 1622 Members were imprisoned without trial while the House was not sitting or after a dissolution. Charles I arrested Eliot and Digges in 1626 while the House was in session, and the further action of the King in 1629 has already been mentioned14 (see para 12.4 ). After the Restoration, the practice effectively ceased. From the earliest times,15 therefore, freedom from arrest was regarded as confined to civil suits. In its original form, the privilege was even wider than freedom from arrest. Members were not to be ‘impleaded’, which was taken to prevent civil actions being maintained against them at all, by reason of their inability to maintain their private rights while in attendance upon Parliament.16 The House insisted in 1477 that the privilege had existed ‘whereof tyme that mannys mynde is not the contrarie’.17 Writs of supersedeas were first issued to stay such actions but from the beginning of the seventeenth century the Speaker was ordered to stay suits by a letter to the judges,18 and sometimes also by a warrant to the party;19 and the parties and their attorneys who commenced the actions were brought by the Serjeant to the Bar of the House.20 In the sixteenth century, the privilege was not always allowed,21 and subsequently statute first eroded22 and then extinguished it. Under the Parliamentary Privilege Act 1770, any person may at any time commence and prosecute an action or suit in any court of law against peers or Members of Parliament and their servants; and no such action or process shall be interfered with under any privilege of Parliament. It is also, however, enacted that nothing in the Act should subject the person of any Member of Parliament to arrest or imprisonment. Under this Act23 a Member of Parliament may be coerced by every legal process, except attachment of their body. However well established the principle of freedom from arrest, practical problems remained. Where a Member of the Commons had been imprisoned in a civil suit, the House faced the difficulty of first how to secure their release, and secondly, when the Member was in execution, how

to do so without damage to the rights of the plaintiff, since a Member released by pleading their privilege could not be rearrested, and the creditor lost their claim. Initially, these problems were solved (as in 1340) with the assistance of the Crown or of the courts, when a writ of privilege would be issued by the Lord Chancellor addressed to the keeper of the prison.24 To save the rights of plaintiffs, special statutes might authorise the Lord Chancellor to issue writs for the release of Members.25Ferrers' case in 1542 is often seen as signifying an advance on previous arrangements for securing the release of an imprisoned Member. Ferrers, a Member, was arrested as surety for a debt, and the House took the novel step of sending the Serjeant, with the Mace as his only authority, to secure Ferrers' release from the City authorities. When this was resisted, the Commons laid the matter before the Lords, ‘who, judging the contempt to be very great, referred the punishment thereof to the Commons House’. The Commons refused the Lord Chancellor's offer of a traditional writ of privilege. By this time Ferrers had been released, but the House sent for and committed for contempt those who had been responsible for his detention. Although this was in the past seen as the assumption of striking new authority by the Commons, the significance of Ferrers' case is probably more limited. His release may have been obtained principally because Ferrers was Henry VIII's servant, not because he was Burgess for Plymouth, against the background of the King's reported remark that he, ‘being the head of Parliament and attending in his own person upon the business thereof ought in reason to have privilege for himself and all his servants attending there upon him’, and ‘whatsoever offence or injury…is offered to the meanest Member of the House is to be judged against our person and the whole court of Parliament’.26 Moreover, the practice of seeking writs of privilege out of Chancery in order to secure the release of Members, in preference to sending the Serjeant with the Mace, continued after 1542, though no writ was obtained without a warrant previously signed by the Speaker. In particular, in Smalley's case in 1576, when a Member attempted to use privilege in order to avoid repaying the sum owed and not merely to escape prison for himself or his servant, the House first maintained that a writ out of Chancery was necessary, and only at the insistence of Arthur Hall, Burgess for Grantham and Smalley's master, did the House resort to enforcing the privilege by the authority of the Mace.27 It seems clear, however, both from the events of Smalley's case and from incidents in 1572 when the action taken over Ferrers was quoted though not followed,28 that at least there was a current of opinion in favour of the House's assumption of executive authority to protect and enforce freedom from arrest.29 The next stage in the development of the privilege in the Commons came in 1604. Sir Thomas Shirley, who had been elected to the Commons, but had been imprisoned in the Fleet in execution before the meeting of Parliament, was discharged at the demand of the Serjeant, acting on the order of the House (though not before an attempt to bring him into the House by habeas corpus had failed). The Warden of the Fleet was committed for contempt, having initially refused to release the Member.30 These events were followed by the Privilege of Parliament Act 1603,31 which statutorily recognised the privilege of freedom from arrest, the right of either House to set a privileged person at liberty, and the right to punish those who make or procure arrests. In order to reconcile this with the reasonable rights of creditors, it was enacted that once the privilege claimed had expired with the session or the Parliament, parties might sue forth and execute a new writ. No sheriff or similar officer from whose arrest or custody persons were delivered by privilege was to be chargeable with any action. The principal earlier cases in the Lords show an uncertainty in their practice similar to that of the Commons, privileged persons being sometimes released immediately by order and sometimes by writ.32 During the same period, when the property of peers or of their servants was distrained, the Lords was accustomed to interfere by its direct authority,33 but privilege did not apply to property held by a peer as a trustee only.34 A statute of 1700,35 while it maintained the privilege of freedom from arrest with more distinctness than the 1603 Act, made the goods of privileged persons liable to distress infinite and sequestration, between a dissolution or prorogation and the next meeting of Parliament, and during adjournments for more than 14 days. In suits against the King's immediate debtors, execution against Members was permitted even during the sitting of Parliament, and the privilege of freedom from arrest in such suits was not reserved to servants. By a further Act of 170336 executions for penalties, forfeitures, etc, against privileged persons, being employed in the revenue or any office of trust, were not to be stayed by privilege. Freedom from arrest, however, was still maintained in such cases for the Members of both Houses but not for their servants. The freedom of a Member from arrest in civil cases having been put on a statutory footing, the means of securing a Member's release changed. Peers, peeresses and Members of the Commons were normally discharged immediately upon motion in the court from which the process issued,37 and writs of privilege have been discontinued. Since the enactment of the Judgments Act 1838, s 1 and subsequent legislation, imprisonment in civil process has been practically abolished.38 The position of Members in respect of imprisonment (or attachment) for contempt of court and statutory detention is dealt with at paras 14.5 –14.7, and the related privileges of exemption from attendance as a witness are dealt with at para 14.10. Chapter 14 deals more fully with freedom from arrest or molestation in modern times.

Footnotes 1. An exhaustive review of the earlier historical basis for the privilege of freedom from arrest in civil cases is to be found in Cassidy v Steuart (1841) 133 ER 817. A claim of privilege previously made in this connection in respect of estates was omitted for the first time in 1852. Freedom from ‘molestations’ (for the precise meaning of which see HC 34 (1967–68) paras 109–12 and para 15.18 ) was claimed until 1866. The privilege of not being impleaded (ie sued) was considerably limited by statute in the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and the claim which afforded protection to menial servants, having been effectively extinguished by statute in 1770, was no longer made after 1892 (Parl Deb (1892) 7, c 18; 2 Hatsell 227; Colchester i, 65). 2. Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research vol 43 (1970), pp 214–15. 3. Following the punishment meted out to the individual who subjected Richard Chedder, a Member of the Commons, to ‘orible baterie et mal-fait’, the Act 5 Hen 4, c 6 (1404) provided that those who assaulted the servants of Members of Parliament should pay double damages besides a fine (3 Rot Parl 542; 1 Hatsell 15–17). The same penalty was later imposed by a general statute for assaults on

Members of either House coming to Parliament (11 Hen 6, c 11 (1432); 1 Hatsell 17). 4. 5 Rot Parl 239; 1 Hatsell 28–34. 5. 1 Hatsell 41–43. 6. The case of Larke, the servant of a Member of the Commons, against whom damages for a trespass were awarded, 4 Rot Parl 357; 1 Hatsell 17–22. 7. 5 Rot Parl 329; 1 Hatsell 28–34. 8. CJ (1667–87) 342; ibid (1693–97) 784. See also ibid (1640–42) 261. 9. LJ (1760–64) 426; CJ (1761–64) 674; 15 Parl Hist 1361–78. See also R v Wilkes (1763) 95 ER 737ff; 19 State Tr 982. 10. CJ (1831) 701. See also LJ (1709–14) 31, 34 and ibid (1741–46) 492. 11. LJ (1620–28) 562. 12. For such notifications, see LJ (1953–54) 138; ibid (1965–61) 422; ibid (1974–75) 52; ibid (1980–81) 58; ibid (1987–88) 880; ibid (1993–94) 249; HL Deb (1995–96) 569, c 495; ibid 574, c 1371. 13. D'Ewes 166–68, 175–76. The cases involving Peter Wentworth involve arrests either by the House's own order or for activities out of Parliament (Sir J E Neale Elizabeth I and her Parliaments i (1953), p 325 ff and ii (1957), pp 157 ff and 260 ff). 14. J P Kenyon The Stuart Constitution (1986), p 24. 15. Exemption from distraint in time of Parliament was not novel in 1290, when the bishop of St David's was protected against a petition for leave to distrain for rent of a house (1 Rot Parl 61 (No 192) and 1 Hatsell 3) and in 1315 (1 Hatsell 12). 16. 1 Hatsell 6–9, 50. For procedures with regard to the issue of writs of supersedeas in 1588, see D'Ewes 436. 17. 6 Rot Parl 191; 1 Hatsell 48–50. The ‘time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary’ is taken to have ended with the accession of Richard I in 1189 cf Prescription Act 1832. 18. CJ (1547–1628) 342, 381, 525, 861. 19. CJ (1547–1628) 804. 20. D'Ewes 348, 350; CJ (1547–1628) 211, 368, 371, 655, 922, 928. For a refusal of the judges in 1626 to obey the Speaker's letter, see William Prynn Fourth Part of Brief Register of Writs (1664), p 810; CJ (1547–1628) 861; 1 Hatsell 184, 185. For cases in which Members waived their privilege and upon petitions from the parties suits were allowed to proceed, see CJ (1547–1628) 378, 421, 595, etc; ibid (1688–93) 280, 300, 600; ibid (1693–97) 557, etc. 21. In 1585 the Lord Chancellor sitting in Chancery ‘very gently and courteously’ demanded precedents to support a claim for privilege in the case of the service of a subpoena on a Member (D'Ewes 347). 22. The Act 12 & 13 Will 3, c 3 enacted that any person might commence and prosecute actions against any peer, or Member of Parliament, or their servants, or others entitled to privilege, in the court at Westminster, and the duchy court of Lancaster, immediately after a dissolution or prorogation, until the next meeting of Parliament, and during any adjournment for more than 14 days; and that during such times the court might give judgment and award execution. Soon afterwards it was enacted, by 2 & 3 Anne, c 12, that no action, suit, process, proceedings, judgment or execution, against privileged persons, employed in the revenue, or any office of public trust, for any forfeiture, penalty, etc, should be stayed or delayed by or under colour or pretence of privilege of Parliament. The Act of William III had extended only to the principal courts of law and equity; but by the Parliamentary Privilege Act 1737, all actions in relation to real and personal property were allowed to be commenced and prosecuted in the recess and during adjournments of more than 14 days, in any court of record. The last occasion upon which the House of Commons treated the service of writ upon a Member as itself a breach of privilege was in 1757 (CJ (1754–57) 686), and the privilege was abolished by statute in 1770 (see above). 23. Cf also the Acts 11 Geo 2, c 24 (Parliamentary Privilege Act 1737); 4 Geo 3, c 33; 45 Geo 3, c 124; and 47 Geo 3, sess 2, c 40; and also Cassidy v Steuart [1841] 133 ER 817 for further information on the history of privilege in relation to legal process. In 1958, the Privy Council decided that the Parliamentary Privilege Act 1770 did not render the issue of a writ against a Member of the Commons in respect of a speech or proceeding in Parliament a breach of privilege ([1958] AC 332, esp at 349 ff): though of course the Bill of Rights will inhibit a court from impeaching or questioning proceedings in Parliament (see paras 13.10–13.15 ). 24. For example, CJ (1547–1628) 48, 536–37; and see D'Ewes 430; 4 Rot Parl 357; 5 ibid 111, 239, 374; 6 ibid 160, 191; 1 Hatsell 35. 25. 4 Rot Parl 357; also 5 ibid 111, 239, 374; 6 ibid 160, 191; 1 Hatsell 51. 26. See G R Elton The Tudor Constitution (1982), pp 261 n and 275–77, where the reliability of the report of the King's speech is doubted. See also 1 Hatsell 53–59. 27. When Hall's fraud was discovered, he was committed by order of the House till the debt was paid and severely censured by the House (CJ (1547–1628) 107, 108; and see Sir J E Neale Elizabeth I and her Parliaments i (1953), p 333 ff and G R Elton The Parliament of England, 1559–81 (1986), pp 333–34). (The fraud attempted by Hall and Smalley was not unique, cf CJ (1547–1628) 55.) 28. Ed T E Hartley Proceedings in the Parliaments of Elizabeth I (1981), pp 381, 411. 29. In the case of Fitzherbert in 1593 the House ordered that the Speaker should seek a writ of habeas corpus out of Chancery to secure the release of an imprisoned Member, though the alternative of following the Ferrers precedent was also argued (D'Ewes 479, 481, 502, 514, 518), and the Lord Keeper himself thought it best ‘in regard to the ancient liberties and privileges of the House’ that the Serjeant be sent with the Mace. See also CJ (1547–1628) 807, 820; ibid (1667–87) 411; ibid (1711–14) 6; 1 Hatsell 167. 30. CJ (1547–1628) 155 ff; 1 Hatsell 157. 31. 1 James 1, c 13. Despite its name this Act was passed in May 1604. 32. LJ (1578–1614) 66, 93, 201, 205, 230, 238, 241, 270, 296, 299, 302, 588; ibid (1620–28) 30; ibid (1628–42) 654; ibid (1645–46) 577, 601, 635, 639; D'Ewes 603, 607. 33. LJ (1620–28) 776, 777; ibid (1647–48) 611. 34. LJ (1666–75) 194, 390; ibid (1685–91) 36, 78; ibid (1696–1701) 294; ibid (1722–26) 412. 35. 12 & 13 William 3, c 3, afterwards extended by the Parliamentary Privilege Act 1737 (11 Geo 2, c 24). 36. 2 & 3 Anne, c 12. 37. See Holiday et al v Colonel Pitt (1734) 27 ER 767, 93 ER 987. Even after the passing of the Act of 1700, the Commons acted to secure

the release of a Member by sending the Serjeant with the Mace to the prison concerned (CJ (1705–08) 471). The House ordered the release of a Member entitled to privilege (ibid (1807) 654; ibid (1819) 44). Action has also been taken by the Lords to punish those who caused the arrest (see LJ (1810–12) 60, 63; ibid (1828) 34; and Report of Precedents 28) and by the Commons in respect of those who brought an action for a Member's escape against the keeper of a gaol who released a Member in accordance with the orders of the House (CJ (1819–20) 286). 38. See L O Pike A Constitutional History of the House of Lords (1894), p 259.

Freedom of access 12.6The third of the Speaker's petitions is for freedom of access to Her Majesty whenever occasion shall require. This claim is medieval (probably fourteenth century) in origin, and in an earlier form seems to have been sought in respect of the Speaker in person, and to have encompassed also access to the Upper House.1 Even when the four petitions were only hesitantly becoming standard in the mid-sixteenth century, the claim for access seems to have been consistently made. The privilege of freedom of access is exercised by the Commons as a body and through their Speaker. The Commons attends the Queen on summons to the House of Lords, for purposes prescribed by Her Majesty. Out of Parliament, the Commons exercises its right of access for the purpose of presenting Addresses (see paras 9.10 –9.13 ), which may deal with any subject of public policy chosen by the House. Such an Address may be presented by the whole House or, more usually, by such Members as have access to Her Majesty as Privy Counsellors or as members of Her Majesty's Household. On occasion, the House has ordered that the Address be presented by certain specified Members.2 The right of access to Her Majesty is a corporate privilege of the House; it is denied to individual Members,3 so that the Queen receives only the decisions of the House as a whole and cannot take notice of matters pending in the House, still less of debates or the speeches of individual Members.4 Indeed, the Commons has long established the principle that the Sovereign may not, even as a spectator, attend its debates. The House of Lords, like the Commons, is entitled to access to the Sovereign, as a body, and peers in addition possess the right of access as individuals, as part of the privilege of peerage (see para 12.2 ). No principle exists restricting the Sovereign's attendance at debates in the Lords.5

Footnotes 1. CJ (1547–1628) 73; D'Ewes 16. Rather surprisingly, the claim for freedom of access was omitted in 1523 by Speaker Sir Thomas More, when he made his well-known request for freedom of speech (see para 12.4 ). 2. See para 9.12. 3. The only right claimed and exercised by individual Members in availing themselves of the privilege of access to the Queen is that of entering the presence of royalty, when accompanying the Speaker with Addresses, in their ordinary attire, the privilege entitled them to dispense with the forms and ceremonies of the court. 4. 3 Rot Parl 456 (1400); CJ (1641–42) 345. 5. 2 Hatsell 371 n.

Favourable construction 12.7The final petition which the Speaker makes is that the most favourable construction should be placed upon all the House's proceedings. As in the case of the privilege of free access, this claim was, before the reign of Elizabeth I, for the benefit of the Speaker rather than the House (see above). Even in 1559, Speaker Sir Thomas Gargrave asked that ‘if in anything himself should mistake or misreport or overslip that which should be committed unto him to declare, that it might without prejudice to the House be better declared, and that his unwilling miscarriage therein might be pardoned’; to which the Queen replied that the petition should be granted, provided that ‘your diligence and carefulness be such, Mr Speaker, that the defaults in that part be as rare as may be’.1 The request is now little more than a formal courtesy, as the proceedings of the House are guarded against any interference on the part of the Crown not authorised by the laws and constitution of the country; and as by the law and custom of Parliament the Queen cannot take notice of anything said or done in the House, but by the report of the House itself.

Footnotes 1. D'Ewes 17.

Privilege with respect to membership of the House 12.8It is a privilege of the House of Commons to provide for its own proper constitution, such as entitlements to sit in the House, or the issue of writs, although in practice this privilege has been significantly constrained by the encroachments of statute law, as described below. The origins of this privilege are to be found in the sixteenth century. In 1515, Henry VIII transferred to the Speaker, acting for the House, the authority to license Members to depart before the end of the session.1 Though much was to flow from the elaboration of this principle, the transfer of substantial authority was delayed. In 1536, the King authorised Thomas Cromwell to continue to sit in the Commons though he had been elevated to the peerage before the session began.2 Thereafter, however, the House steadily advanced its claims to consider qualifications for membership. In 1571, a select committee approved returns from boroughs which had not elected Members to the previous Parliament, though only eight years previously such action had required the agreement of the Lord Steward.3 In 1576, the House determined the vexed questions of whether a Member who was also Queen's Serjeant should take his seat in the Commons or act as an official assistant in the Lords and similar issues concerning those ill, or abroad on official duty, or peers' sons.4 At the same period, general rules were laid down by the House on the right to continue to sit of those who were arrested for debt, indicted for felony or even outlawed.5 In the 1580s, Chancery began to issue writs for new elections only when notified by the House of a vacancy,6 and for the first time the House decided the outcome of a disputed election.7 In 1593, the scrutiny of elections and returns was entrusted to the Committee of Privileges which (leaving aside the appointment of ad hoc bodies in previous sessions) had first been set up in 1584–85.8 In the following reign, however, events were to show that much disputed ground remained, particularly as the Buckinghamshire election dispute of 1604, in which an attempt was made by Chancery to unseat a Member because of his technical outlawry, ended in a compromise. The exclusive right of the Commons to determine the legality of returns and the conduct of returning officers was not recognised by the courts until the case of Barnardiston v Soame in 16749 upheld by the House of Lords in 168910 and by other contemporary cases.11 The Commons' jurisdiction in determining the right of election was further acknowledged by the Parliamentary Elections (Returns) Act 1695.12 But in regard to the right of electors, the cases of Ashby v White and R v Paty13 led the House of Lords to draw a distinction between the right of electors and the right of the elected, the one being a freehold by common law, and the other a temporary right to a place in Parliament.14 In the eighteenth century, however, the Commons continued to exercise the sole right of determining whether electors had the right to vote,15 while inquiring into the conflicting claims of candidates for seats in Parliament; until, in 1868, the House delegated its judicature in controverted elections to the courts of law, retaining its jurisdiction over cases not otherwise provided for by statute. Whenever a doubt arises as to the qualification of any of its Members, the House also has the right to inquire into the matter and decide whether a new writ ought to be issued.16

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

6 Hen 8, c 16. G R Elton The Tudor Constitution (1982), p 264. CJ (1547–1628) 63, 83 and G R Elton The Parliament of England, 1559–81 (1986), pp 338–40. CJ (1547–1628) 106; see also ibid 15, 104. CJ (1547–1628) 104, 118, 122, 124. CJ (1547–1628) 118; D'Ewes 283. D'Ewes 244, 395–400. See also D Hirst ‘Elections and Privileges of the House of Commons’ in Historical Journal (1975) vol 18, p 851. M F Keeler ‘The Emergence of Standing Committees for Privileges and Returns’ in Parliamentary History (1982) vol 1, pp 25–46; D'Ewes 349, 471. See para 16.2 for a description of the case. 6 State Tr 1092; Barnardiston v Soame (1674) 86 ER 615; and LJ (1685–90) 253. Onslow's case (1680) 86 ER 294 and Prideaux v Morris (1661) 87 ER 1065. 7 & 8 Will 3, c 7. For description, see para 16.2. See 3 Hatsell, App 1, a report of the Conferences between the Houses in Ashby v White. For example, CJ (1766–68) 211, 229, 279, 293. Particularly in the eighteenth century, Members who held or had accepted offices of profit under the Crown which might possibly involve the vacation of their seats used to bring their cases before the House itself with a view to securing its decision, and in more recent times the matter was usually referred to a select committee. Since the passing of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957 (since replaced by the 1975 Act), no case has arisen, though the House has used its statutory power to direct that a particular disqualification should be disregarded (see para 3.23 ). Whichever way the House might proceed, the decision would be entirely within its hands, and there would, of course, be no question of an appeal to a court of law.

Modern application of privilege law Contents Legislation on privilege? 12.9Throughout the long history of parliamentary privilege, the need to balance two potentially conflicting principles—both first enunciated in the seventeenth century—has become clear. Indeed, the clarity of the need is heightened in modern times by actual or potential conflict with European or human rights1 law. On the one hand, the privileges of Parliament are rights ‘absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers’;2 and on the other, the privilege of Parliament granted in regard of public service ‘must not be used for the danger of the commonwealth’.3 In consequence, it was agreed in 1704, for example, that ‘neither House of Parliament hath any power, by any vote or declaration, to create to themselves any new privilege that is not warranted by the known laws and customs of Parliament’.4 A number of privileges have been surrendered or modified over the years. A few examples may suffice. Following the Parliamentary Privilege Act 1770, the privilege of freedom from arrest previously enjoyed by Members' servants was extinguished (see para 12.5 ). The Privileges Committee concluded at the beginning of the Second World War that the detention of a Member under emergency powers legislation should be regarded as akin to arrest under the criminal law, so that no breach of privilege was involved.5 The Criminal Justice Act 2003 abolished the category of persons ‘excusable as of right’ from jury service, including Members and officers of either House (see para 14.11 ). The conclusions of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege of 1967–68,6 and the recommendations of the Privileges Committee in 1976–777 (the latter agreed to by the House)8 established the contemporary frame of reference for the House's exercise of its penal jurisdiction. In general, the House exercises such jurisdiction in any event as sparingly as possible and only when satisfied that to do so is essential in order to provide reasonable protection for the House, its Members or its officers from such improper obstruction or attempt at or threat of obstruction causing, or likely to cause, substantial interference with the performance of their respective functions (see paras 15.14–15.18 ). The following chapters give more detail about consequences of this resolution.

Footnotes 1. For example, A v The United Kingdom (Application 35373/97) (2002) 36 EHRR 917, ECtHR, a case which raised issues so farreaching that third-party comments in support of the United Kingdom position were submitted by eight other European governments (see para 16.20 ). 2. 1 Hatsell 1. 3. CJ (1640–42) 261. This important statement is, however, the observation of a committee rather than the conclusion of the House. 4. CJ (1702–04) 555, 560. 5. HC 164 (1939–40). 6. HC 34 (1967–68). 7. HC 417 (1976–77). 8. CJ (1977–78) 170. The House took note of the 1967–68 report (ibid (1968–69) 321).

Legislation on privilege? 12.10The report of the 1967–68 committee also recommended that ‘legislation be promoted to extend and clarify the scope of both absolute and qualified privilege.’1 This theme was picked up by several subsequent committees. In 1999 the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege recommended the introduction of a Parliamentary Privileges Act to implement a number of its recommendations and to include a statutory code covering ‘the whole field of parliamentary privilege’.2 This recommendation was not implemented and subsequent attempts to legislate on matters related to privilege have been resisted by each House. On 23 June 2009, the Government introduced a bill to establish an independent authority (the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority) to regulate Members' allowances following revelations about claims made by Members under the existing scheme. Provisions affecting privilege featured throughout the bill but in particular the bill laid aside the application of Article IX of the Bill of Rights to any court proceedings relating to matters governed by the provisions of the bill in a very broad way. The Justice Committee took evidence from the Clerk of the House and Speaker's Counsel which pointed to the seriously restrictive effects that those provisions would have on freedom of speech and debate. The Committee reported that evidence to the House prior to the Second Reading of the bill.3 One relevant provision was removed by agreement from the bill in Committee of the whole House; a second clause was negatived on division.4 Further provisions in the bill relating to privilege were amended in the House of Lords. At much the same time, the draft Bribery Bill brought forward by the Government included a provision which sought to permit evidence of parliamentary proceedings to be adduced in the prosecution of Members of either House of Parliament, notwithstanding the provisions of Article IX. The joint committee considering the draft bill concluded that, while it was entirely proper for it to be possible to convict Members of both Houses of Parliament of bribery, because bribery was a very serious offence and Members ought to be subject to the same criminal laws as everyone else, that did not justify piecemeal and inconsistent encroachments on the protection of Article IX. In its report, the Joint Committee stated: ‘inconsistency risks confusion in the operation and application of the law and could bring about the unnecessarily broad erosion of fundamental constitutional principles by means of competing precedents. For this reason we believe it is unacceptable that the draft Bribery Bill should take a different approach to privilege from that taken in the Parliamentary Standards Bill, particularly as the two bills deal with overlapping areas of law … In order to achieve consistency with the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, we recommend that the Government leave out clause 15 of the draft Bribery Bill.’5 The Committee added that the most appropriate place to address potential evidential problems would be in the context of a Parliamentary Privileges Act.6 In the event, the proposal to abridge the protection of Article IX was not included in the Bribery Bill introduced by the Government in the Session 2009–10. The wider implications of reform have been remarked upon by three other select committees. First, the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report on the Parliamentary Standards Bill drew attention to the implications of how article 6(i) of the European Convention on Human Rights impacts upon privilege and how the requirements of fairness under the Convention might be met in relation to parliamentary privilege in legislation on privilege.7 Second, in its report on Constitutional Reform and Renewal, the Justice Committee warned of the dangers of piecemeal reform and the need for a ‘proper understanding of the position and role of Parliament in relation to the institutions of the State’.8 Finally, the Committee on Issue of Privilege (see para 11.18 ), without concluding on the merits of a statute on parliamentary privilege, nevertheless recommended that a new joint committee of both Houses should undertake a comprehensive review before ‘setting out to define and limit parliamentary privilege in statute’.9 The Coalition Government formed in 2010 published in its Programme for Government a commitment to take measures to prevent the possible misuse of privilege by Members accused of serious wrongdoing.10 The 2010 Queen's Speech announced that ‘a draft bill will be published on reforming parliamentary privilege’.11 Draft clauses were included in a Government Green Paper were published in April 2012, with the intention that the proposals be examined by a joint committee of both Houses. The Government's view in the Green Paper was that although it agreed with the 1999 Joint Committee's individual recommendations, it did not see enough evidence of problems caused by privilege to justify comprehensive codification of parliamentary privilege and that unforeseen consequences might emerge if it were attempted.12 The 2013 Joint Committee's report rejected the view of its 1999 predecessor on the issue of codification and came to a similar view to the Government. It drew a distinction between ‘comprehensive codification’ and ‘pragmatic use of statute’. The former would require an attempt to place all aspects of the law relating to privilege within legislation. This was considered to be without precedent and undesirable as the future consequences of doing so would be impossible to predict. The latter approach, which has relatively recent precedent elsewhere in the Commonwealth, would mean that the possibility of legislation would not be ruled out, but that it should be used as a last resort in the unlikely event of Parliament's exclusive cognizance being materially diminished by the courts.13

Footnotes 1. HC 34 (1967–68) para 87. 2. HC (1998–99) 43, HL (1998–99) 214. 3. Justice Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2008–09, Constitutional Reform and Renewal: Parliamentary Standards Bill, HC 791, Ev 1. 4. CJ (2008–09) 489–90. 5. Joint Committee on the Draft Bribery Bill, First Report of Session 2008–09, Draft Bribery Bill, HL 115-I, HC 430-I, paras 224–25.

6. Ibid, para 228. 7. Joint Committee on Human Rights, Nineteenth Report of Session 2008–09, Legislative Scrutiny: Parliamentary Standards Bill, HL 124, HC 844. 8. Justice Committee, Eleventh Report of Session 2008–09, Constitutional Reform and Renewal, HC 923, para 95. 9. Committee on Issue of Privilege, First Report of Session 2009–10, Police Searches on the Parliamentary Estate, HC 162, para 169, and see HC Deb (23 May 2011) 528, c 639. 10. HM Government, The Coalition: our programme for government, May 2010. 11. HC Deb (25 May 2010) 510, c 32. 12. HM Government, Parliamentary Privilege, Cm 8318, April 2012, paras 35–37. 13. Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, Report of Session 2013–14, Parliamentary Privilege, HL 30, HC 100, paras 41–46.

Introduction to privilege of freedom of speech 13.1The long historical development of the privilege of freedom of speech in both Houses of Parliament found statutory form in Article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689,1 which states that ‘the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament’. In this chapter the practical effect of Article IX on freedom of speech within Parliament itself, its application to the publication of parliamentary proceedings beyond the precincts, and the significance of the expressions in Article IX: ‘proceedings in Parliament’, ‘impeaching’, ‘questioning’ and ‘court or place out of Parliament’, are considered in turn. Many jurisdictions both within the Commonwealth—Australia, Canada, India and New Zealand, for example—and beyond, such as the United States, share, in varying degree, the concepts and even the texts on which British parliamentary privilege rests.2 Where relevant, their experience is referred to in this and succeeding chapters since they form part of a shared parliamentary tradition.

Footnotes 1. 1 Will and Mary, sess 2, c 2. The Claim of Right Act 1689 (c 28) passed by the Scottish Parliament referred only to ‘… the freedom of speech and debate [which ought to be] secured to the members'. For the application to Scotland and Northern Ireland of the provisions of the Bill of Rights, see the Report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, HL 43-I, HC 214-I (1998–99) paras 133–34, and W R McKay ‘The Bill of Rights, the Claim of Right and the Anglo-Scottish Union of 1707’ (1998) 66 The Table 53–67. 2. In Australia, the Commonwealth Parliament enacted the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 which, though in certain respects it varies British practice, in other important areas is very close to it. The legislation specifically enacts that except as otherwise provided, the link with the privileges of the British House of Commons of 1901 should remain, and that Article IX should be taken to have the effect of s 16 of the Act (see para 6.13 ). Most Australian States enjoy United Kingdom privileges, though the dates at which the comparisons are drawn vary. In New South Wales, however, Parliament possesses only those privileges (including Article IX) which it has acquired by statute: other privileges are limited to those necessary for that parliament's existence and performance of its functions. New Zealand has enacted the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014, which has as its main purposes to ‘(a) reaffirm and clarify the nature, scope, and extent of the privileges, immunities, and powers exercisable by the House of Representatives, its committees, and its members; and (b) ensure adequate protection from civil and criminal legal liability for communication of, and of documents relating to, proceedings in Parliament.’ The privileges of both Houses of the Parliament of Canada are defined in the Parliament of Canada Act 1985 and are those of the British House of Commons in 1867, and may not exceed those limits. Many Canadian provinces have legislated to adopt the same privileges as those of the Canadian House of Commons, and others have aligned their position directly with that of the British House. The Constitution of the United States of America provides that ‘for any Speech or Debate in either House’, Senators and Representatives ‘shall not be questioned in any other place’: and indeed the articles of Confederation of 1777 had used exactly the same formula as Article IX, replacing only ‘Parliament’ by ‘Congress’.

Freedom of speech in debate 13.2Not everything said within Parliament is covered by the privilege of freedom of speech. Particular words said or acts committed within the precincts may be entirely unrelated to any business being transacted or ordered to come before either House in due course. In the view of the Select Committee on the Official Secrets Acts: ‘a casual conversation in the House cannot be said to be a proceeding in Parliament, and a Member who discloses information in the course of such a conversation would not … be protected by privilege, though it might be a question whether the evidence necessary to secure his conviction could be given without the permission of the House.’1 As far as formal proceedings are concerned, subject to the rules of order in debate (see Chapter 21), a Member may state whatever they think fit in debate, however offensive it may be to the feelings, or injurious to the character, of individuals; and the Member is protected by parliamentary privilege from any action for defamation, as well as from any other question or molestation.2 This freedom extends to statements which, if made out of Parliament, would breach injunctions, although this has been deprecated by the Speaker.3 In the past, Members were frequently called to account and punished by the House for offensive words spoken before the House.4 Some have been admonished, others imprisoned, and in the Commons some have been expelled.5 Although in extreme cases it would still be possible for the House itself to take action against abuse of the freedom of speech, in modern practice the disciplinary powers of privilege are not normally resorted to. In the House of Commons, offensive words are dealt with by the exercise of the summary powers conferred on the Chair by Standing Order Nos 42, 43 and 44 (see paras 21.41–21.52 ). The unquestionable right of the Lords to commit a peer for words spoken in the House was recognised by the Court of King's Bench in Lord Shaftesbury's case.6 The possibility of imposing constraints on or penalties for the exercise of freedom of speech in statements which, if made outside the House, might be found defamatory or even criminal, has been considered but rejected by successive committees, notably the Committee of Privileges in 1979, and the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 1999, although both stressed the obligation upon Members to exercise their privileges responsibly.7 In a case in 2002, the European Court of Human Rights concluded that the absolute nature of parliamentary privilege did not violate articles 6 or 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, however objectionable the statements complained of (see para 16.20 ).8 However, the presiding judge expressed a reservation that free speech should be tempered by some regulation recognising individual rights which should be put in place by national parliaments themselves.9 In 2011, the Master of the Rolls conducted an inquiry into the use of so-called super injunctions, after there was concern both about the increasing number of such injunctions, and the use of parliamentary privilege to release information about matters subject to such injunctions. That report concluded: Article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689 recognises and enshrines a longstanding privilege of Parliament: freedom of speech and debate. It is an absolute privilege and is of the highest constitutional importance. Any attempt by the courts to go beyond that constitutional boundary would be unconstitutional. No super-injunction, or any other court order, could conceivably restrict or prohibit parliamentary debate or proceedings.10 The Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions concluded: ‘Although freedom of speech in Parliament is a fundamental constitutional principle, we do not think that parliamentarians should reveal information subject to injunctions in Parliament unless there is a good reason to do so. We do not think some of the recent revelations of material subject to injunctions yet require a new parliamentary rule to prevent such disclosures; if such disclosures continue, then new rules should be considered.’11 At the beginning of each session it is now customary for the Speaker in the House of Commons to remind Members of their duties, including the duty to exercise the freedom of speech responsibly.12 The principle of freedom of speech protects not only Members, but others taking part in parliamentary proceedings, or, depending on the closeness of the relationship, preparing material for such proceedings.13

Footnotes 1. HC 101 (1938–39) p ix. 2. See eg HC Deb (1960–61) 630, cc 385–87 and the consideration given by the Committee of Privileges (HC 365 (1986–87)) and the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege (HL 43-I, HC 214-I (1998–99) paras 212–16) to the issue of matters of national security arising in debate. A court in 1887, having been satisfied that words spoken in the House were the cause of an action, ordered that the writ and statement should be taken off the records of the court, since it had no jurisdiction in the matter (Dillon v Balfour (1887) 20 LR Ir 600 ). 3. HC Deb (23 May 2011) 528, cc 638, 654; see also ibid (6 November 2012) 552, c 734 for a ministerial warning against using privilege to name suspects for fear of jeopardising any future trial. See ibid (25 October 2018) 793, c 1020, for a recent use of privilege to name someone whose identity was protected by an interim injunction. 4. LJ (1628–42) 475; ibid (1642–43) 77; CJ (1667–87) 642; ibid (1693–97) 581; ibid (1882) 323, 328. 5. CJ (1547–1628) 524, and see Chapter 12.

6. (1677) 86 ER 792. 7. Committee of Privileges, Second Report, HC 222 (1978–79); Select Committee on Procedure, First Report, Conduct of Members in the Chamber and the Alleged Abuse of Parliamentary Privilege, HC 290 (1988–89); Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, Report, HL 43-I, HC 214-I (1998–99) paras 224–25. The Speaker has advised that ‘privilege should always be exercised wisely and consideration given to those being criticized’, HC Deb (2006–07) 5, c 34. 8. A v United Kingdom (Application No 35373/97) (2002) 36 EHRR 917, ECtHR. 9. A v United Kingdom (Application No 35373/97), judgment p 27. There was also a dissenting judgment which went further in the need for enhancing individual rights in modern parliamentary practice: judgment p 31. 10. Report of the Committee on Super-Injunctions, Super-Injunctions, Anonymised Injunctions and Open Justice, 20 May 2011, www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Reports/super-injunction-report-20052011.pdf 11. Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions, First Report of Session 2010–12, Privacy and Injunctions, HL 273, HC 1443, summary; this view was endorsed by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, Parliamentary Privilege, HL 30, HC 10 (2013–14) para 160. 12. HC Deb (21 June 2017) 626, c 33. 13. In the New Zealand case of Attorney-General v Leigh [2011] NZSC 106, [2012] 2 NZLR 713 (SC), the New Zealand Supreme Court held that a civil servant's briefing of a Minister in preparation for a Parliamentary Question was not covered by absolute privilege. The Parliament of New Zealand subsequently clarified the law in the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014, which had the purpose of affirming and clarifying the nature, scope and extent of privileges, immunities and powers exercised by the House of Representatives and in securing adequate protection from civil and criminal legal liability of the communication of and documents relating to proceedings in Parliament.

Publication of debates or proceedings Contents Commons Lords 13.3Both Houses now publish their debates, although in the past publication of the debates of either House was repeatedly declared to be a breach of privilege, whether or not the reports were false and perverted.1 However, requests made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 have illustrated that in cases where the House has not authorised the publication of its proceedings, their disclosure is a breach of privilege.2

Footnotes 1. For the provisions made in 1916 and in the Second World War as to reports of debates if either House resolved to hold a ‘secret session’, see para 17.22. For older instances of the exercise of this power, see CJ (1812) 432; ibid (1819) 577; ibid (1833) 606. 2. See also Seventh Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, HC 501 (2008–09).

Commons 13.4The House of Commons has resolved that it would not entertain any complaint of contempt or breach of privilege in respect of the publication of the debates or proceedings of the House or of its committees, except when any such debates or proceedings have been conducted with closed doors or in private, or when publication has been expressly prohibited by the House.1 The House has further resolved that it would not entertain any complaint in respect of: (i) the publication in advance of the relevant Division Lists or Notice Papers of a statement of how any Member voted in a division in the House or the contents of any notice of a parliamentary question or Notice of Motion handed in, or (ii) the publication of the expressed intention of a Member to vote in a particular manner, or to refrain from voting, or to hand in any notice of a parliamentary question or Notice of Motion.2 These resolutions followed recommendations of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege3 and were intended to bring the rules of the House into conformity with long-standing practice. Finally, a Resolution of 1980 removed the restrictions on the use of evidence taken at public sittings of select committees (see paras 13.15, 38.41 ).

Footnotes 1. CJ (1970–71) 548. Historically, both Houses actively sought to prevent publication of reports of their proceedings—Cobbett's Parliamentary Debates did not appear until 1800. Its original purpose was to limit unauthorised and scurrilous reporting of proceedings of the House. Following the development of parliamentary reporting in the early nineteenth century, the protection afforded to documents printed by order of the House, and to extracts or abstracts of such documents, was put on a statutory basis in the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840. 2. CJ (1970–71) 548–49. 3. HC 34 (1967–68) para 116 ff.

Lords 13.5Formerly, Standing Order No 16 stipulated that the printing or publishing of anything relating to the proceedings of the Lords was subject to the privilege of the House. This Standing Order was repealed as obsolete in 2013.1

Footnotes 1. Procedure Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2012–13, Private notice questions, Tabling oral questions, Repeal of Standing Orders, Repetition of answers to House of Commons urgent questions, HL 150; HL Deb (24 April 2013) 744, cc 1406–17.

Protections for publication outside Parliament of parliamentary proceedings Contents Publication of extracts Effective repetition 13.6Although the privilege of freedom of speech protects what is said in debate in either House, this privilege does not to the same degree apply to the publication of debates or proceedings outside Parliament. But the publication, whether by order of the House or not, of a fair and accurate account of a debate in either House is protected by the same principle as that which protects fair reports of proceedings in courts of justice, that the advantage of publicity to the community at large outweighs any private injury resulting from the publication, unless malice is proved. Described as ‘qualified privilege’, this is a matter of common law, rather than of parliamentary privilege.1 An order of the House for their printing and publication does itself not confer the protection of parliamentary privilege on the publication of proceedings outside Parliament.2 But such an order may invoke the statutory protection provided by the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 (see below). In 1837, an action (Stockdale v Hansard )3 against the publisher of a report made to Parliament by a statutory body, and ordered by the House to be printed, succeeded on the ground that defamatory statements in the report were not privileged by virtue of the House's order for printing. In Lord Denman's judgment, a distinction was drawn between ‘what the House may order to be printed for the use of its members’, and what may be published and sold ‘indiscriminately’.4 The Parliamentary Papers Act, which became law shortly thereafter, in 1840, provides more generally that proceedings, criminal or civil, against persons for the publication of papers by order of either House of Parliament, shall be immediately stayed, on the production of a certificate, verified by affidavit, to the effect that such publication is by order or under the authority of either House of Parliament. Proceedings are also to be stayed, if commenced on account of the publication of a copy of a parliamentary paper, upon the verification of the correctness of such copy; and in proceedings commenced for printing any extract from, or abstract of, a parliamentary report or paper, the defendant may give the report in evidence under the general issue, and prove that his own extract or abstract was published bona fide and without malice; and if such shall be the opinion of the jury, a verdict in the defendant's favour will be entered.5 The provisions of the 1840 Act relating to printing of an extract or abstract of a paper (bona fide and without malice) were subsequently amended by the Defamation Act 1952, s 9, so as to include publication by broadcasting by wireless telegraphy, and by the Broadcasting Act 1990, sch 20, to cover ‘including in a programme service’ (defined in s 201).6 This provision would include social media. Comment, or publication in a form other than an extract or abstract, is not privileged.7 In 2010 a court injunction which had been granted against a newspaper had the effect of preventing the publication in that newspaper of the text of a parliamentary question which related to the matters covered by the injunction.8 As regards the publication of debates, the judgment in Wason v Walter9 in 1868 established that the publisher of a report of a parliamentary debate is protected from actions for defamation if the whole debate is published, and enjoys qualified privilege for the publication of extracts from debates. The decision is founded not on parliamentary privilege or the Act of 1840, but on the principle that the publication of the proceedings of Parliament should be protected on the same footing as those of courts of justice: ‘that the occasional inconvenience to individuals arising from it [publicity being given to the proceedings of courts] must yield to the general good’.10 Slightly over a century later, the courts decided on appeal that the reporter who wrote a parliamentary ‘sketch’ was entitled to select that part of a debate which appeared to him to be of special public interest, and such a sketch would be privileged if made fairly and honestly. As a result, the sketch in question was entitled to qualified privilege and a jury's award of damages, against which the appeal had been lodged, was set aside. Lord Denning MR observed that ‘fairness in this regard means a fair presentation of what took place as it impressed the hearers. It does not mean fairness in the abstract between [the plaintiff] and those who were attacking him’.11 Fair and accurate reports of the proceedings in public of a legislature anywhere in the world, and similar copies of or extracts from matter published by or on the authority of a legislature have qualified privilege at law, without explanation or contradiction, unless the publication is made with malice.12 A study of the protection both absolute and qualified afforded to the publication of proceedings in Parliament was undertaken by the Joint Committee on that subject in 1969–70, following that of the Commons Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 1966–67, and subsequently by a Joint Committee in 1977 and a Commons Select Committee in 1982,13 as far as concerned sound recording of proceedings. The 1999 Joint Committee concluded its consideration of the matter with a recommendation that the 1840 Act be replaced with a modern statute.14 In 2011, the Joint Committee on the draft Defamation Bill recommended that there should be absolute privilege for any fair and accurate report of proceedings in Parliament,15 but the Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions recommended only that reports of such proceedings should enjoy qualified privilege.16 In a Green Paper on Parliamentary Privilege, the Government rejected the proposition that reports should enjoy absolute privilege, citing the possibility ‘of the media passing private information covered by a court injunction to Members, encouraging them to use the information in parliamentary proceedings, and then reporting on those proceedings in the knowledge that no legal consequences can follow.’17 The 2013 Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege similarly did not accept that ‘full freedom of expression in Parliament is dependent on a similar freedom being enjoyed by the media’, and repeated the recommendation that the 1840 Act be replaced with a modern statute.18

Hansard, transcripts of evidence taken before select or public bill committees and other House papers such as the Order Paper or Votes and Proceedings are published on the internet on the authority of the two Houses and as such attract protection under the 1840 Act.

Footnotes 1. Wason v Walter (1868–69) 4 QB 73, esp at 93. Even before statutory protection was given to ‘proceedings in Parliament’ by the Bill of Rights 1689, an individual who delivered to a select committee printed copies of a petition containing ‘false and scandalous’ allegations nevertheless received judgment in his favour in Lake v King (1667) 83 ER 387, 84 ER 226, 290, 312, 415, 417, 506, 526, 85 ER 128, 137 since the committee had power to examine the truth and falsehood of the petition, and it was the order and course of proceedings in Parliament to print and deliver copies of petitions. A fair and accurate report of proceedings in public of a legislature anywhere in the world is protected by qualified privilege: see the Defamation Act 1996, sch 1. 2. See eg the remarks of Lord Denman on R v Dangerfield in Stockdale v Hansard (1839) 112 ER 1112. 3. For fuller details, see para 16.3. 4. (1837) 112 ER 1168–73, 1177–78. See CJ (1941–42) 123 for a Report which the House ordered to be printed for the use of Members only. 5. Under the provision of this statute the action of Harlow v Hansard was stayed on 14 July 1845 by Wightman J in chambers, on the production of the Speaker's certificate. In the case of Houghton v Plimsoll (1874) Times, 2 April, Baron Amphlett directed the jury that the report of a Royal Commission, presented to Parliament by command of Her Majesty, came within the provisions of the Act, ‘since it was a report which had been adopted by Parliament, and of which a distribution of copies had been ordered by Parliament’. This judgment was followed in Mangena v Edward Lloyd Ltd (1908) 98 LT 640, an action for libel brought in respect of statement contained in an extract from a paper presented to Parliament by command of His Majesty. The judge, however, observed (at 644) that the 1840 Act protected only those who published a command paper by printing: reading it out at a meeting, for example, was not protected. The decision in that case, the proceedings of which were presented to both Houses (see Cd 4403), was followed in Mangena v Wright [1909] 2 KB 958. Papers presented by command are not, however, printed by order of either House, and notwithstanding these judgments, where the protection of the Parliamentary Papers Act is particularly desired, the normal practice is for a paper presented in response to an order for a return to be ordered to be printed (see paras 7.30–7.33 ). For a commentary on the protection afforded by the 1840 Act to reports of parliamentary proceedings in criminal cases, see Committee of Privileges, First Report, HC 667 (1977–78) and Second Report, HC 222 (1978–79). 6. The matter of the application of the law of defamation to broadcasts of parliamentary proceedings was studied by the Joint Committee on the Publication of Proceedings in Parliament (HL 26, HC 48 (1969–70)) and the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege (HL 43-I, HC 214-I (1998–99) paras 358–61). 7. It was decided in the case of Dingle v Associated Newspapers Ltd [1961] 2 QB 162 that damages arising from the publication of unprivileged material should not be reduced on the ground that a plaintiff had acquired a bad reputation by reason of the publication of a select committee's report. See also para 16.7. 8. See Second Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, HC 362 (2009–10) paras 94–102. The case concerned a socalled ‘super-injunction’, ie one where the fact of the injunction was known to the parties but was otherwise to be kept confidential. 9. [1868–69] 4 QB 73. 10. [1868–69] 4 QB 88 ff. In giving judgment, Lord Cockburn CJ distinguished between the publication of documents covered by the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 and that of debates. The use in argument of cases involving parliamentary privilege he dismissed as ‘very wide of the present question’ (ibid 84, 91, 92). In making a complete analogy between reports of proceedings in courts and those of Parliament, he added that the limitations on one attach to the other, and a ‘garbled or partial report or of detached parts of proceedings, published with intent to injure individuals, will be equally disentitled to protection’ (ibid 94). 11. Cook v Alexander [1973] 3 WLR 617, esp at 623. 12. Defamation Act 1996, s 15 and sch 1. The scope of the protection afforded by the section extends to local legislatures and the European Parliament. It does not, however, cover the publication to the public (or a section of the public) of matter which is not of public concern, and the publication of which is not for the public benefit. Nor does the Act cover the publication of matter where such publication is prohibited by law. Fair and accurate copies of or extracts from notices or other matter issued by or on behalf of a legislature in any member State of the European Union or the European Parliament for the information of the public enjoy qualified privilege, subject to explanation or contradiction, unless their publication is shown to have been made with malice. 13. Joint Committee on the Publication of Proceedings in Parliament, Second Report, HL 109, HC 261 (1969–70); HC 34 (1966–67); Joint Committee on Sound Broadcasting (HL 123, HC 284 (1976–77)); and Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting, First Report (HC 376 (1981–82)). The matter was also dealt with by the Faulks Committee on Defamation, 1975 (Cmnd 5909) paras 203–10, 216–26. 14. HC 43 (1998–99) para 374. 15. Joint Committee on the Draft Defamation Bill, First Report of Session 2010–12, Draft Defamation Bill, HL 203-I, HC 930-I, para 51. 16. Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions, First Report of Session 2010–12, Privacy and Injunctions, HL 273, HC 1443, para 241. 17. HM Government, Parliamentary Privilege, Cm 8318, April 2012, para 311. 18. Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, First Report of Session 2013–14, Parliamentary Privilege, HL 30, HC 100, paras 187, 195–96.

Publication of extracts 13.7If a Member of either House publishes separately from the rest of the debate a speech made in the course of proceedings in Parliament, that statement becomes a separate publication, unconnected with any proceedings in Parliament, and the Member is legally responsible for any defamatory matter it may contain.1 In all cases, the extent to which the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 (or other provision) protects the repetition or publication of proceedings outside Parliament is a matter for the courts.2

Footnotes 1. A speech delivered (by Lord Abingdon) in the Lords in 1794 was subsequently published separately in several newspapers at his own expense, and his Lordship was punished by the court (1794) 170 ER 337. In 1813 Mr Creevey was found guilty of libel, having sent to the editor of a newspaper a corrected version of a speech made in the Commons previously incorrectly reported, with a request for publication. Upon his complaint to the House that King's Bench refused a new trial, the House came to no conclusion on whether the proceedings were a breach of privilege (see 105 ER 102; CJ (1812–13) 604; Parl Deb (1812–13) 26, c 898). In Hutchison v Proxmire 443 US 111 at 127 (1979), the United States Supreme Court held that press releases and newsletters, even if repeating material delivered in a speech in Congress, were not protected by the ‘Speech or Debate’ clause of the Constitution. A similar conclusion was reached in respect of private re-publication of documents made public at a Congressional committee hearing (Doe v McMillan 412 US 306 at 313 (1973) ). It was held in an Ontario judgment, however (Roman Corpn v Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Co (1973) 36 DLR (3d) 413 ), that a press release was an extension of a proceeding in Parliament (a ministerial statement). 2. HC Deb (4 February 2013) 558, c 47.

Effective repetition 13.8Certain recent cases have raised the issue of how much protection is afforded to repetition (whether in terms or by reference) outside the legislature to what had been said within its walls, short of full separate republication or repetition.1 In the UK case of Makudi v Treisman, the court held that there were occasions when it will be in the public interest for a Member to repeat or refer to statements outside Parliament. Lord Justice Laws suggested that Article IX of the Bill of Rights would extend to repetition of such statements when there was ‘1) a public interest in repetition of the Parliamentary utterance which the speaker ought reasonably to serve and 2) so close a nexus between the occasions of his speaking, in and then out of Parliament, that the prospect of his obligation to speak on the second occasion […] is reasonably foreseeable at the time of the first and his purpose in speaking on both occasions is the same or very closely related’ although this should not be taken to be a hard and fast rule.2

Footnotes 1. In 2004 the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council [2004] UKPC 36, [2005] 1 AC 115, [2005] 2 All ER 273 upheld the decision of the New Zealand Court of Appeal, in the case of Jennings v Buchanan [2003] 3 NZLR 145, to permit words spoken in Parliament to be used to establish the historical fact that they had been spoken, and its judgment (by a majority) that what amounted to repetition of a prior protected statement depended on the circumstances. In the instant case the phrase ‘I do not resile’ (from the statement in the House) was effectively repetition, and not a mere acknowledgment of the earlier privileged statement. See also Beitzel v Crabb [1992] 2 VR 121; Della Bosca v Arena [1999] NSWSC 1057 and Peters v Cushing [1999] NZAR 241; The Attorney-General v Leigh NZSC 11/2011 (s 3 of the New Zealand Parliamentary Privilege Act states ‘to abolish and prohibit evidence being offered or received, questions being asked, or statements, submissions, or comments made, concerning proceedings in Parliament, to inform or support “effective repetitionâ€​ claims and liabilities in proceedings in a court or tribunal and exemplified by the decision in Buchanan v Jennings [2004] UKPC 36, [2005] 2 All ER 273 (PC);’ as among the purposes of the Act). 2. Makudi v Triesman [2014] ECWA Civ 179 at paras 25–26.

Exclusive cognizance and freedom of speech 13.9The development of the lex parliamenti over earlier centuries as a discrete part of the common law has been described in the previous chapter. In 1689, by the Bill of Rights, statute law brought into sharper focus an important part (but only a part) of what the English Parliament had long claimed. The statute did not supersede the privilege of freedom of speech but it put the claim on a more defined basis. The continued exclusion of interference in or by the courts in the proceedings of either House was succinctly and robustly asserted. As noted in the previous chapter, the statutory nature of Article 9 means that the protection it gives cannot be waived by individual Members, or by either House.1 (For further discussion of the respective jurisdictions of Parliament and the courts, see Chapter 16.)

Footnotes 1. In 1996, the Defamation Act 1996, s 13 provided that, in actions for defamation, where the conduct of a person in or in relation to ‘proceedings in Parliament’ is in issue, a Member of either House could waive, for the purposes of the proceedings and so far as concerned themselves, the protection of any rule of law or enactment which prevents such proceedings from being ‘impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament’. This provision was repealed by the Deregulation Act 2015.

Article IX of the Bill of Rights Contents ‘Impeached’ and ‘questioned’ ‘Proceedings in Parliament’ ‘Court or place out of Parliament’ Implied amendment, etc Use of parliamentary material in court proceedings 13.10Article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689 confers on ‘proceedings in Parliament’ protection from being ‘impeached or questioned’ in any ‘court or place out of Parliament’. Except in the limited circumstances mentioned below, none of these critical terms is defined, so that it has often fallen to the courts to arrive at judgments about their meaning in specific circumstances and against the background of parliamentary insistence on the privilege of exclusive cognizance of proceedings (see above) and concern that judicial interpretation should not narrow the protection of freedom of speech which Article IX affords. It is in this area that the most acute conflicts may arise between public policy and issues of free comment and human rights. A decision in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council involved an action for damages for defamation in which it was argued that in order for justice to be done the court had to take into consideration proceedings in Parliament. Lord Browne-Wilkinson identified three potentially conflicting issues: ‘first, the need to ensure that the legislature can exercise its powers freely on behalf of its electors, with access to all relevant information; second, the need to protect freedom of speech generally; third, the interests of justice in ensuring that all relevant evidence is available to the courts.’ Though the other two could not be ignored, the Committee was of the view that ‘the law has long been settled that, of these three public interests, the first must prevail’.1 Article IX is a provision of the highest constitutional importance, and should not be narrowly construed.2 Four of the terms in Article IX are particularly critical to its understanding: ‘impeached’, ‘questioned’, ‘proceedings in Parliament’, and ‘court or place out of Parliament’.

Footnotes 1. Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd [1995] 1 AC 321 at 336, [1994] 3 All ER 407 at 417. 2. Pepper v Hart [1993] 1 AC 593 at 638, [1993] 1 All ER 42 at 67. See also United States v Brewster (1972) 408 US 501 at 516, in which Chief Justice Burger said that the corresponding United States provision ‘… must be read broadly to effectuate its purpose of protecting the independence of the legislative branch’; also United States v Helstoski (1979) 442 US 477 at 491, and Eastland v United States Servicemen's Fund (1975) 421 US 491 at 501.

‘Impeached’ and ‘questioned’ 13.11Use of the term ‘impeached’ in the context of the defence of parliamentary freedoms goes at least as far back as the Commons Protestation of 1621, where it appears in a very broad context along with ‘imprisonment … molestation … censure’.1 Whatever its general meaning in the seventeenth century, its modern significance is plainly important and has been the subject of judicial comment. The issue seems to be whether ‘impeached’ and ‘questioned’ are to be understood as inhibiting only the exposure of Members to legal sanctions for what was done or said in the House, or whether the protection goes further.2 In 1974, it was observed by Lord Simon of Glaisdale that in the case then before the court, an attempt to impeach was not possible without also questioning.3 Subsequently, in Pepper v Hart (see para 16.14 ), impeaching was treated as being limited to cases where a Member of Parliament was sought to be made liable, either in criminal or civil proceedings, for what they had said in Parliament, eg by criminal prosecution, by action for defamation, or by seeking to prove malice on the basis of such words.4 It was also held that ‘questioning’ did not extend to an investigation by a court of what a Member—in this case a Minister—meant by the words he used.5 The courts' approach to and understanding of the scope of ‘questioning’ is further considered below (para 13.15 ).

Footnotes 1. J R Tanner Constitutional Documents of the Reign of James I (1952), p 289. 2. Reference to proceedings in an attempt to prove a fact without the drawing of inferences (for which see para 16.11 ) has been permitted: see eg Blackshaw v Lord [1984] 1 QB 1. In Allason v Campbell (1996) TLR 279 a copy of the Official Report was produced in court to rebut evidence of fact about what had been said on the floor of the House of Commons. For petitions for leave to refer to proceedings, see para 24.21. Commonwealth courts have permitted references to the Official Report of the legislature in order to prove that a Member was present in the House on a particular day (Amman Aviation Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia (1988) 81 ALR 710, where the court rejected the submission that use of the Official Report for that purpose was contrary to the Australian Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (which specifically applies Article IX of the Bill of Rights to the Parliament of the Commonwealth)); proving as a fact that something was said (Mundey v Askin (1982) 2 NSWLR 369 ) and provisionally to enable to court to determine whether the Official Report might be received as evidence or not (Australian Medical Association v Minister for Health and Community Service (1991–92) 26 NSWLR 114, esp at 129 ). (The Bill of Rights is part of the law of New South Wales.) The Supreme Court of Victoria in R v Theophanous [2003] VSCA 78, however, chose not to read down the Australian Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987, s 16(3); and see also Laurance v Katter (1996) 141 ALR 447 and Della Bosca v Arena [1999] NSWSC 1057. 3. British Railways Board v Pickin [1974] AC 765 at 799. 4. [1993] AC 593 at 638, [1993] 1 All ER 43 at 67. See para 12.4 for the historical background to the text of the Bill of Rights at this point. 5. [1993] AC 593 at 638, [1993] 1 All ER 43 at 68. Popplewell J in Rost v Edwards [1990] 2 QB 460 at 470 and 474–75 discussed whether ‘impeached or questioned’ necessarily involved some allegation of improper motive, and concluded that ‘given the views of the very large number of judges … who have interpreted the Bill of Rights, it is simply not open to the court to take that view’. Lord Browne-Wilkinson commented in Prebble that ‘a number of the authorities on the scope of Article IX betray some confusion between the right to prove the occurrence of parliamentary events and the embargo on questioning their propriety’ ([1995] 1 AC 321 at 337, [1994] 3 All ER 407 at 418). The Australian Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987, at s 16(3), provides that it is not lawful for evidence to be received or questions asked which question or rely on the truth, motive, intention or good faith of proceedings, otherwise questioning or establishing the credibility, motive, intention or good faith of any person, or drawing or inviting the drawing of inferences or conclusions wholly or partly from proceedings. The Act in question stipulates that Article IX of the Bill of Rights is to be taken to have the effect, in addition to any other operation, of s 16.

‘Proceedings in Parliament’ 13.12The term ‘proceedings in Parliament’ has received judicial attention1 (not all of it in the United Kingdom)2 but comprehensive lines of decision have not emerged and indeed it has been concluded that an exhaustive definition could not be achieved.3 The primary meaning of proceedings, as a technical parliamentary term, which it had at least as early as the seventeenth century, is some formal action, usually a decision, taken by the House in its collective capacity. While business which involves actions and decisions of the House are clearly proceedings, debate is an intrinsic part of that process which is recognised by its inclusion in the formulation of Article IX. An individual Member takes part in a proceeding usually by speech, but also by various recognised forms of formal action, such as voting, giving notice of a motion, or presenting a petition or report from a committee, most of such actions being time-saving substitutes for speaking. Officers of the House take part in its proceedings principally by carrying out its orders, general or particular. Members of the public also may take part in the proceedings of a House, for example by giving evidence before it or one of its committees, or by securing the presentation of a petition. For consideration of whether writing to a Member can be considered to form part of a proceeding in Parliament, see para 15.25.4 Letters to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards are not considered to be privileged unless and until the Commissioner decides that the complaint is appropriate for inquiry (see para 5.22 ). On a number of occasions, the House of Commons or a committee has endeavoured to elucidate this very broad understanding. The Select Committee on the Official Secrets Act in 1938–39 argued that ‘proceedings' covered both the asking of a question and the giving of written notice of the question, and includes everything said or done by a Member in the exercise of his functions as a Member in a committee of either House, as well as everything said or done in either House in the transaction of parliamentary business.5 After considering the scope of the protection, the committee concluded: ‘cases may be easily imagined of communications between one Member and another or between a Member and a minister so closely related to some matter pending in or expected to be brought before the House that, although they do not take place in the Chamber or a committee room, they form part of the business of the House, as for example where a Member sends to a minister the draft of a question he is thinking of putting down, or shows it to another Member with a view to obtaining advice as to the propriety of putting it down or as to the manner in which it should be framed.’6 The conclusions of the committee were later agreed to by the House.7 In 1947, the House of Commons accepted the conclusion of its Committee of Privileges that ‘attendance of Members at a private party meeting held in the precincts…during the parliamentary session to discuss parliamentary matters…is attendance in their capacity as Members of Parliament’. Such meetings did not enjoy ‘all the privileges which are attached to the transactions of Parliament as a whole’, but financial arrangements to induce a Member to disclose information from such a meeting about his work in Parliament was a form of bribery and a breach of privilege. The Member who accepted the payment was for that and other reasons found guilty of a contempt.8 On the other hand, in 1958 the House rejected the opinion of the Committee of Privileges in the Strauss case that a particular letter written by a Member to a Minister relating to a nationalised industry was a proceeding in Parliament.9 The 1999 Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege concluded that complexities of establishing boundaries and definitions led them to not recommending an extension of absolute privilege to correspondence, noting that qualified privilege at common law had enabled Members to carry out their duties satisfactorily.10 In another case in 2008, the Speaker intervened in proceedings in the Appeal Court against the use by both parties of a report of the Public Administration Select Committee. The judge accepted the arguments made on the Speaker's behalf that statements of the then Leader of the House as to the intention and effect of legislation passed in an earlier session and the reports of the Committee were not admissible as legitimate aids to construction.11 Notwithstanding such purely parliamentary attempts to clarify the interpretation of the phrase, Article IX is of course statute law, and the courts have in the past drawn attention to that limitation on its interpretation by either House. In Bradlaugh v Gosset, Stephen J said that the House of Commons, though capable of effectively superseding the general law so far as its internal affairs were concerned (see para 16.3 ), could not properly extend the scope of the term ‘proceedings in Parliament’ so as to preserve Bradlaugh from the effect of a statute, and the courts would take no notice if the House tried.12 In OGC v Information Commissioner, the Speaker intervened on the grounds of a possible breach of Article IX of the Bill of Rights. The case concerned an appeal against two decisions of the Information Tribunal which had ordered the disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 of information relating to gateway reviews carried out by the Office of Government Commerce of the Government's identity card programme. The Speaker took no view on the substantive issue of the case but argued that the Tribunal had infringed Article IX and the wider principle of parliamentary privilege inter alia by assuming jurisdiction to consider the adequacy of a Minister's reply to a parliamentary question. Although the Information Commissioner had refused to treat the parliamentary question as a valid request for the purposes of the Act, he had treated a subsequent request for a review of the answer to that question from the Member who had asked it as such a request. This was criticised by the judge as necessarily challenging the correctness of the ministerial answer when such a challenge cannot be the subject of a judicial decision. In response to the Speaker's intervention, the judge concluded that ‘it would be better if Parliamentary questions are not answered by a Ministerial statement as to the result of the application of [the Freedom of Information Act] to a particular case’.13

Footnotes 1. Recently, in the Supreme Court judgment in the case of R v Chaytor [2010] UKSC 52, [2011] 1 AC 684, [2011] 1 All ER 805. See also the dissenting judgment in R v Bunting (1885) 7 OR 524 at 563; and Gruban v Booth (1915), referred to in Re Parliamentary Privilege

2.

3.

4. 5.

6.

Act 1770 [1958] AC 331, where an action was brought against a Member of the Commons in respect of a letter he had written to a Minister mentioning the plaintiff. There was no suggestion that the courts were unable to use the letter to determine the character of the defendant's conduct. Other cases touching on related issues are described at para 15.25, fn 2. The United States Supreme Court has described the American analogue of ‘proceedings in Parliament’, the phrase ‘legislative sphere’, as including all activities which are ‘an integral part of the deliberative and communicative processes by which Members participate in committee and House proceedings with respect to the consideration … of proposed legislation or with respect to other matters which the [United States] Constitution places within the jurisdiction of either House’ (Gravel v United States 408 US 606 at 625 (1972). See also Kilbourne v Thompson (1880) 103 US 168 ). For an early United States case, see Coffin v Coffin (1808) 4 Mass 1. The possibility of omissions being part of proceedings in Parliament was affirmed in Manganaro Enterprises v A-G of New Zealand [1994] 2 NZLR 451. In a South African case where English privilege law was considered ‘[a] relevant and persuasive authority’, a court found against a Member of a legislature who had arranged for the distribution in the Chamber of a document containing allegedly libellous statements which had no connection with the business of the day (Poovilingam v Rajbansi (1992) (1) SA 283 ). See also Re Clark and A-G of Canada (1977) 81 DLR (3d) 33, and Stopforth v Goyer (1978) 87 DLR (3d) 373. In Westco Lagan Ltd v Attorney-General and the Clerk of the House of Representatives, the New Zealand High Court held that the submission of a bill for the Royal Assent was not a proceeding in Parliament, though the Privileges Committee of the New Zealand Parliament disagreed: [2001] 1 NZLR 40; Report of the New Zealand House of Representatives Privileges Committee, March 2001. Rost v Edwards [1990] 2 QB 460 at 478. The Defamation Act 1996, since repealed, set out certain circumstances, without prejudice to the generality of proceedings in Parliament, in which the protection would apply: the giving of evidence before either House or a committee; the presentation or submission of a document to either House or a committee; the preparation of a document for the purposes of or incidental to the transacting of any such business; the formulation, making or publication of a document, including a report, by or pursuant to an order of either House or a committee; and a communication with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards or any person having functions in connection with the registration of Members' interests. The provisions in the Defamation Act 1996 were based on the Australian Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987, s 16(5), which itself enacts, in s 16(1), that the Bill of Rights is to be taken to have, in addition to any other operation, the effect of the provisions of s 16. Several United States cases have considered the role of officials and Members' aides in carrying out functions which would be protected if done by Members: see Gravel v US 408 US 606 (1972) at 620; Doe v McMillan 412 US 306 (1973) at 320. HC 101 (1938–39) p v. See, however, Allason v Campbell (1996) TLR 279, (1996) Times, 25 April, where the court heard detailed evidence on who initiated and participated in the drafting, signing and tabling of an early day motion, and the reasons for its coming into being. In United States v Johnson (1966) 383 US 169 at 173, the court found that drafting and other preparatory work on a speech in Congress was covered by the ‘speech or debate’ clause of the United States Constitution. HC 101 (1938–39) p v. In Attorney-General of Ceylon v De Livera [1963] AC 103 at 121, [1962] 3 All ER 1066 at 1070, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, in reviewing the scope of the protection of privilege in the United Kingdom, observed: ‘it is impossible to regard [a Member's] only proper functions as a Member as being confined to what he does on the floor of the House itself. In particular, in connection with his approaches to or relations with ministers whether or not on behalf of one of his own constituents it is recognised that his functions can include actions other than the mere putting down and asking of a parliamentary question.’

7.

8. 9.

10. 11. 12. 13.

In 2000 the House of Commons agreed that provision should be made for insurance of Members ‘in relation to the performance of their duties as Members', specifically extended to include the ‘cost of defending a civil claim for defamation … where the act complained of was not covered by parliamentary privilege but arose from a Member's duty as a Member’, HC Deb (1999–2000) 350, cc 917–37. CJ (1938–39) 480. A number of Australian cases turned on the necessary proximity to undoubted proceedings which must attach to papers in the possession of Members before they enjoy the same complete protection. See for example, O'Chee v Rowley (1997) 150 ALR 199 and Crane v Gething [2000] FCA 45. See also a leading case in the United States, Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation v Williams 1995 62 F 3d 408. The decision of the New Zealand Supreme Court ‘that public servants assisting Ministers to answer Parliamentary questions are not protected by absolute privilege against claims for defamation arising from what they say to the Minister’ (Attorney General & Gow v Leigh, SC 11/2011 [2011] NZSC 106, media summary) was followed by passage of the New Zealand Parliamentary Privilege Act in 2014. Committee of Privileges, HC 138 (1946–47) paras 17 and 21; HC 142 (1946–47); and CJ (1947–48) 22. See also Re Parliamentary Privilege Act 1770 [1958] AC 331 and D McGee Parliament and Caucus in New Zealand Law Journal (April 1997) 127, 137 on Rata v Attorney-General of New Zealand. Committee of Privileges, Fifth Report, HC 305 (1956–57); HC 227 (1957–58); and CJ (1957–58) 260. Cf also Rost v Edwards [1990] 2 QB 460, where it was held that a letter written by a Member of the Commons to the plaintiff (another Member) and to the Speaker in relation to questions which the Member who wrote the letter then raised in the House about the plaintiff's conduct was covered by parliamentary privilege. Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege Report, HL 43, HC 214 (1998–99) paras 103–12. R (on the application of Bradley) [2008] EWCA Civ 36, [2009] QB 114, [2008] 3 All ER 1116, para 50. [1883–84] 12 QBD 271 at 281–82. [2008] EWHC 737 (Admin), paras 51 and 54.

‘Court or place out of Parliament’ 13.13The 1999 Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege recommended that ‘place’ should be defined by statute to refer to any tribunal having power to examine witnesses on oath and expressed the view that it would include a tribunal appointed under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 but not a non-statutory inquiry even if led by a judge.1 The 1921 Act was repealed by the Inquiries Act 2005. The question of whether inquiries under that Act would constitute a ‘place’ has not yet been judicially considered.2 In 2003, members of the Foreign Affairs Committee gave evidence voluntarily to a non-statutory inquiry set up to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death of a government scientist, who had not long previously appeared before the committee as a witness.3

Footnotes 1. Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, First Report of Session 1998–99, Parliamentary Privilege: Volume I – Report & Proceedings, HL 43-I, HC 214-I paras 91–96 and Volume II – Minutes of Evidence, HL 43-III, HC 214-III (1998–99) p 178. The proposed definition of ‘place’ is similar to that in the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 of Australia. The example of such an inquiry cited by the Joint Committee was the Inquiry into the export of Defence Equipment and Dual-use Goods to Iraq and related Prosecutions led by Sir Richard Scott, HC 115 (1995–96). 2. By virtue of s 17(2) of the 2005 Act the Chairman of an inquiry has the power to administer an oath. 3. Report of the Inquiry into the Death of Dr David Kelly, HC 247 (2003–04), para 460.

Implied amendment, etc 13.14Although Article IX of the Bill of Rights has not been textually amended since its enactment, a number of statutes still in force have made amendments by implication whether to define any of the terms mentioned above or for other purposes. Several have concerned penalties for irregular sitting and voting in the Commons.1 The Witnesses (Public Inquiries) Protection Act 1892 includes penalties for those who are proved, before the courts, to have threatened or injured any person on account of evidence given by that person before a committee of either House, unless such evidence was given in bad faith.2 The Perjury Act 1911 punishes false evidence given on oath before committees of either House.3 The status of implied amendments has been made less certain by the courts' development of the principle that constitutional statutes may not be amended by implication.4 For the application to Parliament of the Data Protection Act 2018 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000, see para 6.21.

Footnotes 1. The Parliamentary Elections Act 1695 (c 25); the House of Commons (Disqualifications) Act 1801 (c 52); and the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866 (c 19). In Forbes v Samuel [1913] 3 KB 706 and Tranton v Astor (1916–17) 38 TLR 383, both actions involving allegations that a Member of the Commons had improperly sat and voted, the court demanded production of a division list in order to determine on the basis of what it recorded whether an offence contrary to statute had been committed. In Chubb v Salomons (1851) 175 ER 469, the Commons Journal was considered by the court in judging whether a Member had sat without taking the oath. 2. 1892, c 64. See also para 15.21. 3. 1911, c 6, s 1. 4. Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] EWHC 195 (Admin), [2003] QB 151, [2002] 4 All ER 156, per Lord Justice Laws: ‘Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not. For the repeal of a constitutional Act or the abrogation of a fundamental right to be effected by statute, the court would apply this test: is it shown that the legislature's actual – not imputed, constructive or presumed – intention was to effect the repeal or abrogation? I think the test could only be met by express words in the later statute, or by words so specific that the inference of an actual determination to effect the result contended for was irresistible. The ordinary rule of implied repeal does not satisfy this test. Accordingly, it has no application to constitutional statutes’ (para 63).

Use of parliamentary material in court proceedings 13.15The claim to exclusive cognizance of proceedings means that Members cannot be compelled to give evidence in the courts regarding proceedings in either House without the permission of the House.1 Similarly, no clerk or staff of the House of Commons or person employed to take minutes of evidence before the House or any of its committees may give evidence elsewhere in respect of any proceedings of the House or its committees without the special leave of the House.2 Parties to a suit who desire to produce such evidence or any other document in the custody of staff of either House accordingly petition the House, praying that the proper officer may attend and produce the material (see para 24.21 ).3 Motions for leave have on occasions been moved without previous notice.4 A motion made in the House of Commons that leave be given for certain unreported select committee evidence, correspondence and notes to be produced in court has been withdrawn.5 The House of Commons partially relaxed its claim to exclusive cognizance in 1980, when it agreed to a resolution permitting reference to be made in court to certain (though not all) parliamentary papers which until then had been protected by the claim to exclusive cognizance. Those to which reference may be made without the necessity of the presentation of a petition for leave are the Official Report and the published reports and evidence taken by committees. The same resolution made clear, however, that the statutory protection afforded to proceedings in Parliament by the Bill of Rights was not affected by the relaxation.6 There had emerged in the courts at least by the middle of the eighteenth century a self-imposed rule which excluded from their consideration when interpreting statutes parliamentary material, including debates, relevant to the legislative history of the statute.7 A number of cases decided by the House of Lords in its judicial capacity in recent years have significantly varied this rule, and so are of particular relevance to the privilege of exclusive cognizance as it relates to freedom of speech. In 1989, the House of Lords took account of ministerial statements made in Parliament for the purpose of ascertaining Parliament's intention in agreeing to certain draft regulations intended to give effect in United Kingdom law to a judgment of the European Court of Justice. The House of Lords concluded that this course of action was legitimate, because the draft regulations, being a statutory instrument, were ‘not subject to the usual parliamentary procedure as a bill would have been…and [were] in the context of section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972’. It was said in a subsequent case that this decision ‘represented a major inroad’ into the courts' exclusionary rule.8 The third case arose in 1991.9 The practice of referring in court to the Official Reports of parliamentary proceedings had been permitted over a number of years in cases of judicial review, in order to determine ‘whether a statutory power ha[d] been improperly exercised for a certain purpose or in a wholly unreasonable manner’. In this instance, it was the Crown which invited the court to look at the Official Report of the Commons. Much the most far-reaching change by way of a relaxation of the rule excluding parliamentary material from the courts when interpreting statute was made by the House of Lords sitting in its judicial capacity in 1992 in the case of Pepper v Hart.10 The ruling built on the three judgments mentioned above. The House of Lords concluded that there was no logical distinction between the use of ministerial statements introducing subordinate legislation and such statements made in respect of other statutory provisions capable of amendment. Second, fine distinctions between, on the one hand, looking for the mischief which a statute was intended to tackle by comparing Law Commission proposals with bills in Parliament and, on the other, seeking parliamentary intentions expressed in words, were ‘technical and inappropriate’. Finally, references to the Official Report for the purposes of judicial review and for the purposes of statutory construction were found by their Lordships to be indistinguishable.11 As a result of the decision in Pepper v Hart, the courts now refer to parliamentary material where legislation is considered to be ambiguous or obscure, or leads to an absurdity; where the parliamentary material consists of one or more statements by a Minister or other promoter of a bill, together with such other parliamentary material as is necessary to understand such statements and their effect; and where the statements relied upon are clear.12 In coming to their decision in Pepper v Hart, the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary considered arguments put by the Attorney General about the relevance of the parliamentary privilege of exclusive cognizance and the statutory protection in the Bill of Rights against ‘questioning’ proceedings in Parliament (see para 13.11 ). They found themselves unable to identify any privilege which extended beyond the Bill of Rights, and could not agree with the Attorney General on the breadth of the term ‘questioning’.13 The House of Lords authoritatively restated the scope of the rule in Pepper v Hart in its judgment in Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Appellant).14 It accepted that the purpose of the rule was to create a kind of quasi-estoppel against the executive (or to require it to honour a legitimate expectation it had created) which prevented it from subsequently placing on words a meaning different from that used by Ministers in Parliament.15 The Lords further held that reliance on ministerial or other statements in Hansard was legitimate, as would be the case for White Papers or similar material, where information as to the background of legislation was sought to establish its compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights under the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. It was otherwise when the purpose was to control the meaning of an Act or to ascribe to Parliament as a whole views expressed by Ministers. It is for Parliament to decide what reasons need be given for legislation and how far they are sufficient. The views of one Member—ministerial or otherwise—cannot be attributed to the House of which they are a Member, and a fortiori not to Parliament as a whole.16 Several more recent cases have addressed at what point the deployment of parliamentary proceedings constitutes questioning or impeaching of those proceedings, contrary to Article IX of the Bill of Rights.17 In Office of Government Commerce v Information Commissioner, the use by one party of an opinion expressed by a select committee was held to be inadmissible in part because it would put the other party at an unfair disadvantage. The other party must either accept the opinion (when it would otherwise not wish to do so) or challenge that opinion, thereby inviting the tribunal to pass judgment on it and risk a breach of Article IX.18 There has been repeated parliamentary consideration of the use of parliamentary material in judicial review and other cases. In 1999, the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege recommended that Article IX of the Bill of Rights should not be interpreted as precluding the use of proceedings in Parliament in court for the purpose of judicial review of government decisions or in other proceedings in which a government decision is material.19 This was rejected by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 2013, on several grounds, including that such use of

proceedings could have a chilling effect on what Ministers were prepared to say in proceedings or it could lead to judicial evaluation of the way in which parliamentary committees reached their conclusions. The then Lord Chief Justice described some of the uses made of proceedings as ‘a mistake’. The Committee considered that no action was immediately necessary, but recommended that Parliament should be prepared to legislate if necessary to protect freedom of speech in Parliament from judicial questioning.20

Footnotes 1. Plunkett v Cobbett (1804) 170 ER 763; Chubb v Salomons (1851) 175 ER 469. For petitions to the House of Commons seeking leave for a Member to give evidence in court, see eg CJ (1966–67) 578; ibid (1967–68) 98, 108; ibid (1981–82) 175. In 1948, the Commons gave leave to certain Members to give evidence in court ‘touching certain incidents’ in the House in an action for libel brought by another Member. Leave was also given to other Members (and other persons) to attend and produce documents touching the conduct of a Member as such (CJ (1948–49) 14 and Braddock v Tillotsons Newspapers Ltd [1948–49] 2 AC 306 ). 2. CJ (1818) 389, which followed the proceedings in R v Merceron (1818) 171 ER 675, when a shorthand writer employed by the House of Commons gave evidence in court of what an accused had said when being examined as a witness before a parliamentary committee. See also Parl Deb (1828) 18, cc 968–74. For modern instances where leave was given to officers by the House of Commons to give evidence in court, see CJ (1962–63) 201; ibid (1964–65) 276; ibid (1967–68) 125; ibid (1969–70) 153; ibid (1974–75) 730; ibid (1975–76) 45, 346, 426, 428, 617; ibid (1976–77) 152, 453; ibid (1977–78) 441; ibid (1978–79) 49, 144, 188; ibid (1979–80) 73, 591, 605. In other instances, petitions have not been proceeded with (ibid (1958–59) 313) or proceedings on the motion for leave stood over for lack of a quorum and were not resumed (ibid (1974–75) 567, 571). For the procedure on such motions, see para 20.6. 3. The agreement of the House to a motion based on a petition for leave to an officer to give evidence in court remains necessary, even when the action before the court is based on a statute making an implied amendment of the Bill of Rights as it affects the status of ‘proceedings in Parliament’, as eg formerly under the Defamation Act 1996, s 13 (see para 16.19 ). In Forbes v Samuel [1913] 3 KB 706, which concerned whether a Member had sat and voted contrary to the House of Commons (Disqualification) Act 1801, a shorthand writer who had taken notes at a select committee gave evidence in court (at 725), as did two clerks in connection with the proceedings in a division (at 725 and 730). In Tranton v Astor (1917) 33 TLR 383, which also concerned disqualification, when the court declined to admit Hansard as evidence, official reporters testified regarding the presence of the accused in the Chamber, producing their notes and personally identifying the individual concerned. Leave was given by the House in both cases (CJ (1913) 101 and ibid (1916) 213). 4. CJ (1851) 212, 277; ibid (1852) 291; ibid (1967–68) 125. For a motion not preceded by a petition, see eg HC Deb (1939–40) 365, c 135. 5. CJ (1994–95) 299, 366 and HC Deb (1994–95) 261, cc 333–54, and Supplement to the Votes and Proceedings, 26 April 1995. See also Rost v Edwards [1990] 2 QB 460, [1990] 2 All ER 641. 6. CJ (1979–80) 823; Committee of Privileges, First Report, HC 102 (1978–79). It has never been held to be contrary to the Bill of Rights to refer in court to the Official Report where no inferences are sought to be drawn from the reference (see para 16.11 ). The House agreed that select committee papers could be included in the papers exchanged between the parties in Harmon CFEM Facades (UK) Ltd v Corporate Officer of the House of Commons (see (2000) 72 ConLR 21 ); CJ (1997–98) 281. 7. Millar v Taylor (1769) 98 ER 201. See also Francis Bennion, Statutory Interpretation (5th edn, 2008), p 644 ff. 8. Pickstone v Freemans plc [1989] 2 AC 66, commented on in Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593 at 609, [1993] 1 All ER 42 at 61, 63, 65, 68. 9. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Brind [1991] 1 AC 696 esp at 713, 715–16, 755, 758. For other cases involving scrutiny of ministerial decisions as announced to the Commons and therefore recorded in the Official Report (on the parole system), see Findlay v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1985] AC 318; Pierson v Home Secretary [1997] 3 All ER 577; R v Home Secretary, ex p Venables [1998] AC 407, [1997] 3 All ER 97; R v Home Secretary, ex p Hindley [1998] QB 751, [2000] 1 QB 152. As explained in Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2003] UKHL 40, [2004] 1 AC 816, [2003] 4 All ER 97, the use of Hansard in Brind and in cases like it is evidential; it is the Minister's decision not the statement which evidences it which is the subject-matter of the review. 10. Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593, [1993] 1 All ER 42. 11. [1993] 1 All ER 63, 65, 68. 12. It was ruled in Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No 2) [1996] 2 All ER 363 esp at 366, that where a court is seeking to construe a statute purposively and consistently with any European materials, and it is of particular importance to ascertain the true purpose of an Act which introduces into United Kingdom law the provisions of an international convention or European directive, it may adopt a more flexible approach to the admissibility of parliamentary materials than that established for the construction of a particular provision of purely domestic legislation. In the case of National Westminster Bank and Barclay's Bank [1993] VCIR76TC1 the question of construction of legislation was commenced prior to third reading of the relevant Finance Bill but judgment delivered after the Bill was passed. 13. Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593 at 645, [1993] 1 All ER 73 at 74. 14. [2003] UKHL 40. 15. See [2003] UKHL 40 at 113 and 140; Lord Steyn ‘Pepper v Hart, a re-examination’ in Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 21 (2001), p 59; and R v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex p Spath Holme Ltd [2001] 1 All ER 195, [2001] 2 AC 349 at 391, 398, 402, 407. 16. See Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2003] UKHL 40 at 67: ‘The court is called upon to evaluate the proportionality of the legislation not the minister's exploration of the policy options or of his explanations to Parliament. The latter would contravene Article IX of the Bill of Rights’; and also paras 117, 139 and 143. Reviewing the Wilson case, Blake J suggests that Wilson may justify the limited use of parliamentary materials in compatibility cases: [2009] EWHC 2336 (Admin), para 65. 17. See eg OGC v Information Commissioner [2008] EWHC 737 (Admin). For a decision by the courts against the use of the Official

Report of the Commons in an attempt to seek relief in proceedings for judicial review of something which occurred out of Parliament, in R v Secretary of State for Trade v Anderson Strathclyde plc, see para 16.11. See also the decision of an Australian court in R v Murphy, where the judge took a narrow view of ‘proceedings’ and permitted the cross-examination of witnesses in regard to the evidence they had given before a parliamentary committee; and the subsequent enactment of the Australian Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987, at para 16.13. 18. [2008] EWHC 737 (Admin) at para 58. Also see R (on the application of (1) Federation of Tour Operators (2) TUI UK Ltd (3) Kuoni Travel Ltd and HM Treasury and HM Revenue and Customs) [2007] EWHC 2062 (Admin), [2008] STC 547; R (on the application of Henry Bradley) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration [2007] EWHC 242 (Admin), [2009] QB 114; R (on the application of Wheeler) v Office of the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2008] EWHC 1409 at paras 53 and 54. 19. Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, First Report of Session 1998–99, Parliamentary Privilege: Volume I – Report & Proceedings, HL 43-I, HC 214-I, paras 55, 59. 20. Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, First Report of Session 2013–14, Parliamentary Privilege, HL 30, HC 100, para 136.

The general principle underlying freedom from arrest 14.1The principle upon which the privilege of freedom from arrest is based is the absolute priority of attendance at the House concerned by Members of both Houses. While the privilege of freedom from arrest itself is now highly unlikely to be exercised, that principle remains important, and some of the powers of the courts in relation to Members are affected by that principle. The privilege of freedom from arrest is now confined to civil arrest and is of extremely limited application. Both the 1999 and 2013 Joint Committees on Parliamentary Privilege recommended its abolition, although the 2013 Committee noted that the likelihood of the privilege arising was extremely remote, and its abolition would require legislation.1

Footnotes 1. The 1999 Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege noted that the immunity lost most of its importance in 1870 when, with a few exceptions, imprisonment for debt was abolished (First Report of Session 1998–09, Parliamentary Privilege: Volume I – Report & Proceedings, HL 43-I, HC 214-I, paras 325–28); First Report of Session 2013–14, Parliamentary Privilege, HL 30, HC 100 (2013–14), paras 254–57. See Chapter 12 (para 12.5 ) for the development of the privilege of freedom from arrest. The principle that the privilege does not extend to protection from criminal process has been restated by the Clerk of the House in evidence to the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, Fourteenth Report of Session 2010–12, Privilege: Hacking of Members' mobile phones, HC 628.

Criminal law and statutory detention Contents House to be informed of arrests House to be informed of sentences for criminal offences 14.2The privilege of freedom from arrest has never been allowed to interfere with the administration of criminal justice or emergency legislation (see para 14.6 ), but if a Member is detained, the relevant House expects certain information.

House to be informed of arrests 14.3Formerly, in all cases in which Members of either House were arrested on criminal charges, the House concerned had to be informed of the cause for which they were detained from their service in Parliament and of the cause of their committal.1 In the Commons until 2016, such communication was done by a statement from the Speaker or by laying notification before the House and causing it to be published in the Votes and Proceedings.2 Commons procedure was changed following a Report from the Procedure Committee in 2015 (itself following media interest in a report of an arrest in the Votes and Proceedings). The Committee considered the right to privacy in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and noted that police respected this right for the general public by not giving the name of those arrested when the fact of an arrest was publicly acknowledged. The Committee concluded that ‘the present practice of the House in requiring the Speaker to publish the fact of a Member's arrest regardless of circumstance is, in its generalised and non-discretionary application, incompatible with the right to privacy.’3 Nonetheless, the Committee considered that the House's assertion of its right to the attendance of its Members should not lightly be abandoned, because it could not readily be reclaimed.4 It considered that although the House did not employ Members, it had some claim to knowledge of arrests, in case these raised any issues of privilege or safeguarding. The Committee put forward proposals to balance the House's interest and ‘the legitimate expectations of Members to the same protections of their privacy as are enjoyed by others within the jurisdiction.5 Following that report, on 10 February 2016, the House resolved ‘That Members of the House shall be under no undue restraint from being able to attend the House, and that this principle has been, and continues to be, encompassed in the privileges of the House claimed at the beginning of each Parliament’ and agreed to an order endorsing the Committee's report, and directing the Clerk of the House, the Speaker and chief police officers to follow the protocol annexed to the report.6 The protocol requires police forces to notify the Chief Superintendent at Parliament of any arrest of a Member as soon as possible, and in any event, within 24 hours. The Clerk of the House will then contact the Member concerned or their legal representative. If the Member concerned wishes to make the fact of the arrest public, the fact of the arrest will be communicated to the House, either verbally or by laying before the House so much of the letter announcing the arrest as the Member wishes. Where a Member does not wish to make the fact of the arrest public, the Clerk of the House will advise the Speaker if it appears that issues of privilege or constitutional significance arise. The Speaker may invite the Committee of Privileges to consider the matter. If matters of constitutional significance or privilege are raised, the Speaker will inform the House either verbally, or by laying the letter announcing the arrest or such parts of it as appear appropriate. The Member concerned and the police will be informed of this in advance. In addition, the Clerk of the House provides an anonymised annual return of such notifications to the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges, solely for the purposes of collating information on the frequency and circumstances of such arrests. In the Lords, in all cases in which Lords Members are arrested on criminal charges, the Lord Speaker must be informed of the cause for which they are detained from their service in Parliament. This is no longer communicated to the whole House except in circumstances where the arrest raises matter of constitutional significance or privilege.7

Footnotes 1. See Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), Ch 14, p 243 ff. Several Acts which in the past suspended for a time a Habeas Corpus Act have contained provisions to the effect that no Member of Parliament should be imprisoned during the sitting of Parliament, until the matter of which they stand suspected has been communicated to the House of which they are a Member, and its consent obtained for the commitment (17 Geo 2, c 6; 45 Geo 3, c 4, s 2; 57 Geo 3, c 3, s 4; 57 Geo 3, c 55, s 4; 3 Geo 4, c 2, s 4). Privilege of freedom from arrest has been successfully claimed by a Member in prison on civil process at the time of his election (CJ (1818–19) 44; ibid (1819–20) 230, 243, 286–87). 2. On 23 February 2012 the arrest of a Member within the precincts was communicated by a Speaker's Statement, HC Deb (23 February 2012) 540, c 997; for other notifications to the Commons, see Procedure Committee, Second Report of Session 2015–16, Notification of the Arrest of Members, HC 649 Appendix 2; see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), pp 243–44 for a fuller account of communications made on committal etc. 3. Procedure Committee, Second Report of Session 2015–16, Notification of the arrest of Members, HC 649, para 25. 4. The Committee noted that ‘The formal notification of an arrest is one means by which the House asserts the right to be kept informed by agents of the Crown of actions taken against members which may impair their ability to attend the House. The formal notification of imprisonment or other detention of a Member is another.’: para 23. 5. Ibid, para 24. 6. HC Votes and Proceedings, 10 February 2016. 7. For an account of previous practice, see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 243 ff.

House to be informed of sentences for criminal offences 14.4The committal of a Member or Lords Member for high treason1 or any criminal offence is brought before the House by a letter addressed to the Speaker or Lord Speaker by the committing judge or magistrate.2 On these occasions, the first communication is made when the Lord or Member is committed to prison, bail not being allowed;3 and, subsequently, if the Member is neither released from custody nor acquitted, the judge informs the Speaker or Lord Speaker of the offence for which the Member was condemned, and the sentence that has been passed upon them.4 Where a Member is convicted but released on bail pending an appeal, the duty of the magistrate to communicate with the Speaker does not arise. No duty of informing the Speaker arises in the case of a person who while in prison under sentence is elected as a Member of Parliament,5 but when a notification has been made to the Speaker in such circumstances the Speaker has communicated it to the House.6 If a Member resigns after conviction but before sentence is passed, no communication is made.7

Footnotes 1. CJ (1902) 281. See the Speaker's ruling as to the sufficiency of a similar communication in cases of high treason as in other criminal offences, Parl Deb (1902) 109, c 480. 2. In the case of Lord George Gordon the communication was made by a royal message, CJ (1778–80) 903, and in the case of Mr Smith O'Brien by a letter from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, ibid (1847–48) 888. 3. Parl Deb (1902) 113, c 234. 4. LJ (1987–88) 880; ibid (1993–94) 249; ibid (1995–96) 187; ibid (1995–96) 642 (where communication was made by a court in Florida, United States); ibid (2001–02) 125; ibid (2005–06) 209; ibid (2007–08) 339–40 (where communication was made by a court in Illinois, United States); ibid (2008–09) 181; CJ (1890–91) 268; ibid (1892) 101; ibid (1903) 3; ibid (1954–55) 6; in case of misdemeanour, ibid (1922) 183; and ibid (1947–48) 19. The quashing of the last conviction was notified as a matter of courtesy by the Lord Chief Justice to the Speaker, who communicated the notification to the House, ibid (1947–48) 178. Cf, however, CJ (1920) 439 and ibid (1976–77) 358. The Speaker has also informed the House of the conviction of a Member (subsequently reversed on appeal) which had the effect of vacating that Member's seat (see para 3.9, fn 3). 5. HC Deb (1917–18) 93, c 1786. 6. CJ (1922) 345; ibid (1924) 17. The Member concerned had not been convicted but was in statutory detention. On 9 May 1972, the Speaker informed the House that he had been notified by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that sentences passed on three Members had been remitted in an exercise of the Royal prerogative of mercy, CJ (1971–72) 313; HC Deb (1971–72) 836, c 1101. 7. See Votes and Proceedings, 8 February 2011, for resignation of Member before sentence; sentence was passed on 10 February 2011.

Detention under mental health legislation 14.5The Mental Health Act 1983, s 141 (now repealed)1 laid down a procedure following the detention of a Member of the House of Commons suffering from mental disorder. The Committee for Privileges of the Lords considered the effect of the powers of detention under the Mental Health Act 1983 on the privilege of freedom from arrest referred to in Standing Order No 79 that ‘no Lord of Parliament is to be imprisoned or restrained without sentence or order of the House unless upon a criminal charge or refusing to give security for the peace’.2 The Committee accepted the advice of Lord Diplock and other Law Lords that the provisions of the statute would prevail against any existing privilege of Parliament or of peerage.

Footnotes 1. Mental Health (Discrimination) Act 2013 (c 8). This change followed a recommendation from the Speaker's Conference on Parliamentary Representation, January 2010. 2. Report by the Committee for Privileges on Parliamentary Privilege and the Mental Health Legislation, HL 254 (1983–84).

Other statutory detention 14.6The detention of a Member under regulations made under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts 1939 and 1940 led to the Committee of Privileges being directed to consider whether such detention constituted a breach of the privileges of the House; the Committee reported that there was no breach of privilege involved.1 In the case of a Member deported from Northern Rhodesia for non-compliance with an order declaring him to be a prohibited immigrant, the Speaker held there was no prima facie case of breach of privilege.2

Footnotes 1. HC 164 (1939–40). 2. HC Deb (1958–59) 601, cc 223–27 and 454–64. The detention of Members in Ireland in 1918 and 1922 under Defence of the Realm Regulations and the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act, the Speaker having been informed by respectively the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant and the Secretary to the Northern Ireland Cabinet, was communicated by him to the House (CJ (1918) 105; ibid (1924) 17; HC Deb (1918) 106, c 1235). See also CJ (1939–40) 140. For other communications in respect of preventative detention by the executive, see HC 164 (1939–40) p 3.

Contempt of court 14.7A claim to the privilege of freedom from arrest made by a Member imprisoned for contempt of court may prove more difficult to determine than in the instances dealt with earlier in this chapter. There are a few older cases, in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, of peers and Members of the House of Commons being successfully discharged from attachments for contempt by pleading their privilege.1 Subsequently, however, Members of the House of Commons have been fined2 and imprisoned for contempt of court, and on examination of the circumstances of the cases, committees have not recommended that the House invoke the privilege of freedom from arrest.3 It may therefore be generally deduced that in cases of quasi-criminal contempts Members of either House may be committed without an invasion of privilege. The extent of protection in other cases is likely to depend on the circumstances. As Scarman J held in Stourton v Stourton, ‘each case will depend on its facts, the distinction being between process to compel performance of a civil obligation and process to punish conduct which has about it some degree of criminality, some defiance of the general law’.4 The courts have declined to grant an attachment against a Member of the House of Commons or Lords Member for non-payment of money according to an award.5 However, it has been ruled that privilege does not protect from judgment a debtor, who failed to comply with a court order to attend for an official examination as to his means, from execution of a warrant for committal for contempt.6

Footnotes 1. Contempt of court by privileged persons was formerly punished by sequestration of their property, Eyre v Countess of Shaftesbury (1722) 24 ER 659, esp at 663. In one case where the Lords ordered a peer to be discharged from attachment, they declared that if at any future time cause should be shown that persons of Lords of Parliament were attachable, the order in that case should not affect their decision in judging according to the cause shown (LJ (1509–77) 727; ibid (1628–42) 27; ibid (1666–75) 122; William Prynn Fourth Part of Brief Register of Writs (1664), p 792; case of the Duchess of Sutherland, 18 April 1893). See also LJ (1620–28) 496, where Lord Vaux successfully pleaded privilege to stay proceedings on an information against him in Star Chamber, and the case of Lord Arundel, ibid 558 (Report of Precedents touching imprisonment or restraint of Lords in the time of Parliament, HL 79 (1806–07)) 562 etc). The Commons also in the seventeenth century secured the release of Members committed for contempt by writs of habeas corpus (CJ (1547–1628) 269, 458, 466, and see para 12.5, fn 29). 2. In 1873, the Court of Queen's Bench fined two Members for a contempt of that court, and Cockburn CJ stated that the court would not have been restrained by privilege from committing them if it had thought fit (R v Castro, Onslow's and Whalley's case (1873) LR 9 QBD 219, esp at 228–29 ). 3. The Committee of Privileges in 1831 reported that the claim of privilege, made by a Member committed for contempt for having removed his daughter from the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, though she was a ward of court, ought not to be admitted (CJ (1830–31) 701, and Wellesley v Duke of Beaufort (1831) 39 ER 538). Similarly, the Committee of Privileges reported against a claim made in 1837 by a Member who had been committed for contempt in writing a scandalous letter which also attempted to influence a decision of the Court of Chancery (CJ (1837) 3 ff, HC Deb (16 February 1837) 36, cc 586–94 and HC 45 (1837)). In 1874, the Committee of Privileges informed the House that the Lord Chief Justice had fulfilled his duty in informing the Speaker of a Member's committal for contempt of the Court of Queen's Bench and subsequent discharge, at a time when Parliament was not sitting, and reported that the matter did not demand the further attention of the House. (HC 77 (1874); Parl Deb (1874) 218, cc 52, 108.) A similar report was made in 1882, when a Member had been committed for publishing certain articles calculated to prejudice the course of justice (CJ (1882) 487, 491; Parl Deb (1882) 273, cc 1978, 2049; ibid 274, c 34; HC 406 (1882); and see also CJ (1883) 4). A select committee in 1902 considered the committal of a Member for refusal to enter into recognisances to be of good behaviour, and concluded that there was no difference between that case and those cited above, that the contempt was of a criminal and not civil character, and no distinction could be drawn between cases of criminal contempt and other indictable offences (CJ (1902) 300; HC 309 (1902); see also CJ (1908) 3; Parl Deb (1908) 183, c 82; and CJ (1920) 88). As to the increasingly blurred distinction between criminal and civil contempt, see Aldridge, Eady and Smith on Contempt (5th edn, 2017), Ch 3, pp 156–241. 4. Stourton v Stourton [1963] 1 All ER 606 at 610. 5. Walker v Earl of Grosvenor (1797) 101 ER 915 and Catmur v Sir E Knatchbull (1797) 101 ER 1069: and see the dicta of Lord Brougham in Westmeath (Marquis) v Marchioness of Westmeath (1831) 5 ER 349 that an Irish peer could allege the privileges of Parliament in bar of proceedings sought to be issued from Chancery in furtherance of a process directed by the ecclesiastical courts. 6. Peden International Transport, Moss Bros, The Rowe Veterinary Group and Barclays Bank plc v Lord Mancroft (1989, unreported); see Patricia M. Leopold, ‘The freedom of peers from arrest’, Public Law (Autumn 1989), pp 398–406, on this unreported case.

Bankruptcy 14.8The position of a Member who is subject to a bankruptcy restrictions order or a debt relief restrictions order is dealt with at paras 3.5–3.6.

Admissibility of Members as bail 14.9Members of both Houses have been admitted as bail on at least two occasions in modern times.1

Footnotes 1. 14 August 1970 at Bow Street Magistrates' Court; 20 November 1978 at Minehead Magistrates' Court (though in the latter case a Lord was not admitted as bail). Under the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, s 120(4) (deriving from the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952) the forfeiture of recognisances is enforced as if it were a fine, with the ultimate sanction of imprisonment. Formerly, it had been held, in civil cases, that a Member of Parliament, because of his immunity from arrest, could not be admitted as bail (Graham v Sturt (1812) 128 ER 324; Burton v Atherton (1816) 2 Marsh 232; Duncan v Hill (1822) 1 Dow & Ry KB 126; and case of Mr Feargus O'Connor, who offered himself as bail, 11 June 1848, at Bow Street).

Members summoned as witnesses 14.10The service of a subpoena to attend as a witness has in the past been treated as a breach of privilege by the House1 and the parties responsible for effecting such service have on occasions been committed to the Serjeant for contempt. The modern practice of serving documents by post would not be considered a breach of privilege. But service in person in the precincts of either House on a sitting day would still be likely to be regarded as a contempt, as recommended by both the 1999 and 2013 Joint Committees on Parliamentary Privilege.2 A Member may choose to attend court in response to a subpoena or witness summons without any formality, even on a day on which the House sits or is to sit.3 Nonetheless, the privilege of exemption of a Member from attending as a witness, in criminal as well as civil proceedings, has been asserted by the House upon the same principle as other personal privileges, namely the paramount right of Parliament4 to the attendance and service of its Members. On the matter being raised by the Member concerned, the Speaker communicates with the court, drawing attention to this privilege and asking that the Member should be excused because of the sitting of the House.5 While the 1999 Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege recommended that Members' exemption from attendance as a witness should be abolished,6 the 2013 Committee disagreed. It considered that there was no evidence the privilege had caused harm, and that given the frequency of vexatious litigation, it was reasonably foreseeable that ending it could interfere with Members' primary duty to attend Parliament.7

Footnotes 1. 1 Parl Hist 630; D'Ewes 347; 1 Hatsell 96–97, 169–75; LJ (1620–28) 630; CJ (1547–1628) 34, 48, 203, 205, 211, 368, 401 etc; ibid (1667–87) 339. 2. See Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, First Report of Session 1998–99, Parliamentary Privilege: Volume I – Report & Proceedings, HL 43-I, HC 214-I para 335; Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, First Report of Session 2013–14, Parliamentary Privilege, HL 30, HC 100 paras 266–69. For the special circumstances in which a military order to a Member who was a Territorial Army Officer to attend a Court of Inquiry was declared to be a breach of privilege, see HC 146 (1937–38); CJ (1937–38) 351. 3. On occasions in the past, the Commons has specifically granted leave to its Members to attend court; see CJ (1801) 122; ibid (1812–13) 218, 243, 292; ibid (1816) 110; ibid (1826–27) 306, 379; and also Parl Deb (1844) 73, c 433 (Earl of Devon). 4. On this principle, the privilege would also apply to officers of the House. 5. 1 Hatsell 170, 171; CJ (1950–51) 186; ibid (1953–54) 42; HC Deb (1953–54) 521, cc 957–58, Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, First Report of Session 2013–14, Parliamentary Privilege, HL 30, HC 100. And see the observations of the court on this privilege, Lewis v Mullally (1953) Times, 3 December. 6. Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, First Report of Session 1998–09, Parliamentary Privilege: Volume I – Report & Proceedings, HL 43-I, HC 214-I paras 330–33; the Committee did, however, recommend that a subpoena against a Member should not be issued without the leave of a master or district judge. 7. Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, First Report of Session 2013–14, Parliamentary Privilege, HL 30, HC 100, para 265.

Exemption from jury service 14.11Members of both Houses are excusable as of right from jury service in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Neither Members nor officers of either House are any longer afforded any particular exemption from the general public duty of jury service in England and Wales.1 However, the Guidance for summoning officers when considering deferral and excusal applications notes that MPs should be offered deferral when first called, and that if they feel it would be inappropriate to serve on a jury in their constituency, they should be offered the opportunity to serve elsewhere. The guidance notes the inconvenience that would be caused by the absence of the Speaker and their deputies at a time when the House sits, and again, recommends deferral. In both cases the guidance refers back to the general principle that ‘The normal expectation is that everyone summoned for jury service will serve at the time for which they are summoned. […] Only in extreme circumstances, should a person be excused from jury service.’2 The 2013 Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege considered it objectionable in principle for a Member of the legislature to have to seek permission of another branch of government in order to perform their parliamentary duties. It noted that these might include participating in a vote of confidence where a Government was not certain of its majority. It recommended legislation to provide that Members of either House should have a right to be excused jury service, although it did not advocate a complete exemption, as some Members would wish to serve.3 No action has been taken on this recommendation.

Footnotes 1. The former exemption was repealed by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, see Erskine May (23rd edn, 2004), p 125. 2. Her Majesty's Courts Service, Guidance for summoning officers when considering deferral and excusal applications (18 June 2009), paras 16, 17 and 4. 3. Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, First Report of Session 2013–14, Parliamentary Privilege, HL 30, HC 100, paras 249–53.

House of Commons 14.12It has been the general and very long-standing opinion, allowed by the courts1 and clearly stated by institutional authorities,2 that the privilege of freedom from arrest attaches to a Member of the House of Commons for 40 days after every prorogation or dissolution3 and 40 days before the next appointed meeting. There may be an historical connection between such a right and the fact that in ancient custom writs of summons for a Parliament were issued at least 40 days before its appointed meeting. A Member of the Commons who has not yet taken the oath is entitled to this privilege.4

Footnotes 1. Goudy v Duncombe (1847) 154 ER 183 ff, esp at 185. 2. Sir W Blackstone Commentaries (17th edn, 1830) i, p 165. The right of franking letters, formerly enjoyed by Members, was by Act granted for 40 days. For a history of this right, see CJ (1732–37) 462. 3. Barnard v Mordaunt (1754) 96 ER 939; Goudy v Duncombe (1847) 154 ER 83; and Re Anglo-French Co-operative Society [1880] 14 Ch D 534. 4. European and American Finance Corporation v MP (1865) 13 LT 447.

House of Lords 14.13The Lords, under Standing Order No 82, claim privilege when Parliament is sitting or ‘within the usual times of privilege of Parliament’.

Privilege extending beyond Members 14.14A privilege similar to that which protects Members from arrest and molestation in order that they may freely attend to their parliamentary duties extends to certain others, and for the same reason.1 Those who may claim such privileges include officers of either House,2 persons summoned to appear as witnesses before either House or one of its committees,3 and others in personal attendance on the service of Parliament4 (see also paras 15.18–15.24 ).

Footnotes 1. CJ (1547–1628) 505; ibid (1640–42) 107; ibid (1667–87) 62; ibid (1699–1702) 521, etc. 2. W Petyt Lex Parliamentaria (1689), p 258; 1 Hatsell 9, 11, 172. 3. LJ (1628–42) 143, 144; CJ (1660–67) 525; ibid (1667–87) 20, 366, 472; ibid (1697–99) 364, 610; ibid (1835) 521. See also Parl Deb (1819) 39, cc 1168, 1265 and the Home Affairs Committee, First Special Report, HC 107 (1993–94), which considered the service of a writ on a witness in the course of a hearing, but concluded on several grounds and having regard to the resolution of the House of February 1978 (CJ (1977–78) 170), that no useful purpose would be served by taking the matter further. 4. These have included those who had causes depending in or bills before the House, LJ (1628–42) 143, 144, 262, 263, 289, 330, 477; ibid (1642–43) 476, 563, 574, 653, 680; ibid (1736–41) 625; ibid (1746–52) 19, 538; ibid (1753–56) 512; CJ (1547–1628) 702, 863, 921, 924; ibid (1640–42) 72; ibid (1699–1702) 512; ibid (1757–61) 244; ibid (1792–93) 426; and also counsel, solicitors and agents, LJ (1856) 189; ibid (1860) 75, 76; CJ (1667–87) 472; ibid (1741–45) 170; ibid (1750–54) 797; ibid (1754–57) 447, 537; ibid (1792–93) 426.

Introduction to contempts and how Parliament deals with complaints Contents Contempts 15.1This chapter examines the various types of conduct which have been considered to be contempts. It then goes on to look at the way in which the two Houses deal with complaints that contempt has been committed. As will be seen from the analysis below, it would be possible to commit a contempt without breaching a particular privilege of the House. The term ‘breach of privilege’ properly applies only to offences against the specific privileges described in earlier chapters. Contempt is a much wider concept, as this chapter describes, but the phrase ‘breach of privilege’ is, and long has been, used to include acts which are technically contempts.

Contempts 15.2Generally speaking, any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of their duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results, may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.1 It is therefore impossible to list every act which might be considered to amount to a contempt, as Parliamentary privilege is a ‘living concept’.2 Although certain broad principles may be deduced from a review of the kinds of misconduct which in the past either House has punished as a contempt, it should be borne in mind that in 1978 the House of Commons resolved to exercise its penal jurisdiction as sparingly as possible, and only when satisfied that it was essential to do so (see para 15.32 ). Thus many acts which might be considered to be contempts are either overlooked by the House or resolved informally. For example, in 2010 the Committee on Standards and Privileges concluded that a firm of solicitors was in contempt of the House when it threatened a Member with legal proceedings if he were to repeat in Parliament statements he had made outside. In the light of the apology given to the House and the Member, the Committee made no recommendation for further action.3

Footnotes 1. See Report of the Select Committee on the Official Secrets Acts, HC 101 (1938–39) p xii. 2. See Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, Report of Session 2013–14, Parliamentary Privilege, HL 30, HC 100, para 13. 3. See Committee on Standards and Privileges, Ninth Report of Session 2009–10, Privilege: John Hemming and Withers LLP, HC 373. No action was taken against Sussex Police for action which might have been a contempt, following an apology; see Committee of Privileges, First Report of the Session 2014–15, Actions of Sussex Police: Final Report, HC 588.

Misconduct in presence of either House or a committee Contents Members of the public Witnesses 15.3Any disorderly, contumacious or disrespectful conduct in the presence of either House or a committee will constitute a contempt, which may be committed by members of the public, parties, witnesses or by Members of either House.1

Footnotes 1. A Member present at a committee, who is not of the committee or attending in accordance with the provisions of a relevant standing order, must be considered as standing, in most respects, on the same footing as a member of the public.

Members of the public 15.4Though members of the public have been punished for contempt for disorderly conduct in having interrupted or disturbed the proceedings of either House1 or a committee,2 and for remaining in the House after being directed to withdraw,3 disturbances in the galleries of the Commons are more usually restrained by the Serjeant at Arms, acting by virtue of the directions given by Standing Order No 161(1) or otherwise, without any formal question of contempt arising.4 For the powers of the Speaker respecting disorder in the galleries, see para 6.59. The disruption of a meeting of a sub-committee of a select committee of the Commons sitting in public away from Westminster was considered by the Committee of Privileges to be a contempt of the House. It did not consider that the duty of the Serjeant at Arms (see below) extended to giving protection to a select committee sitting outside the precincts.5 Misconduct on the part of the public present at a meeting of a select or a general committee within the precincts of the House may, if the Chair so directs, be dealt with by the Serjeant at Arms acting under powers given by Standing Order No 161(2) (see para 38.30 ).

Footnotes 1. LJ (1920) 405; HL Deb (1920) 41, cc 1026, 1237; CJ (1830) 461; ibid (1830–31) 323, 325. Both Houses have in the past, however, come to resolutions severely condemning those who came or incited others to come in a riotous, tumultuous or disorderly manner in order to hinder or promote legislation or other matters pending in Parliament (LJ (1765–67) 209; CJ (1693–97) 667; ibid (1699–1702) 230; ibid (1732–37) 115). Such persons have been committed (ibid (1699–1702) 230) as have those who incited others against Members of the House (ibid (1699–1702) 231). The Commons has characterised as a high violation of its privileges and a gross and notorious insult the taking possession of the lobby and approaches to the House by a large and tumultuous assembly which failed to withdraw when summoned to do so (ibid (1778–80) 902; and see also ibid (1732–37) 115). 2. CJ (1640–42) 668, 815; ibid (1842) 131, 143, Parl Deb (1842) 61, c 1034. Cf Home Affairs Committee, First Special Report, HC 107 (1993–94), which concluded that an attempt to serve process on a witness in the face of the committee ought not to be taken further, in the light of the House's resolution of February 1978 and other considerations (see para 12.1 ). 3. LJ (1714–18) 331, 516, 617; ibid (1718–21) 29. 4. The taking of informal notes by persons in the Strangers' Gallery of the Commons, which had for long been considered an offence and punishable (CJ (1819) 537; Parl Deb (1819) 40, c 1182) after a trial period has continued to be permitted for personal purposes (HC Deb (1993–94) 233, c 315W). 5. HC 308 (1968–69).

Witnesses 15.5Witnesses who refuse to appear may commit a contempt (see para 38.57 ). In the past, witnesses who have refused to be sworn or take upon themselves some corresponding obligation to speak the truth,1 who have refused to answer questions,2 who refused to produce or destroyed documents in their possession,3 who have prevaricated,4 given false evidence,5 wilfully suppressed the truth,6 or persistently misled a committee7 have been considered guilty of contempt. A witness who trifled with a committee,8 was insolent9 or insulting,10 or appeared in a state of intoxication11 has been similarly punished.

Footnotes 1. LJ (1718–21) 418, 420; ibid (1870) 77. 2. LJ (1675–81) 54, 55; ibid (1691–96) 677; ibid (1718–21) 418, 420; CJ (1831–32) 360, 365; ibid (1833) 212, 218; ibid (1835) 501, 504, 514; ibid (1842) 223, 227; ibid (1852–54) 320; ibid (1897) 361, 365. 3. CJ (1788–89) 173; ibid (1835) 564, 571, 575; ibid (1946–47) 320, 377. For the case of a witness who destroyed a material document after their first examination before a committee, see ibid (1818–19) 618, 621. Refusal to answer a select committee has been condemned as a contempt in general terms, ibid (1946–47) 378. 4. LJ (1767–70) 188, 189; ibid (1810–11) 371; CJ (1821–22) 335; ibid (1826–28) 473; ibid (1835) 601; ibid (1847–48) 258; ibid (1851–52) 147; ibid (1852–54) 699, 742; ibid (1857) 354; ibid (1865–67) 239. In its First Report of 1996–97, the Committee on Standards and Privileges was concerned that a witness—a Member of the Commons—should have ‘dissembled’ in their evidence to it (HC 88). 5. CJ (1806–07) 256; ibid (1826–28) 473; ibid (1828) 147; ibid (1842) 168, 198, 206. See also Committee of Privileges, First Report, HC 336 (1982–83); First Report, HC 662 (2016–17), CJ (2010–12) 801. It is an offence under the Perjury Act 1911 to give false evidence to a select committee on oath (see para 13.14 ). 6. CJ (1828) 122; Parl Deb (1828) 18, c 936. 7. CJ (1947–48) 22. 8. CJ (1688–93) 294. 9. CJ (1660–67) 296. 10. CJ (1640–42) 803. In the past, counsel appearing before the Commons were punished for reflecting on Parliament (ibid (1547–1628) 488, 489) or on Members of the House (1 Grey Deb 145). 11. CJ (1852–54) 389.

Conspiracy to deceive 15.6Conspiracy to deceive either House or any committee constitutes a contempt.1

Footnotes 1. LJ (1722–26) 406; CJ (1727–32) 568.

Disobedience to rules or orders of either House or of a committee 15.7A particular rule which, if disobeyed, may give rise to proceedings for contempt is the refusal or neglect of a witness or other person to attend either House or a committee when summoned to do so (see Chapter 38).1 Contempts can be committed by disobedience to general rules, such as those relating to petitions (for example, the rule that no person should set the name of any other to a petition to be presented to the House).2 Standing Order No 127 of the House of Commons specifically provides that no document received by the clerk of a select committee shall be withdrawn or altered without the knowledge and approval of the committee. To abstract any record or other document from the custody of the Clerk or to falsify or improperly alter any records of, or documents presented to, either House or committees of either House will constitute a contempt.3

Footnotes 1. LJ (1718–21) 429; ibid (1731–36) 388; ibid (1736–41) 250, 290; ibid (1767–70) 429, 575; ibid (1776–79) 692; CJ (1722–27) 92; ibid (1727–33) 705; ibid (1745–50) 308; ibid (1770–72) 208, 259; ibid (1772–74) 465; 17 Parl Hist 1021; CJ (1878–79) 366; Votes and Proceedings, 7 June 2018, 28 June 2018; HC Deb (28 June 2018) 643, c 1082. 2. CJ (1772–74) 800. For abuses of the right to petition, see para 24.7 and Erskine May (20th edn, 1983), p 147, and (21st edn, 1989), p 118. 3. CJ (1778–80) 838.

Reflections on either House 15.8In the past indignities offered to the House by words spoken or writings published reflecting on its character or proceedings have been punished by both the Commons and the Lords upon the principle that such acts of abuse tend to obstruct the Houses in the performance of their functions by diminishing the respect due to them.1 Reflections upon Members, the particular individuals not being named or otherwise indicated, are equivalent to reflections on the House. (For cases of reflections on individual Members, see para 15.14.) The resolution of the Commons of February 1978, set out in detail at para 15.32, is particularly relevant to contempts of this character. The House resolved to take action only when satisfied that it was essential to do so in order to provide reasonable protection against improper obstruction causing or likely to cause substantial interference with its functions. Since then, the House has taken no formal action in response to such complaints.2

Footnotes 1. Such reflections on either House have taken the form of the publication of false or scandalous libels on the House or its proceedings (LJ (1796–98) 506, 509; CJ (1547–1628) 125; 1 Hatsell 93; D'Ewes 291; CJ (1547–1628) 925, 927; ibid (1790) 508, 516; ibid (1805–06) 214, 216; Parl Deb (1805) 4, cc 381, 384; CJ (1810) 252; Parl Deb (1810) 16, cc 136, 257, 454; CJ (1819–20) 55, 57; Parl Deb (1819) 41, cc 1009–26; CJ (1947–48) 19–22). In 1702, the House of Commons resolved that to print or publish any books or libels reflecting on the proceedings of the House or any Member for or relating to their service therein was a high violation of its rights and privileges (ibid (1699–1702) 767). Reflections may also involve the speaking of defamatory words (LJ (1660–66) 87, 88; ibid (1714–18) 132; ibid (1722–26) 365, 367, 380; CJ (1547–1628) 60; D'Ewes 366; CJ (1640–42) 63; ibid (1688–93) 512; ibid (1693–97) 277, 371, 651; ibid (1699–1702) 124, 126, 735; ibid (1837–38) 306, 307, 312, 313, 316; ibid (1921) 393; HC Deb (1921) 148, c 228; CJ (1926) 338, 340; HC Deb (1926) 199, cc 561, 709; CJ (1929–30) 477, 489, 503; HC Deb (1929–30) 242, cc 42, 309, 742; CJ (1950–51) 33, HC Deb (1950–51) 481, cc 653–62; HC 129 (1964–65); and HC 228 (1974)). A cartoon, with text, has been found by the Committee of Privileges to constitute a contempt (HC 39 (1956–57)). 2. In 1983, the House declined to agree to a Motion moved by a private Member declaring that to attempt to influence Members in their conduct by threats was a serious contempt, CJ (1982–83) 324; in 2017, the House debated harassment in public life, but while the Speaker emphasised the right of MPs to vote according to their conscience without intimidation and abuse, the issue was not treated as a matter of privilege, HC Deb (18 December 2017) 633, c 805.

Publication of false or perverted reports of debates 15.9The House of Commons agreed in 1971 to rescind their ban on the publication of their debates and proceedings, or those of any committee.1 Since that time no complaint based on a report of debate, whether or not misrepresentation was alleged to be involved, has been received. However the Speaker has ruled that deliberate or reckless misrepresentation of the House's proceedings remains a contempt and is unlikely to attract qualified privilege in the courts.2 The Speaker has subsequently ruled that this principle also applies to the posting online of clips of proceedings which are misdescribed or out of context.3 The Lords Standing Order No 16 which declared that the printing or publishing of anything relating to the proceedings of the House was subject to the privilege of the House has now been repealed, but in the past action was taken against those whose publication of debates was in some way offensive to the House on particular grounds.4

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

CJ (1970–71) 548. HC Deb (20 May 2004) 421, c 1116–17. HC Deb (20 February 2018) 636, c 70. These grounds have included where the account of proceedings which was published was false (LJ (1765–67) 212) or forged (ibid (1756–60) 16 and 15 Parl Hist 779), a scandalous misrepresentation (ibid (1801–02) 57, 60), related to proceedings ordered to be expunged from the Journals (ibid (1801–02) 104), libelled counsel while purporting to be a report of committee proceedings (ibid (1798–1800) 638, 646) or misrepresented speeches (ibid (1847) 146 and Parl Deb (1847) 91, c 1150). For repeal of the Standing Order, see HL Deb (23 April 2013) 744, cc 1406–17.

Personal behaviour 5.6While the rules relating to financial matters are complex and detailed, the Code now specifies that ‘Members are also expected to observe the principles set out in the Parliamentary Behaviour Code of respect, professionalism, understanding others' perspectives, courtesy, and acceptance of responsibility’, and an associated rule of conduct stipulates: ‘Respect 18. A Member must treat their staff and all those visiting or working for or with Parliament with dignity, courtesy and respect.’1 The general House of Commons bullying and harassment and sexual harassment policies apply to Members as they do to others in the parliamentary community, which ‘comprises all those working for or with Parliament either on the Parliamentary Estate, in constituency offices or elsewhere in the course of their employment and/or parliamentary work.’ The policies and procedures apply: ‘to behaviour by members of the Parliamentary Community anywhere where they would not be other than for the purposes of their employment or parliamentary work. […] this includes on the Parliamentary Estate, at constituency offices or other places of work, or in the course of parliamentary duties and activities (eg UK or overseas travel or social events related to parliamentary business).’2

Footnotes 1. Code of Conduct, HC (2017–19) 1474, paras 9, 18. 2. Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy Programme Team, Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme Delivery Report, July 2018, Annex B: Bullying and Harassment Policy, para 4.4.

Other indignities offered to either House 15.11Other acts, besides words spoken or writings published reflecting upon either House or its proceedings which, though they do not tend directly to obstruct or impede either House in the performance of its functions, yet have a tendency to produce this result indirectly by bringing such House into odium, contempt or ridicule or by lowering its authority, may constitute contempts. For example, serving or executing civil or criminal process within the precincts of either House while the House is sitting without obtaining the leave of the House is a contempt,1 as is disorderly conduct within the precincts of either House while the House is sitting.2 However, where such misconduct has led to criminal proceedings against the individual or individuals concerned the House has not pursued the matter as a contempt. This was the case when hunt protestors invaded the Commons Chamber but were handed over to the police.3 The House of Commons has considered the sending of a letter to the Speaker in very indecent and insolent terms in connection with the execution of a warrant issued by the Speaker to be a contempt,4 and counterfeiting or altering an order or warrant,5 or slighting an order of either House6 has been similarly condemned. Another example is representing oneself to be a parliamentary agent (see para 43.17 ) without possessing the necessary qualifications.7 The crowned portcullis has for many years been used as the emblem of the House of Commons. In 1997, its use by the House was formally authorised by licence granted by Her Majesty. The Speaker has indicated that it is important for the dignity of the House that the emblem should not be used where its authentication of a connection with the House is inappropriate or where there is a risk that its use might be wrongly regarded or represented as having the authority of the House.8

Footnotes 1. Report of the Committee of Privileges, HC 31 (1945–46) and CJ (1945–46) 198, and First Report of the Committee, HC 144 (1972–73). See also Report of the Select Committee on the attempted service of a summons on Mr Sheehy, CJ (1888) 503 and Parl Deb (1888) 332, cc 102–24; Report of the Committee of Privileges, HC 244 (1950–51) and CJ (1950–51) 319; Second Report from the Committee, HC 221 (1969–70); Home Affairs Committee, First Special Report, HC 107 (1993–94); Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, HL 43-I, HC 214-I (1998–99) paras 334–35 (see also LJ (1685–91) 298, 301; and Parl Deb (1827) 17, c 34). 2. CJ (1547–1628) 259, 260; ed D H Willson Parliamentary Diary of Robert Bowyer (1931), p 8; CJ (1646–48) 232; ibid (1651–59) 410; ibid (1722–27) 185; ibid (1761–64) 843; and see Report from the Committee of Privileges, HC 36 (1946–47) and CJ (1946–47) 91. 3. The incident occurred on 15 September 2004; see HC Deb (15 September 2004) 424, c 1337; and Speaker's Statement, ibid c 1423. 4. CJ (1810) 260, 273. 5. LJ (1660–66) 91; CJ (1806–07) 288, 296. 6. LJ (1660–66) 131. 7. HC Deb (1948–49) 464, c 1665. 8. Authorisation has been given for display of the emblem on official stationery and publications, on furniture and furnishings used within the Palace of Westminster and certain other goods (HC Deb (1996–97) 288, c 21. See also ibid (1980–81) 3, c 789, and ibid (1993–94) 236, c 632). Its use has also been authorised on the Order of Service for the memorial service of a former Cabinet Minister.

Obstructing Members of either House in the discharge of their duty Contents Arrest Molestation, reflections and intimidation Interception of communications Improper influence Misrepresenting Members 15.12The House will proceed against those who obstruct Members in the discharge of their responsibilities to the House or in their participation in its proceedings. Not all responsibilities currently assumed by Members fall within this definition. Correspondence with constituents or official bodies, for example, and the provision of information sought by Members on matters of public concern will very often, depending on the circumstances of the case, fall outside the scope of ‘proceedings in Parliament’ (see para 13.12 ) against which a claim of breach of privilege will be measured (see para 12.1 ).1

Footnotes 1. See HC Deb (2002–03) 413, c 304.

Arrest 15.13An attempt to infringe the privilege of freedom from arrest in civil causes enjoyed by Members of both Houses is itself a contempt and has been punished (see Chapter 14).1

Footnotes 1. LJ (1810–11) 58, 60; CJ (1722–27) 504; ibid (1809) 210, 213 and Parl Deb (1809) 14, c 31. When a Member of the House of Commons was arrested in error, the House regretted the indignity offered to them, but considering the arrest to have been a mistake, did not think it necessary to proceed further (CJ (1888) 30 and Parl Deb (1888) 322, c 262).

Molestation, reflections and intimidation 15.14It is a contempt to molest a Member of either House while attending the House, or coming to or going from it, and in the eighteenth century both Houses roundly condemned ‘assaulting, insulting or menacing Lords or Members' going to or coming from the House1 or trying by force to influence them in their conduct in Parliament.2 Members and others have been punished for such molestation occurring within the precincts of the House, whether by assault3 or insulting or abusive language,4 or outside the precincts.5 The Commons took no action on an incident where a member of the public endeavoured to dissuade a Member from entering a room where a standing committee was meeting.6 To molest Members on account of their conduct in Parliament is also a contempt. Correspondence with Members of an insulting character in reference to their conduct in Parliament or reflecting on their conduct as Members,7 threatening a Member with the possibility of a trial at some future time for a question asked in the House,8 or for repeating certain allegations claimed to be defamatory,9 calling for their arrest as an arch traitor,10 offering to contradict a Member from the Gallery,11 or proposing to visit a pecuniary loss on them on account of conduct in Parliament12 have all been considered contempts. The Committee of Privileges has made the same judgement on those who incited the readers of a national newspaper to telephone a Member and complain of a question of which they had given notice.13 Speeches and writings reflecting upon the conduct of Members as Members have been treated as analogous to their molestation on account of their behaviour in Parliament.14 Written imputations, as affecting a Member of Parliament, may amount to contempt, without, perhaps, being libels at common law, but to constitute a contempt a libel upon a Member must concern the character or conduct of the Member in their capacity as a Member, not as a private individual.15 Reflections which have been punished as contempts have borne on the conduct of the Lord Chancellor in the discharge of their judicial duties in the House of Lords16 or that of the Chairman of Committees.17 In the same way, reflections on the character of the Speaker or accusations of partiality in the discharge of their duties18 and similar charges against the Chairman of Ways and Means19 or Chairman of a standing committee20 or a select committee21 have attracted the penal powers of the Commons. Imputations that a Member nominated to a select committee would not be able to act impartially in that service,22 and similar reflections on Members serving on private bill committees,23 have been considered contempts. An individual who claimed that they could control the decision of a private bill committee (and offered to do so for a corrupt consideration) has been punished, along with another who assisted them.24 More general reflections on Members accusing them of corruption in the discharge of their duties,25 challenging their motives or veracity,26 or describing their conduct as ‘inhuman’ and degrading,27 have also been found objectionable and proceeded against. To attempt to intimidate a Member in their parliamentary conduct by threats is also a contempt, cognate to those mentioned above. Actions of this character which have been proceeded against include impugning the conduct of Members and threatening them with further exposure if they took part in debates;28 threatening to communicate with Members' constituents to the effect that, if they did not reply to a questionnaire, they should be considered as not objecting to certain sports;29 publishing posters containing a threat regarding the voting of Members in a forthcoming debate;30 informing Members that to vote for a particular bill would be regarded as treasonable by a future administration;31 summoning a Member to a disciplinary hearing of their trade union in consequence of a vote given in the House;32 and threatening to end investment by a public corporation in a Member's constituency, if the Member persisted in making speeches along the lines of those in a preceding debate.33 When a Member stated their intention of influencing a local authority to the detriment of other Members, a complaint was referred to the Committee of Privileges which concluded that the words spoken constituted a threat but recommended no further action.34 Most recently, attempts to dissuade a Member from raising a matter in the House through threats of legal action in respect of statements outside the House has been held to be a contempt.35

Footnotes 1. The Metropolitan Police Act 1839 (c 47), s 52, which is a general power to control assemblies, is the principal means by which Parliament is currently protected from tumultuous assemblies (see para 6.53 ). Part 3 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 also controls activities around Parliament Square and in the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster and provides penalties for those who take part in prohibited activities; see Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, ss 142–149 2. LJ (1765–67) 209; CJ (1732–37) 115; ibid (1778–80) 902. 3. CJ (1688–93) 348, 354, 355; ibid (1824–25) 483 and Parl Deb (1824) 11, c 1204; and CJ (1946–47) 54, 91. In the last case, it was decided that the contempt committed by the Member concerned, who struck the first blow, was greater than that of the other who retaliated (Report of the Committee of Privileges, HC 36 (1946–47)). 4. CJ (1646–48) 42; ibid (1660–67) 186; ibid (1688–93) 782; ibid (1877) 144 and Parl Deb (1877) 233, cc 951, 956; and CJ (1887) 377, 389 and Parl Deb (1887) 317, cc 1167, 1631. 5. Officials of the Liberty of Westminster were committed in 1751 for having apprehended, insulted and abused a Member and refusing to discharge them except upon an assurance of their silence (CJ (1750–54) 175–76). 6. HC Deb (1948–49) 470, cc 1535–38. 7. LJ (1830–31) 285, 335; CJ (1862–63) 80, 84; ibid (1890–91) 481 and Parl Deb (1891) 356, c 419. Challenging Members to fight on account of their behaviour in the House (CJ (1780–82) 535, 537; Parl Deb (1844) 74, c 286; CJ (1845) 589 and ibid (1862) 64) or of remarks made outside the House touching proceedings in the House (CJ (1883) 232, 238) has been considered a contempt. 8. Report of the Committee of Privileges, HC 284 (1959–60). 9. See para 15.2, fn 1. 10. Report of the Committee of Privileges, HC 462 (1966–67) and CJ (1966–67) 415. 11. CJ (1826–28) 395, 399 and Parl Deb (1827) 17, cc 282, 343. 12. CJ (1898) 381. 13. Report of the Committee of Privileges, HC 27 (1956–57); CJ (1956–57) 31, 50.

14. The Commons Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege recommended in 1967 that a Member who considered that they had been defamed should seek a remedy in the courts, and not be permitted to invoke the penal jurisdiction of the House in lieu of or in addition to that remedy (Third Report, HC 34 (1967–68) para 42). Subsequently, the Committee of Privileges took the view that it would be unsatisfactory for the House to appear to rely on action by an individual Member in the courts as a substitute for its own penal jurisdiction. The Committee might have added that difficulties such as those which subsequently gave rise to the Defamation Act 1996 (see para 16.19 ) were likely to arise in such an action. It therefore recommended that the Speaker should take into account the possibility of other remedies when deciding on whether to give precedence to a complaint that a contempt might have been committed (see para 15.32 ) (Third Report, HC 417 (1976–77) para 5; CJ (1977–78) 170). 15. See the action taken by the House, Parl Deb (1875) 222, cc 1185–1204; cf also Parl Deb (1888) 329, c 1251; ibid (1890) 341, c 43; ibid (1893) 8, c 1592. For more recent cases in which this question was considered, see HC 247 (1963–64) and HC 269 (1964–65). 16. LJ (1834) 704, 737, 743; Parl Deb (1834) 24, cc 892, 941, 946, 1006, 1065. 17. LJ (1867) 31, 33, 46, 72. 18. CJ (1772–74) 452, 456; CJ (1888) 385 and Parl Deb (1888) 329, c 48; CJ (1890–91) 481 and Parl Deb (1890–91) 356 c 419; CJ (1893–94) 123, 408, 416 and Parl Deb (1893–94) 9, c 1866; ibid (1893–94) 14, cc 820, 1094; and CJ (1937–38) 213. 19. HC Deb (1909) 8, c 31; CJ (1928–29) 50, 156, 159; and ibid (1950–51) 319 and Report of the Committee of Privileges, HC 235 (1950–51). 20. CJ (1924) 180 and Report of the Committee of Privileges, HC 98 (1924). 21. CJ (1874) 181, 189 and Parl Deb (1874) 219, cc 752, 755 and CJ (1950–51) 299. In a case in 1968–69, the Committee of Privileges considered that an assertion that a Member who was Chairman of a sub-committee of a select committee would not be able to form a sufficiently fair and dispassionate view of events when hearing evidence in their own constituency was not a contempt (HC 197 (1968–69)). 22. CJ (1900) 178. 23. CJ (1831–32) 278, 294; ibid (1857–58) 189, 196, 201 and Parl Deb (1857–58) 150, cc 1022, 1063, 1198; HC Deb (1909) 7, c 235; Parl Deb (1921) 145, c 831; and CJ (1932–33) 141. 24. CJ (1878–79) 326, 366; Parl Deb (1879) 247, cc 1866 and 1956 and ibid 248, cc 602, 633, 971, 1100, and Report of the Select Committee on Privilege (Tower High Level Bridge (Metropolis) Committee), HC 294 (1878–79). 25. CJ (1667–87) 88, 95; ibid (1732–37) 245; ibid (1836) 658, 676 and Parl Deb (1836) 35, cc 167, 255; CJ (1893–94) 631 and Parl Deb (1893–94) 20, c 112; CJ (1901) 414, 418; Report of the Committee of Privileges, HC 138 (1946–47) and CJ (1947–48) 22. See also ibid (1935–36) 203 and HC Deb (1935–36) 311, cc 1349–52. 26. CJ (1901) 355; ibid (1926) 99; Report of the Committee of Privileges, HC 55 (1926); Committee of Privileges, First Report, HC 302 (1974–75); and see also Report of the Committee, HC 112 (1947–48). 27. CJ (1880) 46, 54 and Parl Deb (1880) 250, cc 797, 1108. 28. CJ (1873) 60 and Parl Deb (1873) 214, c 733 29. CJ (1934–35) 201 and HC Deb (1934–35) 301, c 1545. 30. Report of the Committee of Privileges, HC 181 (1945–46). 31. Committee of Privileges, Second Report, HC 228 (1964–65). 32. HC Deb (1974) 877, cc 466, 673. The complaint was not pursued, following a letter of apology. 33. Report of the Committee of Privileges, HC 214 (1980–81). Although the Committee was unable to establish the facts alleged, it observed that ‘such an allegation, if established, would certainly reveal a serious affront to the privilege of freedom of speech’. 34. Report of the Committee of Privileges, HC 564 (1983–84). See also HC Deb (1993–94) 238, c 21. 35. Committee on Standards and Privileges, Ninth Report of Session 2009–10, Privilege: John Hemming and Withers LLP, HC 373.

Interception of communications 15.15Exclusive cognizance suggests that telephones within the parliamentary precincts should not be tapped. The Committee on Standards and Privileges has concluded that in certain circumstances ‘phone hacking’, which it defined as ‘gaining of unauthorised direct access to a remotely stored mobile telephone communication’, in respect of Members' mobile phones could potentially constitute a contempt.1 There is no statutory bar on tapping Members' phones by those with proper authority but s 26 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 stipulates that certain warrants to intercept the communications of members of specified legislatures shall only be issued with permission of the Prime Minster.2 Section 111 of that Act similarly requires the Prime Minister's permission for warrants under s 99 of that Act, which include warrants on equipment interference. For the previous convention on tapping Members' phones, see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 264.

Footnotes 1. Fourteenth Report, HC 628 (2010–12). 2. Those covered by this provision are Members of either House of Parliament; Members of the Scottish Parliament; members of the National Assembly for Wales; Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly; and members of the European Parliament elected for the United Kingdom. See Investigatory Powers Act 2016, s 26(3).

Improper influence 15.16Attempts to influence Members in their parliamentary conduct by improper means may be considered contempts. One of the methods by which such influence may be brought to bear is bribery; and it is as culpable for an individual to offer a corrupt consideration to a Member of either House with a view to influencing their conduct in that capacity as it is for the consideration to be accepted. A committee of the Commons concluded that ‘pressure’ involved a positive and conscious effort to shift an existing opinion in one direction or another; and premeditation was not an essential precondition. Thus, the committee considered that the Chairman of a select committee (on Members' Interests) had exceeded the bounds of propriety in participating in a conversation with a government whip about matters within that committee's remit, and the whip ought not to have raised with the Chairman a matter critical to the deliberations of the committee.1 Conduct not amounting to a direct attempt improperly to influence Members in the discharge of their duties but having a tendency to impair their independence in the future performance of their duty may be treated as a contempt. An example of such a case is the Speaker's ruling that a letter sent by a parliamentary agent to a Member informing them that the promoters of a private bill would agree to certain amendments provided that they and other Members refrained from further opposition to the bill constituted (under the procedure then in force) a prima facie breach of privilege.2 Influence by private solicitation in certain circumstances has also been found objectionable. The Lords have resolved that the private solicitation of Members on matters of claims to honours or other judicial proceedings was a breach of privilege.3 Upon the same principle, it would be a contempt, when Members are acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity, eg when serving on committees on private bills, to attempt, by letters, anonymous or other, to influence them in the discharge of their duties.4

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, First Report, HC 88 (1996–97). CJ (1962–63) 251. The Member concerned, having received an apology, did not submit a motion to the House. LJ (1802–03) 227. LJ (1810–11) 332, 341; CJ (1884) 167 and Parl Deb (1884) 287, c 11; and HC Deb (1921) 145, c 831. See also Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, First Report, HC 88 (1996–97).

Misrepresenting Members 15.17A select committee has commented on an allegation that a third party sent a letter purporting to be from a Member;1 and a Member has made a personal statement to the House, apologising for having tabled amendments to a bill in the name of another Member but without their knowledge or consent.2

Footnotes 1. Committee of Privileges, Report HC 351 (1994–95). 2. HC Deb (1994–95) 260, c 612.

Obstruction or molestation 15.18It is a contempt to obstruct or molest those employed by or entrusted with the execution of the orders of either House while in the execution of their duty. Contempts of this character have included assaults,1 insulting and abusive behaviour2 or threatening language,3 resistance to those acting in execution of the orders of either House,4 aiding the escape of an individual from the order for their custody or committal,5 refusal of civil officers to assist in executing the orders of either House6 and the discharge out of custody by a magistrate of a prisoner arrested by order of either House.7 Both Houses will treat as contempts not only acts directly tending to obstruct their officers in the execution of their duty but also any conduct which may tend to deter them from doing their duty in the future.

Footnotes 1. For assaults on officers, see LJ (1718–21) 190; CJ (1667–87) 193; ibid (1718–21) 366, 370; and LJ (1805–06) 125. For assaults on others entrusted with the execution of the House's orders, see LJ (1787–90) 649; ibid (1790–93) 665; ibid (1794–96) 241; CJ (1732–37) 308; ibid (1750–54) 900, 904; ibid (1761–64) 126, 128: and see ibid (1667–87) 678 for the punishment of a person who assaulted another for seeking the assistance of a constable in securing a delinquent whom the Commons had ordered into custody. 2. In the case of officers, see LJ (1805–06) 332, 340, 608, 610; ibid (1810–12) 370, 399; CJ (1722–27) 185; and of other persons, LJ (1783–87) 613, 647; ibid (1787–90) 338. 3. CJ (1693–97) 512, 514. 4. Resisting or hindering officers in the execution of their duty, see CJ (1660–67) 222; ibid (1667–87) 341; ibid (1930–31) 335, 338: resisting or hindering others, see CJ (1699–1702) 825; ibid (1732–37) 308, 508, 511; ibid (1761–64) 128, 130. 5. LJ (1718–21) 190; CJ (1667–87) 193. 6. LJ (1660–66) 134; CJ (1667–87) 193, 587. 7. CJ (1770–72) 263, 285, 289.

Legal proceedings against staff, or affecting the House 15.19Although in the past both Houses have treated as contempts the taking of proceedings (both civil1 and criminal2 ) in a court of law against any person for their conduct in obedience to the orders of the House, according to subsequent practice the Commons has given them leave to appear. The House would now usually turn to the Office of Speaker's Counsel, but formerly the Law Officers of the Crown, upon the order of the House3 or following a direction given by a Minister, have undertaken the officer's defence. Alternatively, if it seemed expedient, the Speaker has placed the defence in the hands of the government.4 The Clerk of the House of Commons has been sued in their statutory capacity of Corporate Officer of the House (see paras 6.1, 6.7 ).5 The House authorities have also secured legal representation in cases affecting the privileges of the House.6

Footnotes 1. Persons have been committed for bringing civil actions against officers or servants of both Houses in execution of their duty (LJ (1767–70) 185, 187, 197; ibid (1826–27) 199, 206 and Parl Deb (1827) 17, c 34; CJ (1737–41) 620, 623; ibid (1819–20) 230, 243, 286; and ibid (1840) 11, 71, 93, 174). Cf also LJ (1718–21) 96; CJ (1727–32) 43. The Commons has even proceeded against judges for overruling the Serjeant at Arms' plea to the jurisdiction of the court (in Jay v Topham (1689) 12 State Tr 822; CJ (1688–93) 227) and both Houses have acted against lawyers for assisting in the conduct of actions against officers (LJ (1767–70) 185, 187, 197; CJ (1737–41) 620, 623; ibid (1819–20) 230, 243, 286; ibid (1840) 23, 66, 96). In 1840, the Commons agreed to a general resolution that persons acting as sheriffs or otherwise in the prosecuting of such actions were guilty of a breach of privilege (ibid (1840) 93, 174). 2. Actions considered in contempt in the context of criminal prosecutions have included prosecuting a constable for an assault committed in execution of an order (LJ (1787–90) 249, 250, 251); issuing a warrant for having arrested a person by order (ibid (1691–96) 565); drawing an indictment against an officer for having committed an alleged assault in the execution of an order (ibid (1691–96) 565); and signing a warrant against an officer for arresting a person in pursuance of a Speaker's warrant (CJ (1770–72) 263, 285, 289). 3. This course was pursued in the cases of Burdett v Abbot (1811) 104 ER 554, CJ (1810) 355; Howard v Gosset (1842) 174 ER 553, CJ (1843) 118; ibid (1882) 182, 187 (Bradlaugh v Erskine ); and Bradlaugh v Gosset (1884) 12 QBD 271. See also Lines v Russell (1852) 16 JP 491, 19 LT (os) 364. 4. During the dissolution of 1997 and in the following session, Crown Counsel were briefed on behalf of the House of Commons by the Treasury Solicitor against an application for leave to apply for judicial review of certain actions of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Later that year, Crown Counsel were briefed on the House's behalf by the Crown Solicitor of Northern Ireland in a similar application seeking review of certain actions of the Speaker. 5. Harmon CFEM Facades (UK) Ltd v Corporate Officer of the House of Commons (No 2) (2000) 72 ConLR 21. 6. For example, see [1999] 3 All ER 317 at 319" target="_new" title="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/column? House=1&SeriesNumber=6&VolumeNumber=&ColumnNumber=itation">[1999] 3 All ER 317 at 319

Arrest 15.20On 8 March 1688, the Commons resolved, ‘That it is the undoubted right of this House that all witnesses summoned to attend this House, or any committee appointed by it, have the privilege of this House in coming, staying and returning’.1 Parties who arrest or procure the arrest on civil process of witnesses or other persons summoned to attend either House or any committee of either House while going to, attending, or returning from, such House or committee may be punished for contempt.2

Footnotes 1. CJ (1688–93) 45. 2. LJ (1691–96) 529; CJ (1640–42) 454, 457; ibid (1697–99) 364, 367, 368, 386.

Molestation of or interference with witnesses 15.21Any conduct calculated to deter prospective witnesses from giving evidence before either House or a committee is a contempt. It is also a contempt to molest any persons attending either House as witnesses, during their attendance in such House or committee. Assaults upon witnesses in the precincts of the House1 and the use of threatening or abusive language within the precincts2 have been proceeded against. On the same principle, molestation of or threats against those who have previously given evidence before either House or a committee will be treated by the House concerned as a contempt (see para 15.2 ). Such actions have included assault or a threat of assault on witnesses,3 insulting or abusive behaviour,4 misuse (by a gaoler)5 or censure, punishment or dismissal by an employer.6 In consequence of a case in the latter category, the Witnesses (Public Inquiries) Protection Act 1892 was passed; under its provisions, persons who punish, damnify, or injure witnesses before committees of either House of Parliament on account of their evidence, unless such evidence was given in bad faith, are liable on conviction to be fined or imprisoned and ordered to pay the costs of the prosecution, as well as a sum by way of compensation to the injured persons (see para 13.14 ). Committees have taken evidence from witnesses without divulging their names where there was reason to apprehend that private injury or vengeance might result from publication, or when disclosure might lead to other undesirable consequences.7

Footnotes 1. LJ (1696–1701) 144; CJ (1718–21) 290; ibid (1826–28) 345, 351 and Parl Deb (1827) 16, c 1305 and ibid 17, c 7. 2. CJ (1648–51) 413; ibid (1667–87) 54; ibid (1818–19) 223 and Parl Deb (1819) 39, cc 978, 986. Cf Home Affairs Committee, First Special Report, HC 107 (1993–94). 3. CJ (1667–87) 678; ibid (1688–93) 579; ibid (1708–11) 498, 503, 535; ibid (1818–19) 223. 4. CJ (1714–18) 371. 5. CJ (1688–93) 514, 523, 534; ibid (1727–32) 247. 6. CJ (1732–37) 146; ibid (1892) 129, 157, 166; Parl Deb (1892) 3, cc 595, 698, 883, and Special Report of the Select Committee on Railway Servants (Hours of Labour), HC 125 (1892); Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, Second Special Report (HC 237 (1974–75)); Committee of Privileges, Third Report (HC 274 (1975–76)) where an individual was not considered to have been adversely affected by their employer for having been a witness in Parliament; and Committee on Standards and Privileges, Fifth Report HC 447 (2003–04) where disciplinary action against a member of a Board of a Non-Departmental Public Body on account of evidence given by them to a select committee was judged a contempt. The Government accepted the report in its entirety and the Lord Chancellor ‘unreservedly apologised’. 7. See eg Committees on Home Work, HC 246 (1908) p xxii; Debtors (Imprisonment), HC 344 (1908) p viii; Violence in Marriage, HC 553-II (1974–75) pp 16–31. See also Environment Committee HC 42-I (1996–97) Annex III: names of tenants visited and location of estate not published at estate management's request; Justice Committee took evidence in private from former prisoners, and did not publish their full names: Justice Committee, Oral evidence: Prisons: planning and policies, HC 309, 24 November 2014; the Joint Committee on Human Rights has taken evidence in private, and published material using assumed names: Joint Committee on Human Rights, Uncorrected oral evidence: Mental Health and Deaths in Prison, HC 893, 1 March 2017.

Requirements for declaration 5.10A Member is required to declare ‘any relevant pecuniary interest or benefit of whatever nature, whether direct or indirect, that he may have had, may have or may be expecting to have’.1 Thus the rule relating to the declaration of interests is broader in scope than the rules relating to registration in requiring the declaration of relevant past interests, indirect financial interests, expected future interests and registered non-financial interests.2 Members should also declare non-registrable interests which might be thought to influence them such as blind trusts and interests which fall below the registrable threshold, and any financial interests which require registration but have yet to appear in the published Register. In addition, Members may declare non-financial interests which are not registered if they think it is appropriate.3 It is the responsibility of the Member, having regard to the rules of the House, to judge whether a financial interest is sufficiently relevant to require declaration. The basic test of relevance is similar to that for registration: that a financial interest should be declared if it might reasonably be thought by others to influence the Member's actions or words. Where, however, a particular interest was shared by Members at large (in this case as employers of staff), the Speaker has ruled that Members should be expected to indicate a relevant interest only where that was ‘plainly additional to their interests as Members of the House’.4 The Committee on Standards and Privileges made it clear that it would regard it as a very serious breach of the rules if a Member failed to register or declare an interest which was relevant to a proceeding that Member had initiated.5

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

CJ (1974) 143. HC 1076 (2014–15) Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members, p 33. HC 1076 (2014–15) Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members, p 34. HC Deb (2001–02) 375, c 858. HC 478 (2000–01) para 15.

Legal proceedings against witnesses 15.23Both Houses will treat the bringing of legal proceedings against any person on account of any evidence which they may have given in the course of any proceedings in the House or before one of its committees as a contempt. The House of Commons resolved on 26 May 1818, ‘That all witnesses examined before this House, or any committee thereof, are entitled to the protection of this House in respect of anything that may be said by them in their evidence’.1 Both Houses have taken action against those who brought or as agents assisted in the bringing of actions for slander in respect of evidence given before either House or a committee.2 The courts have refused to entertain such actions based on statements made in evidence before a committee.3 In 2005, the judge in the case of Weir v Secretary of State for Transport recognised that the cross-examination of the former Secretary of State for Transport about his evidence to a select committee encroached on parliamentary privilege and should not have been allowed to continue and apologised to Parliament that he had not stopped it.4

Footnotes 1. CJ (1818) 389. 2. LJ (1845) 690, 712, 729 and Parl Deb (1845) 82, cc 431, 494; CJ (1693–97) 591, 613; ibid (1845) 672, 680, 696 and Parl Deb (1845) 81, c 1436. 3. Goffin v Donnelly (1881) 6 QBD 307, 50 LJ (QB) 303 was an action for slander in respect of evidence given to a select committee by a witness. Field J observed: ‘it may be a hardship upon individuals that statements of a defamatory nature may be made concerning them [eg before a select committee] but the interest of the individual is subordinated by the law to a higher interest, viz that of public justice, to the administration of which it is necessary that witnesses should be free to give their evidence without fear of consequences.’ He went on to rebut the contention that there was a difference in this respect between evidence in court and evidence given to the Commons (though without making any reference to article IX of the Bill of Rights). 4. Weir v Secretary of State for Transport [2005] EWHC 2192 (Ch), [2005] All ER (D) 160, para 242.

Petitioners, etc 15.24Those having business before either House or its committees, as petitioners, counsel, agents and solicitors, are considered as under the protection of the High Court of Parliament, and obstruction of, or interference with such persons in the exercise of their rights or the discharge of their duties, or conduct calculated to deter them or other persons from preferring or prosecuting petitions or bills or from discharging their duties may be treated as a contempt. Instances of this kind of contempt include causing the arrest of persons soliciting business before the House, knowing them to be such, within the period of freedom from arrest (see para 14.12 );1 assaulting or threatening them within the precincts2 or by reason of their approach to the House;3 insulting them,4 or challenging them to fight;5 bringing an action for a libel alleged to have been contained in a petition to the House;6 or libelling them in respect of professional conduct before a committee.7

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

CJ (1547–1628) 702, 767, 787; ibid (1644–46) 31. LJ (1709–14) 752; ibid (1831–32) 384, 387 and Parl Deb (1832) 14, cc 425, 495, 504; CJ (1667–87) 341. CJ (1757–61) 264, 270. LJ (1826) 128, 142, 145; ibid (1831–32) 384, 387; CJ (1547–1628) 805, 806. LJ (1831–32) 388. CJ (1693–97) 599, 699. LJ (1798–1800) 638, 646.

Constituents and others 15.25Those who voluntarily and in their personal capacity provide to Members information that has no connection with proceedings in Parliament are not afforded the same protection as those who participate in formal proceedings, even if they are constituents of Members of Parliament.1 The special position of a person providing information to a Member for the exercise of their parliamentary duties has however been regarded by the courts as enjoying qualified privilege at law.2 After a subordinate army chaplain had provided information to a Member who subsequently gave notice of a question based on this information, it was alleged that the Deputy Assistant Chaplain General of the army district threatened their subordinate to make them persuade the Member concerned to withdraw the question. The matter was referred to the Committee of Privileges who reported that they could find no precedent where an attempt by one individual to influence another individual (not a Member of Parliament) as to the nature or content of the latter's communications with a Member of Parliament had been treated as a breach of privilege or as a contempt of the House.3 While it is the policy of service departments that the usual service channels should be used wherever possible, service personnel may communicate with Members on all matters, including service matters, so long as there is no disclosure of operational or classified information and the political impartiality of the armed forces is not compromised.4 Action has been taken to ensure that communications between constituents and their Members of Parliament can be effective. The Data Protection Act 2018 expands upon the principles set out in the General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 with a range of provisions to enable the processing of personal data by Members of Parliament in representing and supporting their constituents. These include provisions enabling processing of data for purposes which are in the public interest, and paras 23–25 of sch 1 set out circumstances in which special category data may be used by or revealed to elected representatives. In March 2014, it was made clear that the right of a party to family court proceedings to communicate information relating to the proceedings in confidence to obtain support extended to communication with MPs.5 After a complaint had been made by a Member that a constituent's letter forwarded by them to a government department had been disclosed by the department to a third party who had threatened proceedings for libel, the Prime Minister stated that all departments had been reminded that they must exercise greater discretion as to the circumstances in which disclosure was appropriate.6 However, public authorities listed in sch 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 have argued that they are required to apply the provisions of that Act to correspondence received from Members, including correspondence relating to constituents.

Footnotes 1. In Rivlin v Bilainkin [1953] 1 QB 485, [1953] 1 All ER 534 the court held that a communication of an allegedly defamatory nature repeated to a Member of Parliament contrary to an injunction against repetition, being in no way connected with any proceedings in Parliament, was not protected by parliamentary privilege so as to oust the jurisdiction of the court. See O'Chee v Rowley (1997) 150 ALR 199, Supreme Court of Queensland, when it was decided that procuring, obtaining or receiving documents by a Senator for the purpose of questions or debate in the House was done for the purposes of or incidental to the transaction of parliamentary business, and that bringing documents into existence with or for parliamentary purposes, collecting or assembling them was capable of being considered a proceeding in Parliament. See also, however, Rowley v Armstrong [2000] QSC 088, where the act of an informant communicating with the Senator was held not to be a parliamentary proceeding. A letter from a constituent who was a clergyman was forwarded by a Member to the bishop of the diocese, and it was alleged that the clergyman was in consequence damnified. The House disagreed to a motion referring the matter to the Committee of Privileges (CJ (1950–51) 148–49 and HC Deb (1950–51) 485, cc 675–88, 1297–1316, 2491–2543). A civil servant who was accused of leaking confidential information to a Member of Parliament was not protected either from criminal proceedings or dismissal from their office; see Committee on Issue of Privilege, First report, Police Searches on the Parliamentary Estate, HC 62 (2009–10). 2. Dickson v Earl of Wilton (1859) 175 ER 790. In this case, the jury found for the plaintiff, the defendant's privilege having been vitiated by malice. In R v Rule [1937] 2 KB 375 (a judgment which in part depended on the absence of malice) it was held that a Member, to whom a written communication had been addressed by one of their constituents asking for their assistance in bringing to the notice of the appropriate Minister a complaint of improper conduct on the part of a public official in the course of their duties, had sufficient interest in the subjectmatter of the complaint to permit the occasion of the publication of the complaint to be privileged at common law. See also Re Parliamentary Privilege Act 1770, referring to Gruban v Booth (1915) ( [1958] AC 339 ). In Beach v Freeson [1971] 2 All ER 854, it was held that in general a Member of Parliament had both an interest and a duty to communicate to the appropriate body at the request of a constituent any substantial complaint from the constituent concerning a professional man in practice at the service of the public. Since the defendant had not been actuated by malice, the communication at issue enjoyed qualified privilege at common law. For judicial consideration of the phrase ‘in his capacity as a Member of Parliament’, see Attorney-General of Ceylon v De Livera [1963] AC 103, [1962] 3 All ER 1066. 3. Report of the Committee of Privileges, HC 112 (1954–55). 4. HC Deb (1954–55) 540, c 51W. 5. See HC Deb (18 March 2014) 577 cc 645–46; Family Procedure Rules 2012, Chapter 12, Part 7, 12.75. On the other hand, the Speaker has ruled that whether an MP should be given access to a court was not a matter for the Speaker, HC Deb (9 November 2015) 602, cc 44–45. 6. HC Deb (1953–54) 524, cc 1932–37 and ibid 525, cc 210–11.

Contempt and the Code of Conduct 15.26Each House's disciplinary powers over its Members are aspects of privilege in the widest sense. Nonetheless, not all the cases involving Members of the Commons are treated as contempts. Since the 1940s, many cases have been seen as raising issues of whether the standards which the House is entitled to expect of its Members have been observed.1 This has increasingly been the case since the House instituted the post of Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, so there would be independent investigation of complaints. Indeed, in 2015 the Committee of Privileges referred a complaint of disclosure of a draft committee report to the Parliamentary Commissioner, since the principle of independent investigation had been established, in the expectation they would report to the Committee on Standards. The Committee on Standards subsequently referred the Commissioner's report back to the Committee of Privileges for determination.2

Footnotes 1. This approach was first taken in modern times by the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Member (HC 5 (1940–41) p xiii, Appendix 156). 2. Committee of Privileges, Second Report of Session 2016–17, Unauthorised disclosure of a draft Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, HC 672, para 1.

Members deliberately misleading the House 15.27The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt. In 1963, the House resolved that in making a personal statement which contained words which they later admitted not to be true, a former Member had been guilty of a grave contempt.1 In 2006, the Committee on Standards and Privileges concluded that a Minister who had inadvertently given a factually inaccurate answer in oral evidence to a select committee had not committed a contempt, but should have ensured that the transcript was corrected. The Committee recommended that they should apologise to the House for the error.2

Footnotes 1. CJ (1962–63) 246. 2. Committee on Standards and Privileges, Sixth Report, HC 854 (2005–06). Ministers have also apologised of their own volition: see, for example, HC Deb (8 March 2016) 607, c 137.

Corruption or impropriety 15.28The acceptance by a Member of either House of a bribe to influence them in their conduct as a Member, or of any fee, compensation or reward in connection with the promotion of or opposition to any bill, resolution, matter or thing submitted or intended to be submitted to either House, or to a committee, is a contempt. Any person who is found to have offered such a corrupt consideration is also in contempt.1 A transaction of this character is both a gross affront to the dignity of the House concerned and an attempt to pervert the parliamentary process implicit in Members' free discharge of their duties to the House and (in the case of the Commons) to the electorate.2 The adoption by both Houses of Codes of Conduct for their Members, and the development of new procedures and structures for enforcing compliance with these Codes have, however, considerably altered the approach taken by both Houses to the punishment of offences of this kind. Instances where the House of Commons or one of its committees has considered allegations of the offer of a bribe to a Member or their acceptance are not common, and many are some time in the past.3 There were only a limited number of cases in the twentieth century.4 (For fuller discussion of recent developments and current procedure in connection with standards and Members' interests, the Code of Conduct and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, see Chapter 5. For historical background, see Erskine May (23rd edn, 2004), p 134 ff and (24th edn, 2011), p 254 ff.)

Footnotes 1. See House of Commons 2008–09, Code of Conduct, together with the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members, HC 735. The Commons resolved in 1695 that ‘the offer of money or other advantage to any Member of Parliament for the promoting of any matter whatsoever, depending or to be transacted in Parliament, is a high crime and misdemeanour’ (CJ (1693–97) 331). 2. Members of the Commons found guilty of such offences have been expelled (CJ (1667–87) 24; ibid (1693–97) 274, 275, 277, 651, 689, 693 and 5 Parl Hist 900–10 (Speaker Sir John Trevor; and CJ (1693–97) 283 and 5 Parl Hist 911 (the Chairman of a committee)); or committed (CJ (1693–97) 236 and 5 Parl Hist 886). In 1947–48, a Member was expelled and another reprimanded for conduct which, though not characterised as a contempt, was considered by the House to be dishonourable and deserving to be severely punished (CJ (1947–48) 22, 23). 3. See CJ (1697–99) 528; ibid (1702–04) 480; ibid (1711–14) 493, 494, 498; ibid (1718–21) 541, 542; ibid (1745–50) 148, 154. It has also been declared that it is a contempt for a Member of the Commons to enter into an agreement with another person to advocate the claims of that person in the House for pecuniary reward, see CJ (1857–58) 68, 77, Parl Deb (1858) 148, c 1855; and HC 115 (1857–58) p iii, a case where a select committee was appointed to consider whether a Member had taken money from an Indian prince to advocate the latter's claim to recover certain territory which they alleged had been wrongfully confiscated by the East India Company. On a subsequent occasion, it was found not to be a contempt but dishonourable conduct ‘in the nature of bribery’ for a Member of the Commons corruptly to accept payment for disclosure of matters to be proceeded within Parliament, obtained from other Members under obligations of secrecy. Those who committed such acts were to incur the grave displeasure of the House, which would take such action in the matter as it saw fit (CJ (1947–48) 20–23, 88; HC Deb (1947–48) 443, c 1094 ff). 4. In 1942–43, the Committee of Privileges considered the offer of ‘contingent expenses' to a Member, and concluded that the offer was made ‘not so much as to get [a] matter raised in the House as to bring pressure to bear on a government department to withdraw a prosecution’. The Committee were of the opinion that the individual who made the offer was ill-advised, but in the circumstances was not in contempt (HC 103 (1942–43)). Similarly, when in 1944–45 evidence came to light of an offer to pay money to a constituency association, conditional upon a Member's taking up a matter with a Minister, the Committee decided that what had happened was objectionable but not a contempt (HC 63 (1944–45)).

Professional services connected with proceedings 15.29Both Houses have passed resolutions banning paid advocacy and included in their codes of conduct provisions which regulate the receipt by Members of payments for services connected with their parliamentary duties (see paras 5.20, 5.29 –5.30 ). Previous decisions by the Commons, still in force, include the forbidding of the acceptance of fees by its Members for professional services connected with proceedings in Parliament. Thus, a Member is not permitted to practise as counsel before the House or any committee; and it is not consistent with parliamentary usage for Members to advise as counsel, upon any private bill, or other proceeding in Parliament.1 It has also been declared contrary to the law and usage of Parliament for any Member to be engaged, either by themselves or any partner, in the management of private bills before either House of Parliament for pecuniary reward.2 The acceptance by a Member of either House of a fee, compensation, gift or reward for drafting, advising upon or revising any bill, petition or other document submitted or intended to be submitted to either House or their committees is a contempt. On 22 June 1858, the House of Commons resolved: ‘That it is contrary to the usage and derogatory to the dignity of this House that any of its Members should bring forward, promote or advocate in this House any proceeding or measure in which they may have acted or been concerned for or in consideration of any pecuniary fee or reward.’3 This resolution, though in wide terms, was come to by the House in the context of advocacy by members of the Bar.4 Subsequently, it was held not to preclude a Member who had been concerned in a criminal case which had been decided from taking part in a debate relating to the case.5

Footnotes 1. The House ordered that the permission given in 1820 to certain Members to plead as counsel at the Bar of the Lords in connection with the bill concerning Queen Caroline should not be drawn into a precedent (CJ (1819–20) 444; Parl Deb (1820) 2, c 400). It was also understood that, should the bill reach the Commons, the Members concerned would not be permitted to vote on it. The prohibition does not extend to Members pleading at the Bar of the Lords (the last instance on which leave was specifically given was in 1710, CJ (1708–11) 436), and before the Committee for Privileges (Parl Deb (1820) 2, c 402), in judicial cases. 2. CJ (1830) 107. In 1842, leave was given to a Member to plead at the Bar of the Lords in supporting a public bill (which had passed the Commons) (CJ (1842) 499), but this was not considered sufficient basis to waive the general rule to permit a Member to plead in the Lords on a private bill (ibid (1846) 627; Parl Deb (1846) 86, c 92). The Commons ordered in 1666 that Members of that House ‘of the long robe’ were not to plead as counsel in the Lords in connection with any bill before it reached the Commons (CJ (1660–67) 646; and see ibid 322 and ibid (1667–87) 86). 3. CJ (1857–58) 247; see also ibid (1884) 167. 4. Parl Deb (1858) 151, cc 176–209. 5. Parl Deb (1893) 8, c 1055; HC Deb (1975–76) 911, cc 1429, 1730. See also Report from the Select Committee on Members' Interests (Declaration), HC 57 (1969–70) paras 20, 110.

Other misconduct by Members 15.30Other instances of misconduct on the part of Members have included refusing to serve on a committee where attendance is, by order of the House, compulsory.1

Footnotes 1. CJ (1846) 582–83, 603; Parl Deb (1846) 85, cc 1071, 1152, 1292, 1300, 1351; ibid 86, cc 966, 1198.

Misconduct by officers of either House 15.31The Serjeant at Arms has been regarded as in contempt of the House of Commons for wilfully neglecting to take into their custody persons committed to them,1 and for permitting persons committed to have liberty without any order of the House.2 An officer of the Lords has been considered in contempt for failing duly to execute an order for the attachment of certain persons,3 and doorkeepers have offended by admitting strangers into the Lords contrary to the order of the House.4 The shorthand writer gave evidence in court in relation to proceedings in the House without first obtaining leave, and the Commons agreed to a resolution stipulating that leave must be given in such circumstances.5

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

CJ (1667–87) 351; 3 Grey Deb 233–38. CJ (1714–18) 436, 455–56, 458. LJ (1726–31) 536. LJ (1722–26) 476. CJ (1818) 389; Parl Deb (1818) 38, cc 971–72. See paras 20.6, 24.21 for procedures arising on petitions for leave to give evidence touching proceedings in Parliament.

Raising a complaint of breach of privilege or contempt 15.32The procedure of the House of Commons governing the raising by Members of complaints of breach of privilege or contempt (other than where the offence is committed in the face of the House) follows the House's approval in 1978 of recommendations made by the Committee of Privileges.1 That Committee made their recommendations following their examination of the Report of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege 1966–67, in which it was suggested that in general the House should exercise its penal jurisdiction: (i) in any event as sparingly as possible, and (ii) only when satisfied that to do so was essential in order to provide reasonable protection for the House, its Members or its officers from improper obstruction or attempt at or threat of obstruction causing, or likely to cause, substantial interference with the performance of their respective functions. The procedure is designed to prevent frivolous complaints of breach of privilege. The following safeguards are in place: the Committee of Privileges does not have power to inquire at will, but can only deal with complaints which are referred to it; decisions as to whether to refer a matter of privilege to the Committee of Privileges are taken by the House as a whole; and Members require the permission of the Speaker to raise a matter of privilege.2 A Member who wishes to raise a privilege complaint is required to give written notice to the Speaker as soon as reasonably practicable after the Member has notice of the alleged contempt or breach of privilege. Privilege complaints should not be raised on the floor of the House without first writing to the Speaker.3 The Speaker has discretion to decide whether or not the matter should have the precedence accorded to matters of privilege (see paras 18.39, 19.2, 19.25 ). A decision by the Speaker not to allow precedence in no way limits the Member's right to use other procedures for publicising their complaint but the Speaker has ruled against such matters being raised on a point of order.4 If it is decided that a matter should not have precedence, the Member is informed by letter. If precedence is allowed, the Speaker will announce their decision to the House5, and the Member is told beforehand when such an announcement will be made. When the announcement has been made, the Member is entitled to table a motion for the following day formally calling attention to the matter, and either proposing that it be referred to the Committee on Standards and Privileges or making some other appropriate proposition.6 The recommendations of the 1977 Committee adopted by the House make special provisions for the Speaker's action in two particular circumstances. Thus, whereas the decision about precedence would normally be made within a day or two of receiving notice of the complaint, it is provided that the Speaker should, in appropriate cases of urgency, deal with the matter at once. Again, if, in a case which the Speaker considers not worthy of precedence, there is a novel point of privilege which ought nevertheless to be drawn to the attention of the House, they may make a statement to the House.7 Complaints of privilege may also be brought to the notice of the House of Commons by a communication from the Speaker,8 or the Serjeant at Arms, or by a report from a committee (see para 15.33 ff), or by a report to the Lords from a committee of that House or a communication from the Lord Speaker or Senior Deputy Speaker. A report from a select committee of the Commons to the effect that improper disclosure of a report, its evidence or proceedings has interfered with its work stands automatically referred to the Committee of Privileges9 (see paras 38.56, 38.76 –38.77 ). A matter alleged to have arisen in committee but not reported by it may not generally be brought to the attention of the House on a complaint of breach of privilege.10 When a contempt is committed in the actual view of either House, the House has in the past proceeded at once, without hearing the offender, unless by way of apology, to punish the contempt. If the offence involves a Member or Members of the House, the House may debate whether or not such Members are in contempt, and those Members may take part in that debate.11 Alternatively, the House could order a Member to withdraw until such time as the Standards or Privileges Committee has considered the matter and recommended appropriate action. In the past, the House has punished a contempt committed in the actual view of a Committee, and reported by the Committee. More recently, practice in the Commons has been to refer such matters to the Committee of Privileges, which will give parties accused an opportunity to defend themselves (see below).

Footnotes 1. CJ (1977–78) 170 and Third Report of the Committee of Privileges, HC 417 (1976–77) paras 9–12. Details of the House's procedure in this regard before 1978 are to be found in previous editions of Erskine May (eg 19th edn, 1976, p 162 ff). In the past, matters affecting the privilege of the House might be raised by petition. In the Commons at least, it is unlikely that this procedure would now be followed, in view of the present practice in raising matters of privilege, which is described above. For a full account of the procedure based on a petition, see Erskine May (20th edn, 1983), p 178 ff. 2. See Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, Report of Session 2013–14, Parliamentary Privilege, HL 30, HC 100, para 91. 3. HC Deb (10 November 2011) 535, c 480; ibid (26 April 2011) 527, c 60; ibid (15 June 2011) 529, c 795; the Speaker has reminded the House that complaints of breach of privilege should be made in writing and not raised as a point of order, ibid (11 November 2002) 412, cc 188 and 304. Members have used a point of order to announce they had written to the Speaker (ibid (7 November 2017) 630, c 148), or that others had done so (ibid (3 December 2018) 650, c 582). 4. HC Deb (8 July 2010) 513, c 551. 5. See HC Deb (21 May 2012) 545, c 845. 6. CJ (2009–10) 138. It is not the practice for such letters to be made public (HC Deb (1984–85) 72, c 747 and ibid (1985–86) 106, c 1044). Members should not challenge the Speaker's decision in the House (ibid (1986–87) 114, cc 303–4). The Speaker does not usually communicate an unfavourable outcome to the House or to other Members (ibid (1985–86) 87, cc 1042–3), though this may

sometimes be done (ibid (1993–94) 238, c 21); see HC Deb (14 December 2017) 633, col 605. 7. HC Deb (1980–81) 3, c 789. Cf the Speaker's comment on a personal statement made by a Member (ibid (1994–95) 260, c 612); a statement made by the Speaker in connection with a document which they considered made threats of a kind which might have—but in that instance was unlikely to have—intimidated Members in their parliamentary conduct (ibid (1993–94) 238, c 21); and a statement (in relation to reports of pressure from a union) reminding the House of its resolution of 6 November 1995 (ibid (2001–02) 388, c 885) (see para 5.20 ). In Session 2008–09, the Speaker turned down repeated applications for reference of a matter upon which the House had decided to set up a committee which was not empowered to proceed beyond electing a Chairman until criminal investigation was completed; see HC Deb (17 December 2008) 485, cc 1097 and 1115–16. 8. CJ (1945–46) 38. 9. CJ (1985–86) 252; ibid (2008–09) 402. 10. The Speaker refused to allow a motion to have precedence as a matter of privilege for the attendance of a person who, it appeared from the minutes of the evidence taken before a Committee, had refused to answer questions and to produce certain documents which they had been ordered to produce (Parl Deb (1897) 51, c 311). Allegations about proceedings in committee have been raised in Points of Order, but an election intervened before the committee itself took action; see HC Deb (25 March 2015) 594, c 1536. 11. See HC Deb (4 December 2018) 650, c 667.

Complaints reported by committees Contents Previous practice 15.33In both Houses, complaints from committees are normally made in the form of special reports, although they have also been contained in substantive reports on wider matters.1 Matters complained of in such special reports have included disorderly conduct in the committee; or some contempt of the committee's authority, for example a person summoned as a witness refusing to attend or to answer questions, or prevaricating or giving false evidence; as well as presumptions on the part of the committee that a breach of privilege or other contempt of the House has been committed, such as a libel upon the Chairman of the committee, or interference in or failure to co-operate with the committee's inquiry.

Footnotes 1. When a joint committee made a report of a possible contempt, the Speaker accorded precedence to a motion to refer the matter to the Committee on Standards and Privileges on receipt of a letter from the Chairman of the joint committee, HC Deb (2009–10) 506, c 21. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee raised complaints of misleading the Committee in its Eleventh Report of Session 2010–12, News International and Phone Hacking, HC 903-I.

Previous practice 15.34According to previous usage in the Commons, special reports on committee complaints when presented were ordered as to lie upon the Table.1 Thereafter, the procedure upon them was the same as that upon reports from the Committee on Standards or the Committee of Privileges (see paras 15.26, 15.38 ). Any Member may bring a report of this description before the House, but it is usual to leave this duty to the Chair of the committee.2 Upon consideration of the report, the parties implicated have been ordered to attend the House,3 or the report may be referred to the consideration of a select committee,4 or referred back to the committee with an instruction to inquire into the circumstances of the case.5 In the past, when it was manifest that an offence has been committed, and the offence was of such a nature that no explanation the offender might offer could extenuate it, as, for example, where a committee reported that a witness had been guilty of prevarication, or had given false evidence, or refused to answer questions,6 or that a person summoned as a witness had evaded all attempts to secure their attendance before the committee,7 or that it appeared, on evidence taken before the committee that certain persons had prevented the attendance of a person summoned as a witness, and had given them money to induce them to abstain from giving evidence before the committee,8 the House proceeded at once, without hearing the offender, to punish them for their contempt, a practice which is unlikely to be followed any longer.9 Contempt proceedings in the Lords have not occurred in recent years. In the Lords, it was usual for a report of this description to be appointed for consideration on a future day. When a report from a committee directing the attention of the House to what is prima facie a breach of privilege has been appointed for consideration on a day named, it is given precedence on the day so appointed over any other business appointed for that sitting.10

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

In earlier practice, reports were considered immediately upon presentation (CJ (1874) 182; ibid (1887) 203). Parl Deb (1892) 3, c 598. LJ (1798–1800) 639; ibid (1862) 321; CJ (1836) 464; ibid (1842) 131; ibid (1874) 182; ibid (1892) 157; ibid (1946–47) 377. CJ (1835) 421; ibid (1878–79) 327; ibid (1889) 332. CJ (1887) 203. LJ (1870) 77; CJ (1809) 70; ibid (1827) 473; ibid (1848) 258; ibid (1857) 354. CJ (1851) 147–48. CJ (1851) 147–48. Failure of a Member to obey an order to attend a private bill committee was, on the report of the committee, accounted a contempt, and the Member was committed (CJ (1846) 582, 603). A private bill committee reported respecting the forgery of signatures on a petition against a bill. The House found that a contempt had arisen, but that in the circumstances it was not necessary to proceed further (ibid (1878–79) 176). 10. Formerly, such reports were taken into consideration on being presented (LJ (1810–12) 371; ibid (1845) 545; ibid (1870) 77) or appointed for consideration on a future day by motion made on presentation of the report (ibid (1798–1800) 638; ibid (1862) 300).

Examination of complaints: current practice Contents Hearing of counsel Consideration of reports of committees on complaints 15.35In recent times, most complaints relating to privilege cases in the Commons have been referred to a committee, either the Committee of Privileges, or a specially constituted committee.1 Those committees have investigated, or referred matters to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for investigation,2 and reported back to the House. The Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 1999 recommended minimum standards for procedural fairness which are discussed in detail at para 11.22 above. In 2012, a complaint that witnesses had misled the Culture, Media and Sport Committee was referred to the then Committee on Standards and Privileges. That Committee set out the process it would follow in a resolution sent to all parties. The Committee decided at the outset that it would not recommend that the House order committal to prison, and prescribed a process for the investigation designed to meet the criteria for fairness: The committee would write to inquiry subjects inviting them to make submissions in response to the report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Such submissions could include additional questions which the inquiry subjects considered should be explored key witnesses or other material Written evidence would be gathered and shared with inquiry participants (but not at that stage published); Inquiry subjects would be given the opportunity to give oral evidence, if they so wished, and the committee might decide to take evidence from other witnesses; If oral evidence was taken, the presumption was that it would be in public, but not broadcast; Witnesses giving oral evidence could be supported by a legal or other adviser, but would answer in person; oral evidence would be shared with interested parties; There would be an opportunity to make final written submissions after any oral evidence taking was complete; If the committee intended to criticise an inquiry subject the committee would first send a warning letter, setting out the criticism, the facts which the committee considered substantiated the criticism and the evidence which supported those facts; Any response to such a warning letter would be considered before the committee reported to the house; The committee would suspend its inquiry if requested to do so by the director of public prosecutions to avoid prejudicing any pending legal proceedings or criminal investigations.3 The Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 2013 recommended provisions to ensure the fairness of committee proceedings. These differed according to the seriousness of the behaviour complained of, and the likelihood of significant punishment, and drew on the work of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. Although the Joint Committee's proposals have not been endorsed by either House, despite urging from the Committee of Privileges, in 2013 the Liaison Committee resolved: ‘That the Committee adopt the draft standing order provisions relating to fair procedures for witnesses as guidelines for select committees to test how they worked in practice’.4 Interference with a Lords Member of a joint committee is a contempt against the Lords, whereas interference with a Commons Member is a contempt against that House. When a joint committee complained of contempt by a witness, who had improperly approached committee members from each House, the Committee on Standards and Privileges in the Commons investigated, and published its memoranda, but did not make a substantive report. The Lords Committee for Privileges and Conduct subsequently reported on the matter. It was considered unfair for both committees to investigate the matter concurrently, but the Committee for Privileges and Conduct drew heavily on the evidence collected by the Commons investigation.5

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Committee on an Issue of Privilege, CJ (13 July 2009), p 536. HC Deb (20 February 2018) 636, c 70. Committee on Standards and Privileges, Formal Minutes 2012–13, 3 July 2012. Liaison Committee, Formal Minutes 2013–14, 27 November 2013. Committee of Standards and Privileges, Formal Minutes (2009–10) 9, 16, 23, and 30 March; First report from the Committee for Privileges and Conduct, HL 15 (2010–12).

Hearing of counsel 15.36Persons accused of breaches of the privileges or of other contempts of either House1 have generally not been allowed to be represented by counsel except in a few cases.2 However, they have been permitted to be accompanied by an adviser. Where a person has been allowed to make their defence by counsel, counsel have sometimes been heard in support of the charge;3 and where a complaint of an alleged breach of privilege was referred to the Committee of Privileges, counsel were allowed, by leave of the House, to examine witnesses before the committee on behalf of both the Member who had made the complaint and the parties complained of.4

Footnotes 1. 2 Cav Deb 428, 431. 2. CJ (1750–54) 27; ibid (1766–68) 625; ibid (1770–72) 275, 279, 280. In the last case, the hearing was limited to ‘such points as do not controvert the privileges of the House’ (ibid (1770–72) 275, 280). For discussion of this, see Committee for Privileges and Conduct, Second Report of Session 2017–19, The conduct of Lord Lester of Herne Hill, HL 220 and Third Report of Session 2017–19, Further report on the conduct of Lord Lester of Herne Hill, HL 252. 3. CJ (1750–54) 27; ibid (1766–68) 625. 4. CJ (1766–68) 540. The House has given leave for the Committee of Public Accounts to hear counsel in their investigation of the truthfulness of witnesses before them, ibid (1967–68) 150 (see HC 192 (1967–68)). See also para 38.38.

Consideration of reports of committees on complaints 15.37The House of Commons now proceeds directly to a substantive motion in connection with reports of committees on matters of privilege (whether the Committee on Standards or the Committee of Privileges (see paras 38.76 –38.78 ) or another committee specially appointed).1 The precedence afforded to such business is dealt with at paras 19.25, 19.30, 19.32, and the practice of the House regarding action on reports of the Committee on Standards is considered at para 5.26. If the report is to the effect that no breach of privilege has been committed or that no action is required, no further proceedings are usually taken in reference to the report.2 Despite this, there have been a few occasions on which the Commons has agreed with such a report3 or with a committee's conclusion that, notwithstanding that there had been a breach of privilege,4 the House should take no further action. Other circumstances in which no further proceedings have been taken in the Commons following a Committee of Privileges recommendation to that effect include reports that an offender had explained and regretted their offence,5 that the conduct complained of was not such a breach of privilege as called for further action,6 that the House would best consult its dignity by taking no further notice of the libel,7 or that no further time should be occupied in the consideration of the offence.8 If, however, the committee reports that a serious breach of privilege has been committed, the House will take action upon it.9 In the most recent such case, the contemnors were admonished by the House without their attendance being required.10 In previous times, the House has ordered the person incriminated to attend, in order to hear anything they may say in extenuation or mitigation, before coming to substantial judgment on the decision of the committee.11 Once the House had given agreement to the committee's report,12 it would consider the punishment appropriate to the offence13 (see paras 11.23 –11.33 ). At this juncture also the persons named by the committee and found guilty of a breach of privilege could be ordered (sometimes in the custody of the Serjeant14 ) to attend the House in order to be heard in extenuation or mitigation.15 In cases where the parties have acknowledged their fault and apologised, the order for attendance has been discharged.16 This has been the case even where the House has begun debate on the matter.17 The House has not always agreed with the committee that a breach of privilege has been committed,18 and in a case where a penalty was recommended for refusal to answer questions put by the committee, the House decided that no action needed to be taken.19 For proceedings in the House of Lords, see paras 5.42 –5.44.

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

13.

14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

For example, CJ (1929–30) 503; ibid (1933–34) 231; ibid (1937–38) 367; ibid (1994–95) 286; ibid (2008–09) 402. See eg Committee of Privileges, First Report of Session 2014–15, Action of Sussex Police: final report, HC 588. CJ (1766–68) 541; ibid (1933–34) 231. Report of the Committee of Privileges, HC 235 (1950–51) and CJ (1950–51) 319. Report of the Committee of Privileges, HC 153 (1911) p iii; CJ (1926) 99; ibid (1932–33) 141; Ninth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, HC 373 (2009–10) p 7. Report of the Committee of Privileges, HC 98 (1924) p iii. Report of the Committee of Privileges, HC 98 (1924) p iii. Report of the Committee of Privileges, HC 31 (1953–54) p 3. CJ (1765–66) 843; ibid (1839) 278; ibid (1878–79) 363; ibid (1947–48) 20; ibid (1956–57) 66. Votes and Proceedings, 27 October 2016. CJ (1765–66) 843; ibid (1839) 278; ibid (1878–79) 363; ibid (1947–48) 20; ibid (1956–57) 66. In some cases the House, on taking the report of a committee into consideration, has adjudged the person incriminated guilty of a contempt or a breach of the privileges of the House, without first resolving that it agreed with the committee in their report (CJ (1825–26) 445; ibid (1826–28) 561; ibid (1865) 336; ibid (1887) 306; ibid (1947–48) 22). But it is more regular for the House to agree to the report of the committee before proceeding to act on it (Parl Deb (1835) 29, cc 1250–51). The House, after agreeing to the report, has then proceeded to adjudge the offender guilty of a breach of privilege or of a contempt (CJ (1835) 501; ibid (1843) 523; ibid (1851) 288; ibid (1929–30) 503). This step, however, is unnecessary in cases where the committee has reported that, in its opinion, the person implicated has been guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House, or of an offence which amounts on the face of it to a breach of privilege. CJ (1825–26) 445, 455; ibid (1826–28) 561, 577, 581. The House has ordered the incriminated party to be taken into the custody of the Serjeant, and, when that officer reported that they had been taken into custody, adjudged them guilty of a breach of privilege and committed them to Newgate (ibid (1818) 282, 289). CJ (1819–20) 243, 244; ibid (1956–57) 66. In the latter case, the person attended and was heard. They then withdrew and the House resolved that they had been guilty of a serious contempt but that in view of their apology the House would proceed no further in the matter. CJ (1819–20) 286. CJ (1950–51) 298–99, 303. See Erskine May (24th edn, 2011). For example, CJ (1957–58) 260. CJ (1975–76) 64.

Proceedings against Members 15.38In modern practice, most privilege complaints against Members of the Commons are proceeded with on motions made on consideration of or following reports from the Committee on Standards, or such other committee as may have been appointed in the circumstances of the case.1 The usual procedure in cases arising from such reports of the Committee on Standards is described in Chapter 5 (para 5.26 ). In recent years, it has been common practice for a Member to make a personal statement very shortly after publication of the Committee report, before the motion has been tabled.2 The Member complained of is sometimes heard before the motion founded on the report is made,3 and otherwise after the motion has been made, which has been done formally.4 Though the older practice of the House was to require the withdrawal of the Member under criticism as soon as they had been heard, the practice was not invariable and the House exercises its discretion according to the circumstances.5 When the House resolved that a contempt had been committed by an unspecified group of Ministers on grounds of the Government's failure to comply with an earlier order of the House, the Government undertook to comply with the order and no further action was taken.6 When a Member has made an acceptable apology for the offence, the critical motion has sometimes been withdrawn.7 In two instances, the House condemned the Member's conduct as a breach of its privileges, but resolved that in consequence of the full and ample apology they had offered to the House, or that having regard to their withdrawal of the expressions complained of, it would not proceed any further in the matter.8 A Member having withdrawn but not yet been adjudged guilty of contempt may return to their place when debate on their conduct has been adjourned,9 but it is otherwise if they have been adjudged guilty, even though debate on the question of the punishment to be inflicted on them has been adjourned.10 For actions taken in respect of disclosures of proceedings in secret session, see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 280.

Footnotes 1. For the procedure when a privilege complaint against a Member is made directly in the House, see Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), pp 138–39; and cf the case of a Member who was suspended from the service of the House for damage to the Mace, CJ (1987–88) 463. In analogous circumstances in the past, the House ordered the attendance of Members who were complained of but who were not thought likely to attend. Members who have been ordered to attend but failed to do so, the order having been duly served, have been ordered into the custody of the Serjeant or even expelled (ibid (1667–87) 85). More frequently, the House has ordered their presence on another day (ibid (1697–99) 643, 645). If the Serjeant has been unable to serve the order on the Member (ibid (1782–84) 739; ibid (1810) 295 and cf ibid (1813–14) 427) or the Member has indicated in writing that they are unable to attend through indisposition (ibid (1697–99) 661; ibid (1770–72) 279, and cf ibid (1761–64) 709), the House has fixed another day for the proceedings. Where a Member ordered to attend to answer a charge absconded, the House proceeded with its investigation (ibid (1727–32) 810, 876; ibid (1761–64) 722). 2. See HC Deb (12 May 2011) 527, c 1384; ibid (3 April 2014) 578, c 1033; ibid (19 July 2018) 645, c 589. 3. HC Deb (1989–90) 168, c 889 (when the Member spoke after the motion that the report be now considered had been agreed to); ibid (1998–99) 335, cc 23, 26; ibid (2001–02) 373, cc 884–85. 4. HC Deb (1994–95) 258, c 350; ibid (1999–2000) 345, c 428; ibid (2001–02) 380, c 213; ibid (1987–88) 131, c 934, where a Member who was suspended for damaging the Mace spoke during the course of the debate on the motion for the suspension; and ibid (23 July 2007) 463, c 627, where a Member, the subject of a report from the Committee on Standards and Privileges, was named by the Speaker for wilfully disregarding the authority of the Chair. 5. See CJ (1883) 280 and Parl Deb (1883) 280, c 812; CJ (1887) 389 and Parl Deb (1887) 317, cc 1633–38; and CJ (1941–42) 129. Members who withdrew have been readmitted to make a further explanation: see CJ (1790) 516; ibid (1893–94) 631; ibid (1911) 37 and HC Deb (1911) 21, c 1553; and cf also CJ (1547–1628) 862. In some instances, Members have remained in the Chamber, ibid (1976–77) 448; and cf HC Deb (1983–84) 62, c 159 ff. Two Members whose conduct was under criticism in a motion both withdrew after making a short statement (ibid (1994–95) 258, c 351); in recent times, Members have made personal statements on the day the Committee's report was published or as soon as possible thereafter, in advance of the debate on the Committee report; see ibid (19 July 2018) 645, c 589. 6. Votes and Proceedings, 4 December 2018; HC Deb (4 December 2018) 650, c 732. 7. CJ (1873) 61; ibid (1875) 46; ibid (1887) 377; ibid (1911) 36–37; ibid (1921) 393; ibid (1928–29) 159; ibid (1935–36) 203. 8. CJ (1845) 589; ibid (1880) 54. In one case, after the Commons had resolved that a Member (who had in writing reflected on the Speaker's conduct in the Chair) was guilty of a contempt, the Speaker suggested that they be recalled to afford them an opportunity, which they took, of apologising to the House (ibid (1893–94) 417); in another, a Member found in contempt apologised to the House and no further proceedings were taken (CJ (1950–51) 298–99, 301). 9. Parl Deb (1877) 235, cc 1815, 1833. 10. Parl Deb (1846) 85, c 1198 and cf Parl Deb (1845) 85, c 1291.

Complaints against Members or officers of the other House 15.39Since the two Houses are wholly independent of each other, neither House can punish any breach of privilege or contempt offered to it by a Member or member of staff of the other. If a complaint relating to an issue of privilege is made against a Member or member of staff of the other House, the appropriate course of action is to examine the facts and deal with the matter according to the procedures of the House to which the Member or staff member belongs.1 In one instance, after a complaint had been made in the Commons of a speech delivered (outside the House) by a Member of the House of Lords, a motion was made to refer the matter to the House of Commons Committee of Privileges, but was withdrawn after the Speaker had announced that he had received a letter of apology from the Lord concerned, which they read to the House.2 When a Member, or a staff member of either House has been guilty of any offence either against the other House or against its Members, which would be punishable by the latter if committed by one of its own, it is the duty of the House to which such offender belongs, upon being apprised of the fact, to take appropriate measures to punish the offence in a proper manner.

Footnotes 1. 3 Hatsell 67, 71. A different course was pursued where the subject of the complaint was the interference of peers in the election of Members to serve in Parliament, for reasons explained in 3 Hatsell 72 n. 2. CJ (1951–52) 201–2.

Complaints by officers of either House 15.40Formerly, when a complaint has been made by Black Rod to the Lords or by the Serjeant at Arms to the Commons (the Serjeant usually made a written report to the Speaker1 ), the person complained of was called in2 or ordered to be brought to the Bar forthwith3 or ordered to attend the House on a future day to answer the matter of the complaint.4 Other action considered appropriate has also been taken. In one instance, the Speaker acquainted the House that he had received a report from the Serjeant at Arms relating to the conduct of certain Members. The report stated that the messengers of the House acting under his orders had been forcibly obstructed in the execution of their duty by certain Members of the House. No immediate action was taken by the House, but it was indicated that the Prime Minister proposed to invite the attention of the House to the report and to ask that appropriate action be taken. At the next sitting the Members concerned expressed their profound regret and unreservedly apologised for their conduct, and the House accepted their apologies. The proceedings were ordered to be entered in the Journal.5

Footnotes 1. Alternatively, the Speaker may acquaint the House that the Serjeant has a communication to make; whereupon the Serjeant comes to the Bar and makes their communication directly to the House (CJ (1946–47) 54). The subject-matter of the communication may be taken into consideration forthwith (ibid (1840) 25; ibid (1851) 147) or appointed for consideration upon a future day (ibid (1882) 183; ibid (1883) 365). 2. LJ (1805–06) 332. 3. LJ (1783–87) 613, 647; ibid (1787–90) 338; ibid (1789–90) 649; ibid (1794–96) 241; in the last instance the complaint was made by the Deputy Great Chamberlain. 4. LJ (1805–06) 332, 608. 5. CJ (1930–31) 335.

Committees on opposed private bills 5.15Under Standing Order 120, each member of a committee on an opposed private bill, before being entitled to attend and vote, is required to sign a declaration that their constituents have no local interest, and that the Member has no personal interest, in the bill; that the Member recognises the obligation to attend every meeting of the committee; and that the Member will never vote on any question which may arise without having duly heard and attended to the evidence relating to it. If a Member who has signed this declaration should subsequently discover a direct interest in a bill, or in a company who are petitioners against a bill, that Member will withdraw from the committee, after stating the fact, and may, if necessary, be discharged by the House (or by the Selection Committee) from further attendance.1 (See also para 45.10.)

Footnotes 1. CJ (1945–46) 237.

‘Absent specific Charter language to the contrary, however, the long history of curial deference to the independence of the legislative body, and to the rights necessary to the functioning of that body, cannot be lightly set aside, even conceding that our notions of what is permitted to government actors have been significantly altered by the enactment and entrenchment of the Charter.’ [1993] 13 CRR (2d) 1 at 21. 7. Report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, HL 43-I, HC 214-I (1998–99) paras 384, 385. 8. Report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, HL 30, HC 100 (2013–14).

First phase of the conflict 16.2The earlier views of the proper spheres of court and Commons were much influenced by political events and the constitutional changes to which they gave rise. Coke in the early seventeenth century regarded the law of Parliament as a particular law, distinct from the common law. For that reason ‘judges ought not to give any opinion of a matter of Parliament, because it is not to be decided by the common laws but secundum legem et consuetudinem parliamenti ’.1 This line of argument was able to rely on the view taken by Fortescue CJ and his colleagues in the case of Mr Speaker Thorpe in 1452 (see para 12.5 ) that the ‘determination and knowledge of that privilege [of the High Court of Parliament] belongeth to the Lords of the Parliament, and not to the justices’.2 A number of decisions in the latter part of the seventeenth century gave further support to the parliamentary claims. In Barnardiston v Soame in 1674 a parliamentary candidate brought an action against a sheriff for a double return. The initial judgment favoured Barnardiston, the candidate,3 but the decision was reversed on appeal, North CJ observing that the trial of elections and the functions of the sheriff were matters of privilege within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commons. North also included in his judgment remarks about judicial ignorance of the privileges of Parliament and the right of the Houses to determine the extent and limit of their privileges.4 In short, the outcome of Barnardiston v Soame seemed to put privilege outside, if not above, the general law. The issue was complicated by concern felt in the Commons about the consequences for the adequacy of the law on electoral fraud, and so it was provided by statute5 that officers maliciously making double returns could be sued ‘in any of His Majesty's courts of record at Westminster’; but it was also illegal for a returning officer to make any return which conflicted with ‘the last determination in the House of Commons of the right of election’. The Commons thus attempted to have the best of both worlds—to retain the right exclusively to determine the qualifications of electors, but to provide individual Members with a remedy at law against returning officers. When in 1677 an attempt was made to release the Earl of Shaftesbury on a writ of habeas corpus from the imprisonment to which the Lords had committed him for ‘high contempts', it was argued for his Lordship that such a general allegation was too uncertain for the court to come to an opinion: the jurisdiction of the Lords was limited by common law and examinable in the courts. The unanimous decision of the Court of King's Bench, however, was that they could not question the judgment of the Lords, as a superior court, on a committal order for contempt.6 Arguments in such terms were remarkably long-lived. De Grey CJ in 1771 observed that ‘we cannot judge of the laws and privileges of the House [of Commons] because we have no knowledge of these laws and privileges’,7 and Lord Brougham LC in 1831 accepted that ‘a court knows nothing judicially of what takes place in Parliament till what is done there becomes an Act of the legislature’.8 In 1836–37, the Attorney General argued that the constitution supposed that the lex parliamenti was not known to the judges of the common law. They had no means of arriving judicially at any information. The law of Parliament was as distinct from the common law as that administered in the equity, admiralty or ecclesiastical courts.9 Elements of the opposing view—that decisions of Parliament on matters of privilege can be called in question in other courts, that the lex parliamenti is part of the common law and known to the courts, and that resolutions of either House declaratory of privilege will not bind the courts—are found at almost as early a date, and they gained impetus as time went by.10 In 1664, a court decided for a Member of the Commons who was sued for a debt, on the grounds that he was entitled to the benefit of the Limitation Act 1623 (21 James 1, c 16) notwithstanding that in the intervening period he had been secured from the creditor by his privilege as a Member. Though it was unnecessary for the court to make any direct inquiry into the questions of privilege involved,11 Bridgeman CJ made some observations on the duty of the courts to decide such questions incidental to matters properly within their jurisdiction. He denied that decisions of the House of Commons regarding its privileges should necessarily be accepted by the courts as conclusive, and drew a distinction as regards the claim of the House to exclusive jurisdiction between matters of privilege arising ab intra, and (by implication) those in which persons outside were concerned.12 Two decades later, Sir William Williams was sentenced to be fined by a court for his action some years previously, in signing, as Speaker and by order of the House, a paper which was said to have libelled James II (then Duke of York), and which was printed and published. His defence that the court lacked jurisdiction over the action on which the charge was founded was unavailing.13 The process was, however, so obviously political in intention that after the Revolution the House declared the judgment to be ‘illegal and subversive of the freedom of Parliament’, and the Bill of Rights condemned the prosecution for having been taken in King's Bench when the matter was cognizable only in Parliament (see para 12.4, fn 15).14 Later judgments have not relied on the case, and it seems to have been used by counsel on only one occasion.15 Perhaps more significant in the development of the courts' case against Parliament's exclusive jurisdiction is the case of Jay v Topham (1682–89), in which (after a dissolution) judgment was given in King's Bench against the Serjeant at Arms of the Commons for having taken the plaintiff into custody and brought him to the Bar for an offence committed in breach of privilege.16 The House roundly condemned the verdict, sent for the judges, and, having examined them, committed them to the Serjeant.17 The judges claimed that they had not questioned the legality of the orders of the House. They emphasised that if there had been a plea in bar of the court's jurisdiction, the defendant would have been entitled to judgment;18 and they admitted that if the entire matter had been transacted in the House (as they argued it had not been) it would have been proper to plead such a matter to be outside the jurisdiction of the court. They did, however, reassert the right of the courts to examine privilege incidentally arising.19 Subsequent observations in the courts have been critical of the Commons action towards the judges in Jay v Topham.20 It has been pointed out in rebuttal, however, that Topham's petition to the House stated that there had in fact been a plea in bar of the court's jurisdiction, which had been overruled.21 At the same period, the Lords too collided with the increased readiness of the courts to challenge the exclusive nature of their jurisdiction. In 1694, a defendant indicted for murder as a commoner pleaded misnomer, on the ground that he was the legitimate holder of a peerage. The Crown

argued that the defendant had petitioned the Lords to be tried by his peers, but that House had dismissed the petition, disallowed the peerage claim, and ordered him to be tried at common law. The court held for the defendant on the ground (among others) that the decision of the Lords was not conclusive against the peerage claim. The House had disallowed the claim neither as a court of appeal (this was an original case) nor on reference from the Crown22 and so their dismissal of the petition was not a judgment against the defendant's title or properly a judgment at all. Perhaps even more significantly, the court held that the law of Parliament (which according to the Attorney General justified the proceedings of the House of Lords) was to be regarded as the ‘law of the realm’; but even if it were a ‘particular law’, this would not prevent the King's Bench deciding a matter which was properly within their jurisdiction (ie even if it involved a question determinable by law of Parliament).23 In the early years of the eighteenth century there was a series of cases in which initially dissenting judicial opinions took on a growing significance. The first such case was that of Ashby v White in 1703–4. Three judges (with Holt CJ dissenting) found in favour of a plaintiff who had complained that the returning officers for Aylesbury had fraudulently and maliciously refused his vote. The grounds of the conclusions of the majority of the court were perfectly in line with the succession of cases mentioned above. The matter was properly cognizable only by Parliament and, until the House of Commons had determined the matter, the plaintiff could not be said to have a right to vote at all.24 The plaintiff appealed, and the Lords reversed the decision on the basis of Holt CJ's dissenting judgment in the lower court.25 Holt had argued that the right to vote was a matter of property, an injury to which imported a damage. This was a matter determinable at common law; and the objection that the matter was cognizable in Parliament did not exclude the jurisdiction of the court, because it was determinable in Parliament only as a question incident to the trial of a controverted election.26 The Commons made a spirited rejoinder, asserting that any attempt to challenge its jurisdiction would amount to a breach of privilege. The House also adopted the resolution that, ‘according to the known laws and usage of Parliament it is the sole right of the Commons of England … (except in cases otherwise provided for by Act of Parliament) to examine and determine all matters relating to the right of election of their own Members’, and that Ashby, in prosecuting an action at common law against White, was guilty of a breach of privilege. The Lords regarded this as ‘in effect to subject the laws of England to the votes of the House of Commons’.27 The matter had not been resolved by conferences between the Houses when a second action arose out of the same election, which raised very similar issues. The House of Commons, by warrant of the Speaker, had committed a number of Aylesbury Men28 for having raised an action against the constables of Aylesbury who refused their votes, in contempt of the jurisdiction and in open breach of the known privileges of the House. Writs of habeas corpus were sued out, and it was argued that the warrant was informal and, furthermore, that it disclosed no breach of privilege since the prosecution of a suit was lawful. A majority of the court concluded that the warrant was not reversible for form (see para 11.25 ) and that the court had no jurisdiction, the Commons being proper judges of their own privileges. Powell J declared that the Commons did not commit by the common law, but by the lex parliamenti; and that the Court of Parliament was a superior court. Again Holt CJ dissented. He did not deny the power of the Commons to commit for contempt, but he held that the exercise of the power was examinable in the courts. If there were no breach of privilege—as he found to be the case in this instance—there was no contempt, and the prisoners should be discharged.29 When the possibility of an appeal threatened to bring the case—and the power of the Commons to commit—under the examination of the Lords, the Commons addressed Her Majesty, emphasising its right to commit for contempt, and its exclusive jurisdiction in the matter. It was also denied that in such cases there was a possibility of appeal. For good measure, counsel and others were found ‘guilty of conspiring to make a difference between Lords and Commons’ by prosecuting the writs of habeas corpus and were committed to the Serjeant.30 When the Commons' Address was received, it was referred to the judges for consideration whether the grant of a writ of error (on which an appeal was founded) was of right or of grace. The judges decided for the first by ten to two. The Lords then passed resolutions prohibiting the arrest of the counsel for the Aylesbury Men. It denied the power of either House to create new privileges, asserting a right to seek redress by action at law where a defendant was not in his own person entitled to privilege of Parliament, and stating that in committing the Aylesbury Men, the Commons had ‘claimed a jurisdiction not warranted by the constitution’.31 Despite a series of conferences, compromise could not be reached, and the dispute between the Houses was cut short only by prorogation.32

Footnotes 1. Sir Edward Coke Fourth Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England (1797), p 14. 2. 5 Rot Parl 239–40; 1 Hatsell 28–34. For judicial observations on this case, see Burdett v Abbot (1810) 104 ER 511, 3 State Tr (ns) 857, 914. It should be noted, however, that the judges were not trying the case but acting as assistants to the Lords, so that the reply cannot be construed as a disclaimer of their ability to decide any such point should it arise in their own courts. Nevertheless, they did give their opinion on what they would hold in such a case, and the Lords adopted and acted on it. 3. 6 State Tr 1068; (1674) 86 ER 615. 4. LJ (1685–91) 253. 5. Parliamentary Elections (Returns) Act 1695 (7 & 8 Will 3, c 7), made permanent by 12 Anne, c 15, now repealed. 6. (1677) 86 ER 792, 799–800. 7. Brass Crosby's case (1771) 95 ER 1005 at 1011. Lord Denman CJ in Stockdale v Hansard (1839) 112 ER 1112 at 1158 wholly rejected De Grey's line of argument: ‘nothing could … be less needful or less judicial than the mere assertion of privilege that was volunteered by the Chief Justice’. 8. Wellesley v Duke of Beaufort (1831) 36 ER 538. 9. Stockdale v Hansard (1839) 112 ER 1112. 10. There are several late-medieval cases in which judges in court decided a question as to the existence of parliamentary privilege; see eg Donne v Walsh (1472) 1 Hatsell 41, Ryver v Cousins (1472) 1 Hatsell 43 and Atwell's case (1477) 1 Hatsell 65–69. 11. See Lord Denman CJ in Stockdale v Hansard (1839) 112 ER 1112 at 1142–43, 1163.

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.

Benyon v Evelyn (1664) 124 ER 614 esp at 619. 13 State Tr 1370 ff. CJ (1688–93) 146, 177, 213, 215; R v Williams (1689) 89 ER 1048. Lord Denman CJ in Stockdale v Hansard (1839) 112 ER 1112 at 1160, and see Erskine's argument in R v Wright (1799) 101 ER 1396 and 13 State Tr 1370 n. (1689) 12 State Tr 822–34. CJ (1688–93) 209, 210, 213, 227. 12 State Tr 826, 829. See Burdett v Abbot (1810) 104 ER 538; and Stockdale v Hansard (1839) 112 ER 1112 at 1167. Lord Ellenborough CJ thought the judges had been punished for a righteous judgment Burdett v Abbot (1810) 104 ER 543, and Lord Denman CJ considered that they had vindicated their conduct by unanswerable reasoning, Stockdale v Hansard (1839) 112 ER 1112 at 1163. By Sir John Campbell in Stockdale v Hansard, 1140, 1163. ‘The proper course for the trial of the right of peerage is by petition from the claimant to the King, who, thereupon, if he has any doubt upon the matter, refers it to the Lords, to examine into it and make their report of it to him; and upon their report the King determines of it.’ (Attorney General in Burdett v Abbot (1810) 104 ER 542), assented to by Lord Ellenborough. R v Knollys (1694) 91 ER 904. Ashby v White (1703–04) 92 ER 126. Powys J said that such issues were reserved to Parliament. ‘We [the judges] are not acquainted with the learning of elections, and there is a particular cunning in it not known to us, nor do we go by the same rules' (ibid 130). LJ (1701–04) 369. (1703–04) 92 ER 134. CJ (1702–04) 308; LJ (1701–04) 534. The Aylesbury Men, R v Paty (1704) 92 ER 232. (1704) 92 ER 232. CJ (1702–04) 549, 550, 552–53. LJ (1701–04) 676, 677–78. For further proceedings, see LJ (1701–04) 694–95, 698–715; CJ (1702–04) 555, 559–63, 565, 569–75.

The second phase: the nineteenth century 16.3In the nineteenth century, a series of cases forced upon the Commons and the courts a comprehensive review of the issues which divided them, from which it became clear that some of the earlier claims to jurisdiction made in the name of privilege by the House of Commons were untenable in a court of law, and that the law of Parliament was part of the general law, that its principles were not beyond the judicial knowledge of the judges, and that the duty of the common law to define its limits could no longer be disputed. At the same time, it was established that there was a sphere in which the jurisdiction of the House of Commons was absolute and exclusive. The facts in the case of Burdett v Abbot (1810) were that the plaintiff, a Member of the House of Commons, had been judged guilty of a contempt, arising from the publication of a libellous and scandalous paper. The House ordered his committal and in the course of the execution of Mr Speaker Abbot's warrant, the plaintiff's house was entered by force. He then brought an action of trespass against the Speaker. The significance of the outcome is twofold. In the first place, the House of Commons did not resort to the course of action for which earlier years provided ample precedent—committing for contempt counsel and others concerned in the prosecution of the Speaker for obeying an order of the House. The House preferred voluntarily to submit one of its privileges to the jurisdiction of the courts. Secondly, following further dispute on the old battlegrounds of whether the law of Parliament was a particular law or part of the law of the land, and whether the courts were entitled (or indeed bound) to decide questions of privilege coming incidentally before them, the Speaker's action was wholly vindicated. Thus, about a century after the case of the Aylesbury Men, and commenting on it, Lord Ellenborough CJ held (in Burdett v Abbot ), that the House had acted within its power, and that the powers to commit were no more than those enjoyed by all superior courts.1 The court emphasised that the possession of such powers was essential for the maintenance of the dignity of both Houses, and that without them they would ‘sink into utter contempt and inefficiency’.2 At the same time, however, Lord Ellenborough contemplated the possibility of cases in which the courts would have to decide on the validity of a committal for contempt where the facts displayed could by no reasonable interpretation be construed as such. Events in the next case, Stockdale v Hansard (1836–37), proved to be more complex. Messrs Hansard, the printers of the House of Commons, had printed by order of that House a report laid on the Table by an inspector of prisons against which a Mr Stockdale brought an action for libel. The court did not consider Messrs Hansard's proof of the House's order to print a sufficient defence. Lord Denman CJ observed that the House's direction to publish all parliamentary reports was no justification for Hansard or anyone else.3 Though Hansard succeeded in a plea of justification, the Commons felt it necessary in 1837 to appoint a committee to ascertain the law and practice of Parliament in reference to the publication of papers printed by order of the House. The result of these inquiries was the passing of resolutions by the House, declaring that the publication of parliamentary reports, votes and proceedings was an essential incident to the constitutional functions of Parliament; that the House had sole and exclusive jurisdiction to determine upon the existence and extent of its privileges; that to dispute those privileges by legal proceedings was a breach of privilege; and that for any court to presume to decide upon matters of privilege inconsistent with the determination of either House was contrary to the law of Parliament.4 Despite the course of action implicit in those strong resolutions, when Stockdale commenced another suit against Hansard, the House did not proceed against him for contempt, but directed the firm to plead and the Attorney General to defend them, arguing on the basis of the privilege of the House and its recent resolutions. Messrs Hansard in this case relied entirely upon the privileges of the House and its order to print. The defence was unsuccessful. The Attorney General argued the case for regarding the High Court of Parliament as a superior court of exclusive jurisdiction binding on other courts, and its law a separate law. Each House separately, it was contended, possessed the whole power of the medieval English High Court of Parliament, and so subordinate were the courts of law to each that a writ of error ran from them to Parliament. Furthermore, were the privileges of the Commons subject to review by the courts, the Lords would be the arbiter not only of their own privileges but also of those of the Commons. For probably the last time, an appeal was made to the principle that the constitution supposed that the lex parliamenti, like the law administered in equity, ecclesiastical and admiralty courts, was a system different from the common law, the judges of which had no means of arriving judicially at knowledge of it. In such circumstances the courts must respect the general rule that they should follow the law of the court of original jurisdiction. Finally, the Attorney General cited instances of the Commons exercising its inquisitorial powers as a court by examining and committing judges.5 The court rebutted nearly all these contentions. It was accepted that over their own internal proceedings the jurisdiction of the Houses was exclusive: but it was (in Lord Denman's view) for the courts to determine whether or not a particular claim of privilege fell within that category. It was held the House had the right to print papers for its own internal use, but not to publish them to the world at large.6 Though the Commons had claimed that the publication of certain types of papers was essential to its constitutional functions, and the Attorney General argued that the court was bound to accept such a declaration as evidence of the law, Lord Denman held that the court had a duty to inquire further. There was, in his opinion, no difference between a right to sanction all things under the name of privilege and the same right to sanction them by merely ordering them to be done. This would amount to an ‘arbitrary and irresponsible’ superseding of the law, in itself ‘the most momentous and intolerable of all abuses’. The court could find no reason to believe that either House had ‘either actually or virtually’ claimed to authorise by resolution and relying on its privileges the publication of papers injurious to the character of an individual.7 As regards the difference between those matters of privilege arising directly in a cause before a court and those of indirect significance, on which a select committee had recently professed inability to discern a real distinction (which had led them to deny jurisdiction to the courts in either case),8 the judges expressed reservations.9 Lord Coleridge observed that ‘whether directly arising or not, a court of law I conceive must take notice of the distinction between privilege and power; and where the act has not been done within the House (for of no act there done can any tribunal in my opinion take cognizance but the House itself) and is clearly of a nature transcending the legal limits of privilege, it will proceed against the doer as a transgressor of the law’.10

Lord Denman denied further that the lex parliamenti was a separate law, unknown to the judges of the common law courts. Either House considered individually was only a part of the High Court of Parliament, and neither could bring an issue within its exclusive jurisdiction simply by declaring it to be a matter of privilege. Any other proposition was ‘abhorrent to the first principles of the constitution’. The resolutions of the House based on the conclusions of the select committee (see above) were not the action of a court, legislative, judicial or inquisitorial, so that the superiority of the House of Commons over other courts had nothing to do with the question. In any case, there was, it seemed to the judges, no basis for regarding the courts of law as in principle incapable of reviewing any decision of the House of Commons. Conversely, there was no parliamentary revision of court judgments for error. The Commons was not a court of law in the sense recognised in the courts, and was unable to decide a matter judicially in litigation between parties, either originally or by appeal.11 Having received an unfavourable verdict, the House of Commons ordered that the costs for which Messrs Hansard were declared liable should be paid, despite their strong view expressed in the resolutions referred to above. It was, however, agreed that, in case of future actions, the firm should not plead and that the parties should suffer for their contempt of the resolutions and defiance of the House's authority. When, therefore, a third action was commenced in relation to the original report, judgment was given against Messrs Hansard by default. Damages were assessed and the sheriffs of Middlesex levied for the amount, though they delayed paying the money to Stockdale for as long as possible. In 1840, the Commons committed first Stockdale and then the sheriffs, who had declined to repay the money to Messrs Hansard. Proceedings for the sheriffs' release on a writ of habeas corpus proved unsuccessful.12 Howard, Stockdale's solicitor, was also proceeded against, but escaped with a reprimand. While in prison, the persistent Stockdale commenced a fourth action, for his part in which Howard was committed. Messrs Hansard were again ordered not to plead, and judgment was entered against them. At this point, the situation was in part resolved by the introduction of what became the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840, affording statutory protection to papers published by order of either House (see para 13.6 ). The case of Howard v Gosset (1845) may be viewed, however, as a continuation of the conflict in some of its aspects. Howard brought an action against the Serjeant at Arms and others for having taken him into custody and committed him to prison in obedience of the House's order and the Speaker's warrant.13 Leave to appear was given to the defendants and the Attorney General was directed to defend them.14 The court favoured the plaintiff, on the grounds of the technical informality of the warrant. The judges proceeded on the principle that the warrant might be examined with the same strictness as if it had issued from an inferior court (see para 11.25 ), while at the same time concluding that they might adjudge it to be bad in form ‘without impugning the authority of the House or in any way disputing its privileges’. A select committee roundly condemned this doctrine, but advised the House ‘that every legitimate mode of asserting and defending its privileges should be exhausted before it prevented by its own authority, the further progress of the action’.15 The House accepted the advice and an appeal was lodged.16 In order, however, to avoid submission to any adverse judgment on appeal, the Serjeant was not authorised to give bail and execution was levied on his goods.17 In the event, the decision of the lower court was overturned, and the court found that the privileges involved were not in the least doubtful. The warrant of the Speaker was valid as a protection to the officer of the House; and the warrant should be construed as if it were a writ from a superior court.18 The last of the major nineteenth-century cases is Bradlaugh v Gosset (1884).19 The Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866 required Charles Bradlaugh, who had been elected a Member of the House of Commons, to take the oath. The House, however, had passed a resolution restraining him from doing so, and ordering the Serjeant to exclude Bradlaugh from the House until he engaged not to disturb the proceedings further (following an attempt to administer the oath to himself).20 The plaintiff then sought a declaration from the courts that the order of the House was ultra vires and so void, together with an order restraining the defendant, the Serjeant at Arms, from preventing him from entering the House and taking the oath as a Member. The court decided against Bradlaugh, on the ground that the order of the House related to the internal management of its procedure over which they had no jurisdiction. The exclusive jurisdiction of the House in this instance was considered essential for the discharge of its function.21 The judgment echoed the point made by the Attorney General in Stockdale v Hansard that allowing the courts to arbitrate would involve the House of Lords in judging the powers and privileges of the Commons—at least in relation to the narrower claims of exclusive cognizance.22

Footnotes 1. Burdett v Abbot (1810) 104 ER 554 and Burdett v Colman (1817) 3 ER 1289. The former provides one of the principal authorities for the Commons power to commit for contempt, as does that of Lord Shaftesbury for the Lords (see para 11.23 ). 2. Burdett v Abbot (1810) 104 ER 559 and esp the observations of Bayley J at 562. The judgment was later affirmed in Exchequer Chamber and in the House of Lords ([1814–23] All ER Rep 101). 3. (1836–37) 173 ER 322. 4. CJ (1837) 418–20. 5. Stockdale v Hansard (1839) 112 ER 1112 at 1118 ff, esp at 1120–22, 1123–26, 1129–30. See also para 16.2. 6. Stockdale v Hansard (1839) 112 ER 1112. While the Attorney General considered that ‘The power of publishing is essential to the Commons, in the discharge of their inquisitorial functions' and that constituents needed an account of what the Commons had done, Littledale J considered ‘As to the general information to be given to the public of all that is going on in parliament, I cannot conceive upon what ground that can be necessary.’ 7. CJ (1837) 419; (1839) 112 ER 1120–22, 1157 ff, 1167, 1168. 8. CJ (1837) 352; Select Committee on Publication of Printed Papers, HC 286 (1837) paras 59, 60, 69. 9. It was argued, for example, that the courts would find themselves in an impossible situation if the two Houses fell into dispute over the extent or existence of a privilege—as they had in Ashby v White —and the Committee's argument took no account of the possibility of a litigant's claiming a privilege as yet undetermined by either House (Stockdale v Hansard (1839) 112 ER 1112 at 1168).

10. (1839) 112 ER 1197. 11. (1839) 112 ER 1153–54, 1188, 1196. 12. Sheriff of Middlesex (1840) 113 ER 419. The sheriffs paid the money to Stockdale under an attachment (Stockdale v Hansard (1839) 112 ER 1112). 13. CJ (1843) 59; (1845) 116 ER 158 and see also Howard v Gosset (1842) 174 ER 553. The House ordered Howard to attend at the Bar when he assisted in the bringing of Stockdale's fourth action against Hansard. He evaded the service of the order and the House, instead of resolving that he was in contempt, followed a precedent of 1731 (CJ (1727–32) 705) and ordered him to be sent for in custody of the Serjeant (ibid (1840) 59). This arrest was the action on which Howard v Gosset (1845) 116 ER 139 was founded. 14. CJ (1843) 118 and Parl Deb (1843) 67, cc 22, 945. 15. Select Committee on Printed Papers, Second Report, HC 397 (1845) p vi. 16. CJ (1845) 642; Parl Deb (1845) 80, c 1097 and ibid (1845) 81, c 1208. 17. CJ (1845) 563. 18. HC 39 (1847) p 164. 19. (1884) 12 QBD 271. For the aspects of this case regarding the right of each House to be the sole judge of the lawfulness of its own proceedings, and the position of criminal acts in Parliament, see para 11.15 ff and below. 20. CJ (1883) 332. 21. [1883–84] 12 QBD 271. For other aspects of this case, see para 11.16. The case was commented on by the Committee of Privileges, HC 365 (1986–87) para 29. 22. See, for example, Stephen J: ‘It seems to me that, if we were to attempt to erect ourselves into a Court of Appeal from the House of Commons, we should consult neither the public interest the interests of parliament and the constitution, nor our own dignity. We should provoke a conflict between the House of Commons and this Court, which in itself would be a great evil; and, even upon the most improbable supposition of their acquiescence in our adverse decision, an appeal would lie from that decision to the Court of Appeal, and thence to the House of Lords, which would thus become the judge in the last resort of the powers and privileges of the House of Commons.’ Bradlaugh v Gossett [1884] 12 QBD 271.

Early and mid-twentieth century 16.4Many subsequent cases had their origin in the desire to determine the proper limits of the statutory phrase ‘proceedings in Parliament’, some of them with a particular concern for what is internal to Parliament in the context of its claim to exclusive cognizance (paras 11.15 –11.18 ). In general, the judges have taken the view that when a matter is a proceeding of the House, beginning and terminating within its own walls, it is obviously outside the jurisdiction of the courts,1 unless criminal acts are involved. Equally clearly, if a proceeding of the House results in action affecting the rights of persons exercisable outside the House, the person who published the proceedings or the servant who executed the order (for example) will be within the jurisdiction of the courts, who may inquire whether the act complained of is duly covered by the order, and whether the privilege claimed by the House does, as pleaded, justify the act of the person who executed the order. The boundary lines were not so clear in practice. In Bradlaugh v Gosset it was decided that if the House of Commons ‘is—as for certain purposes and in relation to certain persons it certainly is—the absolute judge of its own privileges, it is obvious that it can for these purposes and in relation to these persons practically change or practically supersede the law’. Stephen J went on to say that even if the House had wrongly interpreted a statute prescribing rights within its own walls, the courts had no power to interfere, though he limited the rights on which the Commons could interpret the statute as those such as sitting and voting. He contrasted those with ‘rights to be exercised out of and independently of the House’ in which the court must be arbiter.2 In 1899, in a case involving the sale of liquor within the Palace of Westminster under the direction of the relevant committee of the House of Commons,3 when it was contended that the general licensing law did not apply, Lord Russell CJ remarked that he was ‘very far from saying that no offence had been committed … [and was] not at all impressed by the argument that, because many of the provisions of the Licensing Acts cannot be invoked with reference to the House of Commons, therefore the Acts do not apply’. It would not, however, have been fair to hold the servant of the select committee who sold the liquor responsible. The Lord Chief Justice therefore called for legislation ‘to legalise and regulate what is going on’. The judgment in the case of R v Graham Campbell, ex p Herbert4 was along quite different lines. The court concluded that the sale of alcohol by servants of a committee of the Commons within the Palace fell within the scope of the internal affairs of that House and therefore within its privileges, so that no court of law had jurisdiction to interfere (see paras 11.15 –11.17 ). Lord Hewart CJ took a much more liberal view of the proper extent of the internal proceedings of the House than his predecessor in 1899. In the matter complained of the House was acting collectively and ‘any tribunal might well feel, on the authorities, an invincible reluctance to interfere’. Avory J added that to subject the House of Commons to the Licensing Acts would be to take away its right to regulate its own internal procedure.5 The select committee which reviewed the applicability of the Official Secrets Acts to Members of Parliament in 1938–396 (see para 13.12 ) acknowledged that the prosecution of a Member for an act which the House considered within his privilege as a Member would itself be a breach of privilege, and that all parties concerned in the prosecution would be at risk for proceedings for contempt. The committee commented, however, that ‘this would not solve the difficulty’, and quoted with implicit approval evidence given by the Attorney General that the courts would be likely to give a broad construction to the term ‘proceedings in Parliament’ in the Bill of Rights, ‘having regard to the great fundamental purpose which freedom of speech served’.

Footnotes 1. Lord Denman CJ summed up this view by saying that ‘all the privileges that can be required for the energetic discharge’ of the Commons' trust are ‘conceded without a murmur or doubt’ (Stockdale v Hansard (1839) 112 ER 1112 at 1156, 1185, 1203; Bradlaugh v Gosset [1883–84] 12 QBD 274; British Railways Board v Pickin [1974] 1 All ER 609, esp the judgment of Lord Simon of Glaisdale). See also para 16.10. 2. [1883–84] 12 QBD 271. 3. Williamson v Norris [1899] 1 QB 7–15. 4. [1935] 1 KB 594. 5. [1935] 1 KB 594 at 594 ff, esp 602, 603. In R v Chaytor [2010] UKSC 52, [2011] 1 AC 684, [2011] 1 All ER 805, at para 78, Lord Phillips thought that a presumption that without express provision statutes did not apply to Parliament within the Palace of Westminster was one which was ‘open to question’. In 2014, each House agreed a resolution that ‘legislation creating individual rights which could impinge on the activities of the House should in future contain express provision to this effect’; Votes and Proceedings, 8 May 2014; LJ (2013–14) p 1803; see also para 16.26. 6. HC 101 (1938–39).

The Strauss case and the reference to the Judicial Committee 16.5In the first of the important cases in the later twentieth century the House of Commons came to a significant conclusion about the limits of the phrase (and the protection afforded by) ‘proceedings in Parliament’. The Committee of Privileges in 1957 ‘adopted and followed’ their predecessor's arguments and reasoning in considering whether a Member was protected by privilege against an action for defamation arising from a letter written to a Minister, relating to a prospective parliamentary question.1 The Committee noted that the Attorney General's opinion which the 1938–39 select committee on the Official Secrets Act cited (see above) was given in the context of the possible consideration by the courts of: ‘cases … of communications between one Member and another or between a Member and a Minister, so closely related to some matter pending in or expected to be brought before the House that, though they do not take place in the Chamber or a committeeroom, they form part of the business of the House.’ The House had agreed with that committee's report,2 and so the 1957 Committee concluded that the letter in question was a proceeding. The House, however, rejected these conclusions.3 A further novelty arising from this case was the action of the Commons (on the advice of the Privileges Committee) in voluntarily referring to a court—the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—the question of law ‘whether the House of Commons would be acting contrary to the Parliamentary Privilege Act 1770 if it treated the issue of a writ against a Member of Parliament in respect of a speech or proceeding by him in Parliament as a breach of its privileges’.4 The Judicial Committee replied to the question posed with a clear negative, concluding that the Act (and a number of preceding statutes (see para 12.5, fn 22)) apparently barring a plea of privilege of Parliament applied to proceedings against Members only in respect of their debts and acts as individuals and not in respect of their conduct in Parliament.5

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Committee of Privileges, Fifth Report, HC 305 (1956–57). CJ (1938–39) 480. CJ (1957–58) 260. CJ (1957–58) 42. Cmnd 431, 1958. A dissenting judgment, which would have permitted writs for defamation in respect of speeches in Parliament to be issued, but then struck out as soon as it appeared to the court that the action was in respect of a proceeding in Parliament is set out in (1985) Public Law 83–92. The dissenting judge averred: ‘The Bill of Rights is directed to the courts of law. It directs them not to question proceedings in Parliament. The Parliamentary Privilege Act 1770 is directed to the two Houses … It directs them not to seek to impeach or delay actions in the courts. If each of these two … obey these mandates, there will be no conflict. The right of every Englishman to seek redress in the courts of law is preserved inviolate without interference by the House of Commons. The right of Members of Parliament to freedom of speech is preserved intact because the courts will refuse to entertain an action which questions it.’

Bilston Corporation v Wolverhampton Corporation 16.6In 1942, a court refused to grant an injunction to a plaintiff to restrain a third party from opposing a private bill in Parliament, in accordance with an agreement previously reached between the parties. The court held that it had jurisdiction to grant or withhold such an injunction, but the instant case was not one in which the court believed it ought to interfere, since the questions of public policy involved were more suitable for determination by Parliament than by the courts. The ratification of the agreement some years previously by Parliament making the contractual obligation a statutory one in no way altered the point.1

Footnotes 1. Bilston Corpn v Wolverhampton Corpn [1942] 2 All ER 447.

Dingle v Associated Newspapers 16.7It was held in 1960 that to impugn the validity of a report of a select committee of the House of Commons is contrary to article IX of the Bill of Rights. In an action for libel raised against a newspaper,1 it was decided that those who published such a report bona fide and without malice were entitled to the protection of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 (see para 13.6 ) and that it was not relevant to the action for the plaintiff to comment on the select committee's report or on the proceedings leading to its publication.

Footnotes 1. Dingle v Associated Newspapers Ltd [1960] 2 QB 405.

Stourton v Stourton 16.8In 1962, a judicial decision re-opened the long-standing tensions in the relative authority of the Houses and the courts. In arriving at the conclusion that parliamentary privilege protected a peer from arrest on a writ of attachment the purpose of which was to compel performance of acts required by civil process rather than to punish for contempt of a criminal court, Scarman J said that while Parliament would consider the nature of the process and all the circumstances of the case before deciding whether to regard the arrest of a Member of either House as an invasion of privilege, he, sitting in the High Court of Justice, need not take the law to be applied only from the practice of the House (of Lords): ‘I think that I have to look not only to the practice of the House but also to the common law as declared in judicial decisions in order to determine in this particular case whether privilege arises, and if so, its scope and effect’.1

Footnotes 1. Stourton v Stourton [1963] 1 All ER 606 esp at 608.

Church of Scientology v Johnson-Smith 16.9In 1972, in an action for damages, in which the plaintiff sought to prove malice and rebut the defendant's plea of fair comment by reading extracts from the Official Report of the Commons, the court held that the scope of parliamentary privilege was not limited to the exclusion of any cause of action in respect of what was said or done in the House, but extended to the examination of proceedings in the House for the purpose of supporting a cause of action. This was so even though the cause of action itself arose out of something done outside the House.1 Some 20 years later, however, the House of Lords in its judicial capacity considered further the breadth of certain aspects of this judgment.2

Footnotes 1. Church of Scientology of California v Johnson-Smith [1972] 1 QB 522. 2. In Pepper v Hart [1993] 1 All ER 42 Lord Browne-Wilkinson, commenting on the earlier judgment, observed that it was rightly held that introducing as proof of malice evidence of what the defendant said in the House of Commons would be contrary to article IX of the Bill of Rights. However, ‘to suggest that in no circumstances could the speeches be looked at other than for the purposes of seeing what was said on a particular date [would] have to be understood in the context of the issues which arose in that case’. Since these issues included a charge that the defendant acted improperly in Parliament, article IX was infringed.

British Railways Board v Pickin 16.10The 1973–74 case of Pickin (see para 11.16 )1 demonstrated that, though the courts continued to be careful not to act so as to cause conflict with Parliament, there were two views in the judiciary about where the boundary between the concerns of each should be drawn. The Court of Appeal held that the question whether a court was competent to go behind a private (but not a public) Act to investigate whether it had been properly obtained was a triable issue. If on investigation an abuse was shown to have occurred, the court might be under a duty to report the matter to Parliament. Lord Denning MR stated that: ‘it is the function of the court to see that the procedure of Parliament itself is not abused, and that undue advantage is not taken of it. In so doing the court is not trespassing on the jurisdiction of Parliament itself. It is acting in aid of Parliament and, I might add, in aid of justice.’ The House of Lords in its judicial capacity took an entirely opposite view.2 The function of the court was to consider and apply the enactments of Parliament. Accordingly it was not lawful to impugn the validity of the statute by seeking to establish that Parliament, in passing it, was misled by fraud or otherwise. Any investigation into the manner in which Parliament had exercised its function would or might result in a conflict. The Lords upheld clear authorities from the nineteenth century onwards that (for example): ‘all that a court of justice can look to is the parliamentary roll. They see that an Act has passed both Houses of Parliament and that it has received the Royal Assent, and no court of justice can inquire into the manner in which it was introduced into Parliament, what was done previously to its being introduced, or what passed in Parliament during the various stages of its progress.’3 Lord Reid concluded that, for a century or more, both Parliament and the courts had been careful not to act so as to cause conflict between them. He would support the action moved for by the respondent only if compelled to do so by clear authority: ‘but it appears … that the whole trend of authority for over a century is clearly against permitting any such investigation’. One of the reasons given by Lord Simon of Glaisdale for concurring in the judgment was that any other conclusion would impeach proceedings in Parliament, contrary to the Bill of Rights,4 and he instanced the sub judice rule as a parliamentary means of avoiding conflict, just as the courts had been careful to exclude evidence which might amount to infringement of parliamentary privilege.5

Footnotes 1. British Railways Board v Pickin [1974] 1 All ER 609. For proceedings in the Court of Appeal, see Pickin v British Railways Board [1973] 1 QB 219 at 230. 2. It was said that the case on which the Court of Appeal had in large part founded its decision (Mackenzie v Stewart (1752) 9 Morison 7443 and 18 ibid 15459, and (1754) 1 Pat App 578 HL (Sc)) was not sufficient to support its conclusion, being most probably a decision on the construction of an Act. Lord Wilberforce expressed the further view that even if Mackenzie v Stewart had contained a clear ratio decidendi, it would be difficult to sustain it against the chain of explicit later decisions ([1974] 1 All ER 609 at 622–23). 3. [1974] AC 765 at 786–87, a quotation from Edinburgh & Dalkeith Railway Co v Wauchope (1842) 8 ER 279 at 285. Other cases reinforcing this line of argument are Earl of Shrewsbury v Scott (1859) 141 ER 350; Waterford, Wexford, Wicklow and Dublin Railway Co v Logan (1850) 14 QB 672; Lee v Bude and Torrington Junction Railway Co (1871) LR 6 CP 576; and two Privy Council cases, Labrador Co v The Queen [1893] AC 104 and Hoanie Te Heuheu Tukino v Aotea District Maori Land Board [1941] AC 308, [1941] 2 All ER 93, PC. More recently see also Martin v O'Sullivan [1982] STC 416 and a Commonwealth case, Narroi Shire Council v Attorney-General of New South Wales [1980] 2 NSWLR 639. 4. [1974] AC 765 at 799–800. Cf the reaffirmation of the authority of article IX of the Bill of Rights in the Commons resolution giving leave for reference to the Official Report to be made in court proceedings, without a preliminary petition in individual cases (para 13.15 ). In the context of the desire of the courts to avoid conflict with Parliament, the observations of Pearson J in Dingle v Associated Newspapers Ltd [1960] 2 QB 410 may be noticed: ‘The courts desire to co-operate as far as possible with the parliamentary authorities in matters where there may be some debateable ground on which a conflict might arise’; and see para 16.17, fn 3. 5. See for example, Dingle v Associated Newspapers Ltd [1960] 2 QB 405. See also an Australian case, Comalco Ltd v ABC (1983) 50 ACTR 1 at 5 and (1985) 64 ACTR 1 at 58, where it was held that a court complied with the Bill of Rights by ensuring that the substance of what was said in Parliament was not the subject of any submission or inference. The court upheld the privileges of Parliament not by a rule as to the admissibility of evidence, but by its control over the pleadings and proceedings in court. In Fairfold Properties Ltd v Exmouth Docks Co Ltd (1990) TLR 660 it was held that an order from a court causing the promoters of a private bill to write to the authorities of the Commons seeking to withdraw the bill which they had presented was not interference with the proceedings of Parliament. It could not deprive Parliament (which might or might not accede to the request) of the opportunity to consider the matter.

Anderson Strathclyde 16.11In the case of R v Secretary of State for Trade, ex p Anderson Strathclyde plc in 1983,1 it was held by the Divisional Court that a report in the Official Report of the House of Commons of what had been said and done in Parliament could not be used to support a ground for relief in proceedings for judicial review in respect of something which occurred out of Parliament. Dunn LJ concluded that, were it otherwise, ‘the court would have to do more than take note of the fact that a certain statement was made in the House on a certain date. It would have to consider the statement … with a view to determining what was [its] true meaning … and what were the proper inferences to be drawn from [it]. This … would be contrary to article IX of the Bill of Rights. It would be doing what Blackstone2 said was not to be done … Moreover, it would be an invasion by the court of the right of every Member of Parliament to free speech in the House’. The Appellate Committee of the House of Lords would come to reconsider this decision in Pepper v Hart3 (see below).

Footnotes 1. [1983] 2 All ER 233, esp at 239b. 2. Sir W Blackstone Commentaries (17th edn, 1830) i, p 63: ‘whatever matter arises concerning either House of Parliament ought to be examined, discussed and adjudged in that House to which it relates, and not elsewhere’. 3. Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593, [1993] 1 All ER 43.

Zircon 16.12When, in 1987, the Attorney General sought an injunction against a number of Members of the House of Commons with the intention of preventing them from showing a film in the House until the House had an opportunity of deciding whether or not the showing of the film should be allowed, the court refused the application, apparently on the ground (which was not set out in writing) that the matter could and should be under the control of the House authorities, even in advance of a formal decision by the House.1

Footnotes 1. Report of the Committee of Privileges, HC 365 (1986–87). Among the conclusions of the Committee, which considered the issue partly in the context of the connection of the film with matters of national security, was that any restrictions which might be imposed on the disclosure in the House of such information should be imposed by the House and not by the courts (paras 47–48). In the event, however, the Committee found it unnecessary to recommend any changes in the privileges or procedures of the House relating to national security (para 59).

The Australian Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 16.13In Australia, article IX of the Bill of Rights applies to the Commonwealth Parliament by virtue of section 49 of the Australian constitution. In 1985, the issue was raised in connection with the case of R v Murphy.1 Parties in that case were permitted to make use of evidence given (some of it in private and unpublished) to committees of the legislature and witnesses were cross-examined on the evidence they had given to such committees. The court held that the provisions of article IX should be interpreted in the (restricted) sense that the exercise of the freedom of speech given to Members and witnesses may not be challenged by way of court or similar process having legal consequences for such persons because they had exercised that freedom. In other words, article IX was restricted to preventing parliamentary proceedings from being the cause of an action: it did not inhibit proceedings from being used in support of an action. The effect of the judgment was substantially reversed by the Australian Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 which in general restored on a statutory basis the previous understanding of the meaning of article IX, defined ‘proceedings in Parliament’ (see paras 13.10 –13.15 ) and made certain provisions regarding the extent to which courts might concern themselves with such proceedings. In 1995, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council concluded that the Australian Act ‘declares what had been previously regarded as the effect of article IX’ and the relevant subsection of s 16 of that Act (see para 3.11, fn 5) ‘is the true principle to be applied’.2

Footnotes 1. R v Murphy [1986] 5 NSWLR 18. 2. Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd [1995] 1 AC 321 at 333, [1994] 3 All ER 407 at 414.

Pickstone v Freemans 16.14An indication that the courts were moving towards a relaxation of the rule excluding parliamentary proceedings arose in 1988 in Pickstone v Freemans1 concerning an appeal against a ruling from an employment tribunal that female workers were not entitled to rely on provisions within the Equal Pay Act 1970 to secure equal pay settlements with male employees engaged in work of equal value. The provisions the appellants sought to rely on were inserted into the Equal Pay Act by Regulations seeking to give effect to rulings of the European Court of Justice, and were consequently made under powers within s 2 of the European Communities Act 1972. To assist in interpretation, the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords consulted the speech of the Minister during the debate which preceded the approval of the Regulations. Lord Templeman quoted the Minister's remarks from the Official Report at length, stating that ‘it is clear that the construction which I have placed upon the Regulations corresponds to the intentions of the Government in introducing the Regulations’.2 Lord Keith of Kinkel stated in endorsement of this approach that the ‘draft Regulations were not subject to the Parliamentary process of consideration and amendment in Committee, as a Bill would have been. In these circumstances and in the context of s 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 I consider it to be entirely legitimate for the purpose of ascertaining the intention of Parliament to take into account the terms in which the draft was presented by the responsible Minister and which formed the basis of its acceptance’.3

Footnotes 1. Pickstone v Freemans Plc [1989] AC 66, [1988] 2 All ER 803, [1988] 3 WLR 265. 2. Pickstone v Freemans Plc [1989] AC 66, at 122. 3. Pickstone v Freemans Plc [1989] AC 66, at 112.

Ex parte Brind 16.15A further indication of relaxation arose in 1991 in Ex p Brind.1 The applicants in the case sought a judicial review of directives issued by the Government to broadcasters under powers extended by the Broadcasting Act 1981, for the purpose of preventing the broadcast of words spoken by individuals associated with groups proscribed under anti-terrorism legislation. Extracts from the Official Report were put into evidence by the Government in justification of issuing the directives and were quoted in the judgement of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords in identifying the reasons behind Ministers exercising their discretion. The court did not expressly discuss the possible application of parliamentary privilege, as it was not raised by any of the parties.

Footnotes 1. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Brind [1991] 1 AC 696, [1991] 1 All ER 720, [1991] 2 WLR 588.

Pepper v Hart 16.16In what became the seminal case concerning the admissibility of parliamentary debates as an aid to statutory construction, the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords took the opportunity in Pepper v Hart1 in 1993 to re-examine the exclusion. The case concerned the taxable status of a concessionary fees scheme operated by a public school, and turned on the interpretation of provisions of the Finance Act 1976. It came to the court's attention that the ambiguity within the statute on the specific issue before the court could be resolved with reference to extracts from the Official Report as the 1976 Act proceeded through its legislative stages in Parliament. The Appellate Committee sought to hear argument on whether the use of parliamentary proceedings as an aid to statutory construction would infringe article IX. The Attorney General appeared for the Crown to address the privilege issue, submitting that a relaxation of the rule would constitute such an infringement and could have a significant effect on proceedings in Parliament. The Appellate Committee examined precedents including Pickstone and Brind. Lord Browne-Wilkinson stated that Pickstone represented a ‘major inroad into the exclusionary rule’. His Lordship also considered that the Attorney General's case was significantly weakened by the fact that the Crown had not objected to parliamentary materials being brought into consideration in Anderson Strathclyde or in Brind. In Brind, the Crown had in fact invited the court to look at the Official Report to demonstrate the propriety of the responsible Minister's actions. References to the Official Report for the purposes of judicial review and for the purposes of statutory construction were held to be indistinguishable. In light of this, Lord Browne-Wilkinson considered that the exclusionary rule which had been most recently applied in Anderson Strathclyde was wrongly decided and in his judgement ‘the use of clear ministerial statements by the court as a guide to the construction of ambiguous legislation would not contravene article 9’. It was held that the exclusionary rule should be relaxed to permit reference to parliamentary materials where (a) legislation is ambiguous or obscure, or leads to an absurdity; (b) the material relied upon consists of one or more statements by a Minister or other promoter of the bill together if necessary with such other parliamentary material as is necessary to understand such statements and their effect; and (c) the statements relied upon are clear.

Footnotes 1. Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart [1993] AC 593, [1993] 1 All ER 42.

Ex parte Rees-Mogg 16.17In 1994, an application came before Queen's Bench Division in which the applicant sought review of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary's decision to ratify the Treaty of European Union signed at Maastricht in February 1992.1 There had been much debate in both Houses on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill 1992, which made amendments to United Kingdom law consequent on the Treaty, and the Speaker had publicly indicated that the Commons ‘was entitled to expect … that the Bill of Rights [would] be required to be fully respected by all those appearing before the court’.2 In the event, both the court and the parties were conscious of ‘the need to confine judicial review within its proper sphere … the legality of government actions and intentions … The issues in the present case are as clearly within the proper sphere of judicial review, as questions of policy are within the sphere of Parliament’.3

Footnotes 1. R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex p Rees-Mogg [1994] 2 QB 552. 2. HC Deb (1992–93) 229, cc 351–52. 3. R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex p Rees-Mogg [1994] QB 552 at 561. See also the comments of Sir John Donaldson MR in R v Her Majesty's Treasury, ex p Smedley [1985] QB 657 at 666: ‘It … behoves the courts to be ever sensitive to the paramount need to refrain from trespassing on the province of Parliament or, so far as this can be avoided, even appearing to do so … I would hope and expect that Parliament would be similarly sensitive to the need to refrain from trespassing on the province of the courts' and R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex p World Development Movement Ltd [1995] 1 All ER 611. See further para 16.10, fn 4.

Prebble v TV New Zealand 16.18Two cases in the 1990s raised the hitherto unexplored situation where Members wished to demonstrate in actions in the courts that what they were alleged to have said or done in the House was true and honourable. The first such case, Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd (see also paras 12.1, 13.10, 13.11 fn 5), arose in New Zealand, where, as in the United Kingdom, article IX of the Bill of Rights is part of domestic law. Among the allegations in the case were that statements had been made in the New Zealand House of Representatives which were misleading, and that Members had procured the passing of a bill through that House as part of the implementation of a conspiracy. The lower court in New Zealand struck out these allegations, because they could not be judicially inquired into without infringing the Bill of Rights. The New Zealand Court of Appeal agreed, but ordered a stay unless and until the privilege involved was waived by the House of Representatives. That House then denied any power to effect such a waiver (see para 12.1 ). When the matter came before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,1 their Lordships rebutted arguments that article IX operated to protect statements made in proceedings in Parliament only where they might have legal consequences for the Member who made them.2 They also repelled the contention that rules excluding parliamentary material did not apply when the action in question was brought by a Member of Parliament.3 It seemed to the Judicial Committee that the privilege protected by article IX was that of Parliament itself, which could not be determined by an individual Member. The Committee therefore concluded that: ‘parties to litigation, by whomsoever commenced, cannot bring into question anything said or done in the House by suggesting (whether by direct evidence, cross-examination, inference or submission) that the actions or words were inspired by improper motives or were untrue or misleading. Such matters lie entirely within the jurisdiction of the House, subject to any statutory exception ….’4 However, the Committee also asserted that this principle did not exclude all references in court proceedings to what had taken place in Parliament, and concluded that ‘if the defendant wishes … to allege the occurrence of events or the saying of certain words in Parliament without any accompanying allegation of impropriety or any other questioning there is no objection to that course’.5

Footnotes 1. [1995] 1 AC 321, [1994] 3 All ER 407. 2. This was one of the arguments which the court found persuasive in the Australian case R v Murphy [1986] 5 NSWLR 18. The Judicial Committee were of the opinion that, whatever might be true of Australian law at the time, the judge in that case ‘was not correct so far as the rest of the Commonwealth was concerned’, because the judgment was in conflict with a long line of judicial dicta, was based on too narrow a construction of article IX, and could lead to exactly the conflict between Parliament and the courts which both had long been at pains to avoid ([1994] 3 All ER 414–15). 3. Such a conclusion was reached by the South Australian Supreme Court in Wright and Advertiser Newspapers Ltd v Lewis (1989–90) 53 SASR 416, esp at 426. It was held in that case that those who published an allegedly defamatory statement should not be at risk of damages for imputations which they claimed were true but which they could not prove to be so by reason of parliamentary privilege. Such privilege should not therefore inhibit a defendant in an action which had been instituted by a Member. The rule that a Member cannot be compelled to answer questions about proceedings did not—the court averred—extend to an action brought by the Member. The Privy Council in Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd [1995] 1 AC 321 at 335, [1994] 3 All ER 407 at 415–16 could not, however, accept that the fact that the Member who made an allegedly defamatory statement was the initiator of court proceedings could affect the question whether article IX was infringed. For an example of a further Commonwealth case in which the courts ruled on an attempt to use the Official Report to prove more than what was said in Parliament, see Australian Broadcasting Commission v Chatterton, Chapman and Chatterton (1987) 46 SASR 1 esp at 18, 30 ff and 38. 4. [1995] 1 AC 321 at 337, [1994] 3 All ER 407 at 417–18. 5. AC 321 at 337.

Defamation Act 1996 and other attempts to make statutory exceptions to privilege 16.19Just such a statutory exception to article IX as was referred to by the Judicial Committee was shortly afterwards made in the United Kingdom, following a case in which the plaintiff, a Member, claimed that a newspaper article was defamatory, in that it alleged corruption by him in the discharge of his parliamentary responsibilities, and had led to his resignation as a Minister.1 It was claimed for the defence that the issues could not be inquired into without infringing the privileges of Parliament, and they asked for the action to be stayed. After hearing argument, the judge, May J, felt himself constrained by the authorities, especially Prebble, to grant a stay of proceedings. It was against this background that Parliament enacted s 13 of the Defamation Act 1996. The scope of the section was expressly limited to defamation proceedings, and applied to both Houses. In such actions, where the conduct of a person in or in relation to proceedings in Parliament was in issue, the protection of any enactment or rule of law which—in an echo of the Bill of Rights which is not itself mentioned—prevented proceedings in Parliament from being impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament could be waived by that person. When protection had been waived, any such enactment or rule of law was not to apply to prevent evidence being given, questions asked, or statements, submissions, or findings being made about that person's conduct. The waiver by one person of protection did not affect its operation in relation to another person who had not waived it. The section did not operate so as to remove the protection from legal liability in respect of words spoken or things done in the course of, or for the purposes of or incidental to proceedings in Parliament. Outside the limited area of the waiver, therefore, the protection afforded to Members, officers and those who had business in Parliament remained.2 The 1999 Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege drew attention to criticisms made of the Defamation Act 1996, s 13 and recommended its repeal. However, it also recommended that each House should be empowered to waive article IX of the Bill of Rights for any court proceedings (not limited to defamation) where the words spoken or the acts done in proceedings in Parliament would not expose the speaker of the words or the doer of the acts to any legal liability.3 (See para 12.10 regarding proposals for waiver of article IX in corruption cases.) Following this, the Government sought to introduce further limited exceptions through statute, although these were all ultimately unsuccessful due to parliamentary opposition. The draft Corruption Bill published in 2003 contained a clause which would have provided an exception to privilege in relation to new criminal offences within the draft bill. The Government at the time sought to rely on the findings of the 1999 Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege to justify the clause. The Joint Committee examining the draft bill considered that the clause as drafted was overly broad and recommended that it should be narrowed to ensure that the exception only applied where a Member of either House was a defendant or codefendant in a corruption case.4 After reflecting on a number of other criticisms by the Joint Committee, the Government decided not to proceed with the legislation. In 2009, the Government introduced the Parliamentary Standards Bill containing clauses which would have waived privilege to ensure that evidence would be admissible in proceedings against Members for offences within the bill concerning fraudulent claims for parliamentary allowances. In Committee of the whole House, one clause implementing this scheme was removed by agreement and a second was removed on division.5 In the same session, a draft Bribery Bill was published, containing an exception to privilege of narrow scope based on the recommendations of the Joint Committee on the Draft Corruption Bill of 2003. The Joint Committee on the Draft Bribery Bill concluded that the clause would be inconsistent with the broader approach that the Government had taken in the Parliamentary Standards Bill. Consistency in legislating around matters of privilege was considered to be important and the Joint Committee concluded that the most appropriate way of achieving this would be to return to the recommendations of the 1999 Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and consider a Parliamentary Privilege Act. The Joint Committee on the Draft Bribery Bill accordingly recommended that the clause relating to privilege be removed.6 The Government in its response accepted this recommendation7 and the Bribery Act 2010 was enacted without any provisions concerning parliamentary privilege. The 2013 Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege revisited s 13 of the Defamation Act 1996, supporting the conclusions of the predecessor 1999 Joint Committee that the section should be repealed, but disagreeing with the 1999 Joint Committee's recommendation on its replacement with a power of waiver for each House. The view was taken in 2013 that no persuasive case had been made to justify such a power being extended, whether restricted to defamation cases or not. It was also felt that such a power would create uncertainty and undermine the fundamental principle of freedom of speech in Parliament.8 The Government in its response accepted this recommendation, agreeing that repealing s 13 would be the wisest course of action and stating an intention to do so when parliamentary time and a suitable legislative opportunity allowed.9 The opportunity to repeal s 13 was taken in the Deregulation Act 2015, where the Government accepted a backbench Commons amendment to repeal the section.10

Footnotes 1. Hamilton v The Guardian (1995) Times, 8 June. See also Allason v Haines (1995) TLR 438, in which Owen J granted a stay in circumstances where, in order to defend a libel action, it would have been necessary to bring evidence of a Member's behaviour in the House of Commons, and such a defence would be in breach of the privilege of Parliament; while to enforce parliamentary privilege but refuse a stay would, the judge considered, be unjust to the defendants. 2. For an account of a case enabled by this provision, see Hamilton v Al Fayed [2001] 1 AC 395, [1999] 3 All ER 317; see also Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), pp 300–1. 3. HL 43-I, HC 214-I (1998–99) para 89. 4. Joint Committee on the Draft Corruption Bill, Report of Session 2002–03, Draft Corruption Bill, HL 157, HC 705. 5. CJ (2008–09) 489–90; HC Deb (1 July 2009) 485, c 387. 6. Joint Committee on the Draft Bribery Bill, First Report of Session 2008–09, Draft Bribery Bill, HL 115-I, HC 430-I, Ch 13. 7. HM Government, Government Response to the conclusions and recommendations of the Joint Committee Report on the Draft Bribery Bill, Cm 7748, November 2009, pp 18–19. 8. Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, Report of Session 2013–14, Parliamentary Privilege, HL 30, HC 100, paras 163–70. 9. HM Government, Government Response to the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, Cm 8771, December 2013, p 4.

10. HC Deb (14 May 2014) 580, c 796.

A v The United Kingdom 16.20In 2002, the European Court of Human Rights considered a case which related to a central purpose of article IX of the Bill of Rights, namely to prevent Members' speeches being subject to actions for defamation. A Member referred in a critical manner to a named constituent in the course of debate, and the constituent appealed to the European Court of Human Rights on the grounds that the parliamentary privilege of freedom of speech violated article 6 of the European Convention, namely that ‘In the determination of his civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing … by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law’, and article 8, on respect for private and family life except as necessary for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The court did not decide whether article 6 was applicable (which turned on whether parliamentary privilege removed the entitlement to a hearing rather than the civil right not to be defamed), on the grounds that the issues would be the same as under article 8. However, the court ruled, by a majority, that parliamentary privilege did not impose a disproportionate restriction on the right of access to a court, or on respect for private and family life, and that articles 6 and 8 were accordingly not violated.1

Footnotes 1. A v United Kingdom (Application 35373/97) (2002) 36 EHRR 917, ECtHR. See also Malcolm Jack ‘A v The UK in the European Court of Human Rights [2002]’ The Table 73 (2003), pp 31–36.

Jackson v Attorney-General 16.21The appellants in this 2005 case sought to argue that the Hunting Act 2004 was not an Act of Parliament and therefore had no legal effect. Their position was that the Hunting Act had been passed under the provisions of the Parliament Act 1949. That 1949 Act itself was not an Act of Parliament because it was passed under the provisions of the Parliament Act 1911. This latter argument rested on assertions that legislation passed under the 1911 Act was in a different category from Acts of Parliament passed by both Houses and that the purposes for which the 1911 Act could be used were constrained, for example that it could not be used to amend itself or to enlarge the powers provided in it. In the leading judgment, Lord Bingham of Cornhill first considered whether the case was appropriate for a court to consider. He recognised that, had the case concerned a question of parliamentary procedure, it could have been resolved only by parliamentary inquiry, but, in his view, since instead it centred on whether the 1949 Act and thus the Hunting Act 2004 were ‘enacted legislation’ and that question depended on the statutory interpretation of the 1911 Act, the courts could, and, in the absence of any other appropriate body, should, resolve it.1 On the question itself, Lord Bingham rejected the proposition that the 1911 Act created a new category of legislation: ‘The 1911 Act did, of course, effect an important constitutional change, but the change lay not in authorising a new form of sub-primary legislation but in creating a new way of enacting primary legislation’.2

Footnotes 1. Jackson v Her Majesty's Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56, [2005] 4 All ER 1253, para 27. 2. [2005] UKHL 56, para 24.

Reliance on parliamentary proceedings 16.22Since Pepper v Hart and Prebble, the courts have been required to rule on the admissibility of a range of parliamentary materials and publications with increasing frequency. Judicial decisions that have followed have in certain cases exhibited a divergence of approach that could represent a challenge to principles that were previously well established. In his written evidence to the 2013 Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, the Clerk of the Parliaments identified ‘inroads’ being made by the courts into the former understanding of how proceedings in Parliament might be questioned or impeached.1 The Clerk of the House of Commons stated in his evidence on the use of parliamentary proceedings in court that he had observed an ‘encroachment of the courts into territory they would have previously avoided’.2 These observations were accompanied by evidence that instances of the Speaker or the Clerk of the Parliaments having to intervene in court proceedings to assert privilege where parliamentary proceedings had been relied upon had been increasing for some time.3 The courts have themselves remarked that in public law cases the practice of parties placing voluminous quantities of parliamentary material before a court has become ‘relatively commonplace’.4 The principles set out in Pepper v Hart and in Prebble received further judicial examination in Toussaint v A-G of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.5 In this case, the Judicial Committee allowed the appellant to rely on statements made by the Prime Minister in the House of Assembly as evidence of unlawful motivation in a case of compulsory purchase. The Judicial Committee's decision was founded on two arguments. The first was that the House of Lords had on a number of occasions stated that use could be made of ministerial statements in Parliament in judicial review proceedings to explain conduct occurring outside Parliament. This approach was endorsed by the 1999 Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege.6 The second was that the Prime Minister's statement was relied on simply for its explanation of the motivation of the executive's action outside the House. It was not being questioned or challenged. The Speaker intervened in three cases in the High Court in 2007 and 2008. In the first case (R (on the application of Bradley) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions ),7 the judge distinguished between reliance on evidence given to a select committee and reliance on a report of a select committee. In refusing to take either into account, he stated that the evidence was inadmissible because reliance on it would inhibit freedom of speech in Parliament and thus contravene article IX. The report itself was inadmissible on the grounds that the courts and Parliament were both astute to recognise their respective roles and it was therefore for the courts, not the select committee, to decide questions of law. In the second and third cases (R (Federation of Tour Operators) v Her Majesty's Treasury8 and Office of Government Commerce (OGC) v Information Commissioner ),9 the court expanded on the second point to state that in general the opinion of a parliamentary committee will be irrelevant to the issues before a court because of ‘the nature of the judicial process, the independence of the judiciary and of its decisions and the respect that the legislative and judicial branches of government owe to each other’.10 Courts have nonetheless sought to depart from this exclusionary rule in more recent cases. The Age UK case11 involved the judicial review of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 on the grounds that they permitted employers a wider latitude to discriminate against employees on the grounds of age than was permitted by the European legislation that the Regulations sought to implement. Parliamentary material relating to the legislative history of the Regulations, including evidence presented to committees of both Houses of Parliament and resulting committee reports, was submitted in evidence. The Attorney General, supporting interventions on behalf of both Houses, submitted that it was constitutionally improper for the court to receive the record of evidence given by a witness to a parliamentary committee and the subsequent conclusions of the committee itself. The Administrative Court took the view in this case that there was: ‘no constitutional impediment to the court receiving the material that the parties and the intervenor seeks to place before it for the purpose of informing itself as to the statutory history, the relevant considerations that led to the formation of policy, the aim of the policy in promoting the Regulations, and the existence of factors that might be relevant to the assessment of whether the Regulations were proportionate in their derogation from the principle of equal treatment of the grounds of age’.12 Further cases have sought to take an expansive approach. In Pelling,13 a case concerning a challenge to a Legislative Reform Order that had proceeded through committees of both Houses, the parliamentary authorities succeeded at the preparatory stages of the case in preventing both parties from adducing parliamentary materials through written and oral submissions to the court. Parliamentary proceedings were nonetheless relied on at some length. In Gibraltar Betting,14 a case concerning a challenge of the lawfulness of a statutory scheme to regulate commercial gambling, Age UK was cited to allow reference to the reports of parliamentary committees that had conducted pre-legislative scrutiny of the statute in question. The court was assisted in coming to this view by the fact that it was the counsel for the defendant Secretary of State relying upon the existence of these reports. At first instance in both Reilly (No. 1)15 and Reilly (No. 2)16, cases concerning the lawfulness of a Government employment scheme, the findings of parliamentary committees and extracts from the Official Report were relied on by the parties and quoted in the judgments. The Supreme Court did the same in 2014 in Nicklinson.17 In the earlier Assange18 case from 2012, a Justice of the Supreme Court suggested that Parliament had been unintentionally misled in respect of the United Kingdom's international obligations when the Extradition Act 2003 was being legislated.19 There have at the same time been instances of cases which have moved back towards the exclusionary position. In Aspinall,20 the Administrative Court refused to allow counsel for an intervening party to rely on a report of a parliamentary committee, distinguishing the Supreme Court's usage in Nicklinson and returning to the position established in the OGC case that the opinion of parliamentary committees should be irrelevant to a court. In Reilly (No. 2),21 the Court of Appeal held that the judgment of the Administrative Court had in places transgressed article IX by reliance on the findings of a Lords Committee. The court took the opportunity to observe the difficult position that the courts are placed in by parties (including the Crown) who seek to place voluminous parliamentary materials before them, making the point at which parliamentary proceedings are being questioned difficult to observe. OGC was again cited as an indication of the correct approach. In Henley-Smith, the Administrative Court, after a comprehensive examination of the relevant case law, restated the importance of the criteria established in Pepper v Hart when relying on parliamentary material for the purposes of determining legislative intention, and held that using parliamentary materials to determine the scope of a discretionary statutory power was impermissible.22

The Nicklinson case has raised a further issue, which is how Parliament can convey a decision that the law does not need changing to the courts.

Footnotes 1. Written Evidence from David Beamish, Clerk of the Parliaments, Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege Oral and Written Evidence, HL 30, HC 100 (2013–14), p 157. 2. Written Evidence from Sir Robert Rogers KCB DL, Clerk of the House of Commons, Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege Oral and Written Evidence, HL 30, HC 100 (2013–14), p 149. 3. Oral evidence from Sir Malcolm Jack KCB, Former Clerk of the House of Commons, Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege Oral and Written Evidence, HL 30, HC 100 (2013–14), Q 66. 4. R (Reilly and another) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (No 2) [2016] EWCA Civ 413, [2017] QB 657, [2016] 3 WLR 1641, at para 109. The full quote is reproduced in fn 22 below. 5. Toussaint v Attorney General of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines) [2007] UKPC 48, [2008] 1 All ER 1, [2007] 1 WLR 2825. 6. HL 43-I, HC 214-I (1998–99) paras 46–55. 7. Bradley, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2007] EWHC 242 (Admin), [2009] QB 114, [2008] 3 WLR 1059. 8. Federation of Tour Operators, R (on the application of) v HM Treasury [2008] EWCA Civ 752, [2008] STC 2524. 9. Office of Government Commerce v Information Commissioner (Rev 1) [2008] EWHC 737 (Admin),  [2009] 3 WLR 627. 10. Office of Government Commerce v Information Commissioner (Rev 1) [2008] EWHC 737 (Admin), at para 48. In R (on the application of Jeffries) [2018] EWHC 3239 (Admin), the reason given for a ruling that a statement in the House of Commons did not give rise to a legitimate expectation was that it was ‘a statement of intent, made in an intensely political context and made not to a small or defined class but in effect to the public at large’ (para 78). The court implicitly recognised the distinction between political and legal accountability. 11. R (on the application of Age UK) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2009] EWHC 2336 (Admin), [2009] IRLR 1017. 12. [2009] EWHC 2336 (Admin), paras 50–59. 13. Pelling, R (on the application of) v Newham London Borough Council [2012] EWCA Civ 679. 14. Gibraltar Betting & Gaming Association Ltd v The Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport the Gambling Commission [2014] EWHC 3236 (Admin), [2015] 1 CMLR 751, [2015] LLR 6. 15. R (on the application of Reilly) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2012] EWHC 2292 (Admin). 16. R (on the application of Reilly) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (No 2) [2014] EWHC 2182 (Admin), [2015] QB 573, [2015] 2 WLR 309. 17. R (on the application of Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice [2014] UKSC 38, [2015] AC 657, [2014] 3 All ER 843, paras 50–52, 183, 188 and 190. It is arguable in this case that references to parliamentary materials could be justified on the basis that the court was considering the compatibility of primary legislation with the European Convention on Human Rights per Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2003] UKHL 40, [2004] 1 AC 816, [2003] 4 All ER 97, but Wilson was not cited by the court as authority for this approach. See also R (Collins) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWHC 33 (Admin), [2016] QB 862, [2016] 3 All ER 490, paras 65–69 on the use of parliamentary materials to determine ECHR compatibility. 18. Assange v The Swedish Prosecution Authority (Rev 1) [2012] UKSC 22, [2012] 2 AC 471, [2012] 4 All ER 1249, [2012] 2 WLR 1275. 19. [2012] UKSC 22, paras 98–99. 20. Aspinall, Pepper, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2014] EWHC 4134 (Admin), paras 119–22. 21. Reilly v Secretary of State for Work And Pensions [2016] EWCA Civ 413, [2016] 3 WLR 1641, para 109: ‘We do, however , wish to observe that [the learned judge at first instance] was put in a difficult position by the Secretary of State's reliance in his evidence on the justifications for the legislation advanced by Lord Freud in his speech in the House of Lords and by the extent of the Parliamentary materials placed before her in the voluminous bundles produced by the parties. That made the line between criticising the Secretary of State's case and questioning proceedings in Parliament hard to identify or observe. It has become relatively commonplace in public law proceedings for every last word spoken or written in Parliament to be placed before the court. In particular, debates are relied upon extensively when they should not be and, furthermore, the conclusions of Select Committees are prayed in aid with the court being asked to “approveâ€​ them. For the reasons summarised by Stanley Burnton J at paras. 46-48 of his judgment in Office of Government Commerce v Information Commissioner [2010] QB 98 that should not happen.’ 22. Henley-Smith, R (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] EWHC 1948 (Admin).

Wheeler; UNISON v Secretary of State for Health 16.23Reliance on passages from reports of select committees was also addressed in the case of R (Wheeler) v Office of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, but in terms of parliamentary privilege the principal point determined was that, even if a case of a breach of the administrative law principle of legitimate expectation could be made out, the court could not make any order or declaration which might imply a duty or obligation on any Member of Parliament to take any action in their capacity as a Member of Parliament.1 A similar challenge2 was brought several years later by the same applicant, claiming the Government was obliged to hold a vote in the Commons before formally opting-in to European Union measures on justice and home affairs. The High Court ruled that such a declaration would amount to the courts giving Parliament directions about how it should arrange its business, and that this would breach article IX of the Bill of Rights. In R (UNISON) v Secretary of State for Health the court, citing Wheeler, held that a successful challenge would delay the introduction of a bill, which would be close to forbidding a member from introducing a bill, contrary to the restraint exercised by the judiciary in relation to Parliamentary functions. The court also dismissed the claim that there was a legitimate expectation of consultation, since ‘(1) the subject matter of the claim and expectation places it squarely in the realm of politics and not of the courts; (2) there is an established means of giving consideration of different views about the merits of the proposals – the passage of the Bill through Parliament.’

Footnotes 1. Wheeler, R (on the application of) v Office of the Prime Minister [2008] EWHC 1409 (Admin), at para 49 and see para 11.16; UNISON, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Health [2010] EWHC 2655 (Admin), at paras 9–11, 13. 2. Wheeler v Office of the Prime Minister the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rev 1) [2014] EWHC 3815, [2015] 1 CMLR 1308.

Miller 16.24A subtly different point about Ministers' obligation to legislate arose in Miller in 2017. The referendum on withdrawal from the European Union and the subsequent announcement that the Government would give notice of the UK's intention to leave the Union as required under Article 50 of the Treaty on the European Union led to a case on the question as to whether the Executive could give such notice without legislative authority to do so.1 While the case focused on the extent to which the prerogative power to make treaties had been constrained by passage of the European Communities Act 1972, there was consideration of the extent to which political accountability rather than the legal framework might constrain use of the prerogative. While the case was being heard, the Commons came to the following Resolution: ‘That this House recognises that leaving the EU is the defining issue facing the UK; notes the resolution on parliamentary scrutiny of the UK leaving the EU agreed by the House on 12 October 2016; recognises that it is Parliament's responsibility to properly scrutinise the Government while respecting the decision of the British people to leave the European Union; confirms that there should be no disclosure of material that could be reasonably judged to damage the UK in any negotiations to depart from the European Union after Article 50 has been triggered; and calls on the Prime Minister to commit to publishing the Government's plan for leaving the EU before Article 50 is invoked, consistently with the principles agreed without division by this House on 12 October; recognises that this House should respect the wishes of the United Kingdom as expressed in the referendum on 23 June; and further calls on the Government to invoke Article 50 by 31 March 2017.’2 All parties accepted that the law could not be changed by Resolution of the House of Commons.

Footnotes 1. Miller, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Rev 3) [2017] UKSC 5, [2017] NI 141, [2017] 1 All ER 593. 2. Votes and Proceedings, 7 December 2016.

Role of the courts and the House of Commons: the Attorney General's view 16.25In April 2009, the Attorney General laid a memorandum in the House of Commons Library on the relationship between the courts and the House of Commons and, in particular, on the question of the admissibility in criminal proceedings of material which might be used to impeach or question proceedings in Parliament.1 The principal conclusion of the memorandum was that the determination of whether material was inadmissible as evidence in a criminal trial by virtue of article IX of the Bill of Rights was a question of law for the court. While it was open to the House to intervene in court proceedings to argue (for example) that reliance on particular material would contravene article IX, ‘the court is not bound by the views of the House and in some cases the courts have not accepted the submissions of the House (or have not accepted them in their entirety), eg Pepper v Hart ’.2 The Attorney General's memorandum concluded that: ‘the respective roles of the courts and Parliament in relation to matters of privilege are now well settled. In particular, it is settled that it is the role of the courts to determine any questions of law relating to parliamentary privilege (especially in relation to article IX). There is a risk that the principle of comity would be undermined by a purported attempt by the House to determine such questions and thus usurp the determinative role of the courts’.3

Footnotes 1. The Memorandum was published in the Report of the House of Commons Committee on Issue of Privilege, First Report, Police Searches on the Parliamentary Estate, HC 62 (2009–10), Ev 130–31 and see para 11.18. 2. Committee on Issue of Privilege, First Report, Police Searches on the Parliamentary Estate, HC 62 (2009–10), Ev 131 para 8; In 2013, a prosecution of Lord Hanningfield did not proceed after a submission from the House of Lords did not object to the prosecution per se but noted that the question of what constituted ‘parliamentary work’ was not for the courts to decide (see Committee for Privileges and Conduct, Fourteenth Report of Session 2013–14, Conduct of Lord Hanningfield, HL 181; and Sir John Saunders, ‘Parliamentary privilege and the criminal law’, Crim LR 2017, 7, 521–36). 3. Committee on Issue of Privilege, First Report, Police Searches on the Parliamentary Estate, HC 62 (2009–10), Ev 131 para 10. One such risk would be that of prejudice to a criminal trial if there were to be prior debate and discussion of the evidence in the House before such a trial.

Chaytor 16.26A detailed exploration of the law relating to privilege was provided by the Supreme Court in 2010 in R v Chaytor.1 The defendants, three former Members of Parliament and a peer, had been committed for trial on charges of false accounting for the purposes of making fraudulent parliamentary expense claims. They argued that the Crown Court had no jurisdiction to try the cases as to do so would have infringed parliamentary privilege, as the administration's payment of parliamentary expenses was necessary to enable parliamentarians to carry out their functions and could consequently be considered to be within the definition of parliamentary proceedings in article IX. The Supreme Court rejected this argument. In doing so, the opportunity was taken to restate a number of more fundamental principles that determine the scope of privilege. The extent of parliamentary privilege is ultimately a matter of law which was for the courts to determine, paying due regard to the views of Parliament. Only activities which had a sufficiently close relationship with core or essential parliamentary business could fall within this definition. Due regard in considering this connection should be given to the adverse impact on the core business of Parliament if activities were not to enjoy privilege. Administrative tasks such as the processing of expenses fall outside of this definition and no adverse impact on the core business of Parliament is discernible by such a decision. Parliament has never challenged the application of the criminal law to acts which occur within its precincts and does not assert exclusive jurisdiction to deal with criminal conduct. Although it was recognised that circumstances might arise in the course of a criminal investigation where privilege may preclude areas of inquiry, this was not such a case. There was consequently no bar to the defendants being committed to the Crown Court for trial.

Footnotes 1. R v Chaytor (David) [2010] UKSC 52, [2011] 1 AC 684, [2011] 1 All ER 805; for the application of statute law to Parliament, see para 11.17 above.

Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice 16.27The applicant, a hereditary baron in the peerage of the United Kingdom, sought to challenge a decision of the Crown Office not to issue him a writ of summons to the House of Lords upon succeeding to the peerage, claiming his right on the grounds that the letters patent creating his peerage entitled him to ‘A Seat, Place and Voice in Parliament's Public Assembly and Councils'. The Crown Office withheld the writ on the basis that the House of Lords Act 1999 had altered the rights of hereditary peers to sit in the House, and that if the applicant wished to dispute the decision the proper means to do so was through the Lords Committee for Privileges. The applicant declined to do so and sought declarations from the High Court that the courts have jurisdiction to determine the matter and that he was entitled to demand a writ be issued. Citing Chaytor, the High Court held on the issue of jurisdiction that matters relating to the membership of either House were within the area of Parliament's exclusive cognizance and the court should not interfere except where legislation provided to the contrary. Apart from special cases (such as an Election Court), it was a matter for Parliament whether a person was entitled to sit and vote in either House.1

Footnotes 1. Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice [2011] EWHC 1589 (Ch), [2012] Ch 325, [2012] 2 WLR 192.

Jennings v Buchanan 16.28As described in Chapter 13, the privilege of freedom of speech does not automatically extend to the repetition outside Parliament of what is said inside, although qualified privilege or the protection of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 may apply. This came to prominence in a New Zealand case, Jennings v Buchanan, in which the question to be decided was ‘whether a Member of Parliament may be held liable in defamation if the Member makes a defamatory statement in the House of Representatives – a statement which is protected by absolute privilege under article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688 – and later affirms the statement (but without repeating it) on an occasion which is not protected by privilege’.1 Mr Buchanan had responded to a question about whether he stood by a statement in the New Zealand House of Representatives with the information that he did not resile from it. It was held that this formulation meant Mr Jennings had republished by reference what he had said on the earlier occasion. The Privy Council considered that this republication be reference was not privileged, even though the earlier parliamentary statement was necessary to understand it. It held: ‘A statement made in Parliament is absolutely privileged (and it is not necessary in this case to consider how far the definition of parliamentary proceedings may extend). A statement made out of Parliament may enjoy qualified privilege but will not enjoy absolute privilege, even if reference is made to the earlier privileged statement. A degree of circumspection is accordingly called for when a Member of Parliament is moved or pressed to repeat out of Parliament a potentially defamatory statement previously made in Parliament. The Board conceives that this rule is well understood, as evidenced by the infrequency of cases on the point.’

Footnotes 1. Jennings v Buchanan (New Zealand) [2004] UKPC 36, [2005] 1 AC 115, [2005] 2 All ER 273 (Privy Council Appeal No. 53 of 2003).

New Zealand Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014 16.29Following the case of Leigh v Gow, in which briefing prepared to enable a Minister to answer a parliamentary question was not held to be privileged, New Zealand, like Australia before it, introduced legislation on privilege. One of the stated purposes of the New Zealand Act is to ‘abolish and prohibit evidence being offered or received, questions being asked, or statements, submissions, or comments made, concerning proceedings in Parliament, to inform or support “effective repetitionâ€​ claims and liabilities in proceedings in a court or tribunal and exemplified by the decision in Buchanan v Jennings [2004] UKPC 36, [2005] 2 All ER 273 (PC) ’.1 The Privy Council judgment in Jennings v Buchanan remains persuasive authority in the United Kingdom.

Footnotes 1. New Zealand Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014, s 3(d).

Makudi v Triesman 16.30Further developments in the law relating to the ‘effective repetition’ of statements initially made under parliamentary privilege arose in Makudi v Triesman. The defendant, a Member of the House of Lords, appeared before a Commons select committee and made allegations of corruption against the claimant relating to bids for the 2018 FIFA World Cup. The defendant repeated the allegations made before the select committee to a FIFA investigatory tribunal. This repetition led the claimant to sue for libel and malicious falsehood. The claim was struck out by the High Court.1 It was held that although repetition of privileged statements outside of Parliament could give rise to liability, whether liability arose or not was a matter of fact and degree. The claimant in this case was unable to show to the satisfaction of the court that the alleged damage was caused by the repetition, rather than the original statements before the committee which would have been covered by absolute privilege. It was further held that the defendant could rely on the defence of qualified privilege, as the statements were made in the course of his official duties. Lastly, in relation to the claim for malicious falsehood, the court held that an inquiry into whether the defendant had malicious intent in repeating the statements would require an inquiry into his state of mind when he made the original statements before the committee. This would require inquiring into the motivation or intention behind statements made in Parliament, and would breach article IX of the Bill of Rights. On appeal, the Court of Appeal2 affirmed the High Court's judgment, and further stated that statements repeated outside Parliament should continue to enjoy the protection of absolute privilege where there was (a) a public interest in repetition of the parliamentary utterance which the speaker ought reasonably to serve, and (b) so close a nexus between the occasions of his speaking, in and then out of Parliament, that the prospect of his obligation to speak on the second occasion (or the expectation or promise that he would do so) is reasonably foreseeable at the time of the first and the purpose in speaking on both occasions is the same or very closely related. The court did not intend this to be a hard and fast rule but believed that other circumstances in which it might apply would be extremely limited.

Footnotes 1. Makudi v Baron Treisman of Tottenham [2013] EWHC 142 (QB). 2. Makudi v Baron Treisman of Tottenham [2014] EWCA Civ 179, [2014] QB 839, [2014] 3 All ER 36.

Warsama v Foreign and Commonwealth Office 16.31Warsama v Foreign and Commonwealth Office1 looked at the extent to which freedom of speech in Parliament enjoyed privilege by analysis of whether or not a particular matter was in fact a proceeding in Parliament. The central question was whether a paper published as the result of an unopposed return was protected both by parliamentary privilege and by the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840. The findings of a nonstatutory inquiry into allegations of child abuse in St Helena were published as a return to an order. Two of those named in the report challenged this use of the power. The judge found that: ‘it is in my judgment not open to me on domestic authority to conclude that the Unopposed Return is outside the core business of Parliament. It is a species of “freedom of speechâ€​. It is exercised by a Parliamentary procedure and is thus also a “proceeding in Parliamentâ€​ giving effect to that free speech, even though not part of “debateâ€​ or part of any form of legislative activity. It is noteworthy that both the Bill of Rights and the decision in R v Chaytor do not speak in terms of “freedom of speech in debateâ€​ but of “freedom of speech and debateâ€​.’2 The judge also considered that an ECHR-compliant reading of Article IX of the Bill of Rights would include the unopposed return procedure within the protection of that Article. The consequence was ‘that insofar as the Claimants allege and seek to establish that the content of the Report is incorrect and actionably causes them loss and damage then they are necessarily seeking to impeach or question the proceedings in the form of the words uttered in writing by way of the Return to the Motion’ and the protection of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 also applied to the separate publication of the report by the FCO.3 The judge reached this conclusion with some ‘unease’ and gave permission to appeal of her own motion. Her concerns were that the unopposed return procedure was not a matter of debate; rather it was a device to allow the Executive to publish material under the cloak of parliamentary privilege. In moving for such a return in Parliament, Ministers were not acting as public authorities, so the courts were: ‘barred by s.6(3) of the HRA 1998 from considering whether the use of the Unopposed Return by the Executive on any given occasion is “in accordance with (accessible) lawâ€​ for the purposes of the Convention, since the HRA 1998 deems the Minister and the House not to be acting as a Public Authority when exercising a function “in connection withâ€​ proceedings in Parliament.’4 It is noteworthy that the judgment drew heavily on the authority of Stockdale v Hansard. The judge also considered arguments that distinctions between the ‘Crown’ and ‘Parliament’ in the manner of the constitution of the United States were misguided. Her analysis distinguished between ministerial actions taken in Parliament in a legislative and in a non-legislative capacity and concluded that: ‘The constitutional origin and purpose of privilege was to protect parliamentary free speech and debate from the Crown interference and oppression evident in Sir John Eliot's case, rather than to secure something close to an unfettered right of privileged publication by the Executive. It is relevant for me to take that into account.’5

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Warsama v Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2018] EWHC 1461 (QB). Ibid, para 107. Ibid, paras 116 and 117. Ibid, para 126. Ibid, para 103.

Overview of general arrangements for a sitting 17.1This chapter describes the arrangements for sittings of the House, in the principal Chamber. The arrangements for sittings in Westminster Hall are set out in Chapter 23.

Normal days and hours of sitting and rising 17.2The House normally sits on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. Under Standing Order No 12 the House sits on 13 Fridays in each session to debate Private Members' Bills under Standing Order No 14(8), though it can meet on additional Fridays. The House can also meet—though this is rare—on Saturdays and on Sundays. Standing Order Nos 9 and 11 provide that the House shall sit on Mondays at 2.30 pm, Tuesdays and Wednesdays at 11.30 am, and on Thursdays and Fridays at 9.30 am.1 Monday timings apply to any Tuesday or Wednesday (but not Thursday) sitting immediately after a periodic adjournment of more than two days and on the first day of a session. The House also sits at 2.30 pm on any day of the week on which a Speaker is to be elected (Standing Order No 1B). Standing Order No 9(3) provides for the interruption of business under consideration at 10 pm on Monday, 7 pm on Tuesday and Wednesday, and 5 pm on Thursday. Standing Order No 11 makes similar provision for the interruption of business at 2.30 pm on Friday. This point in the sitting day, known as the ‘moment of interruption’, usually marks the end of the main business of the day, and only certain kinds of business (though this may occasionally include important business) can be taken after this point.2 When the main business is concluded, a motion for the adjournment of the House is necessary to enable the House to rise, and this motion can be debated until half an hour after it has been proposed. The procedure in closing a sitting is described below in detail (see paras 17.8–17.19 ). The official announcement of the hour appointed for the next meeting of the House is made by an entry placed, under the Speaker's authority, at the close of the Votes and Proceedings (see para 7.14 ).3 The following table sets out the timings of the main types of business on each day: Event (and SO No) Application for urgent debates to Speaker no later than†(24) House sits (9, 11) Private business after prayers ends no later than (20) Question time ends (21) Urgent questions and statements (21, 9, 11)

Monday

Tuesday/Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

12 noon

10.30 am

9 am

—

2.30 pm 2.45 pm 3.30 pm 3.30 pm

11.30 am 11.45 am 12.30 pm 12.30 pm

9.30 am 9.45 am 10.30 am 10.30 am

Main business interrupted (9, 11)

10 pm

7 pm

5 pm

9.30 am — — 11 am 2.30 pm

Westminster Hall sittings (10) (*extra time for divisions in House)

*4.30–7.30 pm

9.30–11.30 am; & *2.30–5.30 *1.30–4.30 pm pm

—

†In practice, the Speaker expects applications to be made as early as possible to allow for their proper consideration and not later than 11.30 am on Mondays, 10 am on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and 8.15 am on Thursdays.

Footnotes 1. The times were initially brought into force under a sessional order of 13 November 1946, which was incorporated into standing orders on 4 November 1947. On 17 January 1980 the Standing Order relating to Friday Sittings, now SO No 11, was amended to provide that the House should meet at 9.30 am instead of at 11 am. Following experimental arrangements in Session 1994–95, standing orders were further amended on 2 November 1995 to provide that the House should not sit on ten Fridays in each session to be appointed by the House and that on Wednesdays the House should meet at 9.30 am instead of 2.30 pm. Provision for Wednesday morning sittings was suspended at the beginning of Session 1999–2000, when the House began to sit in Westminster Hall, and was removed from standing orders in October 2002. At the same time the House agreed a temporary standing order (new provision for earlier sittings on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and for Thursdays and Fridays) with effect from 1 January 2003 to the end of the 2001 Parliament, under which the House sat at 2.30 pm on Mondays, 11.30 am on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, and at 9.30 am on Fridays. On 26 January 2005, the House agreed amendments to the standing orders which brought in starting times of 2.30 pm for Mondays and Tuesdays, 11.30 am for Wednesdays, 10.30 am on Thursdays and 9.30 am on Fridays with effect from the start of the 2005 Parliament. On 11 July 2012, the House considered further changes to standing orders (principally the 11.30 am start on Tuesdays and 9.30 am start on Thursdays) resulting in the current hours. 2. A motion may be moved by a member of the Government to exempt business after the moment of interruption on a Friday, but such motions on Fridays are very rare. 3. The announcement of the appointed hour of meeting in the motion which adjourns the House is an exceptional occurrence, CJ (1909) 547. The usual practice is for the House to vary the hours of a future meeting by a motion at the commencement of public business, eg CJ (1981–82) 100 or more commonly after the main business, eg CJ (2008–09) 659.

Broken sittings 17.3If a sitting on any day should be prolonged beyond the hour of meeting on the following day, no independent sitting can take place on that day; and the House rises when it has disposed of the business of the sitting prolonged from the previous day. The House has been prevented from meeting by the breaking of the next day's sitting on 16 occasions since 1950, but on only one occasion since 1990.1

Footnotes 1. The sitting on Tuesday 25 January 2000 lasted for over 29 hours, and the scheduled sitting in the Chamber for the next day did not take place, CJ (1999–2000) 117.

Procedure in the House in standards cases 5.26Penalties recommended by the Committee fall into two categories. Some penalties do not require any decision by the House, such as a requirement to make a financial repayment or to make an apology to the House by way of personal statement or on a point of order.1 In other, more serious, cases, it is the House which makes the final decision on penalties. Recommendations, such as suspension (which entails loss of salary and pension contributions for the relevant period), and withholding of salary without suspension, or withholding of resettlement grant, require a motion on the floor of the House.2 The motion is moved formally by the Government. The Member concerned may be heard first, in which case they then withdraw, following which the Chair of the Committee on Standards sets out the Committee's findings. Alternatively, and more commonly in recent cases, the Member concerned has made a personal statement on a previous day.3 When a Member, who spoke at the start of the debate on a motion to approve the report of the Committee into his conduct and to suspend him for a period, was judged by the Committee not to have made an adequate apology to the House, the Committee returned to the matter in a subsequent report in which it recommended that the Member should make a full apology in a personal statement to the House by a certain date, failing which the House should suspend him until such time as he agreed to do so.4 The Member subsequently apologised in accordance with the recommendation.5 Where a Member has resigned after the publication of a report but before the motion to agree the sanction has been made in the House, the report has been debated notwithstanding the resignation and the House has agreed to approve the report's conclusions and endorse its recommendations.6 Under the Recall of MPs Act 2015, a Member suspended from the service of the House for at least ten sitting days or for a period of at least 14 days, where sitting days are not specified, following on from a report from the Committee on Standards in relation to the Member, becomes liable to the recall petition process (see para 2.9 ).

Footnotes 1. See Committee on Standards, Twenty-second Report of Session 2010–12, Jack Dromey, HC 1766, para 18, for an explanation of the distinction between an apology on a point of order and a personal statement; see also HC Deb (11 December 2017) 633, c 67; HC Deb (6 December 2018) 650, c 1080. 2. HC Deb (1 February 2010) 505, cc 38–41. In the case of a number of former Members whose actions the Commissioner found to breach the Code of Conduct, the Committee recommended and the House agreed to the suspension for defined periods of their entitlement to use or to be issued with a parliamentary photopass, Committee on Standards and Privileges, Ninth Report of Session 2010–12, Sir John Butterfill, Mr Stephen Byers, Ms Patricia Hewitt, Mr Geoff Hoon, Mr Richard Caborn and Mr Adam Ingram, HC 654; and Votes and Proceedings, 15 December 2010. 3. For example, HC Deb (29 January 2010) 504, c 1044. 4. Committee on Standards and Privileges, Fifth Report of Session 2004–05, Conduct of Mr Jonathan Sayeed: Further Report, HC 473. 5. HC Deb (23 March 2005) 432, c 893. 6. HC Deb (6 November 2012) 552, cc 754–57; HC Deb (8 May 2014) 580, cc 302–10.

Weekend sittings 17.5The House regularly met on a Saturday until the turn of the twentieth century. Since 1900 it has met 21 times on a Saturday, and on only four occasions since the Second World War. On the demise of the Crown,1 and also on occasions of emergency,2 Parliament has occasionally been assembled on a Sunday.3 Under Standing Order No 11(6) a sitting on Saturday or Sunday (except in the case of the demise of the Crown or of a recall in accordance with Standing Order No 13) can be secured only by a resolution of the House, made normally by a Minister at the commencement of public business.4 As a sitting on either of these days is not subject to any rules of the House regulating the hours of meeting, interruption and adjournment, such matters have been provided for in the resolution appointing a Saturday sitting or, when the House is recalled under Standing Order No 13, in a resolution moved at the commencement of the sitting. When the House sits on a Saturday,5 if the House has not ordered otherwise,6 the Speaker has fixed the same hour for the meeting of the House as on a Friday.7 Saturday sittings have been held under the limiting conditions applying to Friday sittings,8 or subject to special directions, such as that when government business is concluded,9 or at a stated hour,10 the House will adjourn without question put. As in other cases when a special sitting occurs, during a periodic adjournment it is necessary to provide that when the special sitting concludes the House will adjourn till the day previously appointed.

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

CJ (1699–1702) 782; ibid (1714–18) 3; ibid (1757–61) 933; ibid (1819–20) 89. For example, outbreak of war, CJ (1938–39) 411, 412. The prolongation of a sitting till Sunday morning has not occurred since 1883, CJ (1883) 471. HC Deb (2002–03) 400, c 1053. CJ (1920) 495; ibid (1921) 52, 67. CJ (1873) 122; ibid (1912–13) 533; ibid (1955–56) 429. On Saturday 12 December 1936, the day after His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 had received the Royal Assent, the House met at 2.45 pm for the purpose of taking the oath of allegiance to the new king. On Saturday 3 April 1982, the House met at 11 am after an emergency recall pursuant to SO No 13. 8. CJ (1920) 492; ibid (1921) 51, 65. 9. CJ (1889) 453; ibid (1890) 553; ibid (1893–94) 57. 10. CJ (1955–56) 429; ibid (1981–82) 286.

Attendance of Parliament at divine service and certain royal ceremonies 17.6From time to time, Parliament as a body has resolved to attend divine service. The Houses usually meet in their respective Chambers, and the Speaker of each House, preceded by the Mace, make their way to the church appointed for the service, the House following.1 This procedure—even when there is no preliminary meeting in the Chamber—has been recorded in the Journal.2 Royal ceremonies which have been attended by Parliament as a body include coronations,3 jubilees,4 anniversary commemorations5 and funeral ceremonies, including lying-in-state.6 The Houses may attend these ceremonies after a preliminary sitting,7 or may interrupt the sitting and resume it later.8 But a preliminary sitting is not essential.9

Footnotes 1. LJ (1918) 186, 271; CJ (1918) 200, 235; LJ (1944–45) 112; CJ (1944–45) 121; LJ (1945–46) 31; CJ (1945–46) 16; HC Deb (1945–46) 413, cc 48–53; LJ (1964–65) 129; CJ (1964–65) 112; LJ (1966–67) 109; CJ (1966–67) 120; LJ (1967–68) 14; CJ (1967–68) 12. 2. CJ (1918) 200; ibid (1964–65) 112; HC Deb (20 June 2016) 611, c 1900. 3. CJ (1837–38) 621. At coronations subsequent to this date, Parliament has not attended as a body, but the Members of both Houses have attended by personal invitation; in 1911, 1937 and 1953 the Speaker, by the desire of the Sovereign and pursuant to a resolution of the House, represented the Commons, CJ (1911) 75; ibid (1936–37) 134; ibid (1952–53) 227. 4. CJ (1887) 245, 259; ibid (1897) 293, 297; ibid (1934–35) 191. 5. Tercentenary of the Revolutions of 1688–89 and of the Bill of Rights and Claim of Right, CJ (1987–88) 639, 663, 677; fiftieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War, ibid (1994–95) 294, 311, 320–22. 6. CJ (1910) 154; ibid (1935–36) 54; ibid (1951–52) 93. 7. CJ (1887) 259; ibid (1910) 154; ibid (1994–95) 319. 8. CJ (1935–36) 54; ibid (1976–77) 286 when the House attended at 11 am on the Queen at Westminster Hall to present an Address on the Silver Jubilee, after which the sitting was suspended till 2.30 pm that day. The same procedure was adopted on the occasions of the Queen's Golden Jubilee, CJ (2001–02) 521, and Diamond Jubilee, CJ (2010–12) 1246. 9. CJ (1987–88) 677.

Extraordinary adjournments 17.7One or both1 Houses have adjourned as a mark of respect on the occasion of the death of a distinguished Member past or present,2 or of the death of a Member in the precincts3 or of a distinguished statesman of another country.4 Parliament has also adjourned in connection with royal ceremonies.5 On 9 December 2013, the House set aside its business for the day and instead held tributes to the former South African President, Nelson Mandela, who had died during the previous week.6 On 3 April 2002, Parliament was recalled after the death of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother; after tributes and resolutions to present Addresses of condolence, the two Houses adjourned.7 A similar procedure was followed on 10 April 2013, following the death of Baroness Thatcher, and on 20 June 2016,8 following the murder of Jo Cox MP.9 An extraordinary adjournment has also been moved by the Leader of the House, and agreed to, when a security incident made the continuation of the sitting impracticable.10

Footnotes 1. LJ (1882) 139–40; CJ (1882) 185. 2. LJ (1861–62) 416; ibid (1908) 101; ibid (1946–47) 188; (1964–65) 117, 126; CJ (1914) 319; ibid (1964–65) 110; ibid (1976–77) 84; ibid (1993–94) 345; ibid (2005–06) 137. 3. CJ (1878) 264; ibid (1907) 316; ibid (1921) 334. 4. CJ (1944–45) 95; HC Deb (1963–64) 685, c 44. 5. On a Friday, when the House of Lords was adjourned in the normal way, the House of Commons adjourned on the occasion of the wedding of Princess Margaret, CJ (1959–60) 212; both Houses adjourned for the wedding of the Prince of Wales, CJ (1980–81) 492, LJ (1980–81) 784. For other royal marriages Parliament has not adjourned. Parliament has adjourned for royal jubilees, eg CJ (1887) 309; ibid (1897) 301; ibid (1934–35) 188, and coronations, ibid (1911) 285. 6. HC Deb (9 December 2013) 567, c 1. 7. LJ (2001–02) 597; CJ (2001–02) 445. The Commons observed a minute's silence at the commencement of proceedings after prayers, HC Deb (2001–02) 382, c 799. 8. CJ (2012–13) 685; LJ (2012–13) 1012. 9. Votes and Proceedings, 20 June 2016; LJ (2016–17) 81. 10. HC Deb (22 March 2017) 623, c 902.

The moment of interruption 17.8As noted above (para 17.2 ), on every day of the week except Saturday and Sunday, the business under consideration is interrupted at a specified hour: at 10 pm on Mondays, at 7 pm on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, at 5 pm on Thursdays, and at 2.30 pm on Fridays.1 In practice, much of the business of the House is conducted in the expectation that it will conclude at this time, whether by debate coming naturally to a conclusion, or as a result of a Member successfully moving the ‘closure’ at that point (see para 20.52 ff), or because the House has agreed a specific order allowing the matter under debate to be decided at that time. If, however, at the moment of interruption, a debate has not concluded and the House is not engaged on business exempted under Standing Order No 15(1) (see para 17.12 ), the Speaker rises from the Chair and interrupts the business then under consideration; or, if the House is in committee, the Chair leaves the Chair to make their report to the House. If it is business which the House expects to resume at a later date, the Member in charge of the business names a day for its resumption. If no day is named for its resumption, the business under consideration at the moment of interruption becomes a dropped order (see para 19.35 ). If the debate is on a motion that the House has considered a matter (a general debate), the motion lapses under Standing Order No 9(3). Since they are not exempted under any standing order, dilatory motions2 pending at the moment of interruption lapse without question put,3 even if the House is suspended at that time4 (see para 20.24 ). A motion for the adjournment made after the moment of interruption is therefore a new question.5 At the moment of interruption, the closure may be moved; and if such a motion is made or proceedings on it are then in progress, the Speaker, or Chairman, does not leave the Chair until the questions consequent on it, and on any further question, as provided in Standing Order No 36, have been decided (see para 20.57 ). Points of order may be taken following the end of the business under consideration and may delay subsequent business until after the moment of interruption.6

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

SO Nos 9(3) and 11. That is, motions for the adjournment of the House or of the debate, or that the Chairman do report progress, or do leave the Chair. Motion to adjourn debate lapses at 10 pm, CJ (1970–71) 394. HC Deb (1998–99) 337, c 78. HC Deb (1945–46) 415, c 1390. HC Deb (21 March 2016) 607, c 1344 ff.

Transaction of unopposed business after moment of interruption 17.9After the business under consideration at the moment of interruption has been disposed of, no opposed business can be taken except to the extent permitted by particular standing orders (as discussed below – see para 17.12 ). It is a common practice for the Government to seek to take minor and uncontroversial motions as unopposed business after the moment of interruption. Many such motions, often in relation to the conduct of future business, or changes to select committee memberships, are taken in this way. Remaining items of business set down for the day, which have not been disposed of before the moment of interruption, are called in the order in which they stand on the Order Paper. Proceedings on an order of the day or motion can be carried on, even though a debate arises, until a division is claimed upon a question proposed from the Chair, or objection is taken to further proceeding, or until debate arises which, in the opinion of the Chair, constitutes opposition to the business.1 Thus, after the moment of interruption the House has resolved itself into a committee on a bill, a clause has been amended and agreed to, the remaining clauses have been agreed to, and the bill has been reported, considered as amended, read the third time and passed.2 A clause has also been disagreed to, other clauses agreed to, some amended and agreed to, the bill reported, considered as amended, read the third time and passed.3 Amendments in the name of the Member in charge of the bill would not constitute objection, and to avoid the risk that amendments in the name of another Member would be held to constitute objection, the Member in charge has added their name to amendments which were acceptable to them. But as soon as objection is taken, the business becomes opposed business; and further consideration must be postponed until such other sitting as the Member in charge of the business may appoint.4

Footnotes 1. The expression of opposition to the question under debate has been held to constitute objection to the business being taken, HC Deb (1964–65) 715, c 1073. An indication that a Member would vote against the question that the clause stand part of a bill has also been held to constitute objection, ibid (1978–79) 963, cc 1722–23. It is in order for any Member to object to further proceeding, including the Member who chaired the committee on the bill, ibid (12 March 2010) 507, c 580. 2. HC Deb (1957–58) 586, c 1382. 3. HC Deb (1978–79) 963, cc 856–57; ibid (1993–94) 239, c 591. 4. Therefore, when a new clause to a private bill was read a second time on a division at the moment of interruption, questions on amendments to the clause stood over until the resumption of that business at a later day: HC Deb (2001–02) 379, c 125.

House of Lords Contents Oversight and advice General principles and rules of conduct Registration and declaration of interests Private bills Financial support, facilities and services Imprisonment Enforcement Lords Members' staff Members and employees of public boards 5.27The current version of the House of Lords Code of Conduct was adopted on 30 November 2009, and the latest edition, which incorporates a series of amendments agreed by the House over time, was published in April 2017.1 An accompanying Guide to the Code of Conduct was adopted on 16 March 2010 and the latest version was published with the Code in April 2017.2 The Code applies to all Members of the House of Lords who are not: (a) on leave of absence; (b) suspended from the service of the House; or (c) subject to statutory disqualification. The stated purpose of the Code is: (a) to provide guidance for Members of the House of Lords on the standards of conduct expected of them in the discharge of their parliamentary duties; and (b) to provide the openness and accountability necessary to reinforce public confidence in the way in which Members of the House of Lords perform their parliamentary duties. The Code does not extend to their performance of duties unrelated to parliamentary proceedings, or to their private lives, except in cases where a Lords Member is sentenced to imprisonment.3 Members of the House of Lords sign an undertaking to abide by the Code as part of the ceremony of taking the oath upon introduction and at the start of each Parliament.4

Footnotes 1. See www.parliament.uk/hl-code. For the 2009 version and the subsequent amendments, see HL Deb (30 November 2009) 715, cc 645–48; HL Deb (30 March 2010) 718, cc 1290–92; HL Deb (12 June 2014) 754, cc 512–13; HL Deb (25 February 2016) 769, cc 396–400; HL Deb (9 February 2017) 778, cc 1863–65; and HL Deb (3 April 2016) 782, cc 861–64. For the previous Code of Conduct, agreed in 2001, see HL Deb (2001–02) 626, cc 630–87 and 1849–1862. For practice before 2001, see Erskine May (22nd edn, 1997), pp 448–50. 2. For the 2010 version, see HL Deb (16 March 2018) 718, cc 567–88; the Guide to the Code of Conduct was annexed to the Committee for Privileges, Second Report, HL 81 (2009–10). For the subsequent amendments, see HL Deb (9 November 2011) 732, c 240; HL Deb (6 March 2014) 752, cc 1441–44; HL Deb (13 May 2014) 753, cc 1776–80; HL Deb (24 March 2015) 760, cc 1309–10; HL Deb (25 February 2016) 769, cc 396–400; HL Deb (9 February 2017) 778, cc 1863–65; and HL Deb (3 April 2017) 782, cc 861–64. 3. Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Lords, para 3(a). For further details about the treatment of Lords Members sentenced to imprisonment, see para 5.38. 4. Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Lords, para 5.

Certain motions after interruption of business 17.11In the case of opposed business essential to the completion of the transaction on which the House is engaged at the moment of the interruption of business, the Speaker has overruled an objection to the taking of opposed business after that hour. Thus, opposition has not been permitted to questions, such as the addition of the words, ‘upon this day six months’, when the House has disagreed to the second reading of a bill; or the entry of the Speaker's reprimand or admonition upon the Journal of the House.1 Nor can an objection that the proceeding takes place after the expiration of the time for opposed business be made to a motion for the purpose of carrying on the business of the House, such as a motion for the appointment of a committee to draw up reasons for disagreeing with amendments made by the Lords to a bill (although the moving of an amendment to such a motion has been held to constitute objection),2 a motion for the discharge of an order for a return by the Member who had moved for the return;3 or for the withdrawal of a bill by the Member in charge of it.4 Similarly, objection cannot be taken to the announcement (which is technically a motion) by a Member in charge of an order of the day of a further day to which it is to be deferred.

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

CJ (1892) 167; Parl Deb (1892) 3, c 964. HC Deb (1975–76) 919, cc 371–73. Speaker's private ruling, 3 June 1904. Parl Deb (1888) 328, c 1883.

Business exempted under various standing orders 17.12Under numerous standing orders, provision is specifically made for proceedings on certain categories of business to be decided, although opposed, after the expiration of the time for opposed business. Principal examples of such standing orders are those relating to bills subject to a programme order (Standing Order No 83I(2)); bills brought in upon a Ways and Means resolution (Standing Order No 15(1)(a)); proceedings under any Act of Parliament or on European Union documents (Standing Order No 16); and second and third readings of Consolidated Fund and Appropriation Bills (Standing Order No 56).1 It is provided under Standing Order No 15(1) that proceedings on a bill brought in upon a Ways and Means resolution, or proceedings in pursuance of any standing order of the House which provides that proceedings though opposed may be decided after the expiration of the time for opposed business may be entered upon at any hour, though opposed, shall not be interrupted at the moment of interruption under the provision of Standing Order No 9, and if under discussion when the business is postponed under the provisions of any standing order (see para 17.21 ) may be resumed and proceeded with, though opposed, after the interruption of business. Standing Order No 16 provides that, in the case of proceedings under any Act of Parliament or on European Union documents, the Speaker shall put any questions necessary to dispose of such proceedings not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of such proceedings, subject to the provisions of Standing Order No 17 (see para 19.40 ).2 The principal proceedings under Acts of Parliament relate to statutory instruments and drafts of statutory instruments laid before both Houses. Motions for resolutions required by an Act of Parliament are also covered by Standing Order No 16 (for example, a motion calling an early General Election under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011). Resolutions made under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 (see para 31.46 ff) are also exempted business, as are motions under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 19453 and the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975.4 A resolution which is not made pursuant to a statute but is necessary for the provisions of a statute to have effect is not exempted business.5 European Union documents are debated in the House or, more frequently, in European Committee, as a result of reports from the European Scrutiny Committee recommending debate (see para 32.10 ). When debated in the House they are covered by Standing Order No 16.6 Standing Order No 24 provides that any proceeding postponed due to an emergency debate, held on the same day as the application is agreed, under that Standing Order (see para 19.22 ) is automatically exempted after the moment of interruption for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings under Standing Order No 24 and may be resumed and proceeded with at or after the moment of interruption. If a motion (see below) stands on the paper to exempt the business postponed for a specified period and the motion is agreed to, the postponed business becomes exempted for the period occupied on the motion for the consideration of the specified matter with the addition of the period specified in the motion (see Standing Order No 15(5)(b). Standing Order No 52 provides that the Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on motions authorising expenditure in connection with a bill (‘Money resolutions’) and on Ways and Means resolutions in connection with a bill either forthwith if such motions are made at the same sitting as that at which the bill has been read a second time, or not later than three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of the proceedings in other cases, and that in either case the business may be proceeded with at any hour, though opposed. Similarly, Standing Order No 80A provides that the Speaker shall put any question necessary to dispose of proceedings on a motion to carry over a public bill from one session to the next either forthwith if the motion is made on the day the bill is read a second time, or not more than one-and-a-half hours after the commencement of proceedings in other cases, and that a carry-over motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, after the moment of interruption.

Footnotes 1. However, SO No 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills) provides that the questions for second reading and third reading of a Consolidated Fund or an Appropriation Bill (now Supply and Appropriation Bills) shall be put forthwith. 2. SO No 17 provides that, in the case of motions to annul or otherwise disapply a negative statutory instrument, and which are still under consideration one-and-a-half hours after the moment of interruption, the Speaker shall put any question requisite to bring to decision any question already proposed from the Chair, with the proviso that if the Speaker is of the opinion that, owing to the lateness of the hour at which consideration of the motion was entered upon or because of the importance of the subject matter of the motion, the time for debate has not been adequate, the Speaker shall, instead of putting the question, interrupt the business, and the debate shall stand adjourned till the next sitting other than a Friday; for example, HC Deb (2000–01) 361, c 318. 3. CJ (1962–63) 41. 4. CJ (1961–62) 44. 5. For example, a resolution relating to regulations in respect of tuition fees under the Higher Education Act 2004, CJ (2010–12) 330. 6. The Chair has withdrawn documents from the consideration of the House which did not fall within the definition contained in SO No 15 at the time (CJ (1977–78) 132; HC Deb (1977–78) 942, c 622).

Exemption of specified business by order of the House 17.13It is also provided, by Standing Order No 15(2), that at the interruption of business, a motion may be made and decided forthwith:1 ‘That any specified business2 may be proceeded with at this day's sitting though opposed (a) until any hour; (b) until a specified hour; or (c) until either a specified hour or the end of a specified period after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later, or in any form combining any or all of these effects in respect of different items of business.’ Not more than one such motion may be made at the interruption of business at any one sitting.3 To fall within the terms of the standing order, notice of these motions must stand upon the Order Paper in the name of a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, but the motions themselves stand over until the interruption of business.4 If the terms of a motion are other than those specified in the standing order, it must be moved at the commencement of public business and is debatable—or, as is normal modern practice, it may be taken in the ordinary course of business on a previous sitting day. At the interruption of business, if the business interrupted is neither exempted from interruption by Standing Order No 15(1), nor included in the terms of the motion for the exemption of business from interruption, the normal procedure for unexempted business (see paras 17.9–17.11 ) is followed for that item. The Speaker calls upon a Minister to move the motion for the exemption of the business to be exempted, and, if the motion is carried, the first business covered by the motion is entered upon. If the business interrupted is itself covered by the exemption motion, the Speaker immediately (ie before a day is named for resuming the proceedings) calls upon the Minister to move the motion; and, if the House is in committee, the Chairman leaves the Chair, the House resumes, and the Speaker immediately calls upon the Minister in the same way. If the business in progress at the moment of interruption is itself of the class exempted from interruption under Standing Order No 15(1), and is itself time limited, but is followed on the Order Paper by business on which notice of an exemption motion has been given, the exemption motion is moved when the business under consideration has been decided, at the so-called ‘projected’ moment of interruption. The fact that any proceedings are exempted does not prevent a motion being made for the adjournment of the House in the course of those proceedings.5 If business which has been exempted for a specified period is not concluded by the end of that period, it is then treated in every respect as if it were unexempted business which has reached the normal moment of interruption (Standing Order No 15(5)(a)).6

Footnotes 1. If such a motion should deviate from the prescribed form it would be open to debate, Parl Deb (1905) 148, c 1144. 2. The business to be exempted is specified; though often it is specified in general terms, eg government business; CJ (1919) 110 and often thereafter, eg ibid (1962–63) 97; ibid (1968–69) 243; ibid (1970–71) 378; ibid (1974–75) 613; proceedings on any Lords amendments to a bill, eg ibid (1922) 113, and often thereafter, eg ibid (1974), 310, ibid (1976–77) 63; Lords amendments and any proposals relating to bills, ibid (1996–97) 328; Lords Messages, eg ibid (1976–77) 461, 466; government business other than the business of Supply, eg ibid (1973–74) 41; Her Majesty's Message (Emergency Powers), ibid (1973–74) 109; motions relating to estimates CJ (2002–03) 52. 3. SO No 15(6). 4. SO No 15(2). 5. Speaker's private ruling, 6 October 1931. 6. A motion taken at the moment of interruption enabling certain business to be proceeded with after that hour in the terms of SO No 15(2) is not to be construed as replacing or overriding any limitation placed upon the duration of those proceedings by other standing orders, by an allocation of time order or by any other order of the House. Thus, an order that ‘any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour’ did not affect the limitation of one hour placed upon those proceedings which had already been fixed by para 10 of the allocation of time order agreed to previously, HC Deb (7 April 2010) 508, c 975.

Business not disposed of before the termination of a sitting 17.14Under Standing Order No 9(5), an order of the day not disposed of before the termination of a sitting is deferred to such day as the Member in charge of that order or a Member authorised by them may appoint, whether in the Chamber or, more usually, by oral or written notification to the Table Office. The Government generally gives a standing instruction to the Table Office that all government orders of the day (and in practice government motions) be placed on the relevant parts of the Order Paper for the next day's sitting.

Adjournment of the House Contents Adjournment of the House by resolution (Standing Order No 9(7)) Adjournment on Saturday and Sunday sittings Adjournment in cases of grave disorder Adjournment beyond the next day of sitting 17.15The adjournment of the House brings its current sitting to a close. The House does not resume until its next appointed sitting, except in the case of a recall under Standing Order No 13. This contrasts with a suspension, which is a temporary break in a sitting and which ends with the resumption of the current sitting.

Adjournment of the House by resolution (Standing Order No 9(7)) 17.16As set out in Standing Order No 9(7), the House can only be adjourned pursuant to a motion to adjourn except in cases of grave disorder (Standing Order No 46). A motion to adjourn is debatable and affords a convenient opportunity for raising matters of administrative policy (see paras 18.36, 19.42 ff). Pursuant to Standing Order No 9(3) and (7), if moved at or after the moment of interruption, discussion can continue for half an hour. As no division can be taken during the transaction of unopposed business, the Speaker has disregarded a challenge to the question put on a motion for the adjournment of the House, and, treating the motion as a formal motion, has declared that the ‘ayes’ had it, and left the Chair.1 If a motion to adjourn has been moved after the moment of interruption and debated for 30 minutes, the Speaker will adjourn the House without putting the question under Standing Order No 9(7).

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1905) 142, c 1512; HC Deb (1979–80) 990, cc 490–92; ibid (1994–95) 260, c 1102; ibid (17 November 2004) 426, c 1448.

Adjournment on Saturday and Sunday sittings 17.17The time for the adjournment of the House on Saturdays and Sundays is not prescribed by standing order but the time of adjournment is usually specified in the resolution appointing a Saturday or Sunday sitting. Where the House is recalled in accordance with the provision of Standing Order No 13 on either of these days, it is necessary for a resolution to be moved, preferably at the commencement of the sitting, if it is decided to regulate its hours of sitting.

Adjournment in cases of grave disorder 17.18Under Standing Order No 46, in the event of grave disorder arising in the House, the Speaker may adjourn the House without question put if they think it necessary to do so1 or may suspend the sitting to a time to be named by them.2

Footnotes 1. CJ (1905) 202; ibid (1911) 351; ibid (1914) 237; ibid (1924) 178; ibid (1960–61) 98; ibid (1975–76) 360 (after he had previously suspended the sitting to a named hour, and after grave disorder had again arisen at the resumption); ibid (1989–90) 247. 2. CJ (1920) 436; ibid (1974–75) 259; ibid (1977–78) 438, when the Speaker made a statement on the suspension, HC Deb (1977–78) 953, c 677; CJ (1979–80) 851; ibid (1981–82) 27. On 13 November 1912 and 11 April 1923, the Speaker suspended the sitting for an hour. When he resumed the Chair, the state of disorder continued and he adjourned the House without question put (CJ (1912–13) 409; ibid (1923) 88). On 6 December 1961, grave disorder having arisen in a Committee of the whole House, the Chairman left the Chair to report the circumstances to the House; he resumed the Chair as Deputy Speaker and suspended the sitting for half an hour (CJ (1961–62) 55). See also paras 21.46, 28.86.

Adjournment beyond the next day of sitting 17.19When it is intended that the House should be adjourned to a day beyond the next sitting day, a motion is made, by a member of the Government,1 that the House do ‘now’,2 or at its rising,3 or at the conclusion of the sitting,4 or at its rising on a future day,5 or at its rising on a number of future days,6 adjourn until a specified day or days. Under Standing Order No 25, the question on a motion made by a Minister for the adjournment of the House for a specific period or periods must be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed. Adjournments are subject to the power given to the Speaker under Standing Order No 13 to give notice, on representations from Her Majesty's Government, for an earlier meeting of the House (see para 8.13 ).

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

For occasions on which such motions have been made without notice, see para 20.7 ff, fnn 3–6. CJ (1892) 419; ibid (1905) 151. CJ (1959–60) 212. CJ (1890–91) 178; ibid (1892) 182. CJ (1960–61) 326, etc. HC Deb (2 December 2013) 571, c 750.

Suspension of a sitting 17.20The sitting of the House is occasionally suspended without any question being put with the intention of resuming the transaction of business at a later hour.1 An informal suspension of this kind always occurs on the opening day of a session (see para 8.32 ). A sitting may also be suspended on other occasions, as when a bill awaited by the Commons is under consideration by the House of Lords,2 or until the Royal Assent to various bills could be signified,3 while the House waits for a message from the Lords Commissioners4 or following consideration stage during the certification of bills or parts of bills as applicable only to certain parts of the UK.5 If business is concluded before the point three hours before the moment of interruption on a day opposed private business has been set down for that hour by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means6 (see para 19.38 ), the sitting may be informally suspended until that time.7 In recent times, however, it has been common for a business of the House motion under Standing Order No 9(6) to allow the opposed private business to be taken at any time, rendering a suspension unnecessary.8 Occasionally, suspensions have been necessary until the moment of interruption on Estimates Days when debate has ended early and questions necessary to dispose of proceedings are deferred until that hour under Standing Order No 54(4).9 For the Speaker's powers to suspend the sitting in cases of grave disorder, pursuant to Standing Order No 46, see para 17.18. Occasionally, an informal suspension is granted to allow a period of reflection following a procedural impasse.10 The House has also been suspended to await an urgent ministerial statement or for the provision of documents during a ministerial statement.11 During the suspension of a sitting the Speaker, the Mace being left upon the Table, retires from the House, and returns at the appointed hour, when business is resumed.12 As, technically, the House continues sitting, these occurrences were not noted in the Journal prior to Session 2008–09 (since when they have been so noted in order to account more fully for time spent on the Floor).

Footnotes 1. Suspension of sitting on the occasion of a river pageant, HC Deb (1919) 119, cc 36, 65; owing to failure of the lighting system, ibid (1927) 210, c 2117; for the convenience of the House, during a long speech by the Prime Minister, ibid (1943–44) 403, c 487; after the sudden collapse of a Member, ibid (1961–62) 658, c 886; ibid (1973–74) 866, c 707; and ibid (1982–83) 36, c 1232); to investigate an explosion occurring in the precincts of the Palace, ibid (1978–79) 965, cc 875–76; owing to failure of the sound broadcasting system, ibid (2001–02) 388, c 1219; on account of a security incident, ibid (15 September 2004) 424, c 1337 and ibid (22 March 2017) 623, c 92; during Prime Minister's question time on the occasion of the death of the son of the Leader of the Opposition, ibid (25 February 2009) 488, c 284; for a commemorative photograph, ibid (8 June 2016) 611, c 1305; on account of a water leak, ibid (4 April 2019) 657, c 1326. 2. Parl Deb (1884–85) 298, c 1532; HC Deb (1971–72) 831, c 1454; ibid (1990–91) 188, c 1092. 3. HC Deb (1992–93) 229, c 1058. 4. HC Deb (12 May 2016) 609, c 761. 5. HC Deb (1991–92) 205, c 1243 when the House was suspended, resumed, was immediately suspended and then resumed again. 6. HC Deb (1956–57) 567, c 455. 7. For example, HC Deb (2001–02) 374, c 1030. 8. For example, Votes and Proceedings, 24 March 2017. 9. For example, HC Deb (1995–96) 281, c 1394. 10. HC Deb (1984–85) 77, c 762; ibid (1988–89) 144, c 212. 11. HC Deb (7 July 2005) 436, c 463; ibid (12 July 2018) 644, c 1155. 12. If the business before the House is subject to a timetable, the period of suspension is not added to the time allowed for the debate then in progress, HC Deb (15 September 2004) 424, cc 1335–36.

Interruption of item of business 17.21Public business normally continues until the moment of interruption (see para 17.8 ). But an item of business under consideration is liable to be interrupted, or, more technically, suspended and postponed at an earlier hour: (i) by a motion that the House has considered a specified matter which has satisfied the conditions prescribed by Standing Order No 24 (although these motions are now more usually taken at the commencement of public business on the day following their being granted) (see para 19.22 ); or (ii) by opposed private business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No 20(5) (see para 19.38 ). At the conclusion of such business, the business postponed on its account is resumed. On Estimates Days under Standing Order No 54 (see para 34.26 ff) after questions have been deferred under that Standing Order, other unrelated business may then be taken before itself being interrupted at the moment of interruption when the deferred questions, and possibly other questions relating to Estimates, may be taken. Occasionally, the normal business of the House is interrupted to allow the making of ministerial statements (see para 19.21 ). On Fridays, the business may be interrupted at 11 am for ministerial statements and/or urgent questions. Besides the interruption of business at the moment prescribed by the standing orders (see para 17.8 ), or by a Member rising to move the closure of debate (see para 20.52 ff), proceedings in the House may be interrupted by a point of order, which calls for the immediate intervention of the Chair; by motions under Standing Order No 163 (motions to sit in private (see para 17.22 )); by the announcement of deferred division results (Standing Order No 41A) and the election of select committee Chairs (Standing Order Nos 122B and 122C); to welcome distinguished visitors to the public Gallery;1 by occasions of sudden disorder in the House, and by the suspension of Members, or other proceedings for the enforcement of order (see para 21.40 ff); by a message from the Queen or the Lords Commissioners, commanding or desiring the attendance of the House in the House of Peers;2 by the presentation of the answer to an Address to the Crown3 (see para 9.14 ); by an announcement of Royal Assent being granted; by a message from the other House, and by proceedings taken in consequence4 (see para 9.17 ); by a report of reasons for disagreeing to Lords amendments5 (see para 30.16 ); by a statement from the Speaker indicating he would be giving precedence on the next day to a matter of privilege raised earlier that day;6 by the Clerk of the Crown attending by order of the House to amend a return7 (see para 2.20 ); and by a report from the Serjeant at Arms regarding the execution of the orders of the House.8 Business has also been interrupted by the observance of periods of commemorative silence.9 When the cause of interruption has ceased, or the proceeding on it has been disposed of, the debate, or the business in hand which was interrupted, is resumed at the point where the interruption had occurred.10 The resumption of a proceeding, subjected to an interruption, has, however, been sometimes delayed by further interruptions.11

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (5 March 2018) 637, c 17; see para 21.30. 2. See HC Deb (1962–63) 669, cc 409–12. The reading of a petition has been so interrupted, and was resumed on the return of the Speaker from the Lords, CJ (1863) 168. Points of order have been interrupted by a message to attend the Lords Commissioners, HC Deb (1979–80) 992, c 770. 3. CJ (1852–54) 438; ibid (1870) 377; ibid (1878–79) 23. This rule, however, does not apply to a message from the Crown: ibid (1865–67) 366. 4. A message brought from the Lords does not ordinarily interrupt the business under discussion, but there are occasions when such an interruption can arise, CJ (1871) 57; ibid (1914–16) 31; ibid (1919) 315; and when consequential on a message relating to corrections to a bill, the Speaker has interrupted the business to announce that a message had been received from the Lords in respect of those corrections and the question was put forthwith and agreed to, that the bill be now read the third time, HC Deb (1973–74) 877, cc 366–67. 5. CJ (1880) 431; ibid (1882) 452; HC Deb (1976–77) 919, c 669. 6. HC Deb (3 December 2018) 650, c 624. 7. CJ (1837–38) 276, 308; HC Deb (1955–56) 545, cc 55, 57. The Clerk of the Crown has attended at the end of statements, pursuant to an Order of the House to attend forthwith, CJ (1960–61) 325. 8. For example, the Deputy Speaker has read a report he had received from the Assistant Serjeant of Arms on conduct at the doors of the ‘Aye’ lobby during a division on the previous proceeding, HC Deb (1970–71) 810, c 1097. The business of the House was in former times interrupted by a motion that candles be brought in: but by an order of 1717 the Serjeant was charged with the duty of having the House lighted when ‘daylight be shut in’, ibid (1714–18) 718. 9. CJ (2005–06) 131. A period of silence at an appointed time has also been observed in Westminster Hall (HC Deb (11 November 2008) 482, c 220WH; ibid (14 May 2018) 641, c 1WH). Where the House wishes to observe such a period of silent respect outwith a nationwide observance, this has been done after prayers at the start of business (CJ (2003–04) 199; (2015–17) 130); see CJ (2009–10) 104, for a minute's silence in Westminster Hall on the occasion of the death of a Member; recent observations of silences have interrupted business, for example HC Deb (14 June 2018) 642, c 1102 during the Business Question and ibid (19 June 2018) 643, c 170 during questions. 10. See para 19.11, fn 5 for an example of private business so interrupted. 11. CJ (1847–48) 550, 551, 755.

Proceedings in private and secret sessions 17.22Standing Order No 163 provides that at any sitting of the House, any Member may move ‘That the House sit in private’1 and that that question shall be put forthwith,2 and may be considered after the moment of interruption. Sittings in private in peacetime are extremely unusual; the last two occasions on which the House sat in private were 18 November 1958 and 4 December 2001.3 If the House decides to sit in private,4 then all the galleries are cleared, including Hansard reporters, with the consequence that there is no report of debates; broadcasting also ceases. The occupant of the Chair may authorise a short suspension to allow these arrangements to be put in place. During the Second World War, following the precedents of the years 1916–18, whenever it seemed that matters of value to the enemy might be revealed in debate in either House, motions were made for the House concerned to go into secret session. This involved a two-stage process, under which the House first agreed to sit in private and then agreed the further specific motion that there be a secret session; the significance of the additional step was that divulging information from a secret session could engage the provisions of wartime security legislation.5 The secret session might be either to discuss a particular named subject,6 or for the remainder of the sitting,7 without any reason being specified. It was also a frequent practice to devote part of a sitting only to secret matters, and then resume a public sitting.8 It was open to the Speaker to authorise the insertion in Hansard of a limited statement of proceedings.9 In December 1945, it was resolved that no proceedings during the last Parliament held in secret session be any longer secret.10

Footnotes 1. Until 1998 (CJ (1997–98) 597) the form of the motion was ‘That strangers do withdraw’. Before the Standing Order was originally made as a resolution in May 1875, the exclusion of members of the public from the galleries could, at any time, be enforced without an order of the House: on a Member taking notice of their presence, the Speaker was obliged to order them to withdraw, without putting a question (Parl Deb (1810) 15, c 309; ibid (1845) 77, c 138). 2. The Speaker has ruled that a motion to sit in private offered during question time should be taken at the end of questions, HC Deb (13 June 2018) 642, cc 887–89. 3. CJ (1958–59) 32; ibid (2001–02) 242. 4. See para 6.57 for additional information. 5. For a discussion of the proceedings arising from disclosure following a secret session, see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 280. 6. For example, Home Defence, LJ (1939–40) 165. 7. For example, CJ (1940–41) 5. 8. For a fuller discussion of the arrangements for secret sessions, see Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), pp 252–54. 9. For example, CJ (1917–18) 149. 10. CJ (1945–46) 120.

Introduction to the control and distribution of time for business in the House of Commons 18.1The preceding chapter described the general procedure and arrangements relating to sittings of the House of Commons. This chapter considers the time available to the Commons in the course of a session and the manner of distributing that time between the various types of business; it describes how different constituent parts of the House – the Government, the official Opposition, other parties and backbenchers – can bring business forward.

The length of a session 18.2Chapter 8 has described how the period of a Parliament, between two General Elections, whether lasting the maximum five years or brought to an end earlier, is divided into sessions. The ends of sessions are marked either by dissolution or prorogation. Dissolution of Parliament is controlled by the provisions of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. This states that Parliament shall dissolve at the beginning of the 17th working day before the next General Election is due to be held. The Act also provides for a General Election to be held five years after the previous such election, or following a motion passed by a two-thirds majority of the House of Commons or, if no Government that commands the confidence of the House of Commons can be established, within a specified time. Prorogation remains a prerogative act. In other words, unless it is brought to a conclusion by a dissolution and General Election, the duration of a session is determined by the Government. The Government's freedom of choice in this matter is, however, circumscribed both by convention and by the necessity of passing certain items of business in accordance with the procedures set out in standing orders and elsewhere. Following the passage of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, sessions have tended to end in late April or early May and begin in mid to late May. Previously, they had mostly begun and ended in October or November, except where there had been a dissolution.1 The session in which the Act was passed lasted for two calendar years – from May 2010 to April 2012. It is anticipated that the session which began in June 2017 will do the same. The House has generally adjourned for a week around the date of the Spring Bank Holiday or later that month; then again from late July until early to September when the House has returned for two weeks, then adjourned once more while the annual conferences of the major political parties are in progress.2 The House has resumed sitting in early October until the week before Christmas, with an adjournment of a few days in the first half of November. The House typically resumes sitting in January following an adjournment of about two weeks. There are normally then further adjournments of a week around the February school half-term and for about two weeks around Easter. Parliament then prorogues in late April or early May, with the new session opening a few days later.3 Since the reduction in the number of sitting Fridays (by change to Standing Order No 12 in 1995), the number of days on which the House has sat in a normal session (ie sessions lasting approximately a year) has varied between 133 and 182. The shortest session since 1945 was 1948 (ten days) and the longest that of 2010–12 (295 days).4

Footnotes 1. From the summons of 15 June 1945 to the dissolution of May 2017 there were 19 Parliaments totalling 72 sessions. For discussion of earlier patterns, see Erskine May (14th edn, 1946), pp 294–96. Until the middle of the twentieth century it was not uncommon for new sessions to begin after Christmas. 2. The House did not sit in September in the years 2004 to 2009 but resumed in 2010 following a recommendation of the House of Commons Reform Committee, First Report, HC 1117 (2008–09) para 101; CJ (2009–10) 241. 3. Where, as is generally the case, provisional recess dates have been announced significantly in advance, then the expected dates are published on the Parliament website (and a printed calendar indicating expected future sitting days over the coming months or year may be issued). 4. The numbers of sitting days in each ‘normal’ session since then have been as follows: 1995–96, 146; 1998–99, 149; 1999–2000, 170; 2002–03, 162; 2003–04, 157; 2006–07, 146; 2007–08, 165; 2008–09, 136; 2012–13, 145; 2013–14, 162; 2014–15, 133; 2015–16, 158; 2016–17, 142.

Sitting hours 18.3The number of hours for which the House can sit on each sitting day is determined by the arrangements set out in the preceding chapter. If the House transacted only the minimum business after the moment of interruption, then the number of hours sat in the Chamber each week, under the current standing orders, would be 32 hours (371/2 hours in weeks with a sitting Friday). In some weeks the House sits for less than these hours, if the business finishes early. More usually, the Government's requirements for time to get its business through mean that in many weeks the Government on one or more days uses the methods provided in the standing orders for prolonging, with the agreement of the House, the amount of time which can be made available. But the regular use of the programming standing orders and the frequent passage of procedural motions to regulate non-legislative business has reduced significantly the pressure on the business of the House, leading to the House sitting fewer hours, compared to the late twentieth century.

‘Public’ and ‘other’ business 18.4On Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the sitting is divided between public business and other business. ‘Other business’ comprises unopposed private business, questions, ministerial statements, select committee statements and a number of miscellaneous items of business; with the exception of occasional ministerial statements, ‘other business’ is taken before public business (see Chapter 20). ‘Public business’ is composed of orders of the day and motions of which notice has been given, which is the business on which, in general terms, debate takes place, and with which the remainder of this chapter is principally concerned. Fridays are different: though it is still possible for the House to sit on Friday to transact government business,1 in practice Friday is normally devoted to public business in the form of Private Members' Bills.

Footnotes 1. For example, see Friday 11 April 2003, Friday 20 March 2014 and Friday 29 March 2019; on the first two of these occasions the business was the third day of debate on the Budget resolutions.

Procedural classification of public business Contents Motions Bills Delegated legislation and European Union documents Financial business 18.5By the standing orders regulating the time of the House, public business can be divided into government business, opposition business and backbench (or private Members') business. The way in which the available time is divided between these categories is a key factor in the way in which the House conducts its business and is discussed in detail further below. But it is helpful to note beforehand that in procedural terms public business can also be classified into four principal forms of business, which cut across the division of business into government, opposition or backbench.

Motions 18.6A substantive motion is a self-contained proposal submitted for the approval of the House and drafted in such a way as to be capable of expressing a decision of the House, whether as a Resolution or as an order. Motions that are not intended to express a decision of the House, whether for a general debate on a specified matter or a substantive motion for the adjournment of the House, are described later in this chapter. A full procedural description of motions is given in Chapter 20.

Bills 18.7Bills can be subdivided into public bills which deal with matters of public general interest; private bills which are for the particular interest or benefit of any person or body; and hybrid bills, which are public bills which may in certain respects affect private rights. A full description of the procedure relating to public and hybrid bills is given in Chapters 26–30 and that relating to private bills in Chapters 42–45. Public bills, the type with which this chapter is principally concerned, may be introduced by any Member of the House: those introduced by a Minister are known as government bills, those introduced by other Members as Private Members' Bills.

Delegated legislation and European Union documents 18.8Many public and general Acts of Parliament include provisions giving powers to Ministers to make certain types of subordinate legislation by means of statutory instruments, subject to various forms of parliamentary procedure. These are more fully described in Chapter 31. The House's scrutiny of European Union documents is described in Chapter 32.

Financial business 18.9Financial business may be defined as the business of the House which relates directly either to expenditure or taxation, and it is transacted under specially devised forms and procedures which are described in Chapters 33–37.

Control of time in the House Contents Basis and nature of the Government's control Government announcement of forthcoming business 18.10In principle, the control of the distribution of the time available to the House rests with the House itself. In practice, the House has by standing orders delegated this control, with some exceptions for opposition, backbench and other private Members' business and other minor reservations, to the Government. This control was the result of a process which continued over nearly two centuries, whereby an increasing proportion of the time of each session was placed at the disposal of the Government. In the light of growing concern at government control of debating time in the Chamber, exacerbated by the abolition of backbenchers' motions in favour of more adjournment debates, in March 2010 the House adopted a resolution relating to the establishment of a backbench business committee with a view to addressing the process of increasing Government control; the resolution also sought the establishment during the following Parliament of a House Business Committee.1 At the beginning of the 2010 Parliament, the House established the Backbench Business Committee with power to allocate business on at least 27 sitting days in the House (and 35 in total including in Westminster Hall) to be devoted to backbench business not including Private Members' Bills or end-of-day adjournments.2 In 2015, the House also agreed to establish a Petitions Committee with power to allocate time in Westminster Hall to debate petitions.3

Footnotes 1. Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, First Report of Session 2006–07, HC 337; House of Commons Reform Committee, First Report of Session 2008–09, HC 1117; CJ (2009–10) 241 and 294. 2. HC Deb (15 June 2010) 511, c 842 ff and SO No 14(4)–(6). 3. HC Deb (24 February 2015) 593, c 248.

Basis and nature of the Government's control 18.11The basis of the Government's control over the business of the House lies in Standing Order No 14, which gives the Government's business precedence at every sitting, except on 13 Fridays when precedence is given to Private Members' Bills, 20 other days at the disposal of the opposition parties, at least 27 days1 allocated by the Backbench Business Committee for backbench business, and (under Standing Order No 54) three days allotted for the consideration of Estimates recommended by the Liaison Committee. This, coupled with the provision in Standing Order No 27 allowing the Government to arrange its business in any order it thinks fit, gives the Government substantial control over the time of the House. (This far-reaching control can be further extended by the Government, if the need arises, by inviting the House to agree to a motion suspending the relevant standing orders under which certain time is allotted to private Members or by making a special order for the purpose.)2 It should, however, be stressed before going on to describe the formal arrangement for allocating time that the actual time spent in debating a particular matter, or one particular aspect of a matter, is frequently determined by the wishes of the Opposition, and on other occasions by the wishes of groups of private Members or even of a single private Member. While certain days are specifically allotted to the opposition parties, there are a wide variety of other ways in which the official Opposition, and to a lesser extent other parties, are able to influence the amount of time spent by the House on particular matters. For example, the opposition parties can expect to debate subjects of their own choice during the debate on the Address in reply to the Queen's speech, much of the time spent debating public bills will be on opposition or backbench amendments, it is open to parties and backbenchers to table amendments to government motions and so forth. Similarly, though specific time is allotted to backbenchers in every session, and although numerous instances occur in government time in which the matter under debate is in practice raised by a backbencher, backbenchers may intervene at any juncture during the discussion of public business. This right is exercised daily by backbenchers in all parts of the House. The Speaker plays an important role in the use of parliamentary time by the use of discretion to call representatives of majority and minority views.

Footnotes 1. Standing Order No 14(4) allocates 35 days to backbench business in the Chamber and Westminster Hall combined, but requires that at least 27 shall be in the Chamber. 2. Conversely, the priority accorded by SO No 14 to government business can be set aside by the House agreeing to a motion suspending that standing order so as to give priority to other business; for such cases where priority was given to a specified category of business, with power for the Speaker to select amongst different motions within the specified category if more than one such motion was tabled, including a Private Member’s Bill, see Votes and Proceedings, 25 March 2019 (giving priority to such business on 27 March), ibid, 27 March 2019 (giving priority on 1 April), and ibid, 1 April 2019 (giving priority on 3 April).

Government announcement of forthcoming business 18.12The House is informed through a weekly announcement by the Leader of the House in the Chamber (see also para 19.18 ) which items of government business (and in what order) it is intended to take on government days, and which days or half-days have been allocated to opposition business, backbench business, opposed private business or for consideration of Estimates. This announcement takes place every Thursday, after Question Time, normally in reply to an urgent question by the ‘shadow’ Leader of the House. If it is more convenient to take the announcement after any ministerial statements which may be scheduled, then it can take place as a further ministerial statement rather than as an urgent question. Supplementary questions on the weekly Business Question or Statement are taken. The order of business thus notified is seldom varied, save for the addition of minor items of business, without a supplementary statement being made. The Speaker has stated that the addition of new business without such a statement would be considered a discourtesy to the House.1 In addition, an advance provisional indication of business for the second week ahead is normally given by the Leader of the House. Backbench business is usually announced in the Future Business section of the House business papers and subsequently as part of the Business Statement. Where that business has subsequently changed, the House has been informed through the House business papers and, in exceptional circumstances, a point of order by the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.2 The Leader's announcement provides the authority for inclusion of those items of intended business in the ‘Future Business A’ section of the Order Paper. The Leader has announced the dates of parliamentary recesses as part of the Business Question.3

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (12 July 2016) 613, c 170; although a very minor change of business has been announced as a point of order, HC Deb (22 March 2018) 638, c 467. 2. HC Deb (25 January 2012) 539, c 301. 3. The Leader of the House first announced a parliamentary calendar for the remainder of the forthcoming session in the 2002–03 Session: HC Deb (2002–03) 391, c 1001.

Registration and declaration of interests Contents Registration Declaration 5.33Under paragraph 10 of the Code, Lords Members are required to register and declare certain relevant interests. A relevant interest is one which might be thought by a reasonable member of the public to influence the way in which a Member of the House of Lords discharges their parliamentary duties:1 in the case of registration, the Member's parliamentary duties in general; in the case of declaration, duties in respect of the particular matter under discussion. Thus the House of Lords, like the Commons, has two distinct but related methods for the disclosure of the relevant interests of its Members. Registered interests are published in the Register of Lords' Interests, which is updated daily online2 and published in hard copy annually. The main purpose of the Register is to give public notification on a continuing basis of those interests held by Lords Members that might reasonably be thought to have a general influence upon their parliamentary conduct or actions. The main purpose of declaration of interest is to ensure that fellow Members of the House, Ministers, officials and the public are made aware, at the point at which the Member participates in proceedings of the House or otherwise acts in a parliamentary capacity, of any present or expected future interest that might reasonably be thought relevant to that particular action by the Lords Member.3

Footnotes 1. Code of Conduct, para 11. 2. See www.parliament.uk/hlregister. 3. Guide to the Code of Conduct, paras 87–89.

Backbench business 18.14Standing Order No 14 provides for 35 days or its equivalent to be allocated each session for proceedings on backbench business in the House and Westminster Hall. At least 27 of those days must be in the House. The business to be debated is selected by the Backbench Business Committee (see Chapter 38) and comprises all proceedings in the Chamber relating to a motion or order of the day except government business, opposition business, end-of-day adjournment motions, ten-minute rule motions under Standing Order No 23, Private Members' Bills, proceedings relating to private business, motions to amend Standing Order No 14 on control of business and Standing Order No 152J on the Backbench Business Committee, and business set down at the direction of or given precedence by the Speaker (such as motions relating to privilege matters). Business may be taken in the form of half-days, in which case the provisions of Standing Order No 14(2)(c) apply. As with opposition days, it is frequently the case that two separate subjects are proposed for debate, with the day being informally divided at a convenient point between the start of public business and the moment of interruption.1 Backbench business also includes topical debates (see next paragraph), which count as one quarter day, and statements launching select committee reports, which are taken at the beginning of an existing allocation of backbench time.

Footnotes 1. For an occasion when the second debate was not moved due to lack of time, see for example HC Deb (26 April 2018) 639, c 1052.

Topical debates 18.15In 2007, Standing Order No 24A was made providing for topical debates. At first such debates were initiated by a Minister of the Crown indicating that proceedings on a motion that the House has considered a specified matter, being a matter of regional, national or international importance, were to be conducted as a topical (general) debate.1 In 2010, the Standing Order was amended so that debates are set down on the initiative of the Backbench Business Committee.2 Debates can last for up to one-and-a-half hours and lapse after that period. Choice of subjects is made by the Backbench Business Committee. In practice, use of this procedure has lapsed.

Footnotes 1. CJ (2006–07) 609. 2. HC Deb (15 June 2010) 511, c 845.

Private Members' Bills 18.16Standing Order No 14 provides for 13 Fridays in each session on which Private Members' Bills have precedence over government business.1 Unless the House decides otherwise,2 these are the only Fridays on which the House sits. On the first seven Fridays allotted to Private Members' Bills, precedence is given in accordance first with the results of a ballot and thereafter by order of notices given; on the eighth and subsequent Fridays,3 bills are arranged upon the paper in the following order: consideration of Lords amendments, third readings, consideration of reports not already entered upon, adjourned proceedings on consideration, bills in progress in committee, bills appointed for committee, and second readings. (Bills set down for debate after the final Private Members' Bill Friday are listed for a notional future day.)4

Footnotes 1. The provision for 13 such Fridays was incorporated into standing orders on 20 March 1997, CJ (1996–97) 336. 2. See Friday 11 April 2003, Friday 20 March 2014 and Friday 29 March 2019 for examples of occasions in recent years where the House has so decided. 3. SO No 14(5). 4. HC Deb (24 March 2017) 623, c 1109.

The Government programme Contents Address in reply to the Queen's speech and other Addresses Government bills Financial business Delegated legislation, etc, and European Union documents 18.17A Government's programme as outlined in the Queen's speech is mainly implemented, so far as proceedings in Parliament are concerned, by the passing of government bills and the necessary ancillary motions, and by the passing of motions for approving instruments made by Ministers under powers delegated by statute. There are certain items of business in these categories which the Government is virtually obliged to bring forward as a matter of routine, the main example being those parts of the Finance Bill without the passage of which the levying of taxation could not be continued. The most important parts of the Government's programme are contained in the remainder of the legislation introduced by Ministers.

Address in reply to the Queen's speech and other Addresses 18.18A description of the Opening of Parliament and the delivery of the Queen's speech was given in Chapter 8. The speech sets out the main items of the Government's programme for the session. By the practice of the House, at the opening of a session, the Address in reply to the Queen's speech is moved on the first day. In recent sessions, the House has devoted five or six days to the debate on the Address, covering the main areas of the proposed programme. A fuller description is given at paras 8.37. 18.19The other most common form of motions for an Address to the Queen relate to delegated legislation subject to certain parliamentary procedures. This is dealt with in Chapter 31. Addresses may be made for other purposes. These include the recommendation of certain appointments to Her Majesty,1 to call for papers, or to mark major royal occasions.2

Footnotes 1. For example, the Comptroller and Auditor General under the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, or Electoral Commissioners under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000: Votes and Proceedings, 13 March 2017. 2. For example, upon the 60th anniversary of accession to the Throne, HC Deb (7 March 2012) 541, c 849. See also Chapter 9.

Address in reply to the Queen's speech and other Addresses 18.18A description of the Opening of Parliament and the delivery of the Queen's speech was given in Chapter 8. The speech sets out the main items of the Government's programme for the session. By the practice of the House, at the opening of a session, the Address in reply to the Queen's speech is moved on the first day. In recent sessions, the House has devoted five or six days to the debate on the Address, covering the main areas of the proposed programme. A fuller description is given at paras 8.37. 18.19The other most common form of motions for an Address to the Queen relate to delegated legislation subject to certain parliamentary procedures. This is dealt with in Chapter 31. Addresses may be made for other purposes. These include the recommendation of certain appointments to Her Majesty,1 to call for papers, or to mark major royal occasions.2

Footnotes 1. For example, the Comptroller and Auditor General under the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, or Electoral Commissioners under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000: Votes and Proceedings, 13 March 2017. 2. For example, upon the 60th anniversary of accession to the Throne, HC Deb (7 March 2012) 541, c 849. See also Chapter 9.

Government bills 18.20The amount of time spent on the floor of the House on bills varies greatly from session to session, depending on the amount of legislation introduced and the amount of controversy which that legislation attracts. This is particularly true of the amount of time spent in Committee of the whole House.1 The committee stages of bills are in the large majority debated in public bill committees, except where they are of constitutional or other special importance or of insufficient length to warrant the establishment of a public bill committee. The regular use of programming of bills has ended much of the previous uncertainty as to the time required to ensure the passage of each piece of government legislation through the House of Commons.

Footnotes 1. For example, in Session 1992–93, the session in which the European Communities (Amendment) Bill was introduced, about 210 hours were taken up debating committee stages of bills. In Session 1997–98, the session in which, inter alia, two Finance Bills, the Scotland Bill, the Government of Wales Bill, the Northern Ireland Bill and the Human Rights Bill [Lords] were introduced, the House spent about 275 hours in Committee, though that figure is atypically large.

Financial business Contents Consideration of Estimates Money resolutions and Ways and Means business 18.21In general terms, financial business relates to expenditure and taxation, and is transacted under special procedures described in Chapters 33–36. In addition, there are certain regular items of business which are closely related to public expenditure which are debated on motions moved by the Government.

Consideration of Estimates 18.22Ordinary annual expenditure falls mainly within special arrangements made for the consideration of Estimates set out in Chapter 34. Under the terms of Standing Order No 54, three days, other than Fridays, before 5 August are allotted in each session to the consideration on the floor of the House of Estimates recommended for such debate by the Liaison Committee subject to endorsement by the House. Not more than one of these days may be taken in the form of two half-days.

Money resolutions and Ways and Means business 18.23Expenditure for new purposes contained in legislation for which there is no authority is authorised by the House agreeing to Money resolutions. Under Standing Order No 52, if a motion authorising expenditure in connection with a bill or a Ways and Means motion in connection with a bill is made at the same sitting as that at which the bill has been read a second time, the Speaker puts the question forthwith without debate. If, however, such motions are made on another day, proceedings must end not later than three-quarters of an hour after they are entered upon, though in many cases there is little or no debate at all. Some government bills are brought in only after the House has passed enabling resolutions. The annual Finance Bill is the most notable example, which is brought in on Ways and Means resolutions; Supply and Appropriation Bills are brought in on Estimates resolutions. Motions for such resolutions may, under Standing Order No 51(1), be made in the House without notice on any day after the Address in reply to the Queen's speech has been agreed. Debate on the Budget resolutions normally continues for four or five days (normally excluding the Friday)1 following the Chancellor's Budget Statement. Proceedings upon bills brought in upon Ways and Means resolutions are, under Standing Order No 15(1)(a), exempt from interruption and may continue until any hour, but this exemption does not apply to debate on such resolutions themselves.

Footnotes 1. For Budget resolutions debated on a Friday, see HC Deb (11 April 2003) 403, c 508; ibid (22 March 2013) 560, c 1179.

Delegated legislation, etc, and European Union documents Contents Instruments subject to affirmative resolution procedure Instruments subject to negative resolution procedure Instruments subject to cognate procedures Legislative reform orders European Union documents 18.24Statutory instruments etc, made and laid pursuant to Acts of Parliament, are recorded in an Appendix to the Votes and Proceedings of the day on which they are laid. The Appendix indicates the form of parliamentary procedure to which, under the parent Act, they may be subject. Certain other legislative instruments, while not strictly statutory instruments, are subject to cognate procedures.

Instruments subject to affirmative resolution procedure 18.25For those instruments which are subject to affirmative resolution procedure, it is necessary for the Government to secure the approval of the House before (or, in a small number of cases, within a specified time after) the instrument comes into effect.1 The majority of statutory instruments are now debated in Delegated Legislation Committee and not on the Floor of the House (see para 39.34 ff). Debate in Committee takes place upon a neutral and unamendable motion that ‘The Committee has considered the [instrument]’. Following debate in Committee, the motion to approve the instrument is taken forthwith on the floor of the House, usually following the moment of interruption. Those instruments that are debated in the chamber are subject to the provisions of Standing Order No 16, limiting debate to one-and-a-half hours from whenever proceedings on such instruments begin. Such proceedings are exempt from interruption. Examples of instruments commonly debated in the Chamber include grant reports setting out the Government's determination of annual grants to be paid to local authorities and police forces. In some cases, a Business of the House Order is made providing for a combined debate on a number of instruments for a longer period of time.2

Footnotes 1. For a detailed account of this procedure, see para 31.13. 2. CJ (2004–05) 135; ibid (2008–09) 107; ibid (2009–10) 169.

Instruments subject to negative resolution procedure 18.26A larger number of government instruments laid before the House are subject to what is known as the negative resolution procedure. Most are not debated. Of those that are, like those subject to the affirmative procedure, the overwhelming majority are debated in Delegated Legislation Committee. However, the Government may very occasionally give time on the floor of the House to the debate of a motion for an Address praying that the instrument be annulled (for a detailed account, see para 31.15 ).1 Such motions are most frequently moved by a member of the official Opposition, but some are also tabled by private Members or spokespersons of other opposition parties. Proceedings under the negative procedure are also governed by Standing Order No 16, limiting debate to one-and-a-half hours, but subject also to Standing Order No 17 which requires proceedings to end by 11.30 pm on Mondays, 8.30 pm on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and 6.30 pm on Thursdays (subject to certain qualifications, for which see para 20.50, 3rd indent).

Footnotes 1. See for example HC Deb (17 December 2008) 485, c 1133; ibid (11 March 2009) 489, c 364.

Instruments subject to cognate procedures 18.27The Government may also provide time for the discussion of Church of England Measures, on the floor of the House. Provision is made in standing orders for them to be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee and treated as if they were statutory instruments. Similarly, the Police Grant and Local Government Finance Reports pursuant to the Local Government Finance Acts are proceeded with under the affirmative procedure even though they are not statutory instruments. The House has additionally regularly ordered that motions for certain statutory appointments should be treated in the same way as an affirmative statutory instrument.1 Standing Order No 17 also provides for its application to documents other than statutory instruments which are dealt with by methods analogous to the annulment procedure.

Footnotes 1. Votes and Proceedings, 28 February 2017, and 13 March 2017.

Legislative reform orders 18.28Under Standing Order No 18, the procedure which applies to the approval of draft legislative reform orders depends on the manner in which the Regulatory Reform Committee (see paras 31.36, 38.68 ) reaches its recommendation that a draft order under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, s 1 should be approved. If the recommendation was agreed to without a division in the Committee, the question on a motion in the House to approve the draft order is put forthwith by the Speaker. If the recommendation was agreed after a division, debate on the approval motion in the House may continue for one-and-a-half hours. In the event that the Committee has reported that a draft order be not approved, no motion to approve the draft order may be made unless the House has previously resolved to disagree with the Committee's report. Proceedings on a motion to disagree may continue for three hours; subsequently, the question on any motion by a Minister to approve the draft order is put forthwith.

European Union documents 18.29Draft proposals by the Commission of the European Union for legislation and other documents published by the Commission for submission to the Council of Ministers or the European Council are also regularly debated on the recommendation of the European Scrutiny Committee (see paras 32.10, 38.72 ). Proceedings on motions relating to such documents are limited to one-and-a-half hours under Standing Order No 16, no matter whether they take place before or after the moment of interruption. Most European Union documents are considered in one or other of the European Committees.

Other government business Contents Government motions General debates Substantive motions for the adjournment 18.30Apart from legislation, both primary and delegated, and financial business, government business is brought before the House for debate on other days on motions moved by Ministers. Such motions may be in the form of a self-contained proposal or a motion to record that the House has considered a specific matter or a motion for the adjournment, described below.

Government motions 18.31This category of business covers a wide variety of the matters which come before the House. Among the most important are motions to take note or approve a specific government course of action or document; for example, the Government's own White and Green Papers. They also include the motions to make or recommend certain appointments. In addition, changes in the procedure of the House are generally brought about through the passing of appropriate orders or resolutions moved by the Government.

General debates 18.32Since a proposal from the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons in 2007, the House has used a standard motion ‘That this House has considered [the matter of] …’ to hold general debates on particular subjects without the House coming to a definitive conclusion.1 These debates have replaced substantive motions for the adjournment as the vehicle for general debate. Under Standing Order No 24B, made at the same time, if the matter to be debated is expressed in neutral terms, no amendment to the motion may be tabled. Such motions are often the form used, for example, for a general foreign affairs debate, or for a wide-ranging debate on a topic such as the protection of the environment, or for debate of a report from a select committee.2 The Government may also move such a motion to provide for discussion of a topic at the instance of the Opposition. Backbench debates may also take this form. Although such motions do not generally give rise to controversy, debate can be concluded by a division to indicate dissent from government policy.3

Footnotes 1. Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, First Report of Session 2006–07, HC 337, para 85; HC Deb (2006–07) 465, c 502 ff. 2. HC Deb (22 May 2018) 641, c 738 ff; ibid (11 October 2018) 647, c 331 ff. 3. Parl Deb (1893) 440, c 449; HC Deb (1974–75) 897, c 1719; ibid (6 December 2011) 537, c 269.

Substantive motions for the adjournment Contents Adjournment motions moved by a Minister Extraordinary adjournments Daily adjournments 18.33The substantive motion, ‘That this House do now adjourn’, used to be moved to provide a vehicle for discussing many subjects, including urgent debates under Standing Order No 24.1 As discussed above, this practice has now been replaced by general debates upon the neutral and unamendable motion that ‘This House has considered [subject]’. Other than as described in paras 18.35 and 18.36, such motions are therefore now rare, though they can still be used.2

Footnotes 1. Substantive adjournment motions are thus distinguished from motions for the adjournment of the House moved as a dilatory motion (see para 20.23 ); see also para 19.32. 2. For a fuller description of earlier practice, see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 340.

Adjournment motions moved by a Minister 18.34Motions for the adjournment are moved either before or between the Orders of the Day, and can therefore, in accordance with the practice of the House, be moved only by a Minister (see para 19.32 ).1

Footnotes 1. For example, see CJ (1974–75) 500; HC Deb (1974–75) 894, cc 163–68. Adjournment motions have occasionally been made when a Minister wishes to interpose a statement of government policy between orders of the day (see para 19.21 ) or, when an oral statement is made at the normal time, to provide a question on which immediate debate can take place, see eg CJ (1974–75) 500; HC Deb (1974–75) 894, cc 163–68.

Extraordinary adjournments 18.35The moving of the adjournment in government time is also used for the expression of the respect or condolence of the House (see para 17.7 ). Adjournments of this nature (sometimes known as extraordinary adjournments) are moved by the Government either at the commencement of public business or, should the occasion arise, without notice during the course of a sitting. Discussion is restricted to the occasion of the motion, and the motion is seen through to a conclusion rather than withdrawn, with the House then losing the rest of its scheduled business, as a sign of the respect of the House.1

Footnotes 1. For example, see CJ (1964–65) 110 and ibid (1993–94) 345.

Daily adjournments 18.36The conclusion of public business at each sitting is followed by the moving of an adjournment motion by a member of the Government. Standing Order No 9 allows an interval of half an hour between the moving of this motion at or after the moment of interruption and the compulsory adjournment of the House without question put; and the right to choose the subject of, and initiate, the discussion during this period falls to a private Member, chosen by the method detailed in para 19.43 (see also para 17.66 ). The subject of debate chosen by the Member is given on the Order Paper. Such debates are normally conducted exclusively between the Member who has the debate and the Minister replying on behalf of the Government. The Chair will permit other Members to make a speech only if satisfied that this is with the agreement of both the Member who has the debate and the Minister.1 The Chair will not call Members to speak after the Minister.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1983–84) 50, cc 136 and 138; ibid (1990–91) 190, c 603; ibid (1995–96) 272, cc 697–98; ibid (12 September 2017) 628, c 812. This rule is not enforced if the daily adjournment debate begins significantly before the moment of interruption: see, eg ibid (2001–02) 374, cc 75–90 and 375, cc 1063–84; ibid (29 April 2014) 579, c 798; ibid (5 February 2018) 635, c 1311 ff; for an example of a daily adjournment starting too close to the moment of interruption for the Chair to consider it appropriate to allow other members to speak, see ibid (25 January 2018) 635, cc 515–20.

House business in government time Contents Motions under Standing Order No 24 Matters of privilege Motions under Standing Order No 23 (the ‘Ten-minute Rule’) Motions to change membership of select committees Church of England Measures Miscellaneous backbench Members' business taken in government time 18.37From time to time business proposed by non-ministerial Members is taken in government time. Such business can be usefully divided into that on which time is given as of right (on motions under Standing Order No 24, matters of privilege, for motions under Standing Order No 23 relating to bills and select committees, and on motions to allocate select committee Chairs to parties under Standing Order No 122(5)), business for which time is by tradition invariably given (motions from the Committee of Selection and relating to Church of England Measures), and miscellaneous business for which time may in exceptional circumstances be made available.

Motions under Standing Order No 24 18.38Under the terms of Standing Order No 24 (see para 19.22 ), a motion may be made by a Member ‘for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration’. Debate can take place only with the leave of the House given after the Speaker has indicated satisfaction that the matter is proper to be discussed under the terms of the Standing Order.1 The Standing Order is designed to give the discussion of some recently occurring matter of emergency precedence over the programme of business previously arranged.2 Debate occurs in the form of a general debate.3 While in recent years applications have been granted more often than in the past, they remain relatively infrequent.

Footnotes 1. In rejecting an application, the Speaker has made reference to the probability of the matter being brought before the House in time by other means: HC Deb (10 October 2016) 615, c 71. 2. For an example of a debate taking place immediately after an application: HC Deb (16 April 2018) 639, cc 103 and 105 ff (see also para 19.22, fn 14). 3. See Votes and Proceedings, 11 December 2018, for a matter not expressed in neutral terms; see also para 20.41.

Matters of privilege 18.39If the Speaker decides to allow a motion which raises a matter of privilege to have precedence over the orders of the day (see para 15.32 ), the motion tabled by the Member concerned relating to that matter is taken as the first item of public business at the next sitting.

Motions under Standing Order No 23 (the ‘Ten-minute Rule’) 18.40Under the terms of Standing Order No 23, on Tuesdays and Wednesdays one private Member is able to set down a notice of motion for consideration at the commencement of public business for leave to bring in a bill. The Member who makes the motion and a Member who opposes it are each allowed to make a brief explanatory statement, by convention no more than ten minutes each. Such bills are therefore known colloquially as ‘Ten-minute Rule Bills’. Bills which are successfully introduced by this means may then have precedence over government business on private Members' Fridays, as described above. However, since the balloted Private Members' Bills are introduced before Standing Order No 23 bills, the latter rarely obtain a second reading unless they are uncontroversial. Under the Standing Order, motions for the nomination of members of select committees may also be made under the same procedure, but this facility has been rarely used in recent times.1 Standing Order No 23(3) provides that no notice may be given under the Standing Order for a day on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has declared the intention of opening the Budget. Notices given for such a day are to be treated as having been given for the first Monday on which the House sits after the Budget is opened.

Footnotes 1. CJ (1987–88) 275.

Motions to change membership of select committees 18.41Under Standing Order No 121, motions for the nomination or discharge of members of permanent select committees (with the exception of the Liaison Committee, the Selection Committee and the Committees on Standards and of Privileges) are made on behalf of the selection committee by the Chair or another member of the committee. Such motions are placed on the Order Paper on the authority of the Government and on the instruction of the Chair of the committee. No such motion may be made unless notice of it has been given at least two sitting days previously.1 Such motions are debatable. If, however, they are taken after the moment of interruption and are then opposed, Standing Order No 15(1)(c) provides for proceedings on a subsequent day to be concluded one hour after the moment of interruption or one hour after the commencement of those proceedings, whichever is the later.

Footnotes 1. SO No 121(2)(a); for examples of the House appointing select committee members notwithstanding this provision see CJ (2010–12) 84; Votes and Proceedings, 11 September 2017.

Church of England Measures 18.42As noted above, Church of England Measures are treated for procedural purposes like delegated legislation. Motions for an Address requesting that the Measure be made in the form in which it has been laid before Parliament are traditionally moved by the Second Church Estates Commissioner, a backbench Member; however, they are debated in government time, motions relating to them are tabled on the remaining orders, and debates on them are announced in a business statement (see para 19.18 ). Most Measures are referred for debate in a Delegated Legislation Committee.

Investigation 5.41The Commissioner first informs the Lords Member concerned of the nature of the complaint, and provides copies of the evidence offered in support, at the same time inviting the Member to respond in writing with a full and accurate account of the matters in question.1 After considering the Member's written submission, the Commissioner may decide either to dismiss the complaint, or to agree remedial action. Remedial action may be agreed if the complaint, though justified, is minor and is acknowledged. It involves ‘putting the record straight’, for instance by making an amendment to the Register; the Lords Member will also normally be expected to make a formal apology in writing to the Chairman of the SubCommittee on Lords Conduct. If the Lords Member's written response is not sufficient to enable the Commissioner either to dismiss the complaint or agree remedial action, the Commissioner may pursue the investigation by seeking further information, either from the Member concerned or others, including the complainant, third parties, or public or private bodies. Such information is usually requested in writing in the first instance, though the Commissioner may also decide to interview witnesses, either informally or by means of formal oral evidence. The Committee for Privileges and Conduct decides to what extent such evidence is published. The Committee for Privileges and Conduct and its Sub-Committee on Lords' Conduct have the power to send for persons, papers and records, and may exercise this power as necessary in support of any investigation by the Commissioner. If the Commissioner's investigation has uncovered material evidence that is at variance with the Lords Member's version of events, this will be put to the Member, who will have a chance to challenge it. Before finalising a report, the Commissioner will also share with the Member a draft of those parts of the report dealing with issues of fact, so that the Member has an opportunity to comment on it. If, having considered the Member's comments, the Commissioner considers that there remain significant contested issues of fact, the Commissioner will prepare an account of the facts of the case, while drawing attention to those points which are contested. Where the Commissioner upholds a complaint concerning non-declaration of a relevant interest, they will then examine whether there were other possible instances of non-declaration of that interest by the Lords Member in the four years preceding the complaint. The Commissioner will reach a finding on any such instances identified.

Footnotes 1. Guide to the Code of Conduct, paras 131–38.

Confidence motions 18.44From time to time the Opposition has put down a motion on the paper expressing lack of confidence in the Government or otherwise criticising its general conduct. By established convention, the Government always accedes to the demand from the Leader of the Opposition to allot a day for the discussion of a motion tabled by the official Opposition which, in the Government's view, would have the effect of testing the confidence of the House. In allotting a day for this purpose, the Government is entitled to have regard to the exigencies of its own business, but a reasonably early day is invariably found.1 This convention is founded on the recognised position of the Opposition as a potential government, which guarantees the legitimacy of such an interruption of the normal course of business. For its part, the Government has everything to gain by meeting such a direct challenge to its authority at the earliest possible moment. The question has not arisen of how this convention will operate in the context of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, under which the passing of a motion in the statutory terms ‘That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government’ would have specific legal consequences for the continuation of the Government, but a differently phrased motion would not. A motion in the terms of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act tabled by the smaller opposition parties was not given time for debate.2 Motions critical of the conduct of Ministers, either individually or collectively, have not been treated as falling within this convention, and in practice have generally been debated in opposition time.3

Footnotes 1. For example, CJ (1984–85) 196, and ibid (1990–91) 35, 308. Such motions are, of course, the mirror image of motions tabled by the Government expressing confidence in its own policies, eg CJ (1992–93) 780. 2. Early Day Motion No 1943 of Session 2017–19, tabled on 18 December 2018; see HC Deb (10 December 2018) 651, c 112. 3. For example, CJ (1980–81) 412 (Conduct of the Secretary of State for the Environment); ibid (1996–97) 235 (BSE: reduction of ministerial salary); ibid (1998–99) 159–60 (Conduct of Ministers and Sierra Leone); Votes and Proceedings, 23 May 2018 (East Coast franchise: reduction of ministerial salary); ibid 11 July 2018 (Universal Credit: reduction of ministerial salary).

Introduction to order and handing of business in the House of Commons 19.1This chapter's purpose is twofold: first, to describe items of business taken in the House of Commons Chamber in the order in which they are normally taken, and second, to set out the rules and conditions under which the less substantial items1 (ie excluding the orders of the day and notices of motion which generally form the main business of the day, and which are dealt with in other chapters) are brought before the House.

Footnotes 1. The rules relating to oral questions are dealt with in Chapter 22, though the manner in which such questions are taken in the Chamber is covered in this chapter.

Monday to Thursday 19.2On Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, business appointed for the day is disposed of in the order set out below. The items appear in this order in the private and public business notice papers published each morning on which the House sits (see paras 7.3–7.11 ). But the programme is not absolutely rigid. The Government may, for example, choose to supersede the printed Order Paper by moving the adjournment of the House, and any Member may seek to raise a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration under Standing Order No 24 (see para 19.22 ). The following table of business does not represent the programme of a typical sitting; rather, it indicates the order of precedence between the various classes of business which may happen to come up for disposal on the same day. The order given is not invariable but is the one which on the whole has been found to be the most convenient in modern practice. Certain classes of business—for instance, ministerial statements made orally at unusual times—may be taken in the places indicated below, between orders of the day or, when necessary, interrupting proceedings on an order of the day. Absence of the Speaker Prayers Business taken immediately after prayers 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Reports of Queen's answers to Addresses Formal communications by the Speaker Motions for new writs Private business Motions for unopposed returns

Questions 1. Questions for oral answer 2. Urgent questions Business taken after questions (including business being taken ‘at the commencement of public business’) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Introduction of new Members Ministerial statements (and statements by the Speaker including decisions and statements on matters of privilege) Proposals to hold an emergency debate under Standing Order No 24 Ceremonial speeches and tributes Personal statements (including resignation statements) Matters relating to privilege without notice Presentation of public bills under Standing Order No 57 Government motions under standing orders relating to referral of matters to general committees Motions for leave to bring in bills or nomination of select committees under Standing Order No 23 Select committee statements

Privilege motions with notice Orders of the day and Notices of motion 1. Orders of the day and Notices of motion (proceeded with in the order in which they appear on the Order Paper). 2. Private business set down under Standing Order No 20 (in which case it starts three hours before the moment of interruption if no other provision is made, any business then under discussion being postponed until such proceedings are over; in practice, alternative provision is usually made). 3. Urgent motions to be debated under Standing Order No 24 (which may start at a time specified by the Speaker; if the debate is on the same day as the application is granted, any business then under discussion is postponed until such proceedings are over). Business motions under Standing Order No 15(2) Business exempted under Standing Order Nos 15(1) and 16 Presentation of public petitions under Standing Order No 153 Adjournment motions under Standing Order No 9(7).

Friday 19.3On Fridays, no provision is made for items which on other sitting days are taken before public business and which require an appreciable amount of time for consideration. The orders of the day that may be taken on Friday are restricted to Private Members' Bills and any preliminary business (such as presentation of bills); but because the sitting begins at 9.30 am, provision is made in Standing Order No 11 for the interruption of business at 11 am for urgent questions, ministerial statements or personal statements by Members.1

Footnotes 1. See for example, HC Deb (23 March 2012) 542, cc 1070–82; ibid (18 January 2013) 556, cc 1163–64.

Absence of the Speaker 19.4Should the Speaker be unavoidably absent or absent with leave, an announcement to that effect is made by the Clerk as soon as the Mace has been placed on the Table and before prayers are read; the Speaker's place at the Table is then taken by the Deputy Speaker. In the case of a temporary absence, the Speaker may request the Chairman of Ways and Means or a Deputy Chairman to take the Chair under Standing Order No 3(1) (see para 4.32 ). In such circumstances, or when the Speaker is absent on a Friday under the terms of Standing Order No 3(3), the Clerk makes no announcement.

Prayers 19.5At the beginning of a sitting, the Speaker enters the Chamber accompanied by the Serjeant at Arms and the Speaker's Chaplain. The Serjeant at Arms places the Mace upon the Table, bows and retires; the Speaker and the Chaplain then proceed to the west and east sides of the Table respectively, bow to the empty Chair, and take their places at the Table. Upon the words ‘Let us pray’, the Speaker and the Chaplain kneel on stools placed at the Table for the purpose; the Members present remain standing but turn towards their places. In the absence of the Speaker's Chaplain, the Speaker has invited others to say Prayers. At the conclusion of prayers the Chaplain leaves and the Speaker takes the Chair.1 Noone is admitted into the public galleries until prayers are over.2 Members may secure places at prayers for themselves by the use of a ‘prayer card’ (see para 6.51 ).

Footnotes 1. For a case of disorder during prayers, see para 21.45. 2. This rule was relaxed on 26 October 1950, at the opening of the new Commons Chamber, when certain visiting Speakers and Presiding Officers of Legislatures within the Commonwealth (see para 9.12 ), some Members of war-time Parliaments, the architect of the new Chamber and certain workmen who had helped to build it, were admitted to the gallery before prayers, HC Deb (1950) 478, cc 2929–30. Another departure from precedent was made on the same occasion by the reading of a special prayer by the Dean of Westminster (a former Chaplain to the Speaker), ibid, c 2929. Strangers were also admitted, and a special prayer read, on 22 June 1965, when the House met before proceeding to Westminster Hall in connection with the Seven Hundredth Anniversary of Simon de Montfort's Parliament, ibid (1964–65) 714, c 1433.

Report to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct and appeal 5.43The Sub-Committee makes its report to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct.1 At the same time, a copy is sent to the Lords Member concerned, who, if the complaint has been upheld, is informed of the deadline by which they may lodge an appeal to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct against either the Commissioner's finding of a breach of the Code or the recommended sanction. If the Lords Member does not appeal, the Committee for Privileges and Conduct initially considers the sanction recommended by the SubCommittee. If it endorses the sanction, it reports to the House accordingly. Alternatively and exceptionally, it can decide that the recommended sanction needs further consideration. If so, it then invites representations from the Lords Member concerned and decides whether to endorse, reduce or increase the recommended sanction. If the Lords Member wishes to appeal, they must do so in writing, setting out the grounds for the appeal, and enclosing such supporting material as the Member thinks appropriate. A meeting is scheduled to hear the appeal, and the Member is given an opportunity to appear in person. The Committee may also take evidence from the Commissioner. On appeal, the Committee will not reopen the Commissioner's investigation. Rather, the Committee members use their judgment to decide whether, on the balance of probabilities, they endorse the conclusions of the Commissioner. They also consider whether or not the recommended sanction is appropriate, or whether it should be reduced or increased.

Footnotes 1. Guide to the Code of Conduct, paras 141–44.

Formal communications by the Speaker 19.7Immediately after prayers, after any item of the kind described above, the Speaker, when occasion has arisen, communicates to the House at discretion the purport or reads the contents of any letters received from or sent to external authorities. These may include replies to communications of condolence or congratulation made by the House to members of the royal family (see para 9.11 ) or messages of the same kind sent by or to foreign legislative bodies (see para 4.22 ).1 They may also include such matters as a letter from a judge communicating the cause of commitment of a Member arrested upon a criminal charge or the sentence passed upon a Member after trial (and see para 4.22 ) or a communication from the court about an election petition.2 On 1 September 2014, the Speaker made a statement at this time on the governance of the House.3 It is at this time also that the Speaker announces the death of any Member which has been officially notified since the last sitting of the House;4 such announcements used to be made following a standard wording but the more recent practice has been for a personalised tribute by the Speaker.5 The Speaker may also at this point ask for leave of absence to attend official functions,6 although the current practice is for leave to be given by means of a motion moved by a member of the Government after notice.7 When the House was recalled to meet on 14 September 2001 in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre in New York, the Speaker called a three minutes' silence at this time.8

Footnotes 1. For example statements by the Speaker congratulating Princes William and Harry on their engagements, HC Deb (16 November 2010) 518, c 723; ibid (27 November 2017) 632, c 1; HC Deb (20 February 1952) 496, c 201 and CJ (1951–52) 100, and other dates at that time, for messages received following the death of the King. 2. For example, HC Deb (8 November 2010) 518, c 1; ibid (6 December 2010) 520, c 1. 3. HC Deb (1 September 2014) 585, cc 1–2. 4. HC Deb (1936–37) 326, c 3100. An announcement is made whether the Member has taken their seat or not, CJ (1980–81) 307; ibid (1997–98) 2. 5. See for example HC Deb (5 January 2010) 503, c 1; ibid (27 February 2017) 622, c 1. 6. For example, HC Deb (1966–67) 729, c 891; ibid (1970–71) 818, c 833; ibid (1974) 874, c 1799; ibid (1976–77) 924, c 935; ibid 934, c 855; ibid 935, c 1117, etc. 7. CJ (1981–82) 267, 444; ibid (1982–83) 174; ibid (1993–94) 359; ibid (2001–02) 22, 288; ibid (2002–03) 147, 454. 8. HC Deb (2001–02) 372, c 604; ibid (9 June 2010) 511, c 322.

Motions for new writs 19.8The next item to be taken after any such communication is any motion for an order of the House to the Speaker to make out a warrant for the issue of a writ for the election of a new Member to fill a vacancy arising in the course of a session. Such motions are moved normally, but not necessarily, by the Chief Whip of the party to which the Member vacating the seat belonged.1 As such a motion is technically a matter of privilege, it is made without notice2 and having, accordingly, precedence over other business can be taken at any time. The order of precedence here assigned to it is that which is generally found to be most convenient.3 In cases where such a motion moved at this time is opposed, debate is suspended until the conclusion of Question Time at the usual time for taking matters of privilege.4 This is also the usual time for announcements by the Speaker of the issue of a warrant, as by law provided, for the election of a Member, without the immediate authority of the House during a recess due to adjournment or prorogation. For the conditions which have to be fulfilled before the issue of a warrant for a new writ, see paras 2.11–2.18.

Footnotes 1. See for example HC Deb (16 December 2010) 520, c 1025; ibid (10 May 2018) 640, c 869. In 1973, the Speaker's Conference on Electoral Law recommended that the motion should normally be moved within three months of a vacancy arising (Cmnd 5500). 2. A Member wishing to move for a new writ should nevertheless give notice of their intention to the Speaker's Secretary, in order to obtain the appropriate form of motion, HC Deb (1956–57) 569, cc 1146–47. 3. For instances of new writs moved after the interruption of business, see CJ (1896) 133; ibid (1902) 74; ibid (1905) 300; at the end of the orders of the day on a Friday before the adjournment of the House under SO No 11, ibid (1913) 141; between items of business, so as to enable the Clerk of the Crown to seal the writ on that day, ibid (1983–84) 486; and as one of the final items taken during a prolonged sitting, ibid (1976–77) 468. A new writ has also been moved as a matter of privilege at the conclusion of government business, although an order was in force directing the Speaker to adjourn the House without question put at the conclusion of government business each day, CJ (1895) 389; Parl Deb (1895) 36, cc 766–68; on the motion of a private Member, CJ (1907) 448. A motion desiring the Clerk of the Crown to cancel a writ already issued, because the date appointed would fall within a period of dissolution ahead of a General Election, was taken during time for public business, HC Deb (20 April 2017) 624, c 826. 4. For procedure when the issue of a new writ is opposed, see HC Deb (1943–44) 395, cc 1515–16, 1566–74; ibid (1956–57) 569, cc 1146, 1182–85; ibid (1980–81) 9, c 966; ibid (1985–86) 102, cc 273 and 1311–25; ibid (1988–89) 145, cc 591–660; ibid (2007–08) 475, c 285 and cc 306–8. See also ibid (1972–73) 859, cc 1231 and 1260–74, and ibid (1998–99) 328, cc 711 and 748–59, for occasions when the Government has succeeded in setting aside the motion for a new writ, moved on the first occasion by a private Member and on the second by the Opposition Chief Whip, by means of an amendment proposing that the House should pass to the orders of the day. For an occasion when a motion was amended so as to specify a future day for the issue of the writ, see ibid (1982–83) 41, cc 164–71.

Private business Contents Notice paper of private business Time for taking private business 19.9After any of the above items have occurred or, if none has occurred, immediately after prayers, the Speaker calls upon the Clerk at the Table to read the titles of any private bills set down for consideration that day. The Chairman of Ways and Means makes the motions necessary to dispose of the stages of the bills so appointed or states the day to which they are proposed to be postponed (see paras 19.11 and 19.38 ), and also makes any motions standing in their name; and the Speaker calls on Members to make the motions relating to private business, including any motions relating to the membership of the selection committee1 of which they have given notice, according to the order in which the motions are arranged on the paper. On occasion, the House has taken Business of the House motions to treat private business as if it were public business at this time.2

Footnotes 1. The Selection Committee is appointed under the House's Order of 12 September 2017; under paragraph (11) of that order the provisions of Private Business Standing Orders apply as if the committee were the Committee of Selection established under Private Business Standing Order 109. See CJ (2002–03) 14, for a motion relating to the membership of the Committee of Selection which had been objected to in a previous session. 2. CJ (1948–49) 18; CJ 1953–54) 333, to allow amendments to public and private Business Standings Orders to be made at the same time.

Notice paper of private business 19.10The notice paper, containing the orders of the day and notices of motion relating to private business and to Scottish provisional order confirmation bills, is prepared by the Clerk in charge of private bills in pursuance of the provisions of private business Standing Orders 174, 190, and 218 and of the orders of the House, under instructions received from the Chairman of Ways and Means and from notices given by the parliamentary agents. The private business is set down upon the paper in the following order: 1. Stages of private bills: a. consideration of Lords amendments; b. third readings; c. consideration of bills ordered to lie upon the Table; d. second readings. 2. Notices of motions relating to private business other than stages of bills appointed for that day. 3. Stages of bills for confirming orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936 arranged in the same order as for private bills, ending with notices of the presentation of such bills. Within each of these categories, business set down for the first time is placed on the paper before business deferred from a previous sitting and set down by order of the House.1 The latter business is distinguished by the addition in brackets of the words ‘By Order’.

Footnotes 1. SO 190(2).

Time for taking private business 19.11The time for private business must end not later than a quarter of an hour after the House sits.1 Business still under discussion at that time stands adjourned.2 Any private business not reached by that time, or in respect of which, when it is called, no motion is made, stands over to the next sitting at the time for private business. A motion which is contingent on a bill not reached within the time allowed follows the bill and is similarly set down for the next sitting. But a motion which is not contingent on a bill and is not reached lapses unless fresh notice is given by the Member in whose name it stands. Any item of private business to which a Member signifies objection when the order for its consideration is read by the Clerk (or, if it is a notice of motion, when the name of the mover is called by the Speaker), becomes opposed and cannot be taken at this time. Opposed business also includes any proceedings on a private bill which have already been deferred to which notice of an amendment stands on the notice paper in the form of a notice of motion on second reading, consideration or third reading of the bill. Such motions do not remain on the paper for more than seven days unless renewed.3 Such an item of opposed business is accordingly postponed (by implication by order of the House) to another day. The Chairman of Ways and Means, with whom the discretion rests, may appoint a future day for its consideration without stating the time at which it is to be taken. In that event, it is taken at the commencement of the appointed sitting under the procedure laid down by private business Standing Orders 190 and 218, as described above. Alternatively, the Chairman may appoint it, under Standing Order No 20 and Standing Order 174, for consideration on a stated day for a time three hours before the moment of interruption: 7 pm on Mondays and Tuesdays, 4 pm on Wednesdays, and 2 pm on Thursdays,4 although in practice the timing of opposed private business is nearly always regulated by a Business of the House order (see para 19.38 ). Whichever course is adopted, the item of private business objected to becomes an entry ‘By Order’ in the notice paper of private business. When the order for the consideration of an item of private business has been read by the Clerk, the Chairman, instead of moving it, may appoint a future day for its consideration. In this case also, the item becomes an entry ‘By Order’ on the notice paper of private business, since this postponement is also by implication by order of the House.5

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

SO No 20(1). CJ (1941–42) 29 and HC Deb (1991–92) 376, cc 2045–48. SO 174(2). CJ (2001–02) 779, 780, 783. When the consideration of private business had been interrupted, or had not been commenced, owing to a message requiring the attendance of the House in the House of Lords, and the House had not returned until after the time during which such business could be taken, the private business that could not be considered owing to the attendance of the House in the House of Lords was set down for the following day, CJ (1905) 249, Private Business (1905) 567, 577; CJ (1921) 115, Private Business (1921) 183, 187. Similarly, the private business of which notice had been given for Friday 12 March 1954 was set down again for Monday 15 March when the sitting of 11 March was prolonged beyond 11 am on 12 March, and on 5 August 1980 private business set down for a Tuesday was set down for the following day because of a prolonged sitting, Private Business (1953–54) 93, 95; ibid (1979–80) 544–45.

Motions for unopposed returns 19.12Immediately after private business is the usual time for moving motions for returns (of accounts and other documents) of which notice stands upon the notice paper for the day, and which the Minister responsible for the government department concerned has signified a readiness to render. Such motions are made by Ministers and may be made either at this time or at any other convenient opportunity. It is a settled principle that a motion for a return which is proposed by the Minister responsible for the department concerned ought not to be opposed by any other Member and such opposition has been overruled by the Speaker.1

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1909) 5, c 1162; ibid (1922) 157, cc 1231–32; ibid (1992–93) 217, c 855; ibid (1995–96) 281, c 1283; ibid (20 June 2018) 643, c 309. In refusing to accept an objection to a motion for an unopposed return, the Speaker has suggested that the Member who objected should bring pressure upon the department with a view to the order being rescinded, ibid (1915–16) 77, c 588.

Time for taking questions for oral answer 19.13Standing Order No 21(1) provides that questions shall be taken on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, after private business has been disposed of. Except for urgent questions, no questions may be taken on Friday.1 No questions are taken when a Royal Commission is expected to summon the House to attend the Lords for prorogation.2 An interruption to Question Time, eg by a Royal Commission, does not in itself lead to an extension of the time provided. But in recent practice Question Time has frequently been extended at the Speaker's discretion beyond the strict time limits prescribed by Standing Orders.3 When questions have been exhausted before an hour has elapsed, the House has been suspended until the customary time for commencement of public business.4 On several occasions, to meet the general wish of the House (no objection being expressed) to proceed immediately to the orders of the day, questions have not been taken but have instead been deferred en bloc.5 A Minister may, having notified the Speaker's Office, defer until the end of Question Time the answer to any oral question which stands on the Order Paper for that day6 (and may also choose to answer orally at the end of Question Time a question for written answer which stands on that day's Order Paper).7 The Speaker has made it clear that this is an exceptional procedure that requires the Speaker's permission; and in exercising this discretion the Speaker will bear in mind the need to give adequate notice.8

Footnotes 1. As to urgent questions, see para 19.17; as to earlier practice on Fridays and at other times, see Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), pp 281–82. 2. HC Deb (8 November 2006) 451, c 825. 3. For example, by a Royal Commission: HC Deb (1935–36) 310, c 2948; SO No 21(2). 4. HC Deb (17 November 2005) 439, c 1102. On 29 November 2010, the Speaker called a statement at 3.28 pm when questions were exhausted, HC Deb (29 November 2010) 519, c 529. 5. Parl Deb (1893) 8, c 1241; ibid (1898) 58, c 118; 7 and HC Deb (1916) 88, cc 792–94; in 1994, on the death of the Leader of the Opposition, the House met at 2.30 pm for prayers. The Speaker announced that the sitting would be suspended until 3.30 pm when the adjournment was moved so that tributes could be paid. The House then adjourned (ibid (1993–94) 243, cc 429–38). Similarly, when the House paid tributes to Nelson Mandela following his death a few days previously, questions intended for the Secretary of State for Defence that day were postponed to the following Monday (ibid (9 December 2013) 572, c 1). 6. HC Deb (1998–99) 324, cc 1077–82; ibid (1999–2000) 340, cc 695–700; ibid (2000–01) 365, cc 816–26; ibid (2001–02) 387, cc 738–46; ibid (5 April 2005) 432, cc 1260–66; ibid (14 March 2006) 443, cc 1295–1300; ibid (13 July 2006) 448, cc 1470–76. 7. HC Deb (1995–96) 277, cc 950–51; ibid (2000–01) 364, cc 417–31; ibid (2000–01) 372, cc 1301–6. 8. HC Deb (2001–02) 373, c 37. Questions which have not been answered in consequence of the absence of the Minister to whom they are addressed may be answered after the allotted time for questions, if the Minister is then present. Although there is no explicit provision for such procedures in standing orders, these practices have by convention been allowed as being subsumed within the provisions for making ministerial statements, ibid (1946–47), 437, cc 2187–89. Formerly, a question not reached during question time was allowed to be asked, if it was urgent and of sufficient importance or related to an order of the day. However, urgency is not now accepted as a sufficient reason for permitting a question to be so asked, and an answer may not be given unless the Speaker has been so requested by the Minister concerned, ibid (1958–59) 595, cc 1013–14. For such a request made orally, see ibid (1983–84) 63, c 19.

Rules relating to notice and content for oral questions 19.14The rules governing the ‘rota’ on which different Ministers answer oral questions, the giving of notice for oral questions, and their withdrawal or deferral are considered alongside those for written questions in Chapter 22. The rules for the content of oral questions, which are in essence the same as for written questions (albeit in practice the kind of questions tabled by Members for oral answer tend to have different characteristics), are also dealt with in that chapter.

Manner of asking oral questions Contents Oral answers and supplementary questions 19.15As each Member is called, to ask the question standing in their name, they rise to call its number on the Order Paper, and the Minister then responds. A Member called to ask a question appearing on the Order Paper is also entitled to ask a supplementary question. Supplementaries should be short and relevant to the tabled question. The Speaker may also call other Members, who indicate a desire to do so by standing in their place, to ask supplementaries. The Speaker has deprecated the practice of submitting in advance requests to be called to ask a supplementary question.1 Opposition spokespersons by convention are permitted a certain number of supplementaries at each Question Time. It is normal practice for frontbench spokespersons to indicate to the Speaker those questions on which they hope to be called to ask a supplementary. A Member may not rise to ask a question which stands on the Order Paper in the name of another Member;2 nor may the question be asked in an amended form.3 During the period of questions to the Prime Minister, and during periods for topical questions to departmental Ministers, the Members with the second and subsequent places on the list simply put their ‘supplementary’ question as soon as they are called by the Speaker.4 Supplementaries should not be read from notes.5 If the Member responsible for a question does not answer to the Speaker's call, a Minister may make such statement upon the question as the public interest demands,6 but it has been ruled that such a statement ought to be made at the end of questions.7 When a Member stated that it was not their intention to ask a question standing in their name, as the subject of it had been discussed in debate on a previous day, the Speaker refused to allow the Minister concerned to answer it.8 The Speaker also declines as a matter of course to allow a Member to ask a question standing in their name on the Order Paper, when that Member had been called to ask a supplementary question earlier in the same question time, regardless of the subject matter of the two questions.9 An attempt to raise a point of order on a question which had not been called has been ruled out of order.10 When a Minister in answering a question has referred to the answer to be given to a question which had not been asked, they have been allowed to give the answer to that question in spite of the absence of the Member in whose name it stood.11 The Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members (see paras 5.3, 5.11 ) recognises that during oral questions a declaration of interest is often impracticable. A Member giving notice of a question should, however, declare an interest (see above paras 5.12, 22.2 ).12

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

HC Deb (1977–78) 945, c 662. Parl Deb (1883) 279, c 1756; HC Deb (1924) 172, c 1834. HC Deb (28 March 2006) 444, c 672. HC Deb (1997–98) 294, c 702. HC Deb (2002–03) 405, c 41. Parl Deb (1900) 84, c 286; HC Deb (1946–47) 437, cc 2187–88. HC Deb (1971–72) 834, cc 430, 432–33. HC Deb (1910) 17, c 20. HC Deb (8 March 2005) 431, cc 1372 and 1380. HC Deb (1946–47) 441, c 27. HC Deb (1923) 163, c 1609; ibid (1964–65) 701, c 840. The Code of Conduct together with the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members, approved by the House of Commons (most recently issued as HC 1882 (2017–19)).

Oral answers and supplementary questions 19.16An answer should be confined to the points contained in the question, with such explanation only as renders the answer intelligible, though a certain latitude is permitted to Ministers of the Crown.1 The Speaker has stressed that the length of both ministerial replies and of supplementary questions should be curbed.2 The Speaker has suggested that lengthy answers should be circulated with the Official Report instead of being given orally.3 In respect of a Minister's reply to the first topical question, the Speaker has indicated that this should normally take no more than one minute, and has also indicated that the use of this reply to make important announcements provides the opposition with less opportunity to ask questions than if a statement had been made.4 At the same time, the Speaker has indicated that no more than one Official Opposition frontbencher will normally be called during topical questions periods,5 and expressed the view that topical questions are intended for the benefit of backbenchers.6 Proposed answers to questions should not be revealed in advance.7 Following a recommendation of a Select Committee on Parliamentary Questions, the Speaker indicated that not every Member who had placed an identical question on the Order Paper would necessarily be called to ask a supplementary:8 in more recent times this has been addressed through the grouping together of similar questions. When an answer has been refused on security grounds, the Speaker has not allowed further supplementary questions.9 A supplementary question may refer only to the answer out of which it immediately arises,10 must relate to government responsibility,11 must not be read or be too long,12 or quote from letters,13 should contain only one question,14 must not refer to an earlier answer or be addressed to another Minister15 and is governed by the general rules of order affecting all questions.16 As a consequence of the rule against anticipation (see para 20.13 ), when a Member gives oral notice in the House of their intention to seek to raise on the adjournment a matter arising out of oral answers, further supplementary questions thereon are not permitted.17 Such notice is accepted only from the Member in whose name the question stands.18 The Speaker has ruled that a Member must give that oral notice immediately, and may not do so after other supplementaries have been asked.19 In respect of substantive oral questions, the Speaker has refused to call Members to ask a supplementary question to Ministers (other than the Prime Minister) when their original question was of so general a character as to provide a wide area for supplementaries; this has been interpreted as applying particularly to questions about meetings or visits.20 In 1996, following a report by the Public Service Committee, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster published a guide to civil servants preparing answers to questions, Guidance to Officials on Drafting Answers to Parliamentary Questions.21 Replies from chief executives of government agencies in response to parliamentary questions referred to them by Ministers are published alongside written answers from Ministers.22

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1861) 161, c 497; HC Deb (1983–84) 57, cc 647–49. For example, the rules governing the reading out of material and quotations from speeches at Question Time do not apply to ministerial replies, see eg ibid (1979–80) 986, c 1026. 2. HC Deb (1993–94) 238, c 433; ibid (1995–96) 267, c 461; ibid 278, c 609; ibid (2000–01) 363, c 315; HC Deb (23 June 2009) 494, c 643; ibid (29 June 2009) 495, cc 5 and 29. 3. HC Deb (1924) 172, c 1980. 4. HC Deb (17 November 2008) 483, cc 16–17. 5. HC Deb (17 December 2007) 469, c 589. 6. For example, HC Deb (17 March 2008) 473, c 614. 7. HC Deb (1989–90) 177, c 1055; ibid (1996–97) 292, c 386. 8. HC Deb (1972–73) 860, c 258. 9. HC Deb (1960–61) 635, c 1580; ibid (1961–62) 652, c 1263. 10. Parl Deb (1900) 82, c 12. For recent examples of the Speaker ruling supplementaries out of order because they went too wide of the lead question, see HC Deb (23 January 2008) 470, c 1481; ibid (12 June 2018) 642, c 700. 11. HC Deb (30 June 2010) 512, c 859; ibid (21 July 2010) 514, c 344; ibid (11 December 2018) 651, c 145. 12. HC Deb (1935–36) 313, c 995; ibid (1947–48) 452, c 2203; ibid (1956–57) 560, cc 731–32; ibid (1992–93) 221, c 597; ibid (2006–07) 461, c 1505; ibid (2007–08) 481, c 562. The Speaker has emphasised the need for supplementary questions, and answers, to be brief during the period of topical questions: ibid (28 October 2008) 481, c 724; ibid (16 January 2008) 470, c 929; ibid (23 June 2009) 494, c 659. 13. HC Deb (30 October 2006) 451, c 3. 14. HC Deb (21 June 2007) 461, c 1506; ibid (7 October 2008) 480, c 137; ibid (4 December 2008) 485, c 144; ibid (2 April 2009) 490, c 1046; ibid (23 June 2009) 494, c 643; ibid (12 October 2009) 497, c 1. 15. Parl Deb (1901) 91, c 103; HC Deb (1958–59) 599, cc 987–88. But supplementary questions in Westminster Hall (see para 23.13 and Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 323) may be addressed to any of the Ministers present. 16. Parl Deb (1907) 172, c 225; HC Deb (1935–36) 307, c 1381; ibid (1948–49) 463, c 1843; ibid (1960–61) 639, cc 1601–2; ibid (1979–80) 986, cc 1358, 1568; ibid (1996–97) 285, c 345. 17. HC Deb (1984–85) 74, c 14; ibid (2001–02) 372, c 1033; ibid (2002–03) 398, c 4; ibid (17 April 2007) 459, c 141. 18. HC Deb (1992–93) 216, c 752. 19. HC Deb (16 July 2007) 463, c 17. 20. HC Deb (1983–84) 54, c 130; ibid (1983–84) 56, cc 705–6; ibid (2002–03) 410, cc 154–55; in practice, an oral question which does not indicate, in broad terms, a particular subject-matter would anyway not be admissible (see para 22.3 ). 21. HC 313 (1995–96); HC Deb (1996–97) 285, c 53W. The latest version of this guidance, dated February 2005, is published as an annex to the Cabinet Office's Guide to Parliamentary Work.

22. HC Deb (1992–93) 221, c 267W.

Urgent questions 19.17Questions which have not appeared on the paper, but which are of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance,1 or to the arrangement of business, may be taken immediately after the end of Question Time or at 11 am on a Friday provided that they have been submitted to the Speaker2 ideally before 11.30 am on a Monday or after a periodic adjournment of over two days, or 10.00 am on Tuesdays or Wednesdays, 8.15 am on Thursdays3 (or, on a Friday when the House meets at 9.30 am, before 8.30 am)4 and have been accepted by the Speaker as satisfying the conditions imposed by Standing Order No 21(2), and provided that notice has been given to the Minister concerned. Questions which are asked without appearing on the paper are governed by the same rules of order as questions of which notice has been given.5 Neither the submission of an urgent question nor its subsequent rejection by the Speaker should therefore be publicly referred to.6 The Speaker has ruled privately that a Member may not ask more than one urgent question on any day, though a Member may submit more than one. The Leader of the Opposition never puts a question on the paper for oral answer, but asks it by the urgent question procedure; in this case, the factor of urgency has not been insisted on.7 When an urgent question (other than one relating to business) is allowed by the Speaker, it is displayed on the annunciator and published on Parliament's website.8 The Minister responding to an urgent question is accorded up to three minutes for the response, and the questioner up to two minutes for their supplementary question. The Opposition spokesperson, where this is not the questioner, also has up to two minutes to speak and the third party spokesperson one minute.9 It is a matter for the Government to decide which Minister replies to an urgent question.10

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

HC Deb (1935–36) 309, c 42. HC Deb (1917–18) 94, c 595; ibid (1920) 132, cc 942, 1636; ibid (1948–49) 462, c 37. HC Deb (1958–59) 595, c 196; ibid (1998–99) 323, c 307. HC Deb (1979–80) 977, c 440. Parl Deb (1892) 3, c 861; HC Deb (1921) 147, c 1028; ibid (1928–29) 224, c 1777. HC Deb (1974–75) 892, cc 28–30; ibid (1984–85) 71, cc 861–65, 881. For an example of the Speaker deprecating a Member raising a matter which had been the subject of an unsuccessful urgent question application, see ibid (20 April 2009) 491, 33; ibid (18 October 2010) 516, c 639. HC Deb (1957–58) 580, c 431; ibid (1972–73) 857, cc 1700–3; ibid (1987–88) 140, cc 21–27; ibid (1988–89) 149, cc 909–17; ibid (1990–91) 195, cc 757–58. This privilege is not automatically enjoyed by a Deputy in the Leader's absence, ibid (1989–90) 176, cc 688–89. On a Friday, the subject-matter of the question is scrolled across the bottom of the annunciator screen before it is asked. HC Deb (18 May 2016) 611, c 2. HC Deb (2002–03) 401, c 941; ibid (11 December 2006) 454, c 580.

Business question 19.18As indicated at para 18.12, for many years it has been the practice for the Shadow Leader of the House to ask each Thursday, immediately after any other urgent questions have been disposed of, a question on the business for the following week. The Leader of the House usually then announces the business for two sitting weeks ahead. The Opposition spokesperson and third party spokesperson are given up to five and two minutes respectively to respond. A wide range of supplementary questions relating to forthcoming business has been by practice permitted, although Members are expected to relate their questions to future business by, for example, asking for debate on a particular topic. Questions may also relate to the wider responsibilities of the Leader of the House since there is no longer a separate opportunity, within the rota for Ministers answering oral questions, to question the Leader of the House. If however it is desired to take the announcement of business after ministerial statements which may be taking place, the Business Question is replaced by a Business statement under the procedure for ministerial statements outlined below.

Business taken after questions (including business being taken ‘at the commencement of public business’) Contents Introduction of new Members Ministerial statements Proposals to hold an emergency debate under Standing Order No 24 Ceremonial speeches and tributes Personal statements (including resignation statements) Matters relating to privilege taken without notice Presentation of public bills under Standing Order No 57 Government motions under standing orders relating to referral of matters to general committees Motions for leave to bring in bills or for nomination of select committees under Standing Order No 23 (`Ten-minute Rule’) Select committee statements 19.19A wide range of items of business may take place after the conclusion of time for oral and urgent questions, but before the House embarks on its principal scheduled business. This includes oral statements by Ministers on major issues of the day or new policy announcements.1 Some of the items are required to be taken at this time, by practice or by standing orders (described in the standing orders as ‘at the commencement of public business'), or certain procedural consequences attach if they are moved at this point even though they can also be moved at other times during public business. Public business formally commences when the Speaker has called the first Member who has given notice to present a bill, or to make a motion at the commencement of public business, or called upon the Member in charge of the first motion standing at the head of the orders of the day, or called upon the Clerk to read the orders of the day. Consequently, after such a call by the Speaker no substantive adjournment motion (as opposed to such motions moved as a dilatory motion) can be made other than by a Minister (see paras 18.34, 19.32 ).2

Footnotes 1. Such statements will sometimes amount to the most significant or controversial business of the day, and (particularly if several statements are combined with one or more urgent questions) can take up a substantial part of the available time, or even leave such little time for the scheduled business that it is set aside: HC Deb (12 March 2018) 637, c 593 ff; ibid (16 April 2018) 639, c 39 ff. 2. HC Deb (1929–30) 237, c 903.

Introduction of new Members 19.20Under Standing Order No 6, Members may take and subscribe the oath or make the affirmation at any time during the sitting before the orders of the day and notices of motion have been entered on or after they have been disposed of, so long as no debate or business is interrupted.1 In practice, a Member who has been returned at a by-election is now normally introduced immediately after questions and before any urgent questions or statements,2 in order to be in a position to take part in public business as early as possible. It is usual for Members who have not yet taken the oath to sit below the Bar;3 and care must be taken that they do not, inadvertently, take a seat within the Bar, by which they would render themselves liable to the penalties and disqualifications imposed by statute.4 If a Member is elected at a by-election, the Clerk of the Crown sends to the Clerk of the House a certificate of the return received in the Crown Office; and the Member must obtain a certificate from the Public Bill Office of the receipt of that certificate for production at the Table, before the Clerk of the House will administer the oath.5 Members returned upon new writs issued after the general election take the oath or make their affirmation in the same manner as those returned at a general election (see para 8.28 ). Under the resolution of 23 February 1688, ‘in compliance with an ancient order and custom, they are introduced to the Table between two Members, making their obeisances as they go up, that they may be the better known to the House’.6 The swearing takes place with the Clerk standing at the Despatch box next to the Treasury bench. The Select Committee on Procedure in 1972–73 considered the question of the introduction of new Members after by-elections, and recommended that there should be no change in the order and custom laid down by the resolution of 1688.7

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1907) 169, cc 159, 315. 2. A Member has taken their seat on a Friday, there being no oral questions, at the commencement of public business, CJ (1943–44) 24. Members have also taken their seats immediately after prayers on a Friday when the House was recalled, HC Deb (2001–02) 372, c 603. 3. When on 18 May 1849 notice was taken that strangers were present, Baron Rothschild retained his seat below the Bar, although he had not taken the oath; and Mr Bradlaugh was present below the Bar during many divisions, while forbidden to take the oath. 4. See para 8.28 and McGuinness v United Kingdom (1999) ECHR No 39511/98. 5. When a Member was sworn at the Table before their return was received by the Clerk of the Crown, it was questioned whether the oath which the Member had taken before the receipt of the return had been duly taken. A committee appointed to inquire into the matter reported that the non-return of the indenture to the Crown Office cannot affect the validity of the election or the right of a person duly elected to be held a Member of the House, but recommended a strict adherence to the practice of requiring the production of the usual certificate, or, in cases in which that may be from accidental circumstances impossible, of requiring satisfactory proof of the person's title to be admitted as a Member, HC 256 (1847–48). For a delay in delivery of a return to the Crown Office, see Parl Deb (1889) 334, cc 52–53; HC Deb (1955–56) 542, cc 36–38, 1039–42. 6. CJ (1688–93) 34. This practice is not observed in regard to Members who have established their claim to a seat by an election petition after having been chosen at a General Election, because they are supposed to have been returned at the beginning of the Parliament when no such introduction is customary, Hatsell 85 n. On 18 February 1875, Dr Kenealy, a new Member, came to the Table to be sworn without the introduction of two Members. The Speaker acquainted him with the order of the House, and, refusing to hear any comments from him, directed him to withdraw; whereupon the House resolved that the order be dispensed with, on that occasion, CJ (1875) 52; Parl Deb (1875) 222, c 486. On a similar occasion, however, in the case of Mr McIntyre on 17 April 1945, the House, on a division, refused to dispense with the order, and on the following day he was introduced in the customary way, HC Deb (1944–45) 410, cc 34–35 and 222. 7. HC 336 (1972–73).

Ministerial statements 19.21Ministers have a presumptive right to make statements in the House on a range of topics within their ministerial remit. These may include policy and administration matters (the Speaker has ruled that such statements must relate to ministerial matters being made on behalf of the Government and not be delivered in a personal or party capacity)1; stating the advice they have tendered to the Sovereign regarding their retention of office or the dissolution of Parliament; announcing the legislative proposals they intend to submit to Parliament; or the course they intend to adopt in the transaction and arrangement of public business. Such statements are usually volunteered spontaneously.2 Prior notice to the Speaker is required and other than in exceptional circumstances should be given before the daily conference3 but neither the Speaker's permission4 nor the leave of the House5 is required. Neither the content of a ministerial statement, nor of answers given in response to questions following a statement, are a matter for the Speaker.6 The Speaker has declined to call Members seeking to pose questions beyond the scope of the original statement.7 The Speaker has expressed support for the principle that statements on important matters should be made in the House first8 and also indicated a preference that oral ministerial statements should not be made on opposition days.9 Whenever possible, notice is given to Members of an impending oral statement by a Minister. Notices are placed in the Members' Lobby, on Parliament's website and displayed on the annunciator. Since 2007, Ministers have also been able to table notices of intention to make an oral statement for inclusion on the Order Paper. Between 2002 and 2008, copies of statements were made available to Members in the Chamber as soon as the Minister sat down or at the same time as the statement was made available in the Press Gallery, whichever was the earlier,10 but in 2008 the Speaker stated that the system had not operated as intended and ruled that copies of statements should be made available to Members and to the Press Gallery when the Minister sits down.11 When statements are made first in the House of Lords, the Speaker has indicated that copies of that statement should be made available from the Vote Office as soon as they are available in the Lords.12 Advance copies are usually made available to opposition spokespersons as a matter of courtesy and under the terms of the Ministerial Code,13 and a statement has been postponed by the Speaker on the grounds that the opposition had had too little time to study it in advance of its being made; but such a request for postponement has also been declined in other circumstances.14 The Speaker has made it clear that the media should not be informed about the content of statements before they have been made to the House (and that the same principle applies to written ministerial statements).15 As no question is before the House, a formal debate on such statements is irregular,16 but questions arising from the statement are raised17 and replies given by the Minister. It is not the normal practice for questions on more than one statement to be taken at the same time.18 Debate on a ministerial statement has been raised upon a motion for adjournment, moved for that purpose.19 A statement relating to an adjourned debate, which was shortly to be resumed, has been allowed.20 By convention only those Members present in the Chamber to hear the entirety of a statement are called to question Ministers on that statement.21 While there are no mandatory time limits set for such statements and subsequent questioning, the Speaker announced in 2016 that rules developed following recommendations from the Modernisation Committee in 2002 would be applied more stringently than had been the case, with the opening ministerial statement lasting no longer than ten minutes, the reply of the Official Opposition limited to five minutes, and the spokesperson for the third largest party restricted to a maximum of two minutes.22 (Longer statements can be tolerated where circumstances justify, with other contributions extended proportionately if the Minister has been given longer.)23 Latitude has been given to an individual Member personally affected by the content of the statement.24 While these statements are usually taken immediately after questions (including urgent questions), and before the commencement of the main business of the day, ministerial statements, including statements on future business, have exceptionally been permitted by the Speaker, where circumstances justify it, at other times, for example: immediately after prayers25 or after Members had been sworn26 on a day when the House had been recalled; after the disposal of motions at the commencement of public business;27 following the moment of interruption;28 immediately before the half-hour adjournment debate.29 In extremis, the Speaker has also permitted statements between orders of the day30 and even during the course of consideration on an order of the day.31 Substantive interventions by Ministers on points of order may be treated by the Speaker as statements, so that questions may be raised on them and replies given;32 however, whether or not to do so is entirely at the Speaker's discretion.33 The Speaker may make statements to the House on matters of procedure or practice.34 The Speaker also makes statements in connection with arrangements for ceremonial occasions,35 the appointment and retirement of officials of the House,36 and has noted the death of a former Member (not a Prime Minister),37 etc. (For Speaker's rulings on matters of privilege, see para 15.32.) For explanations made by Members of their reasons for resigning an office in the Government, see para 19.24. A Minister may give notice of their intention to make a written ministerial statement on a day not later than five sitting days after that notice.38 All such written statements are printed in the Official Report. The Speaker has indicated that written statements should be delivered to the Library promptly on the day for which notice has been given.39 In 2013, standing orders were amended to enable any Member to whom questions may be addressed to make a written statement, a facility first employed in June 2013 by the Member representing the Speaker's Committee on the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.40 The decision on whether to make a statement orally or in writing is a matter for Ministers.41

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (3 November 2008) 482, c 21; ibid (19 March 2015) 594, c 905. On one occasion, government Ministers made two statements on the same topic on the same day: ibid (29 November 2012) 554, c 470 (statement by the Deputy Prime Minister on the Leveson Report on press freedom, immediately after a statement from the Prime Minister on the same topic). 2. HC Deb (1938–39) 350, cc 2174–76; ibid 352, cc 173–74; ibid (1941–42) 380, cc 1982–83. 3. HC Deb (1942–43) 392, c 394; ibid (1984–85) 69, cc 173–74. For an example of such notice being given orally in the House, see ibid (1983–84) 46, cc 789, 797–801. 4. HC Deb (1963–64) 698, c 414; ibid (1985–86) 91, c 306; ibid (2000–01) 363, c 21; ibid (13 October 2008) 480, c 631; ibid (3 November 2008) 482, c 21; ibid (19 March 2015) 594, c 905. 5. HC Deb (1942–43) 390, c 2267; ibid (1983–84) 62, cc 490–91; ibid (1995–96) 282, c 30; ibid (13 October 2008) 480, c 631. 6. HC Deb (12 February 2013) 558, cc 726–77. 7. HC Deb (24 May 2012) 545, c 1295. 8. HC Deb (1 April 2008) 474, c 627; ibid (6 November 2008) 482, c 372; ibid (7 May 2009) 492, c 389; ibid (24 June 2009) 494, c 797; ibid (29 June 2009) 495, c 43; ibid (1 July 2009) 495, c 423; ibid (19 January 2010) 504, c 163; ibid (30 June 2010) 512, cc 864 and 1018. 9. HC Deb (2002–03) 406, cc 701, 840. 10. HC Deb (2002–03) 396, c 21, following a recommendation of the Modernisation Committee (Second Report, HC 1168-I (2001–02)). 11. HC Deb (9 June 2008) 477, c 21. 12. HC Deb (17 March 2010) 507, c 879. 13. HC Deb (2001–02) 380, c 709; Cabinet Office, Ministerial Code, January 2018, para 9.5. 14. HC Deb (1996–97) 303, cc 656, 677–98, when a statement was postponed from 3.30 pm to 5 pm and taken as an interruption to a second reading debate; ibid (2001–02) 381, c 303. For rejection of a request to postpone a statement because the Opposition frontbench had not received advance copies, see ibid (15 October 2012) 551, c 34. Where a significant document is to be published alongside a statement, the Speaker has suspended the House to allow Members to access the document, see ibid (12 July 2018) 644, c 1156. 15. HC Deb (2002–03) 398, c 1009; ibid (2007–08) 475, c 1214; ibid (30 June 2009) 495, cc 181–82; ibid (28 June 2010) 512, cc 599 and 863; ibid (21 November 2011) 536, c 62; ibid (6 May 2008) 475, c 571. 16. HC Deb (1939–40) 361, cc 796–97; ibid (1941–42) 376, cc 1698–99; but see also ibid (1948–49) 464, cc 373–74. The Speaker has reminded Members that they should ask a question in response to a ministerial statement, not make a speech or counterstatement: ibid (8 May 2007) 460, c 25; ibid (19 June 2007) 461, c 1243; ibid (26 March 2009) 490, c 469. 17. The Speaker has indicated that Members who wish to put questions in relation to a ministerial statement should be in the Chamber at the time when the statement is made, HC Deb (1995–96) 279, c 1020. 18. HC Deb (1979–80) 985, c 1047. 19. Parl Deb (1884) 290, c 696; Parl Deb (1905) 150, c 70; HC Deb (1914) 65, c 1833; ibid (1948–49) 458, c 1415. 20. HC Deb (1962–63) 675, cc 1097–104. 21. See, for example, HC Deb (1995–96) 279, c 1020; ibid (17 May 2011) 528, c 180. 22. HC Deb (18 May 2016) 611, c 2. 23. Second Report, HC 1168-I (2001–02); HC Deb (20 November 2012) 553, cc 443–46. 24. HC Deb (19 December 2013) 572, cc 913 and 919–20. 25. HC Deb (2001–02) 372, c 671. 26. HC Deb (2001–02) 372, c 603. 27. HC Deb (1916) 84, c 573. 28. HC Deb (1981–82) 21, cc 619–21; ibid (1984–85) 72, c 244; ibid (1985–86) 102, c 1504; ibid (1987–88) 120, c 1093; ibid (1990–91) 195, cc 714–27; ibid (1998–99) 328, cc 1204–18; ibid (2001–02) 379, cc 1126–47; ibid (4 November 2004) 426, c 539 (when the statement and responses lasted only three minutes); ibid (7 March 2012) 541, c 952 ff. 29. HC Deb (2002–03) 404, cc 642–63; ibid (2004–05) 436, cc 404–18; ibid (17 July 2017) 627, c 661. 30. HC Deb (1981–82) 23, c 120; ibid (1997–98) 303, cc 656, 677–98; ibid (2002–03) 404, cc 439–42 and 459 ff. On the other hand, the Speaker has ruled that a statement should not interrupt timetabled business, ibid (2002–03) 401, c 629; ibid (2002–03) 406, c 21. 31. HC Deb (1979–80) 980, cc 1664–67; ibid (2002–03) 407, c 996; ibid (2003–04) 417, cc 293 and 337–58; ibid (2003–04) 423, cc 1391 and 1431–51. 32. HC Deb (1985–86) 91, cc 958–65; ibid (1990–91) 189, cc 374–80; ibid (1994–95) 251, cc 280–83. 33. HC Deb (1997–98) 319, cc 1042–43. 34. For example, HC Deb (1983–84) 54, c 130; ibid (1986–87) 116, c 261; ibid (1987–88) 140, c 511; ibid (1996–97) 299, c 451; ibid (9 March 2015) 594, c 23. 35. For example, HC Deb (1985–86) 94, c 19; ibid (1987–88) 137, c 533. 36. For example, HC Deb (2002–03) 395, c 317; ibid (5 July 2006) 448, c 815; ibid (30 June 2011) 530, c 1106. 37. HC Deb (17 March 2014) 577, c 555. 38. HC Deb (2001–02) 391, c 803. Notices of written statements may be tabled on three days during the summer adjournment, in September, and the statements made on a further three days in September, under SO No 22B; these provisions are not invoked if the House sits in September. 39. HC Deb (4 December 2003) 415, c 666; see also ibid (28 October 2009) 498, c 297. 40. HC Deb (20 June 2013) 564, c 41–2WS.

41. HC Deb (11 December 2008) 485, c 704; ibid (8 February 2011) 523, c 160.

Proposals to hold an emergency debate under Standing Order No 24 19.22Standing Order No 24 gives Members an opportunity to propose that the House should debate a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration, if the Speaker agrees that the matter in question so warrants. Under the terms of the Standing Order, such proposals may be made only on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday. The Member1 wishing to make such a proposal must inform the Speaker of the intended application before 11.30 am on Mondays, before 10.00 am on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and before 8.15 am on Thursdays if the urgency of the matter is then known, and if not as soon thereafter as it becomes known.2 The Speaker has declined to accept an indication of intention given by a Member in the House on the previous day, and unsupported by any subsequent written application, as sufficient notice.3 The Speaker indicates privately to the Member concerned whether the application should be heard. If the Speaker is satisfied that the application is proper to be heard,4 the Member rises in their place after all questions have been disposed of and before the commencement of public business, and asks leave for the matter to be debated.5 Standing Order No 24 limits to three minutes the time permitted for such an application and this limit is strictly enforced using a countdown clock.6 It is not in order for another Member to make a further submission while an application is being made;7 interventions are not permitted, nor are points of order normally taken. A further application on the same subject on the same day from another Member will not normally be accepted by the Chair.8 In coming to a decision, the Speaker is expected to have regard to the extent to which the matter concerns the administrative responsibilities of Ministers of the Crown or could come within the scope of ministerial action, and the probability of the matter being brought before the House in time by other means. Under the terms of the Standing Order, the Speaker has to state whether or not they are satisfied that the matter is proper to be discussed without giving the reasons for the decision to the House.9 If the decision is that the application should not be granted, further debate on the submission is out of order.10 If it is considered that the terms of the motion are in order, the Speaker asks whether the Member has the leave of the House. This is not usually challenged, but if such leave is not unanimously given, the Speaker calls on those Members who support the motion to rise in their places. If 40 or more Members then rise to support the motion, the question as to whether it should be proceeded with is decided in the affirmative. If, however, fewer than 40 Members, but more than 10 rise, the question is decided on a division.11 Once the assent of the House has been signified, the Speaker announces the length of the debate up to a maximum of three hours and the time at which it is to be held, or else announces that such a statement will be made at a later named hour during that sitting.12 The debate usually stands over until the commencement of public business the next sitting day (when proceedings on it are interrupted after the conclusion of the allocated time), or, on a Thursday, until the following Monday.13 If the Speaker considers the matter sufficiently urgent, it may stand over until later the same day,14 when it has precedence over all other business. Proceedings are interrupted at the end of the period of time allocated to the debate or at the moment of interruption, whichever is the earlier. In this case any business postponed by the emergency debate is not15 interrupted at the moment of interruption and may be resumed and proceeded with at or after that hour for a period of time equal to the duration of proceedings on the emergency debate.16 The Speaker has on occasion declined to hear any further applications for a debate under Standing Order No 24 when leave has been granted by the House for a debate on a related topic, taking the view that all other subjects which were proposed to be raised at that time could be debated within the terms of the motion which had been granted.17 The Speaker has reminded the House that an application must be directed solely to seeking to prove that an issue is sufficiently important, specific and urgent to change the business of the House so as to provide for an emergency debate and is not an occasion to debate the issue itself.18 The submission of both an application under Standing Order No 24 and of an urgent question is contrary to the practice of the House.19 If assent is given, the debate takes place on a motion that the House has considered the specified matter. This is normally expressed in neutral terms rendering the motion incapable of amendment by virtue of Standing Order No 24B.20

Footnotes 1. An application from the Prime Minister for an emergency debate under Standing Order No 24 has been granted, HC Deb (18 March 2013) 560, c 630. 2. For example, HC Deb (1977–78) 951, c 1194; ibid (1977–78) 954, c 1146; ibid (1983–84) 45, c 157. The Deputy Speaker has declined to entertain such a late application on the grounds that it was a matter for the Speaker, ibid (1998–99) 328, c 1103. These times are earlier than those set out in Standing Order No 24 (see para 17.2 ). 3. HC Deb (1979–80) 979, cc 1372–73. 4. The Speaker has indicated that proposed applications must meet the basic criteria under the Standing Order, and that if applications were received that totally failed to meet those criteria, Members would be advised to seek other ways of raising such matters, HC Deb (1990–91) 196, c 329; for recent examples see ibid (2001–02) 391, cc 36, 558–59. 5. HC Deb (1969–70) 801, cc 825–26. 6. HC Deb (1986–87) 106, c 24; ibid (1986–87) 121, cc 651–52. 7. HC Deb (1967–68) 763, c 1306; ibid (1985–86) 91, c 307. 8. HC Deb (1979–80) 986, cc 36–37. 9. HC Deb (29 March 2017) 624, c 303. See also ibid (10 October 2016) 615, c 71, for an example of the Speaker giving an indication of reasoning for declining an application on the grounds that the matter was likely to be brought before the House by other means in a timely manner. 10. HC Deb (1969–70) 798, cc 214–15. 11. CJ (1961–62) 235; ibid (1975–76) 379. 12. See, for example, HC Deb (5 July 2011) 530, cc 1372–73; ibid (28 February 2012) 541, cc 170–71; ibid (19 March 2012) 542, c

516; ibid (17 December 2018) 651, c 614 (announcement made before the half hour adjournment). 13. CJ (1969–70) 117, 120; ibid (1982–83) 167, 170; HC Deb (2001–02) 382, c 169. For an example of a debate granted under SO No 24 on the matter of a prayer about to be out of time, see HC Deb (2017–18) 624 c 146. 14. CJ (1968–69) 98; CJ, (1974–75) 171; CJ (1978–79) 110, 143–44; CJ (1992–93) 704–5; HC Deb (2016–17) 620 cc 704–5; ibid (19 December) 651, cc 585 and 862. 15. Except as provided in Standing Order No 15(2) for the moving of motions to allow specified business to carry on beyond the moment of interruption. 16. See for example HC Deb (19 December 2018) 651, c 907. 17. HC Deb (1978–79) 961, c 57. 18. HC Deb (1978–79) 964, c 1101. An SO No 24 application, deprecated by the Speaker, was not proceeded with, HC Deb (1982–83) 32, c 862. For a refusal by the Speaker to submit an application relating to the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy, see HC Deb (1977–78) 940, c 747. 19. HC Deb (1984–85) 83, c 738. 20. See First Report of the Modernisation Committee of Session 2006–07, HC 337, para 85, and decisions of the House on the report CJ (2006–07) 609; for a debate on a motion not expressed in neutral terms, see Votes and Proceedings, 11 December 2018.

Ceremonial speeches and tributes 19.23Ceremonial speeches have been allowed at this juncture. While they were originally confined to commemorations on the deaths of distinguished Members or former Members of the House, in recent times the practice has been extended to others.1 The Speaker has paid tribute at this time to a former Speaker who died on the previous day.2 However, in the case of tributes to a Member, the Speaker has called on Members to pay tributes immediately after questions and before ministerial statements.3 Motions on matters of this kind, and amendments to them, have been allowed to be moved without notice.4 Such speeches are usually made by the Leader of the House and supported by brief speeches from leaders of parties not in office. The House was recalled in 2013 in order to pay tributes to a former Prime Minister, no other business being taken on that day.5

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1941–42) 376, cc 320–24; ibid (1942–43) 386, cc 48–49, 1059–63; ibid (1942–43) 390, cc 1946–50; ibid (1962–63) 666, cc 801–4; ibid (1964–65) 718, cc 165–71; ibid (1971–72) 838, cc 37–49; ibid (1972–73) 846, cc 914–21; ibid (1986–87) 108, cc 21–31. 2. HC Deb (1977–78) 950, cc 774–75. 3. HC Deb (1981–82) 13, cc 2, 19–21; and ibid (1994–95) 264, cc 19–29; and ibid (2004–05) 432, cc 1123–37 for cases of former Prime Ministers who had died during an adjournment; and see also ibid (1994–95) 265, cc 597–603, when tributes were paid to the assassinated Prime Minister of Israel. 4. HC Deb (1971–72) 838, cc 37, 49. 5. HC Deb (10 April 2013) 560, c 1619 ff; see also ibid (9 December 2013) 572, cc 1–10, for a day of tributes, with no question before the House.

Personal statements (including resignation statements) 19.24The House is usually indulgent with regard to personal statements, and will permit personal explanations to be made without any question being before the House provided that the Speaker has been informed of what the Member proposes to say,1 and has given leave.2 Because the practice of the House is not to permit such statements to be subject to intervention or debate, the precise contents of the proposed statement are submitted in advance to the Speaker to ensure that they are appropriate. The Member granted the privilege of making such a statement may not therefore depart from the agreed text.3 The statement is made in the order indicated at para 19.2 before the commencement of public business4 and there should be no debate or any other comment on it;5 but if another Member is involved in the personal statement, that Member is generally allowed to give their own view of the matter and to say whether they accept it or not.6 Personal statements may not be made when the House is in Committee.7 The indulgence of a personal statement is granted with caution since it may lead to irregular debates.8 General arguments or observations beyond the fair bounds of explanation or too distinct a reference to previous debates are out of order;9 though a Member has been permitted by the Speaker to make, at a subsequent sitting, a statement regarding alleged misrepresentation in debate10 or in a question to a Minister.11 A personal statement has been allowed by a Member on their reasons for applying for the Manor of Northstead.12 In modern practice, a common use of personal statements has been pursuant to a conclusion by the Standards Committee that a Member should apologise to the House in this way following an inquiry by that Committee.13 The Speaker has made personal statements.14 On 22 March 1948, the Chairman of Ways and Means made a personal statement and the House appointed a select committee to inquire into it the next day.15 On 11 September 2013, a Deputy Speaker made a personal statement on his resignation from that office.16 Explanation by a Member of the circumstances which have caused their resignation of an office in the Government may also be made as a form of personal statement immediately before the commencement of public business.17 The requirement for the Speaker to have advance knowledge of what the Member is to say, and to give leave, is not required from a former Minister wishing to explain the circumstances of their resignation.18 Though debate must not arise upon such explanation, statements on behalf of the Government pertinent to a resignation statement have been permitted. The Speaker likewise has no control over statements made by Ministers in a ministerial, as opposed to a personal, capacity, even if they are concerned with matters which might appropriately have been dealt with by means of a personal statement. Although personal statements are usually taken after other statements and the other items indicated above, on occasion they have been taken immediately after oral questions.19 The Speaker has complete discretion over whether to allow any Member to make a personal statement.

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

5.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

13.

14.

HC Deb (1960–61) 629, c 368; ibid (1968–69) 777, c 1584. HC Deb (1946–47) 431, c 2191; ibid (1974–75) 898, cc 46–52; and see ibid (1995–96) 269, cc 409–10, 541–42. HC Deb (1974–75) 898, c 47; ibid (1987–88) 131, cc 679–81. Parl Deb (1905) 146, c 302; HC Deb (1912) 45, cc 1486, 1532; ibid (1997–98) 319, c 952. In 1947, a Member made a personal statement relative to a matter then before the Committee of Privileges; he was directed to withdraw, and his statement was referred to the Committee of Privileges on a motion by the Leader of the House: CJ (1946–67) 354; HC Deb (1946–47) 441, cc 991–96. For the case of a personal statement which was subsequently admitted not to be true, see HC Deb (1962–63) 674, cc 809–10; ibid 679, c 655; CJ (1962–63) 246. For the case of a personal statement withdrawing allegations which were subsequently found to be justified and a resolution of the House thereon, see HC Deb (1962–63) 681, c 682; CJ (1962–63) 288. For the case of a personal statement of apology for an unparliamentary comment which was not attributed to the Member in the Official Report, see HC Deb (1999–2000) 346, c 520. For a personal statement of apology by a private Member for misleading the Speaker and the House which was taken before Business Questions, see HC Deb (11 May 2006) 446, c 505. HC Deb (1994–95) 254, c 1010. In 1915, a Minister at the close of a personal statement moved the adjournment of the House in order to afford an opportunity for debate: CJ (1914–16) 296; HC Deb (1915) 76, c 549. A similar course was followed when at the close of a personal statement a Whip moved a motion to approve a report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, ibid (2001–02) 373, c 884. HC Deb (1954–55) 535, cc 2609–10; ibid (1968–69) 777, c 1584; ibid (2001–02) 381, c 450. HC Deb (1964–65) 713, c 241. Parl Deb (1859) 153, cc 334–36; ibid (1864) 174, cc 1203–18; ibid (1865) 178, cc 372–78; ibid (1882) 269, cc 106–32; ibid (1968–69) 784, c 239. Parl Deb (1864) 173, cc 1911–14. Parl Deb (1846) 87, c 480; HC Deb (1911) 21, c 1066. HC Deb (1912) 45, c 1532. HC Deb (1981–82) 23, c 38. In 1977, when the report from a select committee appointed to consider the conduct of certain Members was considered, two of the Members, according to custom, addressed the House first, after which they withdrew from the Chamber, HC Deb (1976–77) 936, cc 332–43; ibid 935, cc 2047–48; CJ (1976–77) 448. The third Member, having applied for the Chiltern Hundreds, had made a statement on an earlier occasion. Subsequently, three separate motions, each relating to the conduct of a Member, were moved, and the two Members were permitted to return to the Chamber. For example, HC Deb (1998–99) 335, c 23; ibid (2000–01) 365, c 1118; ibid (2001–02) 373, c 884; ibid (2002–03) 399, c 1073; ibid (2002–03) 409, c 473; ibid (29 October 2009) 498, c 455; ibid (11 November 2013) 570, c 661; ibid (29 January 2010) 504, c 1044 (a personal statement made on a Friday at 11.00 am); ibid (3 April 2014) 578, c 1033; it is up to the Standards Committee to propose the method by which any apology to the House should be given, and in many cases it does not require a personal statement. HC Deb (1947–48) 445, cc 1205–6; ibid (1964–65) 713, c 1033; ibid (1966–67) 728, c 1570; ibid (1969–70) 796, c 1405;

ibid (2001–02) 373, c 753; ibid (19 May 2009) 492, c 1323. 15. HC Deb (1947–48) 448, cc 2584–86. 16. HC Deb (11 September 2013) 567, cc 979–80. 17. HC Deb (1990–91) 180, cc 461–465; ibid (1992–93) 212, cc 139–41; ibid (1992–93) 226, cc 281–85; ibid (1992–93) 227, cc 825–31; ibid (2002–03) 405, cc 36–39; ibid (2003–04) 419, cc 1753–54. On 17 March 2003, however, the Speaker permitted such a statement after two ministerial statements which were made after the second reading of a bill, ibid (2002–03) 401, cc 726–28. 18. HC Deb (1974–75) 893, c 670; ibid (1974) 872, cc 33, 41–42. Objection has, however, been taken to a Minister correcting a previous ministerial statement by means of a personal explanation, ibid (1962–63) 681, c 338; and see ibid (1995–96) 269, cc 409–10, 541–42. 19. HC Deb (19 July 2018) 645, c 589.

Matters relating to privilege taken without notice 19.25By custom this position in the order of business has long been assigned to matters of privilege, and for many years until the procedure was changed (see Chapter 15) in 1978 this time was regarded as the most appropriate for Members to raise complaints of breach of privilege or of contempt. But most matters which fall under the designation of privilege occupy a different position in the order of business. For instance, the moving of a new writ to fill a casual vacancy (which is one of the means by which the House exercises the privilege of making provision with respect to its own proper constitution) is taken at the very beginning of a sitting (see para 19.8 ), though if the moving of a new writ is opposed it is taken at this point; and most substantive motions relating to privilege of which notice has been given are taken as part of consideration of orders of the day and notices of motion (see below), as the first item.

Presentation of public bills under Standing Order No 57 19.26The presentation of public bills is a subject belonging to another chapter (Chapter 28). All that need be said here is that it is a distinct form of procedure. It is not a motion and no question is put upon it. Any Member, by placing on the paper notice of the short and long titles of a bill, can secure its first reading (which is deemed to be given by the House when the Clerk has read the title) and an order for printing it, and also secure the appointment of a date for its second reading. In view of the small amount of information about a bill required in the notice of presentation, objection that a bill is not in order is seldom raised at this stage. When, however, the purpose of a bill, as defined in the title, is obviously unfit for legislation, notice has been taken by the Speaker and the presentation disallowed.1 Objection on the following grounds has been upheld in the past: 1. When the purpose of a bill, being to allocate time for certain bills before the House, was a matter for the decision of the House alone and not for legislation.2 2. When the purpose was to oblige the Government to introduce certain legislation. 3. A notice of the presentation of a bill has been removed from the Notice Paper on the Speaker's instruction because it had the same title as a bill for the introduction of which leave had been refused by the House earlier in the session.3 Under Standing Order No 14, no notice of a presentation of a bill may be given by a private Member in pursuance of Standing Order No 57 until after the fifth Wednesday on which the House sits in a session.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (6 May 1970) 801, cc 410–11. 2. Parl Deb (1908) 190, c 879. 3. Speaker's private ruling, 4 June 1931.

Government motions under standing orders relating to referral of matters to general committees 19.27Standing orders provide for motions to refer (or de-refer) statutory instruments, European Union documents, Estimates, matters and, in some cases, bills to appropriate general committees, to be made with notice by a Minister and put forthwith at the commencement of public business. In practice, the provisions are now rarely used, business managers preferring to table such motions to be taken after the moment of interruption. On occasion they may revert to this time if a motion has been previously objected to.1

Footnotes 1. For details, see paras 28.52 ff, 31.19, 39.32 ff, 39.44 ff.

Motions for leave to bring in bills or for nomination of select committees under Standing Order No 23 (`Ten-minute Rule’) 19.28Motions for leave to bring in bills and for the nomination of select committees1 may be set down at the commencement of public business after the foregoing motions on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays by members of the Government2 and on Tuesdays and Wednesdays by private Members. Notice of presentation of a bill under this standing order may not be given by a private (backbench) Member until after the fifth Wednesday on which the House sits in a session (Standing Order No 14(11)).3 This Standing Order is in practice now used for the presentation of bills only by private Members (see also para 18.40 ). No notice may be given for a day on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has declared an intention to open the Budget; and any such notices are treated as having been given for the next Monday. The rules which apply to private Members' motions for leave to bring in bills are set out at para 28.4. Motions for the nomination of select committee membership,4 for the discharge of a Member from a select committee,5 and for the discharge of Members, and the addition of other Members,6 may also be set down at this place, but not motions for the appointment of a select committee. When motions under this standing order are opposed, the Speaker, after permitting, if thought fit, a brief7 explanatory statement from the Member who moves,8 and from a Member who opposes the motion,9 puts the question thereon without further debate,10 or else the question that the debate be now adjourned.11 This power to put the question that the debate be adjourned, rather than the question on the motion itself, is rarely used and is reserved directly to the Speaker.12 It has been ruled that interventions by other Members are out of order whether or not the Member who is speaking is willing to give way;13 an intervention has, however, been permitted following criticism of another Member in a speech under this Standing Order.14

Footnotes 1. Use of SO No 23 for nomination of the members of a select committee is rare and has not occurred since 1975 (see HC Deb (1974–75) 887, c 504). 2. Parl Deb (1898) 53, c 1383; ibid (1899) 68, c 42. 3. Changed to sixth Wednesday in Session 2010–12 by order of the House on 26 May 2010. 4. CJ (1974–75) 248. 5. CJ (1918) 141. 6. CJ (1903) 118; ibid (1912–13) 151, 178; ibid (1914–16) 279; ibid (1919) 283; ibid (1967–68) 203. 7. This has been defined by the Speaker (who in doing so referred to the procedure by its colloquial description ‘the ten-minute rule’), see HC Deb (1930–31) 252, c 1785; see also ibid (1987–88) 114, c 682. 8. Parl Deb (1890) 346, c 1615. 9. A Member who rises after the question has been proposed can speak only to oppose the motion, Parl Deb (1894) 23, c 225; ibid (1907) 171, cc 687, 882; ibid (1938–39) 349, c 1120; but they need not divide the House, HC Deb (1910) 18, cc 200, 364; ibid (1922) 151, c 391 (but see ibid (1953–54) 523, c 1191). 10. CJ (1905) 358; ibid (1906) 165. An amendment cannot be moved to the question, Parl Deb (1902) 113, c 249; ibid (1908) 190, c 1736; ibid (1938–39) 349, c 1120. 11. CJ (1890–91) 81; ibid (1899) 167; ibid (1905) 339; ibid (1906) 166; ibid (1911) 351; ibid (1929–30) 188. See also the Speaker's remarks in refusing to put the question for the adjournment of the debate on the motion for leave to introduce a government bill, Parl Deb (1901) 97, c 868. 12. Parl Deb (1899) 67, c 1375; ibid (1905) 148, c 388; ibid (1961–62) 654, c 430; ibid (1974–75) 887, cc 509–14. In the latter instance, the question that the debate be now adjourned was negatived on a division, and the debate therefore continued. 13. HC Deb (1961–62) 654, cc 422–28; ibid (1969–70) 795, cc 1459–60; ibid (1981–82) 28, c 224; ibid (1999–2000) 352, c 731. Points of order may, however, be taken: ibid (1969–70) 795, cc 1459–60. 14. HC Deb (1968–69) 787, cc 417–18.

Select committee statements 19.29Since 2013, provision has been made under Standing Order No 22D, with notice and following a determination by the Backbench Business Committee, for statements by the Chair or another member of a select committee to be made after any ministerial statements on a day allotted for proceedings in the House on backbench business (not being taken as a half day). Such statements must relate to the announcement of an inquiry or the publication of a report which has taken place not more than five sitting days previously.1 In general, Members may only be called once to raise a question regarding such a statement, though on occasion a Member has been called a second time.2 Ministers – and opposition spokespersons – may participate by posing a question to the Member making the statement.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (2 December 2013) 571, c 748; ibid (12 December 2013) 572, cc 370–76. 2. For example, HC Deb (19 December 2013) 572, c 934.

Privilege motions with notice 19.30A notice of motion or order of the day relating to a matter of privilege is accorded a priority over other notices of motion or orders of the day. This priority is not prejudiced by the fact that the day on which it is to be raised is a day on which, under an order of the House, government business has precedence.1

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1906) 167, c 1051. When a Member is informed by the Speaker, following a written complaint, that they are entitled to table a motion relating to that complaint, such a motion is given precedence over other business and notice of such a motion is given by the Member on the previous day. Priority is also accorded to a matter of privilege if, through the adjournment of the debate on the motion in which it is embodied, it becomes an order of the day: case of the printers, CJ (1837) 450; Parl Deb (1837) 38, c 1249; CJ (1840) 13, 15, 19, 23, 70; Parl Deb (1840) 51, cc 196, 251, 358, 422; ibid (1840) 52, c 7; case of Azeem Jah, CJ (1865) 252; Mr Plimsoll's case, Parl Deb (1875) 226, c 178; Public Petitions Committee (Special Report), CJ (1878) 130; Parl Deb (1878) 238, c 1741; case of Mr Wedgwood, CJ (1911) 36; case of North Galway writ, ibid (1914) 329; case of Kilkenny City writ, Notices of Motions (1917–18) p 3278; case of county of Surrey, Reigate division writ, CJ (1918) 236, 252, Notices of Motions (1917–18) pp 3170, 3225, 3360; Dr Salter's case, CJ (1926) 340; Miss Wilkinson's case, CJ (1928–29) 159; Mr Sandham's case, CJ (1929–30) 489.

Orders of the day and notices of motion Contents Orders of the day and notices of motion taken in order Moving of orders of the day and notices of motion Orders and motions not reached before the moment of interruption or before the adjournment of the House Orders of the day under consideration at unexpected ending of business Orders of the day not to be brought forward to an earlier date Business transacted purely formally Opposed private business 19.31The ordinary public business of the House consists of orders of the day, ie a stage of a bill or other matter which the House has ordered to be taken into consideration on a particular day (including orders for the resumption of adjourned debates on bills and motions, see para 19.33 ); and notices of motion.

Orders of the day and notices of motion taken in order 19.32Under Standing Order No 27, orders of the day and notices of motion are taken in the order in which they appear on the paper. When the first order of the day is reached, the Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order No 26, directs the Clerk at the Table to read the title of the order, without (as had been the case historically) any question being put; the Clerk will similarly read the title of each subsequent order of the day as it is reached. The titles of notices of motion are not read by the Clerk. The order of consideration has been varied by a motion moved without notice by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business with the leave of the House,1 or by the assignment of priority to a later order as a matter of privilege.2 The consideration of the orders of the day and notices of motion are also subject to incidental interruptions of the proceedings of the House (see para 17.21 ), and the postponement of business in certain circumstances (see para 20.59 ). A motion for the adjournment of the House cannot be made while the orders of the day are being considered, either upon an order of the day being read or in the interval between one order and another, unless by a member of the Government3 with a view to the adjournment of the House forthwith4 or in order that an opportunity may be provided for debating a subject that could not otherwise be raised.5

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

CJ (1894) 394; Parl Deb (1894) 29, c 178; HC Deb (1963–64) 687, cc 40, 178. Parl Deb (1889) 338, c 1089. HC Deb (1943–44) 402, cc 1251–52, etc. CJ (1905) 346; ibid (1923) 87; ibid (1935–36) 158. CJ (1914) 408; CJ (1935–36) 140; CJ (1947–48) 180. This concession rests not on standing orders but on the established practice of the House. It probably arose because it was felt that since the main purpose of SO Nos 26 and 27 was to protect the programme of government business from interruption; the programme did not need to be protected from members of the Government.

Moving of orders of the day and notices of motion 19.33When an order of the day has been read, it must thereupon be proceeded with, appointed for a future day, or discharged. On the order of the day being read for any stage of a bill, an order may, on the motion of the Member in charge of the bill, be made that the order be discharged and the bill be withdrawn. An order of the day cannot be postponed until after another order except as the result of a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business.1 The Speaker therefore calls upon the Member in charge of the order, no other Member being allowed to interpose, unless with the consent of the Member in charge;2 or, in the case of an adjourned debate, upon the Member who moved the adjournment, or was speaking when the debate was interrupted if they rise to address the Chair (see paras 21.10 ). The Chair will resist any attempt to move an order of the day by anyone other than a Minister or the Member in charge or, in the case of private business, the Chairman of Ways and Means or a deputy, unless it is clear that the Member doing so is acting with the express consent of the Member in charge.3 Private Members' Bills may be deferred only by or with the authority of the Member in charge4 and other Members should not seek to defer an order to a remote future date in order to defeat a bill;5 nor may a motion be made in contradiction to any instruction regarding an order of the day which the Member in charge of it has given at the Table. The revival of an order of the day is, according to habitual practice, also reserved to the Member in charge of the order. Because the right to move an order of the day belongs to some extent to the House at large, rather than being vested solely in the Member in charge of the order, a motion relating to an order of the day may, in the absence of the Member in charge, be made by another Member.6 Other motions, not being orders of the day, notice of which stand upon the Order Paper, are brought before the House by the Speaker calling them; and if a Member does not rise when a motion is called, they cannot subsequently ask for it to called again, for the purpose of moving the motion. As noted at para 20.18, any signatory to the motion may move it; and a member of the Government may act on behalf of a colleague in all cases.7 The Speaker has accordingly made clear that a Member, who is neither a member of the Government nor a signatory to the motion, may not move a motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of a Minister which the Minister decides not to move.8 Where notice of a motion is being given in the name of a specified committee (for example, the Selection Committee for motions under Standing Order No 122(2), or certain Liaison or Petitions or Backbench Committee motions), any member of the committee may act for the Chair or whoever has given formal notice. With these exceptions, no motion can be moved save by a Member in whose name the notice stands.9 For moving a motion in terms that differ from the notice standing upon the paper, see para 20.8.

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

CJ (1947–48) 77. Parl Deb (1860) 157, c 1301; ibid (1860) 160, c 349. HC Deb (10 December 2018) 651, c 116. Speaker's private ruling, 13 May 1886; see also HC Deb (1936–37) 324, cc 276–77 and CJ (1936–37) 268 when the Government, at the Speaker's suggestion, moved a motion without notice to bring forward an order which had been named for a distant future date by a Member other than the one in charge of the bill. Report from the Select Committee on Procedure, HC 348 (1972–73); CJ (1973–74) 42. For instances of the Chair deprecating attempts to discharge or postpone consideration of an order in the absence of the Member in charge, see Parl Deb (1873) 216, c 276; ibid (1875) 224, c 1236; ibid (1878) 240, c 1675. Parl Deb (1886) 305, c 353; ibid (1908) 191, c 1107. Parl Deb (1864) 176, c 2034; ibid (1881) 258, c 1664. HC Deb (23 February 2015) 593, c 51; ibid (18 April 2018) 639, c 430. HC Deb (1945–46) 419, c 339. A Member who has given notice of a motion may move it even if their name does not appear on the Order Paper among the first six signatures (see also para 20.18 ).

Orders and motions not reached before the moment of interruption or before the adjournment of the House 19.34If the orders of the day which were not reached by the moment of interruption are read at the Table (see para 17.9 ), a Member in charge of an order has the opportunity, by saying ‘Now’ when the title of their bill is called, to secure its passing the stage at which it stands, if no objection is raised by another Member, and also, similarly, if no objection is raised, of its passage through further stages. A single objection, however, stops proceedings (see para 17.9 ), and it then only remains for a Member in charge of an order to name a day to which it is to be deferred (Standing Order No 9(5)). This action is in theory a motion but no question is put on it, the Speaker merely announcing the day proposed by the Member. A bill may also be deferred at the Table by the Member in charge.1 In the absence of the Member in charge and of any other Member acting on their behalf, or of written instructions to the Table by or on behalf of the Member in charge, that a bill should be deferred to a certain day, the bill concerned automatically becomes a ‘dropped order’ until the Member in charge gives instructions that it should be revived.2 The announcement of a day by the Speaker secures its entry in the Votes and Proceedings and in the Future Business (see paras 7.14 and 7.3 ). As set out at para 17.14, under Standing Order No 9(5), orders of the day which, owing to the suspension of a sitting, or to an adjournment of the House, or to the prolongation of the previous sitting, have not been disposed of before the termination of the sitting, are set down upon the Notice Paper after the orders of the day appointed for the next sitting of the House, subject to the right of the Government to arrange the order of its business, whenever such business has priority.3 A notice of motion standing upon the Notice Paper for the day's sitting, which is not brought on before the adjournment of the House, disappears from the paper, unless the Member in whose name the notice stands, or a Member on their behalf, gives a direction to the Table Office for the replacement of the notice upon the Notice Paper for a future day.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1993–94) 243, c 1102. 2. HC 348 (1972–73) pp vi–vii; HC Deb (1973–74) 867, cc 2048–49. 3. Parl Deb (1888) 323, c 1538.

Orders of the day under consideration at unexpected ending of business 19.35An order under consideration when the House is unexpectedly adjourned, for instance owing to grave disorder, becomes a ‘dropped order’. A dropped order may be reinstated on the Order Paper by means of a motion processed as a formality – that is, entered by the Clerks in the Votes and Proceedings without the attention of the House being drawn to it.1 If proceedings have been commenced on such an order of the day and interrupted, the proceeding thus revived is set down for resumption at the position indicated by the last decision of the House entered upon the Votes and Proceedings.2 If the interruption occurs after the adjournment of the debate has been moved, the motion for the revival of the order of the day relates to the order itself, the motion for the adjournment of the debate being treated as a lapsed motion.3 If the interruption occurs after proceedings upon an order of the day have been postponed and before their resumption, the order of the day is not treated as a dropped order.4

Footnotes 1. Known as a ‘book entry’ – see para 19.37 below. 2. Sale of Intoxicating Liquor (Ireland) Bill, CJ (1878) 419, 424; Redistribution of Seats Bill, CJ (1884) 208, 209; Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Bill, CJ (1960–61) 251. 3. CJ (1878–79) 122, 124; CJ (1911) 351, 388. 4. Trades Disputes and Trade Unions Bill 1927, CJ (1927) 144, 145; Notices of Motions (1927) 1336.

Orders of the day not to be brought forward to an earlier date 19.36When the House has appointed a day for the consideration of a bill or other matter, no earlier day can afterwards be substituted. This rule was enforced, even when a day had been named by mistake, and though no objection was raised to the appointment of an earlier day.1 If, however, an error has arisen in the postponement of an order of the day, while the orders are being read, the transfer of the order of the day to an earlier day than that originally named has been allowed, on an appeal to the Speaker.2 A motion moved by the Government to provide for a range of business to be dealt with before an imminent dissolution contained provision for an order for consideration of a Private Member's Bill on a future date to be discharged, and went on to state that ‘notwithstanding the practice of the House which forbids the bringing forward of an order of the day, the Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee, shall be considered tomorrow’.3

Footnotes 1. London, Chatham and Dover Railway Bill, 6 July 1863. In this case the standing orders were suspended in order to accelerate the next stage of the bill, CJ (1863) 337; Parl Deb (1863) 172, c 246. See also ibid (1886) 305, c 379. 2. Vehicles' Lights (No 2) Bill, Parl Deb (1893) 15, c 871; certain government orders of the day, ibid (1907) 172, c 1012. 3. HC Deb (2009–10) 508, cc 1003–4. Similar orders have been made in the past relating solely to individual bills: CJ (1954–55) 134; CJ (1936–37) 268.

Business transacted purely formally 19.37Certain formal motions necessary for the transaction of business are sometimes entered by the Clerks in the Votes and Proceedings as agreed to by the House in accordance with its established practice without the questions thereon being put from the Chair or being publicly noted in the Chamber. These are known as ‘book entries’. Examples are motions for the first reading of bills received from the House of Lords; for the consideration of Lords amendments on a future day; for the postponement or discharge of an order of the day or an order for a future day by the Member in charge; and for the revival of a dropped order.1

Footnotes 1. For example, see CJ (1987–88) 73, 212, 216; CJ (1992–93) 164, 165. A motion to return a bill to the Lords to permit insertion of the privilege amendment was taken in this way: CJ (1999–2000) 247.

Opposed private business 19.38In recent years, to suit the convenience of the House or to facilitate government business, orders are usually made varying the time at which opposed private business may be taken. Standing Order No 20, however, provides for opposed private business appointed by the Chairman of Ways and Means to be debated for three hours before the moment of interruption and taken after any emergency debate under Standing Order No 24 has been disposed of (see para 19.22 ). It is set down in an order directed by the Chairman. Unless exempted by order of the House, opposed private business cannot be proceeded with after the moment of interruption (see para 17.8 ), and any business not concluded or not entered upon at that hour is postponed to a day appointed by the Chairman. If the Member in whose name a motion contingent upon opposed private business stands fails to move it immediately after the business upon which it is contingent is decided, it lapses unless set down again at the time of unopposed private business, when, if it is again opposed, the Chairman of Ways and Means may, notwithstanding that a previous opportunity for moving it was neglected, appoint a day for its consideration at the time of opposed private business.1 Instructions to a committee on a private bill are not directly contingent upon the second reading, and may be moved independently of that stage (see para 45.7 ). A motion set down to be debated for three hours before the moment of interruption which is not contingent upon a stage of a bill set down for the same hour, if entered upon but not disposed of by the time at which business is interrupted, may be postponed to such time as the Chairman of Ways and Means appoints. If such a motion has not been entered upon before the interruption of business, then when the business is interrupted under Standing Order No 9, the Speaker calls the Member in whose name it stands in order to give an opportunity for the announcement of a day to which the motion is to be postponed. If, upon its title being read, no motion relative to a private bill is made, the motion becomes a dropped order. No opposed private business may be set down for, or deferred to, a Friday sitting. In the absence of an order to vary the time at which the House may take opposed private business on a day on which opposed private business is to be debated for three hours before the moment of interruption, the sitting may, if other business has been prematurely concluded, be suspended till the commencement of that three-hour period.2 But if the House should have adjourned before that time, private business not reached on that account is set down at the time of unopposed private business at the next sitting of the House.3 Private business is sometimes included along with items of public business in motions permitting proceedings after the moment of interruption. Bills for confirming orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, like private bills, may be set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means for debate in any order; they may even be set down before private bills (Standing Orders 174 and 218). Motions relating to such bills are treated in the same way as motions relating to private bills.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1928–29) 225, c 514. 2. City of London (Ward Elections) Bill, HC Deb (2001–02) 374, c 1030. 3. Taf Fechan Water Supply Bill [Lords], CJ (1921) 329, 334; Buckhaven and Leven Gas Commission Order Confirmation Bill, ibid (1922) 213, 221.

Business motions under Standing Order No 15(2) 19.39On the interruption of business under Standing Order No 9, motions may be moved under Standing Order No 15 to exempt the business interrupted or other business or both1 from the provisions of Standing Order No 9 (see para 17.13 ), either indefinitely or for a specified period.

Footnotes 1. The Speaker has on occasion agreed to divide a motion exempting two different bills (CJ (1920) 292) or items of business proposed to be taken on two different days (HC Deb (2001–02) 385, c 614).

Business exempted under Standing Order Nos 15(1) and 16 (proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents) 19.40The various kinds of business exempted from interruption under Standing Order No 15(1) have been mentioned above (para 17.12 ). All the items composing such business may be taken before the moment of interruption; and many of them generally are so taken and accordingly do not require special notice in this chapter. However, proceedings on subordinate legislation, mainly consisting of statutory instruments and (when not debated in a European Committee) European Union documents, have been more frequently debated after the moment of interruption.1 Whether moved before or after the moment of interruption, the Speaker is directed by Standing Order No 16 to put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings under any Act of Parliament or on European Union documents not later than one-and-a-half hours after the commencement of such proceedings. In respect of motions to annul subordinate legislation (‘prayers'), this is subject to Standing Order No 17, which provides that proceedings on such motions may not be entered upon at or after 11.30 pm on Mondays, 8.30 pm on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, or 6.30 pm on Thursdays, at which hour the Speaker is directed to put the question forthwith, unless they consider that insufficient debate has taken place, in which case the proceedings are interrupted and the debate stands adjourned until the conclusion of government business on the next sitting day other than a Friday.2 If proceedings are not then resumed before 11 pm on a Monday, 8 pm on a Tuesday or Wednesday, or 6 pm on a Thursday, the debate stands further adjourned. For exemption motions on ‘out-of-time’ prayers, see para 31.22.

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1899) 71, c 222; ibid (1901) 96, c 1009; HC Deb (1935–36) 313, cc 1908–10. 2. HC Deb (1954–55) 537, cc 343, 511; ibid (1972–73) 848, cc 1528–29; ibid (2000–01) 361, cc 317–18.

Presentation of public petitions 19.41Standing Order No 154 provides for the presentation of public petitions, before the House enters upon the motion for the adjournment under Standing Order No 9(7). At the appropriate time, the Speaker calls on those Members who have given notice to present a petition. A Member so called upon is limited to a statement of the parties from whom it comes, the number of its signatures and its material allegations; and the Member must read the ‘prayer’, which is the section of the petition stating what it is the petitioner is seeking from the House.1 It is common modern practice for the presenting Member to read the whole petition if it is not lengthy.2 No other Member may speak (unless to raise a point of order in the normal way). The Member then leaves their place, hands the petition to the Clerk at the Table, who reads its title, and then deposits the petition in the bag behind the Chair. The Speaker has limited the numbers of supporting pages of signatures that may be brought into the Chamber.3 Where numerous Members seek to present petitions in the same terms on the same day, the Chair has set out a procedure under which the first Member presents their petition in the normal way, while subsequent Members make brief reference to their specific petition but without repeating the prayer. In such cases the overall time allowed for presentation has been limited (with any petitions not reached within the allotted time deemed to have been presented formally).4 Although the formal procedure is frequently employed—doubtless for the sake of the prominence which it confers—the presentation of a petition may alternatively be effected by simply depositing it at any time during the sitting of the House in the bag behind the Chair. The informal presentation of a petition in this way which is in order is recorded in the Votes and Proceedings in a similar manner to the record of a petition presented formally. Standing Order No 156 requires that all petitions other than those proceeded with under Standing Order No 155 are published in the Official Report. Fuller details on the rules governing the preparation of public petitions, the procedures for presentation and following presentation, and other connected matters, are set out in Chapter 24.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1985–86) 88, cc 1187–89. For an example of a Member being prevented from continuing a speech after reading the prayer, see HC Deb (18 December 2006) 454, c 1246. 2. A petition may be read in full by the Clerk at the Table if required, SO No 154(3), and see HC Deb (1948–49) 458, c 1814, etc. 3. HC Deb (1989–90) 163, cc 1293–94, 1296–99; ibid (2000–01) 365, cc 566–67. 4. See, for example, HC Deb (8 December 2012) 502, c 268; ibid (1 December 2015) 603, c 301; petitions not reached before the expiry of the allotted time are placed in the petitions bag, in accordance with the procedure described above.

Adjournment motions under Standing Order No 9(7) Contents Applications for daily adjournment motions under Standing Order No 9(7) General restrictions on debate on motions for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No 9 Participation in daily adjournment motions under Standing Order No 9(7) 19.42Until the time at which the House is adjourned without question put under Standing Order No 9(7) is reached, the House can be adjourned only on motion (unless it is adjourned by the Speaker owing to gross disorder in pursuance of Standing Order No 46), and this motion is debatable, thus affording private Members an opportunity of raising various matters.1 Should all the business for the day be concluded before the moment of interruption, an adjournment motion is immediately moved by a member of the Government, and the Member who has secured the right to select the topic to be debated on the adjournment that day may then initiate the discussion. Should the debate continue until the moment of interruption, the adjournment motion lapses, and another adjournment motion is moved, which may be debated for not more than half an hour, under which the subject under discussion at the moment of interruption may be further debated.

Footnotes 1. See para 18.36. The original system instituted by the Speaker in 1944 was informal and was not binding: see the Speaker's statements, HC Deb (1943–44) 396, cc 42, 1916–17; ibid (1943–44) 401, cc 977–78; and ibid (1961–62) 649, c 1678. Now, however, the Chair regards the Member who secures an adjournment debate as being bound by the subject of which notice has been given, ibid (2002–03) 406, c 281.

Applications for daily adjournment motions under Standing Order No 9(7) 19.43The arrangements for securing a debate are as follows: a. The ballot is held on Thursdays. Applications in writing must be submitted by 7 pm or the rising of the House, whichever is earlier on the preceding Wednesday or the rising of the House if earlier. b. The subjects for the adjournment on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday are balloted, while that on Thursday is selected by the Speaker. c. Members successful in the ballot may not enter their names for the next succeeding week. d. A Member desiring to raise a matter on the adjournment should state the subject of the proposed debate. Clerks in the Table Office can assist Members in ensuring that the matters they propose to raise in the debate conform with the general restrictions on debates on motions for the adjournment (see para 19.44 ). e. 48 hours' notice is required for a change of subject of a balloted adjournment motion, and the change of subject is notified in the Notice Paper. f. When a Member does not wish to pursue the subject of a balloted adjournment motion and cannot give 48 hours' notice, their right to the adjournment lapses. g. No Member's name will be carried forward from one ballot to another. A fresh application must be made. h. A Member who has the adjournment for a certain day and is unable to take it cannot exchange dates with another Member. If it is not possible to find a replacement in sufficient time, no debate takes place.1 i. A Member may not have more than one entry current at the same time; accordingly, if an application is received from a Member who has already submitted one, the second application will supersede that submitted earlier. Applications for adjournment debates should be accompanied by a declaration of any relevant interest. Members successful in the ballot are responsible for notifying the Table Office to ensure that an indication of the relevant interest appears at the earliest opportunity on the Notice Paper or Order Paper. The advocacy rule as it applies to the initiation of parliamentary proceedings includes making an application for and introducing an adjournment debate.2

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (16 December 2004) 428, c 1890. 2. See para 5.20.

General restrictions on debate on motions for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No 9 19.44There are certain general restrictions on debates on motions for the adjournment of the House. They are as follows: a. Members are precluded, under the rule against anticipation (see para 20.13 ), from discussing on an adjournment motion a notice of motion1 or an order of the day2 which already stands upon the Notice Paper.3 In determining whether a discussion is out of order on the ground of anticipation, the probability of the matter anticipated being discussed within a reasonable time must be considered (Standing Order No 28); and recent practice has been to interpret the rule only loosely and so as not to impose what might risk being unreasonable restrictions on debate.4 b. In general, matters which would entail legislation must not be discussed on a motion for the adjournment;5 but under Standing Order No 30 the Speaker may permit such incidental reference to legislative action as they may consider relevant to any matter of administration under debate on a motion for the adjournment when enforcement of the prohibition would, in their opinion, unduly restrict the discussion of the matter. Current practice is to interpret the rule generously. c. Matters for which the Government has no administrative responsibility may not be raised.6 d. Matters which may be debated only on a substantive motion expressed in specific terms (see paras 20.10, 21.23 ff) are inadmissible on an adjournment motion. e. Matters which have already been discussed on the same day in debate,7 including the debate on the Address,8 may not be raised on the motion for the adjournment after the moment of interruption that day.9

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1860) 157, c 1166; ibid (1901) 94, c 1011; HC Deb (1910) 14, c 1054. 2. Parl Deb (1860) 157, c 1804; ibid (1901) 94, cc 995, 999; HC Deb (1910) 15, c 1013; ibid (1987–88) 121, c 1230. 3. On a motion for the adjournment of the House, the Speaker has refused to allow a Member to discuss the merits of a bill standing upon the Notice Paper for that sitting: Parl Deb (1901) 92, c 301. Members have also been forbidden to raise on a motion for the adjournment a matter which was similar to the main purpose of a Private Member's Bill which they had previously presented and which was ordered to be read a second time upon the following day, HC Deb (1978–79) 962, c 1440. 4. See, for example, HC Deb (18 June 2012) 546, c 712 ff. where the subject of the debate anticipated a debate on a Private Member's Bill on the same topic. 5. Parl Deb (1899) 71, c 1034; ibid (1903) 123, c 204; ibid (1904) 132, c 1043; HC Deb (1948) 456, cc 217–19; ibid (1948–49) 470, cc 2304–8. Upon the motion for the adjournment of the House, moved when the orders of the day have been disposed of, HC Deb (1924) 170, cc 844, 2728; ibid (1924) 171, cc 903, 1088; ibid (1961–62) 649, cc 1677–82. 6. HC Deb (1939–40) 356, c 1228; ibid (1943–44) 399, cc 1161, 1166; ibid (1948–49) 465, cc 850, 1059–60; the conduct of nationalised industries may, however, be discussed on the adjournment, ibid (1948–49) 465, c 1063. 7. HC Deb (1941–42) 383, c 114. 8. HC Deb (1944–45) 406, c 59. 9. An adjournment debate on a topic related to the subject matter of a ministerial statement made earlier the same day has been allowed to proceed, HC Deb (26 June 2017) 626, cc 347–63 and 430–39.

Participation in daily adjournment motions under Standing Order No 9(7) 19.45A half-hour adjournment debate is a personal debate between the Member who has secured the debate and the Minister who is to reply, and the Chair therefore expects that the Minister will be given adequate time in which to reply.1 Interventions may be taken. Unless the debate begins significantly before the moment of interruption, other Members may make brief speeches only with the agreement of the Member who has secured the debate and of the Minister, and that agreement should be notified to the Chair in advance.2 Interventions from the Opposition frontbench are not allowed.3 Opposition spokespersons may participate, from the backbenches,4 on matters which do not relate to their portfolio. Equally, because the debate is personal to the Member and the Minister, no reference should be made to the absence of other Members (for example, an Opposition frontbench spokesperson).5 On an occasion when the responsible Minister was not present at the start of a debate, the Speaker required the speech in reply to be made by another Minister who had heard the Member's speech.6 It is irregular for any Member to speak after the Minister has concluded.7

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1997–98) 306, c 1057. 2. HC Deb (1997–98) 306, c 1045; ibid (1997–98) 310, c 314; ibid (1999–2000) 341, c 500; ibid (31 January 2006) 442, c 72WH; ibid (22 October 2009) 497, c 1144; ibid (28 January 2010) 504, c 1013. For an example of a Member initiating a short debate in Westminster Hall refusing consent for other Members to speak, see ibid (18 April 2006) 445, c 66WH. 3. HC Deb (1998–99) 335, c 1163; ibid (20 March 2006) 444, c 129; ibid (19 May 2008) 476, c 136; ibid (9 February 2010) 505, c 890. For occasions when a frontbench intervention in a short Westminster Hall debate was ruled out of order, see ibid (15 March 2005) 432, c 57WH, and ibid (26 January 2010) 504, c 254WH. 4. HC Deb (2001–02) 374, c 83. 5. HC Deb (15 September 2010) 515, c 978. For an occasion when the Chair ruled it was out of order for a Member intervening to make a party political point because of the debate's personal nature, see ibid (26 March 2008) 474, c 297. 6. HC Deb (15 December 2005) 440, c 1535 ff. For an example of a Minister replying to a debate in place of an absent colleague, see ibid (6 January 2010) 503, c 245. 7. HC Deb (1997–98) 308, cc 848 and 1269–70; ibid (1999–2000) 348, c 12WH.

Introduction to process of debate in the House of Commons 20.1A matter requiring the decision of the House of Commons is decided by means of a question put from the Chair upon a motion made by a Member. The essential stages in obtaining a decision of the House are the moving of a motion; the proposing of a question by the Chair; and the putting of the question and collection of voices by the Chair. At the conclusion of the speech (if any) made by the Member moving a motion, the Chair proposes the question (which repeats the terms of the motion)1 and debate may then take place. At the conclusion of debate the Chair puts the question (except when it has been withdrawn) and collects the voices, after which the Chair announces that in their opinion either the ‘ayes’ or the ‘noes’ are in the majority. If the opinion of the Chair is challenged, the House proceeds to a division to determine which side has the majority of votes. Between the proposing and putting of a main motion, subsidiary questions on amendments may be moved, proposed and decided in the same way. The moving, proposing and putting of questions are often proceeded with formally, that is, without debate, or are required to be put at a specified time or point; many questions before the House are decided in this way. This process of debate is described below under the following headings: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Motions Questions on motions Amendments to motions Requirements on Chair to put the question Closure of debate Quorum of the House Decisions and divisions Status and recording of decisions Reversal of decisions

Footnotes 1. Two recognised exceptions to this rule are given at para 20.8.

Substantive and subsidiary motions 20.2A motion is a proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House. Motions may be either self-contained substantive motions or one of several kinds of subsidiary motion: (1) ancillary motions dependent on an order of the day, such as the motion that a bill be now read a second time, or (when there is a preceding motion that the report of a committee be now considered) that the House agrees with the report of a committee; (2) motions made for the purpose of superseding questions, such as motions for the adjournment of a debate (see paras 20.23–20.24 ); (3) motions dependent on other motions, such as amendments.

Manner of giving notice 20.3Notice of a motion can be given (tabled) by being handed in either at the Table of the House or (more usually) to the Clerks in the Table Office. Notice of a motion can be published in a variety of ways. It may appear for the first time on the Order Paper for the day on which it is proposed to be taken (if this is the sitting day after the notice is given). It may (as is the normal practice with government motions) be placed on the list of Remaining Orders and Notices printed in the Future Business B section of the Order Paper; and motions frequently reappear daily on the Remaining Orders for long periods before they are placed on the ‘effective’ Orders.1 Notice may be given for a specific future day, in which case the motion is printed in the paper entitled ‘Future Business A’ (see para 7.3 ) for the specified day. Finally, motions may be tabled by backbenchers for which ‘no day has been fixed’. These are known as ‘Early Day Motions’, or EDMs, and in most cases are not in practice expected to be debated (see para 20.17 for more detailed rules relating to the adding and publishing of names added to these motions). Members are required to declare relevant interests when tabling notices of motion and amendments (including cases in which they add names to notices of motions and to amendments tabled by others).2 A notice cannot be withdrawn from the Notice Paper of the day or the current issue of the Future Business paper in the course of a sitting;3 but by notice given to the Table Office it can be withdrawn from a future issue. A Member may not have the same notice standing in the Future Business paper for two different days.4

Footnotes 1. Remaining orders of the day standing in the name of a Minister are republished each day, with notice of renewal for the next day formally given each day. By extension, this applies to motions relating to Church of England Measures in the name of the Second Church Estates Commissioner and motions from the Committee of Selection. Other remaining orders must be re-tabled each day. 2. The Code of Conduct together with theGuide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members, HC (2017–19) 1882, Chapter 2, para 7(d) and see CJ (2005–06) 127. Tabling of all notices is also governed by the rules prohibiting paid advocacy, see para 5.20. 3. Parl Deb (1892) 4, cc 189–90; HC Deb (1929–30) 230, c 1494; and see para 20.9. Although a notice of a motion cannot be formally withdrawn from the Notice Paper of the day, a clear indication can be given in advance for the convenience of the House that it is not intended to be moved: see for example HC Deb (8 February 2018) 635, c 1689. 4. Previous practice (Speaker's private rulings 5 April 1905; 18 July 1917) of allowing no more than six names to appear in the Future Business paper in connection with a notice is no longer strictly enforced, in particular where it is judged that the House otherwise would not be aware of all those in support of the motion or amendment.

Period of notice 20.4In general, substantive motions require notice before they can be moved, whilst subsidiary motions do not.1 Except where the length of notice required is laid down in standing orders, notice means at least one preceding sitting day. This means that relevant business for a day can be tabled right up to the close of business the preceding sitting day.2 Notices of motion to which opposition seems unlikely to arise are frequently given during the day before the sitting on which the motions are to be submitted to the House, although the Speaker has deprecated the delaying of notice so as to deprive Members of an opportunity of learning the terms of a motion.3 A minimum of five (and a maximum of fifteen) sitting days' notice is required under Standing Order No 23 for leave to bring in a bill (see paras 18.40, 28.4 ); and under Standing Order No 90 at least ten days' notice must be given of motions at the commencement of public business to refer a bill to a second reading committee. Under Standing Order No 121, two sitting days' notice must be given of a motion or an amendment relating to the nomination of Members for service on select committees. For notice periods relating to amendments to bills, see Chapter 28. Under Standing Order No 22, notice of an amendment to a motion for which no day has been fixed (an Early Day Motion), or of the addition of a name in support of such a motion or amendment, if given later than half an hour after the moment of interruption, is treated as if it were a notice handed in after the rising of the House on that day.

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1907) 171, c 680–81. 2. Parl Deb (1871) 207, c 143. 3. HC Deb (1985–86) 93, cc 568–69. For a case where a manuscript amendment was selected to a business motion, see HC Deb (20 June 2018) 643, c 358.

Change of day for a motion 20.5A Member who wishes to change the day for which they have given notice must defer the notice to a more distant day or, if an earlier day is sought, must withdraw the notice and give a fresh one;1 the new notice must conform to any requirements laid down in standing orders as to length of notice. The same notice of motion may not be given for two or more different days.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1928) 214, c 362.

Motions made without notice 20.6Certain procedural motions relating to the transaction of business may be made without notice. These include motions made under Standing Order No 63 immediately after second reading, that a bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, a select committee or a joint committee; motions under Standing Order No 51 for giving provisional statutory effect to any proposals in pursuance of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968, s 5; and motions for the consideration of Lords amendments forthwith (see paras 30.6 –30.7 ). Motions arising out of a matter of privilege, including motions for an order of the House to the Speaker to make out the warrant for the issue of a writ for the election of a new Member (see paras 2.11 ff, 19.8 ), are also moved without notice.1 A motion for a message to the Lords requesting the return of a bill which was incorrect, due to irregularities in divisions, has also been allowed to be moved without notice as a matter of privilege2 A motion granting special powers to the Chair of a standing (public bill) committee has similarly been moved without notice as a matter of privilege, following a report of disorder in the committee made in the House by the Chair concerned.3 On the presentation of a petition seeking leave for a Member or officer to attend a court as a witness, the motion for leave of the House to be granted has in the past been moved without notice, unless objection was taken before the motion was moved.4 A motion to permit the Speaker to nominate no more than three Deputy Speakers to serve until the House had elected Deputy Speakers in accordance with Standing Order No 2A has been moved without notice.5 With the exceptions stated above, it is the almost invariable practice of the House that notice should be given of substantive motions.6

Footnotes Though motions arising from privilege complaints by a Member require private notice to and consent from the Speaker (see para 15.32 ). HC Deb (1974) 877, c 259. HC Deb (1972–73) 849, c 667; CJ (1988–89) 225; ibid (1995–96) 436. HC Deb (1978–79) 974, cc 739–40; ibid (1981–82) 18, c 492. The former practice was that if objection was not voiced to a Member's request for leave to move such a motion, subsequent objection would not be sufficient to prevent the question being debated and put (ibid (1974–75) 896, cc 220–22). However, in the most recent similar case, notice of the Member's intention to move the relevant motion on a future day was given and, when moved, the motion was withdrawn, see ibid (1994–95) 258, c 953; ibid (1994–95) 261, cc 333–54. 5. HC Deb (21 June 2017) 626, c 33. 6. As noted at para 19.37, certain decisions are taken purely formally, without a question being put from the Chair; such motions do not require notice. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Waiver of the requirement for notice 20.7The House can in exceptional circumstances waive the requirement of notice for a substantive motion if the motion is moved under the sanction of the Chair and with the concurrence of the House.1 Equally, the requirement for notice can be waived by means of a business of the House motion on a previous day.2 Motions have been made without notice to provide for a Saturday sitting,3 to alter the time for the next sitting of the House,4 to delay the moment of interruption,5 or to regulate the adjournment of the House.6 When, under Standing Order No 13, notice was given on a Sunday for the House to meet on the following day at 6 pm to debate a substantive motion for its adjournment, an Order Paper was published in the usual way. Though, by practice, no notice could be given on a Sunday, it was considered that in such circumstances the standing order must override the customary requirement for notice of a substantive motion.7 A motion to give immediate effect to a resolution of the House has also been moved without notice; for example, after the House had rescinded and discharged the order for the appointment of a select committee, an order was made immediately for the reappointment of the committee with altered terms of reference.8 A motion to rescind the committal of a bill to a standing (public bill) committee has been made in a similar way.9 A message from the House of Lords communicating the desirability of appointing a joint committee has been considered without notice and a resolution for concurring with the Lords agreed to.10 The objection of any Member is enough to prevent the waiver of notice.11

Footnotes 1. CJ (1924–25) 409; HC Deb (1963–64) 685, c 35. See also the Address in the case of Emergency Regulations, HC Deb (1926) 199, c 6. For examples of a motion or an amendment withdrawn by leave of the House, and another motion or amendment substituted without notice, in order to meet the views of the House, see para 20.22, fn 3. 2. CJ (1998–99) 172. 3. CJ (1914) 435; ibid (1955–56) 429. 4. CJ (1878) 355, 396; ibid (1917–18) 202; HC Deb (1917) 97, cc 1186, 1301, 1344; ibid (1926) 199, c 6. 5. CJ (1970–71) 68. 6. CJ (1920) 379; HC Deb (1920) 133, c 543; CJ (1924) 386; HC Deb (1924) 177, cc 319, 473; CJ (1923) 92; HC Deb (1923) 162, c 1639. 7. CJ (2001–02) 124; HC Deb (2001–02) 372, c 811. 8. CJ (1870) 169; Parl Deb (1870) 201, c 79. 9. Employers' Liability Bill, CJ (1893–94) 249; Beer Bill, ibid (1901) 347. 10. CJ (1895) 127, 131; ibid (1911) 27, 28; HC Deb (1911) 21, c 1245. 11. HC Deb (1926) 199, c 254. (A motion to compensate for time taken by a government statement has been allowed to be moved without notice despite objection, HC Deb (1981–82) 25, cc 701–2. The motion was subsequently withdrawn. See also the Speaker's ruling on the Gold Standard (Amendment) Bill, ibid (1930–31) 256, cc 1289–90.)

Change of terms of notice of motion or of question 20.8Modification of the terms of a notice of motion standing upon the Notice Paper is permitted, if the amended notice does not exceed the scope of the original notice1 and the Speaker decides that it is proper for the motion to be moved in the altered form.2 If a motion is proposed which differs materially from the terms of the one of which notice has been given, it can be made only with the consent of the House, or after a new notice has been given.3 On proposing the question, an opportunity may be taken to rectify any irregularities in a motion which has been moved without notice, or any irregularities which, although notice has been given, have previously been overlooked. Any such necessary change is within the discretion of the Chair.4 The general rule that the question proposed and put from the Chair should repeat the terms of the motion on which it is based admits of certain recognised exceptions. Thus, on the stages of bills, the form of motion for the rejection of a bill, that this House declines to give the bill a second or third reading for various stated reasons, is translated by the Speaker into an amendment to the question ‘That the bill be now read a second (or the third) time’, expressed in the terms ‘to leave out all the words after “Thatâ€​ and add the words “[embodying the reasons for rejection]â€​’.

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1907) 171, cc 680–81; HC Deb (1962–63) 682, c 243; ibid (1976–77) 934, cc 1571–75; ibid (11 August 2011) 531, cc 1152–53. Where a motion exceeded the scope of the original notice, see ibid (1957–58) 586, cc 1293–95. 2. HC Deb (1979–80) 977, cc 1687–95; ibid (1993–94) 247, c 369; ibid (29 August 2013) 566, c 1425. Where there was a typographical error on the Order Paper, the question was put in the corrected form, ibid (2000–01) 360, cc 326–27. The same applies in the case of amendments, ibid (2 February 2004) 417, cc 549, 560. 3. Parl Deb (1857–58) 148, c 719; ibid (1861) 161, c 854; ibid (1872) 212, c 219; ibid (1895) 33, c 961. 4. HC Deb (1858), 148, c 719. The same also applies to amendments, see HC Deb (2 February 2004) 417, cc 549, 560.

Withdrawal of notice 20.9A Member whose name stands first on the notice of a motion or an amendment to a motion may withdraw the motion or amendment even though other names have been added to it.1 A Member who has added their name to a notice of motion may subsequently withdraw their name if the motion has not been moved or withdrawn.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1999–2000) 342, cc 1022–23.

Matters which may be raised only on a substantive motion 20.10As indicated in the following chapter (para 21.23 ff), certain matters (relating to the conduct of certain categories of person or office holder, such as Members of either House or of judges of the superior courts of the United Kingdom) cannot be debated except on a substantive motion which allows a distinct decision of the House. Critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate may therefore be permitted in motions of this form, but are not allowed in other forms, such as an amendment or the title of an adjournment motion.

Matters awaiting judicial decision (sub judice) 20.11The House has resolved that no matter awaiting adjudication by a court of law (including a coroner's court or a Fatal Accident Inquiry) – ie matters sub judice – should be brought before it. This covers both the content of Members' speeches and the subject matter of motions and questions. The resolution means that matters currently before the courts cannot be raised in a motion or amendment save where legislation is under consideration1 (though this does not include motions for leave to bring in bills2 ), where a ministerial decision is in question, where in the opinion of the Chair issues of national importance are concerned, or where the Chair otherwise exercises their discretion.3 The terms of the resolution and its interpretation are set out in more detail at para 21.19.

Footnotes 1. Resolution of the House of 15 November 2001, CJ (2001–02) 194, Resolution of 28 June 1972, CJ (1971–72) 408 and Resolution of 23 July 1963, CJ (1962–63) 297; see also HC Deb (1971–72) 836, cc 389–90. A notice of motion relating to a matter which had been the subject of a conviction was withdrawn from the paper when an appeal against the conviction was lodged and subsequently reinserted when the appeal had been determined (Notices of Motions, 1969–70, pp 3141, 3277, 3404). Signatures may not be added to motions relating to matter which are sub judice until the cases have been disposed of, HC Deb (1976–77) 933, cc 733–34; ibid (1981–82) 13, c 163; ibid (1984–85) 83, c 28; see also Notices of Motions, 1988–89, pp 1871, 1901; ibid 2612, 2619. 2. HC Deb (1977–78) 960, c 665; Resolution of the House of 15 November 2001, para (3)(b), CJ (2001–02) 195. 3. HC Deb (1971–72) 836, c 1705; ibid (1979–80) 975, c 1085-86; ibid (1986–87) 102, c 1315; ibid (16 March 2010) 507, c 727.

Matters already decided during the same session 20.12A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.1 Since 1994 this rule has been applied so that, in the case of ten-minute rule motions under Standing Order No 23, refusal by the House of leave to introduce a bill should be treated as the rejection of that bill at a substantive stage, with the effect that a bill with the same or a very similar long title could not be presented again in the same session.2 Attempts have been made to evade this rule by raising again, with verbal alterations, the essential portions of motions which have been negatived. Whether the second motion is substantially the same as the first is finally a matter for the judgment of the Chair.3 The same rule has been applied to an amendment renewing a motion which had been already negatived.4 Some motions, however, have been framed with sufficient ingenuity to avoid the rule.5 On rare occasions where the House has been offered a series of alternative proposals for its consideration, an order was made specifically directing the Chair to put the questions on later motions notwithstanding any decision of the House on earlier motions.6 However, a question which has not been definitely decided may be raised again. Thus, a motion or amendment which has been withdrawn,7 or on which the Chair has declared the question not decided when it appeared that fewer than 40 Members had taken part in a division,8 or for some other reason,9 may be repeated. In such cases a Member may speak again on the second occasion.10 Where a certain course in relation to the procedure of the House has been rejected on a particular day, it may be revived on a subsequent day.11

Footnotes 1. CJ (1547–1628) 162, 306, 434. Cases when the Speaker has intervened to enforce this rule, CJ (1840) 495; Parl Deb (1844) 76, c 1021; ibid (1860) 158, c 1348; ibid (1870) 201, c 824; ibid (1873) 214, c 287; CJ (1900) 139; ibid (1902) 236; Parl Deb (1906) 160, c 364; CJ (1908) 225; HC Deb (1912) 38, c 1754; CJ (1920) 167; ibid (1920) 129, c 931. For the application of the rule to a notice of motion which raised a question discussed on an amendment to the Address in the same session, see ibid (1912) 35, c 1043. The rule also prevents a matter which has been decided in secret session being reopened in open session, ibid (1943–44) 402, cc 1608–9. 2. CJ (1993–94) 454; for application of the rule to bills, see para 28.17. 3. Parl Deb (1870) 201, c 824; ibid (1864) 176, c 497; ibid (1882) 269, c 340. See also Parliamentary Affirmation, ibid (1880) 253, c 1266; Mr O'Donnell's suspension, ibid (1881) 261, c 1985; Railway Servants (Hours of Labour), ibid (1890–91) 349, c 1176; HC Deb (18 March 2019) 656, c 775; ibid (27 March 2019) 657, c 370. 4. Parl Deb (1844) 76, c 1021. 5. CJ (1780–82) 814, 861; ibid (1833) 195, 317; ibid (1845) 59, 69, 81; ibid (1845) 42, 54, 185, 199, 214. 6. See CJ (2002–03) 156 and ibid (2006–07) 187 (Business of the House orders governing debates on options for House of Lords reform); and Votes and Proceedings, 27 March 2019 and 1 April 2019 (Business of the House orders governing debates on options for exiting the European Union). 7. Parl Deb (1845) 80, cc 432, 798; CJ (1977–78) 152, 168, 169. 8. CJ (1972–73) 269, 273; ibid (1977–78) 405. 9. CJ (1972–73) 414–15, 435. 10. HC Deb (1983–84) 57, c 1266. 11. HC Deb (1912) 42, cc 367–68.

The rule against anticipation 20.13Formerly, the House strictly observed a rule against anticipation, according to which a motion could not anticipate a matter already appointed for consideration by the House,1 whether a bill or an adjourned debate upon a motion. The rule survives in Standing Order No 28, which requires that in determining whether a discussion is out of order on the ground of anticipation the Speaker must have regard to the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the House within a reasonable time.2 Stated generally, the rule against anticipation (which applied to other proceedings as well as motions), as strictly enforced in earlier times, was that a matter must not be anticipated if contained in a more effective form of proceeding than the proceeding by which it was sought to be anticipated,3 but it might be anticipated if contained in an equally or less effective form. A bill or other order of the day is more effective than a motion, a substantive motion more effective than an unamendable motion expressed in general terms or a motion for the adjournment of the House or an amendment, and a general debate or a motion for the adjournment is more effective than a supplementary question.4 In recent years there have been several occasions when the rule has not been applied in particular instances.5 It remains the practice, however, that if a Member declares their intention of raising a matter on the adjournment during question time, further supplementary questions are precluded even where the Member has not yet been allowed a specific opportunity for an adjournment debate.6

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1907) 171, c 1525; ibid 176, c 631; ibid (1908) 192, c 228; HC Deb (1911) 29, c 1362; ibid 32, c 2706; ibid (1914) 61, c 172; ibid (1924–25) 180, c 1231; ibid (1981–82) 12, c 672. 2. For a discussion of the origins of the rule, including a suggestion that the earliest reference to it is to be found in Dickens' Little Dorrit, see the report of the Select Committee on Procedure (Anticipatory Motions) HC 264 (1907). See also HC Deb (1941–42) 383, cc 533–34; ibid (1968–69) 782, c 1039. 3. See HC Deb (13 December 1945) 417, c 629, where the Speaker allowed a wide debate on the Bretton Woods Agreement, and ruled that similar breadth would be out of order in debate on the second reading of the much narrower bill which immediately followed. 4. HC Deb (1945–46) 420, c 1081, and see para 19.16. 5. For example, there was a SO No 24 (then SO No 9) adjournment debate on the future of Rolls-Royce immediately after the Rolls-Royce (Purchase) Bill had been presented and set down for second reading in 1970–71 (CJ (1970–71) 246–47). In 1992–93, a motion was tabled inviting the Government to proceed with the committee stage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, even though that committee stage had been set down as an order of the day over five months previously (ibid (1992–93) 52–53, 226). For the earlier application of the rule, see Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), pp 327–28. 6. HC Deb (1984–85) 74, c 14 and see para 19.16.

Length of motions 20.14Motions for debate should not generally exceed 250 words in length.1 This rule has been interpreted to require that any amendment tabled, if added to the original motion, would not bring its total length above this limit. Some types of motions, for example those amending the House's standing orders or dealing with matters of technical complexity, may be considerably longer.2

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1983–84) 54, c 977 and see ibid (1983–84) 46, c 692 for private Members' (now backbench business) motions more generally. 2. See, for example, the motion agreed to by the House on the Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy, HC Deb (19 July 2018) 645, cc 658–60.

Other rules relating to content of motions 20.15The Speaker has directed that a notice of motion should not be printed, because it was irregular or obviously not a proper subject for debate, being tendered in a spirit of mockery, or being designed merely to give annoyance.1 The Speaker has ruled that motions are inadmissible if they are multiplied with slight variations on the same point (see also para 22.22 for a similar rule in relation to written questions to Ministers).2 The Speaker has also ruled against the excessive use of quotation in motions so as to prevent attempts to write statements or speeches made by persons outside the House into its record.3 On the same principles, the Speaker has directed that certain titles proposed to be given to their motions by Members should be changed before the motions were printed.

Footnotes 1. Among private rulings by the Speaker are the following: 9 February 1951 (motion imputing insobriety to a section of the Opposition); 11 December 1952 (motion reflecting on a Member's mental and physical condition); 9 February 1961 (motion advocating a memorial to mark the completion of the Suez operation); 11 July 1964 (motion containing copious quotations from private correspondence); 17 November 1965 (motion containing a reference to an obscene expression); 3 February 1971 (motion quoting the entire text of a newspaper article); 23 January 1978 (motion tendered in a spirit of mockery); 2 June 1981 (motion containing references to the Bible); 9 February 1992 (motion quoting an obscene expression); 25 September 1992 (motion tendered in a spirit of mockery, referring to Members' dress). See also HC Deb (1967–68) 756, cc 647–50; ibid (1974) 872, c 452; ibid (1984–85) 72, cc 286–87; and ibid (1986–87) 110, cc 1083–84. 2. HC Deb (1991–92) 204, c 21. 3. HC Deb (1988–89) 151, cc 807–8, 971–72.

Manner of dealing with irregular notices of motion 20.16A notice of motion which contains unbecoming expressions, infringes the House's rules, or is otherwise irregular, may, under the Speaker's authority, be corrected by the Clerks in the Table Office.1 The alterations, if necessary, are submitted to the Speaker, or to the Member who gave the notice. A notice which is wholly out of order may be withheld from publication on the Notice Paper.2 If the Member does not accept that decision, they should ask for the matter to be referred to the Speaker. If the Speaker decides to uphold the view of the Clerks the Member is informed, and if the Member is still dissatisfied they may seek to see the Speaker to argue the case further. If, at the end of this process, the Member is still dissatisfied, they can raise the matter in the House, and if the Member disagrees with the Speaker's ruling they can challenge it by a motion. The object of this procedure is to save the time of the House.3 It is not the duty of the Table Office to inform a Member who has given the notice of any irregularity that it may contain immediately it is given,4 but communication regarding an irregular notice is made to Members as soon as the pressure of business permits. When a notice publicly given is obviously irregular or unbecoming, the Speaker has intervened, and the notice has not been received in that form.5 If an objection is raised to a notice of motion upon the Notice Paper, it is for the Speaker to decide upon its regularity; and, if the objection is sustained, the notice must be amended or withdrawn.6 The House has also, by order, directed that a notice of motion be taken off the Notice Paper.7

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1867) 188, c 1065; ibid (1871) 206, c 468; ibid (1871) 207, c 1881; ibid (1872) 212, c 700; HC Deb (1919) 113, c 604; ibid (1921) 147, c 211; ibid (1977–78) 950, cc 1359–61; ibid (10 June 2015) 596, cc 143WH, 147WH. 2. Parl Deb (1881) 263, c 1012; ibid (1887) 313, c 232; ibid (1898) 55, c 770; ibid (1947–48) 454, cc 39–40; ibid (1952–53) 510, c 845; Speaker's private rulings, 22 May 1978, 10 June 1981; HC Deb (27 October 2010) 517, c 317. 3. HC Deb (1974) 872, c 452. 4. Parl Deb (1892) 3, c 964, ibid (1882) 270, c 1409; ibid (1906) 158, c 1163; HC Deb (1920) 134, c 2100; ibid (1926) 200, c 547. 5. Parl Deb (1861) 161, c 342; ibid (1907) 170, c 1451; HC Deb (1927) 205, c 1630; ibid (1928) 222, c 1090. 6. Parl Deb (1876) 228, c 1183; ibid (1880) 250, c 1313; ibid (1882) 267, c 388. 7. CJ (1835) 435.

Early Day Motions 20.17Early Day Motions (EDMs) are motions tabled by Members, formally for debate ‘on an early day’, that is, on an unspecified future day. Although rarely debated in practice,1 they are subject to the principal rules indicated above for motions generally. EDMs are a mechanism which enable Members to express an opinion on or bring attention to a particular matter and which provide other Members with an opportunity to indicate their support for the sentiments expressed in the motion by adding their name to it, thus demonstrating the extent of parliamentary support for a particular cause or point of view. EDMs may also be used to pray against a statutory instrument, subject to the negative procedure. Such prayers tabled in the name of the Leader of the official Opposition usually act as a trigger for reference of an instrument for debate in a Delegated Legislation Committee (see paras 20.46, 31.15 ). Prayers against statutory instruments account for only a very small proportion of EDMs, of which many hundred can be tabled in a session. Members may table an EDM in person in the Table Office or, provided that the motion bears the original signature of the tabling Member, it may be posted or delivered by a member of staff, to the Table Office. It may also be tabled via the digital tabling facility. Members may also table an EDM on behalf of another Member. It is open to any Member to table an EDM although in practice government ministers and parliamentary private secretaries do not do so. EDMs may only be tabled on a sitting day. EDMs remain open for other Members to sign until the end of the session, at which point they lapse. As with motions intended for debate, an EDM should: have a short, descriptive and neutrally-phrased title; begin `That this House…’ and be formed of a single sentence which may be divided by semi-colons into clauses; be no more than 250 words long (although there are instances where the limit on the number of words in a motion intended for debate has been relaxed, it is strictly applied to EDMs);2 conform to other rules of order for parliamentary proceedings, such as not referring to matters sub judice; not use unparliamentary language or irony; and not criticise other Members, Members of the House of Lords, judges or members of the royal family, except as the main subject of the motion. Amendments to EDMs may be tabled. They must be within the scope of the original motion and must not seek to alter the motion in such a way as to make it longer than 250 words. When tabling, adding their name, or submitting an amendment to an EDM, Members should declare any relevant interest, whether it has been declared in the Register of Members' Financial Interests or not. The Member in charge of an EDM—that is, the first signatory, usually the tabling Member—may withdraw it, even if other Members have signed it. The Member in charge can also decide the first six signatories and the order in which they appear. EDMs are published in the House business papers the day after they are tabled; they are republished on any subsequent days on which new names have been added until the end of the week after the week in which they were tabled. EDMs are also published on the Internet, appearing the day after they were tabled. Members may view and add names to EDMs on the day of their tabling and before they are published, in the Table Office. A database provides access to all EDMs tabled during a parliamentary session from 1989–90 onwards. It is updated nightly with new EDMs and new signatures added to existing EDMs.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (8 November 2010) 518, c 91W. 2. HC Deb (19 July 2018) 645, c 627.

Participation 6.14The Participation Team is headed by the Managing Director, Participation. It is responsible for delivering programmes that inspire and involve the public and is made up of three principal teams. The Communications and Audiences team promotes understanding of and engagement with the work of the House of Commons. The Education and Engagement Service works with people, schools and communities to increase public understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament. Its work includes running educational programmes and activities, including UK Parliament Week, and supporting Members of both Houses of Parliament in their work with young people. Visitor and Retail Services is a bicameral function which is responsible for free and paid-for public tours of the Parliamentary Estate and access arrangements for those wishing to attend debates. The Retail team is responsible for retail outlets on and off the Parliamentary Estate.

Motions debated together 20.19Where the content of two or more motions is cognate (for example, certain orders or regulations subject to affirmative procedure) or where a number of complex motions relate to a single subject of debate (for example, motions to change the sitting hours of the House),1 it is common practice for them to be debated together, though a single dissentient voice given at the beginning of the debate is enough to prevent this.2 If the House agrees at that time to proceed in this way, the first motion is moved and the joint debate takes place, after which the question is put on the first motion; the second and subsequent motions are then moved formally and the questions on them put from the Chair without further debate.3 It is common for orders regulating the business of the House to provide for the putting of a series of questions on related motions at the end of a specified period. If such a business order has been agreed to by the House there is no basis for objecting to the motions being debated together.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1982–83) 46, c 265; ibid (11 July 2012) 548, cc 333–35. 2. HC Deb (1974–75) 889, c 820; ibid (1981–82) 26, c 941; ibid 28, c 843; ibid (14 March 2005) 432, c 99. Once the House has embarked on a joint debate of this kind, the motions cannot subsequently be separated in order to allow extra time for debate, ibid (17 December 2018) 224, c 599. 3. HC Deb (1978–79) 964, cc 583–88; ibid (1981–82) 13, cc 843, 856; ibid (1982–83) 38, cc 566, 641.

Seconding of motions 20.20No motion or amendment needs to be seconded before the question on it is proposed from the Chair. It is, however, the practice for the Speaker on formal occasions, such as the debate on the Address in reply to the Queen's speech, before proposing the question, to call on another Member after the motion has been moved, so giving an opportunity for seconding.

Proposal of question upon a motion 20.21After a motion has been moved by a Member, the question is proposed by the Speaker,1 if necessary reading the text to the House. The House is in then in possession of the question, debate begins and the House must dispose of the question in one way or another2 before it can proceed with any other business.

Footnotes 1. The proposing of a question by the Chair dates to a time when a question was not necessary for a debate to take place. Instead, the Speaker would attempt to formulate a question from the sense of the debate and then ‘propose’ it to the House (2 Hatsell 105–6). It remains a formal stage in the proceeding, enabling the Chair to control proceedings: to determine, if required, between competing motions which is to be proposed to the House and to ensure that the House knows the question which is formally to be debated and decided. There are also occasions when a motion is made by a Member and the Chair declines to propose the question to the House. 2. Including, in appropriate circumstances, deferring the decision, see para 20.95. SO No 54 provides for the question on Estimates proposed for debate by the Liaison Committee on an Estimates Day to be deferred, at the conclusion of debate, until the moment of interruption on the same day or the next Estimates Day.

Withdrawal of motions 20.22A Member who has made a motion can withdraw it only by leave of the House, granted without any dissentient voice. This leave is signified, not upon question but by the Speaker taking the pleasure of the House, asking ‘Is it your pleasure that the motion be withdrawn?’ If no one dissents, the Speaker says, ‘Motion by leave withdrawn’. However, if there is any objection, or if a Member rises to continue the debate, the Speaker must put the question at the end of the debate as, even if a dissentient Member no longer objects, the motion can no longer be withdrawn.1 An amendment can be withdrawn in the same way, but neither a motion nor an amendment can be withdrawn except by the Member who moved it.2 Under the general convention allowing members of the Government to act for each other, a member of the Government can withdraw a motion in the absence of another Member who is a member of the Government.3 Where an amendment has been proposed to a question, the original motion cannot be withdrawn until the amendment has been first disposed of by being agreed to, withdrawn, or negatived,4 since the question on the amendment stands before the main question.

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1867) 186, c 887; ibid (1879) 247, c 841; ibid (1882) 274, c 1360. 2. Parl Deb (1860) 159, c 1309; HC Deb (1915) 73, c 1792. 3. For example, see HC Deb (1962–63) 667, cc 1574, 1675. Occasionally a motion (see Parl Deb (1872) 212, c 219; CJ (1877) 301; ibid (1895) 48; ibid (1916) 199; HC Deb (1916) 85, c 2647) or an amendment (see Parl Deb (1847) 91, c 1236; CJ (1893–94) 360; ibid (1895) 48) is, by leave, withdrawn, and another motion or amendment substituted, in order to meet the views of the House, as expressed in debate. This course can be taken only with the general assent of the House. 4. CJ (1830–31) 912; Parl Deb (1876) 227, c 787; ibid 230, c 1026; CJ (1870) 270.

Use of motion for adjournment of House or of debate 20.23During debate upon a question any Member may move, ‘That this House do now adjourn,’ or ‘That the debate be now adjourned,’ or, where applicable, ‘That further consideration of the bill [or of the Lords amendments to a bill] be now adjourned’.1 The Member does so not by way of amendment to the original question, but as a distinct question which interrupts and supersedes that already under consideration. A dilatory motion cannot therefore be proposed before the orders of the day have been entered upon as a means of superseding debate.2 Nor can a dilatory motion be made while another Member is speaking; and it can be moved only by a Member who, on being called by the Speaker in the course of the debate, is in possession of the House. If the question for the adjournment is agreed to, the original question is superseded; and (if the motion was for the adjournment of the debate) the next order or notice of motion is proceeded with, or (if the motion was for the adjournment of the House) all the business for the day ends and the House must immediately adjourn.3 In order to supersede a question, the motion for the adjournment must be simply, ‘That the House do now adjourn’ (or ‘That the debate be now adjourned’) and cannot be coupled with any other words.4 Nor is it in order to move that the House do adjourn (or that the debate be adjourned) to any future specified time, or to move an amendment to that effect to the question for adjournment.5 A motion may not be made for the adjournment of the debate, if a question for the adjournment of the House is being debated;6 nor can a motion for the adjournment of the House be made while a question for the adjournment of the debate is under discussion.7 If a motion is superseded by the adjournment of the House, notice of the motion must be renewed before the matter can be brought before the House again (see para 19.35 ); if an order of the day is so superseded, the order of the day must be revived (see para 19.34 ). For dilatory motions in Committee of the whole House, see para 28.90.

Footnotes 1. For an occasion when the adjournment of the House was moved by a member of the government during a debate to enable an urgent statement to be made, see HC Deb (1967–68) 760, c 1855; for an occasion in committee when the Chairman left the Chair, a motion for the adjournment of the House was moved and withdrawn, and the committee stage was resumed, see HC Deb (1978–79) 965, cc 663–75. On 22 June 1995, a Member moved that debate on the third reading of the Crown Agents Bill [Lords] be now adjourned, and the subsequent debate was used to discuss the resignation of the Prime Minister as leader of his political party. The motion was negatived, and the question on third reading of the bill put and agreed to, CJ (1994–95) 395. The use of the motion for the adjournment of the House to supersede another question must be distinguished from its use as a substantive adjournment motion (see paras 18.33–18.36, 20.2 ). 2. HC Deb (1986–87) 108, c 603. 3. CJ (1854–55) 367; ibid (1860) 393. 4. Parl Deb (1891) 353, c 1246. 5. 2 Hatsell 113. 6. Parl Deb (1857) 144, c 1906; ibid (1905) 146, c 1071; HC Deb (1914–16) 75, c 1294. 7. Parl Deb (1881) 260, c 1617.

Restrictions on motions for adjournment of House or of debate 20.24The Speaker has power under Standing Order No 35, if of the view that any dilatory motion is an abuse of the rules of the House, to decline to propose the question on it to the House or to put the question thereon forthwith (see also para 20.49 ). If a motion for the adjournment of the House or the debate has been put and negatived, it may not be proposed again without some intermediate proceeding.1 A Member who has already spoken to the main question is not permitted to move either form of dilatory motion;2 nor, having moved a dilatory motion, may they later speak to the main question if their motion is negatived.3 Similarly, a Member who has moved a dilatory motion is not entitled to move another in the course of debate on the same question.4 A motion for the adjournment of the debate, if carried, merely defers the decision of the House (an opportunity being given for fixing a day for the resumption of the debate when the decision to adjourn it is announced from the Chair), while a motion for the adjournment of the House supersedes the question altogether.5 If, at the moment for the interruption of business under the standing orders (see para 17.8 ), a motion for the adjournment of the House or of the debate has been proposed from the Chair, such motion lapses without question put, pursuant to the provision in Standing Order No 9.

Footnotes 1. 2 Hatsell 109 n; Colchester ii, 129. Hence arose the practice of moving the two forms of motion alternately; see Parl Deb (1819–20) 41, c 136; CJ (1862–63) 388; ibid (1881) 49–50. 2. HC Deb (1963–64) 690, c 1472. 3. HC Deb (1928) 215, c 593. 4. Parl Deb (1866) 184, c 1450; SO No 34. 5. Parl Deb (1848) 97, c 963; ibid (1875) 222, c 1122.

Parliamentary Security Department 6.17The Director of Security for Parliament, who is employed by the House of Commons, heads the Parliamentary Security Department (PSD), which is established as a bicameral service. It is responsible for physical and personnel security for both Houses, working in partnership with the Metropolitan Police Service, which provides armed and unarmed policing for Parliament, and for security vetting within Parliament and for the issue of security passes. The Director of Security for Parliament, although a Commons employee, is accountable to both Houses.

Motion that the orders of the day be read 20.26The motion, ‘That the orders of the day be read,’ is obsolete as a substantive motion, though it survives in the form of an amendment, ‘That this House do pass to the orders of the day’, moved upon a motion, such as a privilege motion, including a motion for a new writ for electing a Member, made before the ordinary business of the day. Should the amendment be agreed to, the House proceeds with the next business.1

Footnotes 1. CJ (1972–73) 415–16; HC Deb (1984–85) 80, c 578; CJ (1984–85) 475–76; ibid (1998–99) 243.

Complicated questions 20.27When two or more propositions are contained in one motion before the House, they may be taken separately if any Member objects to their being taken together.1 The principle can be applied to motions which under a standing order must be decided without amendment or debate, eg business motions under Standing Order No 15 (see para 19.39, fn 1) and to motions moved after the moment of interruption. A complicated question can be divided only if each part is capable of standing on its own.2

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1888) 324, c 1828. Although this ruling does not appear to have been based on any previous decision, it has since remained unchallenged, HC Deb (1968–69) 772, c 4 (motion); ibid (1968–69) 785, c 1014 and ibid (1971–72) 834, c 1313 (amendments to bills). See also the Speaker's remarks, Parl Deb (1905) 149, c 897; HC Deb (1912) 43, c 1994. 2. HC Deb (1962–63) 667, cc 390, 523; ibid (1979–80) 979, cc 1743–48, 1787–88; ibid (1985–86) 98, c 1198.

Conclusion of debate 20.28At the conclusion of debate (or, when there is no debate, immediately after proposing the question), the Chair proceeds to seek the opinion of the House. This process is described below (see para 20.60 ).

Amendments to motions Contents Object of an amendment and effect on debate Selection of amendments Notice and moving of amendments to motions Form of questions proposed on amendments Rejection both of amendment and original question Rules with respect to form and content of amendments Order of amendments and effect of earlier amendments Amendments to proposed amendments 20.29As indicated earlier (para 20.2 ), an amendment is a subsidiary motion moved in the course of debate upon another motion which interposes a new cycle of debate and decision between the proposal and decision of the main motion and question. In its turn, the debate on an amendment may be similarly intercepted by the proposal of and decision upon a further subsidiary amendment (amendment to an amendment), or it may be superseded by a dilatory motion (paras 20.23–20.26 ). The proposer of an amendment to a question selected by the Chair is frequently invited by the Chair to speak to the amendment during debate, particularly one subject to a business or programme order, without moving it; at the end of the debate the proposer can formally move the amendment and press the matter to a vote. Amendments may be tabled as soon as the relevant motion has been tabled. It is not necessary to wait until the motion is published.1 In many respects the procedures relating to amendments apply equally to amendments to motions and amendments to clauses and schedules of bills. Amendments to bills raise additional questions, however, and are discussed in more detail in Chapter 28.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1977–78) 939, c 206.

Object of an amendment and effect on debate Contents Amendments superseding a question Amendments modifying a question 20.30The object of an amendment may be either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability or to present to the House a different proposition as an alternative to the original question.

Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards 6.19This office was established in 1995 following reports from the Committee on Standards in Public Life1 and the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life.2 The Commissioner is appointed by the House of Commons under Standing Order No 1503 and can be removed from office only by a substantive resolution of the House.4 The Commissioner's principal tasks are to maintain the register of Members' financial interests and any other registers of interests established by the House; to give confidential advice, when necessary, on registrable interests; to advise individuals on the interpretation of the Code of Conduct, or on more general matters of propriety; to make recommendations to the Committee on Standards and Privileges about the Code of Conduct and the registers of interests; and to receive and to investigate, if they think fit, specific matters related to the propriety of a Member's conduct. For details of the procedures followed, see paras 5.21 –5.24. The Commissioner reports directly to the Clerk of the House.

Footnotes 1. First Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Cm 2850. 2. HC 637 (1994–95); see also CJ (1994–95) 469, 529. 3. CJ (1994–95) 554–5; appointments made, ibid (1994–95) 555; ibid (1997–98) 816; ibid (2001–02) 355; ibid (2007–08) 23; Votes and Proceedings, 20 July 2017. 4. Such a resolution is required to be moved by a member of the House of Commons Commission, after the Committee on Standards has reported to the House that it is satisfied that the Commissioner is unfit to hold office or unable to carry out their functions (CJ (2002–03) 489).

Amendments modifying a question 20.32Strictly speaking, if an amendment is intended only to modify the question by leaving out or adding words, debate should be restricted to the desirability of the omission or the addition of those words. Similarly, if it is intended to leave out certain words only and to substitute other words, then although both the original and the proposed words may be discussed, debate should not range over the other words of the motion to which the amendment is not directed. In practice, however, the Chair has often allowed debate to range over both the original question and the amendment to avoid unduly restricting debate. In modern practice, where a debate is intended to cover a motion and one or more amendments, debate is allowed to range over the whole of the motion and the amendments so as to avoid unduly restricting the debate and to ensure that there has been an adequate opportunity to debate the motion in the time available.

Selection of amendments 20.33The Speaker has the power, under Standing Order No 32, to select amendments for debate. Thus, although an amendment may be in order, it may not be moved if the Chair has declined to select it. The Chair is not expected to give reasons for the decision on selection of amendments.1 Under paragraph (3) of Standing Order No 32, in respect of any motion or bill under consideration, the Chair may ask any Member who has given notice of an amendment to give such explanation of their amendment as may be necessary to form a judgement on it.2 For bills, unless shortage of time forbids, it is the practice for the Speaker (or in Committee of the whole House, the Chairman of Ways and Means) to post an advance notice indicating which amendments, new clauses and new schedules they have provisionally decided to select and how those amendments should be grouped for debate;3 a similar practice is adopted for motions not related to bills where many amendments have been tabled. The power to select amendments includes the power to select amendments proposed to be moved to an amendment,4 and to reject a sole amendment.5 In respect of bills, it is a common practice to allow several selected amendments to be discussed together, although they may not all be selected to be put to the vote.6 The Speaker or the Chairman may at their discretion call, for separate decision, one or more of those amendments selected for debate with another or other amendments, if requested to do so.7 The Speaker has declined, on the grounds of irregularity, revealed during debate, to put the question upon an amendment which had been proposed.8

Footnotes 1. See HC Deb (28 March 2019) 657, c 466, for a case where the Speaker was acting under the terms of an ad hoc order directing him to make a selection between different motions. 2. HC Deb (1921) 147 c 1109; Stg Co Deb (1991–92) Co C (Education (School Premises) Bill), cc 3–4. 3. HC Deb (1964–65) 703, c 37. 4. HC Deb (1909) 9, c 808. 5. HC Deb (1964–65) 708, cc 1492–93. 6. See HC Deb (1962–63) 678, c 325. 7. HC Deb (1956–57) 564, cc 1458–61; HC Deb (1981–82) 25, c 214. 8. Parl Deb (1881) 257, c 1039; CJ (1922) 196.

Notice and moving of amendments to motions 20.34Notice of amendments is normally given; and only on rare occasions does the Speaker select amendments of which no notice has been given, for example when notice of the main motion has been given only on the previous sitting day.1 An amendment of which notice has not been given by the rise of the House the preceding day is known as a manuscript amendment; such amendments are usually subsequently printed and circulated, if selected, shortly before or during the relevant debate.2 The Speaker has held that it would be unfair to give advantage to a Member seeking to move a manuscript amendment which would be taken before amendments of which longer notice had been given.3 By contrast with the procedure for motions themselves, an amendment which appears on the paper can be moved by any Member, if the Member who gave notice of the amendment does not rise to move it.4 When, however, notice of an amendment is specifically required such as, for instance, the names of Members to be nominated, by way of amendment, to select committees (para 38.5 ), and, under certain conditions, an amendment to an instruction (para 28.76 ), the amendment can be moved only by the Member or by one of the Members in whose name it stands upon the Notice Paper.5

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (7 January 2019) 652, c 124. 2. For example, a manuscript amendment to refer the matter of a Speaker's ruling to the Committee of Privileges which was passed, HC Deb (1986–87) 109, cc 211–13, 221, 275; manuscript amendments to bills, CJ (1995–96) 311, ibid (1996–97) 322, ibid (1998–99) 120, though only the second example is marked in the Journal as being moved without notice; manuscript amendments to motions relating to bills, ibid (2000–01) 295–96, ibid (2001–02) 337, though only the second example is marked as being moved without notice; amendment to motion for new writ (itself moved without notice), CJ (1998–99) 243; amendment to nomination to Treasury Committee, ibid (2001–02) 80; manuscript amendment to a motion following a recall, HC Deb (29 August 2013) 566, cc 1425, 1440; manuscript amendment to a Business of the House motion, ibid (24 October 2018) 648, cc 286–88. On 8 December 2008, a manuscript amendment to a motion on the Speaker's Committee on the search of offices on the parliamentary estate was selected and added to a reprint of the Order Paper. For an instance of a manuscript amendment not selected, see HC Deb (2002–03) 408, c 37. 3. For example, see HC Deb (1963–64) 691, c 1604; ibid (1967–68) 756, c 1165; ibid (1979–80) 977, cc 1694–97; ibid (1986–87) 109, c 213; for an exception see ibid (1982–83) 46, c 321. The Speaker has declined to select manuscript amendments submitted late on the day where, in the Chair's view, they could have been submitted much earlier in the day, see ibid (8 December 2010) 520, c 457. 4. HC Deb (13 March 2019) 656, cc 383 and 451. 5. Parl Deb (1893–94) 9, c 1663.

Form of questions proposed on amendments 20.35Under the terms of Standing Order No 31, the question proposed on amendments is, with two exceptions, ‘That the amendment be made’.1 The exceptions are: (i) on an opposition day, allotted under Standing Order No 14, when an amendment to leave out words and insert (or add) others has been moved to a substantive motion by a Minister of the Crown, when the questions proposed are ‘That the original words stand part of the question’, and, if that question is negatived, ‘That the proposed words be there inserted (or added)’;2 and (ii) when an amendment to leave out the word ‘now’ has been moved to a question that a bill be now read a second or third time, when the question proposed from the Chair is ‘That the word “nowâ€​ stand part of the question’.

Footnotes 1. For the passing of the Standing Order, see HC Deb (1967–68) 754, cc 356–70; Sixth Report of the Select Committee on Procedure, 1966–67, HC 539, paras 33–37. For the procedure before the passing of this Standing Order, see Erskine May (17th edn, 1964), pp 415–16. 2. HC Deb (1979–80) 973, c 435. Where an amendment is moved on an Opposition day by someone other than a Minister of the Crown, the customary form, ‘That the amendment be made’, is used, CJ (1998–99) 320. See HC Deb (3 February 2016) 605, c 1011 for the selection of a non-government amendment on an opposition day.

Rejection both of amendment and original question 20.36The rejection of an amendment (even an amendment to substitute a complete alternative proposition) does not constitute a final decision upon the original motion, but a further question has to be put upon this expressly for the purpose of securing such a decision. A Member who is opposed both to the main question and to the proposed amendment is not expressing an opinion favourable to the main question by voting against the question ‘That the amendment be made’, for after the amendment has been disposed of, the question itself remains to be put, and a Member may thus vote with the ‘noes’ on both the amendment and the main question. Under Standing Order No 31, however, when, on an opposition day, an amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown which involves leaving out all the effective words of a motion and adding other words has been disposed of, the Speaker forthwith declares the main question (either as amended or not) to be agreed to.

Management of Freedom of Information and Data Protection 6.21The Freedom of Information Act 2000 gives a general right of access to information held by public authorities, sets out exemptions from that right and places a number of obligations on public authorities. The right of access to information was brought into force for all public authorities in January 2005. The Houses are separate public authorities under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and therefore have separate schemes and arrangements for implementing and complying with the Act. The Act requires every public authority to adopt and maintain a publication scheme setting out the classes of information which it publishes or intends to publish, the form in which it intends to publish the information, and details of any charges. The House of Commons' publication scheme was approved by the Information Commissioner in July 2002, and, in accordance with new requirements, a revised version was published in 2009. The House of Lords' publication scheme was approved by the Information Commissioner and was laid on the Table by the Clerk of the Parliaments in November 2002 and a revised version published in 2014. Both schemes are available on the Parliament website. Either House may refuse to disclose information on the ground that exemption is necessary for the purpose of avoiding an infringement of the privileges of either House. The Speaker of the House of Commons or the Clerk of the Parliaments as the ‘appropriate authority’ may certify that an exemption is required for that purpose and the certificate is then conclusive evidence of that fact (s 34 of the Act). Either House may also refuse to disclose information if in the reasonable opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Clerk of the Parliaments as a ‘qualified person’ disclosure of the information would, or would be likely to, inhibit the free and frank provision of advice or the exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation or would otherwise prejudice or be likely otherwise to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. A certificate signed by the ‘qualified person’ is conclusive of the fact that disclosure would, or would be likely to, have such effects (s 36). In the House of Lords, the Commission has appointed a Freedom of Information Advisory Panel to advise the Clerk of the Parliaments on the application of exemptions under ss 34 and 36. The panel is chaired by the Chairman of Committees. Other members are drawn from each of the parties and the Crossbenches.

Amendments to be intelligible 20.38Every amendment proposed to be made, either to a question or to a proposed amendment, should be so framed that, if agreed to by the House, the question or amendment, as amended, would be intelligible and internally consistent.1

Footnotes 1. For discussion of cases where the decision on an amendment leaves the original question ‘mutilated’, see Erskine May (17th edn, 1964), p 416.

Other restrictions on contents of amendments 20.39Various considerations that render amendments out of order have been described earlier. An amendment is also out of order if it is inconsistent with an amendment already agreed to, or if it is substantially the same as an amendment to the same motion which has already been negatived.1 It is not in order to move to leave out all the words of a question without proposing the insertion of other words, and the Speaker has also ruled that an amendment that was merely an expanded negative,2 or otherwise irregular in form,3 could not be proposed from the Chair. An amendment on a motion to approve changes in Immigration Rules which, although a direct negative of the main question, was so drafted as to follow the terms of the Immigration Act 1971, s 3(2), has, however, been allowed.4

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

Parl Deb (1893–94) 18, c 955. Parl Deb (1893–94) 9, c 456; ibid (1906) 167, c 475; HC Deb (1938–39) 343, c 906. CJ (1881) 26. CJ (1984–85) 596.

Amendment to words added to, or inserted in, question, out of order 20.40Once the House has agreed to add or insert words in a question, those words may not be amended. If it is desired to alter the words of a proposed amendment, an amendment should be moved to the proposed amendment before it has been decided upon by the House (see para 20.43 ).

Certain standard forms of questions not amendable 20.41Amendments to motions for the adjournment of the House or of the debate are out of order.1 Pursuant to Standing Order No 24B, no amendments may be tabled to a motion that the House has considered a matter, where the matter is expressed in neutral terms.2 To certain other forms of motion, only recognised forms of amendment are in order. For example, no amendment may be moved to a motion that the House at its rising do adjourn till a future day, unless it relates to the length of an adjournment. Thus, a substantive amendment on the Order Paper relating to such a motion, even where it includes alteration of the dates of sitting, has not been selected by the Speaker;3 however, amendments have been selected that would alter the date of the adjournment,4 or the hour of meeting on the day proposed for reassembly,5 or provide that, should the public interest so require, representation should be made to the Speaker that the House ought to meet earlier pursuant to Standing Order No 13.6 No amendment is possible to a motion to approve or to annul a statutory instrument pursuant to an Act of Parliament unless the relevant Act makes specific provision for amendment7 (see para 31.13 ).

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1893) 18, c 449; HC Deb (1974–75) 897, c 1719. 2. The formula that ‘This House has considered the matter of…’ was introduced in October 2007, and replaced the old device of debating substantive matters on a motion ‘That this House do now adjourn’, in order to be more intelligible to those following debates. 3. HC Deb (1984–85) 83, c 1084; see also Order Paper, 24 July 1985, p 4817. 4. CJ (1992–93) 147. 5. CJ (1914) 132. Cf Parl Deb (1856) 141, c 1541; ibid (1878) 242, c 2076. 6. CJ (1981–82) 373. 7. For a case when the Speaker declined to select any amendments to a motion which fell to be considered under SO No 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents) and where the Act in question provided only for the House's approval to be given, see HC Deb (1993–94) 237, cc 285–86.

Order of amendments and effect of earlier amendments 20.42Each amendment should be proposed in the order in which, if agreed to, it would stand in the amended question.1 When more than one Member rises to move an amendment, the Speaker will give priority to the Member whose amendment is offered at the earliest place.2 If the question has already been proposed upon an amendment, no other amendment to the main question can be moved until the amendment under consideration has been disposed of by being agreed to, negatived or withdrawn. If the amendment is agreed to, no amendment affecting the main question at an earlier point may be moved. If, however, the amendment is rejected or withdrawn, the main question is open to amendment as far back as the last point at which a decision was made on an amendment or, in committee on a bill, to the last decision that a clause stand part of the bill (if no decisions have subsequently been made on amendments). The withdrawal of an amendment is not a decision. Thus, if the last decision was that the amendment be made, the main question would be open to amendment as far back as the point immediately after any words inserted by that amendment, or, in the case of an amendment to leave out words without inserting other words, as far back as the point immediately after the last word left out. If the last decision was against an amendment, the main question would be open to amendment as far back as the point at which the defeated amendment proposed to insert words or, in the case of an amendment to leave out words (with or without the insertion of other words), as far back as the point immediately before the first of the words proposed to be left out.

Footnotes 1. 2 Hatsell 123. Where two amendments are tabled relating to the same point in a motion, in principle they will be printed and taken (if selected) in the order in which notice was given (though see HC Deb (14 February 2019) 654, c 1069 and Order Paper of 14 February 2019 for a case where the Speaker varied the order in which selected amendments were to be taken, for the convenience of the House). 2. Parl Deb (1887) 319, c 1475; ibid (1892) 4, c 1961. When two Members who proposed to move amendments rose almost simultaneously, although his call had been given to the other Member, the Speaker gave priority of speech to the mover of the prior amendment, notice of it having been given, ibid (1893–94) 14, c 483. See also HC Deb (1982–83) 40, cc 321–22.

Amendments to proposed amendments 20.43Before an amendment is put to the House in its original form, an amendment may be proposed to it. In that event, the question on the original amendment is first proposed as a distinct question, and then another question on the amendment to the amendment; at that point the question on the original amendment is temporarily laid aside. If that were not done, there would be three matters under consideration at once: the question, the proposed amendment and the amendment to that amendment. An amendment to a proposed amendment is moved after the question ‘That the amendment be made’ has been proposed from the Chair. The question on this subsidiary amendment, namely, ‘That the amendment to the proposed amendment be made,’ must be disposed of before the question on the original amendment (or amendment as amended) is put to the House. The Speaker has in the past permitted discussion on the original amendment to range also over the subsidiary amendments proposed to it, without those subsidiary amendments being moved or the questions on them being proposed to the House. The Speaker may then put separately the subsidiary amendments for the purposes of a decision.1

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1967–68) 765, cc 663, 676; ibid (1968–69) 783, cc 848, 884; ibid (1974) 876, cc 1692, 1716.

Requirements on Chair to put the question Contents Questions to be put forthwith Chair's discretionary power Question to be put at a specified point or elapse of time Limitations imposed by specific Business of the House motions 20.44There are a number of methods of curtailing or avoiding debate which have become part of the general practice and procedure of the House, providing for questions to be put forthwith, or after or at a certain time. A number are set out in various standing orders or other practices, including the rules relating to the ‘closure’ of debates; these are discussed below. Debate overall can also be limited by the rules relating to selection of amendments (see para 20.33 ).1

Footnotes 1. For the rules relating to restriction of speaking time for individual Members' speeches, see Chapter 21.

Questions to be put forthwith Contents Relating to general committees Relating to the business of the House Relating to financial procedure 20.45A number of standing orders require the Speaker to put the questions on certain matters forthwith, that is, without debate and usually without the possibility of amendment. These matters fall into the broad categories set out below.

Relating to general committees 20.46For many items relating to the business to be transacted in general committees and for the treatment of that business after consideration in committee, standing orders provide (sometimes subject to conditions) that questions on them must be put forthwith without any possibility of amendment, including questions on motions: to commit bills to committees other than public bill committees, if made immediately after second reading;1 to refer instruments and matters to grand or other general committees;2 to refer certain instruments to delegated legislation committees;3 to provide for the time, place and business of meetings of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Grand Committees;4 to provide that European Union documents should not stand referred to European Committees.5 Questions on substantive motions following the reports of such committees to the House shall also be put forthwith, including in the case of motions relating to European Union documents the question on any amendment selected by the Chair. In cases in which the Regulatory Reform Committee has reported that a draft order should be approved and a motion is moved by a Minister to that effect, the question is put forthwith under Standing Order No 18(1)(a) if the Committee's recommendation was agreed without a division.6

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

SO No 63. For example, SO Nos 90, 92, 97, 98, 106, 107, 113, 114 and 117. SO No 118. SO Nos 100, 108 and 116. SO No 119. It is also provided (by SO No 59) that the question that a Law Commission bill should no longer stand referred to a second reading committee shall be put forthwith. 6. If the Committee's recommendation was agreed to on a division, the question must be put not later than one-and-a-half hours after the commencement of the proceedings on it, SO No 18(1)(b). If the Committee has recommended that the draft order not be approved, the question on a motion that the House disagrees with the Committee in its report must be put no later than three hours after commencement. If that question is agreed to, the Minister then moves an approval motion and the question thereon is put forthwith, SO No 18(2). See para 31.35.

Relating to the business of the House 20.47Standing orders provide that certain classes of motions which regulate the proceedings of the House and its committees are put forthwith. (Motions otherwise similar, but not in terms covered by the standing order, for example because not set down at the time provided for in the order, remain debateable.)1 Examples of questions to be put forthwith in this way include: After the moment of interruption, that specified business may be proceeded with until a specified hour or until any hour or until either a specified hour or the end of a specified period after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later: Standing Order No 15. That the House should adjourn for a specified period or periods: Standing Order No 25. That the question be now proposed: Standing Order No 29. That the words proposed by the Government ‘be there added’, (on an Opposition Day) where the question ‘That the original words stand part of the question’ is negatived: Standing Order No 31(2). On the last day of the debate on the Address in reply to the Queen's Speech if an amendment has been disposed of at or after the expiration of the time for opposed business, the question on any further amendment selected by the Speaker which may be moved: Standing Order No 33. That the debate be now adjourned (or other forms of dilatory motion which the Chair considers to be an abuse of the rules of the House): Standing Order No 35. That the question be now put, and, if agreed, any question subsequently claimed: Standing Order No 36. After the moment of interruption, that the procedure on deferred divisions should not apply to specified business: Standing Order No 41A. That a Member be suspended from the service of the House: Standing Order No 44. The main question on second or third reading of a bill, when an amendment to leave out all the words after ‘That’ has been negatived: Standing Order No 62. That the report of a Business Committee be considered, and, if agreed, that the House agrees with the Committee in its resolution: Standing Order No 82(b). In certain circumstances, the question on a programme motion: Standing Order No 83A(7).2 That the House agrees with the report of the Liaison Committee on the consideration of Estimates on an Estimates Day: Standing Order No 145(3). That the House sit in private: Standing Order No 163.

Footnotes 1. For example, reference of a matter to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee after the moment of interruption on 24 November 2010. 2. See also para 28.59 ff.

Relating to financial procedure 20.48A number of questions relating to financial procedure are put forthwith: On a motion for giving provisional statutory effect to any proposals in pursuance of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968, s 5: Standing Order No 51(2). On all but the first of several Ways and Means motions upon which a bill is to be brought in: Standing Order No 51(3). On motions authorising expenditure in connection with a bill (‘Money resolutions') and on Ways and Means motions in connection with a bill if such a motion is made at the same sitting as that at which the bill has been read a second time: Standing Order No 52(1)(a). On second and third reading of a Consolidated Fund or an Appropriation Bill: Standing Order No 56 (now Supply and Appropriation Bills).

Chair's discretionary power 20.49During the consideration of a bill in a Committee of the whole House, the Chair may under Standing Order No 68 state an opinion that the principle of a clause or schedule and any matters arising on it have been adequately discussed in the course of debate on amendments to that clause or schedule and put the question that the clause or schedule stand part forthwith.1 Under Standing Order No 35, when a dilatory motion has been moved, the Speaker has the option of putting the question forthwith, rather than declining to put that question.

Footnotes 1. For example, CJ (2001–02) 537 and 541.

Question to be put at a specified point or elapse of time 20.50Standing orders in a number of circumstances provide for the putting of the question, or for the debate to be ended in other ways, either after the elapse of a specified period of time, or by a particular time of day, or both: The House is adjourned by the Speaker half an hour after a motion for the adjournment has been made at or after the moment of interruption, without putting any question: Standing Order No 9(7). Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings under any Act of Parliament or on European Union documents must be put no later than one-and-a-half hours after the commencement of those proceedings (subject to the provisions of Standing Order No 17, see next indent): Standing Order No 16. Motions to annul statutory instruments must be brought to a conclusion one-and-a-half hours after the moment of interruption, with a discretion for the Speaker to adjourn the debate if the time allowed has not been adequate: Standing Order No 17. The question on a motion to approve an order under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, s 1 must be put not later than oneand-a-half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion if the Regulatory Reform Committee has recommended such approval after a division: Standing Order No 18(1)(b). The questions necessary to dispose of a motion to disagree with a report from the Regulatory Reform Committee that a draft order should not be approved must be put not later than three hours after their commencement: Standing Order No 18(2). An application for an emergency debate to discuss a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration may not last more than three minutes: Standing Order No 24. Proceedings on an emergency debate standing over from an application previously made under Standing Order No 24 are interrupted by the Speaker after the time allocated by the Speaker, without a requirement to put the question: Standing Order No 24(3). Proceedings on a motion that the House has considered a specified matter under Standing Order No 24A (topical debates) are interrupted after one-and-a-half hours. Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on a Money or Ways and Means resolution must be put not later than three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings, unless the motion is moved at the same sitting as that at which the bill has been read a second time, when the question is put forthwith: Standing Order No 52(1)(b). Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on a motion providing for the allocation of time to any proceedings on a bill must be put not more than three hours after the commencement of those proceedings: Standing Order No 83. Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on a programme motion in the excepted circumstances provided for by the Standing Order must be put not later than three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings: Standing Order No 83A(12). Standing Order No 15(1)(c) provides that questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on a motion relating to the nomination or discharge of members of select committees appointed under Standing Order No 152 (select committees related to government departments) which has previously been opposed at or after the interruption of business on a preceding day must be put one hour after the moment of interruption or one hour after the commencement of those proceedings, whichever is the later.1 Standing Order No 23 allows a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes and from a Member who opposes a motion for leave to introduce a bill,2 but then requires the Speaker to put the question on that motion.3 The practice of the House is to permit a maximum of ten minutes on each such brief statement (see para 19.28 ). Similarly, under Standing Order No 63, if a motion to commit a bill to a public bill committee in respect of some of its provisions and to a Committee of the whole House in respect of other provisions, or under Standing Order No 74, a motion to re-commit a bill, is opposed, the Speaker may permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes and from a Member who opposes the motion, and is then required to put the question. By practice, such statements are also limited to ten minutes.

Footnotes 1. Order Paper, 19 March 2019, Item 6 (Foreign Affairs Committee). 2. Or for the nomination of select committees. 3. Or the question ‘That the debate be now adjourned’.

Limitations imposed by specific Business of the House motions 20.51Business of the House motions which provide for time limits for particular items of business are frequently moved to meet particular circumstances, often on a day before that on which they are to have effect. For example, where there is to be a debate on several related motions, the House has ordered that if not disposed of by a stated hour, the question is to be put successively on each motion and on any amendments selected to them which may be moved. On other occasions, the House has ordered that questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on a motion be put at a given time, or after the elapse of a given period, or both.1

Footnotes 1. See, for example, CJ (1995–96) 467; ibid (1996–97) 321; HC Deb (29 August 2013) 566, c 1425; ibid (28 February 2018) 636, c 865; ibid (29 November 2018) 650, c 423.

Closure of debate Contents The ordinary closure When closure may be moved Closure on consequent questions Closure at moment of interruption Closure claimed on consequent questions at or after moment of interruption Closure on moving of motion or amendment during proceedings on a bill 20.52The House has put in place a mechanism, known as the closure, to allow Members to seek to bring debate to an end, despite there being Members still seeking to speak, in certain circumstances. The conditions governing the application for, and granting of, the closure are laid down in Standing Order Nos 29, 36 and 37. The closure has two principal forms: (1) the ordinary closure, that is a motion that the question be now put, with the extension known as ‘closure upon consequent questions’ to secure an immediate decision on any question already proposed from the Chair, under Standing Order No 36; and (2) the power of the Chair to accept a motion ‘That the question be now proposed’, under Standing Order No 29, which is available only when the House is considering a bill.

The ordinary closure 20.53After a question has been proposed, a Member may at any time rise in their place and move ‘That the question be now put’. The Chair can refuse to accept the closure motion, if it appears to the Chair that the motion is an abuse of the rules of the House or an infringement of the rights of the minority. The Chair frequently exercises its discretionary power to protect the rights of the minority by refusing the closure.1 If accepted, the question must be put forthwith, without amendment or debate. The powers of the Chair in regard to closure may be exercised by the Speaker or any Deputy Speaker, or by the Chairman of Ways and Means or either Deputy Chairman in Committee of the whole House. No motion for the closure can be accepted by a temporary occupant of the Chair in Committee of the whole House who is acting in that capacity at the request of the Chairman of Ways and Means. The question for closure may be agreed to with or without a division. If, on a division being taken, it appears from the numbers declared from the Chair that at least 100 Members voted in the majority in support of the motion, it is decided in the affirmative.2 The two tellers are not included in reckoning the prescribed majority.3 If the motion does not attract a majority or if fewer than 100 Members vote aye, the motion fails and debate is resumed.4 If the question for closure has been agreed to, the question originally proposed from the Chair must be put.5

Footnotes 1. See for example HC Deb (6 November 2015) 601, cc 1310–11 (on this occasion, the closure was refused twice, and Members were warned that further claims could be regarded as a challenge to the Chair). 2. For example, CJ (1979–80) 763–64; HC Deb (21 October 2016) 615, cc 1134–35. On 11 January 2001, the closure on second reading of a new clause was deemed not to be carried because only 99 Members had voted in the affirmative; some 45 minutes later, however, it was discovered that 100 Members had in fact voted for the closure and the question was therefore put forthwith, HC Deb (2000–01) 360, cc 1312–13, 1321–22. 3. CJ (1964–65) 407; HC Deb (1975–76) 917, cc 782–84. 4. Not decided in the affirmative, insufficient majority, CJ (1887) 506; ibid (1920) 109; ibid (1979–80) 248; ibid (1995–96) 158, etc and HC Deb (1999–2000) 347, c 1263 etc; negatived, CJ (1888) 232; ibid (1924) 42, 58; ibid (1979–80) 454; ibid (1995–96) 527, etc; fewer than 40 voting, ibid (1982–83) 86; ibid (1994–95) 182–83. 5. For closure in public bill committees, see para 39.12.

When closure may be moved 20.54Closure may be moved by a Member at the conclusion of a speech,1 at the conclusion of a speech made by another Member,2 or while another Member is addressing the House.3 The intervention of the Chair regarding closure is restricted to occasions when the motion is made in abuse of the rules of the House, or infringes the rights of the minority; it is not simply dependent on the amount of time that has been spent in debate. A closure motion may even therefore be sanctioned by the Chair, either immediately upon, or within a few minutes of, the proposal of a question to the House. In deciding whether, given the importance of the subject, the amount of time already occupied by the debate is adequate, the Chair is guided by a number of considerations. For instance, when debate on second reading of a Private Member's Bill has begun at the start of a sitting on a Friday, it is reasonable that the Member in charge should be entitled to obtain the decision of the House on the bill; and accordingly in such a case the Speaker would withhold their assent to a motion for the closure only if the subject proposed by the private Member was manifestly of too far-reaching or controversial a character to be adequately debated in the time provided by the standing order. The discretion of the Chair is absolute and not open to dispute.4

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

Parl Deb (1893) 12, c 790. HC Deb (1975–76) 919, c 1376, etc. HC Deb (4 July 2018) 644, c 456. Parl Deb (1887) 313, c 177; ibid (1888) 329, c 57; HC Deb (1921) 146, c 1595; ibid (1935–36) 309, c 823; ibid (1971–72) 832, c 1376; ibid (1977–78) 955, c 712; ibid (1979–80) 971, cc 94–101; ibid (1984–85) 74, cc 875–78. For cases in which the Chair has explained the acceptance or refusal of a motion for closure after a short debate, see Parl Deb (1892) 3, c 1640; ibid (1901) 89, c 1390; HC Deb (1911) 29, c 1268; ibid (1956–57) 570, c 1540; ibid (1958–59) 595, cc 1608–9; ibid (1981–82) 17, c 701.

Closure on consequent questions 20.55Without some further provision, the House might, even with the help of the closure, be unable to complete the matter then immediately in hand. As soon, therefore, as the motion, ‘That the question be now put’ has been carried, and the question consequent upon it has been decided, the right is given under Standing Order No 36(2) to claim, subject to the discretion of the Chair, and without having recourse to any further closure motion, that any further question be put which may be requisite to bring to a decision any question already proposed from the Chair.1 This power may be seen to be particularly useful if applied at the moment when, pursuant to a standing order, the interruption of business would otherwise immediately take place.

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1892) 3, c 138; CJ (1963–64) 298; ibid (1975–76) 488; ibid (1979–80) 149; HC Deb (1979–80) 971, cc 91–94.

Closure at moment of interruption 20.56Under Standing Order No 9(4), closure may be moved at the moment for the interruption of business.1 Under ordinary circumstances, on the appointed hour being reached, the Speaker or Chairman says ‘Order, order’ and proceeds to interrupt the business. The Speaker announces that the debate stands adjourned, or the Chairman proceeds to leave the Chair to make their report to the House. These proceedings on the part of the Speaker or the Chairman create the moment of the interruption of business, when closure may be moved. But if at that time a division is in progress, the moment of interruption is projected beyond the hour laid down in the standing orders. The moment of interruption can also be projected where time-limited proceedings overrun the scheduled time for interruption.

Footnotes 1. CJ (1980–81) 89.

Closure claimed on consequent questions at or after moment of interruption 20.57As explained above, after a closure motion has been moved and acted upon, any Member may claim that such further questions be put forthwith as are requisite to bring to a decision the question already proposed from the Chair, no second closure motion being necessary.1 The same practice applies if the closure is moved and acted on at or after the moment of interruption: unless the assent of the Chair is withheld, such further questions are successively put forthwith, regardless of the fact that the time fixed for the interruption of business has passed.2

Footnotes 1. CJ (1888) 504, Parl Deb (1888) 331, c 1703; CJ (1889) 53, Parl Deb (1889) 333, c 1101; CJ (1892) 249; ibid (1904) 51–52; Parl Deb (1904) 130, c 869. 2. When a closure motion had been carried which disposed of an amendment to a motion, the question on the motion was forthwith claimed and decided by the House, CJ (1975–76) 488; ibid (1976–77) 451. When a closure motion had been carried which disposed of an amendment to an amendment, first the question on the amendment itself, and then on the main question, were forthwith claimed and decided by the House, ibid (1892) 166, 196. When in committee closure had been moved on a motion to report progress and the latter motion had been negatived, the question on the amendment under consideration when progress was moved was claimed and put from the Chair, ibid (1902) 408; ibid (1923) 221.

Services Committee 6.29The Services Committee is appointed by the House. The Commission delegates decision-making authority on day-to-day policy on Memberfacing services to the Services Committee. The Committee also supports the Commission by providing advice on strategic policy decisions when the Commission seeks it and overseeing implementation and delivery of both day-to-day and strategic policy. The Committee has ten members. The Chair of the Committee is nominated by the Committee of Selection and is a member of the House of Lords Commission. The Chair of the Services Committee presents any committee reports to the House and may answer debates on those reports. The Chair may answer written questions and debates on Committee matters if so delegated by the Senior Deputy Speaker.

Quorum of the House 20.59Forty Members, including the Speaker, form the quorum of the House; but the absence of a quorum does not entail the termination of a sitting, it being provided by Standing Order No 41 that the House shall not be counted at any time.1 Standing Order No 41 provides, however, that if at any time it appears, on a division, that fewer than 40 Members (including the occupant of the Chair and the tellers) have taken part, the business under consideration stands over until the next sitting of the House and the next business is taken.2 In a division on the question ‘That the House sit in private’ (formerly, ‘That strangers do withdraw’), the lack of a quorum results in the underlying business standing over until the next sitting day;3 where such a motion is moved before the House has embarked on the first order of the day, there is no underlying business before the House and an inquorate division has no consequences for any other business on that day.4 If a motion to commit a bill to a Committee of the whole House is not decided owing to the absence of a quorum, the bill stands committed to a public bill committee.5 Should the inquorate division have taken place in Committee, the Chairman leaves the Chair to report the fact to the House, and the Speaker declares that the Committee stands over until the next sitting, under the terms of the Standing Order.6

Footnotes 1. If, therefore, 35 Members vote in a division, the House is quorate: see eg HC Deb (2002–03) 407, c 654. For a description of the former ‘count’ procedure by which the absence of a quorum might be established, see Erskine May (18th edn, 1971), pp 293–301. 2. For example, HC Deb (1983–84) 57, c 563. In a division on a closure, SO No 41 becomes effective rather than SO No 37, eg HC Deb (1982–83) 33, c 1151; ibid (1989–90) 171, c 646; ibid (1993–94) 243, c 1076. 3. CJ (1993–94) 72, 362; ibid (1996–97) 270; ibid (1999–2000) 316; ibid (2000–01) 45; ibid (2002–03) 160. 4. CJ (2003–04) 464 (though, since the motion ‘That the House sit in private’ may only be moved once in a sitting, an inquorate division will still prevent the remaining business from being disrupted by such a motion). 5. CJ (1989–90) 235. 6. See, for example, on the Second Reading of a Private Members Bill when the Deputy Speaker declared that the question was not decided because, one Member having voted in both lobbies, fewer than 40 Members had taken part; Votes and Proceedings, 17 January 2014.

Putting of question at close of debate Contents Voice and vote 20.60When debate on a question is concluded, the question must be put. This is done by the Speaker rising from the Chair,1 and putting to the House ‘The question is, That …’. The Speaker takes the sense of the House by asking that ‘As many as are of that opinion say, “aye,â€​’ and ‘As many as are of the contrary opinion say, “no.â€​’ When each section of the House has responded, the Speaker endeavours to judge from the loudness and general character of the opposing exclamations, or from a consideration of the probabilities of the case,2 which side has the majority. As the Speaker's judgment is not final, the Speaker expresses their opinion by saying: ‘I think the “ayesâ€​ (or “noesâ€​) have it’. If the House acquiesces in this decision, the question is said to be ‘agreed to’ or ‘negatived’ as the case may be, but if those declared to be the minority dispute the fact, they respond with further exclamations of ‘aye’ (or ‘no’). The Speaker will then say, ‘Division. Clear the lobby,’ in order to start the process of counting the numbers on each side, which is termed a division. To save time, the Chair frequently asks the leave of the House to call a Member to move together a series of motions which are not expected to be the subject of debate or division, and then puts the questions together.3 A single objection prevents this course being followed. On occasion, under arrangements set out in a preceding business of the House order, the House has considered in a single debate parallel motions on the same topic, in a process designed to allow the House to indicate relative degrees of support for alternative proposals in a particular policy area.4

Footnotes 1. On 9 April 1866, the Speaker, on returning to the House after an illness, said that he should claim the indulgence of sitting while putting the questions, CJ (1865–67) 197. 2. HC Deb (1955–56) 547, c 602. When, on the question being put, no Member has said either `aye’ or `no’, the Deputy Speaker has declared the question negatived, see HC Deb (1999–2000) 354, c 732; ibid (10 May 2016) 609, c 598. 3. For example, HC Deb (8 November 2010) 518, c 106; ibid (4 November 2013) 570, cc 82–83. 4. See for example CJ (2002–03) 165–66 and ibid (2006–07) 207 (both on House of Lords reform); and Votes and Proceedings, 27 March 2019 and 1 April 2019 (both on exiting the European Union).

Voice and vote 20.61The opinions of Members are collected from their voices in the House, and not merely by a division. If their voices and their votes should be at variance, the voice will bind the vote. Members therefore who give their voices with the ‘ayes’ or ‘noes’ when the Speaker takes the voices, are bound if they vote to vote with them;1 although a Member has been permitted to correct their voice at the second call.2 A Member who gives their voice with the ‘ayes’ or ‘noes’ cannot, however, be obliged to go into the division lobby to cast a vote.3 The objection that a Member's vote was contrary to their voice should be taken either before the numbers are reported by the tellers or immediately afterwards; it will not be entertained after the declaration of the numbers from the Chair.4 A Member who makes a motion is entitled to vote against it, provided that they give their voice with the ‘noes’ when the question is put from the Chair.5 Similarly, a Member whose name appears on the Notice Paper in support of an amendment is not precluded from voting against it.6 The Speaker has condemned the practice of forcing a division by voice contrary to vote as ‘irregular and unparliamentary’.7

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1906) 158, c 1052; CJ (1912–13) 378; HC Deb (1912) 42, c 2133; ibid (12 July 2013) 566, c 660; and see ibid (1992–93) 224, cc 1101–2 when the Deputy Speaker explained that the rule referred to the voice when calling ‘aye’ or ‘no’, not to an actual speech. 2. HC Deb (1946–47) 436, c 710. In 1860, a question was raised privately, where a division was being re-run because of a difference in the numbers reported by the tellers (see below) whether a Member who had voted with the ayes in the first division could afterwards vote with the noes; but it was held that, as the first division had become null and void, the House could only deal with the Member's voice and vote in the last and valid division. 3. Parl Deb (1866) 183, c 1919; HC Deb (1970–71) 808, cc 1119, 1376. 4. SO No 39(2). See also HC Deb (1981–82) 21, c 322; ibid (30 October 2013) 569, c 985; ibid (8 November 2013) 570, c 536; ibid (23 October 2015) 600, c 1330; ibid (18 October 2017) 629, cc 954–56. 5. Parl Deb (1856) 141, c 1103; HC Deb (1936–37) 326, c 2811. 6. Parl Deb (1876) 227, c 473; HC Deb (18 October 2010) 516, c 767; ibid (17 April 2018) 639, cc 192, 199–200, 242–46. 7. HC Deb (1962–63) 679, cc 1685–86.

Procedure on a division Contents Declaration of numbers Divisions unnecessarily claimed Irregularities discovered at the time of a division Errors discovered after a division Publication of division lists Pairing and proxy voting Accompanying children in division lobbies 20.62On a division being called, the Speaker or the committee Chair, as the case may be, gives the order ‘clear the lobby,’1 the tellers' doors in both lobbies are locked, and the division bells are rung. After not more than two minutes from this direction, the Speaker or Chair again puts the question, and the ayes and noes must again declare themselves. If their opinion is again challenged, the Speaker or Chair directs the ayes to go into the lobby on the right, and the noes into the lobby on the left, and then appoints two tellers for each side of the question. A Member is bound to act as teller for that side of the question with which they have voiced their support, when appointed by the Speaker, and refusal to do so would be reported to the House. A Member cannot act as a teller on a question for their own suspension.2 If two tellers cannot be found for either side of the question, the division cannot take place; and the Speaker forthwith announces the decision of the House. For instance, if it appears that there are no tellers, or only one teller, for the ayes, the Speaker declares ‘that the noes have it’, and vice versa.3 The fact that a division has been called but no tellers appointed is recorded in the Journal. When there are two tellers appointed for each side of the question, they proceed at once to the doors leading from the lobbies into the House, which are then unlocked and the counting begins. One teller for the ayes and one for the noes go to each lobby, to check each other in the telling. Where the tellers, after nomination, fail to go and tell, they have been instructed by the Chair to do so.4 In each division lobby, clerks are stationed at desks. As the Members pass by, the clerks record their names (since 2017, on electronic tablets); and, at the way out from the lobby into the House, the tellers count the numbers. If any Members who are disabled by infirmity from passing through the lobby are present on the parliamentary estate and wish to vote, their names are communicated by a Whip to the Clerks and to the tellers, and are included in the numbers counted.5 When at least eight minutes have elapsed from the time at which the lobby was ordered to be cleared, the Speaker or Chairman directs the doors leading from the House into the division lobbies to be locked and they remain locked until the announcement of the numbers from the Chair.6 The Chair has discretion to increase the period which must elapse before the doors are locked.7 The method of taking divisions is the same in Committees of the whole House as in the House itself.

Footnotes 1. That is, the Members' lobby. The Speaker's order derives from an earlier procedure for taking divisions (before division lobbies had been built) under which the ayes (or noes, as directed by the Speaker) went out into the lobby and were told on re-entering the Chamber. Accordingly, the lobby had first to be cleared. See Notebook of John Clementson, Deputy Serjeant at Arms 1770–1804, annexed to P F Thorne Ceremonial and the Mace in the House of Commons (1980). 2. Parl Deb (1882) 268, c 1017; ibid (1882) 271, c 1128; ibid (1901) 98, c 505; Speaker's private ruling, 12 February 1981. 3. CJ (1842) 183, 354; ibid (1960–61) 203; ibid (1979–80) 532, etc; HC Deb (1987–88) 122, c 372; ibid (2002–03) 405, cc 956, 964–65. 4. HC Deb (1983–84) 58, cc 338, 343. 5. See written evidence by the Clerk of the House to the Procedure Committee, October 2017, paras 4–6 (see Fifth Report of the Committee of Session 2017–19, Proxy voting and parental absence, HC 825). The Chair is not concerned with who may be ‘nodded through’ in this way, but tellers must agree, see HC Deb (1989–90) 171, c 280; ibid (20 June 2018) 643, cc 351–52. For a case in which a Member was wrongly counted as having voted in this way, see para 20.82. 6. See SO No 38. 7. HC Deb (1974–75) 894, cc 1205, 1480; ibid (1979–80) 978, cc 1976–86; ibid 979, cc 27–28; ibid (1991–92) 198, c 994. In the last case, the Speaker allowed a further ten minutes because of an obstruction in the streets outside the House. Timing devices with flashing lights are used at the Table for regulating divisions and other timed business. See also ibid (27 October 2008) 481, c 622; ibid (8 November 2010) 518, c 90.

Declaration of numbers 20.63Until a Member has passed the tellers, their vote is not counted.1 When the tellers have concluded their count, they return to the House and inform a Clerk at the Table of the numbers voting on each side of the question; these are entered upon the division paper. The tellers then stand in line in the centre of the Chamber in front of the Table (those for the majority being on the Chair's left), bow to the Chair, take a pace forward and bow again. One of the tellers for the majority then reports the numbers. The division paper is handed by the Clerk to the Speaker or Chair, who declares the numbers, and states the determination of the House. A division in which fewer than 35 Members have voted in both lobbies is invalid (see para 20.59 ). It is the duty of the tellers to remain in the House until the numbers have been declared,2 but when one of the tellers, having counted, has failed to come to the Table, the report of the remaining tellers has been accepted.3 As set out in Chapter 27, the House in 2015 passed standing orders to enable consent to be given separately to certain legislative proposals with limited territorial application. In some circumstances, for divisions on certified motions relating to Lords Amendments (see para 27.24 ), statutory instruments (see para 27.25 ) and finance (see para 27.28 ), there can arise a requirement for a ‘double majority’ or even (in the case of Lords Amendments) a ‘triple majority’ – ie a majority of the whole House and a majority of one or more of Members sitting for seats in England, in England and Wales, or in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In these circumstances, the numbers voting on each side of the question are calculated separately and the tellers (and the Chair) announce the results of the division for each of the relevant territorial units separately.4

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

HC Deb (1981–82) 13, c 376; ibid (1982–83) 31, c 761. See Parl Deb (1895) 36, c 1060; HC Deb (1912–13) 47, c 245. Parl Deb (1895) 36, cc 877, 1059; HC Deb (1912–13) 47, c 91. HC Deb (3 May 2016) 609, cc 109–12; ibid (22 February 2017) 621, cc 1117–19; ibid (10 January 2017) 619, c 246.

Divisions unnecessarily claimed 20.64Under Standing Order No 40, if the Speaker or the Chair considers that a division is unnecessarily claimed, they may, after the lapse of two minutes, take the vote of the House or committee by calling upon the Members who support and those who challenge their decision successively to rise in their places; and they thereupon, as they may think fit, either declare the determination of the House or the committee1 or name tellers for a division.2

Footnotes 1. CJ (1920) 55; HC Deb (1920) 126, c 1463; CJ (1960–61) 203; ibid (1970–71) 299 (five successive divisions), etc; ibid (1987–88) 541–50 (47 divisions); ibid (1992–93) 478–79 (five divisions); ibid (6 February 2013) 558, cc 373–74. 2. CJ (1897) 299; ibid (1918) 56. Neither names nor numbers of the minority are announced, though the numbers appear in the Journal (eg HC Deb (1936–37) 326, c 2814; CJ (1970–71) 299; ibid (1992–93) 478–79).

Irregularities discovered at the time of a division Contents Division bells not rung, or not rung correctly Confusion over question Failure of teller to attend in lobby Absence of tellers during part of a division Failure of tellers to return to the Chamber Tellers count at wrong lobbies Member tells though not nominated Irregularity in locking the doors Members not allowed to vote Members' names missing from division list Members enter lobby after order given to lock the doors Disagreement between tellers Tellers' miscount Tellers voting 20.65When apprised, in the course of a division, of a breach of order which, although reflecting upon the conduct or votes of individual Members, is not of such a nature as to cast doubts upon the validity of the division as a whole, the Speaker has directed that the division should proceed and has dealt with the matter when it was completed.1 When, however, a major irregularity occurs in the conduct of a division, the usual practice is for the Chair to interrupt the process of division as soon as the irregularity is discovered, put the question again and proceed to take the division de novo.2 Examples of major irregularities are given in the following paragraphs.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1948–49) 458, cc 499–500; ibid (1950–51) 488, cc 1177, 1232. 2. CJ (1926) 116–17; ibid (1938–39) 337; ibid (1951–52) 189; ibid (1956–57) 150, 222; ibid (1962–63) 51. See also HC Deb (1981–82) 29, cc 905–6.

Division bells not rung, or not rung correctly 20.66On complaint being made that the division bells had not rung, the Speaker has put the question again and the House has proceeded again to a division.1 The Speaker has, however, ruled in advance that when it was known that a division would take place at a particular hour, he would be unlikely to order a division to be held again if the division bells or even the lifts failed.2

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1937–38) 337, c 1092; CJ (1956–57) 222; ibid (1966–67) 611; HC Deb (1966–67) 751, cc 1593–94; see also CJ (1974–75) 261; HC Deb (1974–75) 887, c 1348. 2. HC Deb (1978–79) 965, c 461.

Confusion over question 20.67When a Member claimed that Members were confused about whether they were voting on the closure or the main question, the Deputy Speaker put the question again.1

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1979–80) 970, cc 980, 1806–8; and ibid (1985–86) 87, c 361.

Failure of teller to attend in lobby 20.68When it appeared to the Chairman that there was delay in completing a division, he asked the tellers to come to the Table; one of the tellers then stated that a teller for the noes had not appeared at the door of the No lobby, and that therefore the doors had not been opened. The Chairman ruled that in these circumstances the question must again be put from the Chair.1 But when the tellers for the ayes in a division reported that the two Members appointed tellers for the noes had failed to act as such, the Speaker declared that the ayes had it, and on one occasion when one of the tellers for the ayes failed to act, the Chairman declared that the noes had it.2

Footnotes 1. CJ (1928–29) 83; HC Deb (1929) 224, c 69. See also CJ (1931–32) 151; ibid (1938–39) 361. 2. CJ (1924) 121; ibid (1945–46) 193.

Absence of tellers during part of a division 20.69A division was taken again when several Members were counted by only one teller1 as well as when the tellers left the doors before the direction ‘lock the doors' had been given by the Chair.2 On an occasion when the tellers were not present when the door of a division lobby was unlocked and Members entered the House untold, the division was taken again.3 Upon a Member complaining, before the result of the division had been reported, that he had gone into the lobby to vote but that the tellers had left the door before he reached it, the Chair ordered the division to be taken again.4 For similar complaints made after the declaration of the result of a division, see para 20.81.

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

CJ (1946–47) 51. CJ (1950–51) 94; ibid (1993–94) 190. CJ (1900) 125. CJ (1968–69) 161. On one occasion, the Deputy Speaker declined to order a division to be retaken, HC Deb (23 June 2004) 422, c 1378.

Failure of tellers to return to the Chamber 20.70It is the duty of tellers to report the results of a division without delay; and when a division seemed unduly protracted, the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker has ordered the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the matter.1 Similarly, after a delay in the progress of a division in committee, it was alleged that several Members were refusing to pass the tellers. The Chairman called for a report from the Serjeant at Arms and then directed the tellers to bring the figures to the Chair leaving some Members still in the lobby untold.2

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1999–2000) 348, c 114; ibid (2000–01) 360, cc 1312, 1322; ibid (2002–03) 400, c 1120–21; ibid (2002–03) 401, c 596; ibid (2002–03) 403, c 236. The Deputy Speaker has said that the normal time for the conduct of a division is about 12 minutes (ibid (2002–03) 401, c 596). 2. CJ (1977–78) 146; see also CJ (1926) 117; HC Deb (1979–80) 969, cc 763, 765; ibid (1987–88) 122, cc 340, 351 and 371; ibid (3 July 2018) 644, cc 276, 279, 290.

Tellers count at wrong lobbies 20.71When, through inexperience, both tellers for the ayes counted at the Aye lobby and both tellers for the noes at the No lobby, the Speaker was prepared to accept the accuracy of the result on the basis that, if necessary, it could be checked against the division list.1

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (2001–02) 390, cc 153–54.

Member tells though not nominated 20.72When the tellers came to the Table following a division and it became apparent that a Member who had not been nominated had told during the whole or part of the division, the Chair ruled that the division must be regarded as void, and that the question must again be put.1

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1932) 262, c 1840; see also CJ (1924–25) 434; HC Deb (1925) 188, c 2641; CJ (1962–63) 51; ibid (1966–67) 463; HC Deb (1969–70) 796, c 944.

Irregularity in locking the doors 20.73Divisions have been taken again when the doors were locked before the expiration of the prescribed time1 or when one door remained unlocked after the direction ‘lock the doors' had been given.2 The doors have been reopened and additional time allowed when it had been discovered that the order to lock the doors had been given early as a result of a malfunctioning clock.3 The doors have also been reopened after a delay resulted in ‘a large number of Members' being held up coming into the Chamber.4

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

CJ (1938–39) 337; ibid (1970–71) 230, 338, 512; HC Deb (1992–93) 220, cc 1004–5. CJ (1953–54) 148. HC Deb (1987–88) 131, c 798. HC Deb (6 January 2015) 590, c 211.

Members not allowed to vote 20.74When several Members complained, before the result of the division had been declared, that they had been impeded from reaching the doors before they were locked, the Deputy Speaker ordered the division to be taken again.1 For similar complaints made after the declaration of the result of a division, see para 20.81.

Footnotes 1. CJ (1961–62) 275.

Members' names missing from division list 20.75When two Members complained that their names were not on the new electronic division lists, the Deputy Speaker ruled that there was no need for a recount because both Members' votes had been correctly recorded by the tellers and by the Clerks.1

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (19 January 2016) 604, cc 1349–50.

Members enter lobby after order given to lock the doors 20.76When complaint was made that certain unnamed Members had interfered with the doorkeeper on duty at the door of the Aye lobby, the Assistant Serjeant at Arms reported that one or two Members had got through the door after the direction ‘lock the doors' had been given; the Speaker thereupon ruled that the question must again be put.1 But when a similar complaint was made regarding a particular Member, the division was not vitiated, the Member's vote being disallowed.2

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1951–52) 498, cc 2808–10, 2813–16. In a later case, the Member concerned had entered the lobby by going past the tellers after the doors had been locked; ibid (2001–02) 380, c 773. On another occasion, similar action was taken by the Deputy Speaker, ibid (1952–53) 514, c 852. 2. HC Deb (1948–49) 458, cc 499–500.

Disagreement between tellers 20.77If two tellers differ as to the numbers on the side told by them, or if a mistake regarding the numbers is discovered, unless the tellers agree on the correct figures a second division must take place.1

Footnotes 1. CJ (1960–61) 117; HC Deb (1981–82) 23, c 682; ibid (1979–80) 969, cc 761–62.

Tellers' miscount 20.78When the tellers came to the Table and reported that the numbers in the Aye lobby had been miscounted, the Speaker directed the House to proceed again to a division.1

Footnotes 1. CJ (1970–71) 525; HC Deb (1975–76) 905, cc 519–22.

Tellers voting 20.79On one occasion one of the tellers voted in the No lobby before acting as teller: he reported the fact after the numbers had been reported by the tellers but before the result of the division had been declared. The Speaker directed his name to be struck from the noes and declared the correct numbers.1 On another occasion, on the tellers being called to the Table and before they had stated the numbers, a Member reported that one of the tellers had voted in the lobby before acting as a teller. The Chairman thereupon directed the House to proceed again to a division.2

Footnotes 1. CJ (1911) 400. 2. CJ (1968–69) 185.

Errors discovered after a division Contents Members not counted by tellers, or prevented from voting Member wrongly counted as having voted Members voting in the wrong lobby Members voting in both lobbies Member voting twice in the same lobby 20.80If a mistake is discovered after the result of a division has been declared, it will be ordered to be corrected in the Journal.1 Where an error in the numbers has been discovered before the end of a sitting, the tellers being agreed on the correct figures have come to the Table and stated the corrected numbers and the Speaker has reported the numbers accordingly.2 Where, on the question for a closure on second reading of a new clause, the numbers voting in favour were incorrectly recorded as 99 and it became clear shortly afterwards that 100 Members had, in fact, voted ‘aye’, the Deputy Speaker directed that the numbers be corrected in the Journal and put the question on second reading forthwith.3 When an error in the numbers reported by the tellers in a Committee of the whole House has been discovered before the Chair has left the Chair, the Chair has ordered the numbers to be corrected accordingly.4 An error in the report of the numbers taken at a division is brought before the House by both the tellers of the lobby in which the error arose; though a statement made by one of the tellers has been accepted,5 as has the statement of the Member whose vote was wrongly recorded.6

Footnotes 1. CJ (1847) 131; ibid (1953–54) 143; ibid (1956–57) 81, 231; ibid (1962–63) 85; proceedings declared null and void as a result of error by tellers, ibid (1938–39) 95, 96; ibid (1962–63) 196; ibid (1974) 256; HC Deb (1997–98) 300, c 115; ibid (2001–02) 383, c 548; ibid (9 December 2010) 520, c 521; error declared by the Father of the House presiding pursuant to SO No 1, ibid (1999–2000) 355, c 96; HC Deb (30 November 2012) 554, c 491; ibid (10 November 2015) 602, c 247. Corrections to deferred divisions (see para 20.95 ) have been handled in the same way, see ibid (13 February 2013) 558, c 976. 2. CJ (1847–48) 102; ibid (1971–72) 444; ibid (1994–95) 48; HC Deb (1997–98) 307, c 962. 3. HC Deb (2000–01) 360, cc 1312, 1321–22; CJ (2000–01) 57. 4. CJ (1867–68) 16; ibid (1873) 223; ibid (1936–37) 243. 5. CJ (1946–47) 101; when after the tellers in both lobbies had been in error a statement from one teller for the ayes and one teller for the noes was accepted, ibid (1962–63) 196; ibid (1996–97) 48; HC Deb (1996–97) 285, c 513; ibid (9 December 2010) 520, c 521. 6. CJ (1974) 256.

Members not counted by tellers, or prevented from voting 20.81When Members have complained immediately after the declaration of the numbers in a division from the Chair that the tellers had left the door of a lobby before they had reached it, the Speaker or the Chair has directed the tellers of that lobby to come to the Table, and having heard their explanation, has directed the Clerk to alter the numbers by adding the names of the Members and then again declared the numbers as so corrected.1 Where a Member has made such a complaint, the Chair has undertaken to inquire into the matter and on the following day directed the record of the division to be amended accordingly.2 Both the tellers in the lobby through which the Member has passed must agree that the Member should be counted.3 Such an error may be drawn to the attention of the House by a teller although no complaint has been made by the Member concerned.4 The Chair has on occasion accepted the complaints of Members about such errors without requiring the agreement of the tellers, and has directed that the numbers should be corrected.5 When a Member complained that he had been impeded from reaching the doors before they were locked, the Deputy Speaker directed the Journal to be altered on the following day.6

Footnotes 1. CJ (1895) 186; Parl Deb (1895) 33, c 658; CJ (1912–13) 457; HC Deb (1912) 45, c 939; CJ (1920) 493; HC Deb (1920) 136, c 1043. 2. HC Deb (1984–85) 80, cc 845, 892; CJ (1984–85) 483, 486–87. 3. Parl Deb (1901) 98, c 1189. See also Parl Deb (1899) 67, c 1200. 4. Parl Deb (1861) 164, c 210; CJ (1946–47) 101. 5. CJ (1970–71) 327, 344. 6. CJ (1950–51) 230.

Corporate Services 6.37The Reading Clerk is responsible to the Management Board for Corporate Services. Communications aims to increase public understanding of the role, work and membership of the House. Parliamentary Archives provides archives and records managements services for both Houses; and preserves and provides public access to records which date from 1497. The Archives also enable effective information management across both Houses. The Overseas Office is responsible for relationships with and visits from and to overseas legislatures. The Reading Clerk is also responsible for support for the Lord Speaker (provided by the Lord Speaker's Office).

Members voting in the wrong lobby 20.83A Member going into the wrong lobby, through inadvertence, is bound by the vote actually given1 (but see also below).

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1864) 176, c 31. For similar cases, see CJ (1856) 129; HC Deb (1932–33) 188, c 2239; ibid (1950) 481, cc 1071–72.

Members voting in both lobbies 20.84Intentionally voting in both lobbies is an accepted way of cancelling out the effect of inadvertently voting in the wrong lobby. The Speaker has deprecated as ‘unparliamentary’ the practice of voting in both lobbies as a demonstration of a ‘third’ position.1 The Speaker has also confirmed that voting both ‘aye’ and ‘no’ in a deferred division would be recorded as ‘not voting’.2

Footnotes 1. For the Speaker's statement on voting in both lobbies as a demonstration rather than a mistake, see HC Deb (1977–78) 939, cc 1530–31, 1752–53; see also ibid (7 February 2013) 558, c 457. 2. HC Deb (11 March 2015) 594, c 298.

Member voting twice in the same lobby 20.85A Member who voted twice in the same lobby in one division was allowed to make a personal explanation to that effect, and the Clerk was accordingly directed by the Speaker to correct the number of Members voting in that lobby.1

Footnotes 1. CJ (1947–48) 89.

Publication of division lists 20.86Division lists are printed in the Official Report and online. If an error occurs in marking the name of a Member on the division list or in the printing, the error is corrected, upon application made at the Table of the House or to the Public Bill Office, by a memorandum published at the earliest opportunity in the daily part of the Official Report. A Member has been permitted on a subsequent day to request the correction of the accidental omission or inclusion of their name in the official division list.1

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1947–48) 452, c 1141; ibid (1979–80) 975, c 423; ibid (1980–81) 997, c 924.

Pairing and proxy voting 20.87A system known as ‘pairing’ enables a Member to be absent, and to agree with another Member to be absent at the same time. By this mutual agreement, a vote is neutralised on each side of a question, and the actual size of the majority is not affected. The practice of pairing is not officially recognised in the procedures of the House; it is therefore conducted privately by individual Members, or arranged by the Whips of the respective parties. The Speaker has ruled that agreements to pair are private arrangements between Members and in no sense matters in which either the Chair or the House can intervene.1 In January 2019, the House agreed to a one-year trial system allowing voting by a nominated proxy for a specified limited period for Members absent by reason of childbirth or care of an infant or newly adopted child, under the terms of a temporary standing order and a Scheme signed by the Speaker and agreed by the leaders of the three largest parties in the House.2

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1953–54) 552, cc 1750–52; ibid (1975–76) 912, c 769; ibid (1996–97) 287, c 775. See also ibid (18 July 2018) 645, c 430 and ibid (23 July 2018) 645, cc 738–51, for urgent questions arising from an incident relating to the pairing system. See also para 4.9. 2. Votes and Proceedings, 28 January 2019; and Procedure Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2017–19, Proxy voting and parental absence, HC 825; see also HC Deb (13 September 2018) 646, c 914 ff. The first such vote was cast on 29 January 2019 – see HC Deb (29 January 2019) 653, cc 757–61.

Accompanying children in division lobbies 20.88Members may bring babies or toddlers into the division lobby (and, if necessary to get to the division lobby, through the Chamber).1

Footnotes 1. Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons, November 2018, para 42. See also para 20.87 on a trial system for voting by proxy for Members absent by reason of care of an infant.

Parliamentary Services 6.40The Clerk Assistant oversees Parliamentary Services, covering the work of all the main procedural offices. The Committee Office is responsible for supporting the select committees of the House (see Chapter 40). The Journal Office comprises the Registry, Table Office and Printed Paper Office plus the conduct functions. The Registry is responsible for the collection and analysis of data on the membership and work of the House and for the compilation and issue of the Journals of the House. The Table Office advises on the tabling of parliamentary business and has responsibility for the production of the House of Lords Business, including the Minutes of Proceedings. The Printed Paper Office is responsible for the provision and digital publication of parliamentary papers and other documents that Members need to discharge their parliamentary duties. Another group of staff within the Journal Office supports the House of Lords Commissioner for Standards, the Registrar of Lords' Interests and the Sub-Committee on Lords' Conduct. The Legislation Office supervises the passage of primary and secondary legislation through the House. The office prepares procedural briefs in respect of public bills, and is responsible for the printing of bills and amendments and Public Acts and Measures, and for the transmission to the House of Commons of all official messages. The office supervises the passage of private bills through the House. The Clerk of Private Bills is appointed one of the two Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.1 The Department of the Official Report (Hansard) provides a daily and weekly record of debates, statements and written answers. A fuller description is given at para 7.20. The Library provides research, information and bibliographic services to support the legislative and deliberative functions of the House. Black Rod's Department controls access to the Chamber and the precincts of the House and is responsible for maintaining order within them. Black Rod's Department is also responsible for ceremonial occasions in the House of Lords and for State ceremonial in the Palace of Westminster.

Footnotes 1. The office also supports the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

Principles on which Speaker gives casting vote Contents Mr Speaker Addington's decision of 1796: further discussion Mr Speaker Denison's decisions of 1861 and 1867: need for a majority Mr Speaker Denison's decision of 1860: existing text of a bill to be preserved 20.90The occasions on which a Speaker is required to give a casting vote are rare, and in seeking to deduce principles upon which a vote is given, the precedents of the last three centuries are relevant. Although the decisions of successive Speakers have not invariably been consistent, three principles have emerged: 1. that the Speaker should always vote for further discussion, where this is possible, eg Mr Speaker Addington's decision of 1796;1 2. that, where no further discussion is possible, decisions should not be taken except by a majority, eg Mr Speaker Denison's decisions of 1861 and 1867;2 and 3. that a casting vote on an amendment to a bill should leave the bill in its existing form.

Footnotes 1. Colchester i, 57; CJ (1795–96) 764; ibid (1979–80) 350–51. 2. CJ (1861) 282; Denison 94; CJ (1867) 395; ibid (1975–76) 359; ibid (1992–93) 777; Votes and Proceedings, 3 April 2019.

Mr Speaker Addington's decision of 1796: further discussion 20.91The first principle which guides a Speaker in giving their casting vote was explained by Mr Speaker Addington in 1796. On the third reading of the Succession Duty on Real Estates Bill, there having been a majority against ‘now’ reading the bill the third time, and also reading it that day three months, there was an equality of votes on a third question, that the bill be read the third time tomorrow, when the Speaker gave his casting vote with the ayes, saying: ‘that upon all occasions when the question was for or against giving to any measure a further opportunity of discussion, he should always vote for the further discussion, more especially when it had advanced so far as a third reading; and that when the question turned upon the measure itself—for instance, that a bill do or do not pass—he should then vote for or against it, according to his best judgment of its merits, assigning the reasons on which such judgment would be founded.’1 Similarly, the voices being equal on 24 February 1797 on the question for going into committee on the Quakers Bill, Mr Speaker Addington gave his vote with the ayes.2 In the proceedings taken against Lord Melville, 8 April 1805, which resulted in his impeachment, the numbers were equal upon the previous question (moved in the form ‘That the question be now put’)—that question being the motion on which Lord Melville's impeachment was based—Mr Speaker Abbot gave his casting vote in favour of the previous question, on the ground that ‘the original question was now fit to be submitted to the judgment of the House’.3 On 1 May 1828, the numbers being equal on the question that a bill be read a second time, Mr Speaker Manners-Sutton stated that as the bill had been entertained by the House, although they were now undecided as to whether it should proceed or not, he considered that he should best discharge his duty by leaving the bill open to further consideration and accordingly gave his vote with the ayes.4 The numbers being equal on the division on the third reading of the Tests Abolition (Oxford) Bill, 1 July 1864, Mr Speaker Denison said that he would afford the House another opportunity of deciding upon the merits of the bill, by declaring himself with the ayes; the (then) subsequent question that the bill do pass was negatived by a majority of two.5 On 3 April 1905, the numbers being equal upon an instruction to the committee on the London County Council (Tramways) Bill to omit certain tramways, Mr Speaker Gully stated that in order that the matter might be considered by the committee and that the House might have a further opportunity of coming to a more decisive conclusion, he gave his voice with the noes.6 On 12 April 1938, the numbers being equal upon the question of leave to bring in a bill under Standing Order No 23 (at that time No 10) to extend Palestinian nationality, Mr Speaker FitzRoy stated that he thought he ought to vote for the introduction of the bill so that the House could deal with it as the House thought fit.7 On two similar occasions, the Deputy Speaker has taken the same course.8

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Colchester i, 57; CJ (1795–96) 764. Ed G Pellew Life and Correspondence of Addington (1847) i, p 187; Colchester i, 85; CJ (1796–97) 335. CJ (1805–06) 201; Colchester i, 548. CJ (1828) 292. CJ (1864) 388; Denison 167. CJ (1905) 105. See also HC Deb (1975–76) 912, cc 761–62. HC Deb (1937–38) 334, c 947. (Licensing of Airports) HC Deb (1951–52) 502, c 2057; (Televising of Parliament) ibid (1979–80) 977, cc 1369–71.

Mr Speaker Denison's decisions of 1861 and 1867: need for a majority 20.92The next principle which guides the Speaker in giving their casting vote was explained by Mr Speaker Denison in 1861 and amplified in 1867. The numbers being equal on the third reading of the Church Rates Abolition Bill, 19 June 1861, Mr Speaker Denison gave his casting vote against the bill stating that it appeared to him that a prevailing opinion existed in favour of a settlement of the question different, in some degree, from that contained in the bill; and that he thought he should best discharge his duty by leaving to the future judgement of the House the decision what change in the law should be made, rather than take the responsibility for the change on his single vote.1 The numbers being equal on a proposed resolution relating to Trinity College Dublin, Mr Speaker Denison stated: ‘that this was an abstract resolution, which, if agreed to by the House, would not even form the basis of legislation; but undoubtedly the principle involved in it was one of great importance, and, if affirmed by a majority of the House, it would have much force. It should, however, be affirmed by a majority of the House, and not merely by the casting vote of its presiding officer. For these reasons he declared himself with the noes'.2

Footnotes 1. CJ (1861) 282; Denison 94. See also CJ (1821–22) 229. 2. CJ (1867) 395. See also ibid (1975–76) 359. On two occasions the Speaker has voted for the postponement of a proceeding to a future day, ibid (1878) 423; ibid (1887) 397.

Mr Speaker Denison's decision of 1860: existing text of a bill to be preserved 20.93The third principle which guides the Speaker in giving their casting vote was explained by Mr Speaker Denison in 1860. The numbers being equal on an amendment proposed to a bill, Mr Speaker Denison stated that as the House was unable to form a judgment on the propriety of the proposed amendment, he should best perform his duty by leaving this bill in the form in which the Committee had reported it to the House; accordingly, he gave his voice against the amendment.1 On 24 July 1862, the numbers being equal on a question for disagreeing to a Lords amendment, Mr Speaker Denison said he should support the bill, as passed by the House of Commons. This precedent has been followed on other occasions.2 On 12 March 1958, after a new clause had been read a second time on consideration of the Maintenance Orders Bill, the numbers were equal on the question that the clause be added to the bill; the Deputy Speaker stated that it was his duty to vote for the bill as it emerged from the Committee, and accordingly he gave his casting vote against the question that the new clause should be added to the bill.3 On 11 July 1974, the numbers being equal on an amendment proposed to be inserted in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill, on consideration as amended, Mr Speaker stated that he must vote for the bill as it came from committee and accordingly he cast his vote against the amendment.4 On 21 June 1990, when the numbers were equal on an amendment proposed to be inserted in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords], as amended in committee and in standing committee, the Deputy Speaker stated that he would vote to keep the bill as reported from the committee and from the standing committee and accordingly he cast his vote against the amendment.5

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

CJ (1860) 235. CJ (1862–63) 365; Parl Deb (1862) 168, c 785; Denison 124; CJ (1975–76) 620, 628; ibid (1977–78) 463. CJ (1957–58) 122; HC Deb (1957–58) 584, cc 521 and 555–57. CJ (1974) 245; HC Deb (1974) 876, c 1691. See also ibid, cc 1719–20; ibid 877, cc 258–59. But see the case when the numbers being equal on an amendment proposed to be inserted in the Regency Bill, on consideration as amended, on 22 July 1910, the effect of which was to replace words which had been in the bill as introduced but had been left out in committee; the Speaker stated that he thought he ought to vote for the bill in the form in which it was originally introduced into the House, and accordingly he gave his voice with the ayes (CJ (1910) 265; HC Deb (1910) 19, c 1717). 5. CJ (1989–90) 484.

Casting vote of Chair in Committee of the whole House or in public bill committee 20.94When the voices are equal in a Committee of the whole House or in a public bill committee, the Chair gives a casting vote, and in doing so is guided by the same principles as the Speaker in the House.1 Thus, in committee on a bill, on an amendment to leave out words, the Chair gave a casting vote for their retention in the bill, as the House would have another opportunity of considering the same question on consideration of the bill, as amended.2 Similarly, when, at the first sitting of a public bill committee, the division on the programme motion resulted in an equality, the Chair voted with the noes.3

Footnotes 1. For cases in which the Chair has given a casting vote without assigning a reason, see CJ (1834) 430; ibid (1847–48) 661; ibid (1859) 333; ibid (1860) 256. 2. CJ (1876) 398; Parl Deb (1876) 231, c 772; HC Deb (1964–65) 713, cc 1867–68. For an example of a Chair's casting vote against an amendment, to leave the Bill in its existing form, see Public Bill Committee, Fisheries Bill, 13 December 2018, c 271; HC Deb (26 March 1991), European Standing Committee B, cc 19–20. For an example of a Chair's casting vote on the resolution of a Programming Sub-Committee, see HC Deb (28 October 2003), European Standing Committee B, c 12, where the Chair voted no to ensure no decision was taken except by a majority. 3. Stg Co Deb (2002–03), Stg Co B (European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill c 12).

Deferred divisions 20.95Under Standing Order No 41A, divisions on certain questions after the moment of interruption are deferred until the next Wednesday on which the House would sit. The Order does not apply to questions on: motions or amendments in the course of proceedings on bills or allocating time to or programming such proceedings; motions which may be made without notice; motions to be disposed of immediately following the disposal of amendments proposed thereto, and such amendments; or to motions made under paragraph (2) of Standing Order No 15 (Exempted business), paragraph (3) of Standing Order No 51 (Ways and Means motions), sub-paragraph (1)(a) of Standing Order No 52 (Money resolutions and Ways and Means resolutions in connection with bills), paragraph (5) of Standing Order No 54 (Consideration of estimates), or paragraph (1) of Standing Order No 55 (Questions on voting of Estimates, etc). A motion debated after the moment of interruption can be subject to a closure, the voting on which takes place immediately but the division on the original motion would then be deferred.1 Carry-over motions on bills are not covered by the list of exemptions and may thus be deferred.2 The provisions of the order may be set aside by a motion made by a Minister of the Crown, to the effect that the order shall not apply to questions on any specified motions. The standing order provides for such a motion to be taken after the moment of interruption and the conclusion of proceedings under any other standing order which fall to be taken immediately after it. The motion may be proceeded with though opposed, and the question is put forthwith. On a Wednesday to which divisions have been deferred, Members record their votes on each deferred question by marking and signing their names on a ballot paper setting out the questions to be decided, and handing it to a Clerk in the No lobby.3 Voting papers not clearly marked as to their intention are disregarded, and Members marking both boxes are not counted as having voted.4 Votes may be recorded for a period of two-and-a-half hours after 11.30 am, excluding any time spent on a division in the House or Committee of the whole House.5 No tellers are appointed. The Speaker or the Chairman announces the result of the deferred division as soon as may be after the time for voting has expired. The procedure was first used on 12 December 2000.6 In 2019, the House agreed orders governing votes on a range of motions being considered in parallel by what was in effect a form of the deferred division procedure.7

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (11 May 2004) 421, cc 325–26. 2. HC Deb (20 October 2008) 481, c 131; ibid (11 May 2009) 492, c 655. 3. The procedure has been applied to a motion relating to proceedings which had already occurred by the time the deferred division had taken place, HC Deb (2001–02) 389, c 537 ff. 4. HC Deb (2000–01) 360, c 207. 5. Until 15 June 2010, a period of only one-and-a-half hours was allowed starting from 12.30 pm, HC Deb (15 June 2010) 511, c 846. 6. HC Deb (2000–01) 359, cc 591, 708, 770 ff. This followed the format of a sessional order first made in November 2000 and renewed until it was made permanent. 7. Votes and Proceedings, 27 March 2019 and 1 April 2019.

Orders (and standing orders) and resolutions 20.96Every question, if agreed to, becomes either an order or a resolution of the House, and is recorded as such in the Journal of the House.1 By its ‘orders', the House directs its committees, its Members, its officers, the order of its own proceedings and the acts of all persons whom they concern. Orders of a permanent character which ‘stand’ in force from one session to another and (unless indicated otherwise) from one Parliament to another, codify and direct many of the procedures and practices of the House and are known as standing orders. Standing orders may be amended or repealed, or new standing orders introduced, by motion and decision in the House in the normal way; there are no set rules on how such a motion may arise.2 Typically, such motions are tabled by the Government, but sometimes following proposals from select committees, in particular the Procedure Committee. The Backbench Business Committee can provide time for debates to amend standing orders, although the Committee cannot, under Standing Order No 14(6e), provide time for debates on motions to amend the standing orders setting its own terms of reference (Standing Order No 152J) or the standing order governing the arrangement of public business (Standing Order No 14). By its ‘resolutions', the House declares its own opinions and purposes. Such resolutions, therefore, unless deriving force from some other authority (for example statute, as with motions to approve statutory instruments), do not have direct legal impact, though they may have varying degrees of political force depending on circumstances.3

Footnotes 1. In some instances, a single motion can give rise to both an order and a resolution. See, for example, Votes and Proceedings, 7 June 2018; ibid, 26 November 2015. 2. HC Deb (28 May 2015) 596, c 161. 3. In 2017, the Government indicated in a written statement that ‘Where a motion tabled by an opposition party has been approved by the House, the relevant Minister will respond to the resolution of the House by making a statement no more than 12 weeks after the debate.’ HC Deb (26 October 2017) 630, c 12WS; the 12-week period was subsequently reduced to 8 weeks. See also Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Fifteenth Report of Session 2017–19, Status of Resolutions of the House of Commons, HC 1587, and Government Response to that Report (Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Fourteenth Special Report of Session 2017–19, HC 2066, p 2).

Orders and resolutions agreed to ‘nemine contradicente’ 20.97Orders and resolutions are sometimes declared to have been agreed to nemine contradicente (that is, ‘with no one against’), to indicate formally that no-one has opposed the decision. While in practice a very large number of decisions are taken without opposition, the nemine contradicente formula is used where it is appropriate to record a particular signal of the House's unanimity. Entries to this effect are made in the case of Addresses of congratulation or condolence to the reigning Sovereign1 and of messages of a similar character to other members of the royal family.2 They have also been used for resolutions condemning a breach of privilege and the consequential order for the attendance of the offenders.3 Votes of thanks,4 resolutions on the retirement of Speakers and other officers of the House,5 an Address for a monument to a deceased public servant,6 and resolutions of the House relating to international events and agreements,7 the grant of a vote of credit8 and the third reading of a bill have been similarly recorded.9 The addition of these words is made on the direction of the Speaker or Chair, who does not direct their use if a single dissentient voice is raised.10

Footnotes 1. CJ (1901) 6; ibid (1963–64) 150; ibid (1964–65) 200; ibid (1981–82) 426; ibid (1994–95) 294; on the death of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, ibid (2001–02) 445; and on the Queen's Golden Jubilee, ibid (2001–02) 509. 2. CJ (1837) 493; ibid (1910) 153; ibid (1951–52) 93; HC Deb (1979–80) 789, cc 1757–66; ibid (1989–90) 176, cc 589–93; on the hundredth birthday of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, ibid (1999–2000) 494. 3. CJ (1901) 414, 418, etc. 4. CJ (1856) 186; ibid (1919) 285, 286; ibid (1963–64) 329; ibid (1979–80) 156; ibid (1991–92) 293; ibid (1993–94) 534 etc. 5. For example, retirement of Speakers, CJ (1999–2000) 570; ibid (2008–09) 452; retirement of senior officials of the House, ibid (1999–2000) 50; ibid (2002–03) 75; ibid (2010–12) 791; Votes and Proceedings, 16 July 2014, p 214. 6. CJ (1920) 378. 7. CJ (1921) 390; ibid (1966–67) 468, etc; in 1905, a resolution was agreed to nemine contradicente after an amendment had been negatived, ibid (1905) 95. 8. CJ (1914) 426. 9. CJ (1688–93) 280; ibid (1857) 110; ibid (1884) 321. See also para 20.103, fn 4. 10. Parl Deb (1884) 289, c 1561; ibid (1907) 178, c 463. On 27 June 1884, a motion to omit ‘Nem. Con.’ from an entry in the Votes of the preceding day was brought forward (without notice, as a matter of privilege) and negatived, CJ (1884) 324.

Reversal of decisions Contents Discharge of an order (and of an Address to the Crown) Proceedings null and void Rescission of resolutions Indirect rescission 20.98The present procedures by which the House reverses its previously expressed opinions, directions or proceedings vary, according to the object to be attained. The forms of procedure are: discharge of an order; an order that proceedings be null and void; and rescission of a resolution.

Discharge of an order (and of an Address to the Crown) 20.99The discharge of an order is the indispensable preliminary to the making of a different order on the same subject. If it is wished for any reason to withdraw a bill from the consideration of the House, it is necessary first to discharge the order for the current stage of the bill.1 On occasion, an order may be discharged without further action being taken, for example an order for printing a paper or for a return.2 An order of 19 April 1983 for the issue of a writ for a by-election caused by the death of a Member was discharged on 10 May as a dissolution had subsequently been announced which would have overtaken the by-election (see para 3.22, fn 4).3 Part of an order has also been discharged.4 A motion that an order be discharged has been made so as to afford an opportunity for discussion of the order, which had previously been agreed to without debate; after discussion, the motion for discharge was withdrawn.5 There is a difficulty in discharging an order for an Address to the Crown, after it has been presented to the Sovereign; instead, a second Address qualifying the opinions embodied in the first Address is agreed to.6

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

For example, CJ (1921) 191; ibid (1959–60) 161; ibid (1966–67) 371, 503; ibid (1980–81) 227. CJ (1921) 96; ibid (1922) 147; ibid (1926) 418; ibid (1962–63) 261. HC Deb (1982–83) 42, c 727; CJ (1982–83) 365. CJ (1909) 211; ibid (1920) 58. HC Deb (1967–68) 763, c 921. CJ (1850) 383, 509; Parl Deb (1850) 111, c 1404; CJ (1856) 272, 289, 298.

Proceedings null and void 20.100An order declaring proceedings to be null and void is employed where there has been some form of irregularity in procedure.1 It is used either where there is no resolution which can be rescinded or order which can be discharged,2 or where the status quo ante cannot be restored merely by rescinding the resolution or discharging the order, as where a resolution is irregularly reported from a committee. If, however, the status quo could be restored merely by discharging an order, there would be no question of annulling and voiding the proceedings. On 11 July 1974, divisions took place on two amendments to a bill on consideration. The numbers of ayes and noes were equal in each case, and the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker respectively gave their casting votes against the amendments. On 16 July, the House was acquainted that as the result of an irregularity a Member had been incorrectly recorded as voting with the noes (see para 20.82 ). The Speaker directed that the numbers should be corrected accordingly and it therefore appeared that there had been a majority for each amendment. The proceedings relating to the Speaker's and the Deputy Speaker's casting votes were declared null and void by notice in the Journal, no motion being made in the House. The proceedings in relation to the third reading of the bill were ordered to be null and void on a motion moved in the House without notice. It was further ordered that a message should be sent to the Lords requesting them to return the bill (which had been sent to them on 11 July), and that when the bill had been returned by the Lords and corrected, it should be read the third time.3 On Friday 31 January 1986, the Protection of Military Remains Bill (a Private Member's Bill) passed through all stages up to and including its third reading without debate. It was immediately discovered that no money resolution had been passed after second reading to cover two italicised clauses contained in the bill. A motion was tabled forthwith to nullify the irregular proceedings (ie committee and third reading), which was passed without objection on the next sitting day. It was held that since the motion to nullify the proceedings had been tabled immediately, the bill should not be sent to the Lords and there was therefore no requirement to send a message requesting its return.4

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

CJ (1956–57) 201; ibid (1962–63) 196, etc. CJ (1938–39) 95, 96, etc. CJ (1974) 245, 256, 257; HC Deb (1974) 877, cc 248–65. CJ (1985–86) 152, 155, 158 and 166.

Rescission of resolutions Contents Restrictions on power of rescission Notice necessary to rescind a resolution Modification of resolution 20.101Motions for open rescission are rare and the rules of procedure carefully guard against the indirect rescission of votes. This reflects the acceptance as a matter of principle that parliamentary government requires the majority to abide by a decision regularly come to, however unexpected, and that it is unfair to resort to methods, whether direct or indirect, to reverse such a decision.1 The practice, resulting from this principle, is essentially a safeguard for the rights of the minority, and a contrary practice is not normally resorted to, unless in the circumstances of a particular case those rights are in no way threatened. There is nothing in the practice of the House to prevent the rescission of a resolution or discharge of an order of a previous session, where such is held to be of continuing force and validity, or of a standing order. Technically, the rescinding of a vote is a new question, the form being to read the resolution of the House and to move that it be rescinded.2

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1975–76) 905, cc 1133–34. 2. CJ (1867–68) 132, 145; see also ibid (1882) 346.

Restrictions on power of rescission 20.102The rule was urged (2 April 1604), ‘That a question, being once made and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again, but must stand as a judgment of the House’.1 Also, by a rule formerly in force, a second bill, at variance with the provisions of a bill passed during the same session, could not be introduced (see para 28.17 ). Further, rescission is opposed to the spirit of the existing rule that no question shall be offered which is substantially the same as one on which judgement has been expressed during the current session (see para 20.12 ). But the practical inconvenience of a rigid rule, especially where the House as a whole wishes to change its opinion, has proved too great for a body confronted with the ever-changing problems of government; and the rule prohibiting reconsideration of a decided question has come to be interpreted very narrowly, so as not to prevent open rescission when it is decided that that is desirable.2 The power of rescission has been exercised only in the case of a resolution resulting from a substantive motion, and even then sparingly.3 It cannot be exercised merely to override a vote of the House, such as a negative vote. Proposing a negatived question a second time for the decision of the House would be, as stated earlier, contrary to the established practice of Parliament. Sufficient variation would have to be made, not only from the form but also from the substance of the rejected question, to make the second question a new question. Similarly, the House of Commons has shown strong objection to rescinding a vote by which the House has made an amendment to a resolution.4

Footnotes 1. CJ (1547–1628) 162. 2. Resolutions of the House relating to its own proceedings are more commonly rescinded, eg CJ (1997–98) 744–45 (Advisory Committee on Service Candidates—rescinded without a replacement resolution); ibid (1997–98) 812 (European business); ibid (1998–99) 350; ibid (2001–02) 194 (Sub judice ), 542 (Travel to EU Institutions). 3. CJ (1834) 59; ibid (1864–65) 463; ibid (1867–68) 145. See also Colchester ii, 9, 12. 4. On 11 November 1912, an amendment was made to a resolution authorising the financial provisions embodied in a bill. Subsequently, the Government desired to rescind this amendment before the consideration of the resolution, as amended, was resumed. Objection was taken to this, but the Speaker stated that the House could not reconsider its decision on the further consideration of the resolution. An amendment was proposed to the motion for rescission affirming the principle that a question should not be again proposed or questioned in the same session. The Speaker had to adjourn the House in consequence of grave disorder arising during debate on the amendment. On the following day, the amendment was not proceeded with. The resolution, as amended, was subsequently disagreed to and a new resolution differing from the original resolution was proposed in a Committee of the whole House and agreed to, and the necessary amendments were made in due course, CJ (1912–13) 404, 408, 409, 410, 414, 416; HC Deb (1912) 43, cc 1993, 2090; ibid 44, cc 36, 121. See also ibid (1918) 105, c 1956.

Notice necessary to rescind a resolution 20.103Notice is required of a motion to rescind a resolution,1 or to expunge or alter an entry in the Votes and Proceedings or the Journal,2 and in no circumstances may the House rescind a resolution during the sitting in which the resolution was agreed to.3 However, notice is not required of motions brought forward as matters of privilege.4 The requirement of notice for a motion to rescind applies equally in select committees.

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

Parl Deb (1887) 313, c 1124. Parl Deb (1882) 271, c 1268; ibid (1884–85) 294, c 1423; HC Deb (1909) 7, c 2303. Parl Deb (1855) 138, c 1307. Notice was not required of a motion which affected the seat of a Member, Parl Deb (1880) 253, c 644. On 27 June 1884, a motion to omit ‘Nem. Con.’ from the entry in the Votes of the third reading of the Representation of the People Bill was brought forward without notice as privilege, CJ (1884) 324. On 16 July 1974, a motion to declare certain proceedings null and void was moved without notice as a matter of privilege, HC Deb (1974) 877, c 259; and see para 20.100.

Modification of resolution 20.104A motion modifying a resolution of the same session, by omitting or altering subsidiary portions of it, is in order so long as no attempt is made to reverse the substance of the motion. A motion reversing the effect of a previous decision on the ground of its inapplicability to changed circumstances has been allowed. Thus, a resolution having been agreed to which condemned an official appointment, the House by a subsequent resolution withdrew the censure which the previous resolution had conveyed.1 Under the Government of India Act 1919, s 44, rules might be laid before both Houses by direction of the Secretary of State for India, and in that case the rules could not be made unless they had been approved by both Houses, either without modification or only with modifications and additions to which both Houses agreed. In Session 1920, the House of Lords approved of the rules, as laid, but the approval of the House of Commons was given subject to certain modifications. The approval of the House of Lords was not rescinded, but that House passed a resolution agreeing to the modifications, subject to which the draft rules had been approved by the House of Commons, and approving the draft rules as so modified.2 A similar course was followed in the case of the London and Home Counties Electricity District Order 1925.3 The effect of a resolution, by which the House determined that no legislation should be entertained, during the session, regarding traffic in intoxicating liquor, until provisions dealing with that subject had been placed before the House by the Government, was modified by a subsequent resolution which declared that, as the House was made aware that the Government did not intend to undertake legislation regarding the liquor traffic, the House was free to deal with the matter.4

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

CJ (1877) 345, 367. LJ (1920) 319, 343; CJ (1920) 316; HL Deb (1920) 41, c 542. LJ (1924–25) 287, 327; CJ (1924–25) 349; HL Deb (1924–25) 62, c 505. CJ (1890) 214, 257; Parl Deb (1890) 343, c 1170.

Indirect rescission 20.105Attempts to reverse or override resolutions or orders by proposing new questions which seek to nullify previous decisions may, without actually proposing the same question, amount to an indirect form of rescission. The rejection of a bill by a decision on a reasoned amendment directed against certain of its provisions has been held to prevent the insertion in another bill of the provisions objected to by the reasoned amendment, even though the words of the reasoned amendment had not been added to the question on the rejected bill;1 but after a reasoned amendment on second reading had been negatived, an instruction on similar lines was allowed.2

Footnotes 1. CJ (1924) 128; HC Deb (1924) 173, c 67. 2. HC Deb (1925) 182, c 517.

Introduction to maintenance of order during debates 21.1This chapter describes the rules, based upon long-standing practice, somewhat modified by standing orders, which lay down a standard of expected behaviour for Members of the House of Commons, both in speaking and in listening to the speeches of other Members, and which check and manage lapses from this standard. The chapter is divided into the following sections: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Manner of speaking Timing and length of speeches Contents of speeches Rules of behaviour for Members in the Chamber Powers of the Chair to enforce order

Addressing the Chair 21.2Members must address the Speaker and not direct their speeches solely to one part of the House or to any party on either side of the House.1

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (19 October 2011) 533, c 966.

Use of languages other than English 21.3Subject to the exceptions below relating to the use of Welsh in committees, speeches in the Chamber and in other proceedings must be made in English;1 quotation in another language has been allowed on occasion, though a translation should be provided.2 Since 1996, increasing freedom to use the Welsh language in committees has been allowed. The resolution of the House of 1 March 2017 provides that, ‘whilst English is and should remain the language of this House, the use of Welsh be permitted in parliamentary proceedings of Select Committees and of the Welsh Grand Committee held in Wales and at Westminster’, with the Official Report recording both the Welsh language contributions and an English translation, subject to reasonable notice being given of the proposed use of Welsh and to a power of the Chair to require points of order to be in English.3

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1957–58) 583, c 1146; ibid (1981–82) 18, c 290; ibid (2001–02) 380, c 75. 2. HC Deb (1957–58) 583, c 1146; ibid (1979–80) 978, c 136; ibid (1987–88) 119, c 400; HC Deb (23 October 2007) 465, c 231; ibid (1 March 2016) 606, c 839; for examples of contributions in British Sign Language, see ibid (16 March 2017) 623, c 543 and ibid (4 July 2018) 644, c 303. 3. Votes and Proceedings, 1 March 2017. This followed earlier resolutions of 5 June 1996 (CJ (1995–96) 390), allowing the use of Welsh in committee proceedings in Wales, subject to certain conditions set out in the Third Report from the Select Committee on Procedure (HC 96 (1995–96)), and of 5 March 2001 in which the House agreed to that Committee's further recommendation that witnesses before select committees at Westminster should be able to give evidence in Welsh (CJ (2000–01) 176; Procedure Committee, First Report, HC 47 (2000–01)). The authority to speak in Welsh under these resolutions goes beyond the occasional pragmatic arrangements made in select committees for non-English speaking witnesses to speak in another language, with their words translated by an interpreter, in that where the terms of the resolutions have been met (i) both Members and witnesses have a right to speak in Welsh, and (ii) since the 2017 resolution, the words spoken in Welsh as well as the interpreter's words are transcribed and form part of the formal record.

Reading speeches 21.4In principle, a Member is not permitted to read a speech,1 or a supplementary question, but may make reference to notes. Similarly, a Member may read extracts from documents2 but such extracts and quotations should be reasonably short.3 The purpose of this rule is to maintain the cut and thrust of debate,4 which depends upon successive speakers meeting in their speeches to some extent the arguments of earlier speeches; debate is more than a series of set speeches prepared beforehand without reference to each other. Unless appealed to, the Chair does not normally intervene to enforce the rule against reading a speech; and, unless there is good ground in the interests of the debate for intervening, the matter is usually passed off with a remark to the effect that the notes used by the honourable Member appear to be unusually full. The rule against reading speeches is in any case relaxed for opening speeches or whenever there is special reason for precision, as in important ministerial statements, including where it may be important for a Minister to use a prepared text because of the possibility that the words used will be cited in a court under the principle in Pepper v Hart (see para 13.15 ). Even at a later stage of a debate, prepared statements on such subjects may be read without objection being taken, though they should not constitute an entire speech. The rule is also relaxed for Members making their maiden speech (about which guidance is now given to new Members). The reading of speeches is even less suited to a committee than to the House itself. Members may use a hand-held electronic device (such as a tablet) discreetly as an aide memoire while addressing the House, but should not make their speech by continuous reading from a device.5

Footnotes 1. CJ (1547–1628) 272, 494; HC Deb (1916) 80, c 391; ibid (1981–82) 18, c 754; ibid (1983–84) 64, c 178. A Member was permitted to read a speech which he was making on behalf of another Member who had lost his voice, ibid (1989–90) 174, c 900. 2. Parl Deb (1873) 217, c 841; HC Deb (1953–54) 523, cc 1582–92. 3. HC Deb (1981–82) 17, c 376; ibid (1990–91) 184, c 726; ibid (1997–98) 319, c 698 (specifically about quotations from the Official Report); ibid (2002–03) 400, c 1090. 4. See the Speaker Elect's remarks, HC Deb (1935–36) 307, c 7. 5. HC Deb (21 October 2011) 533, c 1194.

Remaining in place for other speeches 21.5For the same reason of encouraging lively debate, the Speaker has urged Members to remain in their places after they have spoken and to return to the House for the concluding speeches of a debate.1 This principle is now clearly set out in guidance issued under the authority of the Speaker which indicates that a Member wishing to speak in debate should plan to be present for most of the debate and in particular should be present for the opening speeches, should remain for at least the next two speeches after their own, and should return for the winding-up speeches.2

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1981–82) 18, c 754. This also applies to Ministers and Opposition spokespersons, ibid (15 October 2008) 480, c 894. 2. Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House, November 2018, para 5. These principles followed recommendations of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons that were subsequently endorsed by the House (CJ (1997–98) 596). The Committee described any debate in which Members did not listen to one another's views and attempt to respond to them as ‘a sorry affair’, Fourth Report, HC 600 (1997–98) para 8.

Place of speaking and adjustments for individual circumstances 21.6Members must speak standing. In cases of sickness or infirmity, however, speaking while seated is allowed (if necessary with a lapel microphone), including from a wheelchair.1 A Minister answering a series of questions has been permitted, on grounds of infirmity, to remain leaning on the dispatch box without resuming his seat while questions were being asked.2 A Member who had lost his voice has been allowed to remain seated while another Member asked an oral question (and supplementary) in his name on his behalf.3 When a Member wishes to raise a point of order during a division, the point of order must relate specifically to the conduct of the division, and the Member must first advise the Chair of their intention. The point of order is then raised by the Member standing in the normal way, but from a position on the second bench as close to the Chair as possible, from which they can be heard both by the Chair and by the Official Report without obstructing the movement of Members into the lobbies.4 A Member may not speak when standing before the Table5 or in the aisle,6 or from below the Bar.7 The Chair has declined to intervene when a backbench Member chose to speak at a dispatch box.8 An Opposition frontbench spokesperson will not be called to speak or intervene from the frontbench during the half-hour adjournment debate held under Standing Order No 9.9 A Member should not move place while speaking.10 No other Member should cross between the Chair and the Member speaking.11 The Chair has deprecated a Member from one side of the House speaking from the other.12 For the use by Members of the side galleries of the Chamber, see para 6.50.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1919) 112, c 456; ibid (1969–70) 799, c 1681; ibid (1999–2000) 353, c 236WH; ibid (16 June 2015) 597, c 206; ibid (25 October 2016) 616, c 133; ibid (9 January 2017) 619, c 84. Question proposed by the Speaker sitting owing to illness, CJ (1866) 197. 2. HC Deb (1952–53) 510, c 1999; ibid (1958–59) 596, c 1157; ibid (1994–95) 261, c 583; ibid (1996–97) 291, cc 1027–28; ibid (28 June 2016) 612, c 152. 3. HC Deb (25 January 2018) 635, c 388. 4. This follows agreement by the House to the Fourth Report from the Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons, HC 600 (1997–98) paras 63–65; CJ (1997–98) 596. 5. HC Deb (1968–69) 765, c 893. 6. HC Deb (1975–76) 918, c 1101. 7. Parl Deb (1879) 246, c 1362; HC Deb (1919) 112, cc 1962–63; ibid (1919) 116, c 105; ibid (1960–61) 642, c 324. 8. HC Deb (1971–72) 831, c 377; but see para 6.51. 9. HC Deb (2001–02) 374, c 83. 10. HC Deb (1942–43) 391, cc 2001–2; ibid (1983–84) 57, c 1171; ibid (1984–85) 79, c 1257; ibid (1989–90) 173, cc 174–75. 11. HC Deb (2002–03) 407, cc 1237–38. 12. HC Deb (1997–98) 313, cc 223–24.

Timing 21.7Debate arises, and Members may therefore be called to speak, when a question has been proposed by the Speaker and before it has been fully put. No Member may speak to any question after the same has been fully put by the Speaker; and a question is fully put when the Chair has taken the voices both of the ayes and of the noes.1 The Speaker has, however, called Members to speak despite having fully put the question, after points of order revealed that some Members had not heard the motion being made or the question being put.2

Footnotes 1. 17 May 1606, ‘Any man may speak after the affirmative question and before the negative’: CJ (1547–1628) 310; Parl Deb (1819) 40, c 79, Colchester iii, 74; HC Deb (1913) 50, cc 1673–74, 1859–60; ibid (1922) 152, c 111; ibid (1979–80) 983, cc 645–46. 2. HC Deb (1976–77) 930, cc 1375–77; ibid (1977–78) 951, cc 524–25.

Precedence in speaking 21.8When two or more Members rise to speak, the Speaker has complete discretion over whom to call,1 though backbench Members will generally be called alternately from either side of the House (or, when the subject of debate is not a matter of party politics, from those adjudged to be supporters or opponents of the question). The occupant of the Chair, whether in the Chamber or in Westminster Hall, does not announce in advance the order in which Members will be called. Members of the frontbenches are normally given precedence over those on the backbenches.2 Following the agreement of the House to a recommendation of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons,3 the Speaker is now under no obligation to give precedence to Privy Counsellors in debate. In practice, the Chair will often accord some priority to such Members or to Members with other relevant positions or experience including, for example, the Chair of a relevant select committee. It is often the practice for Members who wish to speak in a particular debate to submit their names in advance to the Speaker. This practice, while not fettering the discretion of the Chair, affords to Members who avail themselves of it a better opportunity of ‘catching the Speaker's eye’, and to the Speaker a means of distributing the available time as equitably as possible between the various sections of opinion4 and assists the Chair in deciding whether to impose a time limit on speeches (see para 21.14 ). The Deputy Speaker has reminded Members that the Chair is not obliged to call Members who have not been in their place for much of the debate.5 For a statement or an urgent question, the Speaker will only call Members present at the start.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1976–77) 928, cc 1463–64; ibid (1980–81) 7, c 167; ibid (12 February 2014) 575, c 961. 2. HC Deb (1967–68) 770, c 1245; the Speaker has indicated that while the Chair retains formal discretion as to which frontbencher to call, it is in practice best decided by the parties themselves, see ibid (11 July 2017) 627, cc 181, 183. 3. Fourth Report, HC 600 (1997–98) para 28; CJ (1997–98) 596. 4. See Speaker's remarks, HC Deb (1935–36) 307, c 301; ibid (1980–81) 7, c 168. This also applies to the longer debates in Westminster Hall, ibid (15 September 2010) 515, c 257WH; ibid (7 March 2013) 559, c 334WH. 5. HC Deb (21 July 2010) 514, c 456; Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House, November 2018, para 5.

New Members (maiden speeches) 21.9A new Member who has not previously spoken is generally given some priority over other Members seeking to speak in the debate to make their ‘maiden’ speech.1 A Member subsequently returned for a different constituency cannot claim the privilege for a second time.2 It has been a custom of the House, but not an absolute rule, that new Members do not participate in proceedings in the Chamber (for example, by asking a question) before making their maiden speech.3 New Members are now advised that whether to observe the custom is a matter of choice for them. They might choose to wait to make a traditional maiden speech before speaking at all in the Chamber or Westminster Hall; ask questions and intervene on speeches without losing the opportunity to make a traditional maiden speech; or participate fully in proceedings in the Chamber or Westminster Hall without seeking to make a traditional maiden speech.4

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

But this privilege is not conceded unless claimed within the Parliament to which the Member was first returned, Parl Deb (1859) 153, c 839. For example, see HC Deb (1979–80) 982, cc 254–59. HC Deb (2001–02) 370, c 392. Maiden speeches: guidance for new Members, Commons Briefing Note No 2, June 2017.

Precedence on resuming an adjourned debate 21.10When as a consequence of the interruption of business prescribed by the standing orders a debate has been adjourned, the Member speaking is entitled on the next occasion to resume the adjourned debate, and continue their speech.1 Similarly, when a debate has been adjourned on motion, the Member who moved its adjournment is, by courtesy, entitled to speak first on the resumption of the debate, though they must rise in their place at that time to assert that entitlement, and unless they rise it is not the duty of the Chair to call them.2

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1937–38) 329, cc 165, 243; ibid (1970–71) 803, c 201. This entitlement is not normally exercised in a debate lasting more than one day when the subsequent day will be opened by a senior frontbencher. 2. Parl Deb (1853) 126, c 1243; ibid (1858) 148, c 979. For fuller details on speaking priorities in these circumstances, see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), pp 433–34.

Second speeches 21.11Subject to a number of limited exceptions, mentioned below, and to the total exception of proceedings in Committee of the whole House (see para 28.83 ), it is the rule that a Member shall not speak more than once to the same question.1 The first exception is the right of reply allowed to a Member who has moved a substantive motion in the House (ie not an order of the day), including a substantive motion for the adjournment of the House or a motion to approve a statutory instrument,2 subject to there being time available after the other speeches have concluded.3 The second exception is that in debate by the House at report stage (consideration) of a bill committed to a public bill committee, or that portion of a bill so committed,4 Standing Order No 76 provides that the rule against speaking more than once does not apply to the Member in charge of the bill or to the mover of any amendment or new clause or schedule in respect of that amendment, new clause or schedule.5 The third exception is that a Member may speak twice with the leave of the House. The objection of a single Member is enough to stop a Minister6 or any other Member7 who is seeking to speak a second time with leave. It is in practice rare for a second speech to be allowed (that is, for leave to be given) save that a Minister who has spoken early in a debate is usually allowed to speak again and, in a second reading debate on a Private Members' Bill, the Member in charge is, if time permits, generally allowed a few minutes to respond to the debate. Thus, a Member who moves an order of the day, such as a motion that a bill be read a second time8 or who moves the previous question,9 an adjournment of a debate,10 a motion on the consideration of Lords amendments,11 or an instruction to any committee,12 can reply only with the unanimous agreement of the House.13 A single dissenting voice is sufficient for leave to be refused.14 The practice of the House accommodates this rule in allowing a Member to move an order of the day formally, and to reserve their speech for a later period in the debate.15 In moving an amendment or a motion for the adjournment, Members cannot avail themselves of this privilege,16 as the Member must rise to make the motion, and thus cannot avoid addressing the House, however briefly. A Member who moves an amendment cannot speak again upon the main question after the amendment has been withdrawn or otherwise disposed of, on account of having spoken while the main question was before the House and before the amendment had been proposed from the Chair.17 For the same reason, a Member who has addressed the House in moving the second reading of a bill cannot subsequently move the adjournment of the debate, unless an amendment has been since proposed,18 nor can a Member who has spoken upon an amendment proposed on the report stage of a bill move the adjournment of the debate, or, until the amendment has been disposed of, move the adjournment of further consideration of the bill.19 A Member who has unsuccessfully moved the adjournment of a debate (or of the House) may not subsequently speak upon the question upon which they have moved that motion.20 The rule against speaking twice on the same question has not been enforced when two Estimates day debates have been held on the same motion21 or when a series of debates initiated by private Members has taken place on a single motion for the adjournment of the House and when a Member (most commonly a Minister) wishes to take part in more than one such debate.22

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1976–77) 930, c 158; ibid (2002–03) 397, c 378. Accordingly, a Member who speaks to a motion and resumes their seat without moving an intended amendment cannot subsequently rise to move the amendment, Parl Deb (1867–68) 191, c 1083; frequently, however, a debate will be time-limited and the House will have provided by business motion for amendments selected by the Chair not to be moved during a Member's speech but formally at the end of the debate. 2. Parl Deb (1858) 148, cc 762, 770; HC Deb (1976–77) 929, c 1360; ibid (1983–84) 53, c 951. 3. HC Deb (17 June 2015) 597, c 112WH. 4. Thus the standing order exception does not apply to the report stage of a Bill taken in Committee of the whole House; Parl Deb (1864) 174, c 2022; ibid (1878) 240, c 1527; HC Deb (1953–54) 530, cc 134–35. 5. The Finance Bill, and other bills committed in part to a Committee of the whole House, are usually ordered to be considered as if reported as a whole from public bill committee. The relaxation then applies to the whole bill. 6. HC Deb (1974) 878, cc 233–37; ibid (1992–93) 219, c 291; ibid (2002–03) 396, c 640; ibid (2003–04) 420, c 1097. 7. HC Deb (1997–98) 315, c 379; ibid (1999–2000) 340, c 116. 8. HC Deb (1981–82) 17, cc 684–85. 9. Parl Deb (1858) 148, c 890. 10. Parl Deb (1867) 186, c 1505. 11. HC Deb (1970–71) 822, cc 696, 859. 12. Parl Deb (1867) 186, c 1443; ibid (1870) 201, cc 530, 534. 13. The Chair has made it clear that the right of reply is to enable the mover to reply to the debate, not merely to rehearse their original arguments afresh, HC Deb (1998–99) 332, cc 907–8. The right of reply pursuant to SO No 76 applies only to the mover of the lead new clause or amendment in a group, HC Deb (2001–02) 379, c 1063. 14. HC Deb (2003–04) 420, c 1097. 15. Parl Deb (1872) 210, c 304; HC Deb (1922) 155, cc 1626, 2501. 16. Parl Deb (1851) 118, cc 1147, 1163; ibid (1855) 138, cc 1300, 1756; ibid (1892) 5, c 1744; HC Deb (1923) 163, c 2100. The rule has also been relaxed on consideration of the rules of procedure, HC Deb (1947–48) 443, c 1637; ibid (1966–67) 738, c 470; CJ (1979–80) 200, 816, and in respect of allocation of time to the outstanding stages of a bill or other business, HC Deb (1967–68) 760, c 1647. 17. Parl Deb (1878) 237, c 1532; ibid (1878) 240, c 123; ibid (1878) 241, c 1311; ibid (1901) 89, cc 1077, 1128. 18. Parl Deb (1876) 227, c 1659. 19. HC Deb (1919) 117, c 1346.

20. HC Deb (1928) 215, cc 592, 593. 21. HC Deb (2003–04) 422, c 1484. 22. This was not infrequently the case in Westminster Hall debates until 2015; for a case when a backbench Member was allowed to speak twice, see HC Deb (2002–03) 397, cc 15WH, 36WH.

Power to speak again when new question is proposed 21.12Apart from the Member who moved the adjournment (see para 21.10 ), Members may not make a second speech when debate is resumed on a subsequent day, even if this occurs after a considerable interval.1 Once a new question has been proposed, however, as for example ‘that the amendment be made’ or ‘that the debate be now adjourned’, they may speak to that question.2 If a Member has already moved a motion for the adjournment of the House or of the debate, they may not subsequently move a similar motion unless the Chair declined, under Standing Order No 35, to propose the question to the House.3 However, a Member may speak to such questions when moved by other Members. The subsequent consideration of business upon which a question has been put, but not decided because of the lack of a quorum in the division (see paras 20.59, 20.63 ), does not constitute an adjourned debate. When the business is considered again, the motion or order of the day concerned must be moved afresh, and Members who have spoken in the earlier debate may speak again.4

Footnotes 1. CJ (1547–1628) 245 (1604). 2. An amendment to add words to the Address in answer to the Queen's speech was amended, without opposition, by leaving out the earlier portion of it. When a query was raised as to whether the amendment so amended had become a new question upon which Members who had already spoken might again address the House, it was ruled that it was still the same question, CJ (1884–85) 10; Parl Deb (1884–85) 293, c 298. 3. HC Deb (1954–55) 536, cc 1296–97, 1311. 4. For example, see proceedings on which the question was not decided owing to the lack of a quorum in the division (HC Deb (1974–75) 888, cc 740–42); the motion was subsequently moved afresh and Members who had spoken in the earlier debate spoke again (HC Deb (1974–75) 889, cc 391–407).

Interventions on a speech 21.13Members have the right to decide whether to accept interventions on their speech from other Members, but once they have given way, the Member intervening has the right to speak.1 Members should not expect to make an intervention without having been present in the Chamber for a reasonable period during the debate; it is also a discourtesy to leave the Chamber shortly after making an intervention.2 A Member who has made an intervention should allow the Member who is making the speech time to respond before seeking to intervene further.3 A Member should not continue to stand in an attempt to intimidate a Member into giving way.4 Interventions are not accepted during speeches on a ten-minute rule motion, during ministerial statements, during the speeches of those moving and seconding the Address in response to the Queen's Speech, or during the Chancellor's budget speech and the response on behalf of the Official Opposition.5 Maiden speakers are usually heard without interruption.6 Interventions in interventions are not allowed.7 Interventions should not be excessively long nor made from a sedentary position,8 and should relate to the speech on which the intervention is made rather than comment on another intervention.9 For personal statements, see para 19.24. A Member who has been called by the Speaker cannot be interrupted by a Member seeking to move a dilatory motion, although they may be interrupted by a motion for the closure.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1978–79) 958, c 533; ibid (1986–87) 114, c 46; HC Deb (1 April 2008) 474, c 733. 2. HC Deb (31 October 2011) 534, c 677; ibid (6 November 2012) 552, c 778; Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House, November 2018, para 8. 3. HC Deb (31 January 2017) 620, c 876. 4. HC Deb (4 June 2015) 596, cc 797–98. 5. HC Deb (29 October 2018) 648, c 653. 6. HC Deb (1987–88) 119, c 236. 7. HC Deb (1963–64) 689, c 494; ibid (1977–78) 955, c 645; ibid (2 November 2010) 517, c 816. 8. For example, HC Deb (1996–97) 292, c 40; ibid (15 October 2009) 497, c 464; ibid (26 May 2010) 510, c 183; ibid (4 May 2011) 527, c 740. Sedentary interventions deprecated, ibid (5 March 2008) 472, c 1777; ibid (5 July 2010) 513, c 25. 9. HC Deb (7 May 2014) 580, c 195.

Length of speeches and speaking time limits 21.14When it is known to the Chair that a large number of Members wish to speak in a debate, the Speaker has frequently appealed for brief speeches to be made.1 Standing Order No 472 provides that the Speaker may announce in relation to any debate that backbench speeches or backbench speeches between specified times shall be limited to a specified length.3 The Speaker may at any time make subsequent announcements varying the limit upwards or downwards.4 Whenever the Speaker has made such an announcement, the occupant of the Chair shall direct any Member (other than a Minister, a Member speaking on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, or not more than one Member nominated by the leader of the second largest opposition party) who has spoken for the specified period to resume their seat forthwith.5 The Standing Order also provides for ‘injury time’ in respect of interventions; the Chair is required to add one minute, plus the time taken by the intervention, for each of the first two interventions.6 It is not uncommon for the Chair to delay the operation of a formal time limit under the Standing Order until a short way into the debate, thereby allowing slightly longer speeches from Members with a particular contribution to make, such as the mover of an amendment which has been selected or the Chair of a relevant select committee.7 The Standing Order also provides for time limits to be imposed on frontbench speeches with a limit of 20 minutes for speeches made by Members speaking on behalf of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition and for one speech by a Member speaking on behalf of the leader of the second largest opposition party (or in the case of a topical debate, 10 minutes for the Members speaking on behalf of the Government and of the Leader of the Opposition). In such speeches, one minute is added for each intervention accepted, up to a limit of 15 minutes.8 The Speaker indicated that he expected Ministers making statements normally to take no longer than 10 minutes, with the response on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition taking no longer than 5 minutes and that on behalf of the second largest opposition party taking no longer than 2 minutes.9

Footnotes 1. See HC Deb (31 January 2017) 620, cc 864, 995 for examples of extremely short speeches so delivered. 2. The standing order was first agreed in 1988, following earlier more limited experiments with limiting times for speeches (see Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), p 371) and was subject to later further experiments (see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 437). 3. Limits as low as 3 minutes have been imposed in the main Chamber (HC Deb (6 January 2016) 604, c 385) and as low as 1 minute in Westminster Hall, ibid (31 October 2018) 648, c 404WH. Details of time limits on speeches are displayed where practicable on the annunciators. Speeches which begin before the designated starting hour must not continue for more than the specified period after that hour, see eg HC Deb (1990–91) 196, cc 366, 369. On an opposition day for which the subject of debate was chosen by a minority party, the Speaker imposed a limit on backbench speeches between the conclusion of the opening speech and the beginning of the speech by the Member who was winding up on behalf of the party that had chosen the subject of debate, ibid (1999–2000) 347, c 1210. 4. HC Deb (22 January 2008) 470, c 1431; ibid (13 January 2010) 503, c 778. 5. Although not specifically provided for in the standing order, the rule is commonly not enforced for the second spokesperson of parties other than the official Opposition winding up the debate on an opposition day at their disposal (though see HC Deb (17 January 2006) 441, c 804 for an exception). 6. The Chair has noted that an intervention intended merely to provide added time for the Member speaking is not disallowed but has the effect of reducing the amount of time available to those still waiting to speak, HC Deb (15 December 2015) 603, cc 1442–43. 7. See for example HC Deb (28 April 2014) 579, c 557. 8. SO No 47(3) and (4). 9. The equivalent limits for urgent questions are 3 minutes for the Minister, 2 minutes for the Member asking the urgent question and (where different) the opposition spokesperson, and 1 minute for the spokesperson of the second largest opposition party, HC Deb (18 May 2016) 611, c 2.

Relevance in debate 21.15A Member's speech must be directed to the question under discussion or to the motion or amendment intended to be moved,1 or to a point of order. The precise relevance of an argument may not always be perceptible, but a Member who wanders from the subject will be reminded by the Speaker to speak to the question. On a motion for the establishment of a select committee2 or for determining the number of its members,3 the merits of the matter referred to the committee have not been allowed to be debated. Nor, on a motion prescribing procedure for concluding the consideration of stages or carry-over of a bill or other business, should the bill or the business itself be discussed;4 the same principle applies to debate on a dilatory motion affecting that business—debate should be limited to the reasons for not deciding the question proposed.5 In debating delegated legislation, a wide debate is not possible within the terms of a motion to approve or annul an instrument with a single narrow purpose. For example, on a motion to approve an order granting immunities and privileges for members of a Council of Europe committee set up to examine the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty, the occupant of the Chair ruled that the debate should be confined to the granting of the privileges and should not extend to the citing of examples in different countries of the kind of practices which the committee might wish to investigate; a similar ruling was made relating to approval of an order relating to a single local authority.6 A remark which has been ruled to be out of order cannot be the subject of a debate.7 Under Standing Order No 42, the Chair has power to deal both with irrelevance and the tedious repetition of a Member's own arguments or of those of other Members (see para 21.41 ). Members have on occasion been permitted to read out sometimes lengthy lists of names if relevant to a debate. The Speaker has indicated that such instances are to be addressed on a case-by-case basis and that Members seeking to read out such a list should discuss the matter with the Chair in advance.8

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1902) 112, c 404; ibid (1906) 167, c 839; HC Deb (1915) 75, c 720; ibid (1916) 85, c 1510; ibid (22 March 2011) 525, c 906; ibid (16 May 2011) 528, c 52. 2. HC Deb (1937–38) 337, c 2157; ibid (20 July 2009) 496, c 712. 3. HC Deb (1909) 3, c 997. 4. HC Deb (23 October 2007) 465, c 206; ibid (25 February 2009) 488, c 328; ibid (15 June 2010) 511, c 768. 5. SO No 34; see the Speaker's remarks, HC Deb (1935) 299, c 913; ibid (1938–39) 352, c 1127. 6. HC Deb (1987–88) 133, cc 567–71; HC Deb (9 July 2008) 478, c 1482. 7. Parl Deb (1886) 308, c 738. 8. HC Deb (15 March 2016) 607, c 807; see also ibid (17 September 2012) 550, c 675; ibid (8 March 2016) 607, cc 202–3; ibid (15 March 2016) 607, cc 923–25; ibid (14 May 2018) 641, cc 1WH–2WH.

Reference to proceedings in general and select committees 21.16No appeal can be made to the Speaker from the decisions of the Chair of a public bill or general committee (see para 39.12 ). References in the House to the proceedings on a bill in public bill committee, particularly if such references attempt to deal with the content of the debate in the committee, are out of order,1 although references to the progress of business in public bill committees have been permitted in certain circumstances.2 A report of a select committee may not be referred to in debate before it has been laid upon the Table;3 the same principle also applies to other proceedings in a select committee,4 though there is no such restriction on referring to evidence taken in public.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1976–77) 934, c 1424; ibid (1985–86) 93, c 941. 2. HC Deb (1974–75) 890, cc 442–45; ibid (1974–75) 891, c 1626; ibid (1979–80) 980, cc 660–61, 666–67; ibid (1997–98) 305, cc 1060–61. 3. HC Deb (1980–81) 995, cc 275–76. 4. HC Deb (12 October 2011) 533, c 351.

References to debates and proceedings in House of Lords 21.17Members are restrained by the Speaker from commenting upon the proceedings of the House of Lords.1 When a Member raised the question of the handling by the Government of a bill which had been sent to the Lords, he was advised that the business of the House of Lords was their concern and not a matter for the Speaker.2

Footnotes 1. A former rule against quoting non-ministerial speeches in the House of Lords was abolished in 1998: Modernisation of the House of Commons Committee, Fourth Report of Session 1997–98, Conduct in the Chamber, HC 600, para 33; CJ (1997–98) 596. 2. HC Deb (1976–77) 927, cc 923–25; ibid (24 January 2011) 522, c 33. The same rule has been applied to restrain the discussion of a bill which has been passed and sent to the Lords, upon a motion for an Address to the Crown, Parl Deb (1876) 228, c 1183.

Matters subject to restrictions within government during pre-election periods 21.18Although the Government of the day routinely places restrictions on what it will announce outside Parliament during an election and referendum period,1 including local elections and elections to the devolved assemblies, to prevent undue use of the machinery of government to support one party at the election, this does not prevent any matter being raised or debated within the House.2 In practice, since the House is dissolved for most of any such period during a General Election, this is primarily of significance during a national referendum campaign or local or devolved elections.

Footnotes 1. Sometimes referred to as the ‘purdah’ period. 2. HC Deb (9 September 2014) 585, c 790.

Matters awaiting judicial decision and matters under investigation 21.19Subject to the discretion of the Chair and to the right of the House to legislate on any matter1 or to discuss any matters of delegated legislation,2 matters awaiting the adjudication of a court of law should not be brought forward in debate.3 The House first came to a resolution formalising this rule in 1963. That resolution was revised in 1972 (and subsequently). The current resolution governing matters sub judice was passed on 15 November 2001,4 as follows: ‘That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, and to the right of the House to legislate on any matter or to discuss any delegated legislation, the House in all its proceedings (including proceedings of committees of the House) shall apply the following rules on matters sub judice: 1. Cases in which proceedings are active in United Kingdom courts shall not be referred to in any motion, debate or question. a.   i. Criminal proceedings are active when a charge has been made or a summons to appear has been issued, or, in Scotland, a warrant to cite has been granted. ii. Criminal proceedings cease to be active when they are concluded by verdict and sentence or discontinuance, or, in cases dealt with by courts martial, after the conclusion of the mandatory post-trial review. b.   i. Civil proceedings are active when arrangements for the hearing, such as setting down a case for trial, have been made, until the proceedings are ended by judgment or discontinuance. ii. Any application made in or for the purposes of any civil proceedings shall be treated as a distinct proceeding. c. Appellate proceedings, whether criminal or civil, are active from the time when they are commenced by application for leave to appeal or by notice of appeal until ended by judgment or discontinuance. But where a ministerial decision is in question, or in the opinion of the Chair a case concerns issues of national importance such as the economy, public order or the essential services, reference to the issues or the case may be made in motions, debates or questions. 2. Specific matters which the House has expressly referred to any judicial body for decision and report shall not be referred to in any motion, debate or question, from the time when the Resolution of the House is passed until the report is laid before the House. 3. For the purposes of this Resolution— a. matters before Coroners Courts or Fatal Accident Inquiries shall be treated as matters within paragraph (1)(a); b. “motionâ€​ includes a motion for leave to bring in a bill; and c. “questionâ€​ includes a supplementary question.’ The Resolution of 2001 is much more precise than its predecessors in making clear the point in any proceedings at which it becomes operative; in addition, it specifically exempts from its operation any application for judicial review of a ministerial decision. Where in a criminal case there is a delay between conviction and sentence, the restriction remains in force until the sentence has been passed.5 The restriction on reference in debate in the case of any judicial body to which the House has expressly referred a specific matter for decision and report does not apply to ad hoc inquiries established by Ministers even when presided over by a judge,6 nor does it apply to matters referred to a departmental inquiry.7 The Select Committee on Procedure has also considered whether a similar rule should be established prohibiting reference to matters subject to injunction or interdict by the courts,8 but no such rule has been established.9 Successive Speakers have exercised the discretion provided for them in the resolution to allow matters to be discussed on which (although they fall within the strict terms of the sub judice rule) they have considered that no substantial risk of prejudicing proceedings would arise,10 subject if necessary to certain constraints.11 Following the terms of the resolution of 15 November 2001, the Speaker routinely allows debate in relation to matters that are the subject of an application for judicial review. Prior to a debate in Westminster Hall the Speaker indicated that he would permit references to a current case to allow general principles to be discussed but not the detail of the matter before the court.12 Deliberations of nondomestic courts, including the courts of the European Union, are not subject to the sub judice rule.13 Standing Order No 42A was made on 1 November 2006 specifically to empower the Speaker or Chairman to direct any Member who breaches the sub judice resolution to resume their seat. In addition to the constraints on debate under the sub judice rule, the Chair has on occasion indicated more generally that where matters are not within the terms of the resolution, but discussion could prejudice ongoing police or other law enforcement investigations, Members should exercise caution in how they raise such matters.14

Footnotes 1. For example, see HC Deb (1984–85) 83, c 28. 2. For example, see HC Deb (1984–85) 74, cc 22–23. 3. For example, see HC Deb (1997–98) 318, cc 156–57, 356–57; ibid (2002–03) 410, c 196WH; ibid (18 December 2012) 555, cc 706–8; ibid (16 October 2013) 568, c 273WH. 4. CJ (2001–02) 194–95. 5. See, for example, HC Deb (12 January 2011) 521, c 289.

6. HC Deb (1992–93) 213, cc 755–56. Formerly the provision related to tribunals under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 which was repealed in 2005. 7. HC Deb (1983–84) 62, cc 807–9. 8. Procedure Committee, Second Report of Session 1995–96, HC 252. 9. See eg HC Deb (2001–02) 381, c 339, cc 521–22, although the Chair cautioned Members to be mindful of the consequences of their remarks. 10. HC Deb (1971–72) 836, c 1705; ibid (1978–79) 975, cc 1085–86; ibid (1985–86) 102, cc 1314–15; ibid (1988–89) 152, c 861; ibid (15 July 2009) 496, c 317; ibid (27 January 2015) 591, c 729. For a case in which the Speaker indicated that he would not exercise his discretion in a criminal case referred to the Court of Appeal, see ibid (1989–90) 176, cc 436–38. 11. HC Deb (12 December 2013) 572, c 419. 12. HC Deb (11 November 2008) 482, c 221WH. See also ibid (10 December 2009) 502, cc 613, 616. 13. HC Deb (1976–77) 932, cc 1194–95; ibid (1985–86) 91, c 41. The rule does, however, apply in the case of a court of the United Kingdom sitting overseas, Speaker's private ruling, 21 April 1999 in relation to HM Advocate v Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah (the Lockerbie case, reported as HM Advocate v Megrahi (No 4) 2001 Green's Weekly Digest 5–177). 14. HC Deb (6 September 2018) 646, c 400.

Commons 6.51In the Commons no place is allotted to any Member, but by custom the front bench on the right hand of the Chair (called the Treasury bench or government front bench) is appropriated for the members of the administration.1 The front bench on the opposite side, though other Members occasionally sit there,2 is reserved by convention for the leading members of the Opposition.3 It is not uncommon for senior Members who are in the habit of attending in one place to be allowed to occupy it as a matter of courtesy. Members who have no such claim to a seat must be present at prayers if they wish to secure the right to a particular seat until the rising of the House (Standing Order Nos 7 and 8). Members may leave cards upon seats to indicate that they intend to attend prayers (and so secure seats for the remainder of the sitting).4 These ‘prayer cards’ are dated and must be obtained personally by the Member who wishes to use them from an attendant who is on duty in the House for that purpose from 8 am until the House meets.

Footnotes 1. On certain formal occasions the Members for the City of London have claimed the privilege of sitting on this bench. The separate constituency of the City of London was abolished by the Representation of the People Act 1948, and the right was exercised in subsequent Parliaments by the Members for the Cities of London and Westminster. 2. HC Deb (1984–85) 77, cc 755–56. 3. For the allocation of seats to a party by arrangement, see Mr Speaker's remarks HC Deb (1912–13) 44, cc 2267, 2507; ibid (1914) 58, cc 49, 1092; ibid (1919) 112, c 755; ibid (1939–40) 361, cc 27–28; ibid (1997–98) 297, cc 215–18; ibid (2001–02) 378, c 402. 4. HC Deb (1983–84) 55, c 21. In addition, by Resolution of the House, Members serving on departmental or select committees may secure seats by fixing pink cards thereto (obtained from the attendants) (CJ (1888) 121; ibid (1927) 242). (The significance of the term ‘departmental committee’ in the resolution is not that given to certain select committees by SO No 152 (select committees related to government departments) but refers to certain committees established by government departments on which some Members served.) In 2015, this provision was extended to Westminster Hall Chairs on the authority of the Speaker.

General requirement for moderate language 21.21Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language. Parliamentary language is never more desirable than when a Member is canvassing the opinions and conduct of their opponents in debate.1 The Speaker will accordingly intervene in such cases and will also intervene in respect of other abusive and insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder. The Speaker has said in this connection that whether a word should be regarded as unparliamentary depends on the context in which it is used.2 Expressions will equally draw an intervention from the Chair when based on a quotation from elsewhere.3

Footnotes 1. The Speaker has indicated that the requirement for good temper and moderation includes ‘good taste’, HC Deb (19 January 2012) 538, c 907; see also ibid (11 December 2018) 651, c 225. For earlier practices with regard to words of heat and challenges, see Erskine May (19th edn, 1976), pp 430–31. 2. 2 HC Deb (1983–84) 61, cc 307–9; ibid (24 November 2015) 602, c 1224. 3. HC Deb (1948–49) 469, c 72; ibid (1975–76) 902, c 345; ibid (1986–87) 113, c 895; ibid (2002–03) 406, cc 131–32; ibid (12 July 2007) 462, c 1715.

Disloyal or disrespectful reference to Queen 21.22Treasonable or seditious language or a disrespectful use of Her Majesty's name are not permitted. Members have not only been called to order for such offences, but have been reprimanded, committed to the custody of the Serjeant or, in the distant past, even sent to the Tower.1

Footnotes 1. CJ (1547–1628) 50, 51, 104, 333, 335, 866; ibid (1667–87) 760; ibid (1693–97) 581; ibid (1705–08) 70; ibid (1714–18) 49, 54, 653; Parl Hist (1660–88) 4, c 1385; ibid (1714–22) 7, cc 51, 511; D'Ewes, 241–44.

Incidental criticism of conduct of certain persons not permitted 21.23As indicated at para 20.10, unless the discussion is based upon a substantive motion, drawn in proper terms, reflections must not be cast in debate upon the conduct of the Sovereign, the heir to the throne, or other members of the royal family.1 The same principle applies to the Lord Chancellor,2 the Governor-General of an independent territory,3 and judges of the superior courts of the United Kingdom4 (including persons holding the position of a judge, such as circuit judges and their deputies, as well as recorders).5 The principle applies equally to Members of either House of Parliament,6 and particularly to Members in their capacity as office holders in the House of Commons including the Speaker,7 the Chairman of Ways and Means,8 and other members of the Panel of Chairs.9 Conduct in the case of a Member includes conduct outside the Chamber.10 The following paragraphs discuss the kind of language used in respect of other Members that may engage the principle.

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1887) 312, c 1061; HC Deb (1969–70) 791, c 195; ibid (1971–72) 831, c 436; ibid (1977–78) 946, c 1728; ibid (17 March 2011) 525, cc 155–57WH (where it was out of order for a Member to raise the conduct of a member of the royal family on a motion to adjourn the sitting). 2. Parl Deb (1898) 56, c 859; ibid (1899) 75, c 890; ex-Lord Chancellor, ibid (1906) 167, c 1367. 3. HC Deb (1910) 15, c 894. 4. Parl Deb (1901) 96, c 306; HC Deb (1911) 30, c 1170; ibid (1912) 41, c 2779. Reflections against judges generally are equally out of order, ibid (1911) 26, c 1082; ibid (1917) 91, cc 664, 667. The Speaker has also intimated that the same rule should be applied to the case of judges in dependent territories, ibid (1912) 40, c 622; ibid (1955–56) 557, cc 921–29. The rule also applied to Tribunals of Inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 now repealed, ibid (1971–72) 833, cc 1239–66. On 4 December 1973, the Speaker ruled that it can be argued that a judge has made a mistake, that he was wrong, and the reasons for those contentions can be given, within certain limits; but reflections on a judge's character or motives cannot be made except on a motion, nor can any charge of a personal nature be made except on a motion (see also ibid (1987–88) 118, c 641). Any suggestion that a judge should be dismissed can be made only on a motion, ibid (1973–74) 865, cc 1092, 1144, 1199. See also ibid (1982–83) 34, cc 285–86. 5. Parl Deb (1887) 312, c 1110; ibid (1887) 320, cc 1024, 1031; ibid (1906) 164, c 1572; HC Deb (1951–52) 493, cc 591–93. The Speaker has also ruled out of order language disrespectful to persons administering justice, such as resident magistrates in Ireland, ibid (1902) 103, c 462; and criticism of sentences imposed by magistrates, ibid (1926) 196, c 2498, including justices of the peace, ibid (1926) 200, c 855. The Speaker has held that Masters of the Supreme Court do not fall within this category, ibid (1985–86) 103, c 1103. 6. A peer, HC Deb (1914) 60, c 279; ibid (1977–78) 941, cc 511–12; ibid (1977–78) 952, cc 29–30; ibid (1985–86) 98, c 797; ibid (1991–92) 200, cc 995, 1071; ibid (31 March 2009) 490, c 797; ibid (4 March 2010) 506, c 1023; ibid (13 April 2016) 608, c 396; a Member, ibid (1964–65) 714, cc 241–46; ibid (1986–87) 114, cc 164–72; ibid (2002–03) 412, cc 808–9; ibid (20 March 2017) 623, c 640; a Minister, ibid (1920) 131, c 1205; ibid (13 June 2012) 546, cc 345–46; ibid (28 October 2014) 587, c 179. See Speaker's ruling, that the explicit statement of the Prime Minister must be accepted, Parl Deb (1883) 280, c 116. Personal criticism of a Minister amounting to a concerted implication of no confidence should not be made except on a substantive motion, HC Deb (2002–03) 408, c 542; ibid (2002–03) 412, cc 808–9. Privy Counsellors are not protected by this rule, ibid (1933) 277, cc 1222–26. 7. CJ (1884–85) 78; Parl Deb (1887) 311, c 954; ibid (1887) 313, cc 371, 472; ibid (1902) 107, c 1020; ibid (1905) 142, c 1507; HC Deb (1924–25) 184, cc 1390, 1591; ibid (1951–52) 500, c 397; ibid (1976–77) 922, cc 225–26; ibid (1981–82) 16, c 751. 8. Parl Deb (1886) 302, c 1710; ibid (1901) 95, cols 234–35; HC Deb (1917) 100, c 1892; ibid (1966–67) 731, c 441; ibid (1976–77) 926, cc 655–60; ibid (1992–93) 223, cc 325–79. 9. HC Deb (1924) 170, c 2769; ibid (1924) 173, cc 1348–50. Discussion of the conduct of the chairman of a joint committee on a bill has been ruled out of order in committee on the re-committed bill, ibid (1902) 111, cc 19, 27, 707; ibid (1908) 196, cc 363, 568. 10. HC Deb (24 March 2017) 525, c 1131.

Language and allegations in relation to other Members and Members of the House of Lords 21.24The general requirements of moderation in parliamentary language, reflected above, are viewed as particularly important when Members are speaking of other Members, not because other Members require specific protection, but in order to preserve the character of parliamentary debate.1 Words which may be tolerated by the Chair in other circumstances may therefore be discouraged or required to be withdrawn as unparliamentary when used in connection with other Members;2 though, as already indicated, what is unparliamentary is subject to the context in which a word or phrase is used.3 Expressions that are unparliamentary when applied to individuals are not always so considered when applied to a whole party.4 Expressions when used in respect of other Members which are regarded with particular seriousness, generally leading to prompt intervention from the Chair and often a requirement on the Member to withdraw the words, include the imputation of false or unavowed motives;5 the misrepresentation of the language of another and the accusation of misrepresentation;6 and charges of uttering a deliberate falsehood.7 If a Member wishes to pursue accusations of a kind not permitted because of these principles, the proper course is to table a distinct motion about the conduct of the other Member as indicated at paras 20.10 and 21.23 above. The Speaker has ruled that a Member who intends to mention another Member's name in the Chamber in a form which amounts to a personal reflection – but which is short of the kind which anyway would require a substantive motion – should (unless the other Member is present) inform the other Member in advance, in a timely and reasonable manner.8 Although it is perfectly in order to criticise the role and functions of the House of Lords,9 abusive language and imputations of falsehood uttered by Members of the House of Commons against Members of the House of Lords have usually been met by the immediate intervention of the Chair to compel the withdrawal of the offensive words,10 or, in default, by the punishment of suspension.11

Footnotes 1. It is not out of order, however, to cast aspersions on former Members of the House, even if they are Privy Counsellors, HC Deb (1933) 277, cc 1222–26; ibid (1983–84) 53, c 75. 2. Recent illustrations of expressions which, in context, have drawn rebuke from the Chair include calling another Member a ‘preposterous buffoon’, HC Deb (31 January 2013) 557, c 1048; an ‘idiot’, ibid (7 January 2015) 590, c 292; ibid (12 June 2014) 582, cc 730–31. Charges of hypocrisy, particularly to the extent there is a personal imputation, have routinely drawn an intervention, for example ibid (1 February 2012) 539, c 814; ibid (14 May 2012) 545, c 383; ibid (13 September 2012) 550, c 410; ibid (17 October 2012) 551, c 340. A charge that a Member has obstructed the business of the House or that a speech is an abuse of the rules of the House is not out of order, Parl Deb (1886) 308, c 1170; ibid (1903) 125, c 945; HC Deb (1909) 6, c 2046 3. See para 21.21, fn 2 above and HC Deb (17 December 2013) 572, c 641. See ibid (1989–90) 177, c 1477 and ibid (16 April 2013) 561, c 310 for cases in which the reaction of a Member who had been criticised was relevant to the Speaker's judgment. 4. HC Deb (1945–46) 414, c 794; ibid (1978–79) 965, cc 56–57, 68; ibid (2003–04) 419, c 894; though accusing a group of Ministers of deliberate deception was not acceptable, ibid (9 July 2014) 584, c 295. 5. See HC Deb (1961–62) 663, c 1485, ibid (1967–68) 757, cc 1740–42; ibid (1975–76) 916, cc 2293–94 (6 August 1976); ibid (1983–84) 58, c 213; ibid (1985–86) 101, c 290; ibid (8 December 2010) 520, c 438; ibid (7 November 2012) 552, cc 884–85; ibid (23 January 2013) 557, c 361. 6. See 2 Cav Deb 118, 120; HC Deb (1930–31) 256, c 1596; ibid (1962–63) 681, c 190; it has been held that the accusation must be of deliberate misrepresentation (Stg Co Deb (1959–60) Stg Co C Public Bodies (Admission of the Press) Bill, cc 92, 113); HC Deb (26 February 2013) 559, cc 154–55; cf ibid (1959–60) 620, cc 893–94. See also ibid (11 December 2008) 485, cc 703–4. 7. See HC Deb (1948–49) 467, cc 439–40; ibid (16 April 1973) 855, cc 28–30; ibid (1979–80) 984, cc 1788–92; ibid (1983–84) 61, cc 473, 523; ibid (1992–93) 233, cc 789–90; ibid (2002–03) 404, c 549; ibid (20 October 2003) 411, c 388; ibid (26 November 2014) 588, c 997. In recent times, accusations of disingenuousness or being misleading, and similar phrases, save where qualified by context or by inadvertency, have regularly incurred interventions from the Chair, for example, ibid (22 June 2011) 530, c 425; ibid (25 June 2012) 547, c 69; ibid (10 July 2012) 548, c 173; ibid (6 November 2012) 552, c 716; ibid (15 January 2013) 556, cc 721, 777; ibid (19 March 2013) 560, c 852; ibid (26 February 2014) 576, c 347. A Member was asked to rephrase an allegation of regular misuse of statistics at the dispatch box, ibid (15 October 2014) 586, c 363. An allegation of ‘spectacular insincerity’ was tolerated, ibid (3 September 2012) 549, c 37. 8. See eg HC Deb (1993–94) 246, cc 1124–29; ibid (8 December 2008) 485, c 267; ibid (16 December 2013) 572, c 587; ibid (7 March 2013) 559, c 1158; ibid (27 February 2017) 622, c 40. 9. Parl Deb (1893) 8, c 1780; ibid (1906) 167, c 1771; language has been permitted to describe Members of the House of Lords collectively which would not be permitted to describe individual Members of the House of Lords. 10. HC Deb (1960–61) 629, c 358; ibid (1977–78) 944, c 1313; ibid (1977–78) 954, c 797. A Member of the other House may be mentioned in debate in relation to their activities in another capacity, eg as a newspaper proprietor, ibid (1948–49) 467, c 2668. 11. CJ (1890) 72; Parl Deb (1890) 341, c 1570.

Modes of address to other Members 21.25In order to guard against all appearance of personality in debate, no Member other than the occupant of the Chair should refer to another by name. Each Member must be distinguished by the office they hold, by the place they represent or by other designations, as ‘the Leader of the Opposition’, ‘the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs’, ‘the (right) honourable gentleman the Member for York’, or ‘the honourable and learned Member who has just sat down’ or, when speaking of a member of the same party, ‘my (right) honourable friend the Member for …’.1 Former practices of referring to QCs as ‘learned’ and to Members who have served in the armed forces as ‘gallant’ are no longer widely used.2

Footnotes 1. Ed J T Rutt Diary of Thomas Burton, Member in the Parliaments of Oliver and Richard Cromwell (1828) iii, p 141. Mr Berkeley was called to order, 20 March 1860, for referring to Members by name, as having spoken, in former sessions, against the ballot, Parl Deb (1860) 157, c 939. The same rule applies to public bill and other general committees, HC Deb (1919) 118, cc 1823–24. The practice was strongly endorsed by the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, Fourth Report, HC 600 (1997–98) para 37. However, the former convention that a Member who has not taken their seat should not be referred to by name has now been superseded, eg HC Deb (1997–98) 305, cc 1100, 1156; ibid (1999–2000) 340, c 258. 2. HC Deb (24 November 2014) 588, cc 645–48. See Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, Fourth Report of Session 1997–98, Conduct in the Chamber, HC 600, para 40.

Citing documents not before House Contents Law officers' opinions Responsibility for the making available of documents 21.26It is a general principle that the House should have before it the information, including documents, necessary to enable it to fulfil its responsibility to scrutinise and hold to account the conduct and administration of government. One manifestation of this principle is the longstanding rule that a Minister of the Crown may not read or quote from a despatch or other State paper not before the House, unless they are prepared to lay it upon the Table. Similarly, it has been accepted that a document which has been cited by a Minister ought to be laid upon the Table of the House, if it can be done without injury to the public interest.1 A Minister who summarises a correspondence, but does not actually quote from it, is not bound to lay it upon the Table.2 The rule for the laying of cited documents does not apply to private letters, memoranda or blogs.3 On 10 August 1893, the Speaker ruled that confidential documents or documents of a private nature passing between officers of a department, cited in debate, are not necessarily laid on the Table of the House, especially if the Minister declares that they are of a confidential nature.4 On 16 February 2006, the Speaker ruled that, although a document was highly commercially confidential, a copy of the document should be placed in the Library with any sensitive material removed. This practice has been followed on subsequent occasions.5 On 20 June 1974, the Deputy Speaker ruled that a letter from a department to a private individual did not come within the category of having to be laid.6 However, in exceptional circumstances and because they had become matters of acute political controversy, the Secretary of State for Defence on 18 February 1985 laid on the Table documents on the advice given to Ministers by an individual civil servant.7 Nothing stops a Minister presenting a paper to the House, notwithstanding it may have been ruled in the past to be of a kind that was not required to be presented. As the House deals with public documents in its proceedings, it could not incidentally require the production of papers which, if moved for separately, would be refused as beyond its jurisdiction. On 26 January 1993, the Speaker ruled that summarising or confirming the accuracy of other people's summaries did not bring the rule into operation.8 In relation to the rule requiring papers being cited to be laid on the Table of the House, special conditions attach to European Union documents. These documents, though clearly of a public nature and regularly debated and cited in the House, are never formally laid upon the Table. They are, however, made available to Members by being supplied to the Vote Office, and no question has been raised about the propriety of this procedure.9 Accordingly, in spite of their general availability, no record of their presentation appears in the Journal. There is no rule to prevent Members not connected with the Government from citing documents in their possession, both public and private,10 which are not before the House, even though the House will not be able to form a correct judgement from partial extracts.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1992–93) 214, cc 753–54 and see motion of Mr Adam, 4 March 1808, to censure Mr Canning for having read to the House despatches and parts of despatches, none of which had then been communicated to the House, and some of which the House had determined should not be produced, Parl Deb (1808) 10, c 898, Colchester ii, 141. Mr Canning and Mr Tierney, Parl Deb (1818) 37, c 393. Debate in committee of supply, ibid (1857) 146, c 1759. See debate, 23 May 1862, on the Longford Election, in which Sir Robert Peel referred to information received by the government without citing documents; and comments made upon this course, and precedents cited, ibid (1862) 166, cc 2128–31. Also statement of rule by Viscount Palmerston, ibid (1863) 170, c 1585, and ibid (1864) 176, c 962; ibid (1865) 179, c 489; ibid (1877) 235, c 935; ibid (1887) 319, cc 1859, 1869; ibid (1889) 336, c 651; HC Deb (1913) 54, c 2345; ibid (1944–45) 407, c 409; ibid (1962–63) 668, cc 31–42. See also debate when a Minister quoted the evidence given before a military court of inquiry, and the Speaker's statement that the rule of debate had been complied with by laying upon the Table the evidence of the witness quoted, Parl Deb (1903) 119, cc 501, 570, 858. A Minister quoting a document in Committee of the whole House ought to lay that document on the Table, HC Deb (1947–48) 449, cc 1635–37. Lapse of time removes the necessity to lay a document, ibid (1982–83) 34, c 967. 2. Parl Deb (1905) 151, c 814; HC Deb (1982–83) 36, cc 32, 34; ibid (1984–85) 89, c 1212. 3. The Attorney General, on being asked if he would lay upon the Table a written statement and a letter to which he had referred on a previous day, in answering a question relative to the Leeds Bankruptcy Court, replied that he had made a statement to the House upon his own responsibility, and that the documents he had referred to being private, he could not lay them upon the Table. It was contended that the papers, having been cited, should be produced, but the Speaker declared that this rule applied to public documents only, Parl Deb (1865) 179, c 489; see also ibid (1883) 282, c 2108; HC Deb (1941–42) 376, c 2194; ibid (15 September 2010) 515, c 918. 4. Parl Deb (1893) 15, c 1778; HC Deb (1957–58) 579, cc 1266–67. 5. HC Deb (16 February 2006) 442, cc 1576–77. 6. HC Deb (1974) 875, cc 712–15 and 720–21. 7. CJ (1984–85) 246. 8. HC Deb (1992–93) 217, cc 881–82. 9. For the Speaker's ruling, see HC Deb (1979–80) 986, c 301. 10. Parl Deb (1855) 137, c 261; ibid (1883) 280, c 250; HC Deb (13 March 2014) 577, c 458. A private Member's action in handing a document to a Minister in support of arguments was ruled to be ‘very irregular’, HC Deb (1946–47) 433, c 1566; ibid (17

January 2006) 441, cc 706–7.

Law officers' opinions 21.27By long-standing convention, observed by successive Governments, the fact of, and substance of advice from, the law officers of the Crown is not disclosed outside government. This convention is referred to in paragraph 2.13 of the Ministerial Code. The purpose of this convention is to enable the Government to obtain frank and full legal advice in confidence.1 Therefore, the opinions of the law officers of the Crown, being confidential, are not usually laid before Parliament, cited in debate or provided in evidence before a select committee,2 and their production has frequently been refused; but if a Minister deems it expedient that such opinions should be made known for the information of the House, the Speaker has ruled that the rules of the House are in no way involved.3

Footnotes 1. HL Deb (2002–03) 654, c WA279. 2. HC Deb (1985–86) 92, c 279W. The Attorney General's advice has been placed in the Library when it had been requested by a select committee, ibid (2 April 2009) 490, c 1063. 3. Parl Deb (1865) 177, cc 354, 355. See eg HC Deb (1981–82) 16, c 433. For an example of a law officer's opinion cited by way of a written answer, see HC Deb (2002–03) 401, cc 515–16W. See para 7.31 for a case (Votes and Proceedings, 13 November 2018) where the House ordered that law officers' advice be provided.

Responsibility for the making available of documents 21.28It is the responsibility of the Government and not of the Chair to see that documents which may be relevant to debates are laid before the House or otherwise available to Members and that this is done in a timely manner.1 It is not for the Chair to decide what documents are relevant.2 Only when the Speaker personally has control of a document can they be involved in making it available to the House or a committee.3 Departments are required to specify the documents that may be relevant to a forthcoming debate and enable these to be available;4 motions have in the past not been moved or been the subject of a dilatory motion where this obligation may not have been met.5 The Speaker has said that it is a discourtesy for Ministers to lay or publish documents only a very short time before a debate to which they are relevant.6 In a case where relevant documents were not provided in time, the Speaker suspended the House to allow time for Members to obtain them.7 In view of the exceptional degree of interest in the report of the inquiry into the export of defence equipment and dual-use goods in Iraq and related prosecutions, special arrangements, including a ten-minute suspension of the sitting, were made to enable Members to obtain copies before a ministerial statement to coincide with its publication.8 The Speaker has indicated that where Ministers acting in that capacity make information available to Members of the House, they should do so to all Members equally.9

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1964–65) 718, cc 407–8, 963; ibid (1971–72) 832, cc 571, 575; ibid (14 December 2004) 428, c 1582; ibid (17 January 2005) 441, cc 706–7; ibid (21 January 2008) 470, c 1238. 2. HC Deb (1965–66) 720, c 321. 3. HC Deb (1968–69) 780, cc 491–93. 4. HC Deb (1965–66), 725, c 34; ibid (1979–80) 972, cc 1581–86. 5. HC Deb (1977–78) 950, cc 1458–64; HC Deb (1989–90) 175, c 962–63. 6. HC Deb (15 October 2009) 497, c 456; ibid (5 July 2010) 513, cc 74–75. 7. HC Deb (12 July 2018) 644, cc 1155–56. 8. HC 115 (1995–96) (the ‘Scott Report’); see HC Deb (1995–96) 271, c 636W. 9. HC Deb (6 November 2012) 552, c 750.

Display of articles to illustrate speeches 21.29The rules of the House of Commons forbid bringing certain articles, notably weapons, into the Chamber.1 Members have been permitted to display articles (but not weapons)2 to illustrate an argument in a speech,3 but the Speaker has said that all Members should be sufficiently articulate to express what they want to say without diagrams4 and the same principle applies to articles. It is relevant that an article or diagram cannot be effectively recorded in the Official Report.

Footnotes 1. See HC Deb (1951–52) 498, cc 2749–52; ibid (1981–82) 15, c 170; ibid (1991–92) 199, cc 23–24; ibid (1992–93) 220, cc 295–96. 2. HC Deb (1995–96) 270, c 592. A Member has displayed a firearm to illustrate a question to witnesses during a public meeting of a select committee, see Home Affairs Committee, Second Report of Session 1999–2000, Controls over Firearms, HC 95, Ev Q 313. 3. See HC Deb (1951–52) 517, c 1963; ibid (1969–70) 792, c 1193; ibid (1971–72) 842, cc 563–64; ibid (1983–84) 54, c 1020; ibid (26 January 2009) 487, cc 18–19. 4. HC Deb (1994–95) 251, c 22; ibid (11 January 2007) 455, c 485; ibid (8 December 2011) 537, c 389; Public Bill Committee, Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill, 13 December 2012, c 93.

Reference to the public 21.30Until recent times it was not in order to refer to persons in the galleries (except generally for the purpose of an order for their withdrawal),1 though it was a matter of judgement for the Chair as to whether to intervene. In 2017, the former strict rule was abrogated, the Speaker stating that such references could be permitted, but that references by Members in debate should be brief and directly related to proceedings, and should not be phrased so as to be in any way intimidating or to seek to influence debate.2

Footnotes 1. See HC Deb (1972–73) 847, c 454; ibid (1989–90) 167, c 627; ibid (13 February 2013) 558, c 308WH. 2. HC Deb (19 July 2017) 627, c 864. It remains not in order to refer to those sitting in the official box, see eg ibid (18 June 2009) 494, c 372.

Members to sit when the Speaker rises 21.31The Speaker, when rising to intervene, should be heard in silence,1 and any Member who is speaking or offering to speak should immediately sit down.2 Members should not leave their seats while the Speaker is addressing the House. Members who do not maintain silence, or who attempt to address the Speaker, may find themselves called to order by the majority of the House with loud cries of ‘order’. A Member who persists in standing after the Speaker has risen and refuses to resume their seat when directed by the Chair to do so may be either directed to withdraw from the House for the remainder of the sitting or named for disregarding the authority of the Chair.3

Footnotes 1. CJ (1604) 244. 2. Parl Deb (1897) 49, c 122; HC Deb (1976–77) 931, c 213; ibid (17 April 2018) 639, c 194. 3. HC Deb (1923) 165, c 2395; ibid (1981–82) 13, cc 999–1000.

Members to keep their places Contents Crossing before Members speaking Access to the officials' box 21.32By the resolutions of 10 February 1698 and 16 February 1720, Members are required to keep their places.1 If, after a call to order, Members who are standing at the Bar or elsewhere do not disperse, the Speaker will order them to take their places.2 It is the duty of the Serjeant at Arms to clear the gangway and to enforce the order of the Speaker, by desiring those Members who still obstruct the passage immediately to take their places. If they refuse or neglect to comply, or oppose the Serjeant in the execution of this duty, the Serjeant may report their names to the Speaker. Members who enter or leave the House during a debate must be uncovered and should bow to the Chair while passing to or from their places.3 (In Committee of the whole House, the bow is to the Speaker's Chair.)

Footnotes 1. CJ (1697–99) 496; ibid (1718–21) 425. 2. HC Deb (1976–77) 929, c 1041. Before the declaration of the result of divisions, the Speaker has often called on those Members standing between the Bar and the Table to go behind the Bar or take their seats, eg HC Deb (1994–95) 251, c 243. 3. D'Ewes 282; 2 Hatsell 232 n. Unless asked to do so by a Minister, private Members should not seek information from officials in the official box, see eg HC Deb (1995–96) 270, c 267; and see also ibid (1996–97) 285, c 1116.

Crossing before Members speaking 21.33Members must not cross between the Chair and a Member who is speaking from either of the two lower benches, or between the Chair and the Table, or between the Chair and the Mace, when the Mace is taken off the Table by the Serjeant.1

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1977–78) 944, c 1212; noted in Fourth Report from Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, HC 600 (1997–98) para 45; HC Deb (7 July 2004) 423, c 828.

Access to the officials' box 21.34Members (other than Ministers and their Parliamentary Private Secretaries) should not approach the Box reserved for Ministers' officials.1

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (8 November 2013) 570, cc 550–51.

Reading of books, etc 21.35Members must not read any book, newspaper or letter in their places except in connection with the business of the debate,1 nor should they conduct their correspondence in the Chamber.2

Footnotes 1. CJ (1644–46) 51; HC Deb (1984–85) 73, c 959; Stg Co Deb (1953–54) Co A (Cotton Bill), c 398; ibid (1955–56) Co E (Pensions (Increase) Bill), c 99; HC Deb (2003–04) 416, c 525; ibid (2009–10) 502, c 710; ibid (8 June 2015) 596, c 903. See Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons, November 2018, para 22. 2. HC Deb (1992–93) 216, cc 75–76.

Electronic devices, phones and cameras 21.36In October 2011, the House agreed to allow the use of hand-held electronic devices (but not laptops) in the Chamber, provided that they are silent and used in a way which does not impair decorum. Members may refer to such devices in making speeches, in place of written notes (though they should not be making their speech by continuously reading from them).1 The Speaker has regularly deprecated the failure of Members to turn off mobile phones or other devices which may give rise to disturbance, and listening to a message is unacceptable;2 the bar on use of mobile phones in the Chamber extends to divisions. Mobile phones (or cameras) must also not be used for audio recordings or photography, which is forbidden in the Chamber.3

Footnotes 1. CJ (2011–12) 905. See HC Deb (17 October 2011) 533, c 626; ibid (18 October 2011) 533, c 862; ibid (21 October 2011) 533, c 1194. This followed earlier rulings by the Speaker and resolutions by the House in February 2005, CJ (2006–07) 609. See also Procedure Committee, Third Report of Session 2010–11, Use of hand-held electronic devices in the Chamber and committees, HC 889. See Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons, November 2018, para 23. 2. See HC Deb (12 January 2006) 441, c 418; ibid (26 February 2013) 559, c 206. 3. HC Deb (6 November 2013) 570, c 106WH; ibid (8 November 2013) 570, c 577. See Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons, November 2018, para 24.

Silence, clapping, cries of ‘hear, hear’, etc 21.37All Members should maintain silence or should converse only in undertones. Whenever the conversation is so loud as to make it difficult to hear the debate, the occupant of the Chair calls the House to order.1 On 5 May 1641, it was resolved: ‘That if any man shall whisper or stir out of his place to the disturbance of the House at any message or business of importance, Mr Speaker is ordered to present his name to the House, for the House to proceed against him as they shall think fit’.2 While the strict terms of the 1641 injunction may not have been enforced for some time, it remains the case that Members must not disturb a Member who is speaking, by hissing,3 chanting, booing,4 exclamations or other interruption. A considerable volume of noise frequently arises from the fullness of the House, when five or six hundred Members are impatiently waiting for a division or for Prime Minister's questions to begin, which it is scarcely possible to repress. The Speaker has explicitly deprecated comments or noises designed to influence the conduct of the Chair.5 The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons noted in 1998 that, while spontaneous clapping at the end of a speech could not be interpreted as disturbance of the Member speaking, if the practice became established it could lead to a situation where the success or failure of a speech was judged not by its content but by the length of the applause. Both applause and slow handclapping would ‘disrupt the tenor of the debate’.6 The Speaker has indicated that the rule against clapping did not preclude spontaneous reactions of a non-partisan character; and that in practice it is a matter of judgement for the Chair as to whether to intervene where applause has broken out spontaneously.7 There are words of interruption which, if used in moderation, are not unparliamentary, but when frequent and loud, cause serious disorder. These include the cries of ‘question’, ‘order, order’, or ‘hear, hear’, which have been sanctioned by long parliamentary usage. When intended to denote approbation of the sentiments expressed, and not uttered till the end of a sentence, the cry of ‘hear, hear’ offers no interruption of the speech. The same words may be used for very different purposes, and instead of implying approbation, they may express dissent, derision or contempt.8 The Speaker has frequently reminded the House that shouting and similar behaviours are out of order or discourteous.9 Whenever exclamations of this kind are obviously intended to interrupt a speech, the Speaker calls the House to order, and, if the cries are persisted in, may direct the disorderly Members to withdraw from the House or name them (see para 21.45 ). If the interruption should be so continuous and prolonged as to constitute a state of grave disorder,10 the Speaker may use the powers under Standing Order No 46 (see para 21.46 ).

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

HC Deb (1988–89) 143, cc 1008, 1025, 1034. CJ (1640–42) 135; see also ibid (1693–97) 66. CJ (1547–1628) 152, 243, 473. HC Deb (1952–53) 508, cc 1565–66. HC Deb (2000–01) 363, c 315. On 19 March 1872, while strangers were excluded, notice was taken of the crowing of cocks, and other disorderly noises, proceeding from Members, principally behind the Chair; and the Speaker condemned them as gross violations of the orders of the House and expressed the pain with which he had heard them, Parl Deb (1872) 210, c 307. Fourth Report, HC 600 (1997–98) para 43. See HC Deb (1990–91) 188, c 1048; ibid (1991–92) 201, c 297; ibid (21 March 2012) 542, c 811; ibid (14 July 2015) 598, c 777; ibid (3 May 2016) 609, c 49; ibid (7 February 2017) 621, cc 229, 254–55; ibid (19 April 2018) 639, c 572. HC Deb (3 May 2016) 609, c 49; ibid (7 February 2017) 621, c 254; ibid (5 December 2018) 650, c 895. The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons noted in its Fourth Report, HC 600 (1997–98) para 43, that the growing misuse of the traditional cry of ‘hear, hear’ could be disruptive. Similarly, loud cries of ‘shame’ have been strongly condemned by the Speaker, Parl Deb (1887) 310, c 166; ibid (1893) 12, cc 731, 790; ibid (1893) 14, c 469. HC Deb (18 March 2009) 489, c 901; ibid (23 February 2012) 540, c 1006. HC Deb (1912) 43, c 2054; ibid 44, c 33; ibid (1923) 162, c 1265.

Members' dress 21.38Members should dress in business-like attire; this need not include a tie.1 A Member has been allowed to continue speaking on condition that clothing with inappropriate visual content is covered.2 Members are not permitted to wear decorations in the House.3 The wearing of military insignia or uniform inside the Chamber is not in accordance with the long-established custom of the House. More relaxed standards of dress are accepted for Members simply going through the division lobbies in order to vote. The Speaker has indicated4 that Members must not in principle have their face covered while voting in a division since they must identify themselves to the tellers.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (29 June 2017) 626, c 774. Formerly it was the custom for gentlemen Members to wear jackets and ties, but this was not enforced in all circumstances, HC Deb (1981–82) 27, c 468; ibid (1987–88) 119, c 194; but see ibid (1988–89) 159, c 1283. 2. HC Deb (12 June 2013) 564, c 94WH. 3. HC Deb (1951–52) 498, c 2750; ibid (1979–80) 984, c 986. The Speaker has also indicated that Members should not wear arm bands to publicise a cause, ibid (9 March 2005) 431, c 1519. 4. HC Deb (12 September 2013) 567, c 1170.

Smoking and refreshment 21.39The practice of smoking during any of the proceedings of the House is forbidden.1 Nor may refreshment be brought into, or consumed in, the Chamber, though water is permitted.2

Footnotes 1. For the orders ‘That no Member do presume to take tobacco in the gallery of the House’ and ‘That no Member do presume to take tobacco at the Table, sitting at Committees', see CJ (1693–97) 137; HC Deb (1919) 117, cc 846–47; in the lobbies and corridors, ibid (1928) 215, cc 348–49; in the division lobbies, ibid (1927) 209, c 1469; ibid (1979–80) 978, c 1882; ibid (1987–88) 140, c 568; in standing committees, see Stg Co Deb (1955–56) Co A (Agriculture (Safety) Bill) c 3. 2. HC Deb (1970–71) 803, c 1006; ibid (1978–79) 960, c 690; in standing committee, see Stg Co Deb (1955–56), Scottish Co (Food and Drugs (Scotland) Bill) c 578; Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons, November 2018, para 41.

Powers of the Chair to enforce order Contents Disciplinary powers under standing order Right of Members to direct the attention of the Chair to supposed breaches of order (Points of Order) Proceedings on the naming of a Member 21.40In so large and active an assembly as the House of Commons, it is absolutely necessary that the Speaker should be invested with authority to repress disorder and to give effect promptly and decisively to the rules and orders of the House. The ultimate authority on all these matters is the House itself; but the Speaker is the executive officer by whom its rules are enforced. In most cases, the breach of order is obvious and is immediately checked by the Speaker. In other cases, if attention is directed to a breach of order at the proper time, namely, the moment when it occurs,1 a decision is given at once and, in the event of failure to secure the compliance of the Member at fault, the Speaker directs the Member to withdraw or names them. Under Standing Order No 45A, passed on 4 June 1998, the salary of a Member suspended from the service of the House is withheld for the period of any suspension.2 The power to punish disorder derives from the ancient usages of the House in proceeding against a Member; but since the latter part of the nineteenth century the Speaker has been armed by standing orders, with precisely defined summary powers, which largely supersede those exercised under ancient usage. Nevertheless, one of these orders (Standing Order No 44(5)) expressly saves the power of the House to proceed against a Member under ancient usage.3

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1872) 210, c 534; ibid (1878–79) 247, c 325; HC Deb (1972–73) 854, c 1525; ibid (1972–73) 855, cc 28–30. See also Denison 42. 2. As recommended by the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons in its Fourth Report of Session 1997–98, HC 600. This period may extend over an adjournment, only sitting days counting. 3. For a full description of the disciplinary powers of the Speaker under ancient usage, including the procedure for words taken down, see Erskine May (20th edn, 1983), pp 442–44.

Disciplinary powers under standing order Contents Irrelevance or tedious repetition; or breach of the terms of the sub judice resolution Minor breaches of order The use of disorderly or unparliamentary expressions Grossly disorderly conduct Grave disorder Obstruction of the business of the House otherwise than by disorderly conduct or persistence in irrelevance or tedious repetition Members suspended other than by standing order procedure 21.41Under Standing Orders Nos 42–46, the Chair is entrusted with summary and expeditious powers of dealing with disorder.1 With subsequent amendments, and as interpreted in practice, they provide a graduated code of punishments for infringements of the rules for the conduct of debate and for breaches of order and decorum, which has been found adequate to deal with all the cases which ordinarily arise. Offences may be classified as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

irrelevance or tedious repetition, or breach of the terms of the sub judice resolution; minor breaches of order; the use of disorderly or unparliamentary expressions; grossly disorderly conduct; grave disorder; and obstruction of the business of the House otherwise than by disorderly conduct or persistence in irrelevance or tedious repetition.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1975–76) 919, cc 1565–66.

Irrelevance or tedious repetition; or breach of the terms of the sub judice resolution 21.42If any Member strays from the question under discussion, the Speaker will intervene to remind that Member to speak to the question. If a Member persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition either of their own arguments, or of the arguments used by other Members in debate, Standing Order No 42 empowers the Speaker, after calling the attention of the House to the Member's conduct, to direct them to discontinue their speech.1 Similarly, Standing Order No 42A allows the occupant of the Chair to direct a Member who breaches the terms of the sub judice resolution to resume their seat. If the Member refuses to obey the direction of the Chair, the Speaker, acting under Standing Order No 43, may either direct them to withdraw from the House for the remainder of the sitting,2 or name them for disregarding the authority of the Chair.3

Footnotes 1. For example, CJ (1933–34) 334; ibid (1985–86) 94, c 885; ibid (1989–90) 176, c 726; ibid (1993–94) 238, cc 518–19; HC Deb (28 November 2014) 588, cc 1253–54. 2. CJ (1897) 265; ibid (1898) 96; ibid (1975–76) 279. 3. CJ (1897) 264.

Minor breaches of order 21.43The House has agreed that ‘the Speaker should inform a Member who has failed to observe the courtesies of debate that he or she need not expect to get priority in being called to speak’.1 When any Member transgresses the rules of debate, otherwise than by using disorderly or unparliamentary expressions, or makes any noise or disturbance while another Member is speaking, or commits any other breach of order or decorum not amounting to grossly disorderly conduct, it is the duty of the Speaker, if judging the occasion to demand it, to intervene and call the Member to order, or direct them to resume their seat.2 If the Member persists in the disorderly conduct it becomes the duty of the Speaker to take the action set forth in Standing Order No 43 in respect of grossly disorderly conduct. The Speaker has also on occasion directed Members to withdraw from the Chamber without invoking the powers of Standing Order No 43; this informal power allows an appropriately serious response without – if the Member concerned complies – involving any of the further sanctions that might follow from the use of the formal power.3

Footnotes 1. On the recommendation of the former Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Fourth Report of Session 1997–98, HC 600, para 49; CJ (1997–98) 596. 2. HC Deb (1975–76) 918, c 1409. 3. HC Deb (1981–82) 18, c 251; ibid (1981–82) 19, cc 295–96, 367; ibid (1984–85) 73, c 1217; ibid (1999–2000) 356, c 150.

The use of disorderly or unparliamentary expressions 21.44Where any disorderly or unparliamentary words are used, whether by a Member who is addressing the House or by a Member who is present during a debate, the Speaker will intervene and call upon the offending Member to withdraw the words. If the Member does not explain the sense in which the words were used so as to remove the objection of their being disorderly, or retract the offensive expressions, or make a sufficient apology for using them, the Speaker will repeat the call for the words to be withdrawn, and inform the Member that if there is no immediate response, it will be the duty of the Chair to take action in pursuance of Standing Order No 43.1

Footnotes 1. CJ (1950–51) 224; HC Deb (1977–78) 954, cc 417–19; ibid (17 March 2005) 432, c 411; ibid (11 April 2016) 608, c 35.

Grossly disorderly conduct 21.45To prevent any Member being taken unawares, it is usual for the Speaker or the Chairman repeatedly to warn any Member who may be transgressing the rules of debate or otherwise behaving in a disorderly manner, before ordering them to withdraw from the House or naming them. When, however, a Member persists in disorderly conduct or behaves in a grossly disorderly manner, the Speaker is enjoined by Standing Order No 43 either: (i) forthwith to order them to withdraw from the House for the remainder of the sitting,1 or (ii) if the authority and dignity of the House would not be sufficiently vindicated by excluding the offender from the House for the remainder of the sitting, to name them.2 If a Member who has been ordered to withdraw from the House does not immediately obey, the Speaker or Chairman may either direct the Serjeant at Arms to remove them,3 or name the Member to the House.4 A Member who behaved in a grossly disorderly fashion by attempting to make a speech during prayers was directed by the Speaker to withdraw. When the Member declined to comply with the Speaker's direction, he was named for disregarding the authority of the Chair.5 When attention was drawn to the fact that a Member who had been directed to withdraw from the House had not withdrawn, the Chair reminded the Member of the direction that had been given to him, and on the Member's refusing to withdraw, named him for disregarding the authority of the Chair.6 After the Prime Minister had replied to a question, a Member left his seat below the gangway, and, walking to the end of the ministerial bench above the gangway, addressed the Prime Minister in grossly discourteous terms; whereupon the Speaker at once ordered him to withdraw from the House.7 A Member who used insulting language to the Chairman during the progress of a division was ordered to withdraw.8 Again, a Member who used insulting language to the Speaker from beyond the Bar, and a Member who seized the Mace and carried it away from the Table, have been named for grossly disorderly conduct.9

Footnotes 1. CJ (1932–33) 68; HC Deb (1989–90) 175, c 992; ibid (1994–95) 259, c 575; ibid (26 February 2008) 472, cc 922–25; ibid (10 July 2013) 566, cc 392–93; Votes and Proceedings, 10 December 2018 (a Member who carried the Mace away from the Table in protest against the Government's decision to defer an order of the day). 2. CJ (1935–36) 341, 342; HC Deb (1980–81) 2, c 950. For a warning before a Member was named, ibid (23 July 2007) 463, cc 623, 626–27. 3. CJ (1896) 242; ibid (1897) 265; ibid (1900) 380; Parl Deb (1900) 87, cc 523–26; HC Deb (1979–80) 987, cc 216–18. 4. CJ (1923) 156, 237; ibid (1927) 218, 340–41; ibid (1993–94) 25. 5. CJ (1987–88) 235. It was necessary for the Speaker to take the Chair for this proceeding, and a division took place. The Speaker then left the Chair and Prayers were said. 6. CJ (1913) 37; HC Deb (1913) 50, c 1695. 7. HC Deb (1912–13) 40, cc 217–19. 8. CJ (1900) 380. 9. HC Deb (1937–38) 328, c 1773; ibid (1929–30) 241, c 1465. See also ibid (1975–76) 912, cc 767–69.

Grave disorder 21.46In the event of grave disorder arising in the House, the Speaker is empowered by Standing Order No 46, if thought necessary, to adjourn the House without question put, or to suspend the sitting for a time to be named by the Speaker. (For examples, see para 17.18.)

Obstruction of the business of the House otherwise than by disorderly conduct or persistence in irrelevance or tedious repetition 21.47A Member who ‘abuses the rules of the House by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of the House’, that is to say, who, without actually transgressing any of the rules of debate, uses the right of speech for the purpose of obstructing the business of the House, or obstructs the business of the House by misusing the forms of the House, is technically not guilty of disorderly conduct.1 It would seem, therefore, that a Member so obstructing the business of the House cannot be required under Standing Order No 43 to withdraw from the House for the remainder of the sitting. They may be, however, guilty of a contempt of the House,2 and may be named. Comparatively little use has been made of this power by the Chair.3

Footnotes 1. Mr Speaker Brand's evidence, Select Committee on Public Business, HC 268, p 142, Q 1381 (1878); Parl Deb (1881) 257, c 1944. 2. CJ (1877) 375–76. 3. For instances of the exercise of the power, see CJ (1882) 322, 324; ibid (1901) 62; ibid (1926) 117.

Members suspended other than by standing order procedure 21.48A Member, who damaged the Mace immediately after the House had adjourned and who on the next day declined to make a personal statement in the form previously agreed with the Speaker, was on the following day suspended from the service of the House for 20 days and held responsible for the damage he had caused, following the House's agreement to a motion to that effect moved by the Leader of the House.1

Footnotes 1. CJ (1987–88) 463. For other cases of suspension not under standing order, see ibid (1888) 385; ibid (1911) 37; and cf ibid (1893–94) 417. For cases in which, following reports by committees, Members were suspended, see ibid (1989–90) 226–27; ibid (1994–95) 286. See also ibid (1890–91) 481 for an order suspending from the service of the House and excluding from the precincts a Member accused of charging the Speaker with discourtesy on a previous day. See also para 5.26.

Right of Members to direct the attention of the Chair to supposed breaches of order (Points of Order) 21.49The Speaker is under a duty to intervene to preserve order but may refrain from intervening if considering it unnecessary to do so. If the Speaker does not intervene, however, whether for the above reason or because it is not perceived that a breach of order has been committed, it is the right of any Member who thinks that such a breach has been committed to rise in their place, interrupting any Member who may be speaking, and direct the attention of the Chair to the matter.1 A Member speaking to order must simply direct attention to the point complained of, and submit it to the decision of the Speaker. If the Speaker is of the opinion that the words or conduct complained of are disorderly, the Member will be called upon to conform to the rules of the House. Speakers have exercised discretion over the taking of points of order,2 for example refusing to hear a point of order where the raising of it would itself breach the rules of order.3 Speakers have also indicated at what point in the proceedings they are prepared to hear them.4 It is usual for the Speaker to deal with points of order after questions, urgent questions, statements and Standing Order No 24 applications have been disposed of, unless the point of order requires the Chair's immediate intervention. Doubtful cases may arise upon which the rules of the House are indistinct or obsolete or do not apply directly to the point at issue. The Speaker will then usually give a ruling to cover the new circumstances, on occasion referring the matter to the judgement of the House.5 The Speaker has deprecated the practice of Members raising points of order on political issues which have nothing to do with the Chair,6 and has expressed the hope that points of order will not be used as an extension of Question Time.7 Points of order have however been used for such purposes as enabling questioning on a Speaker's statement8 or for a personal apology,9 or to effect a factual correction of a Member's statement or the statement of another Member.10 The Deputy Speaker has deprecated a growing practice of interruptions of debate by Members who, ‘when the Hon Member who is speaking refuses to give way, think that the only way that they can get their word in is by raising a point of order’. He stated that in his opinion such interruptions constituted fraudulent points of order, and should be stopped.11

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Parl Deb (1872) 210, c 534; ibid (1878–79) 247, c 325. See also Denison 42. HC Deb (1979–80) 971, cc 103–4 etc. HC Deb (11 February 2015) 592, c 800. HC Deb (1986–87) 110, cc 459–60; ibid (1992–93) 219, c 491; ibid (25 April 2012) 543, c 953. Parl Deb (1806) 6, c 847; ibid (1807) 7, c 208. HC Deb (1986–87) 106, cc 271–72. HC Deb (1983–84) 57, cc 1109–10; ibid (2 July 2014) 583, cc 893–94. HC Deb (1 September 2014) 585, cc 62–66. HC Deb (6 December 2018) 650, c 1080. HC Deb (25 January 17) 620, c 300. HC Deb (1951–52) 503, cc 273–77.

Proceedings on the naming of a Member Contents Suspension, withdrawal and exclusion from precincts Misbehaviour in the lobbies 21.50When a Member is named by the Speaker for grossly disorderly conduct (Standing Order No 43) or for disregarding the authority of the Chair or for persistently or wilfully obstructing the business of the House by abusing the rules of the House, or otherwise (Standing Order No 44), a motion may be made ‘That Mr/Ms… [the offending Member] be suspended from the service of the House’; and the question on that motion must be put forthwith (Standing Order No 44).1 Such a motion is expected to be moved by the Leader of the House (if present) or by another Minister. When a Member is named by the Chairman to a Committee of the whole House, the Chairman forthwith suspends the proceedings of the Committee and reports the circumstances to the House; and the Speaker or Deputy Speaker, on a motion being made for the suspension of the offending Member from the service of the House, forthwith puts the question, as if the offence had been committed in the House itself. Proceedings on a motion for the suspension of a Member under Standing Order No 44 are exempt from interruption under Standing Order No 9. They may be taken after the moment of interruption.2 Not more than one Member may be named at a time unless several Members present together have jointly disregarded the authority of the Chair.3 Suspension continues on the first occasion for five sitting days,4 and on the second occasion for 20 sitting days,5 including in either case the day on which the Member was suspended, and on any subsequent occasion until the House orders that the Member's suspension shall terminate or, in default of such order, for the remainder of the session. The first (or subsequent) occasion has been interpreted to mean the first (or subsequent) occasion in the same session. A suspension for wilful disregard of the authority of the Chair has been combined with a suspension proposed by the Committee on Standards and Privileges.6 A Member who is suspended from the service of the House under this order is required by Standing Order No 45 to withdraw from the House forthwith. If a Member does not withdraw, they will be directed to do so by the Speaker. If the Member does not comply with the direction, the Speaker will order the Serjeant at Arms to summon them to obey the Speaker's direction.7 If there is still a refusal to obey, the Speaker will call the attention of the House to the fact that recourse to force is necessary in order to compel obedience to their direction, and will direct the Serjeant to remove the non-compliant Member. The Standing Order provides that in such a case the Member shall thereupon, without any further question being put, be suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of the session.8 Where the Speaker has directed the Serjeant to cause a Member who had been suspended but refused to leave to be removed from the House, the sitting has been suspended until the Member had been removed.9

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

HC Deb (15 January 2009) 486, c 367; ibid (18 September 2012) 550, c 792. HC Deb (1987–88) 123, c 232. For instances of several Members being named at the same time, see CJ (1926) 117; HC Deb (1981–82) 13, cc 24–25. SO No 44(2). Between 1902 and 1926 no period was assigned by the Standing Order, and suspension therefore continued until the end of the session unless sooner terminated by the House, CJ (1902) 130; ibid (1912–13) 349; ibid (1913) 75; ibid (1916) 211; ibid (1920) 395; ibid (1923) 176, 321. Although a motion to rescind or terminate the suspension of a Member is not entitled to priority as a question of privilege, the Speaker has accorded priority to such a motion when it appeared that the Member had been named in error for disregarding the authority of the Chair, Parl Deb (1901) 90, cc 699, 831. HC Deb (1980–81) 8, c 1159. HC Deb (23 July 2007) 463, cc 610–38. HC Deb (1967–68) 765, c 895; ibid (1981–82) 13, c 25; ibid (1987–88) 123, cc 232–33. SO No 44(4), introduced as para (4) of then SO No 21 in 1901: see CJ (1901) 62, 65–67, and HC Deb (1901) 90, c 845 ff. CJ (1916) 155; HC Deb (1916) 84, cc 1860–2; CJ (1917–18) 171; ibid (1918) 141; HC Deb (1918) 107, c 1410; CJ (1930–31) 333; for details of a case requiring the involvement of the Serjeant at Arms' officers and their obstruction by both the named Member and other Members, see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 457 and CJ (1930–31) 333, 335, 338.

Suspension, withdrawal and exclusion from precincts 21.51Members ordered to withdraw from the House under Standing Order No 43 or suspended from the service of the House under Standing Order No 44 or otherwise must withdraw forthwith from the precincts of the House.1 Suspension from the service of the House does not, however, exempt a Member from serving on any committee for the consideration of a private bill to which they have been appointed before suspension. Notices standing in the name of a suspended Member are removed from the Notice Paper for as long as the suspension lasts.2 No motion can be made that a suspended Member be heard at the Bar.3

Footnotes 1. ‘Precincts' in this context is taken to mean the parliamentary estate – for more detailed history, see Select Committee on Privilege (Service of a Summons on a Member in the Outer Lobby), HC 411, p 64, Q 1164 (1888); HC Deb (1916) 85, c 1426. Until 1998 (CJ (1997–98) 597), Members suspended other than under SO No 44 were not excluded from the precincts unless the order for suspension expressly provided for such exclusion, eg CJ (1890–91) 481; ibid (1997–98) 191. For rulings and reports leading up to the change in procedure, see HC Deb (1989–90) 168, c 898; ibid (1994–95) 258, c 350; Procedure Committee, Sixth Report of Session 1994–95, Suspension of Members, HC 554, appendix 1. 2. Parl Deb (1901) 90, c 1048. 3. Parl Deb (1887) 313, cc 1126–28.

Misbehaviour in the lobbies 21.52A Member cannot be named unless the offence is committed in the House, or a Committee of the whole House, in the actual view of the Chair and is dealt with at once. Misbehaviour in the lobbies, such as the use of offensive expressions1 or insulting words2 or threats,3 is accordingly left to the House to be dealt with under the ancient practice as a contempt. But action in a division lobby which obstructs the proceedings of the House, such as the indefinite prolongation of a division by the refusal of certain Members to pass the tellers, has been punished under Standing Order No 44 by naming, after the Chairman had directed the Serjeant to ascertain the names of the Members concerned.4

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

CJ (1877) 144; Parl Deb (1877) 233, c 951. CJ (1887) 377, 389; Parl Deb (1887) 317, c 1167. Parl Deb (1881) 263, c 50. CJ (1926) 117. See also HC Deb (1979–80) 969, cc 765, 779–81, 915–16.

Introduction to questions to Ministers 22.1Chapter 19, in which the different items of business are described in the order in which they arise and how they are taken, has described how oral questions to Ministers are arranged and handled in the Chamber, at the beginning of business on Mondays to Thursdays, together with urgent questions and the weekly business question to the Leader of the House (see paras 19.13–19.17 ). However, making Ministers accountable by the process of taking oral questions in the Chamber has long outgrown the available time for them, leading to the development of a parallel process of written questions, which uses the same terminology but is in practice largely independent of the Chamber. This Chapter covers: the rules governing the content of both oral and written questions;1 the practices and rules governing the handling of questions for oral answer, other than practices in the Chamber during Question Time (for which see paras 19.13 –19.16 ), and of questions for written answer.

Footnotes 1. Although the fundamental rules cover both oral and written questions, the principal rules in practice bite more on the content of written questions than oral questions (and the number of written questions greatly exceeds the number of oral questions).

Notice of questions Contents Questions for oral answer Questions for written answer Withdrawal of questions Deferral of questions, etc 22.2Notice of all questions is given by delivering, either in hard copy or via the secure digital tabling facility, its terms to the Table Office (notices of questions may not be given by telephone or email). It must be authorised either by being submitted from a recognised online/digital account, or by an original signature, or, if handed in in person, by the presence of the Member. The notice must indicate the name of the Member and whether it is for written or oral answer. Declaration of any relevant interests is required when giving notice of a question (for oral or written answer): whenever such an interest is declared against a question for oral or written answer, the symbol [R] appears after the Member's name on the Notice Paper or Order Paper.1 A Member may table a question on behalf of another Member but must have the latter's specific authority.2 Notices may be received only on sitting days save that (a) they may be accepted on ‘printing days' during a recess,3 and (b) under Standing Order No 12(3), notice of questions may be given by Members to the Table Office between 11 am and 3 pm on non-sitting Fridays. There is a deadline set each day for written questions submitted through the electronic tabling system; and written questions received later than half an hour after the moment of interruption while the House (whether the Chamber or in Westminster Hall) is still sitting are deemed to have been submitted the following day.4

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

The Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members, HC 1882 (2017–19), Chapter 2, para 7(d). HC Deb (1975–76) 901, cc 179–80. There is usually one printing day in each recess; it falls on the last recess weekday which is not a Bank Holiday before the House returns. Questions submitted via the digital tabling facility after 6.30 pm on a sitting Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, 5.30 pm on a sitting Thursday or 2.30 pm on a sitting Friday are deemed to have been tabled the following day; likewise questions submitted by other means after 10.30 pm on a Monday, 7.30 pm on a Tuesday or Wednesday, 5.30 pm on a Thursday or 3 pm on a Friday, yet while the House is still sitting, are deemed to have been tabled the following day.

Questions for oral answer 22.3Each Member may table, to each Minister answering on any one day, notice of one substantive question for oral answer from themselves and one (if it is not signed by the Member asking the question) from another Member.1 In order to be admissible, an oral question should be so worded as to indicate, within broad terms, a particular subject matter.2 In addition, a Member may table a topical question to each Minister answering for a period of 30 minutes or more, other than those for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.3 Topical questions take a standard form, asking the Minister to make a statement on their departmental responsibilities.4 The time allotted to topical questions is 15 minutes for Ministers answering for a full hour in total, and less for Ministers answering for shorter periods. The schedule under which Ministers and other Members answer oral questions is decided by the Government.5 A published list or questions rota, which sets out the days on which each department is answering on future dates up to the approximate time of the next periodic adjournment, is prepared by the Table Office on the instructions of the Secretary to the Government Chief Whip. The list also records the deadlines for tabling oral questions to particular departments. Under Standing Order No 22, notice of a question for oral answer may be given at any time between the moment when the previous question session for that department has ended, but before the minimum notice period, which is at 12.30 pm three sitting days (excluding sitting Fridays) before the day for answer for all Ministers other than the Secretaries of State for Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland and the Advocate General for Scotland, who receive five sitting days' notice (excluding sitting Fridays). From the moment when the Leader of the House announces to the House the intention of the Government to adjourn the House for a specific period, the Table Office accepts notices of oral questions on the assumption that the House will stand adjourned for that period.6 Once the notice period has ended, at 12.30 pm on the last tabling day, a randomised digital ‘shuffle’ determines the order in which Members are called to ask their question. For those Ministers who answer topical questions, a separate shuffle is carried out to determine the order of Members' names for such questions. A quota for the numbers of questions to be printed in the Notice Paper is determined, under the authority of the Speaker, by the length of the period allocated to the question session, and, where applicable, the length of time allotted to substantive and topical orals in each session. Following the shuffles, notices in the names of the Members sufficiently highly placed to be in the quota are printed on the Notice Paper.7 Other notices which are insufficiently highly placed to be in the quota cease to be treated as valid notices after the shuffles are done.8

Footnotes 1. Select Committee on Procedure, First Report of Session 1989–90, HC 379, p vii, para 12. Any questions beyond these limits are ‘unstarred’, that is to say made into questions for written answer, if the Member requests it, or otherwise discarded. In the event of more than one substantive question for oral answer being tabled by a Member to the same Minister for the same day, the question which is tabled later is taken to replace the earlier instruction. 2. HC 687 (1992–93) paras 16–18; CJ (1992–93) 853. 3. This procedure came into effect in November 2007, HC Deb (12 November 2007) 467, cc 391–96. 4. CJ (2006–07) 608–09; Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, First Report of Session 2006–07, Revitalising the Chamber: the role of the back bench Member, HC 337. 5. HC Deb (1975–76) 898, c 1592; ibid (1997–98) 294, c 39; ibid (10 May 2006) 446, c 245W. 6. Select Committee on Procedure, Second Report of Session 1969–70, HC 198, p ix, para 13; the Report was approved by the House (CJ (1970–71) 380). The Speaker has ruled that if the intended dates of adjournment were not announced in the House, the day upon which the motion relating to the adjournment appeared on the Order Paper was the first day on which oral questions, anticipating the period of adjournment, could be accepted (HC Deb (1980–81) 9, c 510). Under SO No 22(6), when notice shall have been given of a motion for the adjournment of the House for more than three days, the Speaker may cause to have printed and circulated with the Vote a memorandum superseding the provisions of SO No 22(4) and (5) and specifying the arrangements for tabling questions during the adjournment. 7. The list of each of these notices as drawn in the shuffle, with the Members' names, is available in the Table Office and online a few hours after the shuffle. 8. Unless the Member gives a specific instruction to revive the notice for written answer.

Questions for written answer 22.4Members may table questions either for ordinary written answer or for written answer on a named day.1 A Member who wishes to receive a written answer on a named day may indicate this when tabling the notice of question provided that they do so at least three days (excluding Saturdays and Sundays) before an answer is required, and that the day named for answer is a sitting day. A Member may table up to five such questions on any one day.2 Under Standing Order No 22(4), the Minister shall cause an answer to be given to the Member on the date for which notice has been given.3 There is no limit to the number of questions for ordinary written answer which a Member may ask on the same day,4 although only 20 questions for written answer of any sort may be tabled by each Member via the digital tabling facility each day. In the absence of an indication to the contrary, written questions are put down for answer on the second sitting day after the day on which they are tabled. The answer will not necessarily be given on that date; the House has, however, endorsed the view that Ministers should endeavour to answer such ordinary written questions within a working week of their being tabled.5 The Speaker has repeatedly stressed that responses to questions for written answer should be timely.6 Tabling a question for answer on the next day was used in the past as a mechanism for allowing the Government to make a short written statement. This practice has now been almost entirely superseded by written statements (see para 19.26 ). Questions for answer the following sitting day are now rare and only accepted if the relevant answering body acknowledges it is aware of the question and plans to respond the following day.

Footnotes 1. Arrangements for tabling questions digitally were set out in the Procedure Committee's Third Report of Session 2012–13, E-tabling of Written Questions, HC 775, and approved by the House in March 2013, HC Deb (26 March 2013) 560, c 1604. 2. This restriction may be set aside when the House adjourns for more than three days. See SO No 22(4). 3. SO No 22B provides for Members to table up to five such questions on each of three days in September, during the summer adjournment, for answer on one of three other specified days in September, but the provision has not been used since the revival of September sittings in 2010. 4. SO No 22(4)(b). 5. HC 393 (1971–72) p xiii; CJ (1972–73) 84. 6. HC Deb (29 June 2009) 495, cc 42 and 839; ibid (5 November 2009) 498, c 1005.

Withdrawal of questions 22.5The notice of a question for written answer on a named day may be withdrawn at any point up to and including the day before the answer is due. Notices of questions for oral or for ordinary written answer may be withdrawn at any time before they are answered.

Deferral of questions, etc 22.6Questions for written answer may also be deferred for answer on a later day, or brought forward to an earlier day, subject to the general rules on notice. Under Standing Order No 21(3), questions tabled for written answer on a day on which the House does not sit as a result of the continuance of a previous sitting are deemed to be questions for written answer on the next sitting day.

Speaker's control of questions 22.7The Speaker is the final authority as to the admissibility of questions. Irregularities in a notice of a question are corrected in the Table Office or reserved for consideration. On attention being drawn to an irregularity, the Speaker has refused to permit a question to be asked although it stood upon the paper.1 The Speaker's responsibility for questions is limited to their compliance with the rules of the House. Responsibility in other respects rests with the Member who proposes to ask the question,2 and responsibility for answers rests with Ministers.3 When a question has been refused and the Member concerned wishes to make representations to the Speaker on the matter, the practice is for these to be made privately to the Speaker and not raised by way of a point of order in the House.4 On numerous occasions the Speaker has prevented a Member using the urgent question procedure to ask a question that had been refused by the Table Office, or to ask those parts of a question struck out by the Table Office.5 The Speaker has also prevented a Member from taking the opportunity when raising a point of order to read out a question which has been refused by the Table Office6 or refused as an urgent question by the Speaker.7 The refusal of a question should not be raised incidentally in the course of a debate.8 The Clerks in the Table Office have full power to sub-edit questions.9 The Speaker has called the attention of the House to an alteration made by his direction in a question.10 The Speaker is empowered to authorise changes of Table Office practice where they are consistent with the main rules for questions.11 In particular, the Speaker has the power to modify or halt the system of electronic tabling of questions, if it appears that it is being abused.12

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1956–57) 569, cc 340–41. 2. Parl Deb (1880) 252, cc 1903–4; HC Deb (1961–62) 660, c 413. 3. HC Deb (10 June 2008) 477, c 161; ibid (30 October 2008) 481, c 1049; ibid (18 November 2008) 483, c 118; ibid (23 February 2009) 488, c 21; ibid (11 March 2009) 489, c 297. 4. HC Deb (1970–71) 803, cc 1365–66; ibid (1971–72) 827, c 1298; ibid (1986–87) 112, c 935. 5. Parl Deb (1881) 265, cc 879–80; ibid (1900) 82, c 432; HC Deb (1940–41) 368, cc 1227–28. 6. HC Deb (1928) 225, c 785; ibid (1984–85) 73, c 733. 7. HC Deb (1959–60) 617, cc 676–77; ibid (2002–03) 409, c 37. 8. Parl Deb (1903) 127, c 711. 9. Parl Deb (1906) 158, cc 1123–24; HC Deb (1920) 128, cc 408–9; ibid (1970–71) 819, cc 1771–72. 10. Parl Deb (1861) 161, c 342. 11. HC 687 (1992–93) paras 59–61. 12. CJ (2001–02) 778.

Questions to the Speaker 22.8It is not in order to address a question to the Speaker by written or public notice.1 Matters of order must be raised as points of order and matters of privilege under the procedure laid down for raising matters of privilege.2

Footnotes 1. If, in extremis, it proved necessary to address a question to the Speaker, on a matter which urgently concerned the proceedings of the House for which he was responsible, an application for an urgent question would be required. 2. Parl Deb (1901) 91, c 103, and see para 15.32.

Questions to Ministers 22.9Questions addressed to Ministers should relate to the public affairs with which they are officially connected, to proceedings pending in Parliament, or to matters of administration for which they are responsible. The central importance of ministerial responsibility to the procedure has been strongly emphasised by the Speaker.1 A question should be addressed to the Minister who is primarily responsible.2 It is for the Government to decide which Minister will answer; questions are transferred between Ministers by the Table Office on behalf of the House following notification from the government department in question.3 Responsibility for answering a questions remains with the Minister to whom it was originally tabled until another agrees to reply. It is a long-established principle that decisions on the transfer of questions rest with Ministers and are not a matter on which the Chair seeks to intervene.4 The Speaker has ruled that it is out of order to ask a Minister for their reasons for transferring a question. However, the Speaker expects departments to act promptly in transferring questions; in practice, this means within two sitting days.5 Decisions on transfer should be consistent,6 and Members should receive notification of transfers.7 Where there is a genuine element of doubt about which Minister is responsible and an oral question is involved, the Member should have the benefit of that doubt.8 The Speaker has deprecated transfer of a question for oral answer which has had the effect of depriving a Member of an opportunity to be called to put a supplementary question, where the line of ministerial responsibility is not clear cut.9

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1958–59) 599, cc 1181–82; ibid (1995–96) 278, c 609; ibid (2000–01) 363, c 315; ibid (31 October 2011) 534, c 618; ibid (1 March 2016) 606, c 835. 2. Other than those of a cross-cutting nature under an experiment taken in Westminster Hall, see for example, see HC Deb (23 January 2003) 398, c 143WH; notices of questions were addressed to the Government rather than to individual departments. See also Chapter 23. 3. HC Deb (1929) 231, c 613; ibid (1941–42) 382, c 859. 4. For example, HC Deb (29 April 2009) 491, cc 885–86; ibid (27 October 2009) 498, cc 161–62. The Speaker has expressed sympathy with Members whose questions have been transferred but the principle is clear (ibid (1995–96) 264, cc 829–30; ibid 268, cc 19–21; ibid (9 June 2008) 477, c 36). 5. HC Deb (1963–64) 698, c 1032; ibid (1963–64) 699, cc 49–53; ibid (1999–2000) 354, c 245; ibid (29 November 2010) 519, cc 552–53. The Select Committee on Procedure of Session 1966–67 recommended that Ministers should, as a general rule, not later than two sitting days after the appearance of a question on the Notice Paper inform the Member of a proposed transfer (HC 410 (1966–67), para 13), and the 1969–70 Select Committee on Procedure requested the Leader of the House to acquaint departments of the importance which they attached to notice of transfers being given within two sitting days (HC 198 (1969–70)). The Speaker has said that he regarded it as a discourtesy and unfair when Ministers did not, within two days, notify the Member concerned that they intended to transfer a question (HC Deb (1979–80) 986, c 566). 6. HC Deb (1999–2000) 354, c 245. 7. HC Deb (20 October 2005) 437, c 1001; ibid (1 July 2008) 478, c 733. 8. HC Deb (20 July 2004) 424, c 191; ibid (27 March 2006) 444, c 579. 9. HC Deb (2001–02) 374, cc 379–80.

Questions to non-ministerial Members 22.10Questions may be addressed to the following private Members (ie Members who do not hold ministerial posts): the Member answering on behalf of the Church Commissioners, the Chair of the Public Accounts Commission, a Member answering on behalf of the House of Commons Commission and the Members answering on behalf of the Speaker's Committees on the Electoral Commission and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. It has become the practice for the Member answering on behalf of the House of Commons Commission to answer questions which might formerly have been tabled to the Chairs of the House's domestic committees.1 It is currently the practice of the Government to provide a place on the rota for oral questions to Members answering on behalf of the Church Commissioners, the House of Commons Commission, the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission and the Public Accounts Commission. Written questions may be tabled to the Member answering on behalf of the Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1991–92) 203, cc 454–55W; ibid (1992–93) 218, c 183W. Occasionally, questions have been addressed to other select committee Chairs, ibid (1983–84) 53, c 298W. For further details, see Erskine May (23rd edn, 2004), p 345.

Rules of order regarding form and contents of questions Contents Argument and disorderly expressions Factual basis Personal reflections Royal family Royal prerogative Ministerial responsibility Parliamentary business Questions already answered, or to which an answer has been refused Decisions of either House Matters sub judice and relating to courts Miscellaneous 22.11The purpose of a question is to obtain information1 or press for action; it should not be framed primarily so as to convey information, or so as to suggest its own answer or convey a particular point of view, and it should not be in effect a short speech. Questions of excessive length have not been permitted.2 Rules regarding the form and content of questions are set by the House from time to time. The cardinal rules governing the admissibility of parliamentary questions were examined by the Select Committee on Procedure in 1990–91; that Committee concluded: ‘We have not received any evidence critical of them (the basic rules) and we do not therefore recommend any modifications’.3 The Table Office assists Members in ensuring that their proposed questions conform with these rules. The current rules are set out in more detail below. The Select Committee on Parliamentary Questions of Session 1971–72 expressed its concern that the cumulative effect of previous decisions relating to the orderliness of questions should not be allowed to become unduly restrictive. It therefore recommended that, while the Speaker should continue to have regard to the basic rules concerning the form and content of questions which are set forth in the pages which follow, a Speaker should not consider it necessary, when interpreting these rules, to disallow a question solely on the ground that it conflicted with any previous individual ruling. This recommendation was endorsed by the Select Committee on Procedure in Session 1990–91 and was subsequently approved by the House in 1993.4

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

Parl Deb (1893–94) 9, c 1620, etc; HC Deb (1995–96) 278, c 609. Parl Deb (1887) 318, c 42; HC Deb (1967–68) 757, cc 1344–45. HC 178 (1990–91) para 84; and see also Procedure Committee, Third Report of Session 2001–02, HC 622 para 5. HC 393 (1971–72) p vii; CJ (1972–73) 84; HC 178 (1990–91) para 120; HC 687 (1992–93) para 59; CJ (1992–93) 853.

Argument and disorderly expressions 22.12Questions which seek an expression of an opinion,1 or which contain arguments, expressions of opinion, inferences or imputations,2 unnecessary epithets,3 or rhetorical, controversial, ironical4 or offensive expressions, are not in order.

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1870) 203, c 242; ibid (1871) 204, c 1764; HC Deb (1961–62) 651, c 424. Questions are also disorderly which ask a Minister to convey an opinion, ibid (1958–59) 599, cc 1182–84. 2. Parl Deb (1864) 175, cc 100–01. 3. HC Deb (1920) 130, c 1255; ibid (1920) 132, c 226. 4. Parl Deb (1860) 160, c 1827, etc; HC Deb (1957–58) 583, cc 376–77.

Factual basis 22.13The facts on which a question is based may be set out as briefly as practicable within the framework of a question, provided that the Member asking it makes themselves responsible for their accuracy,1 but extracts from newspapers or books, and paraphrases of or quotations from speeches etc are not admissible.2 Where the facts are of sufficient moment, the Speaker has required prima facie evidence of their authenticity.

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1882) 270, c 1132; HC Deb (1915) 75, c 330; ibid (1961–62) 660, c 413. 2. Parl Deb (1907) 172, c 225; HC Deb (1957–58) 583, c 822; ibid (1963–64) 694, c 198; ibid (1975–76) 912, c 16; ibid (1986–87) 106, c 21.

Personal reflections 22.14It is not in order in a question to reflect on the character or conduct of those persons whose conduct may be challenged only on a substantive motion with that purpose1 (see paras 20.10, 21.23 ), nor is it permissible to reflect on the conduct of other persons otherwise than in their official or public capacity. Moreover, a question introducing names (whether of persons or of bodies) invidiously or for advertisement or in any way not strictly necessary to render the question intelligible is not in order.2

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1872) 210, c 39; ibid (1906) 157, c 487; HC Deb (1913) 55, cc 2024, 2057; ibid (1920) 128, c 408; ibid (1955–56) 557, cc 921–24; ibid (1979–80) 977, cc 923–24, but see ibid (1960–61) 629, cc 651–54 for references to Members of the House of Lords otherwise than in their capacity as Members of that House. 2. Parl Deb (1880) 253, c 1631; HC Deb (1912–13) 46, c 1005. For commendation of the practice of supplying a Minister privately with the name of an individual, see ibid (1985–86) 94, c 26 and see Second Report from the Select Committee on Procedure (HC 252 (1995–96)).

Royal family 22.15No question can be put which brings the name of the Sovereign or the influence of the Crown directly before Parliament,1 or which casts reflections upon the Sovereign2 or the royal family. A question has been altered at the Speaker's direction on the ground that the name of the Sovereign should not be introduced to affect the views of the House.3 Questions are, however, allowed on such matters as the costs to public funds of royal events and royal palaces.4

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

HC Deb (1989–90) 178, c 177. Parl Deb (1867–68) 192, c 711; ibid (1887) 318, cc 1372–74. Notices of Motions, 1912, pp 3891, 3944. HC Deb (1996–97) 289, c 436W; ibid (1995–96) 273, cc 556–57W.

Royal prerogative 22.16Questions may be asked of Ministers who are among the confidential advisers of the Crown regarding matters relating to those public duties for which the Sovereign is responsible. It has been ruled that the Prime Minister cannot be interrogated as to the advice that they may have given to the Sovereign with regard to the grant of honours,1 the ecclesiastical patronage of the Crown,2 the appointment and dismissal of Privy Counsellors,3 or, in certain circumstances, the exercise of the prerogative of mercy.4

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

Parl Deb (1907) 178, c 61; ibid (1908) 190, c 1338; HC Deb (1922) 155, c 1842. Speaker's private ruling, 9 March 1923. Speaker's private ruling, 24 June 1926. For the previous practice with regard to questions relating to capital sentences, see Erskine May (22nd edn, 1997), p 298, fn 9.

Ministerial responsibility 22.17Questions to Ministers must relate to matters for which those Ministers are officially responsible. They may be asked for statements of their policy or intentions on such matters, or for administrative or legislative action. A number of decisions from the Chair have closely defined the interpretation of this rule of ministerial responsibility.1 Among them are the following: 1. Questions asking whether statements in the press, or of private individuals, or unofficial bodies are accurate2 or asking for comment on statements made by persons in other countries (unless the statement is a message from another government to Her Majesty's Government) have been ruled out of order.3 2. Questions are allowed about any aspect of the internal affairs of another country which, in the light of the Government's stated foreign policy and international obligations, might reasonably form the subject of a despatch from the United Kingdom's diplomatic representatives in that country. However, the Procedure Committee did not intend that the Government should discuss the details of despatches from United Kingdom diplomats.4 3. Questions on matters which have been devolved to the National Assembly for Wales, the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Scottish Parliament relating to the details of policy or expenditure are not in order.5 However, under the Resolution of 25 October 19996 such questions may be asked if they seek information which the United Kingdom Government is empowered to require of the devolved executive, relate to legislative proposals in the United Kingdom Parliament, refer to the operation of agreements between devolved institutions and central government, or relate to matters in which United Kingdom Ministers have taken an official interest. 4. It is not in order in a question to ask for action to deal with matters under the control of local or other statutory authorities (unless there is basis for knowing that a Minister is already involved in a matter which otherwise would more properly be the responsibility of such an authority), or of bodies or persons not responsible to the Government such as banks or companies (except where there is a government shareholding), the Stock Exchange, employers' organisations and trades unions;7 or to ask for action regarding or information about the activities of such persons or bodies which Ministers have no power to perform or obtain. By the same token, questions relating to matters for which responsibility has been accorded to the Greater London Assembly or other local authorities are out of order. Questions, however, have been asked about information which the Government collects on such bodies. 5. Restrictions are placed on questions relating to nationalised industries and other analogous public bodies, including the regulators of key public service providers. Questions to such bodies established by statute have been restricted to those matters for which the Minister was made responsible by the statute concerned8 or by other legislation and to those matters in which the Minister was known to be involved. Ministers have also answered questions seeking statistical information on a national basis.9 The Speaker, in addition, has allowed questions on what might otherwise be called day-to-day administration, provided that they raised matters of urgent public importance such as might in other circumstances fall within the meaning of Standing Order No 24.10 In 1993, the House approved a recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure ‘that in the area of questions relating to nationalised industries and other public bodies, perhaps more than any other, the Table Office would give even the smallest benefit of doubt to Members when applying the test of ministerial responsibility, especially when previous answers reveal the lack of a regular pattern’.11 Subsequently, in practice, decisions about the orderliness of questions to such public bodies have relied heavily on the pattern of answering by departments. 6. Questions have been ruled inadmissible which referred to the evidence of witnesses or other matters before a Royal Commission12 or a parliamentary committee, or deal with matters within the jurisdiction of the Chair of a select committee or the authorities of the House.13 The current practice is to allow incidental reference to published evidence of witnesses before select committees in questions to Ministers about matters for which Ministers are responsible to Parliament. No question can be asked regarding proceedings in a committee which have not been placed before the House by a report from the committee.14 However, questions may be asked about the administrative decisions of the domestic committees of the House of Commons. 7. Questions addressed to a royal court official or referring to the action of a court official are inadmissible.15 8. The Speaker has ruled that a question may not be asked which deals with the action of a Minister for which they are not responsible to Parliament.16 9. Questions seeking an expression of opinion on a question of law, such as the interpretation of a statute, or of an international document, a Minister's own powers, etc, are not in order17 since the courts rather than Ministers are competent in such matters. Ministers may, however, be asked by what statutory authority they have acted in a particular instance, and the Prime Minister may be asked to define a Minister's responsibilities. 10. Questions requiring information set forth in accessible documents (such as statutes, Treaties, annual reports, statistical releases etc)18 have not been allowed when the Member concerned could obtain the information of their own accord without difficulty. 11. It is not in order to put to a Minister a question for which another Minister is more directly responsible, or ask one Minister to influence the action of another.19 However, Ministers have been willing to disclose discussions between departments on decisions which have already been announced; the orderliness of such proposed questions is judged on the basis of the pattern of ministerial answers in the current session when the question is being asked.20 12. Questions have been ruled out of order which sought legislation to deal with circumstances of a very restricted or particular character presently outside ministerial powers or responsibilities, and thus evade the rule that questions must relate to matters for which Ministers are officially responsible, as have been those which cited individual incidents in relation to which the Minister has no administrative power or responsibilities when asking for general legislation.21 13. Questions proposing detailed amendments to bills before the House or in committee are inadmissible.22 Questions may however be asked regarding the effects of proposed legislation.23 14. Questions are out of order if they relate to opposition party policies rather than to a Minister's responsibilities.24 The Speaker has also ruled that Minsters have no responsibility for use of terminology used by the opposition.25

Footnotes

1. HC Deb (1995–96) 278, c 609. 2. Parl Deb (1882) 270, c 1132; ibid (1893–94) 10, c 674; ibid (1948–49) 470, cc 204–6; ibid (1956–57) 560, c 1541; ibid (1962–63) 666, c 956; ibid (1963–64) 684, cc 1192–93. 3. HC Deb (1914–16) 75, c 330; ibid (1956–57) 560, c 1541. 4. HC 178 (1990–91) para 88; HC 687 (1992–93) paras 38–40; CJ (1992–93) 853. 5. HC Deb (1998–99) 335, cc 21–22; ibid (1998–99) 334, cc 1013–15, 1045–47. 6. CJ (1998–99) 519. For text, see para 11.13. 7. HC Deb (1929–30) 233, c 246; ibid (1914) 66, cc 162, 939; ibid (1924) 169, c 838. 8. HC Deb (1947–48) 449, cc 1630–34. This matter was debated by the House on a motion for the adjournment, ibid (1947–48) 448, c 391. 9. HC Deb (1962–63) 682, c 450. 10. Speaker's ruling, HC Deb (1947–48) 451, cc 1635–37; ibid (1976–77) 935–I, cc 220–24. 11. HC 687 (1992–93) paras 56–58; CJ (1992–93) 853. 12. Speaker's private ruling, 25 May 1936. 13. Parl Deb (1897) 46, c 784; on 13 December 2001, a written question asking about the actions of an Officer of the House was not allowed on the Paper (by Speaker's private ruling). 14. Parl Deb (1883) 280, c 1147; HC Deb (1929–30) 237, c 1926; ibid (1968–69) 778, c 1271. 15. Speaker's private ruling, 23 July 1934. 16. Speaker's private ruling, 4 August 1924. 17. Parl Deb (1897) 47, c 1184; ibid (1901) 89, c 1056; ibid (1905) 143, c 36; ibid (1955–56) 543, cc 960–64. 18. Parl Deb (1896) 39, c 1156; ibid (1901) 90, c 207; HC Deb (1927) 204, c 2074. 19. HC Deb (1947–48) 453, c 985. 20. HC 687 (1992–93) paras 32–34; CJ (1992–93) 853. 21. HC 198 (1969–70) p xiii. 22. HC 198 (1969–70) p xii. 23. HC 687 (1992–93) paras 41–43; CJ (1992–93) 853. 24. HC Deb (1995–96) 277, cc 1070–71; ibid (1998–99) 324, c 1069; ibid (2000–01) 363, c 315; ibid (5 December 2005) 440, c 617; ibid (26 January 2009) 487, c 13; ibid (17 June 2010) 511, c 1046. 25. HC Deb (11 March 2013) 560, c 18.

Parliamentary business 22.18Limitations have been placed on the sort of question which may be asked about the conduct of public business in Parliament for which Ministers are responsible. The Speaker has refused to allow questions as to whether the Government proposed by resolution to put a close to a stage of a bill,1 and as to the time at which a Minister would move the closure;2 and a question asking a Minister about a motion on the paper when under standing orders that that motion must be decided without amendment or debate has been ruled out.3 The Speaker has also ruled that questions referring to the time taken by individual speeches may not be asked.4 Questions about the day-to-day progress of the business of the House may not be placed on the Notice Paper; such questions are asked as supplementaries to the weekly business question which the shadow Leader of the House customarily asks of the Leader of the House (see para 19.18 ).

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

Parl Deb (1893–94) 15, c 1782. Parl Deb (1901) 89, c 1061; ibid (1905) 141, c 781. Parl Deb (1896) 40, c 1152; ibid (1901) 93, c 1196. Speaker's private ruling, 23 June 1904.

Questions already answered, or to which an answer has been refused 22.19Questions for written answer are not in order which renew or repeat in substance questions already answered1 or to which an answer has been refused in that session of Parliament. Where, however, a Minister has refused to take the action or give the information asked for in a particular question, they may be asked the same question again after an interval of three months. In deciding whether a question is inadmissible on the grounds of previous ministerial answering practices, the Table Office relies solely on replies given in the same session.2 Similarly, notices of questions for written answer have been refused when a question in the same terms already stands on the Notice Paper. A question which one Minister has refused to answer cannot be addressed to another Minister3 and a question answered by one Minister may not be put to another on the basis of the principle of collective responsibility of Government to the House.4 An answer to a question cannot be insisted upon if the answer has been refused by a Minister,5 and the Speaker has refused to allow supplementary questions in these circumstances.6 The refusal of a Minister to answer a question on the ground of public interest cannot be raised as a matter of privilege,7 nor should leave be sought to initiate a debate under Standing Order No 24 for this reason.8

Footnotes 1. Speaker's private ruling, 8 August 1907; see also Parl Deb (1875) 225, cc 792, 952, 1142; ibid (1884) 285, c 877; HC Deb (1918) 108, c 1979. 2. HC 178 (1990–91) para 114; HC 687 (1992–93) paras 53–55. The recommendations of the 1992–93 Report were endorsed by the House (CJ (1992–93) 853). A list of some of the questions Ministers have refused to answer in the previous year was prepared by the Table Office every year for the Public Administration Select Committee and was published as an Appendix to that Committee's annual report on Ministerial Accountability and Parliamentary Questions until 2003–04 (see eg HC 1086 (2001–02)). 3. Parl Deb (1895) 34, c 1547. 4. HC Deb (1968–69) 783, c 283. 5. Parl Deb (1897) 47, c 60. For a question refused on the ground of public interest, see Parl Deb (1907) 178, c 529; HC Deb (1915) 73, c 1488. 6. HC Deb (1960–61) 635, c 1580. 7. Parl Deb (1901) 89, c 322. 8. HC Deb (1909) 2, c 200; ibid (1955–56) 552, cc 1222–23.

Decisions of either House 22.20Questions which criticise the decisions of either House of Parliament are inadmissible.1

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1906) 167, c 1863.

Matters sub judice and relating to courts 22.21The rules by which the House abides on matters sub judice (see para 21.19 ) apply equally to questions. Notice of a question on matters sub judice cannot be tabled unless the Speaker agrees to waive them. If the subject-matter of a question is found to be, or becomes, sub judice after notice of the question has been given, the Member may be asked to withdraw it, or the Speaker may direct it to be removed from the Notice Paper or refuse to allow it to be asked if it is on the Order Paper.1 The sub judice rule does not apply to matters which are before courts of law in jurisdictions beyond Great Britain and Northern Ireland (such as the European Court of Human Rights).2 Nor does it apply to matters which are the subject of an administrative inquiry.3 Questions which reflect on the decision of a court of law are not in order. The Speaker has ruled privately that questions relating to a sentence passed by a judge, and to the circumstances under which rules of court were made and issued, were inadmissible.4

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

HC Deb (18 December 2012) 555, cc 706–7. HC Deb (1950) 476, c 868; ibid (1986–87) 105, cc 436–40. HC Deb (1952–53) 511, cc 413–14. Decisions from the Chair (Sessions 1903 and 1904) Nos 1596 and 1597.

Miscellaneous 22.22Questions are also inadmissible which seek the solution of hypothetical propositions;1 raise questions of policy too large to be dealt with in an answer to a question; seek information on matters of past history for the purposes of argument;2 or are trivial, vague or meaningless. Similarly, multiple questions on the same theme but with slight variations, which where taken together take on the appearance of an argument or campaign, have been disallowed by the Speaker.3

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1898) 63, c 705. 2. Speaker's private ruling, 31 January 1961. For the purposes of this rule, the passage of 30 years or more is generally deemed to constitute past history (Speaker's private ruling, 5 July 1983). The House has approved (CJ (1992–93) 853) the recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure of Session 1992–93 (HC 687) that the history rule be modified to permit questions seeking information of a factual or statistical nature for any point within the 30-year limit which could, under the previous system, be sought as part of a run of statistics. 3. HC Deb (1953–54) 524, cc 1905–6; Speaker's private rulings, 2 April 1899 and 8 March 1957; HC Deb (1994–95) 255, cc 705–6.

Answers and corrections 22.23Answers to questions for written answer are published in the online Questions and Answers system once they have been emailed to the relevant Member by the Ministers to whom they were addressed. Oral questions which are not reached or where the Member was not present to ask them are treated as questions for written answer that day.1 Questions are answered in writing at 9.30 am or, in the case of oral questions not reached, at the end of Question Time.2 Ministers from time to time provide a holding answer if it has not been possible to give a substantive answer by the due date, although the Speaker has stressed the importance of substantive answers being given in a timely manner.3 On occasions when departments are unable to answer questions substantively before prorogation, Ministers provide a standard answer—known as prorogation answers—worded as follows: ‘It has not proved possible to respond to the [Right] hon Member in the time available before Prorogation’.4 The Speaker has deprecated long statements being circulated as answers to questions.5 The Speaker has also ruled that replies should be helpful and clear and not simply refer to material on an official website.6 In the event of a discrepancy between the texts of the answers sent to the Member and that which is published, the text sent to the Member is considered to be the authentic reply; any alteration must be made orally in the House by the Minister.7 If a Member, having given notices of questions, ceases to be a Member of the House or becomes a member of the Government, those notices are removed and any answers to their questions received are not published.8 When factual mistakes are discovered in an answer to a question, Ministers may submit written ministerial corrections for publication in the House papers and online. Such corrections are required to be free-standing and should not be used to provide new information, however closely related to the original proceeding. Nor should they be used to rehearse the arguments which may have given rise to the original erroneous answer.9 When Ministers wish to make a correction in terms which would not comply with the criteria relating to written ministerial corrections, they may do so by means of a written statement (see para 19.21 ).10 The Speaker has reminded the House that the Government's own Ministerial Code requires Ministers to correct any inadvertent errors at the earliest opportunity.11

Footnotes 1. But a question which has been answered together with another question cannot be postponed (HC Deb (1955–56) 554, c 1238). 2. For this reason, it is not proper to release an answer before those times: HC Deb (1981–82) 15, c 625; ibid (1984–85) 80, c 306; ibid (1989–90) 167, c 1055. There can be an elapse of a few hours before the Answer emailed to a Member is accessible in the Question and Answers system. 3. HC Deb (23 February 2010) 506, c 164; ibid (9 March 2010) 507, c 155. 4. HC Deb (21 July 2004) 424, cc 35–36WS. 5. HC Deb (1958–59) 595, cc 34–35. 6. HC Deb (4 November 2010) 517, c 1059. 7. HC Deb (1956–57) 563, cc 853–62; ibid (1984–85) 78, cc 594–95, 655–56. 8. HC Deb (1912–13) 42, c 2552. 9. Second Report from the Procedure Committee, HC 541 (2006–07). This procedure has replaced the previous mechanism of correcting mistakes in an earlier answer by providing a ‘pursuant’ answer. 10. See for example HC Deb (24 October 2006) 450, cc 84–85WS. 11. See Cabinet Office, Ministerial Code, January 2018, para 1.3c; also Resolution on Ministerial Accountability to Parliament, CJ (1996–97) 328 and para 11.40.

Background to sittings in Westminster Hall 23.1Since the beginning of Session 1999–2000, parallel sittings of the House have been held in the Grand Committee Room off Westminster Hall.1 The innovation arose from a recommendation of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons.2 Its purpose is to provide an additional forum for debate, such as debates on select committee reports and debates chosen by backbenchers:3 in short, it is a method of making more parliamentary time available without extending sitting hours. Proceedings in Westminster Hall are distinct from those in the Chamber of the House, and subsidiary to it in the sense that in certain circumstances reports are made from Westminster Hall to the House. But it is not a committee of the House; and a resolution in Westminster Hall is a resolution of the House (Standing Order No 10(12)) and has the same status. The arrangements for sittings in Westminster Hall were established by a Sessional Order of 24 May 1999, initially as an experiment. Since January 2003, sittings in Westminster Hall have been governed by Standing Order No 10.4

Footnotes 1. When the Grand Committee Room was unavailable, sittings in Westminster Hall have taken place in Committee Room 10, HC Deb (10 January 2006) 441, c 1WH. 2. First Report of Session 1998–99, HC 60; Second Report of Session 1998–99, HC 194. 3. See Erskine May (22nd edn, 1997), p 266. 4. CJ (1998–99) 343–45. See also Procedure Committee, First Report of Session 2014–15, Business in Westminster Hall, HC 236 and ibid, Fifth Report of Session 2014–15, Business in Westminster Hall: Government response and revised Standing Order No. 10, HC 1035, together with Resolution and Standing Order changes of 24 February 2015 (Votes and Proceedings, 24 February 2015).

Hours of sitting 23.2Under the present arrangements, Westminster Hall sits routinely on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.1 It may also sit on Mondays to consider e-petitions. No sittings may take place in a session until after the debate on the Queen's Speech has concluded. Hours of sitting are set out in Standing Order No 10: Day Sitting begins Suspension Duration Monday (e-petitions) 4.30 pm Up to three hours Tuesdays/Wednesdays 9.30 am 11.30 to 2.30 pmUp to a further three hours from 2.30 pm Thursdays 1.30 pm Up to three hours On all afternoons, in calculating the period of sitting, no account is taken of periods during which the sitting is suspended because of divisions in the House or Committee of the whole House. The time taken for the suspension is therefore added to the duration of the debate underway and the sitting as a whole. On Tuesdays or Wednesdays immediately after a periodic adjournment (when the House sits at 2.30 pm), the Westminster Hall sitting is from 9.30 am to 2 pm, although the House may alter this by Order.2 The sitting times for specified days may be altered by Order of the House to suit business in the House3 or to enable Members to attend important parliamentary occasions.4

Footnotes 1. Where a scheduled sitting of the Chamber for a given day was broken by the length of the sitting of the preceding day, the scheduled Westminster Hall sitting commenced nonetheless: CJ (1999–2000) 114, 117. 2. For example, Votes and Proceedings, 19 July 2018 and ibid, 12 September 2018. 3. For example, Votes and Proceedings, 27 March 2017 and ibid, 23 October 2018. 4. For example, CJ (2008–09) 659.

Business which may be taken 23.3Westminster Hall operates as a parallel or additional chamber of the House. The basic principles regarding business therefore follow those of the main Chamber. In particular, Standing Order No 10 provides for no specific restriction on the kinds of business which may be taken, stating only that the business shall – in addition to certain business nominated by the Petitions, Backbench Business and Liaison Committees – be ‘such as the Chairman of Ways and Means shall appoint, and may include oral questions’. In addition, paragraph (8) of the Standing Order provides that a motion may be made (though not on a Friday and only with the leave of the House) by a Minister (and put forthwith) that an order of the day be proceeded with in Westminster Hall. In practice, two restrictions in the Standing Order on its manner of operation mean that it is ill-suited for controversial business: for any business other than general (or adjournment) debates, six or more members may halt proceedings by rising in their place and signifying their objection (paragraph (9));1 no divisions may be taken; where the opinion of the Chair on a decision on a question is challenged, the question is undecided (paragraph (13)). Legislative proceedings, for example, have never been scheduled for Westminster Hall. In practice, therefore, business in Westminster Hall consists exclusively of general debates – that is, unamendable motions ‘That this House has considered [a specified matter]’.

Footnotes 1. See Procedure Committee, First Report of Session 2014–15, Business in Westminster Hall, HC 236 and Government response (Procedure Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2014–15, Business in Westminster Hall: Government response and revised Standing Order No.10, HC 1035) for discussion of the use of this provision and wider discussion of the kinds of business taken in Westminster Hall.

Scheduling of business Contents Mondays – petitions Tuesdays and Wednesdays – individual backbencher debates (and oral questions) Thursdays – business chosen by Liaison and Backbench Business Committees 23.4Under Standing Order No 10(6), the overall determination and direction of business in Westminster Hall, subject to qualification on certain days, rest with the Chairman of Ways and Means. Current arrangements are set out below. The business for Westminster Hall is announced by the Leader of the House in the weekly business question in the House on a Thursday morning.

Mondays – petitions 23.5The Petitions Committee has the power under Standing Order No 145A(7), combined with Standing Order No 10(1)(a), to determine whether one or more e-petitions (or petitions) should be considered at a Monday sitting of Westminster Hall.1 Such petitions are considered as a general debate on a motion that ‘The House has considered [e-petition(s) or petition(s)] relating to [subject].’ Such debates usually last up to three hours, although the Committee has on occasion determined that the time should be informally divided between debates on different petitions.2

Footnotes 1. Monday sittings to consider e-petitions were introduced on a trial basis for the duration of the 2012–13 sitting, with the determination of whether to hold a debate being made by the Backbench Business Committee. In February 2015, the House agreed, effective from the start of the following Parliament, to make that provision permanent and establish the Petitions Committee, which took over responsibility for determining which petitions would be debated (Votes and Proceedings, 24 February 2015). 2. HC Deb (5 March 2018) 637, cc 1–40WH.

Tuesdays and Wednesdays – individual backbencher debates (and oral questions) 23.6It has been agreed that government departments respond to debates within their remit on broadly alternate weeks (with some variation). This has the effect of limiting the subject-matter of debates to the responsibilities of those departments. Under Standing Order No 10(6), on Tuesdays and Wednesdays the business is appointed by the Chairman of Ways and Means. It is the practice to devote those sittings to general debates, lasting 30, 60 or 90 minutes, initiated by individual backbench Members and allocated by the Speaker by ballot.1 It is open to the Backbench Business Committee, with the consent of the Chairman of Ways and Means, to allocate the first debate on the Tuesday. If it does not do so, the subject is chosen by the Speaker's ballot. Oral questions have also been held in Westminster Hall on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, but have not been scheduled since 2004.2

Footnotes 1. See, for example, HC Deb (2000–01) 363, c 159 for an announcement by the Speaker about the arrangements for debates. The Leader of the Opposition has been granted a backbench adjournment debate on a constituency issue in Westminster Hall, HC Deb (7 May 2008) 475, c 295WH. 2. The first occasion was on 23 January 2003 and the last on 28 October 2004; there were eight such sessions altogether in the two sessions 2002–03 and 2003–04.

Thursdays – business chosen by Liaison and Backbench Business Committees 23.7Under Standing Order No 10(7), on Thursdays the business taken is determined by the Backbench Business Committee or by the Liaison Committee. The Standing Order requires that the time during a session be divided ‘as equally as possible’ between those two committees. Where an afternoon session is allocated to the Liaison Committee, the business will usually comprise debates on one or two select committee reports; where two reports are considered the time is divided informally between the two committees. The Backbench Business Committee may choose to schedule a single debate or two 90-minute general debates. Both the Liaison Committee and the Backbench Business Committee may also schedule select committee statements under Standing Order No 22D(1).1 The Chairman of Ways and Means allocates Thursday business during the period at the beginning of a session prior to these Committees being established.

Footnotes 1. For example, Votes and Proceedings, 22 March 2018 and ibid, 1 November 2018.

Participation and quorum 23.8Any Member of the House may take part in the proceedings.1 The quorum for a sitting is three, including the Chair.2

Footnotes 1. SO No 10(4). 2. SO No 10(5); HC Deb (2002–03) 413, c 62WH.

Chairing and Chair's powers 23.9Sittings are chaired by members of the Panel of Chairs.1 Members of the Panel (other than any of the Deputy Speakers) are addressed by name when chairing Westminster Hall. Procedures in Westminster Hall follow those in the House, save where otherwise provided, and therefore the Chair's powers reflect those of the Speaker and Deputy Speakers in the House. As well as the general powers of calling speakers and regulating debate, these include specific relevant standing order powers not explicitly excluded: selection of amendments under Standing Order No 32 (though in practice, since business almost entirely comprises general debates, the question of selection of amendments does not arise); decision on whether to accept dilatory motions under Standing Order No 35; instructing a Member to resume their seat for irrelevance, tedious repetition or breach of the sub judice rule (Standing Orders Nos 42 and 42A); imposing a time limit on speeches (Standing Order No 47). Under Standing Order No 10(15), a number of significant standing orders are specifically excluded from applying to proceedings in Westminster Hall, thereby affecting the powers of the Chair and having an impact on the character of proceedings (broadly requiring them to be more consensual in nature). The provisions of the following standing orders do not apply to sittings in Westminster Hall: Standing Order Nos 29 (Powers of Chair to propose question), 36 (Closure of debate), 37 (Majority for closure or proposal of question); taken together these restrict the capacity of a majority to force a debate to come to a conclusion. Standing Order Nos 38, 39 and 40 (Divisions), 41 (Quorum); taken together, these enable formal decisions to be taken only by unanimity (although there is provision for a decision to be referred to the House – see below). Standing Order Nos 43 (Disorderly conduct), 44 (Order in debate), 45 and 45A (Members suspended, etc); taken together, these restrict the power of the Chair to ensure that business can continue in the face of disorderly behaviour by a Member or Members. In relation to disorderly behaviour, the Chair instead has had a power since 2015, under Standing Order No 10(11), to order a Member to withdraw from the sitting if they persistently defy the authority of the Chair and to suspend the sitting if the Member does not withdraw.2 Standing Order No 10(15) also disapplies Standing Order No 163 (Motions to sit in private). The Chair retains however the inherent power of the Chair set out in the proviso to Standing Order No 163 to order the withdrawal of persons other than Members or Officers from the sitting if necessary.

Footnotes 1. Originally, provision was made for the House to appoint four other members of the Panel of Chairs to sit as Deputy Speakers in Westminster Hall. The first such Deputy Speakers were appointed on 25 October 1999, CJ (1998–99) 519 and the last such appointments were made in 2003; the provision was ended alongside other Standing Order changes made on 24 February 2015 (Votes and Proceedings, 24 February 2015). 2. A Deputy Speaker presiding over a sitting in Westminster Hall has suspended a sitting following disorderly conduct and has reported the occurrence to the House, HC Deb (2001–02) 381, cc 89WH, 450; CJ (2001–02) 390.

Opening and closing of debate and of sitting 23.10As described in Chapter 20 and elsewhere, the Chair begins proceedings by calling the Member in charge of the debate to move the motion to be considered. Debates allocated by ballot are allocated personally to that Member and are non-transferable. Therefore the motion must be moved by the Member whose debate it is. If the Member is not present, the sitting is suspended until the next debate is due to start.1 For motions on a Thursday selected by the Backbench Business Committee, there may be more than one signatory to the motion and any of them may move it in the normal way. If a debate has been tabled in the name of a select committee (eg by the Liaison Committee on a Thursday or by the Petitions Committee in its name on a Monday), any Member of the relevant committee may move the motion; in such a case the Order Paper indicates that the motion is tabled in the name of the committee. When a Member in whose name a 90-minute debate stood was unavoidably delayed, the Chair allowed another Member to open the debate in their place.2 Debate may proceed in the absence of the Minister, so long as a quorum is present.3 If a debate finishes materially before the next one is scheduled to start, the sitting is suspended until the advertised hour for the next debate.4 At the discretion of the Chair, a debate after the first debate may start slightly ahead of its scheduled time if the preceding debate has finished or if the sitting is suspended, provided that the main participants (the Member in whose name the motion stands, the Minister and, for longer debates, Opposition spokespersons) are present and the Chair is satisfied that others planning to attend – both Members and public – who might be expecting it to start at the exact scheduled time will not be inconvenienced. The start of a Westminster Hall debate has been delayed owing to the absence of the designated Chair at the start of proceedings,5 and a debate has been suspended in order to address a sound system failure.6 In both cases a period equivalent to the time lost was added both to the end of the appropriate debate and to the end of the sitting, its being recognised that the Chair can make a practical judgement in appropriate unusual circumstances where it is in the interests of the House. As indicated above (para 23.2 ), time spent on a suspension for a division of the House is automatically added to the end time of the debate underway and the duration of the sitting. At the end of the debate, if the debate concludes before its scheduled finish time the Chair puts the question; if not, the motion lapses.7 Under Standing Order No 10(14), after disposal of the last scheduled debate, or at the scheduled end of the sitting, the Chair adjourns the sitting without putting any question.

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

HC Deb (1 April 2014) 578, c 232WH and ibid (1 March 2017) 622, cc 93–94WH. HC Deb (4 July 2018) 644, cc 141WH and 145WH. HC Deb (6 May 2009) 492, c 63WH. HC Deb (8 December 2004) 428, c 117WH. SO No 10(14). HC Deb (2002–03) 397, c 1WH. HC Deb (2002–03) 398, c 228WH.

Speaking time limits and distribution of time within debate 23.11The 30-minute debates held on Tuesdays and Wednesdays follow the same practices as end-of-day adjournment debates in the House, so that the debate is between the Member calling the debate and the Minister. Other Members may only make a speech with the permission of the Member in charge and the Minister. Opposition spokespersons should not intervene or make a speech during a half-hour debate within their portfolio, and any Opposition spokesperson participating on a matter outside their portfolio whether by speech or by intervention must do so from a non-frontbench position.1 As in the House, the Member who moved the motion is not called to reply to the debate. For the 60, 90 and 180-minute debates, it is open to other Members – including opposition and third party spokespersons – to seek to speak. If there is time at the end of the debate, the mover may be called to make a short reply and, following normal House practice, may do so without seeking the leave of the House. The Chairman of Ways and Means has authority under Standing Order No 47 to impose speaking limits on backbench speeches. This authority is routinely granted, leaving it to the discretion of individual Chairs whether to make use of it or rely on informal guidance from the Chair. If the Chair imposes a formal limit, the rules follow those of the House with additional time granted for the first two interventions taken. Limits as low as one minute have been imposed for Westminster Hall; in practice it is common, since less debating time is generally available in Westminster Hall than in the Chamber, for the Chair instead to seek the informal cooperation of Members in making brief speeches rather than to impose a very low formal limit. The following table sets out the guidance given to frontbenches2 regarding speech length in the longer Westminster Hall debates. These are subject to the discretion of the Chair, having regard to the number of speakers. In particular, where a 90-minute debate has a local focus, the Opposition and third party responses will commonly be limited to five minutes each. Debate duration Speaker Guidance 60 minute Minister 10 minutes Opposition and third party spokesperson 5 minutes each 90 minute Minister, Opposition and third party spokesperson 10 minutes each Three hour Minister, Opposition and third party spokesperson At Chair's discretion

Footnotes 1. Letter from Chairman of Ways and Means to Panel of Chairs, March 2014. 2. The Second Church Estates Commissioner has, by arrangement with the responsible Minister, shared responsibility with that Minister for replying to an adjournment debate in Westminster Hall (HC Deb (2002–03) 403, cc 66–67WH).

Divisions and Objections 23.12No divisions are permitted in Westminster Hall: if the opinion of the Chair is challenged on the decision of a question (other than a question to adjourn), that question is not decided but reported by the Chair to the House.1 There is no automatic procedure for the question to be placed on the Notice Paper of the House, but if it is so placed and comes up for consideration in the normal way then the question may be decided forthwith.2 As noted earlier, under Standing Order No 10(9) any business in Westminster Hall other than a motion expressed in neutral terms under Standing Order No 24B (or a motion for the adjournment) will be brought to an end if not fewer than six Members rise in their places and object to further proceedings.

Footnotes 1. SO No 10(13). For example, HC Deb (14 October 2015) 600, c 175WH. The question may be negatived without division, for example HC Deb (1 February 2016) 605, c 300WH. 2. See for example HC Deb (1 December 2016) 617, cc 1691–92 (following a challenge in Westminster Hall on 15 November, ibid c 48WH).

The Vote Bundle 7.12The Vote Bundle consists of the Order Paper, as described above, together with any Amendment Papers relating to bills to be considered as part of that day's business and the Votes and Proceedings of the previous day. Its distribution is governed by slightly different principles to the Order Paper (Parts 1 and 2) although in the absence of relevant Amendment Papers, the content is identical.1

Footnotes 1. Until 2015, the Vote Bundle was a more substantial compilation of documents, hence its title. In-house printing, publishing and distribution of documents and the growth of digital publishing have all contributed to the reduction in the number of documents distributed in this way.

General procedural principles governing Westminster Hall 23.14As already indicated, the practices of the House are generally applicable in Westminster Hall so far as practicable in the different setting and context. Debates in Westminster Hall follow the same rules around language, relevance, forms of address, sub judice, dress and so forth as the House. It has however been one of the founding principles of proceedings in Westminster Hall that so far as appropriate proceedings should have a slightly more informal character than in the House. Debates in Westminster Hall have on occasion simultaneously been subtitled and signed into British Sign Language.1

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (5 March 2018) 637, c 1WH and ibid (9 May 2018) 640, c 285WH.

Introduction to petitions Contents A brief history of petitioning Parliament 24.1The public can petition the House of Commons in two ways.1 They can ask a Member of Parliament to present a public (paper) petition to the House or they can start or sign an e-petition on the petition.parliament.uk website. The arrangements for both sorts of petitions are overseen by the Petitions Committee (see para 24.23 ).2 In the House of Lords, Members can present public (paper) petitions. This procedure is rarely used.3

Footnotes 1. This chapter is about public petitions and e-petitions. For petitions about private business, see Chapters 45 and 46. 2. Procedure Committee, Third Report of Session 2014–15, E-petitions: a collaborative system, HC 235; HC Deb (24 February 2015) 593, c 248. 3. The last time that a petition was presented in the House of Lords was on 19 March 2012 (LJ (2010–12) 2192). Two were presented in 2011 but before that there had not been any presented since 2000.

A brief history of petitioning Parliament 24.2The rights of petitioners and the power of the House to deal with petitions were expressed in two resolutions of the Commons in 1669: ‘That it is the inherent right of every commoner in England to prepare and present petitions to the House of Commons in case of grievance, and the House of Commons to receive the same; That it is an undoubted right and privilege of the Commons to judge and determine, touching the nature and matter of such petitions, how far they are fit and unfit to be received.’1 Originally, the procedure of the House of Commons imposed little restriction on the raising of debate on the presentation of public petitions, which was a way of introducing subjects from outside the House and could be used for obstructing other kinds of business. Mass petitions to the House of Commons played a significant part in several major campaigns, including Chartism and the campaign for women's suffrage. The nineteenth century saw a substantial increase in the number of petitions being presented to the House of Commons; in the years 1837–1841, the average number of petitions presented in a year was nearly 17,600, and 34,000 petitions were presented in 1843.2 At the same time, government demands on the time of the House were growing. This led to the adoption, in 1842, of a series of standing orders which, as subsequently amended, made the presentation of petitions a formal proceeding incapable, except in very rare cases (for which see para 24.17 ), of giving rise to immediate debate. In the twentieth century, the number of petitions presented each year fell considerably. In the early years of the twenty-first century, both the Government and the House of Commons began to explore ways for the public to start and sign petitions electronically. On 14 November 2006, the Government launched the No. 10 Downing Street e-petitions system, allowing the public to petition the Government electronically for the first time. This system had no connection to Parliament. In May 2007, the Procedure Committee expressed the view that ‘Parliament should be the primary recipient of petitions from the public’.3 Recognising the potential of e-petitions to connect the public more effectively with Parliament, the Committee expressed its support in principle for an e-petitions system for the House of Commons, and recommended that further work be done on the detail. In 2008, the Procedure Committee published its detailed proposals for a system of e-petitions to the House of Commons.4 The Government broadly endorsed the Committee's proposals, but the system was never implemented, because of concerns about the expected cost. The No. 10 Downing Street petitions site closed when Parliament was dissolved for the 2010 election. Following the election, the new Coalition Government made a commitment that ‘any petition that secures 100,000 signatures will be eligible for formal debate in Parliament’.5 This led to the opening, in July 2011, of a new Government e-petitions site. In 2014, the House of Commons agreed in principle to the establishment of a collaborative e-petitions system, jointly owned by the Government and the House of Commons. In December 2014, the Procedure Committee brought forward detailed proposals for a jointly-owned petitions website, and the establishment of a select committee (the Petitions Committee) to oversee the petitions process.6 The Committee hoped that ‘the establishment of a Petitions Committee with its own team of staff has the potential to produce a significant improvement in the information which is available to petitioners about what the House of Commons does and the many ways in which Members of Parliament use the opportunities the House offers them to respond to the public's concerns’.7 The first Petitions Committee of this kind was established on Monday 20 July 2015, and the petitions site at petition.parliament.uk opened the following day.

Footnotes 1. These resolutions formed part of a group, the rest of which reflected a serious dispute between the two Houses (Skinner v The East India Co (1660) 6 State Tr 710 ). In an effort to settle the controversy, the House later acceded to a royal command that the entire group of resolutions be erased from the Journal, CJ (1667–87) 126. See also 3 Hatsell 240 n. 2. Memorandum from the Clerk of the House to the Procedure Committee, First Report of Session 2006–07, Public Petitions and Early Day Motions, HC 513, Ev 15. 3. Procedure Committee, First Report of Session 2006–07, Public Petitions and Early Day Motions, HC 513, para 54. 4. Procedure Committee, First Report of Session 2007–08, e-Petitions, HC 136. 5. HM Government, The Coalition: our programme for government, p 27. 6. Procedure Committee, Third Report of Session 2014–15, E-petitions: a collaborative system, HC 235. 7. Ibid.

Votes and Proceedings 7.14The Votes and Proceedings are a record of the previous day's proceedings in the House and Westminster Hall. (These used to be published under a Sessional Order first passed in 1680, and passed regularly on the first day of the session between 1689 and 2003, but following a report by the Procedure Committee the practice was ended in 2004.1 ) The entries are compiled on the responsibility of the Clerk of the House by the Journal Office, mainly from the entries in the minute books of the Clerks at the Table, and are printed and circulated on the Speaker's authority. They are printed on white paper and distributed, and published electronically. The Votes and Proceedings record the formal proceedings of the House, such as motions moved, resolutions made or the occurrence of divisions. In particular, they record all that is, or is deemed to be, decided by the House. Formal orders on which no question is put in the House are recorded, since they have the same force as those which the House is actually asked to decide. The Votes and Proceedings do not record debate, or even note the fact that it occurred, except where it records motions for the adjournment of debate, when a Member claims to move closure of debate, or if debate stands adjourned at the moment of interruption. Questions and statements are recorded. If motions are agreed to without a division and without any other intermediate proceeding arising, only the decision of the House is recorded. The texts of amendments to bills in committee or on report are not set out. The business on the floor of the House is followed by any messages from the Lords which are not immediately considered by the House and any other formal business such as the reviving of a ‘dropped’ order, an order for considering and printing Lords amendments, or the first reading of a Lords bill. Reports from and appointments to general committees appear next, followed by reports from select committees. Then come proceedings in Westminster Hall. A list of papers laid before the House appears in an appendix. Certificates of various characters may be published at the end (for example relating to Money bills or legislation on matters of devolved legislative competence). The accuracy of the Votes and Proceedings can be challenged only by a substantive motion.2 Other decisions on bills are recorded by two similar documents which are published only on the Parliament website. The first, the Supplement to the Votes and Proceedings, records the decisions of the House, in Committee of the whole House, at Report Stage and on Lords amendments and messages, on amendments, new clauses and new schedules and clauses and schedules agreed to or disagreed to.3 This is in the form of an annotated version of the Amendment Paper (see above). The second, the Public Bill Committee Proceedings, does the same for those public bill committees which sat on the previous day. A document recording proceedings up to and including the latest sitting is published on the Parliament website.

Footnotes 1. Procedure Committee Sessional Orders and Resolutions, Third Report of Session 2002–03 (HC 855) para 9; CJ (2003–04) 591. 2. CJ (1960 61) 101–2. 3. Printing of the Supplement was discontinued at the end of the 2010–11 financial year.

Public petitions to the Commons 24.4The basic requirements of form for a public petition are as follows:1 1. a petition should be specifically and respectfully addressed to the House of Commons and should indicate clearly the origin of the petition and its author(s); 2. a petition should contain a paragraph or paragraphs setting out the reasons why the petitioner(s) is/are petitioning the House; 3. a petition should also contain a clear request, or ‘prayer’, to the House for a remedy which is within its competence to grant;2 and 4. a petition should conclude with a short phrase indicating the end of the effective part of the petition.

Footnotes 1. Fourth Report of the Procedure Committee, HC 286 (1991–92), recommended that this list of requirements should replace the previous insistence on a prescribed formula (for details of which, see Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), pp 754–55). This Report was approved, CJ (1992–93) 547. The guidance on public petitions on the parliamentary website contains the traditional form of words and a modern version. 2. Following petitions to both Houses in 1935 from Western Australia for legislation to withdraw that state from the Commonwealth of Australia, and to recreate it as a self-governing colony (LJ (1934–35) 56; CJ (1934–35) 103), a joint committee appointed to consider the receivability of the petition reported that the petition should not be received, since it was contrary to constitutional conventions for the United Kingdom Parliament to interfere in such circumstances, save at the request of the government of the Dominion the constitution of the whole of which would be affected (HL 52, 75 (1934–35); HC 88 (1934–35)). Neither House took any action on the report of the joint committee.

Public petitions to the House of Lords 24.5The requirements of form for a public petition to the House of Lords are as follows: 1. petitions should begin ‘To the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, the humble Petition of [names or designation of petitioners] sheweth’; 2. followed by the general allegations of the petition; 3. concluding with the ‘prayer’, which sets out what the petitioners desire the House to do. The words ‘And your Petitioners will ever pray, etc’ are added after the prayer, and are followed by the signatures.

Signatures on public petitions 24.6A petition to either House may be handwritten, printed or typed.1 It must be signed by hand2 and at least one signature should be on the same sheet on which the petition is written.3 The signatures must be written on the petition itself, and not photocopied, pasted on, or otherwise transferred to it.4 The petition must have original signatures or marks, and not copies from the original,5 or signatures of agents on behalf of others, except in case of incapacity by sickness or disability.6 Every signature must be accompanied by the address of the signatory.7 If a petition consists of more than one sheet, only those signatures which are written on sheets headed by the prayer of the petition or on the back of those sheets are considered valid.8 Petitions of corporations aggregate should be under their common seal.

Footnotes 1. The requirement for a petition to the Commons to be handwritten was dropped in 2005: see HC 1248 (2003–04) para 8, and CJ (2004–05) 100. For the Lords' requirements, see Companion to the Standing Orders (2017 edn), paras 3.67–3.74. 2. CJ (1822) 127; Parl Deb (1844) 74, c 714. 3. CJ (1817) 128, 155; ibid (1822) 127; Parl Deb (1843) 66, c 1032; CJ (1845) 335; ibid (1854) 293. 4. Special Reports, Public Petitions Committee, CJ (1849) 283; ibid (1850) 79. 5. CJ (1836) 576. 6. CJ (1667–87) 369, 433; ibid (1688–93) 285; ibid (1772–74) 800; Report, Public Petitions Committee, 1848, ibid (1847–48) 786. 7. Order of reference to Public Petitions Committee, CJ (1944–45) 10, etc. 8. HC Deb (1942–43) 390, c 1113.

Forgery or fraud and other contempts 24.7Any forgery or fraud in the preparation of public petitions, or in the signatures on public petitions, or conniving in such forgery or fraud, is liable to be punished as a contempt, as are other misuses of petitions.1

Footnotes 1. CJ (1772–74) 800. In the past the House has punished such cases by imprisonment, ibid (1825) 445; ibid (1867) 157, 336; or by a reprimand at the Bar, ibid (1887) 313. Alternatively, the House has rejected the petition, ibid (1867) 345; or has discharged the order for its lying upon the Table, ibid (1878) 184. Acts condemned as contempts have included frivolously, vexatiously or maliciously submitting a petition containing false or scandalous allegations against any person (whether or not a Lord or Member) or promoting or presenting such a petition (LJ (1620–28) 462, 741; CJ (1693–97) 371; ibid (1732–37) 897; ibid (1741–45) 288; ibid (1768–70) 855; ibid (1780–82) 315); presenting a petition containing gross misrepresentations (LJ (1731–36) 384); inducing a person to sign a petition by false representations (LJ (1862) 300, 321, 323, 331, 378, 383, 386); threatening to petition unless a Member conferred a benefit on the would-be petitioner (CJ (1818–19) 158, 159 and Parl Deb (1819) 39, c 633)); and tampering with petitions (CJ (1839) 205, 210, 235–36, 278 and Parl Deb (1839) 47, c 1068).

Language and content of public petitions 24.8The petition must be about something on which the House has the power to act,1 and must end with a request (also known as a ‘prayer’) for something that the House has the power to do.2 Petitions may not ask for any specific grant or charge; however, petitions seeking a change of policy, or asking for legislation, which might incidentally involve public expenditure, or against a resolution or bill imposing a tax or duty for the service of the year, are usually acceptable. A petition must be in English, or accompanied by a translation, which the Member who presents it states to be correct.3 It must not have any crossings out or added text, so that it is clear that the text has not been changed without the petitioners' knowledge.4 No letters, affidavits or other documents may be annexed to a petition,5 and the sheets of the petition itself may not contain any extraneous matter such as appeals by the petitioners for subscriptions or financial support.6 The language of a petition should be respectful and temperate and free from disrespectful language to the Sovereign7 or offensive imputations upon the character or conduct of Parliament8 or the courts of justice,9 or other tribunal,10 or constituted authority.11 Offensive expressions may be regarded as disrespectful to the House, even if they are not specifically directed at the House itself.12 If a petition asks for something that the House has the power to do, but also asks for something which the House does not have the power to do, it is in order to be presented to the House.13 If the petition asks for something which the House has the power to do, the impracticality of the request is no barrier to the presentation of the petition.14 In the Lords, a petition relating to a bill before the Commons, which has not yet reached their House, or which has already been rejected, cannot be presented. In the House of Commons, petitions have been received relating to bills which had already been read the third time in that House.15 Until 2011, there was a rule in the Commons that a petition should not mention debates in either House of Parliament,16 or intended motions, if merely announced in debate.17 This rule is no longer in force.18

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1817) 35, c 173; ibid (1830–31) 2, cc 654–55; ibid (1831–32) 9, c 1275; ibid (1831–32) 13, c 1115. 2. Parl Deb (1816) 33, c 215; ibid (1819) 40, c 910; ibid (1837–38) 43, c 803. 3. CJ (1821) 173, 189; ibid (1845) 560. A petition in Welsh has been presented, accompanied by an accredited translation. The translation of the prayer of the petition was read out, HC Deb (1991–92) 204, c 305. 4. CJ (1826–27) 118, 262; ibid (1831) 748. See also Special Report of the Select Committee on Public Petitions, HC 228 (1972–73). 5. CJ (1826) 82; ibid (1826–27) 41; ibid (1856) 102. 6. HC Deb (1951–52) 501, c 1328 and Special Report of Public Petitions Committee, HC 286 (1951–52). 7. Parl Deb (1852) 122, c 863. 8. CJ (1826–27) 589; ibid (1829) 275. See also Parl Deb (1822) 6, c 1231, ibid (1823) 9, c 1253 for a petition containing offensive imputations against the Commons (and cf ibid (1849) 105, c 581); CJ (1840) 193 for the rejection of a petition deliberately insulting the House; ibid (1874) 209 for the withdrawal of a petition reflecting on a select committee; ibid (1861) 364, 377, 381 for a petition charging a Member with fraud. A petition to the Commons containing language disrespectful of the Lords has been withdrawn (ibid (1837–38) 236), though another praying in temperate language for the abolition of the upper House was after debate received (ibid (1847–48) 384, Parl Deb (1847–48) 97, c 1055). 9. CJ (1821) 105. Printed copies of a petition were cancelled and the petition withdrawn in 1874, since imputations were made on the conduct of judges (ibid (1874) 276); and similar action was taken the following year against a petition which reflected on the House, the Speaker, the Lord Chief Justice and two senior judges (ibid (1875) 134, 145). 10. CJ (1821) 92; ibid (1828) 541. 11. CJ (1823) 431; ibid (1836) 698. A petition threatening to resist the law has not been allowed to lie on the Table (ibid (1831–32) 547). 12. Parl Deb (1836) 34, c 670; ibid (1831) 6, cc 292–94; ibid (1837–38) 40, cc 474–75. 13. Parl Deb (1836) 33, c 326. 14. Parl Deb (1836) 34, cc 1042–44; CJ (2001–02) 286. 15. HC Deb (1956–57) 568, c 937. 16. CJ (1822) 150; ibid (1826–27) 604; ibid (1836) 616; ibid (1842) 259; ibid (1847–48) 406, 633; ibid (1850) 160; ibid (1854) 160; Parl Deb (1842) 63, c 192. 17. CJ (1830) 107; Parl Deb (1851) 114, c 820. 18. Speaker's private ruling, 31 March 2011.

Petitions from abroad 24.9Petitions from British subjects resident abroad,1 as well as petitions from inhabitants of British colonies which have local parliaments,2 have always been received, as have petitions from people resident in the UK who are not British citizens.3 Petitions have also been received from Dominions and colonies,4 and from ‘the Indian people in Canada’.5

Footnotes 1. From British residents in Dresden, Votes and Proceedings (1870) 102; Appendix to Votes (1870) 1 March 1870. From members of British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, Cuba, Votes and Proceedings (1874) 6 August 1874; from British citizens resident in: Venezuela, CJ (1980–81) 269; Sierra Leone, ibid 316; Belgium, ibid 331. 2. For example, CJ (1966–67) 103; HC Deb (1966–67) 756, c 178. 3. Provided that the subject of their complaint relates to the action of British, and not foreign, authorities, Parl Deb (1832) 13, c 1115. In 1876 a petition from inhabitants of Boulogne-sur-Mer was rejected on the grounds that it contained the signatures of French citizens as well as British subjects, HC 232 (1876); CJ (1876) 148, 181, 200; Parl Deb (1876) 228, c 1411. 4. A petition from the inhabitants of Nova Scotia was received in 1868. A petition from the British Migrants Association of Australia was received in 1932, Votes and Proceedings, 14 April 1932. See also HC Deb (1948–49) 458, c 1049 (Newfoundland). 5. CJ (1975–76) 85; ibid (1979–80) 236; ibid (1981–82) 121.

Duty of Members in the presentation of petitions 24.10Petitions can only be presented by a Member of the House to which they are addressed.1 A Member cannot be compelled to present a petition.2 A Member must sign their name on the top left-hand corner of a petition they present.3 The fact that a Member has agreed to present a petition does not mean that they necessarily agree with the views it expresses.4 A Member who has not taken the oath or made the affirmation cannot present a petition.5 In the Commons, government Ministers may not present petitions formally on the floor of the House. They may only present petitions informally (see para 24.19 below).6 According to established practice, the Speaker does not present petitions to the House.7

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1881) 263, c 1011. 2. Chaffers v Goldsmid [1894] 1 QB 186. 3. CJ (1884–85) 11; see also ibid (1833) 190; ibid (1844) 284, Parl Deb (1844) 74, c 714. Notice being taken that a Member's name had been affixed to a petition without his or her authority, the petition was ordered to be withdrawn (CJ (1876) 141, Parl Deb (1876) 228, c 1320) and it has been ruled that the Member's name should be signed by his or her own hand, and that it is irregular to authorise another person to affix it, ibid (1876) 229, c 586. 4. HC Deb (1968–69) 779, c 389. 5. Parl Deb (1881) 259, c 892; CJ (1882) 295. 6. Speaker's private ruling, 23 March 2015. 7. A petition from persons resident in the constituency represented by the Speaker has been presented by another Member (HC Deb (1982–83) 47, c 537; ibid (8 December 2009) 502, c 300).

Petitions on first day of session 24.11Petitions may not be presented on the first day of a session, when the Queen's speech is delivered.

Presentation of a petition from a Member 24.12A Member may petition the House to which they belong, but they cannot present the petition themselves. If a Member wishes to petition the House, they should ask another Member to present the petition for them.1 This rule, however, does not extend to cases in which a Member presents a petition in a representative capacity as Chairman of a local authority or of any public incorporated body.

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1841) 59, c 476; HC Deb (1984–85) 80, c 597.

Lords Business 7.16House of Lords Business is published after each sitting day. It contains the following sections: the Order of Business for the next sitting day (also printed separately as the Order Paper); a list of Future Business; notices of motions and questions for which no day has been named; questions for written answer; lists of bills, measures and delegated legislation and other instruments in progress; notice of committee meetings; and the daily Minutes of Proceedings. Since the session of 18251 the Minutes have been circulated in printed form. The printed Minutes, which are issued over the name of the Clerk of the Parliaments, are based on the Minutes kept by the Clerks at the Table as a contemporaneous record of the business of the House. However, the printed Minutes are in some respects more detailed, in particular including lists of those Lords Members who have voted in divisions in the House. In principle, the Minutes of Proceedings record what is done or deemed to be done as opposed to what is said in the House. They follow the order of business as it is taken in the House but they also include certain formal entries relating to committee proceedings off the floor of the House, retirements, leave of absence, parliamentary papers and private bills. Various supplementary papers and notices are from time to time circulated with House of Lords Business. When necessary, notices concerning changes in business and other matters of interest to the House are also circulated.

Footnotes 1. Following a resolution of the House (LJ (1824) 369).

Presentation of petitions to the Commons Contents Mass presentation of public petitions Proceedings following presentation of petition Discussion of petitions relating to present personal grievances Presentation of petitions from the Corporation of London Informal method of presenting petitions 24.14A Member of the Commons who wishes to present a petition on the floor of the House must give notice in the Journal Office before the rising of the House on the previous sitting day, so that the notice can appear on the Order Paper.1 The Member must bring at least the first page of the petition when giving notice. Under Standing Order No 154, public petitions are presented before the adjournment debate at the end of the sitting. When called to present the petition, the Member may make a statement about who the petition is from and how many signatures it has. They may summarise the content of the petition and read the request (or ‘prayer’).2 Members who have tried to make speeches about the subjectmatter of their petitions have been called to order.3 When the Member has made the statement about the petition, it is brought to the Table, where the Clerk reads out its title, and it is then placed in the bag behind the Speaker's chair.4 Alternatively, under Standing Order No 154(3), the petition may be read in full on request by the Clerk at the Table.5 A Member presenting several petitions at the same sitting makes statements about all of them before bringing them to the Table. No debate is permitted, except in the case of petitions relating to present personal grievance (see para 24.17 ), but points of order relating to the petition have been allowed to be raised.6 A Member intending to table a motion to give effect to a petition may give notice of such an intention.7

Footnotes 1. The requirement for formal notice on the Order Paper dates from February 2010: see HC 1117 (2008–09), paras 266–67; HC Deb (22 February 2010) 506, c 131, and the Speaker's statement, HC Deb (23 February 2010) 506, c 163. SO No 154 refers to presentation taking place ‘after a member of the government shall have signified his intention to move, That this House do now adjourn, for the purpose of bringing the sitting to a conclusion’. Until 2007, petitions were presented on Fridays immediately after prayers: see HC 513 (2006–07), para 29, Cm 7193 and CJ (2006–07) 610–11. 2. A Member cannot present a petition which they do not have with them: HC Deb (9 January 2006) 441, c 129. 3. HC Deb (1987–88) 139, cc 1156, 1157; ibid (9 December 2003) 415, c 1030; ibid (14 September 2004) 424, c 1240; ibid (13 March 2006) 443, c 1268; ibid (5 March 2008) 472, cc 1883–84; ibid (1 December 2009) 501, c 1078. See also ibid (1985–86) 88, cc 1187–89, when the Speaker urged a Member to summarise the petition rather than read it at length; and ibid (18 December 2006) 454, c 1246, when the Deputy Speaker prevented a Member from continuing a speech after reading the prayer. 4. The Speaker has limited the numbers of supporting pages of signatures that may be brought into the Chamber: HC Deb (1989–90) 163, cc 1293, 1296; ibid (2000–01) 365, cc 566–67. When a petition has been laid upon the Table, it is irregular for any Member to remove it, CJ (1850) 99. 5. The Speaker has ruled that a Member should not both speak at length about the subject-matter of the petition and require the Clerk to read it: HC Deb (1967–68) 759, cc 913, 942; ibid (1973–74) 867, cc 1621–22; ibid (1981–82) 16, cc 526–30. For other occasions when a petition has been read at the Table, see Parl Deb (1845) 79, c 496; ibid (1849) 106, c 300; HC Deb (1948–49) 458, c 1814; ibid (1955–56) 558, c 1917; ibid (1977–78) 953, c 860; ibid (1994–95) 255, cc 1295–6; ibid (2000–01) 365, cc 566–67. Petitions have been required to be read by the Clerk on objection being taken to their contents: Parl Deb (1861) 164, c 978; ibid (1870) 202, c 1307. 6. For example, HC Deb (1951–52) 501, c 1327; ibid (1967–68) 759, cc 913, 942; ibid (1979–80) 985, c 679. 7. HC Deb (1994–95) 258, c 953.

Mass presentation of public petitions 24.15From time to time, numbers of Members have arranged to present petitions formally on the same subject on the same day. When this happens, an expedited version of the usual procedure for presenting petitions is used. The first Member presents their petition in the usual way. Subsequent Members are asked not to read out the petition in full, but to give instead a brief description of the number and location of the petitioners and to state that the petition is ‘in the same terms’. Members presenting more than one petition present them together. When a Member has presented a petition, they go to the Table and hand it to the Clerk, who reads its title and then hands it back to the Member. The Chair calls the next Member immediately after the Clerk has read the title. After a period of time determined by the Chair (usually half an hour), no further petitions may be presented orally, but they may be placed in the petition bag and are recorded as formally presented.1

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (28 March 2006) 444, c 819; ibid (8 December 2009) 502, c 268; ibid (11 October 2016) 615, c 261.

Proceedings following presentation of petition 24.16Standing Order No 156 requires that all petitions (except those relating to present personal grievances, for which see para 24.17 ) shall be published in the Official Report.1 The number of signatures to a petition is not formally counted or recorded, although it may be mentioned by the Member presenting it to the House.2 The Standing Order directs the Clerk of the House to send all petitions presented under Standing Order No 153 to a Minister of the Crown. The Government has said that public petitions will normally receive a response (known as an ‘observation’) from the relevant government department.3 Any observation (response) that a Minister or Ministers makes in reply to a petition is published in the Official Report.4

Footnotes 1. The text of a petition presented formally appears in the Official Report immediately after the statement of the Member presenting it (unless the Member has read the full text). Other petitions and all government observations appear in a separate section of the Report with column numbers bearing the suffix ‘P’. Before November 2007, petitions and observations were published as supplements to the Votes and Proceedings: see HC 513 (2006–07) para 36, Cm 7193 and CJ (2006–07) 611. 2. Before 1974, all public petitions stood referred to a select committee on public petitions. Details of the functions of this committee are to be found in earlier editions of this work (eg 19th edn, 1976, pp 821–22). It should not be confused with the Petitions Committee established in 2015, which has a different role and remit. 3. Office of the Leader of the House of Commons, The Government's response to the Procedure Committee's First Report, Session 2006–07, on Public Petitions and Early Day Motions, Cm 7193, para 13. 4. HC 513 (2006–07), para 41, Cm 7193 and CJ (2006–07) 610.

Discussion of petitions relating to present personal grievances 24.17The matter contained in a petition complaining of a present personal grievance, calling, as an urgent necessity, for an immediate remedy, may be brought into discussion on the petition's presentation (Standing Order No 155). Consequent proceedings are not to be interrupted at the moment of interruption, and may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. Petitions held by the Speaker to comply with the terms of the Standing Order have concerned such grievances as tampering with the mails.1 A petition concerning Mr A N Wedgwood Benn and the Viscountcy of Stansgate was received under the Standing Order and immediately referred to the Committee of Privileges.2 In 1989, a petition was presented which alleged that statements made in the House by a Member had materially affected the petitioner's business. The petition called, in vain, for the House to treat the matter as relating to a present personal grievance and to appoint a select committee to examine the petitioner's claim for compensation.3 In other circumstances, the Speaker has ruled that petitions were not of such a character as to benefit from the provisions of the Standing Order.4

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

Parl Deb (1844) 75, c 1264. CJ (1960–61) 37, HC Deb (1960–61) 631, c 171. CJ (1988–89) 377. Complaints of tampering with mail in the past (CJ (1844) 398, Parl Deb (1844) 75, c 894); injuries sustained and behaviour of the police (Parl Deb (1854–55) 139, c 453); borough contracts and the need for investigation (Parl Deb (1890) 345, c 1809); and illegal arrest and deportation (HC Deb (1923) 164, c 816); and see also ibid (1913) 56, c 2224.

Presentation of petitions from the Corporation of London 24.18Petitions from the Corporation of London have in the past been presented to the House of Commons by the sheriffs, at the Bar (being introduced by the Serjeant with the Mace),1 or by one sheriff only, if the other be a Member of the House,2 or unavoidably absent.3

Footnotes 1. MS Officers and Usages of the House of Commons, p 46, held in the Parliamentary Archives, CJ (1947–48) 133. 2. CJ (1835) 506; ibid (1847–48) 122, 331, 731; ibid (1881) 248. 3. CJ (1820) 213; ibid (1839) 432. Other steps were taken in 1840 when both sheriffs were in the custody of the Serjeant at Arms, CJ (1840) 43, 82, 198.

Informal method of presenting petitions 24.19A Member may present a public petition at any time when the House is sitting, by endorsing it (by putting a signature at the top of the petition) and placing it in the petition bag kept at the back of the Speaker's chair. A Member does not need to consult the Journal Office before presenting a petition informally, but it is not recorded as having been presented if it is subsequently found to be disorderly.

The Official Reports of Debates in the Lords and Commons Contents The Commons’ Official Report The Lords' Official Report 7.18In the Lords and Commons the regular reporting of parliamentary debates developed gradually during the nineteenth century.1 The name generally used to describe the reports was ‘Hansard’. This was due to the fact that T C Hansard was first the printer, and later the publisher, of the official series of Parliamentary Debates covering both Houses inaugurated by William Cobbett in 1803. Grants were voted annually from 1878 to 1908 to further the publication of debates. In 1909 the present system was adopted, whereby the reports of debates are prepared by staff in the direct employment of each House and issued in separate series.2 These reports were at first known simply as ‘Parliamentary Debates, Official Report’. In 1943 the word ‘Hansard’ was restored to the title.3 The text of the Official Reports of both Lords and Commons from 1803 onwards is now available on the parliamentary website.4

Footnotes 1. Accommodation was made available to reporters in the Galleries of the Lords on 15 October 1831 and of the Commons on 19 February 1835. 2. See Report of Select Committee on Parliamentary Debates, HC 239 (1907); Parl Deb (1908) 188, c 1356; HL Deb (1915) 19, c 20. 3. LJ (1942–43) 180; HC Deb (1942–43) 391, c 2303. 4. www.hansard.parliament.uk

Petitions for attendance of witnesses or production of evidence in a court of law 24.21The presentation of a petition is the usual method of seeking the leave of the House for a Member to give evidence in a court of law touching proceedings in the House or in a committee,1 or for an Officer of the House to give evidence or produce documents relating to such proceedings.2 Following the presentation of a petition, an appropriate motion may be made, for the leave of the House to be granted (see paras 13.15, 20.6 ). Petitions of this sort are printed in full in the Votes and Proceedings. Since the House alone can take action upon them, they are not transmitted by the Clerk of the House to a Minister of the Crown (see para 24.16 ).

Footnotes 1. CJ (1948–49) 14; ibid (1966–67) 578; ibid (1967–68) 98; ibid (1981–82) 175; ibid (1994–95) 298. 2. CJ (1958–59) 313; ibid (1962–63) 201; ibid (1967–68) 125; ibid (1969–70) 153; ibid (1975–76) 428; ibid (1977–78) 442; ibid (1994–95) 298, 366.

E-petitions 24.22The e-petitions website at petition.parliament.uk opened on 20 July 2015. It is jointly owned by the House of Commons and the Government. It was established following recommendations made by the Procedure Committee, in order to ‘bring about a significant enhancement of the relationship between the petitioning public and their elected representatives’.1 The terms and conditions for e-petitions are agreed between the Petitions Committee and the Government, represented by the Leader of the House. Any British citizen or UK resident can start or sign a petition. To start a petition, petitioners must first enter the text of the petition on petition.parliament.uk. They must then find five other people to support the petition. Once the petition has its five supporters, it is checked by the staff of the Petitions Committee to see whether it meets the terms and conditions for the site. Broadly speaking, these are: the petition is not substantially similar to a petition already open on the site; the petition makes a clear request for action by the House of Commons or the Government; the petition is about something for which the House or the Government is responsible; the petition does not contain confidential or defamatory statements, or references to cases active in the UK courts; the petition does not contain statements which are offensive, jokes, nonsense or adverts.2 If the petition meets the terms and conditions, it is accepted and published on the site for other people to sign. If the petition does not meet the terms and conditions, it is rejected. The petitioner receives an email explaining that their petition has been rejected, together with the reason for the rejection. If the petition is about something for which another body—such as a local council or one of the devolved legislatures—is responsible, the reason will suggest an appropriate action. Staff of the Committee may also help petitioners to redraft their petitions so that they can be accepted. Rejected petitions, together with the reason for rejection, are published on the site, unless they are illegal, offensive, advertising, or similar.3 The Government has agreed to give a written response to petitions which obtain 10,000 signatures. The response is published on the website and sent by e-mail to everyone who has signed the petition. If the petition reaches 100,000 signatures, it is considered by the Petitions Committee for a debate (see below).

Footnotes 1. Procedure Committee, Third Report of Session 2014–15, E–petitions: a collaborative system, HC 235, summary. 2. For the full terms and conditions, see https://petition.parliament.uk/help 3. For the full terms and conditions, see https://petition.parliament.uk/help

The Petitions Committee Contents Power to schedule debates Evidence-gathering and public engagement Scrutiny of Government responses to petitions 24.23The role and powers of the Petitions Committee are set out in Standing Order No 145A. It is responsible for overseeing the operation of the e-petitions system and the arrangements for paper petitions. The Committee has up to eleven members. Like most other select committees, its Chair is elected by the whole House. Its members are elected by their parties and nominated by the Selection Committee. It has the power to send for persons, papers and records; the power to adjourn from place to place, and the power to report from time to time.1 The Procedure Committee said that it should be able to: correspond with petitioners on their petition; call petitioners for oral evidence; refer a petition to the relevant select committee; seek further information from the Government, orally or in writing, on the subject of a petition; and put forward petitions for debate.2

Footnotes 1. See Chapter 38, in particular para 38.1. 2. House of Commons Procedure Committee, Third Report of Session 2014–15, E-petitions: a collaborative system, HC 235, pp 13–14.

Power to schedule debates 24.24Under Standing Order No 145A, the Committee is responsible for deciding whether a petition should be debated. The Committee can schedule debate on one or more public petitions or e-petitions. The debates are held in Westminster Hall on Mondays from 4.30 pm, and can last for up to three hours. Debate takes place on a motion that the House has considered the e-petition(s) and/or public petitions. So far, the Petitions Committee has always chosen one of its own members to ‘lead’ the debate by moving the motion. A Committee member who agrees to lead the debate does not necessarily agree with the views expressed in the petition.

Evidence-gathering and public engagement 24.25The Petitions Committee has made a commitment to do all it can to maximise the potential for petitioners and other members of the public to be involved with debates on petitions. The Committee has used a variety of approaches to allow the public to share their views with MPs before debates take place, including: inviting petitioners and campaigners to Parliament; inviting the public to share their views on social media, sometimes with the MP leading the debate; working in partnership with existing online communities to create opportunities for people to share their views and discuss the issues being debated. The Committee has used its formal powers to take oral and written evidence to inform petition debates, sometimes working jointly with the relevant departmental select committee. The Committee has produced reports on petitions, following formal and informal evidence-gathering.1

Footnotes 1. See for example Petitions Committee, First Report of 2015–16, Funding for research into brain tumours, HC 554.

Scrutiny of Government responses to petitions 24.26The Petitions Committee has agreed guidelines for Government responses with the Leader of the House.1 The Committee reviews all the Government's responses to petitions to assess whether they meet these guidelines. If the Committee considers that a Government response does not meet the guidelines—for example, because it does not adequately and clearly address the request made by the petition—the Chair writes to the Government to ask for an improved response.

Footnotes 1. Memorandum of Understanding between the Petitions Committee and Leader of the House, 5 December 2018.

Arrangement of the session 25.1The House of Lords normally sits during the same weeks of the year as the House of Commons. But the fact that more major bills tend to be introduced into the House of Commons than the Lords means that the programme of business in the Lords is usually heavier at the end of the session than at the beginning.

Days and times of sitting 25.2The House ordinarily meets for public business on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. It meets on approximately one Friday each month.1 The normal hour of meeting on Mondays and Tuesdays is 2.30 pm; on Wednesdays is 3 pm; on Thursdays 11 am2; and on Fridays 10 am.3 The House often meets at 11 am on the last day before a recess. The order of adjournment may prescribe any other time for the meeting of the House.4 For the recall of the House for public business under Standing Order No 17, see para 8.13.

Footnotes 1. Very rarely the House has sat on Saturday (eg 3 April 1982) and Sunday (eg 3 September 1939). 2. The House has sat at 2.15 pm on Monday and Tuesday, and 10.45 am on Thursday, to allow three Introductions to be scheduled: HL Deb (24 June 2010) 719, c 1429. 3. LJ (2006–07) 853; ibid (2007–08) 65. 4. The House met at 9.30 am on Friday 7 April 1989 to accommodate a debate on three consultation papers on proposals for reform of the legal profession; at 11.30 am on 8 June 1993 to conclude the second reading debate on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill; at 11 am on Tuesday 19 March 2002 to debate the issue of hunting with dogs; at 12 noon on Tuesday 13 May 2007 to conclude a debate on House of Lords reform; and at 11 am on Wednesday 7 March 2018, Wednesday 14 March 2018, and Wednesday 28 March 2018 to accommodate the committee stage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.

Quorum 25.3The quorum of the House of Lords is three, including the Lord Speaker. For the quorum on a division, see para 25.87.

Notice of business Contents Business of which notice is required Business of which notice is not required 25.4Business in the House of Lords falls into two classes: that of which notice is required, which almost invariably forms the major business of the House on each day, and business which may be taken without notice. Business of which notice is required must appear at least on the Order Paper of the day on which it is to be taken and wherever possible also in House of Lords Business.

Business of which notice is required 25.5Notice must be given of oral questions, questions for short debate and all motions save those which the House customarily allows to be moved without notice.

Business of which notice is not required 25.6The following list, which is not exhaustive, shows what business the House in practice allows to be taken without notice:1 1. Business which does not involve a decision of the House: i. Royal Assent; ii. obituary tributes and personal statements; iii. ministerial statements and private notice questions; iv. statements or questions on business, procedure and privilege; v. oaths of allegiance; vi. presentation of public petitions. 2. Manuscript amendments to bills and motions. 3. Business expressly authorised under Standing Order No 41, namely: i. messages from the Crown; ii. introduction of bills; iii. messages from the Commons and first reading of Commons bills; iv. consideration of Commons amendments and reasons, though reasonable notice should be given when possible. 4. Motions relating to the way in which the House conducts its business, for example: i. motions for the adjournment of a debate, or of the House; ii. the motion to go into Committee of the whole House for more freedom of debate; iii. in Committee of the whole House, motions to adjourn the debate on an amendment, or to resume the House; iv. the motion that leave be not given to ask a question; v. the motion that the noble Lord be no longer heard; vi. the closure; vii. the next business motion; viii. the motion that a named Member be appointed Speaker pro tempore; ix. the motion that the House should meet in secret.

Footnotes 1. HL Deb (1970–71) 319, cc 1150–54.

Arrangement of the Order Paper Contents Tabling of motions and questions Anticipation Wording of questions and motions 25.7Standing Order No 39 provides that the House shall proceed with the notices and orders of the day in the order in which they stand on the Order Paper. The day's Order Paper is based on House of Lords Business, in which the business for named future days is set out. Notices are entered in House of Lords Business in the order in which they are received, subject to the following main conditions set out in Standing Order No 40: 1. oral questions are entered first; 2. private business is, subject to the Senior Deputy Speaker's discretion, placed before public business; 3. business of the House motions and the Senior Deputy Speaker's business (for example, consideration of reports from domestic committees) are entered before other public business; 4. on all sitting days except Thursdays, public bills, measures, affirmative instruments and select committee reports have precedence over other business.1 On Thursdays motions have precedence over public bills, measures and delegated legislation;2 5. any motion relating to a report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on a draft order laid under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, or a subordinate provisions order made or proposed to be made under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 is placed before a motion to approve the draft order; 6. any motion relating to a report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights on a remedial order or draft remedial order laid under the Human Rights Act 1998, sch 2 is placed before a motion to approve that order or draft order; 7. questions for short debate are entered last3, even when it is known that they will be taken in the lunch or dinner break.4 No distinction is made on the Order Paper between government business and other business.

Footnotes 1. Prayers to annul, or motions relating to, negative instruments (see para 31.30 ) and Special Procedure Orders do not have precedence over other business. See Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), pp 956–62. 2. SO No 40(4) and (5). 3. Except for balloted topical Questions for Short Debate on Thursdays which are entered after the first motion for general debate. 4. SO No 40(9).

Tabling of motions and questions 25.8No motion or question, except motions relating to bills and subordinate legislation, may be tabled for a date more than four weeks ahead. The period of four weeks does not include any time during which the House is expected to be in recess, except in the case of oral questions (Standing Order No 43).1 If a Member of the Lords wishes to give notice of a question or motion without fixing a definite date, they may put it down in House of Lords Business under one of various headings: ‘Motions for Balloted Debate’ (see para 25.41 ); ‘Select Committee Reports’; ‘[Other] Motions for Debate’; ‘Motions relating to Delegated Legislation’; or ‘Questions for Short Debate’ (see para 25.43 ).

Footnotes 1. HL Deb (1983–84) 447, c 241.

Anticipation 25.9There is no strictly formulated rule against anticipation as there is in the Commons. However, a Member of the Lords should not put down for a specific date a question or a subject for debate which already appears under the name of another Member of the Lords under any of the undated headings without first consulting that Member. Nor is it in the interests of good order and courtesy that a Member of the Lords should table for an earlier day a question or motion similar to one that has already been tabled for a particular day. Italic notes1 are often used to give the House advance notice of business not yet ready to be tabled. Notices may be withdrawn or put down for a later date by the Member of the Lords in whose name they stand.

Footnotes 1. HL Deb (1966–67) 283, cc 1167–70.

Wording of questions and motions Contents Form and scope of questions Inadmissibility Government responsibility Questions relating to the business of either House 25.10Questions and motions are expected to be worded in accordance with the practice of the House. The Clerks are available to assist Members of the Lords in drafting questions and motions, and the advice tendered by the Clerks should be accepted.1 However, there is no official who has authority to refuse a question or motion on the ground of irregularity. Members of the Lords are responsible for the form in which their questions and motions appear in House of Lords Business, subject to the sense of the House which is the final arbiter. It is open to any Member of the Lords to call attention to a question or motion which has appeared on the Order Paper or in House of Lords Business and to move that leave to ask the question (or move the motion) be not given or that it be removed from House of Lords Business. Such a motion should only be used in the last resort; it is debatable and is decided by the House.2 Similar general principles apply to the wording of questions and motions; specific rules applying to the wording of motions, which vary according to the type of motion, are set out at paras 25.11 –25.12.

Footnotes 1. HL Deb (1982–83) 439, c 223, ibid (1985–86) 471, c 411. 2. LJ (1960–61) 140; ibid (1982–83) 108; HL Deb (1982–83) 437, cc 1407–11.

Form and scope of questions 25.11Questions should relate to matters of government responsibility.1 They should be as short and clear as possible and are drafted so as to be precise in their requests for information. Statements of fact should be included in questions only to the extent necessary to elicit the information sought.2 Questions should use plain English and should generally be understandable without reference to other documents (with the exception of Hansard). Questions should be worded neutrally, and should not presuppose their own answer. They should not contain expressions of opinion or argument. It is not in order to italicise or underline words in the text of motions or questions in order to give them emphasis. Questions in the Lords are normally addressed to ‘Her Majesty's Government’, rather than to a particular Department or Minister. It is for the Government to decide which Department or Minister should answer a particular question. There are certain exceptions, including oral questions addressed to Secretaries of State sitting in the House of Lords in a designated question time such as that agreed by the House on a trial basis in December 2009. Such questions are addressed to ‘the Secretary of State for [Department]’. For questions addressed to the Leader of the House or the Senior Deputy Speaker, see para 25.14. In drafting a question, Members of the Lords are expected to have regard to the nature and scope of the response: 1. Oral questions are not intended to give rise to debate, and should be drafted in such a way that the Minister can make their initial reply in no more than 75 words. Proceedings on each question, including supplementary questions and answers, are normally limited to a total of seven or eight minutes. 2. Questions for written answer should usually be answerable using no more than 500 words.3 The Government applies a ‘disproportionate cost threshold’, currently set at £850,4 to written questions, and may decline to answer questions where the cost of answering would exceed this figure. 3. Questions for Short Debate give rise to debate lasting one or one-and-a-half hours, and may therefore be broader in scope than other types of question.

Footnotes 1. See Procedure Committee, Second Report of Session 2009–10, The Lisbon Treaty: procedural implications: Standing Order 19: Private notice questions: Guidance on motions and questions, HL 51; HL Deb (8 March 2010) 718, cc 58–92. 2. HL Deb (1982–83) 439, cc 222–25. 3. Procedure Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2013–14, Second Legislation Scrutiny Committee: Written Answers and Statements: Select Committee Membership: Maiden Speeches in Hansard, HL 167. 4. HL Deb (2010–12) 264, c 22WS.

Inadmissibility 25.12Although the House of Lords allows more latitude than the House of Commons, questions are generally regarded as inadmissible1 if they fall into one or more of the following categories: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Questions that cast reflections on the Sovereign or the Royal Family. Questions that relate to matters sub judice (see para 25.74 ). Questions that relate to matters for which the Church of England is responsible.2 Questions that relate to matters devolved to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the Northern Ireland Assembly. Questions that contain an expression or a statement of opinion, or whose purpose is to invite the Government to agree to a proposition, or to express an opinion. It is not in order to italicise or underline words in the text of motions or questions in order to give them emphasis.3 6. Questions that are phrased offensively. The principles of Standing Order 32 (asperity of speech) also apply.

Footnotes 1. LJ (1966–67) 49. 2. LJ (1976–77) 167; HL Deb (1988–89) 510, cc 788–92. 3. LJ (1970–71) 710.

Government responsibility 25.13In addition, questions which are not matters for which the Government is responsible are regarded as inadmissible. In judging government responsibility, the House of Lords has agreed the following guidance: 1. Questions should relate to Ministers' official duties, rather than their private affairs or party matters. 2. Where government functions are delegated to an executive agency, accountability to Parliament remains through Ministers. When a Minister answers a parliamentary question, orally or in writing, by reference to a letter from the chief executive of an agency, the Minister remains accountable for the answer, which attracts parliamentary privilege, and criticism of the answer in the House should be directed at the Minister, not the chief executive.1 3. Questions should not ask about opposition party policies. 4. Questions should not ask the Government for a legal opinion on the interpretation of statute or of international law, such matters being the competence of the courts. 5. Questions should not ask about matters which are the particular responsibility of local authorities or the Greater London Assembly. 6. Questions should not ask about the internal affairs of another country (save for questions about human rights or other matters covered by international conventions to which the United Kingdom is party). 7. In general, questions should not contain accusations against individuals. The names of individuals or bodies are not introduced into questions invidiously or for the purpose of advertisement. 8. Questions should not ask the Government about the accuracy of statements in the press, where these have been made by private individuals or bodies. 9. Questions should not ask about events more than 30 years ago without direct relevance to current issues. 10. The tabling of questions on public utilities, nationalised industries and privatised industries is restricted to those matters for which the Government is in practice responsible.2 11. Questions should not be hypothetical, and should address issues of substance. Questions which are trivial, vague or meaningless are not generally tabled.

Footnotes 1. LJ (1992–93) 582, 627; ibid 857, 957. 2. HL Deb (1989–90) 518, cc 1470–72. LJ (1987–88) 353, 407.

Questions relating to the business of either House 25.14The Government are not responsible for the business or decisions of either House of Parliament. Questions should not criticise the decisions of either House. Questions are not tabled about the internal affairs of the House of Commons. Questions should not ask about House of Commons select committee reports to which the Government has yet to publish its response. Nor do questions usually refer to evidence given before a Commons select committee. In respect of the House of Lords, questions may be addressed to certain Members of the House as holders of official positions but not as members of the Government. Thus the Leader of the House has been questioned on matters of procedure, and the Senior Deputy Speaker on matters falling within the duties of that office or relating to the House of Lords Commission and other domestic committees (see Chapter 6).

Order of business 25.15The following list gives a general indication of the order in which business is usually taken at a sitting. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

Prayers. Introductions. Oaths of allegiance (or at the end of business). The Lord Speaker's leave of absence. Messages and answers from the Crown. Royal Assent (or at any convenient time during the sitting). Addresses of congratulation or sympathy to the Crown (see para 9.11 ). Notification of death, retirement or exclusion. Obituary tributes. Personal statements. Oral questions. Private notice questions. Presentation of public petitions (see para 24.5 ). Questions of privilege. Statements on business. Ministerial statements (or at the first convenient time during a sitting). Introduction of public bills (or at the end of business). Messages from the Commons (or at any convenient time during a sitting). Private bills, at the discretion of the Senior Deputy Speaker. Business of the House motions. Motions to amend standing orders. Motions relating to the Senior Deputy Speaker's business, if they so desire. Motions for the appointment of select committees. Public business. Questions for Short Debate.

Variation of order of business Contents Advancement of business Postponement of business Precedence of adjourned business Variation by business of the House motion 25.16The relative precedence of public bills, measures, affirmative instruments and reports from select committees of the House may be varied if the convenience of the House so requires, by agreement of the Members of the Lords in whose names the business stands and if notice has been given in the Order Paper.1 Such variations are subject to Standing Order No 40(5) so that on Thursdays notices relating to public bills, Measures and delegated legislation may not be advanced before notices relating to motions, even with the consent of those affected. In such cases a formal motion is required to vary the order of business. Subject to Standing Order No 40(5) a bill, measure or affirmative instrument may also be advanced in the order of business of a day without consultation if a debate is not expected. If a debate arises, it is open to any Member of the Lords to move without notice that the debate be adjourned till later in the day or to another day.

Footnotes 1. SO No 40(8).

Advancement of business 25.17Oral questions and questions for short debate may be brought forward to an earlier day without leave, at the request of the Member of the Lords asking the question. Other notices can only be brought forward by leave of the House obtained on a motion, of which notice must be given. Such a motion is generally moved by the Leader of the House.1

Footnotes 1. SO No 42(1); HL Deb (1966–67) 283, cc 1167–70; ibid (1975–76) 372, cc 1232–37.

Postponement of business 25.18Notices may be withdrawn or put down for a later date by the Member of the Lords in whose name they stand.1 Business may only be postponed without notice until later the same day with the unanimous leave of the House.2 If leave is granted, the House proceeds to the next business on the Order Paper.

Footnotes 1. SO No 42(1). 2. SO No 42(3): LJ (1984–85) 291; LJ (1993–94) 418, 421, 682. The procedure has been used only four times: LJ (1989–90) 275; ibid (1992–93) 466; ibid (1996–97) 187; ibid (1999–2000) 758.

Precedence of adjourned business 25.19Where an item of business is adjourned the House may without notice order that the business in question shall be taken either later in the sitting1 or as the first item on some specified future day, subject to the rules governing the order in which categories of business may be taken (Standing Order No 45).

Footnotes 1. See for example HL Deb (21 December 2010) 723, c 1019.

Supplementary documents relating to bills 7.26Certain supplementary documents are published relating to bills. The most important of these are the Speaker's and Chairman of Ways and Means's provisional selection and grouping of amendments, which is published in hard copy and on the Bills before Parliament webpage ahead of each day of consideration of a Public Bill at Committee and Report stages (see paras 28.84 –28.140, 39.11 –39.31 ), the Speaker's certifications relating to English Votes for English Laws (‘EVEL’) (see para 27.10 ) which are published in the Votes and Proceedings and on the Parliamentary website, and Library briefing notes which are produced before Second Reading and after Committee Stage in the Commons, and published on the Parliament website.

Proceedings in the House Contents Prayers Introductions Oath of allegiance Messages from the Crown Royal Assent Tributes Personal statements Oral questions Private notice questions Ministerial statements Private bills Business of the House motions Public bills, measures, affirmative instruments and select committee reports Other motions Thursday debates Questions for short debate Leave of the House Adjournment 25.21Each of the main proceedings is described below, with references to other sections of this volume where appropriate.

Prayers 25.22Prayers are read at the beginning of each day's sitting. Ordinarily, they are read by one of the bishops (other than the two archbishops and the bishops of London, Durham and Winchester) who take a week each in turn. In the absence of a bishop, a Member of the Lords who is an ordained minister of the Church of England, if present, reads prayers. If no such Member of the Lords is present, prayers are read by the Lord on the Woolsack. A Member of the Lords may attend prayers before taking the oath on that day. During prayers the doors and galleries of the House are closed and only Members and certain staff are admitted.

Introductions Contents Form of ceremony 25.23Ceremonial introduction is necessary in the case of: 1. a newly created life peer; 2. an archbishop on appointment or translation; 3. a bishop on first receiving a writ of summons or, if already a Member of the House, on translation to another see. A hereditary peer elected or taking their seat under Standing Order No 10 requires no introduction and, on receiving their writ, can take their seat and the oath of allegiance without any ceremony.

Form of ceremony Contents Lords Temporal Lords Spiritual 25.24Introductions normally take place on Monday, Tuesdays or Thursdays after prayers. Introductions may also take place on ‘swearingin’ days (see para 25.27, fn 1), but not on the first day of a new Parliament.

Lords Temporal 25.25A Member of the House of Lords is introduced between two other Members of the same degree of peerage as them,1 all wearing parliamentary robes. Preceded by the Gentleman or Lady Usher of the Black Rod, Garter King of Arms (or another herald) who carries the patent, they enter the House from the bar and advance to the Table. Garter hands the new Member's Letters Patent to the Reading Clerk, and the new Member hands the Writ of Summons to the Reading Clerk. The Reading Clerk reads the Letters Patent and administers the oath of allegiance or solemn affirmation to the new Member who then signs the Test Roll. The new Member also signs an undertaking to abide by the House of Lords Code of Conduct. The new Member is then conducted to the Woolsack where they shake hands with the Lord Speaker.

Footnotes 1. LJ (1992–93) 439, 440. Since the coming into force of the House of Lords Act 1999, excepted hereditary peers who are not of the rank of baron may not be supporters.

Lords Spiritual 25.26The ceremony of introduction of a bishop or archbishop is similar to that observed in the case of a temporal Lord, but Lords Spiritual are not preceded by Garter or Black Rod and have no Letters Patent to present. The bishop is conducted by two supporting bishops to the appropriate bench. Archbishops may act as supporters at the introductions of bishops, and bishops may so act at the introductions of archbishops. The bishop's writ of summons is read by the Reading Clerk (a bishop has no letters patent).

Oath of allegiance 25.27Under s 5 of the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866 any Member of the House of Lords who sits or votes without having taken the oath or affirmed is subject to a penalty of £500. In addition to taking the oath or affirming when first taking their seats, all Members of the Lords must take the oath or affirm: 1. in every new Parliament;1 and 2. after a demise of the Crown. The form of the oath is prescribed by the Promissory Oaths Act 1868, s 2 and the Oaths Act 1978, s 1.2 Members of the Lords who object to being sworn may make a solemn affirmation. Members of the Lords may take the oath or make the affirmation in Welsh or Gaelic in addition to, but not instead of, English.3 The oath is usually taken after prayers, but it may be taken at the end of business before the adjournment (Standing Order No 41(5)). If any Member of the Lords attends the House or votes without having taken the oath or affirmed, their attendance is not recorded and their vote is invalidated.4

Footnotes 1. At the beginning of a new Parliament at least two days are usually set aside before the State Opening specifically for Members of the Lords to take the oath (‘swearing-in’ days). New Members of the Lords may be introduced at such sittings, but no other business may be transacted (see para 8.36 ). 2. See para 8.26. 3. HL Deb (1982–83) 439, c 224; ibid (2001–02) 626, c 1383. 4. LJ (1993–94) 418, 422, 682.

Messages from the Crown 25.28A Message from the Crown may be delivered without notice at the beginning of a sitting or at any time during a sitting and may, upon motion, be taken into consideration forthwith (Standing Order No 41(1)). Sometimes a Message is set down for consideration on a subsequent date when an Address in reply is moved, usually by the Leader of the House (see para 8.37 ). However, most Messages from the Crown are in response to Addresses from the House (such as that moved after the Queen's speech at the opening of a session), and no action need be taken upon them.

Command Papers 7.29Command Papers are presented to Parliament as by command of the Queen. In practice, the responsibility for presentation is that of the Minister in charge of the relevant department. In general, Command Papers are those papers which are considered by the Government to be of interest to Parliament but which are not required by statute to be presented. They include annual reports of government departments, agreements and exchanges of notes with foreign states; other papers give information concerning the relations of the Government with international organisations. Statements of government policy or proposals for government legislation or administrative action are often laid before Parliament in this form. In certain cases they are presented following an undertaking given in Parliament for a White Paper on a particular subject. Green Papers, ie policy proposals issued for purposes of debate or consultation prior to final government decision, are also normally laid before Parliament in this form. The great majority of Command Papers are published under a contract managed by The National Archives. They are published on the authority of the Minister presenting them and are included in a numbered series.1 Some papers are presented by command which do not form part of this series, and may be referred to as unnumbered/unprinted Command Papers.2 Some Command Papers are presented to the House of Commons alone, for example, the annual Estimates which are printed by order of the House.

Footnotes 1. Command Papers are numbered: No (1) in 1833 to No (4222) in 1868–69; (C 1) in 1870 to (C 9550) in 1899; (Cd 1) in 1900 to (Cd 9239) in 1918; (Cmd 1) in 1919 to (Cmd 9888); (Cmnd 1) in 1956 to (Cmnd 9927); Cm 1-9999 from beginning of Session 1986–87; and CP 1-9999 from January 2019. 2. These include departmental minutes drawing attention to contingent liabilities (see para 7.34 ) and, since March 2002, explanatory memoranda relating to affirmative statutory instruments.

Tributes 25.30Tributes may be paid, before other business commences, on the occasion of the death1 (or occasionally retirement2 ) of distinguished Members of the House or of public servants. Decisions about whether to pay tributes are made by the Leader of the House after consultation with the other party leaders. The House may also show its respect to the memory of a deceased statesperson by an extraordinary adjournment.3

Footnotes 1. For example, HL Deb (1991–92) 534, cc 1413–16; ibid (1992–93) 549, cc 707–9; ibid (1993–94) 557, cc 699–704; ibid (1994–95) 566, cc 565–70; ibid (1996–97) 579, cc 419–22; ibid (2002–03) 653, cc 1–12; ibid (5 April 2005) 671, cc 465–77; ibid (8 May 2007) 691, cc 1257–62; ibid (20 March 2018) 790, cc 169–74. 2. For example, HL Deb (1990–91) 529, cc 231–33; ibid (1992–93) 540, cc 317–19; ibid (1993–94) 557, cc 591–94; ibid (1994–95) 565, cc 1–4; ibid (9 July 2003) 651, cc 276–83; ibid (30 April 2009) 710, cc 319–24, ibid (24 April 2017) 782, c 1197. 3. LJ (1861–62) 416; ibid (1882) 139; ibid (1908) 101; ibid (1946–47) 188; ibid (1962–63) 96; ibid (1964–65) 117, 126; ibid (1993–94) 387; ibid (1994–95) 439; ibid (2005–06) 179.

Personal statements 25.31A Member of the Lords may with the leave of the House make a short factual statement of a personal character, such as a personal apology, a correction of information given in a speech made by them in the House or a reply to allegations made against them in the House. Personal statements are made in connection only with matters of substance. They are usually taken at the beginning of public business and are not debatable.

Oral questions 25.32On every day except Friday1 a maximum of four oral questions (marked with an asterisk or star2 in House of Lords Business) are asked of the Government (or, on matters relating to their official responsibilities, of the Leader of the House or the Senior Deputy Speaker). Question time takes place at the start of business on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, and may not exceed 30 minutes.3 Oral questions must be worded as requests for information4 and are addressed to the Government as a whole rather than to any particular Minister (except in the case of questions addressed to Secretaries of State sitting in the Lords, which are described below). No oral question may be tabled more than one calendar month in advance or less than 24 hours before it is due to be asked. The fourth question on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday is reserved for a ‘topical’ question selected by ballot. No Member of the Lords may have more than one oral question in House of Lords Business at any given time (though topical and Secretaries of State's questions are excluded from this rule) or have two questions on the same day; and Members of the Lords are limited to four topical questions in any one session.5 Oral questions are asked by leave of the House, and may be disallowed by the House. A Member of the Lords unable to be present may authorise another Member to ask a question on their behalf, in which case the Member of the Lords who is to ask the question gives notice to the Table in advance. The Table then informs the Government.6 The unanimous leave of the House is required for one Member's question to be asked by another when the authority of the Member named on the Order Paper has not been given.7 No debate may take place on oral questions. Supplementary questions may be asked but they should be short, raise not more than two points and be confined to the subject of the original question. Supplementary questions should not be read and should not incorporate statements of opinion. Ministers should not answer irrelevant supplementary questions and, if several points are raised in supplementary questions, need answer only two of the points. Where the Minister's answer contains material too lengthy or complicated to be given orally this may be published in Hansard. By custom, the Member of the Lords who asks an oral question is permitted to ask the first supplementary question, but has no automatic right to ask a final question.8

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Oral questions are no longer taken on Fridays: LJ (1994–95) 45, 90. Oral questions were known as starred questions until June 2006: LJ (2005–06) 886, 1054. HL Deb (1990–91) 525, cc 1279–83; ibid (10 November 2004) 666, cc 894–928. SO No 34. HL Deb (1958–59) 214, cc 5–10; ibid (1987–88) 493, c 938; ibid (1991–92) 536, cc 1329–31; LJ (1992–93) 957; ibid (1998–99) 192, 264. Members of the House of Lords who have an oral question tabled for a particular day are barred from the ballot for topical questions on that day, ibid (1993–94) 582, 682. For the long 2010–12 session the limit on the number of topical questions allowed to each Member of the Lords was increased from four to five: HL Deb (16 December 2010) 723, c 732. 6. HL Deb (1984–85) 465, c 1187. 7. SO No 42(2); LJ (1992–93) 439, 440. 8. SO No 34; HL Deb (1984–85) 462, cc 804–12; ibid (1987–88) 493, c 938; ibid (1995–96) 574, cc 295–97; ibid (2002–03) 643, cc 212–18.

Private notice questions 25.33A Member of the Lords who wishes to ask a private notice question on a matter of urgency submits their question in writing to the Lord Speaker by noon on the day on which they propose to ask the question (by 10 am on a day when the House sits before 1 pm1 ). The decision whether the question is of sufficient urgency and importance to justify an immediate reply rests with the Lord Speaker, after consultation.2 Private notice questions are asked immediately after oral questions, or on Friday at a time agreed by the Lord Speaker, the Member of the Lords asking the question and the usual channels. Proceedings on private notice questions follow the rules for oral questions. They may not be made the occasion for immediate debate (Standing Order No 35). Supplementary questions should be short and confined to two points only. Comment should be avoided.3 Proceedings are expected to take not more than ten minutes. In some circumstances it may be more convenient for the House if, instead of using the private notice question procedure, the Government makes a statement. Such circumstances include: where a long reply is required; when the responsible Minister sits in the Lords; or the House of Commons is not sitting.4

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

LJ (2002–03) 90; LJ (2006–07) 853. HL Deb (24 April 2006) 681, cc 12–16; ibid (16 March 2010) 718, cc 588–92. HL Deb (1990–91) 525, cc 1279–83. HL Deb (1990–91) 530, cc 706–9.

Ministerial statements 25.34A statement by a Minister on a matter of public importance may be made by leave of the House without notice. Such statements are commonly synchronised in the two Houses. When the responsible Minister sits in the House of Lords, the statement is usually made after questions (or, on Fridays, at the start of business). If the responsible Minister sits in the House of Commons, the statement may be repeated in the Lords at a convenient moment after the statement has started in the Commons, if the Leader, having consulted the opposition parties, considers it to be a matter of public importance.1 Questions may be asked and brief comments made upon ministerial statements, but they should not be made the occasion for immediate debate (Standing Order No 35).2 The Opposition frontbench spokespersons (or spokesperson, if there is only one main Opposition party) usually each respond to the statement and the Minister replies to both of them together. Frontbench exchanges are generally limited to 20 minutes, though Ministers should not cut short their replies, even if this means going beyond the 20-minute limit.3 Further discussion is limited to 20 minutes from the end of the Minister's reply to the Opposition spokesmen. If debate on a statement is desired, a notice should be tabled for a later date.4 Where a statement contains material which is too lengthy or too complicated to be given orally in the House the additional material may be published in Hansard without being given orally.5 If the House of Lords is not sitting on a day on which a statement is made in the House of Commons, it is not the usual practice to repeat it when the Lords next sit, save in the case of an exceptionally important statement. If a statement made in the House of Commons is not repeated in the Lords an italic reference to the statement giving the appropriate reference in the Commons Hansard may be inserted on the cover of the daily Lords Hansard.6 Where a private notice question is asked in the House of Commons the answer may be repeated in the House of Lords in the form of a statement.7 Written statements may be made when the House is sitting, by Ministers or the Senior Deputy Speaker. Notice is not required. Written statements are placed in the Library as soon as they are received, and are printed in Hansard.8

Footnotes 1. HL Deb (1987–88) 493, c 939. On days when there are two balloted or time-limited debates a Commons statement is normally repeated between the two debates, LJ (1994–95) 581, HL Deb (1995–96) 567, cc 461–62. 2. HL Deb (1984–85) 465, c 1187; ibid (2002–03) 643, cc 213–20. 3. Procedure Committee, First Report of Session 1994–95, HL 9; HL Deb (2000–01) 621, cc 136–62. 4. HL Deb (1989–90) 515, cc 1094–98; LJ (1993–94) 197, 250. 5. LJ (1987–88) 284, 368. 6. HL Deb (1970–71) 321, cc 322–23; ibid (1987–88) 493, c 939; Procedure Committee, First Report of Session 1998–99, HL 33. 7. HL Deb (1984–85) 465, c 1188. 8. HL Deb (17 December 2003) 655, cc 1159–69.

Private bills 25.35Where proceedings on private bills are expected to be formal, they are taken before public business. If, however, it appears that a private bill is likely to be debated, the Senior Deputy Speaker has discretion to propose the postponement or adjournment of that stage of the bill either to a later time on the same day or to another day. Members of the Lords intending to debate a private bill accordingly give notice of their intention to the Senior Deputy Speaker.1 Where a Member of the Lords wishes to oppose a bill, such notice should always be given. Private bills may also be entered later in the Order Paper at the discretion of the Senior Deputy Speaker (Standing Order No 40(2)).

Footnotes 1. LJ (1958–59) 344. See also para 46.2.

Business of the House motions 25.36Business of the House motions, which are tabled in the name of the Leader of the House,1 are used to enable the House to regulate proceedings of which notice has been given in House of Lords Business. They are generally of two types. The first type is to vary or suspend the application of standing orders, for which under the terms of Standing Order No 84 notice is required except in an emergency. Suspension of Standing Order Nos 40 and 46 is commonly agreed to, particularly when pressure of business increases before a recess or prorogation, to enable the Government to arrange the order of business and to take more than one stage of a bill at a sitting. The second main type of business of the House motion is to apply time limits to debates. Business of the House motions may be used for other purposes from time to time.2 Business of the House motions are disposed of before other notices relating to public business (Standing Order No 40(3)). They can be amended.3

Footnotes 1. Exceptionally, a business of the House motion has been tabled by the Leader of the Opposition, HL Deb (1995–96) 569, cc 503–12. 2. For example to disapply the rule relating to the tabling of amendments at third reading which have been fully discussed and decided at an earlier stage, Defamation Bill 1996, HL Deb (1995–96) 571, cc 1404–6; see also minutes of proceedings of 4 April 2019. 3. See minutes of proceedings of 4 April 2019.

Public bills, measures, affirmative instruments and select committee reports 25.37These proceedings are described in Chapters 28, 30 and 39.

Motions for resolutions 25.38Where a Member of the Lords desires that the House should reach a definite decision on a matter, if necessary on a vote, they may table a motion for resolution. Such a motion begins with the words ‘To move to resolve’ or ‘To move that this House’, and can with propriety incorporate statements of opinion or the demonstration of a point of view.1

Footnotes 1. HL Deb (1985–86) 471, cc 410–17.

Motions ‘To take note’ 25.39Most debates take place on a motion ‘that this House takes note of’ a subject. This formula enables the House to debate a matter without coming to any positive decision. Such motions are usually agreed to, since they are neutral in wording, and there is neither advantage nor significance in opposing them. The opinion of the House is expressed in the speeches made in the debate rather than on a division. The formula is regularly used for debates on the general debate day and for select committee reports. It is also appropriate for use by a Minister when they wish to put down a neutral motion. Guidance about the wording of motions for papers applies also to take-note motions. In certain circumstances Ministers may put down motions to ‘take note with approval’. Such motions have been tabled in respect of the requirement, under s 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, that the Government should seek Parliament's approval of its assessment of the medium term economic and budgetary position.1 A motion to ‘take note with approval’ has also been tabled by a Minister in respect of a Joint Committee Report.2

Footnotes 1. LJ (2007–08) 51. 2. LJ (2006–07) 150.

Thursday debates Contents Balloted debates Other Thursday debates 25.40Although procedurally the Government's business has no priority over other business, in practice much of the time of the House is spent debating Government bills or motions tabled by the Government. By modern practice the interests of the other parties and backbenchers are protected by the setting aside of every Thursday from the beginning of a typical session until the end of January1 for debates on motions not tabled by the Government. These debates fall into two classes.

Footnotes 1. Formerly June. The scheduling of Thursday debates was changed in December 2010 to reflect the new sessional cycle: HL Deb (16 December 2010) 723, c 731.

Balloted debates 25.41One Thursday in each month from the start of the session to the end of December is set aside for two balloted debates. These debates are limited to two-and-a-half hours each, so that speeches are normally time-limited, and their subjects should be narrow enough to be debated within the time limit.1 These debates may be initiated only by backbenchers and crossbenchers. The choice of the subjects is made by ballot, carried out by the Clerk of the Parliaments two or three weeks before the debates are due to take place. A Member of the Lords wishing to initiate a balloted debate must give notice by tabling their motion in House of Lords Business under Motions for Balloted Debate. It is not in order to put down a motion for a balloted debate which is the same, or substantially the same, as a motion that is already entered in Motions for Balloted Debate.2 No Member of the Lords may initiate more than one balloted debate each session.3 The rules about speaking time are set out at para 25.79. Motions for balloted debates are phrased neutrally, in the same way as other take note motions, so as to avoid the possibility of a division.4

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

LJ (1992–93) 627–28. HL Deb (1974–75) 365, cc 1146–48. LJ (1971–72) 275–76. HL Deb (1985–86) 471, c 410.

Other Thursday debates 25.42Other Thursdays are set aside for debates, usually on motions for papers, sponsored by the opposition, the Crossbench peers, and the Government's own backbenchers. The allocation of days to each is decided by discussion between the usual channels. Up to two separate debates may take place. Where two debates are set down for a Thursday, each must be time-limited within a total time limit of six hours and speaking time is then subject to the rules set out at para 25.79.1 Motions to take note of select committee reports have been debated with such motions where the subject matter is closely related.2

Footnotes 1. LJ (1993–94) 196–97, 250. The general debate day was moved from Wednesday to Thursday in 2005 as an experiment and confirmed in 2006: HL Deb (24 July 2006) 684, cc 1544–51. 2. LJ (1993–94) 496.

Questions for short debate 25.43A question which may give rise to debate of limited duration1 is known as a question for short debate.2 It may be tabled for any day on which the House is sitting. Such a question may be taken as business in the lunch or dinner break, in which case it is limited to a duration of one hour, or as the last item of business, in which case it is limited to one-and-a-half hours. In each case ten minutes is guaranteed to the questioner, and 12 minutes to the Minister replying. The Member of the Lords asking the question (since they move no motion) has no right of reply. Other speakers share the remaining time equally, no specific time being allocated to opposition spokesmen.3 The rules about interventions and speaking in the gap in timelimited debates apply (see paras 25.58 and 25.79 ).4 Questions for short debate are always entered last on the Order Paper (Standing Order No 40(9)), whether or not they are intended to be taken during a lunch or dinner adjournment. A second question for short debate should be put down only on a day when business appears to be light. Occasionally up to three questions for debate have been taken on one day when there is no other business.5 In such a case each is limited to oneand-a-half hours. Questions for short debate may be taken in a Grand Committee with the concurrence of those concerned. No business of the House motion is required. Such questions are time-limited to one or one-and-a-half hours.6

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

LJ (1992–93) 582, 627. Questions for short debate were known as unstarred questions until June 2006: LJ (2005–06) 886, 1054. LJ (1992–93) 627–28; ibid (1993–94) 582, 682. HL Deb (1990–91) 530, cc 706–9. Minutes of Proceedings, 11 October 2010. LJ (2006–07) 853.

Leave of the House 25.44The leave of the House, or of a Committee of the whole House, is required before certain procedures or items of business may be proceeded with. In certain cases where leave is sought, it is granted by majority and the objection of a single Member of the Lords is not sufficient to withhold leave. Leave is granted by majority: 1. 2. 3. 4.

to ask questions; to make ministerial or personal statements; to take business not on the Order Paper of which notice is not required; to speak more than once to a motion.

In other cases leave must be unanimous, notably in those cases where, if leave were granted, the House or committee would be deprived of having a question put (Standing Order No 31). Unanimous leave is required: 1. 2. 3. 4.

to withdraw an amendment or a motion which is before the House; to move motions, amendments or clauses en bloc; to move that the order of commitment or re-commitment of a bill be discharged; to move a motion or ask a question when the mover or questioner is absent, unless the authority of the Member of the Lords named on the order paper has been given; 5. to postpone business without notice until later the same day. Leave is usually obtained without putting the question: a Member of the Lords who requests leave usually tests the feeling of the House and, if there is opposition to leave being granted, generally withdraws their request. But, if necessary, the question ‘that leave be given’ may be taken to a division in a case where leave is granted by a majority decision. Leave may not be granted to dispense with any standing order without notice, except in the case of expediting a bill or bills in a grave national emergency, as provided by Standing Order No 84.

Adjournment 25.45There is no fixed time for the adjournment of the House although it is a firm convention that the House normally rises by about 10 pm on Mondays to Wednesdays, by about 7 pm on Thursdays and by about 3pm on Fridays. The motion ‘That the House do now adjourn’ is proposed at the end of business from the government front bench, usually by a government Whip. The Lord Speaker puts the question, but does not collect the voices because this question is not usually debated. If any Member of the Lords wishes to debate it, the Lord Speaker should be informed beforehand.1 There is no special procedure for long adjournments over recesses, the dates of which are normally announced by the Government Chief Whip some weeks or months in advance.2

Footnotes 1. Although the motion on the adjournment before the Christmas recess is often made the occasion for general thanks and good wishes; for examples of debate at other times, see LJ (1958–59) 131; ibid (1960–61) 356, 414. 2. In 1947 the House did not accept the adjournment proposed by the government on the eve of the summer recess and varied it by amendment: LJ (1946–47) 493. On 20 December 2018 a Member moved a motion for the House to return earlier than announced from a recess.

Proceedings in Grand Committee 25.46Certain types of business may take place in Grand Committee. A Grand Committee is a committee of unlimited membership. Any Member of the Lords may participate in it. Only one Grand Committee sits on any one day. The place of meeting is usually the Moses Room. The procedure in a Grand Committee is essentially the same for each type of business as the procedure would have been in the House when such business is considered, except that divisions may not take place in Grand Committee, and thus decisions cannot be taken in Grand Committee except by unanimity.1 For committee stages of public bills see para 29.49. In respect of other types of business, the Grand Committee gives Members of the Lords an opportunity to engage in general debate on a particular issue, or to interrogate ministers, in a relatively informal setting, and without the need to reach a decision at the end of the debate. The following types of business may take place in Grand Committee: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Committee stages of public bills (normally only one bill per day—see para 29.35 ) Motions to consider affirmative instruments (see para 31.28 ) Motions to consider negative instruments (see para 31.30 ) Motions to consider reports of select committees, or of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament (see para 40.42 ) General motions for debate Questions for short debate (see para 25.43 ) Debates on proposals for National Policy Statements, laid before Parliament under the Planning Act 2008.2 A Marine Policy Statement, laid under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, has also been debated in Grand Committee.3

In addition, second reading debates on Law Commission bills may take place in a ‘Second Reading Committee’, though this is not formally a Grand Committee. Following the second reading debate a formal motion that the bill be read a second time is taken in the Chamber.4 Matters requiring a decision of the House (for instance, affirmative instruments) are referred to the Grand Committee on a Business of the House motion, and are then debated in Grand Committee on a neutral motion ‘to consider’ the matter. Following the debate in Grand Committee, any decision that is required (such as approval of an affirmative instrument) is then taken, normally without further debate, on the floor of the House. Grand Committees sit for times agreed in advance, irrespective of the rising of the House. Notice of the proceedings is given in House of Lords Business. The normal sitting times of Grand Committee are: Monday, Tuesday 3.30–7.30 pm; Wednesday 3.45–7.45 pm; Thursday 2–6 pm. On days when a Grand Committee sits to consider backbench questions for short debate its normal sitting times are: Monday, Tuesday 3.30–8.30 pm; Wednesday 3.45–8.45 pm; Thursday 1–6 pm.5 Committee proceedings begin at the appointed time without any preliminary motion. Members of the Lords speak standing and, so far as they can, observe the same degree of formality as in the Chamber. Forms of words used in Grand Committee are the same as in Committee of the whole House. The committee adjourns for ten minutes for a division in the House. If the committee is to break (eg for a division or a statement in the Chamber), and when it adjourns at the end of the day's proceedings, the committee is simply adjourned without question put. The verbatim report of the Grand Committee's proceedings is published as an appendix to Hansard, and the minutes are published as an appendix to the Minutes of Proceedings.

Footnotes 1. Procedure Committee, First Report of Session 2005–06, HL 26. 2. Procedure Committee, Second Report of Session 2008–09, Judicial Business – amendments to Standing Orders: National Policy Statements: Use of Welsh language in Committee proceedings, HL 165; LJ (2008–09) 822. 3. Procedure Committee, Third Report of Session 2010–12, Motions to fill Select Committee vacancies en bloc: Thursday debates: Marine Policy Statement: Introductions: Topical oral questions: Oral statements, HL 71. 4. This procedure was agreed to on a trial basis in 2008, and confirmed on 7 October 2010. See Procedure Committee, First Report of Session 2007–08, Law Commission Bills, HL 63, and Second Report of Session 2010–12, Law Commission Bills, HL 30. 5. Procedure Committee, First Report of Session 2013–14, Backbench Questions for Short Debate: Grand Committee sitting hours, HL 19.

Process of debate Contents Moving of motions Putting the question upon a motion Withdrawal of motions Methods of postponing or superseding the question The closure Putting of question at end of debate 25.47The process of debate in the House of Commons, by motion, question and decision, is described in Chapter 22. The procedure of the House of Lords, which is explained here, is fundamentally similar to that of the Commons, though it is regulated by fewer standing orders and rules.

Moving of motions 25.48A notice of motion may be tabled in the name of one Member of the Lords only. When a motion on the Order Paper is reached, the Clerk at the Table calls the Member of the Lords in whose name it stands, who then rises to move the motion. In their absence, the motion may be moved by another Member of the Lords who has been authorised by them to take their place or (with the unanimous leave of the House) by a Member of the Lords without such authority,1 but otherwise the motion cannot be proceeded with until notice of it has been renewed (Standing Order No 42(2)). Motions are not seconded except in the case of the motion for an Address in answer to the Queen's speech. The mover of a motion has a right of reply. Other Members may speak only once to each motion (Standing Order No 30). It is contrary to the practice of the House for a question once decided to be put again in the same session.

Footnotes 1. For example, LJ (1992–93) 96.

Putting the question upon a motion 25.49After a motion has been moved it is proposed from the Woolsack or the Chair (Standing Order No 28). This usually takes the form of the question ‘That this motion be agreed to’ without the terms of the motion being elaborated; but on the stages of bills and on some other occasions the full terms of the motion are put. Once the question has been put, debate on it may arise.

Withdrawal of motions 25.50Once the question on a motion has been put, the motion can be withdrawn only by the unanimous leave of the House (Standing Order No 31). If the mover seeks leave to withdraw their motion the Lord Speaker asks the House: ‘Is it your Lordships’ pleasure that the motion be withdrawn?' A single dissenting voice prevents withdrawal, but it is rare for any objection to be taken.

Adjournment of debate 25.51A motion for the adjournment of a debate may be moved at any time during the debate without notice and may be debated. But when it has been arranged in advance for a debate to be adjourned, it is usual for its adjournment to be moved formally either from the Government front bench or by the Member of the Lords who will speak first when the debate is resumed. The House may make an order, without notice, for adjourned business to be taken later the same day, or taken as first business on some future day (Standing Order No 45).

Amendment to motion 25.52After a motion has been moved and the question put on it, an amendment to the motion may be moved. At the end of the speech of the Member of the Lords proposing the amendment, the question is put on the amendment. In principle the discussion of an amendment to a motion is a separate debate, which must be concluded before the House returns to the original motion (or the original motion as amended). However, in practice, once a motion and an amendment to it have been moved, the rest of the debate takes place on that amendment, and the Members of the Lords in whose names the motion and any subsequent amendments stand speak in this debate to indicate the reasons why they prefer their own form of words. When the first amendment has been disposed of, the remaining amendments and the original motion (as amended) are usually put and decided without further debate. Amendments to amendments are dealt with similarly.

‘Next business’ motion 25.53A Member of the Lords who considers it undesirable that the House should record an opinion on a motion that has been moved may move ‘that the House do proceed to the next business’. Notice should, if possible, be given. A ‘next business’ motion supersedes the original motion before the House and, if it is agreed to, the question on the original motion is not put, and the debate ends. If it is disagreed to, the debate on the original motion may be resumed and the question is put in the usual way. The next business motion is not admitted on an amendment, though after an amendment has been agreed to, it may be moved on an original motion as amended. It may not be moved in any committee of the House.1 The next business motion is debatable and, since it cannot be debated without reference to the original motion, the subject matter of both motions may be debated together. It should be distinguished from the closure which, if carried, compels the House at once to come to a decision on the original motion (see below).

Footnotes 1. LJ (1971–72) 128.

The closure 25.54The closure (that is, the motion ‘that the question be now put’) is not debatable and so requires an immediate conclusion. It is considered a most exceptional procedure.1 When a Member of the Lords seeks to move the closure the Lord Speaker brings the attention of the House to its exceptional nature and gives the Member of the Lords concerned the opportunity of reconsidering their action by reading the following paragraph before the question is put: ‘I am instructed by order of the House to say that the motion “That the question be now putâ€​ is considered to be a most exceptional procedure and the House will not accept it save in circumstances where it is felt to be the only means of ensuring the proper conduct of the business of the House; further, if a Lord who seeks to move it persists in his intention, the practice of the House is that the question on the motion is put without debate.’ If, nevertheless, the Member of the Lords who is seeking to move the closure persists in their intention, the Lord Speaker puts and completes the question forthwith without debate. If the closure is carried the Lord Speaker immediately puts and completes the original question without further debate; the original question cannot be withdrawn, because the House has decided that the question be now put; and no other question can be put until the original question has been disposed of.

Footnotes 1. LJ (1960–61) 359; ibid (1970–71) 467, 508; HL Deb (1984–85) 464, c 718; LJ (1998–99) 631. The closure motion was twice agreed to on division in the course of proceedings on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill 2011: Minutes of Proceedings, 17 January 2011 and 19 January 2011. It was agreed to six times in one day on proceedings relating to withdrawing from the European Union: Minutes of Proceedings, 4 April 2019.

Putting of question at end of debate 25.55When debate on a motion has ended and after the Member of the Lords moving the motion has (if they wish) replied, the question is put for the second time. The Lord Speaker stands and states the question to the House, beginning with ‘The question is, that …’. He or she then collects the voices by saying ‘As many as are of that opinion will say “Contentâ€​. The contrary, “Not-contentâ€​’; the opposing sides call in turn ‘Content’ or ‘Not-content’. If there is a response from only one side the Lord Speaker says ‘The Contents [or Notcontents] have it’, and the question is resolved accordingly. If there is a response from both sides, but one side appears more numerous than the other, the Lord Speaker says ‘I think the Contents [or Not-contents] have it’. If this expression of opinion is not challenged he or she says ‘The Contents [or Not-contents] have it’ and the question is decided accordingly. If it is challenged he or she may repeat it until the challenge is abandoned or until he or she is satisfied that a division is inevitable. When, however, it is apparent that a division must be called, he or she says ‘Clear the Bar’. If the challenge is maintained, even by only one Member of the Lords, a division must be called. For the procedure on a division, see paras 25.83 –25.87.

Preservation of order 25.56The House is self-regulating: the Lord Speaker has no power to rule on matters of order. In practice this means that the preservation of order and the maintenance of the rules of debate are the responsibility of the House itself, that is, of all the Members of the Lords who are present, and any Member may draw attention to breaches of order or failures to observe customs.1 Because the Lord Speaker has no powers to rule on matters of procedure,2 the Leader of the House normally advises the House on procedure and order, and has the responsibility of drawing attention to violations or abuse. The Leader also expresses the sense of the House on formal occasions, such as motions of thanks or congratulation. However, like the Lord Speaker, the Leader is endowed with no formal authority. In the Leader's absence the Deputy Leader, Government Chief Whip or other Government whips assume the Leader's duties. The opposition front benches and the Convenor of the Crossbench Peers also have a responsibility to draw attention to transgressions of order.

Footnotes 1. HL Deb (1987–88) 493, c 937. 2. LJ (2005–06) 699, 783.

Precedence in speaking Contents Speakers' lists 25.57Members of the Lords are not called on to speak by the Lord Speaker. For questions and debates where no speakers' list (see below) is issued the order in which Members of the Lords may speak depends upon the will of the House. It is customary for speakers from different parties or parts of the House to take turns. When two Members of the Lords rise at the same time, unless one immediately gives way, the House calls upon one of them to speak; if each persists, precedence may be decided upon division.1 If the Leader of the House rises to address the House, it is customary to give him or her precedence over other Members of the Lords who may rise at the same time.

Footnotes 1. Thus, on 7 February 1775, when the Earl of Dartmouth and the Marquess of Rockingham both rose to speak, it was resolved, upon question, that the former ‘shall now be heard’, LJ (1774–76) 305. See also Parl Deb (1810–11) 18, c 719 n; LJ (1884) 325; HL Deb (1911) 9, c 1059.

Speakers' lists 25.58For most debates1 a list of the order of speakers is issued by the Government Whips' Office. This list is drawn up after consultation through the usual channels. Members of the Lords wishing to enter their names on the list must do so by 6 pm on the previous weekday (4 pm when that day is Friday).2 If a speakers' list has been open for less than a sitting day, the list closes at 12 noon on the day of the debate. A Member of the Lords whose name is not on the list may take part by speaking ‘in the gap’ just before the winding-up speeches. They should inform the Table of their wish to do so, and have their name added in manuscript to the list. Any such speaker is expected to be brief (not longer than four minutes).3

Footnotes 1. Speakers' lists are not produced for stages of bills other than the second reading, and occasionally for the passing of private bills; nor is it usual to produce speakers' lists for debates on affirmative instruments or domestic committee reports. 2. LJ (1992–93) 439–40. 3. LJ (1966–67) 49; ibid (1970–71) 759; ibid (1971–72) 69; HL Deb (1981–82) 427, cc 1289–90; LJ (1992–93) 627–628; HL Deb (1995–96) 570, cc 1705–16.

Place of speaking 25.59Lords Spiritual must speak from the bishops' benches. No Lord Temporal may speak from either of the two bishops' benches. No-one may speak from the gangways in the House.

Manner of speaking 25.60Members of the Lords must speak standing and uncovered,1 except by permission of the House.2 However, Members who are disabled may sit, and women Members may wear a hat, without seeking permission.3 Members of the Lords address speeches to the House in general and not to any individual (Standing Order No 27). The House has resolved that the reading of speeches is ‘alien to the custom of this House, and injurious to the traditional conduct of its debates’.4 It is recognised, however, that in certain circumstances, such as when a ministerial statement is being made, it is necessary for a Member of the Lords to read from a prepared text. In practice, speakers often have recourse to ‘extended notes’, but it is considered contrary to the interests of good debate that they should follow them too closely.5 Exhibits should not be taken into the Chamber or produced in debate, whether to illustrate a speech or for any other purpose. Languages other than English should not be used in debate, except where necessary.6

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

SO No 26. See the case of Lord Wynford, LJ (1831–32) 167. LJ (1965–66) 59. LJ (1935–36) 241. LJ (1969–70) 212; ibid (1992–93) 957, 959. HL Deb (1988–89) 510, cc 789–92.

Use of electronic devices 25.61Small electronic devices may be used in the Chamber and in committees provided that they are silent and used with discretion. Members making speeches may refer to electronic devices in place of paper speaking notes, subject to the rule against reading speeches.1

Footnotes 1. Administration and Works Committee, Second Report of Session 2010–12, HL 298, Use of electronic devices in the House: followup report.

Interests 25.62Rules on the declaration and registration of Members of the Lords' interests are found in Chapter 5.

Parliamentary papers Contents Printing of papers Electronic publication 7.39Copies of parliamentary papers are made available to Members of Parliament as soon as they are laid.1 No copies of parliamentary papers may be delivered to any department, or otherwise published, until the paper is available to Members.2 No copies may be delivered to any department or otherwise published until they have been made so available. Papers printed by order of one House are available to Members of the other House. The Vote Office supplies documents to Members for their own use in the conduct of their parliamentary duties. The Vote Office stocks a wide range of parliamentary and government documents for the current session, and older papers may also be available or will be printed on request. Publications available in digital form may also be available or will be printed on request. Members of the Lords are entitled to one copy of parliamentary papers and working papers of the House (eg Minutes of Proceedings, Notices and Hansards) by application to the Printed Paper Office.

Footnotes 1. CJ (1871) 96; HC Deb (2009–10) 508, c 307. For a case where an Act Paper, having been presented to the House of Commons, was publicly released before being made available to Members, see HC Deb (1984–85) 83, cc 884–85. 2. In exceptional cases arrangements have been made for those closely affected by a report to be able to read it before it became available to Members and the public: for example, the Reports of the 2006 Deepcut Inquiry (Report of a review by Nicholas Blake QC of the circumstances surrounding the deaths of four soldiers at Princess Royal Barracks, Deepcut, between 1995 and 2002, HC 795, CJ (2005–06) 560) and the 2010 Saville Inquiry into Bloody Sunday (Principal Conclusions and Overall Assessment of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, HC 30, and Report of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, HC 29 -I to -X, Votes and Proceedings, 15 June 2010).

Speaking more than once 25.64Standing Order No 30 provides that ‘no Lord is to speak more than once to any motion’, except: a. when the House is in Committee; or b. when the mover of a motion replies to a debate. Otherwise, a Member of the Lords may only speak more than once by leave of the House, which may be granted only to: a. b. c. d.

a Member of the Lords to explain themselves in some material point of their speech (no new matter being introduced); the Senior Deputy Speaker, or in their absence a Deputy Chairman; the Chairman of a select committee on the report of such a committee; and a Minister of the Crown.

No Member of the Lords may speak more than once to any question for short debate (see para 25.43 ), except with the leave of the House for the purpose of explaining themselves in some material point of their speech (no new matter being introduced).

Speaking after the reply 25.65It is not in order for a Member of the Lords to speak after the mover of a motion or an amendment has exercised their right of reply, except when the House is in Committee.1 It is not in order for Members of the Lords to continue the debate on a motion or a question for short debate after the Government's reply has been given, save for questions to the Minister `before he or she sits down'.2 Standing Order No 29 provides that when at the end of debate the question has been put no Member of the Lords is to speak save on a point of order.

Footnotes 1. HL Deb (1978–79) 398, cc 142–58. For the rules on amendments on report, see para 29.61. 2. HL Deb (1977–78) 391, cc 1157–60.

Maiden speeches 25.66Maiden speeches are expected to be short (less than ten minutes) and uncontroversial. They are usually made in debates for which speakers' lists have been issued. A Member of the Lords making a maiden speech should not be interrupted, and Members of the Lords making a maiden speech should not express views in terms which would ordinarily provoke interruption.1 Maiden speeches have been taken in Grand Committee, but in such circumstances cannot be fully protected from interruption (eg by a division in the House).2 Members of the Lords are expected to remain in their seats when a maiden speech is being made and not leave or take their seat in the Chamber.3 They should remain in their seat for the congratulations to the maiden speaker.4

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

HL Deb (1969–70) 310, cc 496–512. HL Deb (1 February 2011) 724, c GC350. LJ (1977–78) 386. HL Deb (1995–96) 570, cc 1705–16; LJ (2006–07) 140.

Valedictory speeches 25.67A Member who has given written notice of their resignation under s 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 may make a valedictory speech before the resignation takes effect. Such speeches are subject to the same guidance a nd attract the same courtesies as maiden speeches.

Committees on motions 25.68On rare occasions when the House considers that the structure of debate set out above is too restrictive, it can go into Committee on a motion in order to allow ‘more freedom of debate’ (Standing Order No 62). The effect is to disapply Standing Order No 30, removing the limit on the number of times a Member of the Lords may speak on a motion. When the committee has concluded its discussion of the motion and any amendments to the motion it reports back to the House and its report is received. The motion to go into Committee may be moved without notice, though warning is normally given by means of an italic note on the Order Paper.

Quotation 25.69Speeches made in the House of Commons, House of Commons committee reports and other business papers may be quoted.

Electronic publication 7.41Virtually all documents printed by Parliament are also published electronically and posted on the parliamentary website. An increasing number of documents are published only on the website. Parliamentary copyright can also subsist in works only published electronically.1

Footnotes 1. Examples include written evidence to and formal minutes of select committees and records of proceedings on public bills in the House of Commons (see paras 38.40, 38.26, 7.14 ).

Criticism of Commons proceedings 25.71Criticism of proceedings in the House of Commons or of Speaker's rulings is out of order, but criticism of the institutional structure of Parliament or the role and function of the House of Commons may be made.1

Footnotes 1. HL Deb (1991–92) 536, cc 1329–31. See also ibid (1958–59) 216, cc 65–68; ibid (1985–86) 475, c 37; ibid (1987–88) 500, c 173. There is no restriction on references to the European Parliament or its members, LJ (1993–94) 421, 682.

Personal criticism of chief executives of executive agencies 25.72Where the answer to a question for written answer has been delegated by a Minister to the chief executive of an executive agency, criticism of the answer should be directed at the Minister, not the chief executive.1

Footnotes 1. See para 25.13, fn 1 above.

Reference to visitors 25.73No reference should be made to visitors, whether in the public gallery or in any other part of the Chamber (except for the purpose of a motion for their withdrawal).1

Footnotes 1. HL Deb (1980–81) 417, c 132; ibid (1987–88) 493, c 726; ibid (1988–89) 510, cc 788–91; ibid (1995–96) 574, cc 295–97.

Matters sub judice 25.74In general, the House abstains from discussing the merits of disputes about to be tried and decided in the courts of law. The sub judice rule is not absolute. The Lord Speaker exercises a general power of waiver and also a power of waiver in specific circumstances which are described below. The House has agreed that the practice governing motions and questions1 relating to matters sub judice should be similar in both Houses of Parliament, since it is desirable that each House should be in the same position to debate a sub judice matter when circumstances warrant it.2 The rules governing sub judice do not apply to bills, Measures or delegated legislation or to proceedings on them, nor to matters being considered by departmental inquiries and the like; but it is recognised that Parliament should not generally intervene in matters where the decision has been delegated to others by Parliament itself. Cases in which proceedings are active in the United Kingdom courts, including courts martial, coroners' courts and fatal accident inquiries, may not be referred to in any motion, debate, question or supplementary question. In criminal matters, proceedings are active when a charge has been brought or a summons to appear has been issued or, in Scotland, a warrant to cite has been granted, until the proceedings are concluded by verdict and sentence or discontinuance or, in cases dealt with by courts martial, after the conclusion of the mandatory post-trial review. In civil matters, proceedings are active when arrangements for the hearing, such as setting down a case for trial, have been made, until the proceedings are ended by judgment or discontinuance. Appellate proceedings (whether criminal or civil) are active from the time when they are commenced by application for leave to appeal or by notice of appeal until ended by judgment or discontinuance. The rules governing sub judice are subject to the proviso that, where a ministerial decision is in question, or where in the opinion of the Lord Speaker a case concerns issues of national importance such as the economy, public order or the essential services, reference to the issues or the case may be made. The Lord Speaker must be given at least 24 hours' notice of any proposal to refer to a matter which is sub judice. The exercise of the Lord Speaker's discretion may not be challenged in the House.3

Footnotes 1. The rules apply to supplementary questions in the same way as they apply to questions. 2. LJ (1963–64) 43; Report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, HL 43-I (1998–99) para 202; the report was agreed by the House, HL Deb (1999–2000) 612, c 1725; LJ (2006–07) 140. 3. LJ (1994–95) 45, 90; HL Deb (31 January 2006) 678, cc 133–83.

Use of the Monarch's name to influence debate 25.75The rule in the Lords is the same as that set out for the Commons, save that the House of Lords has agreed that in exceptional circumstances, it may be desirable to depart from the strict application of the rule.1

Footnotes 1. LJ (1997–98) 815, 862.

Interruptions 25.76A Member of the Lords who is speaking may be interrupted with a brief question for clarification. Giving way accords with the traditions and customary courtesy of the House. It is, however, recognised that a Member may justifiably refuse to give way: for instance when they are in the middle of an argument, or to repeated interruption, or in time-limited proceedings when time is short. Lengthy or frequent interventions should not be made, even with the consent of the Member of the Lords speaking.1

Footnotes 1. HL Deb (1989–90) 515, cc 1094–98; ibid (1990–91) 525, cc 1279–83.

Asperity of speech 25.77Standing Order No 32 directs ‘that all personal, sharp, or taxing speeches be forborn’ in the House; and that if any offence be given of that kind, the House ‘will sharply censure the offender’.1 When debate becomes heated, it is open to any Member of the Lords to move that the Standing Order be read by the Clerk.2 The motion is debatable.3

Footnotes 1. Mirror of Parliament (1833) iii, 2855. See also LJ (1666–75) 31. 2. LJ (1997–98) 644. 3. In order to prevent quarrels in debate between Members, SO No 33 provides that a Member of the Lords who conceives themselves ‘to have received any affront or injury’ from another Member of the House within the precincts of the House ‘shall appeal to the Lords in Parliament for his reparation’; or shall, if he or she declines the justice of the House and instead occasion or entertain quarrels, undergo the severe censure of the House: Earls of Peterborough and Orford and Earl Rivers, LJ (1696–1701) 378. This principle, which is now of historic interest only, has been extended to the prevention of quarrels which have arisen outside the House, LJ (1779–83) 188–91.

That the noble Lord be no longer heard 25.78If in a speech a Member of the Lords is thought to be seriously transgressing the accepted practice of the House, it is open to another Member of the Lords to move ‘That the noble Lord be no longer heard’.1 This motion is very rare and is moved only in exceptional circumstances. It is debatable. The effect of agreeing to it is to prohibit the Member of the Lords in question from speaking further on the substantive question or motion, but not on any subsequent one.

Footnotes 1. HL Deb (1981–82) 428, c 1070; ibid (1987–88) 496, c 428; LJ (1991–92) 194; ibid (1992–93) 339; ibid (1993–94) 308; HL Deb (1999–2000) 618, c 1000.

Length of speeches Contents Time-limited debates 25.79The House has resolved ‘That speeches in this House should be shorter’.1 Clocks are installed in the Chamber, which are used principally to record: 1. the length of speeches in all debates except debates on amendments, debates on delegated legislation where there is no speakers' list and in Committee of the whole House; 2. the time taken on amendments at all stages and, in Committee of the whole House, on debates on the question that a clause or schedule stand part of the bill; 3. the total time taken for oral questions and debates on delegated legislation where there is no speakers' list; 4. for ministerial statements, the length of the statement itself, the frontbench exchanges and the backbench exchanges. In debates where there are no formal time limits, Members of the Lords opening or winding up, from either side, are expected to keep within 20 minutes. Other speakers are expected to keep within 15 minutes. These are only guidelines and, on occasion, a speech of outstanding importance, or a ministerial speech winding up an exceptionally long debate, may exceed these limits.2

Footnotes 1. LJ (1964-65) 386. 2. LJ (1971–72) 69, 275; ibid (1976–77) 821; ibid (1977–78) 23, 893; ibid (1978–79) 41; HL Deb (1979–80) 414, c 1484; ibid (1982–83) 439, c 224; ibid (1987–88) 494, c 430.

Time-limited debates 25.80The House commonly limits debates to a specific number of hours.1 If such debates are interrupted, for example by a statement, the time limit is correspondingly extended. Within the overall limit, the amount of time allotted to particular speakers is calculated in advance and stated on the list of speakers. The following time limits apply: Length of debate Opening speech Opposition replies Ministerial reply Under 2 hours 12 8 15 2 hours or over 15 10 20 4 hours or over 20 12 25 The remaining time is divided equally among the other speakers on the speakers' list. If the number of speakers on the speakers' list is small, every speaker enjoys an equal speaking time (up to the recommended maximum of 15 minutes for any speech), except for the Minister in reply who has at least the guaranteed minimum time set out in the table.2 At the appropriate time before the end of the debate, whoever is speaking is expected to give way to the front benches. Members of the Lords taking part in time-limited debates should respect the time guidelines and keep their speeches short, in order to enable all those who wish to speak to do so. Members of the Lords may also speak in the gap3 if time allows, but must again have regard to the time constraints on the debate. During time-limited debates, speeches should be interrupted only if time allows.4 If the debate is still continuing at the end of the time allotted to it, the Clerk at the Table rises, whereupon the Lord Speaker brings the debate to an end by inquiring whether the mover of the motion or, if there is an amendment to the motion, the Member of the Lords who moved the amendment, wishes to withdraw it, or by putting the question.5

Footnotes 1. Time limits are applied by business of the House motion: para 25.36. Questions for short debate and short (balloted) debates are automatically time-limited without motion: see paras 25.43 and 25.41. 2. LJ (1992–93) 627–28. 3. For a maximum of four minutes; see paras 25.41 and 25.43. 4. HL Deb (1990–91) 525, cc 1279–83. 5. SO No 37; HL Deb (1990–91) 530, cc 706–9.

Attendance at debate 25.81A Member of the Lords who is taking part in a debate is expected to attend the greater part of that debate. It is considered discourteous for them not to be present for the opening speeches, for at least the speech before and that following their own, and for the winding-up speeches.1 A Member of the Lords who becomes aware that they are unlikely to be able to stay until the end of a debate should remove their name from the speakers' list.2 Ministers may decide not to answer, orally or in writing, points made by a speaker who does not stay to hear the Minister's closing speech.

Footnotes 1. LJ (1969–70) 212; HL Deb (1995–96) 570, cc 1705–16; LJ (2002–03) 90. 2. LJ (1997–98) 349.

Conduct of Lords Members not speaking 25.82Members of the Lords are directed by Standing Order No 20 to ‘keep dignity and order’, and not to move out of their places without just cause; when they cross the House, they must not pass between the Woolsack and the Table, nor between the Woolsack (or Chair) and any Member of the Lords who is speaking; and on entering (but not leaving) the House they are to bow to the Cloth of Estate.1 Standing Order No 21 provides: ‘If any Lord has occasion to speak with another Lord while the House is sitting, they are to retire to the Prince's Chamber, and not converse in the space behind the Woolsack, or else the Lord Speaker is to call them to order, and, if necessary, to stop the business in agitation.’ It is contrary to the custom of the House for books and newspapers (except for papers specifically relating to the debate), unopened correspondence, briefcases and ministerial boxes to be brought into the Chamber.2

Footnotes 1. HL Deb (1995–96) 570, cc 1705–16. 2. LJ (1969–70) 213.

Divisions Contents Correction of numbers voting Publication of division lists Correction of wrong vote Quorum Equality of votes Proxies 25.83The procedure on divisions is governed by Standing Order Nos 53 to 60. On the order being given to clear the Bar, members of the public are cleared from area immediately behind the Bar and the division lobbies, but not from the galleries, the space within the rails of the Throne, the Clerks' and officials' boxes, nor the seats below the Bar, unless the House so orders. The doors at the exits from the division lobbies are locked. As soon as the order for clearing the Bar has been given three minutes are set aside for two tellers to be appointed for each side. Where after the lapse of three minutes no tellers, or only one teller, can be found for one side, the question is resolved in favour of the side which has appointed two tellers, without a division taking place.1 If neither side appoints two tellers the question is resolved in the same way as if there had been an equality of votes (see para 25.88 ).2 Where tellers are appointed the doors at the exits from the division lobbies are unlocked and the Member of the Lords on the Woolsack or in the Chair again puts the question and collects the voices. If only one side replies, he or she resolves the question and no division takes place. If one or more voices from each side shouts `Content’ and `Not-content’ he or she directs that the division take place. The Contents go by the door to the right of the Throne through the lobby on the spiritual side and re-enter the House through the door beyond the bar. The Not-contents go through the door beyond the bar on the temporal side and re-enter the House through the door to the left of the Throne. One teller for the Contents and one for the Not-contents, and two Clerks, attend in each lobby to record the numbers and names of those voting. A Member of the Lords may vote in a division although they were not in the House to hear the question put. The Lord Speaker and Senior Deputy Speaker are expected not to vote.3 A Deputy Speaker or Deputy Chairman may vote, but they do not have a casting vote. A Member of the Lords may, usually on the ground of infirmity, vote in the Chamber. Such votes, and those of the Member of the Lords on the Woolsack or in the Chair, are taken in the House by the Clerk, and notified by the Clerk to the tellers on their return from the division lobbies (Standing Order No 54). After the lapse of eight minutes from the time when the Bar is ordered to be cleared (or longer at the discretion of the Member of the Lords on the Woolsack or in the Chair)4 the House or the Committee is again informed of the question which is the subject of the division. The doors of the Chamber are then locked and only Members of the Lords who are already in the lobbies or in the House may vote. When the tellers are satisfied that all Members of the Lords who wish to vote in their respective lobbies have done so, they return to the Table and communicate the numbers (including their own votes) to the Clerk, who adds the votes of the Member of the Lords on the Woolsack or in the Chair and any Member of the Lords voting in their place. The Clerk writes down the result on a paper and hands it to one of the tellers for the winning side who presents it to the Member of the Lords on the Woolsack or in the Chair. He or she reads the result of the division to the House and resolves the question as follows: ‘So the Contents [or Not-contents] have it’.

Footnotes 1. LJ (1967–68) 487; ibid (1986–87) 71, 189, 264, 295; ibid (1987–88) 74, 170, 777, 924; ibid (1998-99) 583; ibid (2003–04) 290; ibid (2005–06) 555. 2. HL Deb (1981–82) 428, c 97; ibid (24 June 2004) 662, c 1434. 3. LJ (2005–06) 783. 4. SO No 53(4); LJ (1992–93) 439, 440–41.

Correction of numbers voting 25.84The responsibility for counting the votes rests with the tellers but, if a discrepancy is discovered between their figures and the number of names recorded by the Clerks, and the tellers agree that a correction is necessary, an announcement to this effect is made from the Woolsack or the Chair at the earliest possible moment.1 If the correction involves the reversal of a decision of the House, any further proceedings that may have been taken on the basis of that decision are, unless irreversible, voided.2

Footnotes 1. HL Deb (1979–80) 400, cc 782, 800; LJ (1979–80) 64; ibid (2003–04) 851; ibid (2006–07) 444. 2. LJ (1966–67) 48, 58. When tellers were appointed only for the Not-contents, and it was erroneously announced that tellers had been appointed only for the Contents, a statement was made by one of the tellers concerned, and the proceedings vacated and the Minutes amended by a subsequent order of the House, HL Deb (1970–71) 318, cc 1305, 1519; LJ (1970–71) 467, 508, 548. When doubt arose as to whether tellers had been appointed the proceedings were vacated and the question again put, HL Deb (1993–94) 556, cc 166, 179–80; LJ (1993–94) 479, 486.

Publication of division lists 25.85Alphabetical lists of those who have voted are published online, printed in Hansard and are also entered in the Journals.1

Footnotes 1. LJ (1856–57) 535, 548.

Correction of wrong vote 25.86If any Member of the Lords by mistake votes in the wrong lobby they must wait until the others in that lobby have voted, and then ask the tellers not to count their vote (Standing Order No 55). The tellers then accompany the Member of the Lords concerned to the Table, and they there declares the vote that they intended to give, which is recorded by the Clerk accordingly.1 If any Member of the Lords votes in both lobbies in a division, their name is struck off the lists of Members of the Lords voting in that division, and their vote is disregarded.2

Footnotes 1. LJ (1862–63) 230; Parl Deb (1862) 166, c 1608; LJ (1884) 254; ibid (1906) 488. 2. LJ (1995-96) 268; ibid (2002–03) 744.

Quorum 25.87Standing Order No 57 provides: ‘If, on a division upon a Bill, or upon a Question for the approving or disapproving of subordinate legislation, less than thirty Lords have voted, the Lord Speaker shall declare the Question not decided, and the debate thereon shall stand adjourned to a subsequent sitting; and, if such division take place when the House is in Committee, the Chairman shall declare the Question not decided, whereupon the House shall resume, and shall be again in Committee at a subsequent sitting.’1 There is no quorum for divisions on general or procedural questions.

Footnotes 1. For example, LJ (1981–82) 237; ibid (1983–84) 158; ibid (1985–86) 311; ibid (1987–88) 569; ibid (1996–97) 179; ibid (2002–03) 783.

Equality of votes 25.88If the Contents and Not-contents are equal, the question is decided under Standing Order No 56, according to which legislation is allowed to proceed in the form which is before the House unless there is a majority in favour of rejecting or amending it; and other motions are rejected unless there is a majority in their favour. Thus: 1. In relation to bills and subordinate legislation, a proposal to reject or amend a bill or instrument in the form in which it is then before the House is decided in the negative unless there is a majority in favour of such rejection or amendment.1 When the House considers Commons amendments, or motions to insist or not to insist on amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, the form of the bill before the House is taken to be the bill as amended by the Commons. 2. Similarly, a proposal to reject or amend any motion relating to the stages of a bill2 is decided in the negative unless there is a majority in favour of such rejection or amendment. 3. In relation to all other matters, the question is decided in the negative unless there is a majority in its favour.3

Footnotes 1. For example, HL Deb (1996–97) 577, c 1099; ibid (30 January 2006) 678, cc 36–37; ibid (2 February 2009) 707, c 510. 2. In the Standing Order ‘stages of a bill’ is taken to mean first reading, second reading, committee of the whole House, report, third reading and passing, consideration of Commons amendments and consideration of Commons reasons. 3. For example, LJ (1992–93) 346; ibid (1996–97) 211; ibid (2005–06) 912.

Proxies 25.89At one time Members of the Lords who were not present might vote in a division by proxy. The use of proxies was discontinued in 1868 (Standing Order No 60). Two days' notice is required of any proposal to suspend the Standing Order, but no such proposal has ever been made.

Overview of chapters relating to public bills 26.1In this chapter and the following chapters, the current procedures for passing public bills through both Houses of Parliament are described. In both Houses, the principal stages of bills are: first reading, second reading, committee, consideration on report from committee, and third reading. After the preliminary view in this chapter, the next chapter examines specific adjustments to Commons legislative procedure introduced in 2015 in respect of certain bills (and statutory instruments) with limited territorial application. The passage of a bill through the Commons is then described in Chapter 28, and passage through the Lords described in Chapter 29. The final stages are treated in detail in Chapter 30, which deals with proceedings affecting both Houses.

Classification of bills Contents Government and Private Members' Bills 26.2Bills are divided into two main classes—public bills and private bills: Public bills relate to matters of public policy and are introduced directly by Members of either House. Private bills are bills for the particular interest or benefit of any person or persons, public company or corporation, or local authority, and thus are applicable to, or have a differentiated effect on, only a particular section of the population. Private bills are promoted by the interested parties themselves (see para 42.1 ). On occasion, it is not evident which of the two above categories a particular bill should fall into. This may occur when a public bill affects certain private interests, giving rise to the question of whether it ought not more properly to have been introduced as a private bill. Very rarely it is suggested that a private bill should be prevented from proceeding on the ground that its scope is so wide that it affects public policy. If it is found that certain of the standing orders relating to private business are applicable to a public bill, it is then treated as hybrid, and its passage through Parliament is governed by a special procedure (see paras 30.57 –30.74 ). The classification of bills as public, private or hybrid is discussed at paras 42.2 –42.15. The process of enacting private bills is the same in its essential elements as that for enacting public bills. The details, however, differ widely and private bill procedure is subject to different standing orders. For that reason the procedures for passing private bills are described separately in Part 7 (Chapters 42 to 46).

Government and Private Members' Bills Contents Where bills originate Form of a bill 26.3Public bills can be further divided as follows: Government bills are introduced by members of the Government; and Private Members' Bills are introduced by any other Members. No procedural distinction is made for legislation introduced by groups: accordingly, any bills introduced on behalf of the official Opposition or select committees are Private Members' Bills.1 In the House of Lords, the two categories of public bills have equal status. In the House of Commons, however, standing orders have been passed which have the effect of severely limiting the time available for the consideration of Private Members' Bills (see para 18.16 ). Private Members' Bills which arouse any substantial degree of opposition are unlikely to pass into law. Some standing orders, most notably those providing for bills to be programmed (on which see paras 28.25, 28.58 –28.60 ) and those prescribing additional procedures for bills with a limited territorial extent within devolved legislative competence (on which see Chapter 27), apply only to government bills. Other rules of longer standing which apply to public bills only seldom make distinctions between Government and Private Members' Bills, but in practice Parliament treats them very differently.

Footnotes 1. For example, Scotland Bill 1987; Right to Information Bill 1992.

Where bills originate 26.4As a general rule, bills may originate in either House. Government bills which are likely to arouse major controversy are generally introduced into the House of Commons. Governments nonetheless introduce a number of bills of importance and complexity in the House of Lords, and time the introduction of their bills in both Houses in order to maintain a reasonable balance and continuity of legislative activity throughout each session. Because of the exclusive right of the House of Commons to grant supply and to impose and appropriate all charges upon the people, bills of aids and supplies (see para 33.21 ) must be introduced into that House (cf paras 28.3, 37.10 ). Standing Order No 80, however, makes it possible for a bill having as its main object the imposition of a charge on the people (except for a bill of aids and supplies) or on public funds to originate in the House of Lords, and, subject to the use of the usual devices for avoiding a breach of Commons financial privilege (see paras 29.67, 37.14 ), for such a bill to be taken charge of in the House of Commons by a Minister;1 nevertheless, by far the greater proportion of bills the main object of which is the imposition of a charge are introduced in the House of Commons. Consolidation bills, Law Commission bills, statute law repeal bills and other bills dealing with legal and judicial topics are normally introduced in the House of Lords.2 Bills which have affected the composition or powers of the Lords have been introduced and proceeded with in the Commons.3

Footnotes 1. CJ (1972–73) 154; ibid (1975–76) 327; ibid (1985–86) 133; ibid (1987–88) 253; ibid (2001–02) 149. 2. But not invariably: for example, Contract (Scotland) Bill 1997 (a Law Commission bill introduced in the Commons). 3. For example, Parliament (No 2) Bill 1969; House of Lords Bill 1999; House of Lords Reform Bill (2012–13): HC Deb (27 June 2012) 547, cc 307–8.

Form of a bill Contents Short title and citation Long title Preamble Enacting formula Clauses Schedules Extent Commencement 26.5A public bill is in the form of a draft statute,1 and when first printed should therefore be consistent with existing law or contain such amendments or repeals as are necessary to render it capable of implementation. It may be printed in more than one volume. A public bill contains some, but not necessarily all, of the elements described in paras 26.6 –26.13.

Footnotes 1. The format of bills and Acts was changed in Session 2000–01, HC Deb (2000–01) 359, cc 183–84W.

Short title and citation 26.6The short title is the title by which a bill is known during its passage through Parliament. It must describe the content of the bill in a straightforwardly factual manner. An argumentative title or slogan is not permitted.1 Abbreviations are occasionally used where the short title would otherwise be unwieldy.2 When the short title of a bill would otherwise be the same as that of a bill already introduced in the same session in either House, the identifying description ‘(No 2)’ is inserted.3 Such an identifying description will be removed by the Lords Public Bill Office at Royal Assent if no previous Act with the same short title has been passed during that calendar year. Similarly, an identifying description will be inserted at Royal Assent if an Act of the same title has been passed in the same calendar year. Thus, for example, in Session 2017–19, the Finance Bill became the Finance (No 2) Act 2017, and the Finance (No 2) Bill became the Finance Act 2018.4 While a bill is before Parliament, if it originates in the Lords all published versions of the bill in both Houses identify that origin by the letters ‘HL’ in square brackets, as for example the ‘Landlord and Tenant Bill [HL]’. While in the Commons such a bill is identified in the business papers of that House by the addition of the word ‘Lords’ in square brackets. Bills originating in the Commons carry no corresponding suffix in either House. The suffix does not appear in the citation clause and it is not retained when the bill is published as an Act after Royal Assent. The title by which a bill is to be known once it has been enacted, and by which it will be cited amongst the statutes, is usually set out in the last clause—‘This Act may be cited as the … Act 20 …’.5 A single clause often makes provision for the citation, extent (see para 26.12 ) and commencement (see para 26.13 ) of the bill.

Footnotes 1. Speaker's private ruling, 16 October 2001, that ‘Women's Representation Bill’ was not an appropriate title for a bill about sex discrimination in the selection of election candidates. Other proposed short titles which have given rise to objection have included ‘Fairness at Work’, ‘Modernisation of Justice’, ‘Safe Communities’ and ‘Constitutional Renewal’. Sometimes the short title of a bill as introduced may differ from that given to the bill in government policy papers at the time of the Queen's Speech: for example, such papers accompanying the 2016 Queen's Speech referred to the `Lifetime Savings Bill’, which was presented as the Savings (Government Contributions) Bill, and those accompanying the 2017 Queen's Speech referred to the `Repeal Bill’, which was presented as the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. 2. For example, OECD Support Fund Bill 1975. In recent years, ‘NHS' and ‘UK Borders' have also been permitted. 3. Bills with otherwise identical titles have been introduced in the two Houses on the same day: eg the Sports Discrimination Bill [Lords] and the Sports Discrimination (No 2) Bill 1995, LJ (1994–95) 341; CJ (1994–95) 281. 4. By the Short Titles Act 1896 short titles were given to many public general Acts, passed between 1707 and 1896, which did not already possess them, and groups of Acts were given collective titles. Further short titles extending from 1236 to 1860 were conferred by the Statute Law Revision Act 1948. 5. Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, Drafting Guidance (December 2017), paras 10.1.1, 10.1.3, 10.7.1. The citation clause is sometimes the first clause of the bill, eg Government of India Bill 1934; European Communities Bill 1972.

Long title 26.7The long title sets out in general terms the purposes of the bill, and should cover everything in the bill. The phrase ‘and for connected purposes', with which it commonly ends, makes it possible to omit an express reference in the long title to minor matters related to the main substance of the bill. Conversely, the long title should not refer to significant purposes which are not covered by the provisions of the printed bill,1 but this rule is not enforced in the case of a Private Member's Bill presented under the ballot procedure.2 When the term ‘title’ is used without qualification it usually refers to the long title. Both the long title and the short title may be amended in certain circumstances (see para 28.119 ).

Footnotes 1. Poor Removal (Ireland) Bill, CJ (1883) 161; Speaker's Ruling, Registration of Electors (Ireland) Bill, CJ (1847–48) 522. 2. See para 28.13. Also: New Streets Bill, Stg Co Deb (1950–51) Co B, c 718; Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, ibid (1952–53) Co B, c 1059; Parliamentary Control of Expenditure (Reform) Bill (changed to National Audit Bill), Stg Co Deb (1982–83) Co C, c 254; Activity Centres (Young Persons’ Safety) Bill, Stg Co Deb (1994–95) Co C, c 90.

Preamble 26.8The purpose of a preamble, which appears immediately after the long title, is to state the reasons for and the intended effects of the proposed legislation. Though a preamble is now rarely included in a public bill, one may still appear in a bill of great constitutional importance or in a bill to give effect to international conventions.1 In the case of the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Bill 1931, the Import Duties Bill 1932 and the Ottawa Agreements Bill 1932, an expression of the aims of the legislation was incorporated with the enacting words. In the case of the Legal Aid Bill [Lords] 1987, a ‘purpose’ clause stating the purpose of the bill was inserted at third reading before the other clauses in the bill; and the first clause of the Family Law Bill 1996 similarly set out the ‘general principles’ underlying the rest of the bill.2

Footnotes 1. For example, Parliament Bill 1911 and Parliament (No 2) Bill 1969 (but not the Parliament Bills of 1947–49); Government of India Bill 1919; Statute of Westminster 1931; His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Bill 1936; British North America Bill 1949; Geneva Convention Bills 1911 and 1936; Patents, etc (International Conventions) Bill [Lords] 1938; Welsh Language Bill [Lords] 1967; Canada Bill 1982; Foreign Nuclear Chemical and Biological Bases (Prohibition) Bill [Lords] 1983; Australia Bill [Lords] 1985; Brunei (Appeals) Bill [Lords] 1989; Australian Constitution (Public Record Copy) Bill 1989; Welsh Language Bill [Lords] 1993. Preambles have been incorporated in Private Members' Bills as presented to Parliament, eg Minimum Wages etc Bill 1984–85, European Communities Amendment Bill 1987–88, Right to Work Bill 1995–96, Prime Minister (Office, Role and Functions) Bill 2001, Parliament (Participation of Members of the House of Commons) Bill [Lords] 2005–06, Sovereign Grant Bill 2010-12. A hybrid bill, as a public bill, does not require to have preamble proved in the same way as a private bill. 2. HL Deb (1987–88) 494, c 10. See also The Preparation of Legislation (1975), Cmnd 6053, paras 11.6–11.8.

Enacting formula 26.9The enacting formula is a short paragraph which precedes the clauses of the bill. This formula, which was developed in the fifteenth century, runs as follows: ‘Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows'. In Supply and Appropriation and Finance Bills, the usual formula is preceded by certain words which define the sole responsibility of the Commons for the grant of money or duties:1 ‘[In a Supply and Appropriation Bill ] Whereas the Commons of the United Kingdom in Parliament assembled have resolved to authorise the use of resources and the issue of sums out of the Consolidated Fund towards making good the supply which they have granted to Her Majesty in this Session of Parliament: —Be it therefore enacted, etc.2 [In a Finance Bill ] Most Gracious Sovereign, We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom in Parliament assembled, towards raising the necessary supplies to defray Your Majesty's public expenses, and making an addition to the public revenue, have freely and voluntarily resolved to give and to grant unto Your Majesty the several duties hereinafter mentioned; and do therefore most humbly beseech Your Majesty that it may be enacted, and be it enacted, etc.’ In bills other than Finance Bills which are founded on Ways and Means resolutions, a modified version of that wording is generally used, such as: ‘Most Gracious Sovereign, We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom in Parliament assembled, towards providing such sums as may be required for the national health service in England, in Wales and in Scotland, and for the health service in Northern Ireland, have freely and voluntarily resolved to give and to grant unto Your Majesty the increases in national insurance contributions hereinafter mentioned; and do therefore most humbly beseech Your Majesty that it may be enacted, and be it enacted, etc’.3 For bills presented for Royal Assent under the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 (see para 30.54 ), the Acts prescribe the formula: ‘Be it enacted by the [Queen's] most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows …’

Footnotes 1. On which, see para 33.2 and F W Maitland Constitutional History of England (1926 edn), p 185; Sir W Anson Law and Custom of the Constitution (5th edn, 1922) i, p 298. 2. The enacting formula for what were then Consolidated Fund Bills was changed following the introduction of resource-based Supply with effect from 2001–02 and remained unchanged when the short title of such bills changed to Supply and Appropriation Bills from 2011–12. 3. National Insurance Contributions Bill 2002. See also the enacting formula in the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Bill 1931; Import Duties Bill and Ottawa Agreements Bill 1932; Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Bill 1949; National Insurance Surcharge Bill 1976–77; Petroleum Revenue Tax Bill 1979–80; Gas Levy Bill 1980–81; Oil Taxation Bill 1983–84; Stamp Duty Land Tax Bill 2014–15; Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill 2017–19. The HGV Road User Levy Bill 2012–13 used the same enacting formula as a Finance Bill.

Clauses 26.10The text of a bill is divided into a series of numbered clauses, each with a descriptive title. Once a bill has been enacted, clauses become known as ‘sections' and are therefore so described in any internal references in the text of the bill. Clauses may be divided into subsections ‘(1)’, ‘(2)’ etc, each of which usually consists of a single sentence. A subsection (or a clause not divided into subsections) may contain two or more paragraphs ‘(a)’, ‘(b)’ etc, each of which consists of part of a sentence, and a paragraph may in turn contain two or more sub-paragraphs ‘(i)’, ‘(ii)’ etc. Long and complicated bills may have their clauses grouped in numbered parts distinguished by titles in capitals.1 A part includes any schedules introduced by any of the clauses of which it is composed. Parts may again be broken up into chapters or into small groups of clauses with a group title (or cross-heading) in italics. A table of clauses (and schedules), known as the ‘arrangement of clauses', is prefixed to a bill, showing the numbered titles of the clauses and schedules, and also any grouping into parts, chapters and cross-headings.

Footnotes 1. A bill which was not divided into parts on introduction may subsequently be so divided as a matter of printing, eg, Political Parties and Elections Bill 2007–08 and 2008–09.

Schedules 26.11At the end of a bill there may be one or more schedules, each with a descriptive title. Schedules have the same full statutory effect as clauses. Schedules contain extended material inclusion of which within clauses might detract from the sequential effect of the clauses.1 A schedule is part of the bill but is dependent on one or more of the preceding clauses, by means of which the provisions of the schedule are carried into effect. Schedules may be divided into paragraphs ‘1’, ‘2’ etc, and paragraphs into sub-paragraphs ‘(1)’, ‘(2)’ etc. A subparagraph (or a paragraph not sub-divided) usually consists of a single sentence. Further subdivision is possible. Paragraphs may be grouped in numbered parts, and a paragraph or group of paragraphs may be given a title in italics. Schedules are common in government bills, and are not infrequently as long or longer in total length than the clauses of the bill.

Footnotes 1. Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, Drafting Guidance (July 2018), paras 3.9.1–3.9.5.

Extent 26.12The extent of a Bill is a statement that it forms part of the law of one of the three separate legal jurisdictions which together cover the entirety of the United Kingdom – the law of England and Wales, the law of Scotland and the law of Northern Ireland. A bill is said to extend to one or more of these parts. The extent of the bill or particular provisions within it is often expressed in the last clause. Extent is distinct from application. A bill may extend to a part of the United Kingdom even if it does not have effect in the whole of that part of the United Kingdom. Thus a bill may extend to England and Wales even if it applies only in England. Additional legislative procedures in relation to certain bills with a limited territorial application within the United Kingdom are considered in Chapter 27.

Commencement 26.13A commencement provision describes when a bill (if enacted) or provisions within a bill have effect as law. Provision for the commencement of the bill (if enacted) is also often made in the last clause. A bill may be expressed to come into effect at the expiration of a certain period after Royal Assent, or in accordance with commencement regulations made by a Minister. Different commencement arrangements may be made for different provisions in the bill. In the absence of any commencement provision, the bill comes into effect on receiving Royal Assent. See also para 30.76.

European Convention on Human Rights compatibility statement 26.14Under s 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (which incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into the law of the United Kingdom), the Minister in charge of a government bill in either House must, before second reading, make a statement to the effect that in that Minister's view the provisions of the bill are compatible with the Convention rights as defined in s 1 of the Act. If the Minister is unable to do so, they must state this to be the case and indicate that the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the bill.1 The statement usually appears on the first print of the bill.2 Where bills are not printed for the Lords, the statement is publicised by means of a written statement.3 This requirement does not extend to Private Members' Bills. For private bills, see paras 43.4, 46.8.4 In the House of Lords, the Minister who makes the statement should under normal circumstances move the second reading of the bill. If that Minister is unavailable, another Minister should do so on the basis that they are acting on behalf of the Minister who has made the statement.5 For the scrutiny of bills by the Joint Committee on Human Rights established under Standing Order No 152B, see para 41.11.

Footnotes 1. For example, House of Lords Reform Bill 2012–13 where the statement gave reasons for non-compatibility. 2. For an example of a bill with no statement on first print, see the Data Protection Bill [Lords] (Bill 153) (2017–19); HC Deb (1 March 2018) 636, c 31WS. 3. See para 29.7, fn 2; HL Deb (2009–10) 717, c 47WS; ibid (15 November 2017) 785, c 243WS. 4. The requirement also extends to provisional order confirmation bills (see para 42.18 ). 5. First Report from the Select Committee of the House of Lords on Procedure of the House, HL 9 (2001–02).

Explanatory notes 26.15Explanatory notes on government bills are produced by the appropriate government department, usually as a separate document accompanying the bill.1 They are printed by order of the House in which the bill is introduced and are revised when the bill reaches the second House. They do not form part of the bill and are not endorsed by either House.2 The notes provide a summary of and background to the bill and explain its various provisions. They are framed in non-technical language and should contain nothing of an argumentative character.3 They need to be read in conjunction with the bill and are not meant to be a comprehensive description of it. They also briefly set out the financial effects of the bill, containing estimates (where possible) of the amount of money involved; the effects of the bill on public service manpower; and an assessment of the likely cost to the private sector of compliance with the provisions of the bill (a regulatory appraisal). If the bill is subject to an expedited procedure, the House of Lords Constitution Committee has recommended that the Government provide information in the explanatory notes as to why that procedure is required.4 In the case of a Private Member's Bill in either House, explanatory notes may be prepared by the appropriate government department with the consent of the Member in charge of the bill. They may also be prepared independently by the Member in charge, in which case they are unlikely to include all of the information described above. Explanatory notes are also prepared on Lords amendments to Commons bills,5 on Commons amendments to Lords bills and on draft bills published for pre-legislative scrutiny (see para 26.16 ).

Footnotes 1. Second Report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, HC 389 (1997–98); HC Deb (1997–98) 305, cc 253–54W. The Equality Bill 2008–09 was published in two volumes with the explanatory notes interleaved into the Bill so that the two texts appeared in parallel, side by side (see the First Report from the Procedure Committee, HC 377 (2008–09)). This followed the publication of certain draft bills with the explanatory notes interleaved, eg the draft Coroners Bill (Cm 6849) in 2006. Although the Minister in charge of the bill concluded the experiment was a success, it has not been tried subsequently. 2. HC Deb (2002–03) 404, c 299. On the use of explanatory notes by the courts as an aid to the construction of the bill, see the observations of Lord Steyn in R (on the application of Westminster City Council) v National Asylum Support Service [2002] UKHL 38, [2002] 4 All ER 654. 3. The Speaker's instruction to the Public Bill Office relating to the former explanatory memoranda, 9 March 1882, Parl Deb (1881) 260, c 423; ibid (1884) 289, c 1513. 4. HC Deb (15 December 2009) 502, cc 117–18WS. See, for example, Explanatory Notes to the Northern Ireland Budget Bill 2017–19 (Bill 123–EN). 5. First Report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, The Legislative Process, HC 1097 (2005–06) paras 105–8; Fifth Report from the Select Committee of the House of Lords on Procedure of the House, HL 188 (2006–07). See, for example, Explanatory Notes on Lords Amendments to the Ivory Bill, 2017–19 (Bill 287-EN).

Impact assessment 26.16An impact assessment—an analysis of the likely impact of a range of possible options for implementing a change in policy—is produced by the appropriate department for any government bill or draft bill which may have a significant impact on business, voluntary organisations or the environment. The impact assessment is published by the department and is not a parliamentary paper. It is revised to reflect changes made to the bill during its passage through Parliament. The topics with which an impact assessment deals include the regulatory burden, competition, small firms, legal aid, sustainable development, carbon emissions, wider environmental matters, health and wellbeing, human rights and justice, and rural matters. There is also a legal obligation on Ministers to produce an equality impact assessment, which deals with questions of race, gender and disability, in connection with every government bill1 which is similarly published by the department and is not a parliamentary paper.2

Footnotes 1. Cabinet Office Guide to Making Legislation, para 14. 2. HC Deb (11 September 2013) 567, c 1002.

Pre-legislative scrutiny of draft bills 26.17Since 1997, following a report from the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons, the Government has undertaken to work with Parliament to ensure a systematic approach to pre-legislative scrutiny with a view to improving legislation and reducing the need for subsequent amending legislation.1 As a result, each session, several public bills are published in draft form for pre-legislative scrutiny by a parliamentary committee. This approach largely replaces a previous practice, whereby the introduction of legislation by Ministers had been preceded by some form of public consultation, including the publication of proposed clauses in draft for consultation with those likely to be affected by them, and in some cases publication of the entire text of a draft bill. A select committee has been specifically appointed to examine a draft bill,2 but it is now more usual to establish a joint committee.3 Select committees may also on their own initiative conduct inquiries into a draft bill.4 The core tasks of departmental select committees include conducting pre-legislative scrutiny of draft bills (see para 38.64 ). When a draft bill is considered by a select or joint committee, the committee does not formally go through it clause by clause, but takes evidence on the merits of the draft bill and reports its conclusions and recommendations, to which the Government responds. When a bill is later introduced into one or other House, generally in a subsequent session, its passage through Parliament is not formally affected by its having undergone prelegislative scrutiny, and it is required to pass through the same stages as any other bill. Explanatory notes are generally produced to accompany draft bills.

Footnotes 1. First Report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, The Legislative Process, HC 190 (1997–98) paras 20–21. See also subsequent reports: Modernisation of the House of Commons: A Reform Programme, HC 1168 (2001–02) paras 28–34; First Report, The Legislative Process, HC 1097 (2005–06) paras 12–35. And see also the Fourteenth Report from the Select Committee of the House of Lords on the Constitution, Parliament and the Legislative Process, HL 173 (2003–04) paras 15–74. 2. For example, Food Standards Committee, CJ (1998–99) 114. 3. For the appointment of, and reports from, ad hoc joint committees on draft bills, see, for example, draft Investigatory Powers Bill; Votes and Proceedings, 5 November 2015, Lords Minutes of Proceedings, 25 November 2016, HL 93, HC 651 (2015–16); draft Health Service Safety Investigations Bill; Votes and Proceedings, 17 April 2018, Lords Minutes of Proceedings, 15 May 2018, HL 180, HC 1064 (2017–19). 4. For example, Sixth Report from the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, Pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft NonDomestic Rating (Property in Common Occupation) Bill, HC 943 (2017–19); Third Report from the Justice Committee, Prelegislative scrutiny: draft personal injury discount rate clause, HC 374 (2017–19).

Post-legislative scrutiny of Acts 26.18The Modernisation Committee,1 the Constitution Committee of the House of Lords2 and the Law Commission3 have also drawn attention to the desirability of post-legislative scrutiny. In 2008, the Government proposed that between three and five years after a law had been passed it should be reviewed by the relevant government department and then by Parliament to see how it had worked in practice, the purpose being to test the effectiveness with which the Act had met the policy objective rather than to test the policy itself. It was envisaged that departmentally-related select committees, on the basis of a government memorandum on appropriate Acts (which would be published as a Command Paper), should decide whether to conduct further post-legislative scrutiny of the Act in question. A memorandum would not be submitted for Acts which were routine in nature, which regularly received post-legislative review, or for which it would be unnecessary (for example, where the Act had already been repealed or where it had only a very limited policy significance).4 Some select committees have undertaken inquiries on the basis of memoranda,5 and post-legislative scrutiny is now reflected in the core tasks of departmental select committees (see para 38.64 ). Select committees remain free to pursue post-legislative scrutiny work in other ways. In order to address the lack of a systematic approach to post-legislative scrutiny, in 2012 the House of Lords Leader's Group on Working Practices recommended that the House of Lords appoint a Post-Legislative Scrutiny Committee, to manage the process of reviewing up to four selected Acts of Parliament each year.6 The Report envisaged a small committee of up to eight members that would take into account the memoranda published by the Government and coordinate its work with that of select committees. This Committee was never established. However, post-legislative scrutiny is now an established role for ad hoc committees in the House of Lords.7

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

First Report, HC 190 (1997–98) paras 54–6; First Report, HC 1097 (2005–06) para 96. Fourteenth Report, Parliament and the Legislative Process, HL 173 (2003–04) paras 165–93. Cm 6945; Law Com no 302. Post-Legislative Scrutiny—The Government's Approach, Cm 7320. See also Cabinet Office Guide to Making Legislation, para 41. 5. See, for example, Justice Committee, First Report of Session 2012–13, Post-Legislative Scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, HC 96-I. 6. Report of the Leader's Group on Working Practices, HL 136 (2010–12), p 37. 7. See, for example, Select Committee on the Equality Act 2010 and Disability, The Equality Act 2010: the impact on disabled people, HL 117 (2015–16); Select Committee on the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, The countryside at a crossroads: Is the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 still fit for purpose ? HL 99 (2017–19).

Overview of legislative procedure and devolved legislative competence 27.1This chapter describes changes in the legislative procedure at Westminster (and overwhelmingly in the House of Commons) arising from devolution, principally the changes made in 2015 to House of Commons legislative procedures for certain legislation with limited territorial application and within the legislative competence of a devolved legislature in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. The consequences for the power and jurisdiction of Parliament of the devolution of power to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland more generally are discussed at paras 11.9 –11.13. Paragraphs 27.2–27.5 describe territorial adaptations of legislative procedure which were established prior to legislative devolution and remain part of the practice of the House of Commons, although in many cases much less used than in the past. Paragraph 27.6 describes the practices of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords relating to Legislative Consent Motions of the devolved legislatures. The remainder of the chapter is concerned with the changes made to House of Commons standing orders on 22 October 2015 designed to introduce a system to enable consent to be given separately to certain legislative proposals specifically affecting England by Members of the House of Commons representing English constituencies and to certain legislative proposals specifically affecting England and Wales by Members of the House of Commons representing English and Welsh constituencies. These changes, and the procedures and practices to which they gave rise, are generally referred to as a system of ‘English Votes for English Laws' (or ‘EVEL’). In relation to primary legislation in the House of Commons, the account in this chapter is intended to be largely self-contained, so that references to the operation of the new standing orders in Chapters 28 and 30 are relatively brief and refer back to relevant sections of this chapter. In relation to secondary legislation, the account in this chapter focuses on elements of the procedure which are common to both primary and secondary legislation, and complements the account given in paras 31.23 –31.25.

Certification of bills relating exclusively to Scotland, etc 27.2A number of adaptations to legislative procedure for bills with a limited territorial extent in the House of Commons were introduced prior to legislative devolution. These remain part of the House's practice and bills extending only to Scotland have been introduced since legislative devolution.1 Under a standing order first introduced in 1948,2 the Speaker may certify a bill as relating exclusively to Scotland. This provision applies to any public bill and a decision is to be taken after such a bill is printed. In deciding whether to certify a bill as relating exclusively to Scotland, the Speaker shall disregard ‘minor consequential amendments of enactments which extend to England and Wales or Northern Ireland’, as well amendments to certain specified legislative provisions.3 The House has ordered bills relating mainly but not exclusively to Scotland to be proceeded with as if they had been certified as relating exclusively to Scotland.4

Footnotes 1. See, for example, Partnerships (Prosecution) (Scotland) Bill, CJ (2012–13) 610. 2. Erskine May (15th edn, 1950), p 511. Now SO No 97. 3. SO No 97(1). The specified provisions are sch 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, sch 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 and sch 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975. A bill dealing with a subject on which there was no separate Scottish legislation, and which sought to legislate for Scotland by amending an Act applying to the United Kingdom, was not certified (Sunday Working (Scotland) Bill 2003). 4. CJ (1991–92) 55; ibid (1995–96) 333, 386.

Bills referred to Grand Committees as alternative to second reading debate 27.3When the order is read for second reading of a bill that has been certified as relating exclusively to Scotland (or that has been ordered to be proceeded with as if it had been so certified), a motion may be made by a Minister to refer the bill to the Scottish Grand Committee. The question thereon is put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed. Such a motion may also be made, with the leave of the House, by the Member in charge of a Private Member's Bill.1 When a bill is so referred, the Scottish Grand Committee considers it in relation to its principle and reports that fact to the House, or reports that the committee has come to no resolution, and the bill is then ordered to be read a second time on a future day. When subsequently the order for second reading is read, the House may consider a motion for committal (see para 27.4 ) and, if this motion is agreed to, the bill is deemed to have been read a second time.2 There are broadly similar arrangements for bills to be referred to the Welsh or Northern Ireland Grand Committee in place of a second reading debate on the floor of the House, but there is no certification procedure in respect of bills relating to Northern Ireland and no definitional limitation on the bills that may be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee.3

Footnotes 1. SO No 97(2). 2. SO No 97(3)–(6). On procedure in Scottish Grand Committee, see Erskine May (23rd edn, 2004), pp 827–29. 3. SO Nos 106 and 113. See Erskine May (23rd edn, 2004), pp 588–89.

Committal, general committees with territorial requirements and subsequent committee proceedings 27.4A Scottish public bill committee is appointed for the consideration of each bill which has been certified by the Speaker under Standing Order No 97 as relating exclusively to Scotland.1 Bills which have not been certified as relating exclusively to Scotland may be ordered to be considered by a Scottish public bill committee.2 In the case of any public bill relating exclusively to Wales (a term not subject to a certification procedure and not used in relation to consideration of bills in relation to their principle by the Welsh Grand Committee), a public bill committee must be so constituted as to include all Members sitting for Welsh constituencies.3 There is provision in standing orders for a bill that has been considered by the Scottish Grand Committee in relation to its principle to be referred for consideration on report to the Scottish Grand Committee and for certain bills to be referred for further consideration in place of a third reading debate to the Scottish Grand Committee or the Northern Ireland Grand Committee.4

Footnotes 1. Under SO No 86(2)(i) a Scottish public bill committee consists of not fewer than 16 Members representing Scottish constituencies. For an order disapplying this provision, see CJ (2012–13) 606. For the procedure for committal in respect of a bill referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for consideration in relation to its principle, see Erskine May (23rd edn, 2004), p 589. 2. Legal Aid and Solicitors (Scotland) Bill, CJ (1948–49) 70; Mental Health (Scotland) Bill, CJ (1959–60) 104; Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [Lords], CJ (1962–63) 112; Social Work (Scotland) Bill [Lords], CJ (1967–68) 231; Transport (Scotland) Bill, ibid (1988-89) 83. The House has also ordered that certain parts of a bill be considered by a Scottish standing committee, the remainder being allocated to another standing committee in the normal way, CJ (1947–48) 62, 66; cf SO No 86(2)(i). 3. SO No 86(2)(ii). This provision has not been used, but for orders prescribing a number of Members sitting for Welsh constituencies on a public bill committee, see CJ (1974-75) 511; ibid (1975-76) 441; ibid (1982–83) 93. 4. SO Nos 92(1), 97(7)–(10) and 113(5)–(8). No bill has been so referred. In the case of a bill referred for consideration stage in general committee after having been considered in relation to its principle by a second reading committee (on which see para 28.140 ) that related exclusively to Wales, the same compositional requirement would apply as for the public bill committee on such a bill: SO No 92(2).

Delegated legislation, etc 27.5Following the introduction of direct rule for Northern Ireland in 1972, the procedure for consideration of delegated legislation in general committees was adapted so that Northern Ireland legislation could be debated for two-and-a-half hours rather than 90 minutes.1 Although the constitutional provisions of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 and the Northern Ireland Act 1974 were repealed by the Northern Ireland Act 1998, this procedural adaptation remains in effect.2 There are also provisions, albeit very rarely used, for delegated legislation to be considered by the Northern Ireland Grand Committee.3

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (14 January 1975) 884, cc 210–13, 409–12. 2. See para 31.20. 3. Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 888. For procedures in relation to specific Northern Ireland delegated legislation and legislation of the Northern Ireland Assembly in relation to reserved matters, see paras 31.14, 31.43 –31.45.

Legislative Consent Motions of the devolved legislatures 27.6The United Kingdom Parliament does not normally legislate with regard to matters within the competence of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly without the consent of the relevant body. This constitutional understanding, sometimes referred to as the Sewel Convention, is now given statutory expression in relation to Scotland and Wales.1 Consent is expressed by means of a Legislative Consent Motion which in the Scottish Parliament (for example) usually takes the following form: ‘That the Parliament agrees that the relevant provisions of the ….. Bill, introduced into the House of Commons [or the House of Lords] on [a certain date], relating to [a specified matter], so far as these matters fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, should be considered by the UK Parliament.’ Where any of the devolved assemblies has passed such a motion, that is indicated in the list of bills in progress in House of Lords Business (see para 7.16 ), and in the House of Commons by a rubric to the item in the Order of Business or Future Business (see para 7.3 ). The text of the motions is also made available on the bill webpages and a rubric to that effect appears in the House of Commons Order Paper. Since October 2014, in any case where the Government had indicated that legislative consent would be sought in respect of provisions of a bill and that consent has been refused, reference has been provided to the decision of the relevant legislature not to grant consent.2

Footnotes 1. Scotland Act 1998, s 28(8), inserted by Scotland Act 2016, s 2; Government of Wales Act 2006, s 107(6), inserted by Wales Act 2017, s 2. See also para 11.11. 2. See, for example, House of Commons Order Paper, 27 April 2016 (Trade Union Bill: Consideration of Lords Amendments); ibid, 3 May 2016 (Housing and Planning Bill: Consideration of Lords Amendments). A refusal of consent is also noted in the Bills in Progress section of the House of Lords Business Paper: see, for example, 13 April 2016, Bills in Progress in respect of Housing and Planning Bill.

Background 27.7At the time the legislation establishing the devolved legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland was introduced, the Government argued that the establishment of devolved legislative competence in certain policy areas should not affect the voting rights or legislative activities of Members of the House of Commons representing seats in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.1 This approach was consistent with the approach with regard to Northern Ireland between 1922 and the imposition of direct rule in 1972, whereby the representation of Northern Ireland was reduced, but MPs for Northern Ireland seats had full voting rights, including on legislation that did not extend to Northern Ireland.2 In February 2012, the Coalition Government established a Commission chaired by Sir William McKay, a former Clerk of the House of Commons, to consider how the House of Commons might deal with legislation which affected only part of the United Kingdom, following the devolution of certain legislative powers to the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the National Assembly for Wales.3 The Commission reported in March 2013 and proposed the adoption of a constitutional principle that ‘decisions at the United Kingdom level with a separate and distinct effect for England (or for England and Wales) should normally be taken only with the consent of a majority of MPs for constituencies in England (or England and Wales)’. It envisaged this being approved by a resolution of the House, and proposed procedural options to then give effect to the principle, including the passage of a consent motion prior to second reading, on the understanding that a majority in the House of Commons could over-ride any opinion expressed by MPs representing only the qualifying constituencies.4 Following the referendum on Scottish independence in September 2014, the Government established a cabinet committee on devolution, to address the issue of ‘English votes for English laws', which led to the publication of a consultation document in December 2014 which contained no agreed Government proposals.5 The Queen's Speech at the start of the 2015 Parliament announced the Government's intention to bring forward changes to House of Commons standing orders ‘to ensure that decisions affecting England, or England and Wales, can be taken only with the consent of the majority of Members of Parliament representing constituencies in those parts of our United Kingdom’.6 This announcement embodied two central aspects of the subsequent proposals: that there would be a Commons-only procedure established by standing order changes, rather than statutory provisions; and that the decision of the territorially-limited set of Members of the House would have the potential to be ultimately determinative rather than simply advisory. Draft Standing Orders reflecting this were published on 2 July 2015.7 These proposals were subject to extensive debate in the House of Commons, as well as a report by the Procedure Committee and debates in the House of Lords.8 The Government published revised proposals on 15 October 2015, with changes relating to the process for certification, the timing of the reconsideration stage and the right to speak in Legislative Grand Committee.9 The proposals were agreed to by the House of Commons on 22 October 2015.10 In summary, they establish two procedures. The first applies to the consideration of primary legislation, excluding Lords amendments. The second applies to secondary legislation, certain analogous proceedings and consideration of Lords amendments and subsequent messages. Under the first procedure, consent is obtained from the relevant territorial grouping of Members via proceedings in a Legislative Grand Committee in which only those Members may vote. Under the second procedure, a single division records separately the number of votes cast by all Members taking part and the number cast by those Members representing relevant constituencies.

Footnotes 1. See, for example, HC Deb (6 May 1998) 311, cc 807–9. 2. See Erskine May (18th edn, 1971), pp 8, 10. 3. The appointment of the Commission gave effect to a commitment in the Coalition Programme for Government to ‘establish a Commission to consider “the West Lothian questionâ€​’: The Coalition: our programme for government, May 2010, p 27. 4. Report of the Commission on the Consequences of Devolution for the House of Commons (The McKay Commission), March 2013. 5. Cabinet Office, The implications of devolution for England, Cm 8969, December 2014. 6. HC Deb (27 May 2015) 596, c 32. 7. Cabinet Office, English Votes for English Laws: Proposed Changes to Standing Orders of the House of Commons and Explanatory Memorandum, July 2015; HC Deb (2 July 2015) 597, cc 1646–67. A version with limited revisions, principally the addition of text now reflected in SO No 83J(10), was published on 13 July 2015. 8. HC Deb (7 July 2015) 598, cc 185–235; ibid (15 July 2015) 598, cc 936–1049; House of Commons Procedure Committee, First Report of Session 2015–16, Government proposals for English votes for English laws Standing Orders: interim report (HC 410); HL Deb (2 July 2015) 762, cc 754–66; ibid (21 July 2015) 764, cc 1007–28; ibid (21 October 2015) 765, cc 735–76. See also Oral evidence taken before the Scottish Affairs Committee on 8 September and 13 October 2015, on English votes for English laws, HC (2015–16) 399. 9. English Votes for English Laws: Revised Proposed Changes to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons and Explanatory Memorandum – October 2015. The changes largely arose from recommendations of the Procedure Committee. 10. Votes and Proceedings, 22 October 2015; HC Deb (22 October 2015) 600, cc 1159–256. The terms of the changes to standing orders as agreed reflected some further minor changes from the version of 15 October: see Written Ministerial Statement (HCWS251), HC Deb (20 October 2015) 600, cc 40–44WS.

Outline of the 2015 standing orders 27.8The new standing orders are applicable only to government bills and to statutory instruments that are to be subject to certain further proceedings. The starting point for the application of the procedures in almost all cases is a system of certification, whereby the Speaker determines if a bill, provisions within a bill or an entire instrument meet the two criteria: relating exclusively to England or to England and Wales, and within devolved legislative competence. The process of initial certification of bills and certification of instruments, the interpretation of the key criteria, the processes for certification and for subsequent certification prior to third reading, are considered further at paras 27.10–27.16. In relation to bills or provisions within them that are certified, an additional legislative stage is required when all other stages prior to third reading have been completed, under which Members representing only constituencies in England, or England and Wales, give legislative consent in respect of the certified bill or provisions. This takes place on the floor of the House in a Legislative Grand Committee or Legislative Grand Committees. Further stages are provided for in cases where no consent motion is agreed to or the motion or motions do not relate to all certified provisions. All of these proceedings are considered at paras 27.17–27.20. The principle of legislative consent in relation to provisions which relate exclusively to a relevant territorial area and are within devolved legislative competence applies to consideration of Lords Amendments to a qualifying Commons bill and Lords messages in respect of subsequent stages on such bills and the stages arising from Commons amendments to a Lords bill. The arrangements for the certification of relevant motions and for deciding the question on such motions are described at paras 27.21–27.24. The procedures for deciding the question on relevant motions relating to secondary legislation are set out at para 27.25. Although the new procedures operate generally in relation only to legislation relating exclusively to England, or England and Wales, standing orders provide for adaptations of the procedures in respect of taxation measures which can apply to England, Wales and Northern Ireland in relation to the tax powers of the Scottish Parliament. This affects Finance Bills, motions for founding resolutions for such bills and certain financial instruments. These tax-related adaptations are described in at paras 27.26–27.28. Finally, the way in which the system of programming for government bills is adapted to relevant proceedings arising from the 2015 standing orders is examined at para 27.29.

Reviews of the 2015 standing orders 27.9Since their introduction in October 2015, the standing order changes have been the subject of much review and analysis. The Speaker has described his intended approach to his new responsibilities, but stressed that the House was in ‘experimental territory’.1 The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee of the House of Commons published a critical report of the standing orders in February 2016.2 In November 2016, the House of Lords Constitution Committee proposed a fuller review by a joint committee examining the constitutional implications of the changes.3 The Procedure Committee published a report of a technical evaluation in December 2016, recommending changes to Legislative Grand Committee procedure and steps towards simplification of the Standing Orders.4 The Government published its own review in March 2017, which concluded that the new procedures had ‘worked well’ and did not propose any substantive changes.5

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (26 October 2015) 601, c 23. 2. Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2015–16, The future of the union, part one: English votes for English laws, HC 523. 3. House of Lords Constitution Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2016–17, English votes for English laws, HL 61. An academic analysis was published soon thereafter, with proposals for reducing complexity: Daniel Gover and Michael Kenny, Finding the good in EVEL: An evaluation of ‘English Votes for English Laws’ in the House of Commons (Centre on Constitutional Change, November 2016). 4. House of Commons Procedure Committee, Third Report of Session 2016–17, English votes for English laws Standing Orders: report of the Committee's technical evaluation, HC 189. 5. Leader of the House of Commons, Technical Review of the Standing Orders Related to English Votes for English Laws and the Procedures they Introduced, Cm 9430, March 2017, foreword and para 49. Some changes to the standing orders were agreed on 7 March 2017 which are considered at para 27.26. For the Procedure Committee's response to the technical review, see House of Commons Procedure Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2016–17, Matters for the Procedure Committee in the 2017 Parliament, HC 1091, paras 27–28.

Eligibility for certification 27.10Only government bills are eligible for certification whether introduced in the Commons or brought from the Lords.1 Government hybrid bills are considered for certification in the same way as other government public bills.2 Some limited categories of government bills are excluded from consideration.3 Statutory instruments are almost invariably eligible for certification if they are to be debated. They must, however, fall into one of three categories: first, instruments that are subject to the affirmative procedure, whether they are to be debated in a delegated legislation committee or on the floor of the House; second, instruments subject to the negative procedure that have been prayed against and have either been referred to a delegated legislation committee or set down for debate on the floor of the House; third, draft orders considered by the Regulatory Reform Committee subject to the affirmative procedure or to associated proceedings in relation to recommendations of that Committee.4 This categorisation means that a revocation motion arising from an ‘out of time’ prayer would not create eligibility for certification.5 Under Standing Order No 83R, the instruments and proposals giving rise to motions to approve certain reports on local government and police finance and to give effect to real terms increases in tuition fees for English higher education institutions, which by their nature pass the tests for certification, are made subject to double majority voting (see para 27.25 ) without certification.6 The unit for consideration for certification in relation to a statutory instrument is the instrument as a whole, so that ‘every provision’ must meet the criteria for certification.7 In respect of bills, the bill as a whole is considered for certification, along with each clause and schedule within it.

Footnotes 1. SO No 83J(1)(a). 2. Speaker's certificate in respect of the High Speed Rail (West Midlands – Crewe) Bill: Votes and Proceedings, 24 January 2018. 3. Those excluded are Supply and Appropriation Bills, bills certified as relating exclusively to Scotland, bills referred to the Welsh or Northern Ireland Grand Committee for consideration in relation to their principle, Consolidation Bills, bills whose main purpose is to give effect to proposals contained in a report by a Law Commission, a tax law rewrite bill and a bill introduced under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945 for confirming a provisional order: SO No 83J(10) and (11)(b). 4. SO No 83P(7)–(9). The motion to approve a draft order subject to the affirmative procedure which has been the subject of a recommendation agreed to without a division by the Regulatory Reform Committee that it be approved is put forthwith and thus debate is not possible. See para 31.37. 5. By settled practice, such a motion is held not to be ‘a motion for an humble address … or a motion of a similar character’ for the purposes of SO No 118(4)(a), which is the relevant requirement for the condition in SO No 83P(8). 6. SO No 83R. These are the annual Local Government Finance Report, the Revenue Support Grant Report, the Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Principles) (England) Report, the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) and a resolution relating to student fees under s 26(2)(b)(ii) of the Higher Education Act 2004. The Public Bill Office has suggested that a motion to approve the Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Alternative Notional Amounts) (England) Report falls in the same category: Procedure Committee inquiry into EVEL – Technical review (EVL 14), para 13. 7. SO No 83P(2)(a) and (3).

Territorial application 27.11The first criterion for certification in respect of an instrument and initial certification in respect of a bill is about the territorial application of a bill, clause, schedule or instrument. An instrument, bill or provision of a bill must be assessed as ‘relating exclusively to’ England or to England and Wales. The concept of ‘relating exclusively to’ is a term already used in some of the long-standing standing orders considered at para 27.2. The standing order states that an instrument, bill or provision of a bill ‘relates exclusively’ to England or to England and Wales ‘if (disregarding any minor or consequential effects outside the area in question) it applies only to England or (as the case may be) to England and Wales’.1 The concept of application is distinct from that of extent. The extent of a bill concerns the legal jurisdiction of which the provision forms part of the law. Application concerns where the provision actually has effect. There is a single legal jurisdiction of England and Wales, so that any provision applying only to England will necessarily extend to England and Wales. The exclusion for ‘minor or consequential’ effects outside the area has been interpreted as enabling the certification of provisions which re-state the law outside an area without substantively changing them.2 In a case in 2016, the Government suggested that the vast majority of provisions of a bill applied to England only, but very few were certified because the English higher education providers to be regulated by a new body were defined as those whose activities were ‘carried on, or principally carried on, in England’, which was judged not to meet the criterion of ‘relating exclusively’ to England.3 The standing orders require that a decision on territorial application of each unit for consideration for certification is reached in respect of either England or England and Wales. This has been interpreted as having the effect that a unit which contains some elements relating exclusively to one of those areas and other elements relating exclusively to the other cannot be certified.

Footnotes 1. SO No 83J(2), applied to statutory instruments by SO No 83P(3). 2. Public Bill Office Memorandum for Procedure Committee inquiry into EVEL – Technical review (EVL 14), paras 20–22; HC (2016–17) 189, para 18. 3. Higher Education and Research Bill, 2016–17, Explanatory Notes (Bill 4-EN), Annex A; Votes and Proceedings, 6 July 2016; Procedure Committee inquiry into EVEL – Technical review (EVL 14), para 24.

Devolved legislative competence 27.12The second criterion for certification in respect of an instrument and initial certification in respect of a bill is that the bill, bill provision or instrument ‘is within devolved legislative competence.’ This term is defined by reference to the ability of the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly (or the National Assembly for Wales, in relation to a provision or instrument relating exclusively to England) to ‘make corresponding provision’ for the relevant territory.1 For this criterion to be met, a bill as a whole, a provision or an instrument needs to be within the competence of at least one of those legislatures, so that it is possible for this criterion to be met where the Northern Ireland Assembly has competence, but the Scottish Parliament does not.2 In determining legislative competence, account may be taken of prospective amendments to the powers of a devolved legislature, provided that they are to come into force on a day fixed by law which is likely to precede the coming into force of the provision under consideration for certification.3 There have been instances where provisions of bills have not been certified because they deal in part with information-sharing with Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, which is not within devolved legislative competence.4

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

SO No 83J(3)–(4). Public Bill Office Memorandum for Procedure Committee inquiry into EVEL – Technical review (EVL 14), paras 26–27. SO No 83J(7). Public Bill Office Memorandum for Procedure Committee inquiry into EVEL – Technical review (EVL 14), para 23; HC (2016–17) 189, para 18 and note 17.

The decision-making process for and the timing of initial certification on bills 27.13All decisions on certification are for the Speaker.1 In relation to bills, the Speaker is provided with advice from the Public Bill Office and from the Office of Speaker's Counsel. The latter Office takes the lead in advice relating to statutory instruments.2 The government set out their view on territorial application and devolved legislative competence in the Explanatory Notes to a bill when first published in the House of Commons. The Government also provides such information in relation to statutory instruments.3 After a Government bill has been introduced, a note is published in Future Business to the effect that the Speaker has not yet considered it for certification. The same process is followed for statutory instruments requiring consideration. If the Speaker signs a certificate, the note on Future Business or the Order Paper is changed accordingly. Any certification is also recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Decisions not to certify are not recorded; the absence of any note on the Order Paper indicates that no certification has been made.4 On occasions, particularly in respect of bills and statutory instruments with little notice, the Speaker's decision on certification has been announced orally in the House.5 The Speaker does not generally give reasons for decisions on certification.6 Information has been published about some instances of divergence between the Government's assessment of the relevant criteria and the Speaker's decision, and the Procedure Committee has recommended that, in due course, the Speaker might wish to publish rulings on established precedent relating to certification.7 The practice has been for the decision on certification not to take place until a date for the next stage is imminent, in part to allow time for representations to be received.8 The Speaker may consult two members of the Panel of Chairs appointed for the purpose by the Selection Committee in reaching a decision on certification of a bill or instrument, by analogy with the procedure in respect of certification of Money bills under s 1 of the Parliament Act 1911.9

Footnotes 1. SO Nos 83J(1) and 83P(1). Certificates may be issued by a Deputy Speaker, usually on the basis of a provisional certificate issued by the Speaker: HC Deb (26 October 2015) 601, c 23. 2. Public Bill Office Memorandum for Procedure Committee inquiry into EVEL – Technical review (EVL 14), paras 16, 14. 3. Cabinet Office, Guide to Making Legislation, July 2017, paras 11.80–11.97; Public Bill Office Memorandum for Procedure Committee inquiry into EVEL – Technical review (EVL 14), paras 17, 14. 4. HC Deb (26 October 2015) 601, c 23. 5. See, for example, HC Deb (12 November 2018) 649, c 54. 6. HC Deb (26 October 2015) 601, c 23. 7. HC (2016–17) 189, paras 14–27; Public Bill Office Memorandum for Procedure Committee inquiry into EVEL – Technical review (EVL 14), paras 18–29. 8. Public Bill Office Memorandum for Procedure Committee inquiry into EVEL – Technical review (EVL 14), para 16. Representations have also been received in respect of a statutory instrument: see ibid, para 15. 9. SO Nos 83J(8)(a) and 83P(4). They may also undertake a comparable role in respect of certification of motions for founding resolutions for a Finance Bill under SO No 83U(6), on which see para 27.27. For the appointment, see Votes and Proceedings, 13 September 2017. On the equivalent procedure in relation to certification for the purposes of s 1 of the Parliament Act 1911, see para 37.30.

The purposes of initial certification on bills 27.14The initial certification of bills prior to second reading has a particular purpose in respect of bills that are certified as ‘England only bills', in other words, bills that in their entirety relate exclusively to England and are within devolved legislative competence. Any bill so certified may only be committed to a public bill committee composed solely of Members representing constituencies in England and reflecting the party proportions in such constituencies, or to the Legislative Grand Committee (England).1 Several bills have been so certified.2 There is no equivalent provision in relation to committal of a bill certified as a whole as relating exclusively to England and Wales.3 In respect of all bills eligible for certification, the initial certification serves two further purposes. First, it gives early notice that a Consent Motion or Consent Motions will be required prior to third reading. Second, it establishes a baseline from which the second stage of certification, described in para 27.15, operates.

Footnotes 1. SO Nos 83K(1) and 86(2)(iv). On the Legislative Grand Committee (England), see para 27.18. 2. Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Bill [Lords]: Votes and Proceedings, 14 March 2018; Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Bill: Votes and Proceedings, 19 April 2018; Tenant Fees Bill: Votes and Proceedings, 16 May 2018. For a bill that was drafted with the intention that it would be so certified, but did not meet one of the tests for certification, see para 27.11. 3. The Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords] (2015–16) was so certified: Public Bill Office Memorandum for Procedure Committee inquiry into EVEL – Technical review (EVL 14), para 19.

Criteria for certification of bills after all stages prior to third reading 27.15At the conclusion of all stages prior to third reading, all bills eligible for certification that have been amended since second reading are subject to reconsideration for certification.1 In all cases since the changes to standing orders had effect, this certification has followed immediately after report stage.2 The Speaker considers all changes to an eligible bill made since second reading, so that a bill that was not certified prior to second reading may be certified immediately prior to third reading.3 Where a change has been made that means that a provision certified prior to second reading no longer meets the criteria for initial certification, the provision is certified in respect of the same territorial area as before because of that divergence. Thus, a provision that previously applied to England, but had been amended to apply to England and Wales, would require consent by Members representing constituencies in England in respect of the departure from an England-only provision, and by Members representing constituencies in England and Wales in respect of the amended provision.4 Although the standing order refers only to amendments, the process of certification is undertaken by analogy in any case in which a clause subject to initial certification is omitted in the committee by the committee negativing the question on clause stand part.5 New clauses and new schedules are considered for certification according to the same criteria as for initial certification.6 A clause added in committee and removed by amendment at report stage is not eligible for certification. The Speaker's certificate distinguishes between certification that is either consistent with the initial certification or relates to new clauses and schedules (under Standing Order No 83L(2)) on the one hand, and certification relating to a change in respect of the criteria for initial certification (under Standing Order No 83L(4)) on the other.

Footnotes 1. SO No 83L(1). On eligible bills, see para 27.10. 2. The terms used in the relevant Standing Orders allow for re-committal and consideration of a recommitted bill or recommitted provisions, on which see paras 28.141 –28.145 3. SO No 83L(1)–(2). There have been no such instances. 4. SO No 83L(3)–(5). Similarly, a provision amended so that it no longer meets the devolved legislative competence criterion would still be certified so as to need consent in respect of the change: see SO No 83L(4)(c)(i). (For a different approach in respect of certification of changes made by the House of Lords or as alternatives to changes made by the House of Lords, see para 27.22.) These provisions, and the requirement for certification in respect of changes made, do not apply to a bill certified as relating exclusively to England where the changes have been made by the Legislative Grand Committee (England) or a public bill committee nominated in accordance with SO No 86(2)(iv) and thus composed only of Members representing constituencies in England. 5. Housing and Planning Bill (2015–16): Votes and Proceedings, 12 January 2016; Enterprise Bill [Lords] (2015–16): Votes and Proceedings, 9 March 2016. 6. Housing and Planning Bill (2015–16): Votes and Proceedings, 12 January 2016.

Process for certification of bills after all stages prior to third reading 27.16Because it is now the almost invariable practice of the House to take the third reading of a government bill on the same day as that on which the report stage is concluded, the process for certification prior to third reading is necessarily compressed. Before report stage begins, the Speaker identifies in advance those changes made in committee which are expected to be certified, together with any government amendments (and no others) tabled for report stage which, if passed, would be likely to be the subject of certification. The Government provides published memoranda or written ministerial statements in relation to changes made in committee and its report stage amendments. The Speaker receives advice from the Public Bill Office and the Office of Speaker's Counsel in the same way as before a decision on initial certification. The Speaker's provisional certificate is published before report stage, usually alongside the Speaker's provisional grouping and selection of amendments. At the end of report stages of bills in respect of which a provisional certificate has been issued, the House is suspended for a short period so that the Speaker, or a Deputy, can leave the Chair and come to a final decision on certification.1 In the event of a non-government amendment being made, or a government amendment not being made, the Speaker would consider the effects of such a decision for certification at this point.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (26 October 2015) 601, c 23.

The need for consent motions 27.17In any case where a bill has been subject either to initial certification or certification at the conclusion of report stage, no motion may be made for the third reading of the bill until a consent motion has been passed, whether immediately following report stage or after the bill has been reconsidered in the absence of initial consent.1 A consent motion is considered by the relevant Legislative Grand Committee.

Footnotes 1. SO No 83M(2) and 83N. On reconsideration, see para 27.20.

Functions and composition of Legislative Grand Committees 27.18The sole function of the Legislative Grand Committee (England and Wales) is to consider consent motions.1 This is also the only function that has so far been undertaken by the Legislative Grand Committee (England), although a bill that has been certified as relating in its entirety to England may be committed after second reading to that Committee.2 The Legislative Grand Committee (England) is composed of all Members of the House representing constituencies in England. The Legislative Grand Committee (England and Wales) is similarly composed of all Members representing constituencies in England or Wales.3 Any other Member of the House who is not a member of the Committee may participate in debate in those committees, but only Members of the relevant Legislative Grand Committee may vote, make any motion or move any amendment.4 Thus, Members of the House who are not members of the committee may not, by contesting a decision, cause a division, and may not act as tellers in a division.

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

SO No 83W(7). See para 27.14. SO No 83W(2)–(3). SO No 83W(8); HC Deb (10 July 2018) 644, cc 874–75; ibid (12 December 2018) 651, cc 336–37.

Proceedings in Legislative Grand Committees 27.19Subject to the restrictions on participation, the procedure in Legislative Grand Committees is largely that of a Committee of the whole House.1 They meet in the main Chamber and are chaired by the Chairman of Ways and Means, or a Deputy Chairman or a member of the Panel of Chairs.2 If, following the conclusion of proceedings on report and any further certification of a bill, a Minister indicates his or her intention to move a consent motion, the House immediately resolves itself (without question put) into a Legislative Grand Committee to consider the motion.3 If the consent motion reflects the Speaker's decision on further certification at the conclusion of report stage, the text of the motion is made available to Members towards the conclusion of the short period of suspension, after a Minister has been informed of the Speaker's decision on certification. In any case where a consent motion is needed in respect of some provisions of a bill certified in respect of England and Wales and other provisions certified in respect of England, the House resolves itself first into a Legislative Grand Committee (England and Wales) and then subsequently into a Legislative Grand Committee (England). In such an instance, no debate may take place in a Legislative Grand Committee (England) and the question on the consent motion relating to England is put forthwith.4 In view of the absence of any possibility of debate in the second Legislative Grand Committee, it is in order to refer, during proceedings in a Legislative Grand Committee (England and Wales), to the consent motion to be moved in Legislative Grand Committee (England). The usual form of a consent motion is either ‘That the Committee consents to the [short title] Bill’,5 or ‘That the Committee consents to’ certified clauses and schedules and, where appropriate, certified amendments made in committee or by the House.6 A consent motion may be moved in a form which signifies consent to some certified provisions, but withholds consent in respect of others,7 or an amendment may be proposed which, if agreed to, would have the same effect.

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

SO No 83X. SO No 83W(5). SO No 83M(3). SO No 83M(4). Votes and Proceedings, 26 January 2016: Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords] (2015–16). See, for example, Votes and Proceedings, 9 March 2016: Enterprise Bill [Lords]. SO No 83M(8).

Reconsideration in absence of consent and subsequent proceedings 27.20In any case where either a consent motion is not agreed to, or that consent motion withholds consent to a bill or to any certified provision requiring consent, the bill shall be set down for reconsideration and any order for third reading discharged.1 Proceedings on reconsideration are confined to considering amendments to the bill to resolve matters in dispute as a result of the withholding of consent.2 Amendments made on reconsideration are considered for certification on the same basis as amendments made after second reading and prior to the first consideration by the Legislative Grand Committee which withheld consent, except that the certification after report stage (rather than the initial certification) serves as the baseline for considering changes which affect the two main certification criteria. The House then again resolves itself into the relevant Legislative Grand Committee to consider a consent motion.3 If consent is again withheld from a bill certified in respect of a single territorial area in its entirety, the bill may not be given a third reading and shall not pass.4 In the event that consent is withheld in respect of any certified provision at this stage, the bill is amended so as to remove the provisions in question, and the bill proceeds to its next stage in that form. A Minister may move a motion for a bill as so amended to be considered again (‘consequential consideration’) for the sole purpose of considering minor or technical amendments in consequence of the removal of the provisions not consented to.5 It is principally by means of these additional stages, including the second consideration of a consent motion by a Legislative Grand Committee, that the new procedures give effect to the principle of consent amounting to a veto being exercised over a bill, or certified provisions of a bill, by Members representing constituencies in England, or in England and Wales. There have been no instances to date in which consent has not been given to all certified provisions, and thus no instance of a reconsideration stage.

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

SO No 83N(1). SO No 83N(2). SO No 83N(3). SO No 83N(4). SO No 83(N)(5)–(12).

The principle of consent in relation to changes made by the House of Lords 27.21The requirement for territorially-distinct consent to provisions relating exclusively either to England or to England and Wales and within devolved legislative competence applies to consideration in the House of Commons of changes made to a bill in the House of Lords, although consent is determined by a dual decision-making process in the House in the case of contested decisions rather than through the passage of consent motions in Legislative Grand Committee.

Grounds for certification of motions relating to Lords amendments or messages 27.22In relation to Lords amendments or messages, it is not the proposal from the House of Lords that is certified, but the motion or motions moved in the House of Commons in respect of that proposal. Thus, a motion to agree or disagree to a Lords amendment may be certified, as may the motions relating to alternative or subordinate propositions.1 The first ground for certification (under Standing Order No 83O(2)) is that a motion relates either to England or to England and Wales and is within devolved legislative competence. It may so relate either because it arises from an amendment proposed by the House of Lords to a clause or schedule that was certified in the bill as sent from the Commons, or an amendment from the Lords proposing a new clause or schedule which fulfils the criteria for initial certification, or an amendment from the Lords proposing the omission of a provision fulfilling those criteria, or because it contains proposals leading to a provision fulfilling those criteria.2 The second ground for certification (under Standing Order No 83O(4)) is that a motion has the effect of leading to a provision of the bill that met the criteria for initial certification in the form it last left the Commons not meeting one or both of those criteria.3 It is possible for a single motion to be certified in relation to both England and England and Wales.4

Footnotes 1. SO No 83O(12)(a). For such propositions, see paras 30.13 –30.15. 2. SO No 83O(2)–(3). It is possible for a motion to be certified because a provision to which it relates is amended by another provision: see SO No 83O(12)(b). 3. SO No 83O(4). 4. See motion relating to Lords Amendment 4 to the Policing and Crime Bill: Votes and Proceedings, 10 January 2017.

Process of certification of motions relating to Lords amendments or messages 27.23The motions that require certification cannot be determined with certainty in advance of consideration of Lords amendments and messages. The Speaker's selection paper for such stages identifies the Lords amendments and subordinate or alternative propositions in respect of which any motion will be certified.1 In any case where the time for the putting of questions under a Programme Order is reached, the motions that stand to be certified can be combined.2 For this reason, it is usual for final certification to be issued after the proceedings have taken place.3

Footnotes 1. See, for example, the Speaker's selection lists in relation to the Housing and Planning Bill (2015–16) of 3 and 9 May 2016; HC Deb (3 May 2016) 609, c 58. The Speaker is enjoined by SO No 83O to have regard to the extent to which motions are drafted so that they can be certified in selecting motions relating to Lords amendments or other messages. 2. See para 27.29. 3. See, for example, Votes and Proceedings, 4 May and 11 May 2016, Housing and Planning Bill (2015–16).

Reaching contested decisions on certified motions relating to Lords amendments or messages 27.24In any case where a division is held on a certified motion in relation to a Lords amendment or message, a contested decision is subject to a double majority (or possibly triple majority) division. All Members of the House may vote in such a division, but the votes in each lobby for Members representing constituencies in the relevant territorial area or areas in respect of which the motion is certified are counted and those totals are announced in addition to those of all participating Members of the House.1 In order for the motion to be passed, it requires the agreement of both a majority of all Members voting and a majority of Member representing constituencies in the relevant territorial area or areas. In the absence of both such majorities, or all three majorities, for a motion, any such motion which has the effect of amending the text of the bill as it last left the House of Commons is rejected.2 If such a motion is disagreed to because one of the groups voting in the division has not voted in support of it while another has, in the case of a motion to disagree (or agree) to a Lords amendment or an item in a message, the decision of the House is to disagree with it. In any other case, the decision is such as would have the effect of leaving the bill so far as it relates to that matter in the same position as it was before the Lords amendment or message was received from the Lords.3

Footnotes 1. See also para 20.63. 2. SO No 83O(7). 3. SO No 83O(9).

Deciding the question on certified instruments, etc 27.25A system of double majority divisions also applies to reaching contested decisions on certified statutory instruments, and certain approval motions and motions for resolutions for which the procedure is prescribed by standing order.1 This provision applies to deferred divisions as well as divisions taking place in the House. In all cases, a motion can only pass if a majority of all Members and a majority of Members representing qualifying constituencies vote in favour of the motion.2 If a majority is not achieved in either group of Members, where the motion is for approval of a draft instrument, the instrument cannot be made, and, where the motion is for the annulment of the instrument, the instrument remains in force and full effect, regardless of whether the majority was not obtained among all Members or among Members representing qualifying constituencies.

Footnotes 1. See para 27.10. 2. SO Nos 83Q and 83R(2)–(3).

Additional area for certification in respect of Finance Bills and financial instruments 27.26The provisions of the standing orders described in this chapter are adapted in their application to Finance Bills and to statutory instruments made or proposed to be made under a Finance Act that fall to be debated.1 The most important adaptation in respect of such bills and instruments is that it is possible for a provision of a Finance Bill, or a financial instrument as a whole, to be certified if it relates exclusively to England, Wales and Northern Ireland and is within the devolved legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament to make any corresponding provision for Scotland in an Act of that Parliament.2 Additionally, a provision of the Finance Bill can be certified if it relates exclusively to England, Wales and Northern Ireland and does nothing other than set one or more of the main rates of income tax for a tax year.3 These additional provisions reflect the specific tax-raising powers of the Scottish Parliament, including, from 6 April 2017, the power to set its own rates and thresholds of income tax.4

Footnotes 1. The adaptations apply not only to Finance Bills, but also to a bill which, before second reading, only contained provision which would be within the ordinary scope of a Finance Bill (or would be if the provision were to take effect in the current financial year). For the meaning of the term ‘ordinary scope of a Finance Bill’, see para 36.39. Any such bill would necessarily have to be concerned with the raising of taxes equivalent to those within devolved legislative competence to be certified. This wider application also applies to the motions for founding resolutions to such a bill. 2. SO No 83S(3). 3. SO No 83S(3), as amended on 7 March 2017: see HC Deb (7 March 2017) 622, cc 762–76. 4. See, for example, certificate for the Finance (No 2) Bill (2016–17) for certification of provisions on main rates of income tax and provision on landfill tax (Votes and Proceedings, 24 March 2017), and Finance (No 2) Bill (2017–19), for certification of provisions on main rates of income tax and on stamp duty land tax (Votes and Proceedings, 6 December 2017).

Motions for founding resolutions for Finance Bills 27.27The second adaptation is that the founding resolutions for Finance Bills are eligible for certification in the same way as provisions of the ensuing bill. The first adaptation, whereby certification can extend to provisions applying to Northern Ireland as well as England and Wales which are within the tax-raising powers of the Scottish Parliament, applies also to such certification.1

Footnotes 1. SO No 83U.

Reaching contested decisions on certified provisions and motions under adapted standing orders 27.28Where motions for founding resolutions for the Finance Bill are certified, any contested division on the motion is only agreed to if a majority of all Members voting in a division and a majority of Members representing qualifying constituencies vote in support of the motion.1 The same requirement applies to certified motions in respect of financial instruments.2 In the case of a Finance Bill, the arrangements for consent motions and Legislative Grand Committees operate in the same way as for other bills, but with the addition of consent motions relating to England, Wales and Northern Ireland and a Legislative Grand Committee (England, Wales and Northern Ireland).3

Footnotes 1. SO No 83V. 2. SO No 83T. In relation to such instruments subject to annulment, the effect in the absence of both requisite majorities is that the certified instrument remains in force and full effect. 3. SO No 83S(4)–(5). Where the Legislative Grand Committee (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) is needed to give consent along with another Legislative Grand Committee, the Legislative Grand Committee (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) meets first and replaces the Legislative Grand Committee (England and Wales) as the only Legislative Grand Committee in which debate can take place.

Programming 27.29When the standing order changes described in this chapter were agreed to, modifications were also made to the provisions of Standing Order Nos 83A to 83I so that all proceedings under the new standing orders could be programmed in the same way as other proceedings on government bills.1 In particular, the modified Programming Standing Orders make provision for motions on Lords amendments or messages that would otherwise be combined at the conclusion of the relevant proceedings to be separated out and grouped for single decision according to their certification.2

Footnotes 1. Votes and Proceedings, 22 October 2015. 2. SO No 83F(8)–(11) and SO No 83G(6)–(9).

Overview of proceedings on public bills in the House of Commons 28.1This chapter describes the stages of a public bill before it is passed by the House of Commons.

Introduction of bills Contents Bills brought in upon an order of the House Presentation bills Bills brought from the House of Lords 28.2In the House of Commons there are three ways in which a bill may be introduced: 1. It may be brought in upon an order of the House. 2. It may be presented without an order under the provisions of Standing Order No 57(1). 3. It may be brought from the House of Lords.

Bills founded upon financial resolutions 28.3In certain circumstances a bill cannot be introduced without prior agreement of financial resolutions. The procedure for the introduction of bills upon financial resolutions is now most commonly exemplified by Supply and Appropriation Bills (see paras 34.35 –34.39 ), which are founded upon Supply resolutions, and by Finance Bills and other taxing bills, which are founded upon Ways and Means resolutions (see paras 36.29 –36.30 ). Under Standing Order No 50 a bill the main object of which is to create a charge by way of expenditure, but which has not been brought in upon financial resolutions, may, if presented by a Minister, be proceeded with in the same manner as a bill which involves a charge subsidiary to its main purpose, with the charge being authorised only after the bill has received its second reading.1 Similarly, under Standing Order No 80 a bill the main object of which is the imposition or alteration of a charge, other than a bill of aids and supplies, may be brought from the Lords and proceeded with in the House of Commons providing that it is taken charge of by a Minister.2 In addition to financial resolutions, a bill may also be founded upon procedure or Money resolutions which further define its content.3 When resolutions have been agreed to, a bill may be ordered to be brought in upon some of the resolutions and another bill upon other resolutions,4 and two bills have been ordered to be brought in upon the same resolution.5 When a bill which has been brought in on resolutions is withdrawn, and it is desired to bring in another bill of the same nature, the resolutions on which the first bill was founded are again read, and another bill is ordered to be brought in on these and, if necessary, further resolutions.6 Similarly, when a bill founded on resolutions had received the Royal Assent, and it was desired to introduce another bill on the same subject, one of the original resolutions was again read, and the second bill was ordered to be brought in.7 Bills designed to make financial provision for the honour and dignity of the Crown and the royal family are brought in on resolution, following a message from the Sovereign (see paras 9.2, 34.42 ).

Footnotes 1. For example, Votes and Proceedings, 16 November 2016. Bills introduced under this Standing Order bear the words ‘This Bill was presented under SO No 50’ at the top of the first page of the text of the bill (see also para 35.24 ). 2. CJ (1972–73) 154; ibid (1975–76) 327; ibid (1985–86) 133; ibid (1987–88) 253; ibid (2001–02) 149. 3. Procedure resolutions are most commonly adopted in the case of Finance Bills, for example Votes and Proceedings, 22 March 2016. See also para 36.39. For Money Resolutions among founding resolutions, see Gas Levy Bill, CJ (1980–81) 118 and Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill (2017–19), Votes and Proceedings, 20 November 2017. See also para 36.30. 4. CJ (1825) 471, 476; ibid (1847–48) 981; ibid (1924–25) 45; ibid (1974–75) 68, 69. 5. CJ (1873) 249. 6. CJ (1856) 126; ibid (1857) 185; ibid (1884–85) 264, 306; ibid (1944–45) 117, 138; ibid (1967–68) 65, 93, 96; ibid (2004–05) 291, 314. 7. Telephone Transfer and Telephone Transfer Amendment Bills, CJ (1911) 292, 523.

Proceedings on ‘ten-minute rule bills' under Standing Order No 23 28.4Under the provisions of Standing Order No 23, notices of motions may be given by private Members1 for leave to bring in bills, referred to as ‘ten-minute rule bills' because the Member concerned is given ten minutes to speak to the motion. Notices may be set down for consideration at the commencement of public business2 on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.3 They are not part of the orders of the day and notices of motions (see para 19.31 ) which form the main business of the day, and accordingly are not subject to the rule4 that government business has precedence on those days. Under Standing Order No 23(2), the following rules apply to private Members' motions for leave to bring in bills under the Order: a. notices shall be given in the Public Bill Office, by the Member in person or by another Member on their behalf, but on any one day not more than one notice shall be accepted from any one Member; b. no notice shall be given for a day on which a notice of motion under this Order already stands on the paper; c. no notice shall be given for a day earlier than the fifth or later than the fifteenth sitting day after the day on which it is given; d. not more than one such notice shall stand on the paper in the name of any one Member for a day within any period of 15 sitting days; and e. no notice may be given for Budget Day.5 In addition, under Standing Order No 14(7), no private Member may give notice of a motion under Standing Order No 23 until after the fifth Wednesday on which the House sits during the session. This is to protect the priority on Private Members' Bills Fridays of bills introduced under the ballot (see para 28.7 ), which are presented on that Wednesday. The normal rules as to what bills may contain apply (see paras 28.13 –28.17 ), so that, for example, a private Member may not move for leave to bring in a bill of which the main object is to create a charge by way of taxation or expenditure (see para 28.15 ), or of which the objects are substantially the same as those of a bill upon which the House has come to a decision in the current session (see para 28.17 ).6 It has been ruled by the Speaker that no names may be added to a motion for leave to bring in a bill, and that no one else may move it should the Member who tabled it be absent.7 After a brief explanatory statement8 of the purpose of the bill9 by the mover, the Speaker proposes the question. If any Members wish to oppose the motion, the Speaker then calls on one of them10 to make a brief explanatory statement of opposition. This statement must oppose the motion,11 though it need not necessarily lead to a division.12 In neither statement should cases in which proceedings are active in United Kingdom courts be referred to,13 and interventions by other Members are out of order, whether or not the Member speaking is willing to give way.14 The appropriate Minister is expected to be present for these proceedings.15 Under the Standing Order there is no provision for further debate,16 or for a Member to move any motion to adjourn the debate17 or for amendments18 to be moved. The Speaker thus normally at once puts the question on the motion for leave to introduce the bill, though he may in exceptional circumstances put instead the question that the debate be now adjourned,19 and in one case he has invited the mover to withdraw his motion.20

Footnotes 1. Ministers are permitted under the Standing Order to give notices of such motions for any day except Friday and such notices are not subject to the restrictions which apply to notices given by private Members. See for example CJ (1901) 280. 2. Other times have been prescribed by sessional orders, namely immediately before the motion for the adjournment of the House (CJ (1964–65) 422) and at morning sittings (CJ (1966–67) 290). 3. Exceptionally, the House has given leave for a private Member to give notice for a Thursday, see CJ (1975–76) 122, 132. 4. See SO No 14(1). 5. The Standing Order nonetheless provides that notices proposed to be given for such a day, or notices given for a day which is subsequently declared to be Budget Day, shall be treated as having been given for the Monday following Budget Day, and may be proceeded with on that day as if it were a Tuesday or Wednesday. 6. CJ (1840) 495; Parl Deb (1840) 55, c 553; HC Deb (1912) 38, c 1754. 7. Speaker's private ruling, 5 May 1967. 8. The Speaker defined this as a maximum of ten minutes, see HC Deb (1930–31) 252, c 1785. 9. The mover should explain what the bill will do, HC Deb (1987–88) 124, cc 1109–12; ibid (2008–09) 497, c 326; ibid (2009–10) 504, cc 319–20. 10. It is within the Speaker's discretion to call whom they wish, HC Deb (1964–65) 713, c 618. 11. See HC Deb (1966–67) 740, c 1568; ibid (1985–86) 99, c 1080; ibid (1987–88) 124, c 929; ibid (1990–91) 185, c 175. 12. HC Deb (1985–86) 97, c 565; ibid (1986–87) 115, c 318; ibid (1989–90) 167, c 948; ibid (2002–03) 412, c 803. 13. See the Resolution of the House of 15 November 2001 on matters sub judice (CJ (2001–02) 194–95) and para 21.19. See also HC Deb (1978–79) 960, c 665. 14. HC Deb (1984–85) 77, c 277; ibid (1992–93) 215, c 852; ibid (1998–99) 330, c 705; ibid (2005–06) 450, c 739. But see ibid (1968–69) 787, cc 417–18 where an intervention was permitted when the mover directly criticised another Member. See also ibid (1987–88) 133, c 322. 15. HC Deb (2003–04) 422, c 781. 16. See HC Deb (1983–84) 50, c 165. 17. HC Deb (1932–33) 278, c 361. 18. Parl Deb (1902) 113, c 249; ibid (1908) 190, c 1736; HC Deb (1938–39) 349, c 1120. 19. Parl Deb (1901) 97, c 868; ibid (1905) 148, c 388; ibid (1905) 149, cc 1195–96; HC Deb (1929–30) 235, cc 225–26; ibid (1932–33) 280, c 2601; ibid (1961–62) 654, c 430. If the debate is adjourned it must take its place among the orders of the day.

20. HC Deb (1957–58) 579, cc 1279–80. SO No 23 also permits notices of motions to be given for nominations (but not the appointment) of select committees, with the requirement under SO No 121 (Nomination of select committees) that, with certain exceptions, such motions must be made on behalf of the Committee of Selection. If given by private Members, such notices must be for Tuesdays and Wednesdays; if by a Minister, they can be for any day except a Friday. As with bills, only one speech for and one speech against the motion is permitted.

Method of presentation of bills upon order 28.5When a motion for leave to bring in a bill has been agreed to, or when a bill has been ordered to be brought in upon a resolution or resolutions, it is presented forthwith.1 The bill must be presented by one of the Members who has been ordered to prepare and bring it in.2 The Speaker asks, ‘Who will prepare and bring in the bill?’ Thereupon the Member in charge reads the names of the Members, concluding with their own name (see also para 28.18 ), and, having in their hand a dummy bill which they have previously obtained from the Public Bill Office, goes from their place to the Bar.3 The dummy bill sets out on a buff-coloured pro forma the short and long titles of the bill, together with the name of the Member or Members supporting the bill, who should not exceed twelve in all.4 On their name being called by the Speaker, the Member in charge proceeds to the Table, with the customary three bows, and hands the dummy bill to the Clerk of the House, who reads the short title aloud. This constitutes the first reading of the bill (see paras 28.9 –28.10 ). The Speaker then calls upon the Member to name a day for second reading.

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

Occasionally a bill has been presented at a subsequent sitting, see CJ (1968–69) 357, 360 and HC Deb (1974) 883, c 1830. CJ (1770–72) 255. In pursuance of the order of 10 December 1692, CJ (1688–93) 740. On this limit, see para 28.18.

Presentation bills Contents Ballot bills 28.6The large majority of bills introduced by Ministers, and many of those introduced by private Members, are presented, after notice, under the provisions of Standing Order No 57(1). Notices of the presentation of bills for their introduction are set down on the Order of Business at the commencement of public business, immediately before the notices of motions that may be taken at that time. When the name of a private Member, who has given notice of presentation of a bill, is called by the Speaker, they bring a dummy bill, which they have obtained from the Public Bill Office, to the Clerk from behind the Chair; and the Clerk then reads the short title aloud. In the case of government bills, the Public Bill Office will have previously provided the Clerk with the dummy bill, and the Minister in charge, or any other Minister on their behalf (see para 20.18 ), when called by the Speaker, formally moves the presentation, whereupon the Clerk reads the short title. As no question is put on a bill presented without an order of leave, the House has no power to object to its presentation,1 but notices of presentation may be ruled out of order on the same grounds as notices of motion for leave to bring in bills (see para 28.4 ) and no notice may be given of a bill in the same terms as one for which leave has been refused under the ‘ten-minute’ rule during the same session.2 Under Standing Order No 14(7), no notice of presentation of a bill may be given by a private Member in pursuance of Standing Order No 57 until after the fifth Wednesday in a session on which the House sits in order to allow bills introduced under the ballot for Private Members' Bills to have priority on sitting Fridays.

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1907) 171, c 1525; HC Deb (1911) 32, c 2706; ibid (1914) 60, c 1198; ibid (1916) 84, c 1696. 2. CJ (1993–94) 454.

Ballot bills 28.7In view of the limited time available for Private Members' Bills, precedence among Members who wish to introduce the first such bills of the session, and thus those most likely to secure time for debate on their second reading, is conferred by means of a ballot. This ballot is held on the second Thursday on which the House sits in the session1 at a time and place fixed by the Speaker (usually a committee room at 10 am), and is conducted by the Chairman of Ways and Means. Any Member who wishes to enter the ballot signs his or her name next to one of the numbers in the ballot book which is placed in the ‘No’ division lobby for that purpose during the hours the House sits on the immediately preceding Tuesday and Wednesday. A Member may give notice on behalf of another who is absent from the House. In this case, the Member who gives the notice enters the name of the Member for whom he or she acts in the book and signs his or her own name, but by doing so forfeits his or her own chance to enter the ballot.2 The name or signature of a Member must not appear more than once in the ballot book. Balls with the numbers corresponding to Members' names are placed in a bowl to be drawn by the Clerk Assistant when the ballot is held. The Clerk Assistant draws 20 balls, one by one.3 As each is drawn, the Clerk Assistant calls out the number, and the Chairman of Ways and Means reads out the corresponding name. The Members who may introduce bills under Standing Order No 14(6) and the order in which they are presented are determined in this way. The Standing Order further provides that these ballot bills are to be presented on the fifth sitting Wednesday of the session.4 The Member must hand in at the Public Bill Office (or at the Table), not later than the rising of the House on the previous day, the short and long titles of the bill which he or she proposes to present. The notices of the bills to be presented are then arranged on the Order of Business in the order determined in the ballot, and the bills are duly presented in this order at the commencement of public business on the fifth Wednesday of the session. Ballot bills must be presented by the Member successful in the ballot or another Member named in writing by the Member concerned to the Clerks at the Table or to the Public Bill Office. After the bill has been presented, the Member in charge names the day for second reading. Since ballot bills are the first Private Members' Bills of the session, the higher a Member is placed in the ballot, the greater is his or her chance of securing at least a second reading debate for the bill concerned. Ballot bills have no further priority later in the session: the advantage for the Member in charge of such a bill is only in the prior choice of days for the bill's second reading. For the time allocated for Private Members' Bills, see para 18.16.

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

SO No 14(10). Parl Deb (1902) 102, c 1271. It is within the Speaker's discretion to decide how many names should be drawn. This day has been altered by sessional order, eg CJ (1993–94) 16; Votes and Proceedings, 26 May 2010.

Bills brought from the House of Lords 28.8A bill brought from the House of Lords is not proceeded with in the Commons unless a Member takes charge of it, in which case they signify their intention to do so at the Table. Under Standing Order No 50(2), any bill brought from the House of Lords the main object of which is the creation of a public charge may only be taken charge of by a Minister.

First reading and printing of bills Contents Bills originating in the Commons Bills brought from the Lords Examination of a bill before printing Printing of a bill before second reading Alterations in a printed bill Withdrawal of bills Certification of certain bills with limited territorial application 28.9The first reading of a bill, the order for printing, and the appointment of a future day for second reading, are taken together as one formal stage, which is recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Bills originating in the Commons 28.10Whether a bill is brought in upon an order of the House or presented under Standing Order No 57(1), Standing Order No 57(2) provides that it shall be read the first time without any question being put, shall be ordered to be read a second time on such day as the Member presenting it shall appoint, and shall be ordered to be printed. As soon as a bill has been presented, therefore, its short title, as entered upon the Order of Business and set out on the dummy of the bill, is read by the Clerk. This is taken to be a sufficient compliance with Standing Order No 57(2). After the short title has been read, the Speaker calls upon the Member presenting the bill to name a future day1 for second reading. The second reading of a bill may be taken immediately after its first reading only if the House makes an order to that effect.2 The Speaker repeats the day so named and the bill is then entered in the Votes and Proceedings as having been read the first time and ordered to be read a second time on that day, and to be printed.

Footnotes 1. The day named must be a specific date, see HC Deb (1978–79) 959, c 450. 2. For occasions on which the second reading of a bill has been taken immediately after its first reading, see CJ (1914) 407; ibid (1995–96) 280–83. For a motion allowing the second reading of a Consolidated Fund bill to be taken immediately after the first reading, see CJ (1996–97) 110, 116, 321, 327. See also paras 30.41 –30.43.

Bills brought from the Lords 28.11If it is the intention of the Government to take charge of a bill brought from the Lords, the Government will supply a note to the Table Office indicating that intention. If a private Member takes up a bill brought from the Lords, they inform the Clerk at the Table who writes the Member’s name on the back page of the House copy of the bill. In accordance with Standing Order No 57A(1), if a Member informs the Clerks at the Table of their intention to take charge of a bill brought from the Lords, the bill is deemed to have been read the first time on that day and to have been ordered to be read a second time on the day they appoint, and is recorded in the Votes and Proceedings as having been read the first time and ordered to be read a second time on the day so appointed, and is ordered to be printed. The back page of the bill in its printed form carries the date on which it was brought from the Lords, but not the name of the Member in charge of the bill. In accordance with Standing Order No 57A(2), if a bill is received from the Lords when the House is not sitting, provided a Member has notified the Clerks at the Table in writing of their intention to take charge of it, the Clerk of the House arranges for it to be printed and distributed. The bill is recorded in the Votes and Proceedings as having been read the first time on the next sitting day and ordered to be read a second time on the day appointed by the Member in charge. The bill is also recorded as having been ordered to be printed pursuant to the Standing Order. In order to protect the priority accorded to ballot bills on the Fridays set down for the second reading of Private Members' Bills, Standing Order No 14(7) prevents the taking up of a Lords bill by a private Member until after the day of presentation of the ballot bills.

Examination of a bill before printing Contents Provisions to be within the order of leave or notice of presentation Financial provisions in bills Private Members' Bills and charges Bills which are prima facie hybrid Bills with the same purpose as other bills of the same session Members ‘backing’ a bill Temporary laws 28.12Bills are produced in printed form as soon as possible after they have been presented, assuming that a text has been examined by the Public Bill Office. In the case of government bills, this examination is almost invariably conducted on the basis of drafts submitted by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel in advance of presentation. Publication accordingly takes place on the day of presentation or on the immediately following day. In the case of Private Members' Bills, the Member in charge may submit a draft for examination before or after presentation. The primary objective of the Public Bill Office when examining a draft bill is to see whether it has been prepared in conformity with the rules of the House. The following are the chief questions which have to be considered, and which Members should consider in drafting bills.

Provisions to be within the order of leave or notice of presentation 28.13A bill should not contain provisions which are not authorised by the notice of presentation or the order of leave; or, when it is founded upon resolutions, by the resolutions upon which it was ordered to be brought in. The title of the bill must correspond with the notice of presentation,1 or the order of leave,2 and the bill itself must be prepared pursuant to the order of leave3 or resolution4 and be in proper form. If these rules have not been observed, the bill cannot be proceeded with,5 if the irregularity is in any way substantial.6 Where the title of the bill as presented to the House refers to purposes which are found not to be mentioned in the clauses of the bill submitted for publication, the proper course is to withdraw the original bill and present a new one with an appropriate long title.7 In the case of a Private Members' Bill presented under the ballot procedure, however, this principle is not applied because the bill would thereby forfeit its balloted priority.8 Any objections, however, should be taken before the second reading;9 for it is not the practice to order bills to be withdrawn, after they are committed, on account of any irregularity which can be corrected while the bill is in committee,10 or on re-committal.

Footnotes 1. House Letting (Scotland) Bill and Coal Mines (Check-weighers) Bill, CJ (1908) 188, 225; Parl Deb (1908) 188, c 1439; ibid 189, c 1437. The title of a bill as presented must not contain any alterations not covered by the notice on the paper, HC Deb (1909) 9, c 2313. 2. New Zealand Bill, CJ (1847) 832; Elective Franchise and Registration of Electors (Ireland) Bill, CJ (1847–48) 522. 3. Poor Removal (Ireland) Bill, CJ (1883) 161; Speaker's Ruling, Registration of Electors Bill, Parl Deb (1893) 10, c 938. 4. Parl Deb (1894) 24, c 1201; HC Deb (1914) 63, c 1569. 5. CJ (1825) 329; ibid (1826–27) 325; ibid (1829) 261; ibid (1837) 254; ibid (1937–38) 220, 221. 6. HC Deb (1919) 120, c 548. Cf ibid (1913) 52, c 1221; ibid (1955–56) 548, c 1217. 7. HC Deb (1931) 247, c 345. 8. In such cases, an amendment to the long title not consequential on any amendment to the bill is permitted: see para 28.119. 9. A bill has been withdrawn on re-committal when notice was taken of an irregularity in the drafting and it appeared that the second reading had been agreed to under a misapprehension of its contents, Parl Deb (1871) 206, cc 577, 631. 10. Parl Deb (1843) 71, c 403; ibid (1894) 27, cc 1091–96; HC Deb (1911) 32, c 215.

Financial provisions in bills 28.14As explained at para 28.3, some bills must be brought in upon financial resolutions. Consequently, if on examination a bill is found to be of this kind and has not been so brought in, it is not allowed to proceed.1 If, on the other hand, a bill is of the kind which does not require to be brought in on financial resolutions, any financial provisions which it may contain must be authorised by a resolution of the House before they can be considered by the committee on the bill. Any clause or part of a clause, which on examination of the draft bill directly imposes a charge, must be printed in italics.2 Where, however, expenditure provisions are dispersed through a bill, and are authorised by an ‘expenses’ clause, normally only the latter is italicised. In the case of a bill brought from the House of Lords, italics are not used, but the subsection inserted by the ‘privilege’ amendment (see para 29.67 ) is printed in bold type and an explanatory note is placed on the front page of the bill.

Footnotes 1. For example, Speaker's private ruling, 19 April 1977. 2. See also the Chairman's remarks in respect of italicised words in the Finance Bill, where italics were found not to be necessary, HC Deb (1931) 254, cc 289–91.

Private Members' Bills and charges 28.15A private Member may not bring in (or seek leave to bring in under the ‘ten-minute rule’ procedure) a bill of which the main object is to create a charge by way of taxation or expenditure.1 This rule is discussed more fully at para 35.25 (in relation to expenditure) and para 36.29 (in relation to taxation). A private Member has nonetheless been permitted to bring in a bill to provide for the equal treatment of certain military pensions, some of which would as a result be paid at a higher rate.2 A private Member may bring in a bill to provide relief from taxation, and such a bill does not require to be founded on resolutions.3

Footnotes 1. See eg HC Deb (1928–29) 226, cc 216–19. Even the use of the word ‘Finance’ in the short title has been refused: Speaker's private rulings, 1985. 2. Forces Widows' Pensions (Equality of Treatment) Bill, CJ (2007–08) 68. 3. For example, Stamp Duty (Lower Rate for Energy Efficiency Measures) Bill, CJ (2004–05) 80; Income Tax (Earnings Exemption for Persons Living in Poverty) Bill, CJ (2005–06) 72; Value Added Tax Bill (2017–19), Votes and Proceedings, 5 September 2017.

Bills which are prima facie hybrid 28.16If it appears that the standing orders relating to private business may be applicable to a public bill, notice of this circumstance is sent from the Public Bill Office to the Member in charge of the bill when the bill is published and the words ‘to be reported upon by the Examiners’ appear on the Future Business after the order for second reading. (For an account of proceedings on hybrid bills, see paras 30.57 –30.68.)

Bills with the same purpose as other bills of the same session 28.17There is no general rule or custom which restrains the presentation of two or more bills relating to the same subject, and containing similar provisions.1 But if a decision of the House has already been taken on one such bill – for example, if the bill has been given or refused a second reading – the other cannot be proceeded with if it contains substantially the same provisions;2 nor could such a bill be brought in under the ‘ten-minute rule’ procedure (see para 28.4 ). On the same principle, a bill may not be introduced under Standing Order No 57 if it is substantially the same as one for which leave has previously been refused under the ‘ten-minute’ rule.3 A Member who, in order to have the opportunity to make a speech, sought leave under the ‘ten-minute’ rule to introduce a bill, which was the same as one he had already introduced as a ballot bill, first withdrew the ballot bill.4 The Speaker has declined to propose the question for the second reading of a bill which would have had the same effect as a clause of a bill which had already received a second reading.5 Similarly, a new clause offered at the consideration stage of one bill was ruled out of order when it substantially repeated the provisions of another bill of the same session, the consideration stage of which had been adjourned.6 But if a bill is withdrawn, after having made progress, another bill with the same objects may be proceeded with.7 Objection to a bill related to, but not identical with, another bill being considered by the House of Lords has been overruled.8 The following examples illustrate the application of the rule originally laid down by the Commons on 1 June 1610, that ‘no bill of the same substance be brought in in the same session’.9 On 7 July 1840, Mr Speaker called attention to a motion for a bill to relieve dissenters from the payment of church rates, before he proposed the question from the Chair.10 Its form and words were different from those of a previous motion, but the object was substantially the same; and the House agreed that it was irregular and ought not to be proposed from the Chair (see para 20.12 ). On 16 May 1860, the order for the second reading of the Charity Trustees Bill was withdrawn, as it was discovered to be substantially the same as the Endowed Schools Bill, which the House had already put off for six months (a procedure tantamount to rejection).11 On 4 May 1951, the Speaker ruled that the National Insurance (Amendment) Bill, set down for second reading that day, could not be proceeded with since the subject-matter of all of its provisions was dealt with in the National Insurance Bill, which had been read a second time on 26 April. The Member in charge of the bill was, however, permitted to make a brief explanatory statement before withdrawing it.12 In Session 1976–77, the Reduction of Redundancy Rebates Bill provided for a reduction expressed in percentage terms in the rebate payable under previous Acts; but the question ‘That the bill be now read a second time’ was negatived on division. A second bill was drafted, but the Speaker ruled privately that it could not be presented since it contained provisions which would achieve the same object as that of the original bill. The Redundancy Rebates Bill, which gave power to vary the rebates within wide limits by order, was then introduced, and proceeded without objection. In Session 1994–95, the presentation of a Private Member's Bill (the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill) was followed by the presentation of a government bill (the Disability Discrimination Bill) which covered similar but not identical ground and gave rise to doubts about compatibility. Before the second reading of the government bill (which came first), the Speaker ruled that although the two bills overlapped, ‘in many respects they are incompatible and they cannot be said to contain substantially the same provisions. To the extent that their provisions differ and are incompatible, the House may at some stage have a choice to make between them’. She did not, however, consider it right to prevent the House from proceeding with the second reading of either bill.13 Objection on these grounds has been overruled where the question previously decided has related to an amendment on second reading;14 to a rejected instruction on a previous bill;15 to a new clause offered to an earlier bill;16 to an earlier bill which only partly overlapped with a second bill;17 to allowing a clause which reproduced a bill rejected on second reading;18 and to a reasoned amendment to an earlier bill which was not directed against the provisions of the second bill.19 When a bill was withdrawn by the Government after an amendment had been carried against it in committee, a fresh bill to the same effect as the original bill was introduced and ultimately passed.20 There is no rule against the amendment or the repeal of an Act of the same session.21

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1882) 268, c 1656; ibid (1883) 278, c 92; HC Deb (1975) 885, cc 411–13; ibid (16 January 1978) 942, c 67. However, notices of presentation of bills to regulate proceedings in the House on other bills (Parl Deb (1908) 190, c 879) and to require the Government to introduce other bills (HC Deb (1914) 60, c 1198) have been ruled out of order. 2. CJ (1920) 167; ibid (1929–30) 242; HC Deb (1950–51) 487, c 1513; ibid (1990–91) 185, c 1175. 3. CJ (1993–94) 454; Third Report from the Select Committee on Procedure, HC 880 (1992–93). By the Speaker's instructions the notice of presentation of the Hospital Lotteries Bill was removed from the Paper on the ground that leave had on 19 May 1931 been refused to bring in the same bill under the ‘ten-minute’ rule (Private ruling, 4 June 1931). 4. Income Tax (Earnings Exemption for Persons Living in Poverty) Bill and (No 2) Bill, CJ (2005–06) 72, 193, 279. 5. HC Deb (1987–88) 125, c 638. 6. HC Deb (1987–88) 134, c 742. 7. Ministers of the Crown (Fisheries) Bills, CJ (1953–54) 254, 275, and Speaker's ruling, HC Deb (1953–54) 529, c 2349. 8. HC Deb (1979–80) 983, c 219; see also ibid (1977–78) 942, c 67. 9. CJ (1547–1628) 434. For the reasons leading the Commons on one occasion to disregard this rule, see CJ (1806–07) 61. 10. CJ (1840) 495; Parl Deb (1840) 55, c 553. 11. CJ (1860) 249; Denison 45. For the obsolete ‘six months' amendment, see Erskine May (23rd edn, 2004), p 583, fn 7.

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

HC Deb (1950–51) 487, cc 1513, 1553–55. HC Deb (1994–95) 253, c 146. Representation of the People Bill (1859), and CJ (1859) 145, 170. Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill (1884–85) (and Medical Relief Disqualification Removal Bill (1884–85)); see CJ (1884–85) 78, 317 and Parl Deb (1884–85) 294, cc 1938–43. National Insurance (Widowed Mothers) Bill (1961–62) and Family Allowances and National Insurance Bill (1961–62); see HC Deb (1961–62) 653, c 876 and ibid 651, cc 487–518. Game Laws Abolition Bill (1870), see Parl Deb (1870) 203, c 563. For the application of the principle where Lords amendments have overlapped a bill rejected in the same session, see para 30.28. Profiteering Bill (1919), see HC Deb (1919) 119, c 1178. Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Bill (1924) and Prevention of Eviction Bill (1924). See CJ (1924) 128, 129; HC Deb (1924) 172, c 138 and ibid 173, c 67. But a clause offered to the second bill which repeated the matter covered by the reasoned amendment was ruled out of order. Factories Bill and Factories (No 2) Bill (1844), CJ (1844) 181, 225. See Interpretation Act 1978, s 2. The British Nationality Act 1981 included in sch 9 (which was to come into force on an appointed day) the repeal of s 49 (which came into force on the passing of the Act). The Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 (passed on 21 July 1994) repealed the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994, s 24 (passed on 5 July).

Members ‘backing’ a bill 28.18The names of Members ordered to bring in a bill may not exceed twelve in number.1 This limit applies equally to bills presented under Standing Order No 57.2 The name of a Member who acts as teller against a motion for leave to introduce a bill is not permitted to appear among the names on the back of the bill.3 The names of those Members as they appear in the Votes and Proceedings when the bill is ordered to be printed cannot be changed when a bill is subsequently printed.

Footnotes 1. Speaker's private ruling, 1 February 1873. See also HC Deb (1979–80) 975, c 442. 2. Parl Deb (1902) 104, c 1292. 3. HC Deb (1970–71) 808, cc 1119–20 and 1372–77; ibid (1986–87) 99, c 1081; ibid (1987–88) 124, c 930; ibid (1991–92) 202, c 321.

Temporary laws 28.19Under Standing Order No 81, the precise duration of every temporary law or enactment must be expressed in a distinct clause or subsection of the bill containing it.

Printing of a bill before second reading 28.20After the draft of a bill has been examined, it is sent, in accordance with the order already made by the House, to be printed, in order that its contents may be published and made available, in both paper and electronic form, before the second reading. A number in a consecutive sessional sequence is given to each bill by the Public Bill Office and appears on its face. When a bill is reprinted at any subsequent stage, another number is assigned to it. Lords amendments are also numbered in the same series. A fresh series is begun each session. If a bill has not been printed, the question for its second reading cannot be proposed. This rule, formerly applied as a matter of practice by the Speaker,1 is now reinforced by Standing Order No 14(13), under which an order appointing a day for the second reading of a Private Member's Bill lapses at the rising of the House on the preceding sitting day if at that time the bill has not been printed and delivered to the Vote Office, and no further order for second reading of the bill may be made until it has been printed.

Footnotes 1. For example, CJ (1966–67) 165; HC Deb (1967–68) 762, c 834; ibid (1975–76) 915, c 1237; ibid (1987–88) 136, cc 1365–70.

Alterations in a printed bill Contents Bills withdrawn and other bills presented 28.21After a bill has been printed and circulated, it is permissible to correct only a clerical or printing error. A corrected copy of the bill is usually made available electronically and in print in substitution for the first version.1 In minor cases, the Speaker has called attention to errors before second reading2 or at other stages, as appropriate.3 For minor alterations in the text of a bill made at later stages by silent correction rather than by amendment, see para 30.83.

Footnotes 1. See Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill (2017–19), and HC Deb (1 December 2017) 632, c 587. For past practice and the use of corrigenda slips, see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 546. 2. See HC Deb (1962–63) 666, c 1314. 3. For example, HC Deb (1979–80) 987, c 647.

Bills withdrawn and other bills presented 28.22If for any reason the Member in charge of a bill wishes to make alterations to its text before second reading, they can do so only by withdrawing the bill and presenting another one. The same course is followed if a change in the title is required.1 In the case of bills ordered upon resolution, a bill has been withdrawn and another bill ordered to be brought in, after reading the resolution upon which the first bill was founded.2

Footnotes 1. For example, CJ (1966–67) 468, 503, 507; ibid (1993–94) 302, 315, 330. 2. CJ (1856) 126; ibid (1857) 185. Cf also CJ (1884–85) 264, 306; ibid (1967–68) 93, 96; ibid (2004–05) 309, 314.

Withdrawal of bills 28.23A bill which stands as an order of the day may be withdrawn before the order is read by notice given to the Clerk at the Table by the Member in charge,1 as may a bill which has been set down for a future day.2 On the order of the day being read for any stage of a bill, an order may, on the motion of the Member in charge of the bill, be made that the order be discharged.3 Such a motion is debatable and may itself be withdrawn.4 If agreed to, the bill is deemed to be withdrawn. A bill may be withdrawn by the Member in charge after the question for its second reading (or other stage) has been proposed, provided that the question itself is first withdrawn,5 and that the Member has the floor.6 If, however, there is any objection, the question cannot be withdrawn, and the stage concerned proceeds to a conclusion.7 A Member other than the Member in charge of the bill, if they have made the motion for second reading, can, with leave, withdraw that motion but not the bill itself.8 A bill may also be withdrawn during its committee stage if the committee is first discharged from (further) consideration of the bill.9 See also paras 28.65, 28.80. By an old parliamentary rule, which has not been invariably observed in the House of Commons, a bill brought from the other House should not be withdrawn. The proper course of action in this case is for the Member in charge of the bill in the second House to have the order for the bill's next stage discharged.10

Footnotes 1. CJ (1981–82) 87. A bill has been withdrawn shortly before the start of the sitting at which it stood as first order of the day, HC Deb (2001–02) 373, c 1113. 2. For example, CJ (1985–86) 381; ibid (1994–95) 285. 3. CJ (1968–69) 130; ibid (1986–87) 367; ibid (2003–04) 536, 546. 4. CJ (1990–91) 352, 369. 5. CJ (1968–69) 170. 6. HC Deb (2002–03) 401, cc 1256–58. 7. HC Deb (1953–54) 529, c 832; ibid (2001–02) 375, c 627. 8. HC Deb (1966–67) 730, cc 1105, 1139. 9. CJ (1974) 299. 10. CJ (1993–94) 359 (National Parks Bill [Lords]).

Certification of certain bills with limited territorial application 28.24Certain bills with limited territorial application are considered for certification after publication and prior to second reading: see paras 27.2 and 27.10 –27.13.

Provision of time for debate on bills Contents Allocation of time orders (guillotines) Arrangements alternative to allocation of time orders 28.25The Government has access to procedures under standing orders which can help secure the passage of bills in line with its planned legislative programme. The traditional method of achieving this up until the introduction of programme orders in 2000 was through allocation of time orders (colloquially known as guillotines) under Standing Order No 83. Such orders were typically used when attempts were made by a minority to prolong debate on controversial legislation and to delay its passage. They are still in occasional use for purposes which cannot be achieved through programme orders, such as setting a timetable for second reading as well as remaining stages of a bill.1 The guillotine represents the limit to which procedure goes in affirming the rights of the majority at the expense of the minorities of the House and may be seen in some cases as upsetting the balance between the claims of business and the rights of debate. Programme orders bear some similarities with traditional allocation of time orders, but programming standing orders incorporate more opportunities for the minority to have matters voted upon than customarily were provided in guillotines. A programme order may reflect to a greater extent informal consultation between party representatives. Even so, opposition parties have sometimes expressed dissatisfaction with the way that programming has curtailed debate on bills, particularly at report stage. Programme orders are now the method generally used for apportioning time for consideration of government bills. The standing orders on programming (Standing Order Nos 83A to 83I) date from 26 October 2004 and have been subject to only minor modification since. They evolved from nine sessional orders agreed to on 7 November 2000 and subsequently renewed.2 The application of standing orders on programming to consideration of bills in committee, on report and on third reading, is described at appropriate points in this chapter. Programming sub-committees are described in Chapter 39, on public bill committees. The application of standing orders on programming to proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments or Lords messages is described in Chapter 30.

Footnotes 1. See for example Votes and Proceedings, 23 November 2015. 2. For more detail on the evolution of these Standing Orders, see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 469.

Allocation of time orders (guillotines) Contents Provision for stages of bills Orders varying or supplementing earlier orders Definition of allotted day Effect of moment of interruption Compensation for time lost to other proceedings Opposed private business Dilatory motions, etc Machinery for bringing proceedings to a conclusion Provision for subsequent supplemental orders Earlier commencement or completion of proceedings Other powers conferred by allocation of time orders 28.26Agreements to constrain the time allocated to consideration of different stages of bills, and occasionally other kinds of business, were not traditionally part of the general procedure of the House. The allocation of time to a particular piece of business, or bill, was considered on a caseby-case basis and applied by a special order. Regular use was made of allocation of time orders from their inception in 1887 with the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill.1 Few sessions since the Second World War passed without one or more bills being subjected to them. With the advent of programming, the number of allocation of time motions has however significantly reduced.2 A motion for the allocation of time to a bill (or bills) sets out in detail some or all of the provisions which are to be made for further proceedings on the bill. It may apply to several bills jointly,3 and it may apply to a hybrid bill.4 Unlike a programme motion, it may be moved before second reading of the bill to which it relates and its modern usage is frequently to secure the timely passage of urgent legislation.5 Under Standing Order No 83, the Speaker is required to put any question necessary to dispose of an allocation of time motion made by a Minister not more than three hours after the motion has been entered upon. Such motions are amendable.6 Allocation of time motions generally provide for subsequent motions (with a more restricted time limit) varying or supplementing their provisions (see para 28.28 ). A motion under Standing Order No 15(2) to allow proceedings on a motion for allocation of time to commence or continue after the moment of interruption cannot extend the three hours allowed for the latter motion.7 If a bill before a public bill committee is the subject of an allocation of time order, Standing Order No 120 (Business Sub-Committees) applies and a detailed timetable is recommended to the public bill committee by the Business Sub-Committee.8 On occasions, however, Standing Order No 120 has expressly been disapplied by the terms of the allocation of time order, which has itself included a timetable for committee proceedings.9 Similarly, if a bill is not before a public bill committee, some or all of the details of the timetable may either be prescribed in the allocation of time order itself10 or they may be left to the Business Committee established under Standing Order No 8211 to recommend; the participation of the Business Committee is routinely excluded in cases where the order lays down a timetable.12 Time limits by which the reports of the Business Committee have to be made are usually prescribed in the order.13 The order may also provide for the variation of any report by a further report, whether or not within the above time limit, and whether or not the resolutions in the report have been agreed to by the House.14

Footnotes 1. CJ (1887) 284, 332. 2. The numbers of bills that were the subject of allocation of time orders in the last seven complete Parliaments were as follows: 28 in 1987–92; nine in 1992–97; 39 in 1997–2001; two in 2001–05; eight in 2005–10; nine in 2010–15 and one in 2015–17. Fuller details may be found in the published Sessional Returns. 3. Two bills, CJ (1908) 42; ibid (1961–62) 81; ibid (1975–76) 470, 473; ibid (1987–88) 787–88; three bills, ibid (1913) 193; ibid (1914) 204. 4. Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, CJ (1992–93) 209. 5. For example, Northern Ireland (Welfare Reform) Bill (23 November 2015), Lords Spiritual (Women) Bill (19 January 2015), Succession to the Crown Bill (22 January 2013), Police (Complaints and Conduct) Bill (5 December 2012). 6. See Votes and Proceedings, 22 January 2013 for an example of an amendment selected, moved and withdrawn. 7. HC Deb (1977–78) 939, c 576. 8. See Erskine May (23rd edn, 2004), pp 818–19 9. For example, CJ (1991–92) 26–29; ibid 194–96. 10. For example, CJ (1981–82) 417; ibid (1986–87) 130. 11. For fuller information on the Business Committee, see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 475. 12. For example, CJ (1990–91) 437–39; CJ (2002–03) 253–55, 384–86; Votes and Proceedings, 23 November 2015. 13. For example, CJ (1988–89) 101, 135. 14. For examples of reports varied by further reports see CJ (1985–86) 343–44, 363–64; ibid (1987–88) 378, 410. For a meeting of the Business Committee during an informal suspension of the House in order to vary its resolution agreed to by the House earlier that day, see HC Deb (1988–89) 147, cc 1004–19 and CJ (1988–89) 176–77.

Provision for stages of bills 28.27Before the advent of programming, an allocation of time order was not usually moved until after the second reading of a bill, and then usually not until the rate of progress in committee had provided an argument for its necessity. The order normally provided that a certain number of days or parts of days were allotted in the form of a timetable to each of the remaining stages of the bill; on allotted days time limits might be laid down by which proceedings on specified portions of the bill were to be concluded. In the case of bills in public bill committee, a date for the bill to be reported was normally specified rather than a number of days or sittings. There have been, however, regular instances of an allocation of time motion being moved before a bill's second reading,1 or before the commencement of the committee stage of the bill to which it relates.2 In modern practice, as already indicated, the ability to move an allocation of time motion before second reading may make it preferable to a programme motion when it is desirable to secure the timely passage of legislation required urgently, and most recent allocation of time motions have been of this kind. Motions moved in such circumstances have sometimes provided for the completion of all the stages of a bill in one sitting,3 generally the same sitting as that on which the motion itself was moved,4 and have also made provision for consideration of Lords amendments.5 Similarly, allocation of time motions moved in respect of bills committed to a Committee of the whole House, or moved after completion of the committee stage, have sometimes provided for the completion of all remaining stages on the day of the order.6 In such cases, the allocation of time is generally a specified number of hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for the order.7

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

For example, CJ (1990–91) 437; ibid (1991–92) 301; CJ (2002–03) 253–55, 384–86. For example, CJ (1989–90) 316; ibid (1991–92) 194; ibid (1996–97) 51; ibid (1997–98) 39. CJ (1993–94) 79–81; Votes and Proceedings, 19 March 2013 and 23 November 2015. For example, CJ (1990–91) 301; ibid (1995–96) 280–82. In the latter case, the allocation of time order was moved at the same sitting as that at which the bill was presented. 5. For example, CJ (2002–03) 253–55, 384–86. 6. For example, CJ (1992–93) 209 (report stage and third reading); ibid (1993–94) 108–9; ibid (2010–12) 342; and Votes and Proceedings, 19 January 2015 (committee, report stage and third reading). 7. For example, CJ (1987–88) 538–39. For such an order relating to two bills, see ibid (1987–88) 787–88.

Orders varying or supplementing earlier orders 28.28Allocation of time orders have been varied by subsequent orders, for example by changing the date when a bill is to be reported from a committee1 or changing the allocation of time for report and third reading.2 In a number of instances, an allocation of time order has been supplemented by a later order, so that the consideration of Lords amendments to the bill should be concluded at a stated time.3 Supplemental orders normally make specific provision for deciding forthwith questions relating to the appointment of committees to draw up reasons for disagreeing to Lords amendments.4 Allocation of time orders have been made in respect of consideration of Lords amendments to bills, earlier proceedings on which had not been the subject of such an order.5

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

CJ (1987–88) 321. CJ (1987–88) 447. For example, CJ (1990–91) 578. For example, CJ (1977–78) 431. See also Order Paper, 3 April 1996, p 2668 for a motion (not, in the event, moved) which proposed, in addition, to set a time limit on proceedings in the Reasons Committee. 5. For example, CJ (1989–90) 326.

Definition of allotted day 28.29Where an order allots a specified number of days to a stage or stages of a bill, a further provision usually1 defines an allotted day as ‘any day (other than a Friday) on which the bill is put down as the first government order of the day’. In those cases where the order provides for the completion of proceedings at the same sitting (see above) or on specific days, no such definition is required. The day on which an allocation of time order has been passed has been used as the first allotted day of the bill to which it related.2 When required, provision has been made for setting out the changes in the timetable which would be necessary in the case of an ‘allotted day’ falling on a Friday.3

Footnotes 1. See Votes and Proceedings, 22 January 2013 for a case where two days were specified but no such definition was included. 2. CJ (1938–39) 223–25. 3. For example, CJ (1991–92) 303.

Effect of moment of interruption 28.30An order may provide that any questions or votes necessary to bring proceedings to a conclusion on an allotted day shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any standing order relating to the sittings of the House. Provision has frequently been made applying the provisions of Standing Order No 15(1) to exempt debate on the bill for a specified period of time after the moment of interruption.1

Footnotes 1. For example, CJ (1974–75) 430; ibid (1996–97) 51.

Time for taking the oath 8.27A definite time at the beginning of a sitting, usually immediately after prayers, is reserved for Members returned after a General Election who desire to take the oath or make the affirmation required by law on any day after the days set aside for taking the oath at the beginning of a Parliament.1

Footnotes 1. CJ (1886) 5; Parl Deb (1886) 302, c 21. See also SO No 6. The Speaker has stated that to object to any Member taking the oath except on grounds public or notorious, or within the cognizance of the House, would be simply vexatious, Parl Deb (1882) 267, c 441; see also CJ (1886) 5–8.

Opposed private business 28.32A provision is made in case any opposed private business should be set down under Standing Order No 20(5) on an allotted day. Such business is deferred until the proceedings on the bill have been concluded, and may then continue for as long a period as it could have done had it commenced three hours before the moment of interruption.1 An allocation of time order has sometimes expressly disallowed the setting down of private business on an allotted day.2

Footnotes 1. For example, CJ (1987–88) 287. 2. CJ (1907) 167; ibid (1967–68) 291.

Dilatory motions, etc 28.33It is usually provided that on days on which proceedings under the order are to be brought to a conclusion, or in some cases on any allotted day, dilatory motions on the bill are inadmissible unless moved by a Minister of the Crown, when the question on it is to be put without amendment or debate.1 Similarly, it may be provided that only a Minister may make a motion to alter the order in which proceedings on the bill are to be taken, and that the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith; but where there is a Business Committee on the bill, it may recommend an alteration in the order in which such clauses or schedules are to be taken in committee or on consideration. It has also been provided that in committee no motions relating to the sittings of the committee should be moved except by a Minister and that the question on any such motion should be put forthwith without debate2 or after a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moved it and a Member who opposes it.3

Footnotes 1. A motion to re-commit a bill is not a dilatory motion and may be made unless it is specifically forbidden, CJ (1906) 362. It is therefore generally provided that on an allotted day no debate should be permitted on any motion to re-commit the bill (whether as a whole or otherwise) and that the question necessary to dispose of the motion, including the question on any amendment selected under SO No 32, should be put forthwith, for example ibid (1991–92) 303. 2. CJ (1948–49) 41. 3. For example, CJ (1992–93) 321.

Machinery for bringing proceedings to a conclusion 28.34Provision is also made for the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings at the time appointed by the order or by a resolution of the Business Committee, which have not previously been brought to a conclusion.1 Some of the powers which are now routine in programme orders were considered novel when first introduced in allocation of time orders, such as putting one question on a series of clauses. The Speaker or the Chair has first to put forthwith the question on any amendment or motion already proposed from the Chair (and if a new clause has been read a second time, also the question ‘That the clause be added to the bill’). Thereafter, questions are put forthwith. These are limited to questions on those amendments, new clauses or new schedules moved by a Minister of the Crown, and such other questions as are necessary to dispose of that part or stage of the bill to be concluded at the time appointed, including (in committee) ‘That the clause stand part of the bill’. With a view to reducing the number of divisions to be taken, it is provided that the only question to be put from the Chair on a new clause or new schedule is ‘That such clause (or schedule) be added to the bill’. No points of order may be taken while these questions are being put.2 Another small saving of time is achieved by the provision that at the end of the proceedings in any committee on the bill (including one to which the bill has been recommitted), the Chair is to report the bill to the House without putting the normal question that the bill be reported to the House.3

Footnotes 1. This machinery is similar to that provided since 2001 (as amended in 2004) for proceedings on bills subject to programming (now SO Nos 83D (Programming orders: conclusion of proceedings in public bill committee or in Committee of the whole House etc) and 83E (Programming orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration and up to and including third reading). 2. HC Deb (1970–71) 814, cc 700–1. 3. For example, CJ (1987–88) 329.

Provision for subsequent supplemental orders 28.35A provision may specify that if a Minister of the Crown should later move a motion for varying or supplementing either the order itself or a resolution of the Business Committee which has been previously agreed to by the House, debate on the motion should be concluded after a certain time. One hour is the time generally specified, and proceedings are exempted from the operation of the moment of interruption. Such a time limit is held to supersede the limit specified in Standing Order No 83.1 This provision is most commonly invoked in order to pass a supplementary order imposing a time limit on the consideration of the Lords amendments to the bill in question.2 Supplementary orders generally contain provision for the questions on agreeing with Lords amendments to be put en bloc when the guillotine falls.3

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1977–78) 953, cc 461–63. 2. For example, CJ (1987–88) 608, 678. For variation orders, see para 28.28, fnn 3 and 4. 3. For example, CJ (1997–98) 155.

Earlier commencement or completion of proceedings 28.36It is regularly provided that nothing in the order, or in a resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee, shall prevent any proceedings to which the order or resolution applies from being entered upon or completed earlier than the order or resolution requires or prevent any business (whether on the bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day, after the proceedings under the order or resolution on that day have been already completed.

Other powers conferred by allocation of time orders Contents Provision for one question on a series of clauses Committal of part of a bill to a public bill (standing) committee Precedence over private Members' business Financial bills Provision as to Saturday sitting Orders in case of bills rejected by Lords 28.37In addition to these normal provisions and to suit special circumstances, other provisions have occasionally been made.

Provision for one question on a series of clauses 28.38The Chair has been directed in the case of a series of clauses to which no notice of amendment has been given by the Government to put the question that those clauses stand part of the bill instead of putting a question on each clause separately.1

Footnotes 1. CJ (1921) 196, 259; ibid (1997–98) 40.

Committal of part of a bill to a public bill (standing) committee 28.39By one of these orders in the case of a bill which had been read a second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House, the House ordered that one part of the bill (including the schedules therein referred to, and any new clauses dealing with the subject-matter of that part of the bill) should stand committed to a standing (public bill) committee, as if the bill on being read a second time had in respect of those provisions been so committed.1 The remaining provisions of the bill continued committed to the original committee, and the House ordered that when the provisions committed to each committee should have been reported to the House, the report stage of the bill should be proceeded with as if the bill had been reported as a whole to the House.2

Footnotes 1. CJ (1911) 439. On another occasion, a bill committed to a standing (public bill) committee and allocated by the Speaker in the normal way under a subsequent allocation of time order was ordered to be allocated to another standing committee in respect of certain portions of the bill, CJ (1921) 247, 273, 281. 2. CJ (1911) 439.

Precedence over private Members' business 28.40Provision has been made for giving precedence to proceedings under the order on days allotted by Standing Order No 14 to Private Members' Bills.1

Footnotes 1. CJ (1938–39) 224.

Financial bills 28.41In the case of bills based on financial resolutions, provision has also been made to enable the order to have effect notwithstanding the former practice of the House relating to the interval between the stages of any such bill (see para 33.23 ).1

Footnotes 1. For example, CJ (1991–92) 301.

Provision as to Saturday sitting 28.42Power has been taken to obtain a sitting of the House on a Saturday at a specified hour or to change the hour of meeting on a Friday,1 for the purposes of the bill dealt with in the order, while notices of questions for oral answer on a Friday or Saturday, which was an allotted day under the order, were ordered to be treated as notices for the following Monday.2

Footnotes 1. CJ (1908) 465; ibid (1912–13) 506. 2. CJ (1908) 465.

Orders in case of bills rejected by Lords 28.43Special provisions have been made in allocation of time orders dealing with bills rejected by the House of Lords. In the case of bills which have been reintroduced into the House of Commons, in the session subsequent to that in which they did not pass the House of Lords, with only such alterations as are provided for by the Parliament Act 1911, s 2(4) (see para 30.52 ), the Chairman has been ordered on the committee stage of a bill to put forthwith the question that he do report the bill, without amendment, to the House, without putting any other question. The question so put has been ordered to be decided without amendment or debate.1 In some cases, the Speaker has been directed, when the order of the day is read for the House to resolve itself into committee on the bill, to leave the Chair without putting any question, notwithstanding that notice of an instruction has been given.2 The Chairman has been directed to put forthwith the question that he do report the bill without amendment to the House.3 In the case of the War Crimes Bill 1990–91, the House ordered that, once the bill had been read a second time, it should not be committed but should instead be ordered to be read the third time on a future day, and that the question on third reading should be put forthwith.4 In the case of a bill which the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills had been ordered to examine, the order was discharged and special provisions were made for the committal and report of the bill after second reading.5

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

CJ (1913) 192; ibid (1914) 204; ibid (1948) 410; ibid (1976–77) 19. CJ (1914) 204; ibid (1948) 410; ibid (1976–77) 19. CJ (1976–77) 19. CJ (1990–91) 253. CJ (1976–77) 19. For proceedings on the order relating to the Finance Bill (1909–10), see Erskine May (20th edn, 1983), pp 461–62.

Arrangements alternative to allocation of time orders 28.44Programme orders, which are the means by which provision is most commonly made for time for scrutiny of bills, are described in paragraph 28.59. Instead of the compulsory provisions of an allocation of time or programme order, an agreement between parties in the House for the purpose of securing the completion of business within a limited time is sometimes arrived at. A regular example of such voluntary arrangements was the annual Finance Bill, before it became common for Finance Bills to be programmed. In such cases, compliance with the agreed timetable has been secured on an entirely voluntary basis.1 On other occasions, time limits agreed between Government and Opposition have been put to the House for approval in the form of business of the House motions applying to specified business at one or more specified sittings. Most such motions affect business other than bills.2 Business of the House motions applying to proceedings on a bill may be used when the motion cannot be considered an allocation of time motion within the terms of Standing Order No 83, for example because the motion also contains provisions outside the scope of that Standing Order, or because the motion has been set down for consideration other than for up to three hours.3 A business of the House motion for consideration in Committee of the whole House of the European Union (Amendment) Bill in 2008 provided for separate blocks of time for debates on policy themes and then for specified proceedings on the Bill.4

Footnotes 1. For instances where the details of such agreements have been communicated to the House, see Erskine May (20th edn, 1983), p 462. 2. For example, CJ (1994–95) 167, 198–99. 3. CJ (1993–94) 174–75. See also HC Deb (1996–97) 285, cc 173–74; ibid (15 July 2014) 584, c 682. For a Business of the House motion making provision to timetable proceedings on a Private Members’ Bill, see Votes and Proceedings, 3 April 2019. 4. CJ (2007–08) 153.

Second reading moved 28.45The second reading is the first important stage through which the bill is required to pass; its whole principle is at issue, and is affirmed or denied by the House. Once a day has been appointed for second reading, the bill stands upon the Order of Business amongst the other orders of the day, and when the day arrives, is called in its proper turn. When the order for second reading is read, the Member in charge of the bill (or any other Member acting on their behalf)1 confirms that they wish to proceed with the order by saying ‘Now’ and then moves ‘That the bill be now read a second time’. In the case of government bills, confirmation of the intent to proceed is generally given by a Whip, and the motion for second reading is then moved by the appropriate Minister. Debate at this stage is not strictly limited to the bill's contents;2 the circumstances surrounding its presentation to the House and other methods of attaining the bill's object may be considered, and the inclusion of cognate objects may be recommended. But debate should not be extended, for example, to a general criticism of the administration3 or of the policies of other political parties,4 or of the provisions of other bills before the House.5 Debate on second reading should not extend to the details of the clauses,6 although it is common practice for a Minister or other Member in charge of a bill to give a brief explanation of the content of the principal clauses at this stage. For government bills where certain associated motions are taken forthwith after second reading (eg Money, Ways and Means, programme), reference may be made to those motions during the second reading debate.7 Opponents of a bill may, and commonly do, vote against the question for second reading, but an alternative way of opposing second reading is by moving a reasoned amendment to the question (see para 28.46 ). Defeat on second reading8 is fatal to a bill since no future day is appointed for that stage, and the introduction of a fresh bill in substantially the same terms in the same session has been ruled out of order.9 Other courses open to Members opposed to a bill at the second reading stage are described below.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1967–68) 759, cc 893–94; ibid (2002–03) 401, c 597. 2. Debate on the second reading of a tax law rewrite bill should not extend to general issues of taxation or budgetary policy, HC Deb (2000–01) 361, cc 113–14. 3. HC Deb (1935–36) 307, cc 1456–57; ibid (1941–42) 379, c 987. 4. HC Deb (2007–08) 474, c 1100. 5. HC Deb (1941–42) 379, c 996. But when four cognate Consolidation Bills were before the House on the same day, the Chair permitted a single debate to cover all four bills, HC Deb (1984–85) 74, c 557. 6. Parl Deb (1875) 224, c 1297; HC Deb (2000–01) 362, c 1209; ibid (2002–03) 400, c 1096. 7. HC Deb (1994–95) 252, c 47. 8. For example, CJ (1985–86) 298–99; ibid (1987–88) 251. 9. CJ (1976–77) 125 (see also para 28.17 ).

Reasoned amendments to question for second (or third) reading Contents Effect of carrying a ‘reasoned amendment’ Questions on reasoned amendments 28.46A Member who wishes to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill may move what is known as a ‘reasoned amendment’ to the question for the second reading.1 Such an amendment is to leave out all the words in the main question after the word ‘that’ and to add other words. A reasoned amendment is nonetheless placed on the Order of Business in the form of a motion. A reasoned amendment is intended to offer reasons for rejecting a bill. It may be declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy or provisions of the bill;2 or it may express opinions as to any circumstances connected with the introduction or prosecution of the bill,3 or otherwise opposed to its progress.4 Amendments selected by the Speaker have commonly included the words, ‘this House declines to give a second reading to a bill which …’, or ‘to the … Bill because …’5 or similar words. Thus, the drafting of reasoned amendments reflects the fact that supporting such an amendment is tantamount to opposing the bill. Amendments which have welcomed some of a bill's provisions whilst opposing others have on occasions not been selected; in the case of a bill with two purposes, an amendment affirming one purpose, but hostile to the bill on account of its second purpose, has been selected.6 A reasoned amendment may also be moved to the question for the third reading of a bill.7 The following rules govern the contents of reasoned amendments: 1. The principle of relevancy in an amendment (see para 20.37 ) governs every such motion. The amendment must ‘strictly relate to the bill which the House, by its order, has resolved upon considering’,8 and must not include in its scope other bills then standing for consideration by the House. Whilst a reasoned amendment on third reading should not urge the rejection of the bill because of what it omits, an amendment on second reading need not be confined to the contents of the bill but may refer to matters which are cognate to it.9 2. The amendment must not be concerned in detail with the provisions of the bill upon which it is moved, nor be confined to alleging defects which could be cured by amendments to the bill which might be moved in committee.10 3. It is not permissible to propose merely the addition of words to the question, that the bill be now read a second time, as such words must, by implication, attach conditions to the second reading. 4. An amendment which amounts to no more than a direct negation of the principle of the bill is unlikely to be selected as being insufficiently distinct from a vote against the question on second reading.

Footnotes 1. For the obsolete ‘six months' amendment on the second or third reading of a public bill (which survives in connection with private bills), see Erskine May (23rd edn, 2004), p 583, fn 7. 2. For example, Gas Bill, CJ (1985–86) 76. 3. Conspiracy to Murder Bill, CJ (1857–58) 65; Paper Duty Repeal Bill, ibid (1860) 126; Intoxicating Liquor, etc (Ireland) Bill, ibid (1890) 214; Newfoundland Fisheries Bill, ibid (1890–91) 313; Government of India Bill, ibid (1934–35) 66; Guyana Independence Bill, ibid (1966–67) 31; Statutory Instruments (Production and Sale) Bill, ibid (1995–96) 454; Superannuation Bill, ibid (2010–12) 154; Welfare Reform Bill, ibid (2010–12) 502. Cf also CJ (1851) 321; ibid (1854) 90. 4. Australian Colonies Government Bill, CJ (1850) 334; Government of India Bill, ibid (1852–53) 609; Representation of the People Bill, ibid (1866) 213; Elementary Education Bill, ibid (1876) 262; Valuation of Property Bill, ibid (1877) 86; Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, ibid (1878) 282. 5. For variations on this formula, see eg CJ (1992–93) 366; ibid (1993–94) 99. See also HC Deb (1993–94) 235, c 20. 6. CJ (2010–12) 145. 7. See, for example, Votes and Proceedings, 17 January 2018. 8. HC 517 (1837) p 5; Parl Deb (1856) 143, c 643; ibid (1882) 269, c 961; ibid (1900) 86, c 506; HC Deb (1917) 97, c 523. 9. For example, CJ (2000–01) 44; ibid (2001–02) 241; CJ (2002–03) 88; Votes and Proceedings, 7 September 2017. 10. Parl Deb (1905) 145, c 1149; ibid (1908) 188, c 76.

Effect of carrying a ‘reasoned amendment’ 28.47A reasoned amendment, if carried on the second or third reading of a bill, is fatal to further progress of the bill, and no order is made for second (or third) reading on a future day.1

Footnotes 1. CJ (1957–58) 138. See also HC Deb (1976–77) 922, c 1736.

Questions on reasoned amendments 28.48On reasoned amendments to the motion for second or third reading of a bill, the question proposed from the Chair is ‘that the amendment be made’. If this question is negatived, the main question is put forthwith under Standing Order No 62(2), and it is accordingly not possible for more than one reasoned amendment to be moved in respect of the second or third reading of any one bill. An opponent of a bill who does not support the terms of the particular reasoned amendment that has been moved nonetheless has an opportunity to vote against the bill on the main question; and similarly there is no procedural obstacle to a Member voting in favour of a reasoned amendment and nevertheless supporting the bill when the main question is put.1 When more than one reasoned amendment is tabled on the second or third reading of a bill, it is for the Speaker to decide, in accordance with Standing Order No 32, which, if any, to select.

Footnotes 1. Sixth Report from the Select Committee on Procedure, HC 539 (1966–67) para 37.

Dropped orders 28.49If, when the order of the day is read at the Table, no motion is made for the second reading or other stage of a bill, and no proposal is made for its deferment to another named day, it becomes a dropped order, and does not appear again upon the Order of Business, unless another day is subsequently appointed for its consideration (see para 19.34 ). In practice, this occurs most commonly in relation to Private Members' Bills.

Deferment of Private Members' Bills after the interruption of business 28.50Thirteen Fridays are set aside under Standing Order No 14(8) for Private Members' Bills (see para 18.16 ). If the proceedings on the bill under consideration at the moment of interruption of business are not completed, the Member in charge may name a future day for consideration of the bill. In their absence, either another Member, publicly stating that they are acting on behalf of the Member in charge, may name a day, or the Clerk at the Table, if they have received written instructions from the Member in charge, or another Member on their behalf, specifically authorised for that occasion, will advise the occupant of the Chair of the day to which the bill should be deferred. No other Member may name a day for further consideration of the bill. Failing an instruction by any of these means, the bill becomes a dropped order. The same procedure applies to subsequent bills listed for that day, where proceedings are objected to on the reading of the relevant order of the day.1

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1973–74) 867, cc 2048–49. A Member may also defer proceedings after the order is read, by naming a future day rather than saying ‘Now’, before the point at which objection is taken: see Votes and Proceedings, 4 November 2016, and 23 November 2018 (Armed Forces (Statute of Limitations) Bill).

Proceedings on bill null and void 28.51If a bill has been read a second (or the third) time by mistake or inadvertence, the proceedings have been declared null and void, and another day has been appointed for the second or third reading.1

Footnotes 1. CJ (1859) 139; Parl Deb (1859) 153, c 816; CJ (1893–94) 244, 249, 252 (motion for committal of a bill to a standing committee rescinded); ibid (1896) 134; ibid (1914–16) 271; HC Deb (1915) 75, c 46; CJ (1926) 217 (second reading and committal); ibid (1937–38) 360; ibid (1948–49) 323: ibid (1956–57) 201 (third reading); ibid (1985–86) 155 (committee and third reading).

No debate on second (or third) reading of Supply and Appropriation Bills or Consolidation Bills 28.52Under Standing Order No 56, the question for second reading of a Supply and Appropriation Bill is put forthwith when the order is read. The bill then proceeds immediately to third reading with no order for committal; and the question for third reading is also put forthwith. The questions on both second and third reading may be decided at any hour, though opposed.1 Consolidation Bills (defined as those bills which fall to be considered under Standing Order No 140 by the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c, Bills) are not debated, at either second or third reading, the question being put forthwith at each stage. Although consideration of such bills in committee is still possible, a motion by a Minister, that the bill be not committed, may be moved without notice after second reading and may be decided at any hour. Such bills therefore may, and frequently do, proceed through all stages without debate.2

Footnotes 1. Consolidation Fund and Appropriation Bills have occasionally passed their second and third reading stages immediately after being brought in and read the first time. But in such cases a special order of the House is necessary to apply the provisions of SO No 56, eg CJ (1966–67) 176, 192; ibid (1996–97) 110, 116, 321, 327; CJ (2009–10) 416. 2. SO No 58; eg CJ (1995–96) 377–378; HC Deb (1995–96), 278, cc 199–200. The Standing Order permits amendments to a Consolidation Bill to be tabled in advance of second reading.

Bills referred to a second reading committee Contents Law Commission bills referred to a second reading committee 28.53Under the provisions of Standing Order No 90, a public bill, instead of being debated on second reading in the House, may be referred to a second reading committee on motion made by a Minister at the commencement of public business. At least ten days' notice must be given of any such motion, and no motion can be made until the bill to which it relates has been printed. The question on the motion is put forthwith and must be decided without amendment or debate; but if not fewer than 20 Members signify their objection by rising in their places, the Speaker must declare that the noes have it.1 The Standing Order also enables private Members to move motions to refer their bills to second reading committees subject to the following conditions: (i) the Member must give at least ten days' notice; (ii) the bill must have been printed before the notice is given; (iii) the notice must be for a day on which Private Members' Bills have precedence; (iv) it must be for a day not earlier than the eighth Friday on which such bills have precedence; and (v) it can be moved only with the leave of the House, with the result that a single objection nullifies the motion. If all these conditions are met, the motion is moved at the commencement of public business and the question on it is put forthwith. If the question is agreed to, the order for second reading (whether for that day or a future day) is treated as discharged. Only one Private Member's Bill has benefited from this provision to date,2 although unsuccessful attempts have been made to have other bills so referred.3 When a second reading committee has reported to the House whether or not it recommends that the bill ought to be read a second time (see para 39.32 ), a note of its recommendation is appended to the order for the second reading of the bill among the remaining orders of the day; and when the bill subsequently comes before the House, the question for its second reading is decided without amendment or debate.4 Proceedings on the question are not exempted business.5 Since its first introduction, this procedure has been generally regarded as suitable only for bills ‘which are not measures involving large questions of policy nor likely to give rise to differences on party lines'.6

Footnotes 1. For example, CJ (1966–67) 178; ibid (1968–69) 62. For a Government Bill referred to a Second Reading Committee by a motion outside the terms of SO No 90, see Votes and Proceedings, 21 June 2018. 2. Raoul Wallenberg Memorial Bill, CJ (1989–90) 397. See also Votes and Proceedings, 14 February 2019, for a government motion agreed to which provided for a Private Member’s Bill to be referred to a Second Reading Committee. 3. See HC Deb (1979–80) 975, c 919; ibid (1993–94) 241, c 537. 4. For example, Insurance Companies Bill [Lords], CJ (1979–80) 376, 397, 403. No second reading committee has ever recommended that a bill ought not to be read a second time. 5. For example, CJ (1990–91) 184, 188. 6. First Report from the Select Committee on Procedure, HC 149 (1964–65) para 3. See also HC Deb (1964–65) 718, c 172.

Law Commission bills referred to a second reading committee 28.54In the case of bills the main purpose of which is to give effect to the recommendations contained in a report by either of the Law Commissions, under Standing Order No 59, reference to a second reading committee is automatic, rather than permissive.1 Such a Law Commission bill stands referred to a second reading committee when it is set down for second reading and is accordingly debated in the committee, rather than the House, unless the House otherwise orders.2

Footnotes 1. The Fraud Bill [Lords] 2005–06, which was similar to a draft bill attached to a Law Commission report, was not proceeded with as a Law Commission bill. 2. A Law Commission bill relating exclusively to Scotland may alternatively be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee, under procedures described in Erskine May (23rd edn, 2004), p 588.

Tax law rewrite bills referred to a second reading committee 28.55Under Standing Order No 60, provision is made for certain government bills to be proceeded with as ‘tax law rewrite bills’. A motion to this effect may be made in respect of such a bill at the commencement of public business, and the question on it is put forthwith. If the motion is agreed to, the bill automatically stands referred to a second reading committee;1 after second reading the bill stands committed to the Joint Committee on Tax Law Rewrite Bills (see para 41.12 ),2 and is thereafter re-committed to a Committee of the whole House.3 Reference of such bills to a second reading committee, or their re-committal to a Committee of the whole House, may be circumvented by motions made by Ministers at the appropriate stages, the questions on which are put forthwith.4

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

CJ (2002–03) 67; ibid (2006–07) 72. CJ (2002–03) 92; ibid (2006–07) 117. CJ (2002–03) 117; ibid (2006–07) 124. The first such bill, the Capital Allowances Bill 2001, was not referred to a second reading committee, and the Committee of the whole House was discharged from considering it, CJ (2000–01) 52, 138.

Bills referred to a Grand Committee 28.56Certain bills with a limited territorial application may be referred to a Grand Committee in place of a second reading debate: see para 27.3.

Committal 28.57Following second reading, all public bills in the Commons must, unless specifically exempted by the House, be considered in committee, when amendments may be moved and debated, and each clause and schedule separately approved. While the great majority of bills are subject to programme orders and are considered in public bill committees (see Chapter 39) other alternatives are available, including the Committee of the whole House and select committees. The committal of a programmed bill is provided for in the programme order (see para 28.58 ). Otherwise, committal is mainly regulated by Standing Order No 63, under which a bill which has been read a second time is automatically committed to a public bill committee unless the House otherwise orders.

Programmed bills Contents Programme motions Supplementary provisions relating to programming 28.58Only government bills may be programmed, and almost all such bills are programmed. Exceptions include bills which need to take effect urgently and for which provision is made under business of the House motions or allocation of time motions to accelerate their passage through the House; hybrid bills; technical, uncontentious bills (such as some Law Commission bills);1 and bills which are of a class already subject to a distinct procedure under standing orders (such as consolidation bills or tax law rewrite bills). Private bills cannot be programmed. Standing Order No 83A provides that if notice of a programme motion is given before second reading by a minister of the Crown, the motion may be made immediately after second reading (but no later) and Standing Order No 63 shall not apply to the committal of the bill. The question on the motion is put forthwith, but the Speaker usually permits discussion of the proposed programme during the debate on second reading. In the case of the House of Lords Reform Bill in 2012, the Speaker ruled that the tabling of a programme motion had the effect of disapplying Standing Order No 63, even though the programme motion was not moved.2 The bill was therefore in limbo. It was withdrawn on 3 September 2012. A programmed bill has been committed to a public bill committee (formerly to a standing committee), to a Committee of the whole House, to a public bill committee in respect of some of its provisions and to a Committee of the whole House in respect of other provisions (see para 28.64 ),3 or to a select committee followed by re-committal to a Committee of the whole House.4

Footnotes 1. Such as the Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Bill [Lords], Votes and Proceedings, 17 January 2017 (Second Reading). 2. HC Deb (10 July 2012) 548, c 187. 3. Hunting Bill, CJ (2000–01) 36; Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill, CJ (2002–03) 32; Finance Bill, (CJ (2002–03) 370); Electoral Administration Bill, CJ (2005–06) 217; Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, CJ (2005–06) 492; Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords], CJ (2007–08) 381. 4. Armed Forces Bill, CJ (2005–06) 332; ibid (2010–12) 359.

Programme motions 28.59A programme motion typically specifies: whether a bill is to be committed to a public bill committee or to Committee of the whole House; a date by which a public bill committee charged with considering the bill should report; and time to be allotted for consideration of the bill on report, and subsequent stages up to and including third reading. It cannot, to benefit from the favourable terms under the standing orders for such motions, contain provisions which go beyond programming.1 Debate on second reading may extend to the merits of the programme motion. The question is put forthwith at the end of debate on second reading, precluding any possibility of amendment. Under Standing Order No 83A(13), proceedings on a programme motion are exempted business. The effect, when taken in conjunction with Standing Order No 83I(2), is that proceedings on a programme motion or on any business governed by a programme motion may be continued beyond or entered upon after the moment of interruption, without any further provision. If a programme motion needs to be amended, a supplementary programme motion may be moved with notice.2 Such motions are commonly moved immediately before consideration of a bill on report, to make more detailed provision for the use of time at report stage and at third reading, or before consideration of Lords amendments. They may also be used to amend the date by which a public bill committee must report a bill, whether on the basis of a proposal by the public bill committee under Standing Order No 83C(12)3 or not.4 Supplementary programme motions have also been moved to give effect to recommendations from a public bill committee relating to consideration of a bill on report and at third reading.5 The question on a programme motion or a supplementary programme motion is to be put forthwith, subject to the following four exceptions: where the public bill committee has reported a resolution under para (12) of Standing Order No 83C (Programming sub-committees) proposing an alteration of the date by which the bill is to be reported to the House, and the motion made under para (13) of the Standing Order does not give effect to the public bill committee's proposal; where the motion makes further provision for proceedings on consideration and third reading of the bill otherwise than in accordance with a resolution of the public bill committee; where the motion reduces the amount of time allocated under a programme order for any proceedings on the bill (whether or not it also increases the amount of time allocated for other proceedings on the bill); where the motion relates to a resolution of the programming committee. In an excepted case, any question necessary to dispose of proceedings on a programme motion is to be put not later than three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion. In these circumstances, amendments may be tabled and selected.6 Standing Order No 83 (Allocation of time to bills) does not apply to a programme motion, and neither Standing Order No 82 (Business Committee) nor Standing Order No 120 (Business Sub-Committees) applies to a bill for which a programme order has been agreed. A programme motion takes precedence over any other motion in connection with the bill in question.7

Footnotes 1. For instance, it cannot provide that the House should not adjourn until a Reasons Committee has reported, or make provisions relating to the receipt of written evidence by a public bill committee. (But SO No 83H requires a Reasons Committee to report before the conclusion of the sitting.) 2. The Government has invited the House to agree a motion on the understanding that a revised version will be tabled in the following few days, HC Deb (2004–05) 429, c 650. 3. Identity Cards Bill, CJ (2005–06) 117. 4. Digital Economy Bill, Votes and Proceedings, 18 October 2016. 5. Police Reform Bill, CJ (2001–02) 672; Age-Related Payments Bill, CJ (2003–04) 366. 6. Protection of Freedoms Bill, CJ (2010–12) 884; Crime and Courts Bill [Lords], CJ (2012–13) 636; Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill, CJ (2013–14) 163. 7. For example, to commit the bill to a special standing committee, HC Deb (2002–03) 403, c 134.

Supplementary provisions relating to programming 28.60Standing Order No 83I makes various supplementary provisions. Proceedings on a bill subject to a programme motion are exempted business for any period after the moment of interruption allocated to them in accordance with the programme order and may not be interrupted under any standing order relating to the sittings of the House. Such proceedings may be continued beyond or entered upon after the moment of interruption, without any further provision. In addition, if the Speaker has announced that on a day on which the bill is to be taken as an order of the day, a motion for a debate under Standing Order No 24 would otherwise begin at a specified time before the moment of interruption, that motion stands over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the bill which, in accordance with the programme order, are to be brought to conclusion at or before that time. The bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the bill which, under the programme order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time, is postponed for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on the emergency debate. No dilatory motion may be made in relation to proceedings subject to a programme order except by a Minister, and the question on any such motion is to be put forthwith. If at any sitting the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under a programme order, no notice is required of a motion made at the next sitting by a Minister for varying or supplementing the provisions of the programme order. Bills which have been carried over under Standing Order No 80A or 80B may be programmed, and the programme order passed in the first session continues to apply and may be varied in the second session.1 A programme motion may provide for re-committal of a bill,2 or make contingent provision for the re-committal of a bill,3 and may then make provision for further proceedings on a bill after re-committal.4

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

CJ (2008–09) 36; Votes and Proceedings, 10 January 2017. CJ (2010–12) 720. CJ (2002–03) 492. CJ (2002–03) 498.

Exceptions to general practice Contents Exceptions prescribed under standing order Other exceptions Division of a bill for the purposes of committal 28.61The main exceptions to the normal practice of committal to a public bill committee, and the procedures for varying this practice, which are also largely governed by Standing Order No 63, are set out below.

Exceptions prescribed under standing order 28.62Supply and Appropriation Bills (see above and paras 34.35 –34.39 ) are expressly exempted from the operation of Standing Order No 63, and have no committee stage. Under Standing Order No 60, after second reading, tax law rewrite bills stand committed to the Joint Committee on Tax Law Rewrite Bills, and are thereafter recommitted to a Committee of the whole House, unless the House otherwise orders (see para 28.55 ). Although Consolidation Bills are not specifically exempted from the operation of Standing Order No 63, a motion may be made by a Minister immediately after second reading, without notice and at any hour, to the effect that a Consolidation Bill be not committed. The question on it is put forthwith and, if it is agreed to, the bill has no committee stage (Standing Order No 58). Where the latter procedure is not invoked, the committee stage of a Consolidation Bill is invariably taken in Committee of the whole House.

Other exceptions 28.63In the case of any other public bill which receives a second reading,1 Standing Order No 63(2) provides that a motion may be made by any Member that the bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, or to a select committee,2 or that it is expedient that the bill be committed to a joint committee,3 or to give the public bill committee to which the bill has been committed power to send for persons, papers and records; but only one such motion may be made.4 Such a motion, if made immediately after the bill has been read a second time, does not require notice5 and must be decided without amendment or debate. It may be made and, if opposed, decided after the moment of interruption.6 If the motion is negatived, the bill stands committed to a public bill committee.7 If a motion to commit a bill to a Committee of the whole House is agreed to, the usual practice is to make an order for the committee on a future day. If it is signified by the Member in charge that the committee stage should follow immediately and objection is taken, the Member in charge of the bill must then move that ‘This House will immediately resolve itself into the said Committee’. This question is debatable.8 It is not exempted business and if further objection is taken after the moment of interruption a future day must be named.9 It is common practice for government bills of ‘first-class’ constitutional importance to be committed to a Committee of the whole House,10 although there is no invariable rule to that effect, nor any settled definition of what ‘“first-classâ€​ constitutional importance’ should be taken to mean (see para 28.83 ).11 Less significant bills may also be committed to a Committee of the whole House.12 For Scottish provisional order bills, see para 42.19; and for provisional order confirmation bills, see Erskine May (23rd edn, 2004), p 590.

Footnotes 1. Bills presented pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, s 7 and bills to confirm orders pursuant to the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure Act) 1945, s 6 by statute omit the second reading stage. 2. For example, CJ (1972–73) 145; ibid (1975–76) 76. Bills have sometimes been committed to a select committee to which other bills have been committed, CJ (1851) 243; ibid (1861–62) 146, etc; or to a select committee appointed to inquire into a related matter (see para 38.11 ). The Railways Bill 1999 was referred to a departmentally-related select committee, which was instructed to consider its provisions and report on it by a specified date, CJ (1998–99) 455; HC Deb (1998–99) 335, cc 894–927. 3. Wills and Intestacies (Family Maintenance) Bill, CJ (1930–31) 135, 156, 176; Customs and Excise Bill, CJ (1951–52) 98, 103, 108. 4. HC Deb (1914) 61, c 2079; ibid (1924) 170, c 1885. 5. Notice is, however, often given, eg Local Government Finance Bill, Order Paper (1987–88) p 2167. 6. Or, if opposed private business has been set down, after the time for taking such business, HC Deb (1909) 3, c 417. 7. For example, CJ (1985–86) 136–137; ibid (1994–95) 294; ibid (1995–96) 66, 358. Committal was then to a standing committee. 8. HC Deb (1997–98) 300, cc 437–42. 9. HC Deb (1994–95) 253, c 1385. 10. For example, CJ (1971–72) 160; ibid (1977–78) 28; ibid (1984–85) 511; Votes and Proceedings, 11 September 2017. 11. In their Memorandum to the 1945 Procedure Committee, the Government sought to illustrate what was meant by ‘first-class constitutional importance’ by reference to the Parliament Act 1911 and the Statute of Westminster 1931, but this was clearly not intended as a comprehensive or exclusive definition of the term, the choice of bills to be taken in Committee of the whole House to be left to government initiative. See First Report from the Select Committee on Procedure, HC 9-I (1945–46) p xi; CJ (1945–46) 81; ibid (1992–93) 52–53; and HC Deb (1980–81) 996, c 750. Certain clauses only of the Government of Wales Bill 1997 were committed to a Committee of the whole House, but the committal order was subsequently discharged and the entire bill so committed, CJ (1997–98) 266, 307; HC Deb (1997–98) 302, cc 900–6. 12. Air Travel Organisers' Licensing Bill, Votes and Proceedings, 11 July 2017; Laser Misuse (Vehicles) Bill [Lords], Votes and Proceedings, 30 April 2018.

Division of a bill for the purposes of committal 28.64Standing Order No 63(3) provides that the Member in charge of a bill may move that the bill be committed to a public bill committee in respect of some of its provisions and to a Committee of the whole House in respect of other provisions. This provision has been used for Finance Bills when they are not programmed,1 and for some other government bills in recent years (see para 28.83 ). Notice is not obligatory if the motion is made immediately after second reading, but is normally given.2 When such a motion is opposed, the Speaker, after permitting, if they think fit, a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes and from a Member who opposes the motion, is directed to put the question without further debate;3 and the motion may be decided after the moment of interruption. If the motion has other matter attached to it, as for example is customary in the case of hybrid bills, it is debatable.4

Footnotes 1. For the most recent case of a Finance Bill subject to a split committal under SO No 63, see Votes and Proceedings, 26 April 2011. 2. In the case of the Finance Bill 2005, notice of a motion had been given, but a different motion was made in order to meet the wishes of the House, HC Deb (2005–06) 434, cc 1132, 1213. 3. HC Deb (1962–63) 669, c 343; CJ (1968–69) 240; ibid (1989–90) 316; ibid (1993–94) 25; ibid (29 April 2014) cc 707–69 (Notice of the motion was given in these cases). 4. CJ (1956–57) 214; HC Deb (1957) 571, cc 673–83.

Bills withdrawn after committal 28.65A bill may not be withdrawn in committee, since the committee has a duty to consider each bill committed to it on the order of the House. Nonetheless, bills other than Lords bills have been withdrawn by notice given at the Table by the Member in charge, after committal to standing committees or public bill committees, following an order that the committee concerned be discharged from considering the bill;1 and after committal to a Committee of the whole House, following an order that the order for the committee be discharged.2

Footnotes 1. CJ (1953–54) 254, and Speaker's ruling HC Deb (1953–54) 529, cc 2349–50; CJ (1959–60) 226; ibid (1963–64) 112; ibid (1964–65) 200, 248; ibid (1976–77) 299; ibid (1984–85) 428; and HC Deb (1984–85) 78, c 911. 2. CJ (1976–77) 353, 465.

Appointment of public bill committees 28.66Under Standing Order No 84A(1), a public bill committee is appointed for the consideration of each bill committed to such a committee. (Before 2006 a bill was committed to a standing committee rather than to a public bill committee, and then allocated to a specific committee by the Speaker.) For committal of certain bills with a limited territorial application to specific public bill committees, see paras 27.4 and 27.14. A public bill committee on a programmed bill has power to send for persons, papers and records (see para 38.32 ). A public bill committee on a bill which is not programmed may be given that power under Standing Order No 63(2)(b). Any number of public bill committees may be set up in the course of a session. If a public bill committee has been set up for one Private Member's Bill, under Standing Order No 84A(5), the Selection Committee may not nominate a second while proceedings in the first are still active, unless a Minister gives notice of a motion in support of that nomination. If, however, the Member in charge of the bill in respect of which the first committee has been nominated informs the Selection Committee that they do not intend for the time being to proceed with the committee stage of the bill, a second committee may be nominated; in which case the first committee may not meet until the second has concluded its proceedings.1

Footnotes 1. These arrangements reproduce the effect of the former system, whereby all Private Members' Bills committed to a standing committee were allocated to the same committee (normally Standing Committee C).

Transfer of bill from one kind of committee to another Contents Financial resolutions 28.67A bill which stands committed to a public bill committee may instead be committed, on a motion, to a Committee of the whole House1 or a select committee.2 The motion begins with a proposal that that committee be discharged from considering the bill.3 Such a motion may be made after consideration of the bill has been entered upon in committee, in which case the wording of the motion is ‘discharged from further considering the bill’.4 On occasion, the House has ordered that new clauses dealing with specific issues be committed to a Committee of the whole House, the bill having already been committed to a standing committee.5 With the exceptions stated at paras 28.61–28.63 above, bills stand committed to a public bill committee, unless the House otherwise orders. Hence a motion to transfer a bill, which has been specially committed to a Committee of the whole House, to a public bill or select committee is a most unusual occurrence. It is possible, however, to move to discharge the order and commit the bill to a public bill or select committee.6 Similarly, after the Finance Bill had been divided between a standing committee and Committee of the whole House, the latter was subsequently discharged from considering certain clauses, which were then committed to the standing committee.7 An amendment to such a motion, whereby only parts of such a bill would have been committed to a standing committee, was ruled privately not to come within the terms of what is now Standing Order No 63(3).8 Motions for the committal of a bill to a committee other than that first ordered by the House are debatable, but debate should be confined to the effect or expediency of referring the bill to the proposed committee, and general debate upon the merits or clauses of the bill is not permitted.9

Footnotes 1. For example, CJ (1953–54) 46; ibid (1964–65) 238. 2. CJ (1909) 179. 3. For example, CJ (1987–88) 361; ibid (1994–95) 233. See also ibid (1921) 247, where an allocation of time order provided for the reallocation of part of a bill to a different standing committee. 4. CJ (1964–65) 161; ibid (1966–67) 193; ibid (1969–70) 341. See also CJ (1933–34) 256, 336. For orders discharging standing committees from considering such provisions of bills as they had not yet considered and for the occupant of the Chair to report the provisions which had been considered, and providing for further proceedings on the bills in Committee of the whole House and on report, see CJ (1986–87) 379, 382. 5. CJ (1990–91) 55; ibid (1993–94) 151. 6. CJ (1917–18) 19, 26; ibid (1951–52) 288; ibid (1966–67) 494; ibid (1992–93) 349 (standing committees); CJ (1854–55) 143; ibid (1856) 207; ibid (1857) 337; ibid (1955–56) 195–96 (select committees). 7. CJ (1989–90) 399. 8. See Notices of Motions (1951–52) p 3032. 9. Parl Deb (1883) 278, cc 335, 341; ibid (1884) 287, c 1870; ibid (1892) 4, cc 305, 1310; HC Deb (1951–52) 502, c 2667.

Financial resolutions 28.68When a bill is brought in upon a financial resolution, the whole principle of the bill (so far as it can be inferred from the resolution) is open for discussion during the prior debate on the resolution. Money resolutions in respect of a bill introduced under Standing Order No 50, or involving a charge subsidiary to its main purpose, or brought from the Lords under Standing Order No 80, are normally considered after the second reading of the bill to which they relate. It is customary for a Money resolution (or Ways and Means resolution) relating to a government bill to be put down for consideration immediately following the second reading of the bill. In this case, or if the motion is moved at another time during the same sitting, the question is put forthwith, and no debate is allowed. In such circumstances, however, the Speaker usually permits discussion of the Money resolution during the second reading debate of the bill.1 In the case of resolutions moved at other times (as in the case of further Money resolutions in respect of government bills, or resolutions required before the committee stage of a Private Member's Bill), debate is restricted to three-quarters of an hour and should relate solely to the financial implications of the bill in question. Where such a motion is debateable, it can also be subject to an amendment.2 Under Standing Order No 52, proceedings on such resolutions, though opposed, may be taken after the time for opposed business. It is possible, although unusual, for a Money resolution to be taken before the second reading of a bill.3

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1994–95) 252, c 47. 2. For the rules on such amendments, see para 35.22. 3. CJ (1974–75) 97; ibid (1990–91) 297.

Instructions to committees on bills Contents Admissible instructions Inadmissible instructions Application of instruction to re-committed bill Procedure relating to instructions 28.69Before the committee to which a bill has been committed begins its consideration of the bill, an instruction may be given, the purpose of which is either to empower it to do something which it could not otherwise do, or to define the course of action which it must follow. The first type of instruction, which is called permissive, may be given to a Committee of the whole House, or to any other committee. The second type, which is called mandatory, may be given only to a select committee or to a committee on a private bill. (For instructions to joint committees, see para 41.2.) Standing Order No 65 gives a general authority to any committee on a bill to amend the bill as it sees fit (even if this entails amending the bill's long title in consequence), provided that the amendments are relevant to the subject-matter of the bill. Instructions are therefore required only when it is desired to make amendments which fall outside the scope of the bill (see para 28.81 ). Even an instruction, however, cannot authorise consideration of an amendment that is not cognate to the purposes of the bill, so the area within which an instruction can be effective is closely circumscribed, as the following examples of admissible and inadmissible instructions illustrate.

Extension of objects 28.70An instruction is necessary to authorise the introduction of amendments into a bill, which extend its provisions to objects not strictly covered by the subject-matter of the bill as disclosed on the second reading. But for such an instruction to be in order the objects must be cognate to the general purposes of the bill. The Public Bodies (Admission of the Press to Meetings) Bill 1959–60 was limited to the single purpose of admitting the press to meetings. An instruction was necessary to extend the bill to the general public.1 The Control of Horses Bill 2014–15 was limited to provisions for dealing with horses abandoned in public places. An instruction was necessary to extend the provisions to cover horses left on private land, thereby reducing the time that a landowner or local authority was required to detain a horse before disposing of it.2 The Passenger Vehicles (Experimental Areas) Bill [Lords] 1976–77 permitted the modification of statutory requirements applying to public service vehicles operating in experimental areas to be designated under the bill. An instruction was necessary to permit the modification to apply to vehicles used on journeys partly in and partly outside the areas.3 The Football Spectators Bill [Lords] 1988–89 proposed a national membership scheme for spectators at designated football matches. An instruction was necessary to permit provision as to the safety of spectators there.4 The Proceeds of Crime Bill 1994–95 modified and extended existing statutory provisions empowering the courts to confiscate the proceeds of criminal offences. An instruction was necessary to authorise consideration of amendments to facilitate the enforcement of overseas forfeiture, restraint and destruction orders in respect of terrorists' funds, and property relating to drug trafficking.5 The European Union (Amendment) Bill 2007–08 provided for the ratification by the United Kingdom of the Treaty of Lisbon. An instruction was moved to permit provision to be made for the holding of a referendum on the United Kingdom's continued membership of the European Union.6 An instruction was necessary to enable provision to be made in the Crime and Security Bill 2009–10 restricting the hours during which alcohol might be sold or supplied, that being a matter dealt with by the separate body of licensing legislation, but one which was cognate to the general purposes of the bill because the prevention of crime and disorder was one of the statutory licensing objectives.7 An instruction was necessary to enable provision to be made in the Welfare Reform Bill 2011 to establish the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission. The original bill had not included such a provision because the government had been waiting for the outcome of a consultation, which had closed after the bill had been introduced, before deciding to propose the creation of the Commission.8

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1959–60) 619, c 927. 2. HC Deb (2014–15) 588, c 885. 3. CJ (1976–77) 282. For other cases where an instruction was necessary to empower a committee to consider the amendments proposed by the instruction, see Established Church (Wales) Bill, HC Deb (1912) 44, c 1829; Petroleum (Amendment) Bill, ibid (1928) 215 cc 171–72; Coal Mines Bill, ibid (1932) 266, c 1167; Gas Undertakings Bill [Lords], ibid (1932) 266, c 2077; Control of Liquid Fuel Bill, ibid (1966–67) 750, c 734; European Assembly Elections Bill, ibid (1977–78) 943, c 723; Corneal Tissue Bill, ibid (1985–86) 89, c 1410. 4. CJ (1988–89) 450. 5. CJ (1994–95) 232. 6. CJ (2007–08) 234; HC Deb (2007–08) 472, c 1598. 7. CJ (2009–10) 231; HC Deb (2009–10) 505, cc 986–1004. 8. HC Deb (2010–12), 527, cc 966–67.

Extension of area 28.71An instruction is necessary to render applicable to the whole of the United Kingdom the provisions of a bill (or part of a bill) the legal extent of which is limited (see para 26.12 ) by its long title to a part of the United Kingdom (eg Scotland or Northern Ireland).1 A committee can, without an instruction, extend the operation of a bill to Scotland or Northern Ireland, if the bill is not by the long title restricted to England and Wales, or can limit the area to which the bill is to apply; likewise a committee can provide for a bill which does not have effect in Wales to apply there. A committee cannot, merely by amendment of the citation and extent clause, remove Wales from the operation of a bill extending to England and Wales: such an objective can be achieved only by the amendment of the substantive clauses of the bill.2 It has also been ruled, in the case of a bill described by its title as providing for the holding of referendums in Scotland and Wales on matters affecting the constitution of the United Kingdom, that it was in order without an instruction to propose amendments to extend the franchise for the referendums to the whole of the United Kingdom.3 In default of such an instruction, the Chair has declined to propose, or, having proposed, has declined to put the question on an amendment4 or on a new clause.5 When such a clause was inserted in a bill in committee without an instruction, the Speaker stated, on consideration of the bill, as amended, that the proper course would be to re-commit the bill, but in the circumstances the bill was allowed to proceed on the understanding that the clause in question would be struck out.6

Footnotes 1. Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [Lords], CJ (1948–49) 373; Deer (Scotland) Bill, ibid (1958–59) 169; General Rate Act 1967 (Exemption from Constant Attendance Allowances (Amendment)) Bill, ibid (1972–73) 241; Avoidance of Liability (England and Wales) Bill, ibid (1976–77) 150; Local Government Act 1974 (Amendment) Bill, ibid (1977–78) 194. 2. See Stg Co Deb (1990–91), Stg Co F (Community Charges (Substitute Setting) Bill), cc 67–68. 3. HC Deb (1997–98) 294, c 852 (in respect of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill). 4. HC Deb (1914) 68, c 735; ibid (1918) 110, c 1424. 5. HC Deb (1914) 68, c 745; CJ (1887) 333; ibid (1888) 500 (clause withdrawn). 6. HC Deb (1914) 65, c 1938.

Division of bill 28.72An instruction is required to enable a committee to divide a bill into two or more bills,1 but such an instruction is in order only if the bill is drafted in two or more distinct parts, or otherwise lends itself to such division into parts.2 An instruction must be moved, if it is desired to give priority to the consideration of a portion of a bill, with power to report that portion separately to the House.3

Footnotes 1. CJ (1861) 376; ibid (1868–69) 192; ibid (1871) 114; ibid (1893–94) 592; ibid (1905) 333; ibid (1909) 103; ibid (1911) 310; ibid (1912–13) 199, 435, 508; ibid (1913) 214, 218; ibid (1916) 75; ibid (1917–18) 112; ibid (1979–80) 562. 2. Parl Deb (1894) 27, c 1028; HC Deb (1917) 94, c 162; ibid (1987–88) 124, c 1113. 3. CJ (1890–91) 30; ibid (1895) 182; ibid (1911) 124.

To consider or make certain amendments 28.73A mandatory instruction has been given to a select committee on a bill to consider certain amendments.1 For instructions to select committees on hybrid bills concerning treatment of certain matters, see para 30.65. On re-committal of a bill to the former standing committee, a permissive instruction has been given to the committee allowing it to insert in the bill provisions with a like effect to a clause to which it had previously disagreed.2

Footnotes 1. CJ (1955–56) 196. 2. CJ (1969–70) 281; HC Deb (1969–70) 800, c 424.

To restrict the scope of a committee's inquiry 28.74A mandatory instruction has been given to a select committee on a hybrid bill to report without comment to the House for its consideration any issue relating to the environmental impact of the railway transport system for which the bill provided that was raised in a petition against the bill, but which the committee was prevented from considering by the practice of the House. Furthermore, a select committee can be instructed to treat the principle of the bill as including certain matters that would normally be excluded when applying the practice of the House.1

Footnotes 1. CJ (2005–06) 143; HC Deb (2005–06) 436, cc 1123–30, 1218, 1273.

Inadmissible instructions 28.75Instructions are out of order if they attempt to embody in a bill principles that are foreign or not cognate to it; if their objects are inconsistent with the decision of the House on second reading or seek to replace that decision by means of an alternative scheme or postponement; or if they propose to amend Acts which are not cognate to the bill, or attempt to introduce into a bill a subject which should properly constitute a distinct measure. They are out of order if they seek to authorise the committee to go beyond any Money resolution or Ways and Means resolution passed in connection with the bill.1 They are also out of order if they seek to confer powers on a committee which it already has,2 or are otherwise superfluous, if they propose an impracticable division of the bill into two or more bills3 or generally are not clear and specific. The following are examples of instructions that have been ruled inadmissible. On the Representation of the People Bill 1947–48 an instruction was put down to give the committee power to provide for the suspension of the issue of writs for the return of Members in Northern Ireland during such times as in the opinion of Parliament free elections were impossible in Northern Ireland. The Speaker ruled the instruction out of order on the ground that it was outside the scope of the bill and raised a matter of such magnitude that it could only be introduced by a separate statute.4 An instruction put down on the Scotland and Wales Bill 1976–77 sought to provide for alterations to the structure and functions of government in any or all parts of the United Kingdom. As the bill was to provide for changes in the government of Scotland and Wales, this object was ruled not to be cognate to the bill, and the instruction was ruled out of order.5 On the Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Bill [Lords] 2005–06 an instruction was put down which related to the procedure for orders under the Harbours Act 1964. It was ruled out of order because it related to matters which were unrelated to the content of the Bill.6

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

HC Deb (1929–30) 234, c 1721. For example, HC Deb (1955–56) 551, c 1789; ibid (1987–88) 124, cc 1113–14. Parl Deb (1901) 97, c 453. HC Deb (1947–48) 448, c 1892. For cases of similar instructions ruled out of order, see Demise of the Crown Bill, HC Deb (1901) 93, c 1259; London Water (re-committed) Bill, ibid (1902) 111, c 9; Education (Provision of Meals) (re-committed) Bill, ibid (1906) 166, c 1273; Parliament Bill, ibid (1911) 23, cc 1815, 1849; Solicitors (Examination) Bill [Lords], ibid (1917) 97, c 1339; Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Bill, ibid (1927) 206, cc 401, 402. 5. HC Deb (1976–77) 941, c 1663. 6. HC Deb (2005–06) 441, c 1445.

Application of instruction to re-committed bill 28.76The powers conferred by an instruction moved when a bill is committed for the first time continue to operate if the bill is re-committed.1

Footnotes 1. National Education (Ireland) Bill 1892, see CJ (1892) 358, 369.

Notice, selection, etc 28.77Notice is required of instructions and is also required of any amendment which would widen their terms.1 Under Standing Order No 32(4), the Speaker has the same power to select motions for instructions to committees on bills as to select amendments.2 Any amendment moved to an instruction must be strictly relevant and must be drawn in such a way that, if accepted, the question as amended would retain the form and effect of an instruction.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1909) 2, c 286. Notice is not required for an instruction founded on a resolution of the House. 2. It was formerly the practice of the House that a Member could not move more than one instruction to a committee in respect of the same bill, whether public or private (Parl Deb (1896) 39, c 1708 (a private bill); ibid (1896) 41, c 866 (a public bill)). In 2005–06, three instructions to a select committee on a hybrid bill were moved by a member of the Government (CJ (2005–06) 143, 364–65).

Time for moving instructions 28.78An instruction to a Committee of the whole House upon a bill is usually moved when the order of the day for the first sitting of the committee has been read and before the Speaker has left the Chair,1 except for an instruction founded on a resolution or order which is given when the resolution or order in question has been agreed to by the House.2 In the case of bills referred to public bill or select committees, an instruction can be moved as soon as the bill has been committed,3 or subsequently.4 Instructions have, with the leave of the House, been debated together with the question for second reading,5 but proceedings on instructions are not exempted from interruption under Standing Order No 9, unless a motion to exempt them under Standing Order No 15(2) has been agreed to.

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

CJ (2007–08) 234. CJ (1957–58) 290; ibid (1966–67) 510, etc. CJ (1955–56) 196; ibid (1979–80) 278 (a Private Member's Bill). CJ (1959–60) 143; ibid (1979–80) 657; ibid (1995–96) 189. For example, HC Deb (1986–87) 106, c 667.

Debate on motion for instruction 28.79Debate on a motion for an instruction must be strictly relevant, and must not be directed towards the general objects of the bill to which the instruction relates,1 or anticipate the discussion of a clause of a bill. In accordance with the general practice of the House regarding motions and debates (see para 20.12 ), matters which have already been decided during the current session, or have been appointed for the future consideration of the House, cannot be brought forward by an instruction. The mover of an instruction has no right of reply.2

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1969–70) 800, c 433; ibid (1988–89) 155, cc 842, 936. 2. HC Deb (1969–70) 800, c 433.

Functions of a committee on a bill 28.80The function of a committee on a bill is to consider the bill clause by clause and, if it wishes, word by word, and to approve the text or to modify it to reflect the committee's legislative intentions. The rules as to the admissibility of amendments are explained in detail below and at paras 28.103 –28.105, but the general powers of a committee and the limitations by which it is bound should be clearly borne in mind. 1. A committee is bound by the decision of the House, given on second reading, in favour of the principle of the bill, and should not, therefore, amend the bill in a manner destructive of its principle. 2. The purposes of a bill are stated in its long title, which should cover everything contained in the bill, as introduced (see para 26.7 ). Amendments, however, are not necessarily limited by the title of the bill, since a committee may make amendments ‘relevant to the subject-matter of the bill’, provided that, where such amendments are outside the title, the committee amends the title so as to cover them. 3. An amendment which is outside the ‘scope’ (see below) of the bill is out of order and cannot be entertained, unless an instruction has been given by the House to the committee. It will be seen, however, that in spite of these limitations a committee has, in practice, considerable power over a bill. John Moore, a Member of the Long Parliament, states in his unpublished diary1 that ‘no committee can destroy a bill, but they may lay it down’. A bill cannot be withdrawn in committee as this would require the leave of the House. However, a Committee of the whole House can indirectly achieve this object by reporting progress, without asking leave to sit again, and so putting an end to its existence or by agreeing to a motion ‘That the occupant of the Chair do now leave the Chair’ (see para 28.90 ). This course is equivalent to refusing to proceed with the bill. Again, notwithstanding the rule which forbids the moving of an amendment which is destructive of the principle of the bill, there is nothing to prevent a committee from negativing a clause or clauses, the omission of which may nullify or destroy the bill, and reporting the bill, as amended, to the House; a committee may also negative every clause of which the bill is composed, and substitute for those clauses new clauses, if within the scope of the bill as read a second time, and otherwise in order.2 But when bills have been very extensively amended they have on occasion been withdrawn so that a new bill incorporating the amendments could be introduced.3

Footnotes 1. British Library, Harleian Mss 476, f 450 (14 April 1641). 2. Coroners in Boroughs Bill, CJ (1892) 259; Rehabilitation of Offenders Bill, Stg Co Deb (1974), Co C, cc 8, 30, 56, etc; see also Parliamentary Control of Expenditure (Reform) Bill (changed to National Audit Bill) Stg Co C, Proceedings (1982–83); Football (Offences) Bill, Stg Co C, Proceedings (1990–91). 3. Parl Deb (1856) 140, c 2200; ibid (1889) 339, c 1487; CJ (1913) 510; HC Deb (1913) 47, c 1019; see also ibid cc 643, 878.

The scope of a bill 28.81Any amendment (or new clause or new schedule) proposed to a bill must be within its scope. The scope of a bill represents the reasonable limits of its collective purposes, as defined by its existing clauses and schedules. In particular cases, difficult questions of judgment may arise. The scope of a bill, particularly of a bill with several purposes, may be wider than its long title, although the long title may help to determine the scope. Conversely, a bill with a single purpose may have a narrow scope even though the long title is apparently wide (for example, ‘a Bill to amend a certain Act’).1 Standing Order No 65 gives a general authority to any committee on a bill to amend the bill as it sees fit (even if this entails amending the bill's long title in consequence), provided that the amendments are relevant to the subject-matter of the bill, that is to say, within the scope of the bill. When it is desired to make amendments which fall outside the scope of the bill, but which are nonetheless cognate to the purposes of the bill, an instruction is required (see para 28.70 ).2 Where a bill has one or two3 purposes, only amendments relating to those purposes, or touching on matters closely connected with them, fall within the scope of the bill. Where a bill has three or more purposes, amendments directed to objects not specifically covered by the bill, but broadly germane to its subject-matter, may be found to be within its scope. This may have an impact on decisions about the final form of a bill before it is presented. For example, having announced in a previous Business Statement that the House would consider a Northern Ireland (Assembly Members, Regional Rates and Energy) Bill,4 the Government announced on the day before the Bill was to be taken that the House would instead consider two separate Bills: the Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Bill and the Northern Ireland Assembly Members (Pay) Bill.5 The former, with two substantive clauses, was a two-purpose bill; the latter, with a single substantive effective clause, had a single purpose. No amendments were tabled to either Bill; but, as indicated above, the scope for amendment might have been wider had the substantive provisions been brought forward in a single bill with three or more purposes. The scope of a bill to combat inequality and discrimination in relation to the general population did not extend to amendments about religious discrimination in respect of royal marriages or sex discrimination in respect of succession to the Crown.6 The scope of a bill may change in the course of the bill's passage through the House depending on the amendments made to the bill.7 Each clause of a bill has its own distinct scope, and any amendment proposed to a clause must be within the scope of the clause. An amendment which is outside the scope of a clause may be admissible if presented as a new clause, provided that it is within the scope of the bill.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1999–2000) 350, c 611. 2. See Erskine May (20th edn, 1983) for fuller treatment of this subject, and see also paras 36.1, 36.46 for instructions relating to Finance Bills. 3. The inclusion in one bill of two distinct purposes which are unrelated to each other may give rise to objection. 4. HC Deb (15 March 2018) 637, c 998. 5. HC Deb (20 March 2018) 638, c 181. 6. Equality Bill (2009–10); Supplement to Votes (2009–10) 102–3. 7. Greater London Authority Bill (2006–07); Supplement to Votes (2006–07) 278.

Committees of the whole House Contents Bills taken in Committee of the whole House General procedure in Committee of the whole House The Chair in Committees of the whole House Programming committees Proceedings on going into Committee of the whole House Bringing proceedings in Committee of the whole House to a conclusion 28.82As described above (paras 28.57–28.58 ), bills are normally committed in accordance with a programme order either to a Committee of the whole House1 or (more usually) to a public bill committee, or they may be divided between the two kinds of committee. This section describes the characteristics and procedures of a Committee of the whole House. This is followed by a section on consideration of the text of a bill, which is relevant to proceedings both in Committee of the whole House and in public bill committees. Examples and references are drawn from the practice of each type of committee and are largely relevant to both. The distinct characteristics of public bill committees are described in Chapter 39.

Footnotes 1. For an example of a bill committed to Committee of the whole House but not subject to a programme order, see Insurance Bill [Lords], Votes and Proceedings, 27 January 2015 (Law Commission bill).

Bills taken in Committee of the whole House 28.83Bills which have had their committee stage in Committee of the whole House have generally fallen into one of the following categories: bills of major constitutional importance;1 emergency and other expedited legislation;2 bills of a very uncontroversial nature such as Consolidation Bills;3 or Private Members' Bills which are unopposed and of which all the stages are taken without debate.4 At the beginning of the 2017 Parliament, a number of bills were committed to a Committee of the whole House prior to the establishment of a committee empowered to nominate members of public bill committees.5 Bills may be divided between a public bill committee and Committee of the whole House and, generally, Finance Bills are dealt with in this way (see para 28.64 ).6 Particularly controversial clauses of other government bills (for example, those which raise questions of conscience) have been committed to a Committee of the whole House and the remaining clauses to a public bill committee.7 Bills containing a number of alternative schemes for legislation on a particular topic have been divided in this way to enable the Committee of the whole House to approve one of those schemes; a public bill committee has then undertaken the detailed consideration of the provisions giving effect to the approved scheme (and has made any amendments consequential on the rejection of the other schemes).8

Footnotes 1. For example, European Communities Bill (1971–72); European Union (Withdrawal) Bill (2017–19). See also para 28.63. 2. For example, Social Security (Contributions) Bill (1993–94); Statutory Sick Pay Bill (1993–94); Banking (Special Provisions) Bill (2007–08); Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Bill (2017–19); Northern Ireland Assembly Members (Pay) Bill (2017–19). 3. For example, Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill [Lords] (1996–97). See also paras 28.53–28.55. 4. For example, Criminal Cases Review (Insanity) Bill [Lords] (1998–99). 5. Air Travel Organisers' Licensing Bill, Votes and Proceedings, 3 July 2017; Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill, Votes and Proceedings, 10 July 2017. 6. For example, Finance (No. 2) Bill (2017–19), Votes and Proceedings, 11 December 2017. 7. For example, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords] (1989–90); Criminal Justice Bill (1990–91); Sunday Trading Bill (1993–94); Family Law Bill [Lords] (1995–96); Firearms (Amendment) Bill (1996–97); Government of Wales Bill (1997–98) (order for committal subsequently discharged); Greater London Authority Bill (1998–99); Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill (1998–99); Hunting Bill (2000–01); Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill (2002–03); Electoral Administration Bill (2005–06); Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (2005–06); Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords] (2007–08). 8. Sunday Trading Bill, CJ (1993–94) 25, 64; HC Deb (1993–94) 234, cc 326–433; Hunting Bill, CJ (2000–01) 37, 69–71; HC Deb (2000–01) 360, cc 469–87; ibid 361, cc 354–474.

General procedure in Committee of the whole House 28.84Proceedings in Committee of the whole House broadly follow the procedures of the House itself (subject to exceptions described below). Members address the occupant of the Chair, who performs in the Committee all the duties of the Speaker in the House. Members must speak standing as when the House is sitting (see para 21.6 ). Committees of the whole House meet in the Chamber. Debates in Committee of the whole House are recorded in the Official Report of the day's sitting in the House; and the proceedings are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and the Journal of the House.1 The main difference between the proceedings of the Committee and those of the House is that in the former a Member (including a Minister or shadow minister) is entitled to speak more than once to the same question (see para 21.11 ).2 Notice is normally given of amendments which it is proposed to move to bills in Committees of the whole House, although the Chair may allow an amendment to be moved without notice (see para 20.34 ). A motion for the previous question cannot be moved in committee (see para 20.25 ).

Footnotes 1. CJ (1829) 78. 2. See HC Deb (13 July 2010) 513, c 867.

The Chair in Committees of the whole House Contents Power and duties of Chairs 28.85In Committee of the whole House, the Chair is generally taken, at the Table, by the Chairman of Ways and Means, or by one of the Deputies (see paras 4.32–4.36 ). The Chair of a Committee of the whole House may be taken by a member of the Panel of Chairs (formerly the Chairmen's Panel, para 4.38 ). The Speaker may not take the Chair in Committee of the whole House; nor should any application be made to the Speaker for rulings on matters arising or likely to arise in Committee of the whole House.1 The Clerk Assistant is the Clerk of a Committee of the whole House.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (19 October 2010) 516, c 827.

Power and duties of Chairs 28.86Order in debate in a Committee of the whole House is enforced by the Chairman, as he is responsible for the conduct of its business, and no appeal from his decision should be made to the Speaker.1 Nor should an appeal from a decision given by a Deputy2 or a temporary Chair3 be made to the Chairman of Ways and Means on his resuming the Chair. The rules observed by the House regarding order in debate are followed in committee. For example, the rule that a Member who has used objectionable words must explain or retract them, or offer an apology (see para 21.44 ), applies equally in committee and in the House. Just as reference to debate in committee is not permitted in the House (except on the later stages of a bill: see para 21.16 ), reference in committee to the conduct of the Speaker is not allowed.4 In addition, the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Deputies (but not temporary Chairs) have the following powers under standing orders: 1. Under Standing Order No 32, they may select the amendments, new clauses and schedules to be proposed to bills in Committee of the whole House. 2. Under Standing Order No 29, they may exercise the same powers as the Speaker in relation to the proposal of the question. 3. Under Standing Order No 36, they may exercise the same powers as the Speaker in relation to the closure of debate. Any occupant of the Chair of a Committee of the whole House has the following powers under standing orders: 1. Under Standing Order No 42, the Chair may direct a Member to discontinue their speech for persistent irrelevance or tedious repetition.5 2. Under Standing Order No 43, the Chair has the power to order a Member whose conduct is grossly disorderly to withdraw immediately,6 or, if such power is deemed to be inadequate, the Chair may name the Member for disregarding their authority7 or for persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of the House.8 In the latter event, as the suspension of a Member from the service of the House or other serious forms of punishment are inflicted by the House only with the Speaker in the Chair, the Chair is directed under Standing Order No 44 to suspend the proceedings of the committee and to report the circumstances to the House. A similar course is followed in the event of grave disorder arising in Committee of the whole House.9 3. Under Standing Order No 35, the Chair may put forthwith or decline to propose the question on a dilatory motion. 4. Under Standing Order No 40, if the Chair considers a division unnecessarily claimed, the vote of the committee may be taken by calling on Members who support and who challenge the Chair's decision successively to rise in their places. 5. Under Standing Order No 68, the Chair may put forthwith the question ‘that a clause stand part of the bill’ (or ‘that a schedule be the schedule to the bill’). 6. Under Standing Order No 163, the Chair has the same powers as the Speaker with regard to the withdrawal of members of the public.10

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1893) 9, c 975; ibid (1901) 98, c 978; ibid 99, c 365; ibid (1904) 135, c 722; HC Deb (1912–13) 48, c 749; ibid (1960–61) 634, cc 644–45. In this connection, see also CJ (1836) 104; ibid (1854–55) 352; Parl Deb (1852–53) 126, c 1245; ibid (1855) 139, c 486; HC Deb (1912) 40, cc 1275, 1338. 2. Parl Deb (1906) 157, c 731. 3. Parl Deb (1893–94) 18, c 1883. 4. HC Deb (1964–65) 708, c 429. Nor can the enforcement of closure at a previous sitting of the committee be discussed: Parl Deb (1888) 323, c 1446. 5. For example, CJ (1965–66) 38. 6. CJ (1893–94) 424. 7. CJ (1881) 111; ibid (1890) 72; ibid (1901) 62; Parl Deb (1901) 90, c 691; CJ (1908) 404; ibid (1923) 156, 237; ibid (1930–31) 22; ibid (1936–37) 125; ibid (1951–52) 54. 8. CJ (1882) 322; ibid (1926) 117. 9. CJ (1961–62) 55. See para 17.18, fn 2. 10. For example, CJ (1966–67) 558.

Programming committees 28.87Standing Order No 83B makes provision for programming committees. Where proceedings on a bill in committee of the whole House or at subsequent stages are subject to a programme order, a programming committee may be established for the bill, to consider the allocation of time to proceedings on the relevant stages and to report to the House any resolution to which it comes. Since the introduction of standing orders on programming in 2004, this provision has been routinely disapplied in the original programme orders made relating to each bill.1 Under Standing Order No 83B, a programming committee consists of the Chairman of Ways and Means (who is Chair ex officio ) and not more than eight other Members nominated by the Speaker. The quorum is four. Proceedings in a programming committee must be brought to a conclusion not later than two hours after they start; and for the purposes of bringing them to a conclusion the Chair must first put forthwith any question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, then put successively questions on any motions made by a Minister. Resolutions of the programming committee may be reported from time to time and, subject to the Speaker's (or Chairman's) powers of selection, may include alterations in the order in which specified proceedings on the bill are to be taken. A motion in the House relating to a resolution of the programming committee is exempted business, and any question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion must be put not later than three-quarters of an hour after their commencement. The provisions of the motion, if agreed to, have effect as if they had been included in the programme order for the bill.

Footnotes 1. No programming committee has been appointed since 8 May 2003 (CJ (2002–03) 383).

Proceedings on going into Committee of the whole House 28.88Whenever an order of the day is read for the House to resolve itself into a committee on a bill, or when the House decides that it will immediately resolve itself into such a committee, the Speaker is directed by Standing Order No 66 to leave the Chair without putting any question unless there is an instruction to be disposed of first.1 The Mace is then placed under the Table, the Chairman of Ways and Means, or one of the deputies, takes the seat at the Table and, after the Clerk reads the short title, the committee begins the consideration of the bill.

Footnotes 1. Or unless a motion is made to discharge the committee, in accordance with SO No 60(8) (see para 28.55 ).

Bringing proceedings in Committee of the whole House to a conclusion Contents Dilatory motions in Committee of the whole House Other interruptions of proceedings 28.89Bills committed to Committee of the whole House are nowadays almost invariably committed in accordance with a programme order. Standing Order No 83D makes provision about the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House under a programme order if the time for those proceedings available under the order has been exhausted. The Chair must first put forthwith the following questions (but no others): a. b. c. d. e.

any question already proposed from the Chair; any question necessary to bring to a decision a question so proposed; the question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by the Chair for separate decision; the question on any amendment moved or motion made by a Minister; and any other question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

The authority for putting each question is recorded in the Journal. On a motion made for a new clause or a new schedule, the Chair must put only the question that the clause or schedule be added to the bill. If two or more questions would fall to be put on successive amendments moved or motions made by a Minister, the Chair must instead put a single question in relation to those amendments or motions. Similarly, if two or more questions would fall to be put in relation to successive provisions of the bill (for example, that two or more clauses stand part of the bill), the Chair must instead put a single question in relation to them.1 A Minister has moved an amendment standing in the name of a private Member, which was in a group which had not been reached before the conclusion of proceedings, solely in order to enable the House to take a decision upon it.2 On conclusion of the proceedings in committee, the Chair reports the bill (or such of the bill's provisions as were committed to it) to the House without putting any question.3

Footnotes 1. In this respect, the procedure under a programme order differs from that under an allocation of time order, where questions may be required to be put singly after the guillotine falls, HC Deb (2002–03) 405, c 275. 2. HC Deb (2010–12) 516, cc 765–67. 3. Where grave disorder arose at the close of proceedings in standing committee pursuant to a programme order, thereby frustrating the order of the House, the Chairman adjourned the committee without question put and reported the matter to the House, Stg Co Deb (2000–01), Co F (Criminal Justice and Police Bill), c 676. The House subsequently made an order deeming certain government amendments not considered by the committee to have been made and the bill to have been reported, CJ (2000–01) 195, 201.

Dilatory motions in Committee of the whole House 28.90Dilatory motions are used to bring proceedings in Committee of the whole House to a close if consideration in committee has not been completed and the bill is not subject to a programme order, or if the bill is subject to a programme order but the time available has not been exhausted and Standing Order No 83D has not been engaged. Dilatory motions in Committee of the whole House include motions for the adjournment of the debate, of further consideration of the bill, or that the occupant of the Chair do report progress or leave the Chair. In the case of Committee of the whole House on a programmed government bill, dilatory motions of the kinds described in this section may only be moved by a Minister, and the question on any such motion must be put forthwith, notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in the standing orders referred to in this section.1 In Committee the Chair has the same power in respect of dilatory motions as the Speaker has in the House. Under Standing Order No 35, the Chair may either put the question forthwith on any dilatory motion or may decline altogether to propose the question on such a motion, either course being possible if the Chair is of the opinion that the motion is an abuse of the rules of the House. A Committee of the whole House has no power either to adjourn its own sitting or to adjourn its consideration of any matter for a future sitting.2 A Minister who desires to close the sitting of a Committee (or any Member in the case of a bill which is not programmed) may move that ‘the occupant of the Chair do report progress and ask leave to sit again’3 in order to put an end to the proceedings of the Committee on that day. This motion may be made either in order to provide further time for the consideration of the bill in Committee on a future day, or as a form of dilatory motion analogous to that used in the House (see para 20.23 ). If the motion is agreed to, the occupant of the Chair leaves the Chair and, when the House has resumed, a report is made to the Speaker that the Committee has made progress on the bill, and that the Member making the report (usually a government Whip) has been directed to move that the Committee may have leave to sit again. The Member in charge, in response to the Speaker's invitation, then names a day for the further consideration of the bill in Committee. A motion may also be moved ‘that the occupant of the Chair do now leave the Chair’, but this motion, if carried, supersedes the order of the day for the Committee and converts it into a dropped order; in that case, when the Speaker resumes the Chair, no report whatever is made from the Committee.4 The same result is achieved if the Chair does not request leave for the Committee to sit again when progress on the bill is reported to the House. But the Chair may only follow this course of action if directed to do so by the Member in charge of the bill.5 If a motion to report progress is negatived, it cannot be repeated while the same question is before the Committee, since it is subject to the same rule as that observed in the House itself, which will not admit of a motion for the adjournment of a debate to be repeated without some intermediate proceeding (see para 20.24 ). In the circumstances the motion for reporting progress may be alternated with a motion ‘that the occupant of the Chair do now leave the Chair’.6 When debate ends, or after any questions necessary to bring to a conclusion proceedings governed by a programme order have been disposed of, or at the moment of interruption (paras 17.8–17.10 ) in any other circumstances, the occupant of the Chair leaves the Chair, progress is reported, and leave to sit again is sought, pursuant to Standing Order No 9(3). If a motion that the occupant of the Chair do now leave the Chair or do report progress is under consideration at that time, it lapses. If proceedings in Committee are interrupted for the purpose of moving a motion under Standing Order No 15(2) (Exempted business) and are either specified in the motion or exempted under Standing Order No 15(1), the proceedings in Committee are resumed (Standing Order No 15(3)) after the motion has been agreed to.7

Footnotes 1. SO No 83I(6). 2. Parl Deb (1902) 108, c 392. 3. It is usual for the Chair to accept such a motion from the Member in charge of a bill, even if no proceedings have taken place upon the bill (HC Deb (1961–62) 651, c 1162). 4. CJ (1830–31) 403; ibid (1908) 478; ibid (1924) 197; ibid (1955–56) 128. The subsequent business having been concluded, the House has again resolved itself into the committee on a motion to that effect being made without notice and agreed to, HC Deb (1978–79) 965, cc 663–75; CJ (1978–79) 254. 5. CJ (1890–91) 501. 6. CJ (1877) 312; ibid (1929–30) 364. But see HC Deb (1937–38) 336, cc 1001–2. When the question for reporting progress had been negatived but the committee later was prepared to assent to such a motion, the Chairman put the question on a formal part of an amendment which had been proposed, before putting the question for reporting progress (CJ (1857–58) 214; see also CJ (1860) 323). 7. The Chair has ruled that if the Member speaking at the moment of interruption rises to speak again on the resumption of proceedings it would be proper to call them in preference to other Members (HC Deb (1976–77) 941, cc 116–17).

Other interruptions of proceedings 28.91If, when the House is in committee, an occasion of public business arises with which the House is concerned—for example, if Black Rod arrives—the Speaker resumes the Chair at once without any report from the committee.

General procedure in consideration of bills in committee Contents Order in which bill is considered Division of clauses Transfer of clauses Postponement of consideration of clauses Division of bills Notice of amendments in committee Amendments of which notice has been given Amendments of which no notice has been given Withdrawal of amendments Order in which amendments are taken Admissible amendments Inadmissible amendments Amendments to particular types of bill Amendment to leave out subsection of a clause Amendment ruled out of order after debate begun 28.92Some aspects of practice and procedure in relation to consideration of a bill in committee are common to any form of committee and are described in this section. Those aspects which are distinct to public bill committees or to other general committees dealing with bills are described in Chapter 39.

Order in which bill is considered 28.93Unless the committee otherwise orders, the text of a bill is considered in committee in the following order: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Clauses New clauses Schedules New schedules Preamble (if any)1 Title (if amendment thereto is required).

It is frequently proposed that a bill should be considered in a different order, most commonly to enable schedules to be considered directly after the clauses to which they are related.2 Changes in the order in which a government bill is considered in committee are usually contained in a programme order (in respect of a bill in Committee of the whole House) or, for public bill committees, in a resolution of that committee.3 In committees on bills not subject to a programme order, an ‘order of consideration’ motion may be moved: under Standing Order No 32(4) such motions are subject to the Chair's power of selection. They are normally (but not invariably4 ) selected only if moved by the Member in charge of the bill. They may be moved at any stage during proceedings on the bill, but usually constitute the first business after the short title has been read; notice is customarily given, but is not a requirement.5 It is also possible to move a motion in committee to postpone the consideration of clauses (see para 28.96 below).

Footnotes 1. SO No 67. See also para 28.118. 2. For example, Homelessness Reduction Bill, Public Bill Committee, HC Deb (23 November 2016) 617, c 4; Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill, Public Bill Committee, HC Deb (15 November 2017) 631, c 3. 3. See, for example, European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, Votes and Proceedings, 11 September 2017; Data Protection Bill [Lords], Public Bill Committee Proceedings, 13 March 2018. See also para 39.22. 4. For example, First Scottish Stg Co, Proceedings (1993–94), Local Government etc (Scotland) Bill, p 43. 5. Stg Co E, Proceedings (1987–88), Local Government Finance Bill, p 9.

Division of clauses 28.94The committee has power to divide one clause into two,1 or decide that the first part of a clause, or the first part of a clause with a schedule, shall be considered as an entire clause.2 A motion to divide a clause must be taken before the clause is ordered to stand part of the bill.3

Footnotes 1. CJ (1834) 409; ibid (1868–69) 384; HC Deb (1920) 132, c 2689. 2. CJ (1830–31) 728; ibid (1831–32) 80. 3. Stg Co Deb (1968–69), First Scottish Stg Co, 17 June 1969, c 327.

Transfer of clauses 28.95A motion may be moved to transfer a clause (or subsection) or series of clauses (or subsections) from one place in a bill to another place specified in the motion.1

Footnotes 1. Data Protection Bill [Lords], Public Bill Committee Proceedings, 22 March 2018; Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [Lords], Votes and Proceedings, 27 March 2018.

Postponement of consideration of clauses 28.96A motion1 may be moved to postpone the consideration of a clause provided that no amendment to it has been agreed to2 or negatived, and provided that the question for its standing part of the bill has not been proposed.3 If an amendment has been proposed and withdrawn, consideration of the clause may be postponed.4 Consideration of part of a bill,5 or of a consecutive group of clauses en bloc, may also be postponed. In the case of a programmed government bill, however, postponement of consideration of a clause or clauses is achieved by means of an amendment of the order arising from the resolution of the programming sub-committee. A proposal to postpone consideration of the only effective clause of a bill until the subordinate clauses have been considered,6 or to postpone consideration of part of a clause,7 is out of order, as is an order of consideration motion, taken at the start of proceedings, which would have the same effect.8 Upon a question for the postponement of consideration of a clause, the debate is limited to the simple question of postponement, and may not be extended to the merits of the bill9 or the clause.10 Postponed clauses, unless provision to the contrary is made in the motion, are considered after the other clauses of the bill have been disposed of, and before any new clauses are brought up, but they may also be considered, in special circumstances, at any other appropriate place, eg after all11 or certain12 new clauses or other clauses13 or schedules,14 and they may be further postponed.15

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

Parl Deb (1871) 207, c 74; CJ (1934–35) 84; ibid (1947–48) 140; Stg Co D, Proceedings (1980–81), 11 June 1981, c 262. Parl Deb (1871) 207, c 721. HC Deb (1935–36) 313, c 161. CJ (1873) 340; ibid (1917) 200; HC Deb (1917) 97, c 1251; CJ (1917) 216; HC Deb (1917) 98, c 344. CJ (1929–30) 177; Stg Co D, Proceedings (1980–81), 4 June 1981, c 255. Parl Deb (1899) 74, c 325; ibid (1904) 139, c 1221; HC Deb (1912) 39, c 744; ibid (1916) 82, c 472; ibid (1918) 110, c 1503. Parl Deb (1901) 97, c 453; ibid (1904) 139, c 1220. Stg Co Deb (1995–96), Stg Co C, 13 March 1996, cc 4–5. Parl Deb (1871) 207, c 1378; ibid (1887) 318, c 145; ibid (1896) 41, c 870. HC Deb (1909) 6, c 1376; ibid (1916) 81, c 1884; ibid (1918) 110, c 1504. CJ (1877) 235; ibid (1887) 206, 210; ibid (1893–94) 455; ibid (1906) 407; ibid (1929–30) 387. CJ (1867) 141, 149; ibid (1909) 461; ibid (1917–18) 177. Stg Co D, Proceedings (1980–81), 4 June 1981, 255. CJ (1875) 328, 425; ibid (1917–18) 216, 223; ibid (1951–52) c 226. CJ (1920) 273.

Division of bills 28.97When an instruction has been given to the committee that a bill may be divided into two or more bills, those clauses which are to form a separate bill have either been postponed1 or considered in the position assigned to them by the bill.2 In cases where such clauses have already been considered, preambles (if necessary) enacting words and titles have been annexed to them, and the separate bills have then been separately reported.3

Footnotes 1. CJ (1861–62) 376; ibid (1871) 114. 2. Local Government, Planning and Land (No 2) Bill, Stg Co Deb (1979–80) Co D, c 929. 3. CJ (1861–62) 385; ibid (1871) 120; ibid (1979–80) 562.

Notice of amendments in committee 28.98It is usual, though not obligatory, to give notice of an amendment to a bill in committee. Notice should be given whenever possible of every amendment, as the moving of any amendment without notice causes obvious difficulty and inconvenience to the committee. In public bill committees and Committee of the whole House, amendments of which notice has been given only on the previous sitting day are marked on the amendment paper with a star; amendments of which notice has been given only two sitting days previously are marked on the amendment paper with a hollow star.1 Chairs normally do not select such amendments.2 Amendments of which no notice has been given until the day itself (manuscript amendments) are rarely selected. Notices of amendments to a bill in committee are not normally received until the bill has been read a second time. When a bill has required to be passed unusually quickly, however, the House has authorised the acceptance of amendments before second reading,3 and the same procedure is sometimes followed in the case of other bills when it is intended that the committee stage should be taken on the same day as second reading;4 in the case of Consolidation Bills, which are never debated on second reading, the procedure is authorised by Standing Order No 58. On the day on which a bill is set down for second reading, amendments may be handed in after the second reading motion is agreed to only to the Clerks at the Table, and not to the Table Office or the Public Bill Office. Under Standing Order No 64, whenever the House is adjourned for more than one day, notices of amendments, new clauses or new schedules or of amendments to Lords amendments received in the Public Bill Office at any time not later than 4.30 pm on the last day on which the House is not sitting may be accepted as if the House were sitting, but Saturdays, Sundays, bank holidays and public holidays in England are excluded from being regarded as the ‘last day’.5 Non-sitting Fridays appointed under Standing Order No 12 are treated for the purposes of Standing Order No 64 as sitting days, and amendments may be received by the Public Bill Office between 11.00 am and 3.00 pm on such days, unless the House has also not met on the previous day. Notices of amendments are integrated into a marshalled list on the day they are tabled. A small number of each of these documents is printed and distributed on blue paper the following day and the document is published on the Parliament website. A larger number of the marshalled amendment paper is usually printed and made available online for the convenience of Members two sitting days before that on which the committee stage of the bill is due to begin (see also para 7.4 ). On the day upon which a bill is to be considered in committee, the amendments appear on a white amendment paper marshalled in the order in which the text of the bill is to be considered.6 An amendment to leave out words in order to insert other words takes precedence over an amendment merely to leave out words. Otherwise, amendments are marshalled, if relating to the same point in the bill, in the order in which they were first handed in, except that amendments by the Member in charge of the bill take precedence over all others offered at the same place in a clause. New clauses in the name of the Member in charge of the bill are marshalled before other new clauses and may appear in any order specified by the Member in charge.7 When notice has been given by the Member in charge of the bill of a motion to vary the order in which clauses are considered (including a motion in the terms of a resolution of a programming sub-committee), the amendments will be marshalled in accordance with the order to be proposed, with an explanatory note to that effect. To avoid the repetition of identical amendments on the paper, the name of any Member who has handed in an identical amendment is added to the existing list of signatories unless the Member instructs otherwise. If the Member in charge of the bill adds their name to an amendment, their name appears at the top. It has been noted by the Speaker that it has never been the practice of the House or its committees to allow a single global amendment to make a series of identical or very similar amendments to different points in a bill.8 Members are permitted to submit a brief explanatory statement when giving notice of an amendment to a bill committed to a public bill committee. Such statements are limited to about 50 words and are not to contain argument. The explanatory statement is printed on the amendment paper in italics immediately following the amendment to which it relates. This practice began as an experiment and the House subsequently resolved that Members could continue with this practice on a voluntary basis.9 Explanatory statements accompany all government amendments tabled in the House of Commons.10

Footnotes 1. See Votes and Proceedings, 23 May 2016, and Fourth Report from the Procedure Committee, HC 823 (2015–16). Fridays on which the House does not sit are treated as sitting days for these purposes. 2. A practice confirmed by a private decision of the Chairmen's Panel, 27 November 1996. 3. For example, Votes and Proceedings, 26 January 2017 (European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill); HC Deb (1974–75) 882, c 570. 4. The House has agreed to motions enabling Members to table before second reading amendments for consideration in committee of the whole House of bills which had been presented that day: Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Bill and Northern Ireland Assembly Members (Pay) Bill, Votes and Proceedings, 21 March 2018. 5. No notice of motion, eg to re-commit a bill or to vary the order in which a bill is considered, may be received under this Standing Order, but under Standing Order No 12(3) notices of motions relating to proceedings on bills committed to a public bill committee may be received on a non-sitting Friday. 6. HC Deb (1987–88) 132, c 1143. The Speaker has the power to direct that amendments relating to the same point in a bill be marshalled in the order that he or she thinks most appropriate. 7. Parl Deb (1893) 18, c 1162. 8. HC Deb (6 September 2011) 532 c 186. 9. HC Deb (13 October 2011) 533, cc 515–55; ibid (6 November 2013) 570, cc 381–83. For details of the experimental phase, see

Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 573, fn 276. 10. Cabinet Office, Guide to Making Legislation, July 2017, ch 24. Exceptionally, in the case of Finance Bills, such explanatory statements are omitted and explanatory material for amendments is published on the government website for the bill.

Amendments of which notice has been given 28.99If notice has been given of any amendments, the Chair calls on the Member who has given notice of the first amendment which has been selected. If the Member called does not move an amendment, any other Member may do so.1 After an amendment has been moved, the Chair states the amendment number and proposes the question, ‘That the amendment be made’ (Standing Order No 31).2 The normal practice is for the Chair to make known the provisional selection and proposed grouping of amendments for debate in advance, by means of a list issued on the Chair's authority the day before the committee is to begin its consideration of the text of the bill. Such lists are updated and reissued in advance of subsequent sittings.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1971–72) 832, c 599. 2. Cf para 20.35. On request, the Chair (or, at report stage, the Speaker) may consent to the question on an amendment to leave out words and substitute others being put to the committee or the House in two parts, HC Deb (1968–69) 785, c 1014.

Amendments of which no notice has been given 28.100Amendments of which notice does not appear on the paper (‘manuscript amendments’, see para 28.98 ) may be moved only if the Chair allows that course to be adopted.1 When it is desired to propose an amendment without notice, the Chair should be informed beforehand of its terms and of the exact place in the clause where it would occur, in order that, if deemed fit for selection, the Chair may call on the proposer to move it when that place is reached. In any case where the Chair has agreed to the selection of a manuscript amendment, it is made available as soon as practicable.

Footnotes 1. Stg Co Deb (1995–96), Stg Co A (Damages Bill [Lords]), c 3. See also HC Deb (9 July 2018) 644, c 798: the amendments were in manuscript as no provision had been made for amendments to be tabled on a day before second reading.

Withdrawal of amendments 28.101Once the question on an amendment has been proposed from the Chair, it can be withdrawn only at the request of the Member who moved it and by the unanimous leave of the committee.1 If a Member rises to continue the debate when the mover of an amendment has formally asked leave to withdraw it, leave is treated as withheld, and may not subsequently be sought again.2

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1928) 219, c 185; Stg Co Deb (1995–96), Stg Co A (Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill) c 50; ibid, Stg Co D (Broadcasting Bill [Lords]), cc 211–12; Fisheries Bill Committee, 13 December 2018, c 271. 2. The Chair may, however, withdraw an amendment from the consideration of the committee if it should appear in the course of debate that it is out of order (see para 28.112 ).

Order in which amendments are taken 28.102The Chair calls amendments that have been selected in the order in which they appear on the paper, or the order agreed by the committee on any programme motion or order of consideration motion, if different. As in the House, if an amendment is withdrawn or negatived, it is open to the committee, subject to the Chair's selection, to entertain amendments back to the point at which it last came to a decision (see para 20.42 ).1 In exercising the power of selection, and for the convenience of the committee, the Chair frequently permits debate to range over several amendments which are linked or raise different aspects of the proposal in the actual amendment under consideration. This grouping of amendments for debate is designed to prevent repetition; it operates to prevent any further debate on the subsequent amendments in a group once a decision has been taken on the first amendment in the group. The Chair has the discretion to allow separate divisions on one or more of the subsequent amendments in the group;2 in doing so, the Chair may take account of the desire of Members to vote separately on different issues covered by the amendments in the group and in the debate, but is also guided by the need so far as possible to encourage consistency (and to avoid inconsistency) in the committee's subsequent decisions (see also discussion of inadmissible amendments, para 28.105 ). If an amendment (or new clause or new schedule) has been selected for separate decision, the Chair may put the question on it when bringing proceedings in committee to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order (Standing Order No 83D(2)(c)).3 It is the practice to select an amendment under this Standing Order only if the first amendment in the group had been reached for debate before the close of the proceedings. In addition to the grouping of amendments as such, amendments may also be grouped with debate on clause stand part of one or more clauses of the bill (and vice versa) (see para 28.114 ); new clauses and new schedules may be grouped with amendments or clause stand part debates in the same way.4

Footnotes 1. Stg Co Deb (1996–97) Co A, Crime (Sentences) Bill, c 56; ibid (1998–99) Co D, Tax Credits Bill, c 68; ibid (2002–03) Co F, Hunting Bill, cc 612–20. 2. For the practice of the Chair in selecting amendments for division in such cases, see HC Deb (1963–64) 692, c 54; ibid (1967–68) 766, c 52 (consideration). The Chair would expect a clear indication in advance from a Member of a desire for a separate division in such circumstances: see ibid (26 June 2018) 643, cc 854–55. 3. For example, European Union (Withdrawal) Bill: Committee of the whole House, Votes and Proceedings, 20 December 2017; Stg Co Deb (2005–06), Co D (Company Law Reform Bill [Lords]) c 1088. 4. Whole clauses may be grouped together for debate, though the question that each clause stand part of the bill must be put separately, except with the leave of the committee when no divisions are required, HC Deb (1987–88) 132, c 754; Stg Co Deb (1996–97), Co B (Finance Bill) c 465.

Admissible amendments Contents No amendments to the framework 28.103Amendments may be made in every part of the substantive text of the bill, whether in the clauses or the schedules. Amendments to the preamble and the title are also admissible in certain limited circumstances (see paras 28.118 –28.119 ). New clauses and schedules may be added to the bill, and clauses and schedules may be left out, but in the latter case no amendment or motion is moved, the committee merely voting against the question required to be proposed from the Chair (see paras 28.114 and 28.117 ).

No amendments to the framework 28.104No amendments may be made to the granting or enacting words of bills for granting aids or supplies to the Crown, or to the enacting words of other bills, which form part of the ‘framework’ of the bill and are not submitted to the committee.1 The same applies to the short titles of the clauses and schedules, and the headings of parts of the bill, which may nonetheless be changed as an editorial matter in the subsequent printing of the bill, as amended, to take account of amendments made or of changes made in the order in which clauses and schedules appear.2

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1912) 41, c 2518; ibid (1920) 132, c 649; ibid (1960–61) 635, c 805. See also ibid (1932) 261, cc 1871–73. 2. Parl Deb (1896) 41, c 873; ibid (1906) 166, c 1085; HC Deb (1917) 95, c 1761; ibid (1918) 105, c 1995; ibid (2005–06) 446, c 667.

Inadmissible amendments 28.105The general rules of order respecting amendments were set out in Chapter 20 (see paras 20.37 –20.39 ). This section describes the more specific rules relating to amendments to a bill in committee. Most of the rules cited in this section apply equally to amendments offered to bills at report stage, subject to the further description at paras 28.133 –28.137. Amendments which are out of order are normally included in the printed list of amendments, although in exceptional circumstances the Speaker has ordered that a grossly disorderly amendment should not be printed. The question on an amendment which is out of order on any of the following grounds cannot be proposed from the Chair: 1. An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the subject-matter1 or beyond the scope of the bill (see para 28.81 ),2 or if it is irrelevant to the subject-matter3 or beyond the scope of the clause under consideration.4 Amendments which are irrelevant to the clause under consideration should, as a general rule, if they are within the scope of the bill, be moved as new clauses. 2. An amendment cannot be admitted if it is governed by or dependent upon amendments which have already been negatived.5 3. An amendment must not be inconsistent with, or contrary to, the bill as so far agreed to by the committee,6 nor must it be inconsistent with a decision of the committee upon a former amendment.7 4. Amendments are inadmissible if they refer to, or are not intelligible without, subsequent amendments or schedules, of which notice has not been given,8 or if they are otherwise incomplete.9 5. An amendment which is equivalent to a negative of the bill, or which would reverse the principle of the bill as agreed to on the second reading, is not admissible.10 Where the scope of a bill is very restricted, the extent to which it may be amended at all may thus be severely limited.11 6. An amendment to leave out a clause is not in order, as the proper course is to vote against the clause standing part of the bill. The same rules apply in respect of schedules, although the form of the questions proposed from the Chair is different (see paras 28.114, 28.117 ). Consequently, it is out of order to propose to leave out the only effective words of a clause, or the words upon which the rest of the clause is dependent, or to offer any other amendment which is equivalent to a direct negative of the clause.12 Amendments to leave out a clause or schedule often appear upon the Notice Paper. While such amendments are never called, they provide an indication to the Chair that certain Members wish to speak, or to vote, on the question that the clause stand part of the bill. Furthermore, an amendment may not be moved to insert words at the beginning of a clause with a view to bringing forward an alternative scheme to that contained in the clause,13 or to leave out the whole substance of a clause in order to insert different provisions,14 or to substitute in effect a new draft for an existing clause.15 In all such cases the question that the clause stand part of the bill should be negatived and a new clause brought up at the proper time. In order to facilitate debate, however, it is normal practice to group an alternative new clause with debate on clause stand part of the clause which the movers of the new clause wish to omit. 7. A single global amendment to make a series of identical or very similar amendments to different points in a bill is not in order.16 8. If an amendment would make the clause which it is proposed to amend unintelligible or ungrammatical, or if it is incoherent and inconsistent with the context of the bill, it is out of order. 9. Amendments which are vague,17 trifling18 or tendered in a spirit of mockery19 are held to be out of order. 10. An amendment is out of order if it is offered at a wrong place in the bill.20 11. Amendments or new clauses creating public charges cannot be proposed, if no Money resolution or Ways and Means resolution has been passed, or if the amendment or clause is not covered by the terms of such a resolution. This rule, which is of fundamental importance, is fully explained at paras 33.20, 35.27 and 36.44 –36.46. It is to be noted that amendments affecting the interests of the Crown (see paras 30.78 –30.81 ) or which may make a bill hybrid (see paras 30.58 and 30.67 ) are admissible.21

Footnotes 1. CJ (1856) 213; Parl Deb (1865) 179, c 521; ibid (1881) 258, c 1451; ibid (1893) 14, c 918; ibid (1896) 41, cc 12, 1702 (consideration), 1704 (consideration); ibid (1902) 114, c 912; ibid (1902) 116, c 1043; HC Deb (1919) 120, c 359. 2. Parl Deb (1905) 147, c 311; ibid (1906) 158, c 355; HC Deb (1912) 41, c 2859; ibid (1914) 61, cc 128, 1069; ibid (1914) 68, c 745; ibid (1916) 78, c 661; ibid (1917) 99, c 526; ibid (1918) 105, c 1070; ibid (1918) 108, c 2045; ibid (1919) 121, c 1985; ibid (1923) 165, c 1357; ibid (1924) 169, c 1593; ibid (1926) 196, c 1627; ibid (1930) 234, cc 2123–29; ibid (1932) 264, c 595; ibid (1960–61) 630, cc 976–82. 3. Parl Deb (1857) 147, cc 1189, 1190, 1198; ibid (1877) 232, c 1242; ibid (1877) 233, c 359; HC Deb (1959–60) 616, c 282. 4. HC Deb (1914) 68, c 739; ibid (1917) 95, c 1048. 5. Parl Deb (1862) 167, c 112; ibid (1872) 211, cc 137, 2026; ibid (1881) 258, c 1333; ibid (1885) 296, c 800; ibid (1886) 305, c 83; ibid (1889) 74, c 851; ibid (1902) 111, cc 962–65; HC Deb (1910) 18, c 647; ibid (1914) 61, c 128; ibid (1919) 117, c 1739. 6. Parl Deb (1881) 258, cc 1239, 1455; ibid (1896) 41, c 360; ibid (1902) 113, c 493; ibid (1908) 198, c 883 (consideration); HC Deb (1911) 30, c 449; ibid (1912) 44, c 2199. 7. HC Deb (1911) 22, c 1666; ibid (1915) 75, c 927; ibid (1916) 83, c 1738; CJ (1920) 303; HC Deb (1920) 132, c 319. 8. Tithe Rent-Charge Recovery Bill, 29 January 1891, private ruling: Parl Deb (1899) 70, c 449; ibid (1902) 112, c 203; HC Deb (1909) 7, c 496; ibid (1911) 23, c 2251; ibid (1917) 97, c 1284; ibid (1917) 98, c 96; ibid (1919) 119, c 1499; ibid (1921) 143, c 2205; ibid (1939–40) 357, cc 2293–95. 9. HC Deb (1918) 106, c 1703. This rule is sometimes relaxed in minor cases, and was held not to apply to the Canada Bill 1982, which contained both an English and French text, so far as the tabling of consequential amendments to the French text was concerned (HC Deb (1981–82) 18, c 290).

10. HC Deb (1910) 19, c 2398; ibid (1917) 92, cc 790, 823, 824, 1679; ibid (1917) 100, c 1875; ibid (1918) 107, c 136; ibid (1943–44) 400, c 1809. 11. Parl Deb (1880) 251, cc 1134–37; ibid (1903) 122, cc 1886, 1897; cf also the Speaker's ruling on a proposed amendment to sch 2 to the Air Force Bill, HC Deb (1917) 99, c 817; ibid (1981–82) 18, c 762. 12. Parl Deb (1869) 196, c 74; HC Deb (1915) 72, c 1961; ibid (1915) 74, c 1648; ibid (1916) 82, c 473; ibid (1917) 95, c 1048; ibid (1920) 129, c 92; ibid (1920) 131, c 2421. 13. Parl Deb (1896) 41, cc 873–75; ibid (1899) 74, c 326; ibid (1908) 197, c 1107. But see also Parl Deb (1870) 200, c 1058. 14. Parl Deb (1851) 116, c 666; ibid (1870) 200, c 1057; cf HC Deb (1911) 30, c 1938, where the same ruling was applied in the case of an amendment to leave out part of the first subsection of a clause in order to insert an alternative scheme. Cf also the Chairman's ruling on the Ottawa Agreements Bill, HC Deb (1932) 269, cc 1330–38. 15. HC Deb (1916) 85, c 2163. 16. HC Deb (6 September 2011) 532, c 186. 17. Parl Deb (1908) 195, c 551; HC Deb (1915) 73, c 558; ibid (1915) 75, c 887; ibid (1916) 78, c 235; ibid (1917) 92, c 1713. In the case of a new clause on consideration, HC Deb (1913) 53, c 1195. 18. HC Deb (1914) 61, c 189. 19. Parl Deb (1882) 270, c 862; ibid (1898) 58, c 461; HC Deb (1910) 19, c 1718 (consideration); ibid (1915) 71, c 2172 (consideration); ibid (1976–77) 926, c 1670. 20. Parl Deb (1898) 57, c 54; ibid (1898) 60, c 651; ibid (1899) 74, c 326. 21. In accordance with the latter rule, amendments were made to the Park Lane Improvement Bill 1957–58 (already a hybrid bill), which, if it had been a private bill, would have required a petition for additional provision. The bill was referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills on motion at report stage (CJ (1957–58) 147).

Amendments to particular types of bill Contents Bills to confirm agreements Statute Law Revision Bills Statute Law (Repeals) Bills Consolidation Bills 28.106The rules (and particularly the first rule) set out above, when applied to certain classes of bill, have the following consequences.

Bills to confirm agreements 28.107When a bill is introduced to give effect to an agreement or to confirm a scheme, the text of which is contained in a schedule to the bill, and the independent origin and status of which is described in an introductory provision in the bill, amendments cannot be made to the schedule,1 but the contents of the schedule can be modified or qualified by amendment to the clauses of the bill.2 In the past, such introductory provisions were often contained in the preamble to the bill,3 but modern practice is to include them in one of the early clauses.4

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

HC Deb (1917) 98, c 2408; ibid (1922) 159, cc 537–38. HC Deb (1922) 159, c 538; ibid (1982) 18, c 762. For example, Coal Mines Control Agreement (Confirmation) Act 1918 and Ottawa Agreements Act 1932. For example, Carriage by Air and Road Act 1979; Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982. In the case of the Canada Bill 1982, the Chairman ruled that the preamble, as well as the clause introducing the schedule, was evidence of the origin and status of the Constitution Act 1982 which formed the contents of that schedule; but he also stated that his ruling arose from the way in which that particular bill was drafted, and that no general conclusions were to be drawn, HC Deb (1981–82) 19, cc 289–90.

Statute Law Revision Bills 28.108An amendment cannot be moved to a Statute Law Revision Bill to deal with an Act still in force, as such a bill deals solely with statutes no longer in force.1

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1890) 346, c 1618.

Statute Law (Repeals) Bills 28.109Though it has become the practice in both Houses not to move amendments to Statute Law (Repeals) Bills but to rely on the Joint Committee's report, there is no formal restriction on the amendments which may be moved.1

Footnotes 1. An amendment was moved to Statute Law (Repeals) Bill (CJ (1994–95) 534).

Consolidation Bills 28.110Where the title of a bill is only to consolidate the law on a particular subject,1 it is out of order to amend the provisions of the statutes which by the bill are to be consolidated and fused together,2 as any such amendments are regarded as outside the scope of the bill, and were not contemplated when the House gave it a second reading.3 If they are justified by the circumstances, the following amendments may be excepted from this rule and be moved to such a Consolidation Bill: an amendment to change the date on which the bill is to come into operation if, owing to the date when the bill is being considered, it would be inconvenient to bring it into operation on the date laid down in the bill, or if it is desired that ‘the appointed day’ for the bill coming into operation should be not earlier than a certain date;4 an amendment which would make the words of the bill express more clearly the law as it stands;5 an amendment which seeks to bring the bill into conformity with the existing law, if the Chair is satisfied that the bill, as reported from the Joint Committee, would effect an alteration of the law.6 Where the title of the bill is to consolidate with corrections and improvements made under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949, amendments in Committee of the whole House are further restricted by the terms of that Act (s 1(7)).7 The corrections and minor improvements as defined in the Act (s 2) are laid before Parliament by the Lord Chancellor8 in a memorandum which is printed by both Houses9 and must be approved by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills (see para 41.9 ), and the Speaker and the Lord Speaker must concur in such approval. When the bill has been reported by the committee, the authorised corrections and minor improvements are deemed to have become law and cannot be amended when the bill subsequently comes before a Committee of the whole House, nor can new ones be proposed.10 Where the title of the bill is to consolidate with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commissions, the only amendments permissible are, first, amendments which would have been permissible if the bill had been a pure Consolidation Bill and, second, amendments relating directly to the recommendations of the Law Commissions.11 These recommendations are contained in a report made to the Lord Chancellor and are published as a Command Paper.12 Where the title of the bill is to consolidate and amend, or to consolidate with amendments, the law, amendments may be moved to the statutes which are to be consolidated.13

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

A Consolidation Bill may under certain circumstances pass from second to third reading without committal (SO No 58). See para 28.62. HC Deb (1921) 146, c 1140. See HC Deb (1922) 156, c 465 (ruling by the Speaker). HC Deb (1921) 146, c 1142. HC Deb (1921) 146, c 806. HC Deb (1921) 146, c 1143; ibid (1948–49) 468, cc 1728, 1729; ibid (1987–88) 137, c 157. For an example of an amendment accepted as in order by the Chair, see HC Deb (1966–67) 736, cc 570–74. For bills which were purely Scottish, this has been done by the Advocate General for Scotland. For example, LJ (1966–67) 42; CJ (1966–67) 46. For Speaker's rulings on the scope of the Act, see HC Deb (1950) 478, c 390; ibid (1951–52) 503, cc 2050, 2053. HC Deb (1966–67) 749, cc 23–24; ibid 751, cc 1638, 1643. When applicable, the report is also made to the Scottish Ministers. Supreme Court Bill [Lords], CJ (1980–81) 389, 438.

Amendment to leave out subsection of a clause 28.111When a clause contains two or more subsections which are not mutually dependent, an amendment to leave out either subsection is in order.1 When the subsequent subsections are dependent upon or ancillary to the first subsection, an amendment to the clause to leave out that subsection is out of order, as the effect of such an amendment being carried would be to destroy the clause. The decision that should be reached, and the discussion that should properly arise, on the question of the clause standing part of the bill would thus be anticipated.2

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1915) 75, c 116; ibid (1916) 84, c 1954; ibid (1917) 94, c 1633. 2. HC Deb (1909) 7, c 493; ibid (1912) 39, c 748; ibid (1913) 54, c 1757; ibid (1915) 75, cc 105, 200; ibid (1917) 95, c 2054; ibid (1918) 107, c 1577.

Amendment ruled out of order after debate begun 28.112If it should appear in the course of debate that an amendment or new clause which has been allowed to be moved is out of order, the Chair directs the committee's attention to the fact and withdraws the amendment or clause from the consideration of the committee.1

Footnotes 1. CJ (1914) 155; HC Deb (1914) 61, cc 1021, 1069; CJ (1917–18) 153; ibid (1918) 152; HC Deb (1941–42) 380, c 583; Stg Co Deb (1959–60) Co A, 24 November 1959, cc 5–9; CJ (1975–76) 641.

Proceedings upon italicised words and privilege amendments 28.113It has already been explained (see para 28.14 ) that in bills introduced in the Commons any clause or part of a clause which imposes a charge is either printed in italics or authorised by an ‘expenses’ clause which is itself italicised. Neither italicised words nor clauses governed by them can be considered by the committee unless a Money resolution authorising them has been agreed by the House.1 Where only part of a clause contains such provisions, the Chair cannot propose the question, ‘That the clause stand part of the bill’, unless and until the offending part has been removed by amendment. A committee may, however, decide to postpone consideration of such clauses in the hope or expectation that an appropriate Money resolution will be agreed by the House before they are subsequently reached by the committee. If, however, no such resolution is agreed to, the Chair declines to propose the question on the clause standing part, and the clause is accordingly omitted from the bill. The provisions of a bill creating a charge have been amended so as to remove the need for a Money resolution, and the ‘expenses' clause has then been removed from the bill.2 In the case of bills which were found not to require a Money resolution after having been published, the question on the redundant ‘expenses' clause has been put and negatived.3 Where a committee has inadvertently considered provisions imposing a charge, without a Money resolution, the bill has subsequently been recommitted (after an appropriate Money resolution has been agreed) in order to regularise the position4 (see also paras 20.100, 28.141 ). If it is desired to alter the italicised words, an amendment can be moved in the ordinary manner, provided that it falls within the limits of the Money resolution;5 but any increase or extension of the charge authorised by the italicised words is only in order to the extent to which the limits of the Money resolution exceed the effect of the italicised words (see para 28.14 ). (The same restrictions apply to amendments to bills brought from the Lords requiring a Money resolution, although the relevant words are not printed in italics in Lords bills.) In bills brought from the Lords where words have been inserted in that House to avoid questions of privilege (see para 29.67 ) and are printed in the bill in bold type, the leaving out of these words in committee in the Commons must be moved as an amendment. Notice is usually given of such amendments by the Member in charge of the bill.6

Footnotes 1. Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill 1969, Stg Co Deb (1969–70) Co C, c 145; Alkali Inspectorate Bill, Stg Co Deb (1972–73) Co C, c 3; Dogs Bill, Stg Co Deb (1974–75) Co C, c 3; Official Information Bill, Stg Co Deb (1978–79) Co C, c 10; Affiliation Orders and Aliments (Annual Up-rating) Bill, Stg Co Deb (1979–80) Co C, cc 3, 33; Wildlife Bill, Stg Co Deb (1995–96) Co C, c 3. 2. Stg Co Deb (2002–03) Co F (Equine Welfare (Ragwort Control) Bill) cc 3–12. 3. Stg Co Deb (2001–02) Co C (Private Hire Vehicles (Carriage of Guide Dogs etc) Bill) cc 3, 18; Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill, Public Bill Committee, HC Deb (15 November 2017) 631, c 4. 4. CJ (1989–90) 312–13. 5. Stg Co Deb (1934–35) Sc Stg Co, c 805, Housing (Scotland) Bill. 6. In the case of the Space Industry Bill [Lords] (2017–19), the privilege amendment was not removed in committee or on report. A message was sent to the Lords seeking the return of the bill for an amendment to that effect to be made and the bill was then again sent to the Lords with no other further proceedings: see Votes and Proceedings, 21 and 22 February 2018.

Question for clause standing part of a bill 28.114When the amendments, if any, to a clause have been disposed of, the question put from the Chair is, ‘That the clause [as amended] stand part of the bill’; and no other amendment can be proposed to a clause after this question has been proposed from the Chair.1 Debate upon this question must be confined to the clause as amended (or not amended), and must not extend to a discussion of the circumstances under which particular amendments were made or to a review in detail of the proceedings on the clause.2 When the question, ‘That the clause (as amended) stand part of the bill’, has been proposed from the Chair, it must be agreed to or negatived, as it is not a motion made by any Member which could, with leave, be withdrawn.3 While, strictly, a separate question is necessary on each clause, the question is frequently put on groups of noncontentious clauses, with the leave of the committee, as a means of saving time.4 Standing Order No 68 provides that the Chair may, if satisfied, state the opinion that the principle of a clause, and any matters arising out of it, have been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments which have been proposed to it, and then forthwith put the question ‘That the clause [as amended] stand part of the Bill.’ It is now the usual practice for the Chair to give advance notice of an intention to exercise this power by grouping clause stand part with an earlier amendment. Chairs may allow debate on an amendment or on the question that a clause stand part of a bill to cover the merits of other related clauses (see also para 28.102 ). It is now the usual practice to indicate this intention by means of the selection list. In such a case, the questions that the clauses concerned stand part of the bill are put (without debate) as soon as they are reached.5

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1857) 147, c 1191. 2. Parl Deb (1893) 12, c 1180; ibid (1894) 20, cc 503, 696; HC Deb (1918) 106, cc 2069, 2073; ibid (1919) 122, c 491; ibid (1921) 147, c 954; ibid (1935) 300, c 1356. 3. Hypothec Abolition (Scotland) Bill, 1 April 1879 (Speaker's private ruling). 4. HC Deb (1939) 349, c 2201. See also the order on the Government of India Bill, CJ (1934–35) 82; HC Deb (1935) 298, c 146. 5. For example, HC Deb (1987–88) 133, cc 102, 114.

New clauses Contents Withdrawal and postponement of new clauses 28.115New clauses are considered after the clauses of the bill have been disposed of, unless the committee has ordered otherwise. New clauses, subject to any motion for considering them in a different order (see para 28.93 ), are considered in the order in which they stand on the amendment paper, that is, the order in which they have been handed in, except that clauses offered by the Member in charge of the bill are placed first1 and may be arranged in any order that Member wishes. The procedure on a new clause gives an opportunity for a debate on its principle and then for the proposal of amendments before its incorporation in the bill. The Member in whose name it stands, or another Member on their behalf, on being called by the Chair, ‘brings up’ the clause in a speech, explaining its merits. Under the provisions of Standing Order No 69, a new clause is read the first time without question put, and the reading of the title by the clerk is taken as complying with the Standing Order. The question, that the clause be read a second time, is then proposed and debate proceeds on this question. If this is agreed to, amendments may be moved in the ordinary manner. Finally, the question is put that the clause, or the clause as amended, be added to the bill. This question is often not debated, particularly if the clause is unamended (because in such a case the scope of debate is virtually identical to that on the question for second reading). At the Chair's discretion, new clauses may be grouped together for discussion along with amendments, clause stand part motions or other new clauses in the same way as amendments (see para 28.102 ). A new clause may be ruled to be out of order for many of the same reasons as an amendment (see paras 28.105 –28.113 ).2 The decision on where in the bill a new clause, if agreed, is to be inserted is not a decision for the committee, but is left to be settled between the Member in charge of the bill and the Public Bill Office, which is responsible for reprinting the bill as amended.

Footnotes 1. Such Member does not forfeit precedence for their clauses, if they have been taken off the paper by agreement with the Chair for technical reasons, Speaker's private ruling, 17 June 1941 (Decision 2176). See Suppl to Votes (1940–41) 740, 747, 772. 2. Parl Deb (1907) 175, c 985 (on consideration, as amended); HC Deb (1916) 85, cc 2195, 2428; ibid (1919) 114, c 2074 (on consideration, as amended); ibid (1919) 120, c 392; ibid (1925) 181, c 2135 (on consideration, as amended).

Withdrawal and postponement of new clauses 28.116A new clause may be withdrawn even after its second reading so long as no decision has been taken upon it after that stage. Its consideration may be postponed if the question for reading it a second time has not yet been proposed1 but cannot be postponed after second reading has been agreed to.2

Footnotes 1. CJ (1947–48) 140. 2. Parl Deb (1901) 95, c 1549.

Schedules and new schedules 28.117Schedules to a bill are considered after the new clauses have been disposed of, unless the committee has ordered otherwise. A schedule can be amended and is treated in the same manner as a clause. The final question on a schedule is, ‘That this schedule (as amended) be the (first) schedule to the bill’. Under Standing Order No 68 this question, like the question that a clause stand part of the bill (para 28.114 ), may be put forthwith by the Chair if satisfied that the principle of the schedule and any matters arising from it have already been adequately discussed during debate on the amendments proposed to it. New schedules may be offered in the same way as new clauses; they are normally considered after any existing schedules. A new schedule is brought up, read the first time and second time, amended, if need be, and added to the bill.1 At the Chair's discretion, schedules or new schedules may be grouped together for discussion along with amendments or clause stand part motions in the same way as amendments (see para 28.102 ). A new schedule may be ruled to be out of order for many of the same reasons as an amendment (see paras 28.105 –28.113 ). Bills which propose to amend or apply by reference an existing enactment sometimes contain a schedule showing how the enactment will read if the bill becomes an Act, the proposed amendments being printed in heavy type.2 In such a schedule, only consequential amendments which are required to give effect to amendments already inserted in the bill are in order,3 and these may be made consequentially on the direction of the Chair.4

Footnotes 1. CJ (1914–16) 71; ibid (1917–18) 179; ibid (1980–81) 496 (on consideration, as amended). 2. See eg Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill 1983; Charities Bill 1991; Criminal Evidence (Amendment) Bill 1996. Such schedules are sometimes known as ‘Keeling schedules', following their introduction in response to a memorandum by Mr (later Sir Edward) Keeling to the Prime Minister, see HC Deb (1937–38) 338, cc 2919–20. 3. HC Deb (1947–48) 446, cc 1873–75. 4. HC Deb (1983–84) 57, c 504.

Preamble 28.118Where the bill, as introduced, does not contain a preamble, it is not competent for the committee to introduce one.1 By Standing Order No 67, the preamble (if any) stands postponed without question put until after the consideration of the clauses and schedules. This practice is adopted because the House has already affirmed the principle of the bill on the second reading, and it is therefore the province of the committee to settle the clauses first, and then to consider the preamble in reference to the clauses only. Accordingly, when all the clauses and schedules have been considered, and any new clauses or schedules added, the preamble (if any) is considered, and amendments may be moved to it. Normally, amendments are admissible only if rendered necessary by amendments made to the bill.2 Occasionally, a preamble has not only rehearsed the reasons for and intended effects of a bill, but has in addition recorded certain proposals which might have been but were not included in the bill itself. On such occasions amendments to that additional part of the preamble have not been ruled out of order although unrelated to any amendments made to the body of the bill.3 The question put by the Chair is ‘That this be the preamble of the bill’.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1913) 55, c 455; ibid (1935), 300 c 1359. 2. HC Deb (1932) 264, c 598; ibid (1939–40) 363, c 899. 3. Parliament Bill 1911, preamble, second and third paras, CJ (1911) 190; Parliament (No 2) Bill 1968–69, preamble, second para; HC Deb (1968–69) 778, c 219.

Title 28.119Except in the circumstances described below, the long title can be amended only if the bill has been so altered as to necessitate such an amendment;1 but any amendment to the title that may be necessary is made.2 No question is put that the title, or that the title as amended, stand part of the bill; and debate on an amendment must be limited to the question of whether the alteration is necessary to bring the title into conformity with the bill.3 Where a bill has been divided in committee and it is necessary to provide the new bill with a title, the question ‘That the title be the title to the bill’ is put after notice of the title has been given.4 Where a title has referred to a proposal not contained in a bill as introduced, an amendment to the title not consequential on any amendment to the bill has been permitted to be made.5 The short title of a bill may be amended by means of an amendment to the citation clause (see para 26.6 ), and a corresponding alteration is thereupon made by the Public Bill Office to the title by which the bill is referred to in the House (see para 28.123 ).

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

HC Deb (1930) 246, c 996; ibid (1976–77) 923, c 1679. CJ (1854–55) 223; ibid (1933–34) 150, 161; ibid (1934–35) 208 (on re-committal). HC Deb (1913) 55, cc 457–58, 465. Local Government, Planning and Land (No 2) Bill, Stg Co Deb (1979–80) Co D, c 932. New Streets Bill, Stg Co Deb (1950–51) Co B, c 718; Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, ibid (1952–53) Co B, c 1059; Parliamentary Control of Expenditure (Reform) Bill (changed to National Audit Bill), Stg Co Deb (1982–83) Co C, c 254; Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) Bill, Stg Co Deb (1994–95) Co C, c 90; Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation and Liability for Housing Standards) Bill Committee, 20 June 2018, c 18. See also para 28.149, fn 1 for corresponding amendments moved on third reading.

Proceedings of committee not known until reported 28.120The House is not formally aware of the detailed proceedings of any committee until the bill has been reported; and attempts to refer in the House to proceedings on a bill during its consideration in committee are consequently irregular.1

Footnotes 1. However, on one occasion the Speaker allowed a Minister to correct an erroneous statement in committee by means of a statement in the House, HC Deb (1992–93) 219, c 28.

Reporting of bills from a Committee of the whole House 28.121When consideration of the bill in committee has been completed, the occupant of the Chair proposes the question, ‘That I do report the bill without amendment (or, as amended) to the House’.1 Where proceedings are concluded under a programme order, this question is not put.2 This question having been agreed to, they leave the Chair, without any further question being put (Standing Order No 70), and the Speaker resumes the Chair. The Chair of the Committee of the whole House is then directed by Standing Order No 71 to report the bill forthwith to the House, but since they are usually required to resume the upper Chair as Deputy Speaker, the report is made by another Member on their behalf (normally the government Whip on duty). If the bill has not been amended, the Whip states, ‘I beg to report that the committee has gone through the bill and directed me to report the same without amendment’. If the bill has been amended the formula is, ‘I beg to report that the committee has gone through the bill and made amendments thereunto’.

Footnotes 1. This is now regarded as a formal question and the Chair has deprecated debate on it, HC Deb (1934–35) 301, cc 1852, 1856; ibid (1978–79) 960, c 1893, and ruled debate out of order, ibid (1978–79) 996, c 799. 2. Standing Order No 83D(6). Similar provision is usually made in the case of a bill subject to an allocation of time order.

Reporting of bills from public bill committees Contents Change of long or short title 28.122When consideration of a bill has been completed in a public bill committee, the Chair similarly puts the question, ‘That I do report the bill to the House’, and detailed debate is not entertained.1 The Chair's report to the House is not made in person, but by means of a book entry in the Votes and Proceedings for that day, which may also include the additional information about a changed title which is referred to below, and which records not only a reprinting order for the bill (if amended), but also an order for the publication of written evidence submitted to the committee.

Footnotes 1. In the case of a bill subject to a programme order, this final question is not put if time for debate has been exhausted, and the bill is reported forthwith: SO No 83D(6).

Change of long or short title 28.123If the long title of the bill has been amended, it is laid down in Standing Order No 65 that such amendment must be specially reported.1 If the citation clause of a bill has been amended (see para 28.119 ), it is necessary, in consequence, to change the short title by which the bill is known. The entry in the Votes and Proceedings and the Journal describes the bill as ‘… Bill (changed to … Bill)’. When the next stage is put down on the Order of Business, the new title is put first, eg ‘… Bill (changed from … Bill),’ but in all subsequent proceedings the new title only is employed.2 Lords bills, however, continue to be referred to as ‘… Bill [Lords] (changed to … Bill [Lords])’ until the relevant amendment has been agreed to by the Lords.3 If the short title has been changed by an amendment made by the Lords, on its return to the Commons, the bill is described as ‘… Bill (changed to … Bill)’ until the Lords amendments are agreed to. The changed title is used in any subsequent references.4

Footnotes 1. CJ (1860) 343; ibid (1865) 95; ibid (1933–34) 150, 161; ibid (1934–35) 208 (on re-committal); ibid (1966–67) 559; ibid (1979–80) 130, etc See also HC Deb (1914) 64, c 2117. 2. For example, CJ (1933–34) 254; ibid (1985–86) 287, 310, 341. 3. For example, Merchant Shipping Bill [Lords] 1983–84. 4. For example, CJ (1981–82) 452, 458; ibid (1992–93) 653, 673, 675; Votes and Proceedings, 26 March 2019.

In Committee of the whole House 28.124The proceedings in Committee of the whole House on a bill may be brought to a premature close by an order, ‘That the occupant of the Chair do now leave the Chair’;1 or by a division revealing that a quorum is not present (see para 20.59 ). The Chair in such cases, being without instructions from the committee, makes no report to the House. If the proceedings are so terminated for want of 40 Members taking part in a division, under Standing Order No 41 the business under consideration stands over until the next sitting of the House; but when the occupant of the Chair has been ordered to leave the Chair, the order for committee is ‘dropped’, and can be revived only by a further order (see para 19.35 ),2 when it is resumed at the point where it was discontinued.

Footnotes 1. CJ (1835) 497, 562; ibid (1857) 310; ibid (1865) 201; ibid (1871) 339; ibid (1955–56) 128. 2. CJ (1955–56) 130.

In public bill committees 28.125It is the duty of a public bill committee to proceed with the consideration of the bill committed to it. In very exceptional circumstances, however, the Chair may permit the Member in charge of the bill to move, ‘That the committee do not proceed [further] with the consideration of the bill.’ If such a motion is agreed, the Chair is ordered to report the bill, without amendment or so far as amended, and a special report is made to the House explaining the circumstances.1 When a committee failed to report a bill, on account of disorder in the committee on the last day allocated by the programme order for the consideration of the bill, the House ordered that the bill should be deemed to have been reported, as amended, and as if the clauses and schedules not considered had been ordered to stand part, with the outstanding government amendments.2

Footnotes 1. See, for example, Prisons and Courts Bill Public Bill Committee, HC Deb (20 April 2017) 624, cc 165–68; Votes and Proceedings, 20 April 2017. See also para 39.31. 2. Criminal Justice and Police Bill 2001, CJ (2000–01) 195, 200–1; HC Deb (2000–01) 364, cc 526–31, 728–92.

Bills reported from a Committee of the whole House 28.126If the bill has been reported from a Committee of the whole House without amendment, it is ordered to be read the third time forthwith, or a future day is appointed for the third reading. If amendments have been made to the bill in committee, the Member in charge, in response to the Speaker's request, names a day on which the bill, as amended, is to be taken into consideration. This is the normal practice, but (see para 30.43 ) the bill may be considered immediately after it has been reported provided that a question for its consideration has been put and agreed to. According to the usual practice of the House, a bill introduced on a Ways and Means resolution may not go through more than one stage (other than report stage and third reading) on the same day (see paras 33.7, fn 2 and 33.23 );1 however, orders are regularly agreed to by the House waiving this practice in the case of particular bills.2 In the case of Supply and Appropriation Bills under Standing Order No 56, the questions for second and third readings are successively put forthwith, with no order being made for the committal of the bill.

Footnotes 1. For example, HC Deb (1956–57) 570, cc 1041–42. In this case, proceedings on third reading taken on the same day as committee were declared null and void. 2. For example, Votes and Proceedings, 24 April 2017.

Bills reported from public bill committees 28.127Under the provisions of Standing Order No 73, a bill reported from a public bill committee, whether amended or not, must be considered on report by the House.1 No formal proceeding takes place upon the report, but the House is deemed to have ordered the bill to be considered on a day fixed by the Member in charge and an entry to that effect is made in the Votes and Proceedings. If the Member in charge fails to name a day, the bill is put down in the remaining orders for consideration on the next sitting day.2

Footnotes 1. Except where it is referred under SO No 92 for consideration on report to a general committee. 2. Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Bill 1999, CJ (1998–99) 273.

Bills reported from select or joint committees 28.128A Commons bill reported from a select or joint committee has normally been recommitted to a Committee of the whole House, and the House is deemed to have ordered the re-committal of the bill for the day fixed by the Member in charge, the requisite entry being made in the Votes and Proceedings.1 In the case of hybrid bills (see para 30.68 ), this order has been subsequently discharged and the bill re-committed to a public bill committee.2 In the case of the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill, on the day that the select committee reported, an entry was made in the Votes and Proceedings committing the bill to a public bill committee.3

Footnotes 1. For example, CJ (1987–88) 22 (select); ibid (1951–52) 166 (joint). 2. See eg CJ (2006–07) 601; ibid (2007–08) 9. Orders committing hybrid bills to select committees usually provide that if the committal order stands discharged because no petitions are presented against the bill, the bill is to stand committed to a public bill committee (formerly to a standing committee). 3. Votes and Proceedings, 22 February 2016.

Reprinting of bills 28.129When a bill has been amended in committee, it will almost invariably be reprinted, time permitting, before the consideration stage.1 The order is made formally as a book entry in the Votes and Proceedings when the bill is reported to the House. Occasionally, while a bill has been in progress, amended clauses, so far as they have been agreed to,2 or certain specified clauses,3 have been ordered to be printed. When a bill, already reprinted when reported from a standing committee, was further amended on re-committal by the addition of new clauses and a new schedule, the new clauses and new schedule were ordered to be printed.4 A bill, or part of a bill, has been ordered to be printed so as to show the effect of the amendments to be proposed by the Government,5 or has been so presented as a Command Paper.6 For general convenience, the first three or four parts of a bill have been reprinted before the conclusion of the committee stage of the bill.7 A bill may also be reprinted after it has been amended at the consideration stage, if time permits, before the third reading is proceeded with.8

Footnotes 1. Under previous practice, if the only amendment made was the striking out of the ‘privilege amendment’ in a Lords bill (see paras 28.14, 28.113 and 29.67 ), it was not the practice to reprint the bill (eg Mesothelioma Bill 2013–14). Since the 2017–19 Session, however, bills have been reprinted in these circumstances (eg Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill [Lords] (2017–19)). 2. CJ (1917–18) 130; ibid (1927) 174; ibid (1934–35) 168. 3. CJ (1914–16) 281; ibid (1917–18) 152, 164, 174. 4. CJ (1982–83) 347. 5. CJ (1909) 360, 370, 482; ibid (1916) 329; ibid (1917–18) 162, 237, 261. 6. CJ (1910) 301. 7. CJ (1964–65) 298; HC Deb (1964–65) 713, c 2124; CJ (1971–72) 397. 8. For example, CJ (1962–63) 257; ibid (1979–80) 684; ibid (1988–89) 422; ibid (2005–06) 258; Votes and Proceedings, 15 June 2018.

Consideration of bills on report Contents Order for consideration read Order in which bill is considered Rules regarding amendments New clauses Amendments to the bill New schedules and schedules Amendment of title Irregularities in committee noticed on report Consideration stage taken in a general committee 28.130The consideration of a bill, commonly called the report stage, is an opportunity for the House to consider afresh the text of the bill. The rules of debate and procedure differ somewhat from those for the committee stage: in particular, no question is put for the successive clauses and schedules to stand part of the bill (cf para 28.114 ) and amendments which have the effect of leaving out clauses or schedules are therefore in order at this stage. Also, a Member may speak only once to the same question, though, in the case of a bill reported from a public bill committee, this rule, under the provisions of Standing Order No 76, is relaxed in favour of the Member in charge of the bill or of the mover of any amendment or new clause or schedule in respect of that amendment (or clause or schedule).1 The same arrangements for the giving of notice of amendments, new clauses, etc, apply as for the Committee of the whole House and public bill committees (see para 28.98 ). The provisions of Standing Order No 64 with regard to notices handed in during an adjournment apply to amendments, new clauses or new schedules to be moved on consideration (see para 28.98 ). Amendments which were rejected or withdrawn in committee may be moved again, and attempts may be made by amendments to restore the original text of the bill. The Speaker's power of selection of amendments, conferred by Standing Order No 32 (see para 20.33 ), may be exercised more rigorously by the Speaker on consideration than in committee by the Chair,2 having regard to the importance of the matters to be raised. The normal practice is for the Speaker's provisional selection and proposed grouping of amendments to be made known in advance. New clauses, amendments and new schedules may be grouped for debate at the report stage in the same way as in committee (see para 28.102 ), and report stage groups are often broad in character.3 If an amendment (or new clause or new schedule) has been selected for separate decision, the Speaker may put the question on it when bringing proceedings on consideration to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order (Standing Order No 83E(2)(c), and see para 28.139 ).4 Normally, an amendment is selected under this Standing Order only if the first amendment in the group had been reached for debate before the close of the proceedings.5

Footnotes 1. Where amendments, etc are grouped for debate, the rule is relaxed in favour of the mover of the leading amendment only in the group, HC Deb (2001–02) 379, c 1063. 2. HC Deb (1967–68) 767, c 297. 3. The Speaker has indicated a willingness to reflect on requests from Members to revise the grouping of amendments on one occasion: see HC Deb (23 February 2015) 593, c 51. 4. For example, CJ (2009–10) 254. 5. For an exception, see CJ (2008–09) 169, when a new clause which had not been debated was selected for separate decision and added on division. See also HC Deb (2008–09) 488, cc 678–79, 686, 689–94, 729–30.

Order for consideration read 28.131Under Standing Order No 72, when the order of the day for the consideration of a bill, as amended in Committee of the whole House, has been read, the House proceeds to consider the bill without question put, unless the Member in charge of it nominates a future day for its consideration,1 or a motion is made to re-commit the bill (see para 28.141 ), or a motion is made for the order for consideration of the bill to be discharged, and the bill to be withdrawn.2 Under Standing Order No 73, the same practice is followed in the case of a bill which has been considered in a public bill committee, whether amended or not. If no Members move new clauses, of which notice stands upon the amendment paper, or amendments to the bill, no question arises on this stage; and unless the House needs to resolve into a Legislative Grand Committee for the purposes of considering a consent motion under Standing Order Nos 83M or 83S (see paras 28.146 and 27.17 –27.19 ), the Speaker calls upon the Member in charge of the bill to name a day for the third reading (cf para 28.139 ).

Footnotes 1. Votes and Proceedings, 15 October 2018. 2. CJ (1990–91) 352, 369.

Answers to Addresses 9.14When Addresses have been presented by the whole House, the Speaker in one House, and the Lord Speaker in the other, report the answer of Her Majesty; but when they have been presented in the ordinary way, the answer is reported, in the Commons, by a Member who holds an office as one of the royal household, usually the Vice-Chamberlain, who appears at the Bar and, on being called by the Speaker, reads Her Majesty's answer; and in the Lords, generally by the Lord Chamberlain or another member of the royal household.1

Footnotes 1. The proceedings of the House have sometimes been interrupted to receive the Sovereign's answer, CJ (1852–53) 438; ibid (1878–79) 23. On 19 November 1914, the King's answer was reported by a Privy Counsellor who appeared at the Bar in uniform, ibid (1914–16) 15.

Rules regarding amendments 28.133The moving of amendments to a bill on the consideration stage is limited by Standing Order No 75, which prohibits the proposal of any amendment which could not have been moved in committee without an instruction from the House,1 unless it has been authorised by a resolution of the House.2 Consequently, the rules of order respecting the admissibility of amendments in committee, which are set out at paras 28.103 –28.105, are generally applicable to amendments moved on consideration, and many of the instances quoted there are in fact drawn from the later stage.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1928) 216, c 142. See also HC Deb (1924) 175, cc 1726–28. 2. For resolutions permitting the moving of amendments which would have required an instruction if proposed in committee, see CJ (1989–90) 304; ibid (1990–91) 231.

New clauses 28.134New clauses are considered in the order in which they stand upon the paper1 —that is, the order in which they have been handed in—except that priority is given to clauses offered by the Member in charge of the bill, who may arrange their clauses in any order they wish. On being called by the Speaker, the mover of the new clause ‘brings it up’, and may speak in support of it;2 thereupon, the clause is read the first time without question put. As in committee, the reading of the title of the clause by the Clerk is held to comply with the provisions of Standing Order No 69. The question is then proposed from the Chair, ‘That the clause be read a second time’. This is the proper time for opposing the clause. If so desired, the clause may, by leave of the House, be withdrawn.3 When the clause has been read a second time, amendments may be made to it. The last question proposed by the Speaker is, ‘That the clause (or the clause as amended) be added to the bill’ and on this question a further debate may arise.4 For the placing of new clauses in the bill, see para 28.115.

Footnotes 1. For orders of the House varying the usual procedure, see eg CJ (1947–48) 215, 216; ibid (1979–80) 662. 2. It is open to any Member to move a new clause even if the Member who tabled it has decided not to move it, HC Deb (28 June 2011) 530, c 850. 3. For example, CJ (1985–86) 570. 4. For the limitations on debate at this stage, see HC Deb (1984–85) 77, cc 443–44.

Amendments to the bill 28.135When the new clauses on the paper have been disposed of, the Speaker calls on the Members who have given notice of such amendments to the bill as have been selected. As in public bill committees and in Committee of the whole House, an amendment is starred on report if tabled on one of the two previous days (see para 28.98 ).1 The desirability of giving notice of important amendments is even greater on report than in committee, and it is rare for manuscript, or even starred, amendments to be called (cf para 28.99 ).2 The Speaker has, however, indicated a willingness to select starred amendments in cases where report stage of a bill has been announced in a Business Statement to the House after the usual deadline for amendments to be tabled has passed.3 Manuscript amendments are only copied for distribution to Members of the House if the Speaker has already agreed to their being selected. Amendments are offered, as in committee, in the order in which, if agreed to, they will stand in the amended bill; although the bill is not considered clause by clause, they are referred to by clause, page and line number in the same way as committee stage amendments. If a proposed amendment is withdrawn or negatived, an amendment at a prior place in the bill may be moved,4 provided that it does not extend beyond the last point at which the House has already made a decision (see para 20.42 ). Amendments are moved to the bill, not to a particular clause, and amendments to leave out a clause, a series of clauses or the preamble,5 are moved as amendments to the bill; and no question is put for each clause standing part of the bill. A motion to divide a clause6 or to transfer a clause or subsection or series of clauses or subsections from one part of the bill to another7 is in order.

Footnotes 1. Until 2014, amendments were starred only if tabled on the previous day. The House agreed on 8 May 2014 to a change in practice for a trial period, to enable the agreement by the Chair of a draft selection and grouping by the end of the second day before the debate, and the tabling, on the day before report stage, of a detailed supplementary programme motion, to take account of selection and grouping. See Fourth Report from the Procedure Committee, HC 823 (2015–16) and Votes and Proceedings, 23 May 2016. 2. Substantive government manuscript New Clauses and a manuscript amendment were selected during consideration of the Crime and Courts Bill [Lords] 2012–13. These manuscript amendments carried the names of the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, HC Deb (18 March 2013) 560, c 697–98. 3. HC Deb (21 November 2016) 617, c 615. 4. Parl Deb (1872) 213, cc 672–73; CJ (1959–60) 221. 5. Debate on amendment to leave out the preamble may not extend to the whole question of the merits of the bill, Parl Deb (1893) 16, c 293; ibid (1907) 180, c 1428. 6. CJ (1963–64) 135; ibid (1968–69) 131, 243, 311; ibid (1985–86) 542. 7. For example, CJ (1952–53) 281; ibid (1985–86) 542; ibid (2005–06) 368, 437; Votes and Proceedings, 24 April 2018.

New schedules and schedules 28.136After the amendments to the clauses of the bill have been considered, new schedules may be proposed and amended in the same way as new clauses.1 Amendments may then be made to any schedules to the bill as reported by the committee.

Footnotes 1. For example, CJ (2005–06) 321.

Amendment of title 28.137When all the new clauses, amendments, new schedules and schedules have been disposed of, the title of the bill is, if necessary, amended.1

Footnotes 1. For example, CJ (2006–07) 415, 442, 598.

Irregularities in committee noticed on report Contents Conclusion of proceedings on consideration 28.138Notice may be taken at the consideration stage of any irregularities which have occurred in committee which have not been noticed or corrected in that committee. In such cases the bill is usually re-committed.1

Footnotes 1. In Session 1948–49, an instruction was given to the Scottish Standing Committee empowering it to extend the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [Lords] to England for the purpose of certain reciprocal arrangements between the two countries. By a new clause and a new schedule the committee inadvertently further extended the bill to the Isle of Man and Channel Islands. On consideration, the Speaker called the attention of the House to the fact that the committee had thus inadvertently further extended the bill and it was re-committed to the committee in respect of the clause and schedule in question. Another instruction was subsequently given to the committee empowering it further to extend the bill to the Isle of Man and Channel Islands. The bill was then considered by the committee in respect of the clause and schedule and reported without amendment, CJ (1948–49) 373, 400, 401, 402; HC Deb (1948–49) 469, cc 1939–40. See also CJ (1864) 172; ibid (1929–30) 387, 399, 411.

Conclusion of proceedings on consideration 28.139If the time available for debate on consideration under the terms of a programme order has been exhausted, Standing Order No 83E is engaged. In order to bring proceedings to a conclusion, the Speaker must put forthwith the following questions (but no others): a. b. c. d. e.

any question already proposed from the Chair; any question necessary to bring to a decision a question so proposed; the question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by the Speaker for separate decision; the question on any amendment moved or motion made by a Minister; and any other question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

The authority for putting each question is recorded in the Journal. On a motion made for a new clause or a new schedule, the Speaker must put only the question that the clause or schedule be added to the bill, and if two or more questions would fall to be put on successive amendments moved or motions made by a Minister, the Speaker must instead put a single question in relation to those amendments or motions.1 The Speaker has used the power to call amendments for separate decision to call amendments to amendments, government amendments which would otherwise be rolled up in a single question on other government amendments and, on rare occasions, amendments that had not been debated, provided that he was satisfied that it was in the wider interests of the House to do so and it was clear to the House what the purport of the amendments was.2 When the necessary questions have all been put or (for a bill not subject to a programme order) all the amendments to the bill have been disposed of, the Speaker calls upon the Member in charge to name a day for the third reading. The Member usually responds with the words ‘Now, Sir’ or ‘Now, Madam’, and proceedings on third reading follow. However, in the case of any government bill in respect of which a consent motion is or consent motions are required, consent motions must be agreed in Legislative Grand Committee before the third reading (see para 28.146 below). If a future day is named for third reading, the bill may be ordered to be reprinted as amended (cf para 28.129 ).

Footnotes 1. See for instance Investigatory Powers Bill, Votes and Proceedings, 6 June 2016. 2. HC Deb (2005–06) 446, c 952; ibid (2005–06) 439, cc 377–78; ibid (2008–09) 488, c 588 ff.

Consideration stage taken in a general committee 28.140Under Standing Order No 92, a bill which has been considered by a second reading committee in relation to its principle may be referred for consideration on report to a general committee.1

Footnotes 1. Only one reference has been made under the Standing Order (CJ (1967–68) 225). For comparable provision in relation to the Scottish Grand Committee, see para 27.4.

Re-committal of bill Contents Procedure under Standing Order No 74 Partial re-committal Further re-committal Report of re-committed bill 28.141A bill may be re-committed, if desired, to a Committee of the whole House, a public bill committee (see para 39.28 ) or a select committee. A motion for this purpose may be made immediately after the bill has been reported from a Committee of the whole House.1 Where consideration of a bill has been set down as an order of the day, a motion may be moved as soon as the order has been read.2 A motion may also be moved immediately after the consideration stage,3 but not during proceedings on consideration.4 In the case of a bill set down for third reading, the order of the day may be discharged and the motion moved thereupon,5 or the motion may be moved as an amendment to the question that the bill be now read the third time.6 A motion for re-committal may be made in respect of the whole bill, in which case the provisions of Standing Order No 74 (see para 28.142 ) will apply. Where a motion in respect of certain clauses or amendments only is made, the debate on the motion is restricted to the purpose and extent of the proposed re-committal of the bill.7 Any Member may move to re-commit or partially to re-commit a bill but priority is given to any such motion which stands in the name of the Member in charge of the bill.8 In the case of a partial re-committal, the other motions may, if selected by the Speaker,9 then be moved by way of amendments to the motion of the Member in charge.10 The power of selection of such amendments is exercised by the Speaker, since Chairs have considered themselves obliged to select all amendments in respect of which the House has re-committed a bill.11 The Speaker, therefore, has sometimes selected motions for re-committal only if they were moved in a particular form12 or has refused to call them at all.13 It is now rare for a bill to be re-committed in its entirety. Bills are occasionally partially re-committed, for one of the following purposes: a. to enable a new clause to be added to the bill when the House, on report, has passed the stage at which new clauses are taken;14 b. to enable the committee to take advantage of an instruction from the House to make amendments which would otherwise be outside the scope of the bill;15 c. to enable the committee to reconsider amendments it had previously made (see para 39.28 ); d. to enable the committee to consider in a regular manner a clause improperly agreed to before a Money resolution had been passed (see para 28.113 ); in these circumstances it is not necessary for the bill to be re-committed to the committee which previously considered it, a Committee of the whole House being capable of regularising the position.16 If the bill is re-committed without limitation, the entire bill is again considered in committee and reported with ‘other’ or ‘further’ amendments. Sometimes, also, a bill is re-committed with an instruction to the committee that it has power to make some particular or additional provision.17 A bill which has been re-committed is referred to as (for example) ‘the Landlord and Tenant (re-committed ) Bill’. In 2003, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill was re-committed as a whole to a standing committee, and carried over (see paras 30.31–30.33 ), following the Government's decision to bring forward substantive further provisions;18 and the Hunting Bill was re-committed to the standing committee to which it previously stood committed for the purpose of making such amendments as the committee considered to be necessary or expedient in consequence of a new clause added to the Bill on consideration.19 In the latter case, the motion to re-commit the Bill was made without notice, but the programme order governing proceedings on consideration provided for the question on any such motion made by a Minister to be put forthwith.20

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

CJ (1933–34) 167; ibid (1978–79) 104. CJ (1960–61) 214; ibid (1987–88) 531; ibid (2005–06) 199 (a programmed bill). CJ (1974) 278. HC Deb (1976–77) 934, c 1628. CJ (1950–51) 244. CJ (1922) 255. Parl Deb (1872) 212, c 1278; ibid (1899) 72, c 1079; ibid (1906) 161, c 757; ibid (1907) 175, c 969; ibid (1907) 179, cc 296, 502; HC Deb (1909) 6, c 662; ibid (1911) 28, c 1907; ibid (1924) 176, cc 1562, 1598. Parl Deb (1865) 179, c 800. HC Deb (1951–52) 502, cc 49–51; see also ibid (1946–47) 438, cc 207–9; ibid (1947–48) 447, cc 1171–72. For a private Member's motion to re-commit a government bill accepted together with amendments to it by other private Members, see CJ (1960–61) 214. CJ (1946–47) 195, 220. HC Deb (1951–52) 503, c 2041. HC Deb (1920) 132, c 1359; ibid (1987–88) 134, c 994; ibid (5 December 2014) 589, c 545. A Deputy Speaker has been authorised

by the Speaker to decline to accept any motion to re-commit a bill (HC Deb (2003–04) 423, c 1643). CJ (1974) 278. CJ (1974–75) 474; ibid (1981–82) 503. HC Deb (1989–90) 170, cc 793–94. CJ (1837–38) 605; ibid (1839) 318; ibid (1921) 259; ibid (1969–70) 281; see also ibid (1809) 370; ibid (1810) 184. In 1960, a motion to re-commit the Finance Bill to a select committee was not selected by the Speaker, HC Deb (1959–60) 626, cc 861–65. 18. CJ (2002–03) 441; HC Deb (2002–03) 406, cc 543–606, 29–30WS. 19. CJ (2002–03) 493; HC Deb (2002–03) 408, cc 38–142. 20. CJ (2002–03) 492; HC Deb (2002–03) 408, cc 38–142. 14. 15. 16. 17.

Procedure under Standing Order No 74 28.142If a motion to re-commit a bill as a whole is opposed, the Speaker is directed by Standing Order No 74 to permit a brief explanatory statement of the reasons for re-committal from the Member who moves and from a Member who opposes the motion, after which he must put the question without further debate.1 The limitation of the motion to a partial re-committal of the bill, or the inclusion of any matter other than that necessary for re-committal,2 removes the motion from the scope of the Standing Order and the restriction on the number of speakers is not enforced;3 nor does the Standing Order apply where re-committal is sought to be obtained by an amendment to the question for third reading. Motions have been made to re-commit bills to a select committee. Standing Order No 74 has been applied to a motion confined to re-committal,4 but not to a motion specifying the composition of the proposed select committee.5

Footnotes 1. CJ (1919) 198, 378; ibid (1922) 241; ibid (1923) 197; HC Deb (1969–70) 800, cc 431–32, 456–62; ibid (1999–2000) 348, cc 986–90. 2. HC Deb (1920) 135, c 331. 3. HC Deb (1924) 176, cc 1562, 1598. 4. CJ (1928) 256. 5. CJ (1929–30) 336.

Partial re-committal 28.143A bill may be re-committed in respect of a clause or clauses or schedules in the bill,1 or in respect of new clauses, schedules or amendments which are to be proposed to the bill.2 Only so much of the bill as is specified in the order for re-committal is considered in the committee.3 If a bill is re-committed in respect of specified amendments to a clause, only those amendments and amendments relevant to them may be moved, and not other amendments.4 When the amendments have been disposed of in respect of any clause, the question for the clause standing part of the bill has to be put.5

Footnotes 1. CJ (1918) 122; ibid (1919) 161; ibid (1933–34) 167; ibid (2010–12) 720. 2. CJ (1920) 446; ibid (1921) 259; ibid (1924) 334; ibid (1934–35) 207, 228, 271; ibid (1945–46) 206; HC Deb (1945–46) 421, cc 41, 42; CJ (1961–62) 99. 3. Parl Deb (1865) 179, c 826. 4. HC Deb (1917) 100, cc 273, 280, 285, 677, etc. 5. CJ (1917–18) 271; ibid (1918) 216; ibid (1920) 441.

Further re-committal 28.144A bill may be re-committed as often as the House thinks fit.1

Footnotes 1. CJ (1914–16) 327, 330.

Report of re-committed bill 28.145The proceedings on the report of a re-committed bill are similar to those already explained; after a partial re-committal (made after a full consideration stage or where a bill has not been amended in Committee of the whole House) amendments can be made on the report stage only if they are consequential on the amendments made in the committee on the partially re-committed bill.1 On report the bill, as amended, is considered forthwith and (subject to the need for a consent motion) is read the third time, or further proceedings on it are appointed for a future day.

Footnotes 1. Speaker's private ruling, 2 March 1943.

Legislative Grand Committees and subsequent proceedings 28.146In any case where a bill has been subject either to initial certification or certification at the conclusion of report stage under the standing orders relating to government bills of limited territorial application within devolved legislative competence, no motion may be made for the third reading of the bill until a consent motion has been passed, whether immediately following report stage or after the bill has been reconsidered in the absence of initial consent. A consent motion is considered by the relevant Legislative Grand Committee. For proceedings in Legislative Grand Committees, and proceedings on reconsideration in the absence of consent, see paras 27.17–27.20.

Third reading Contents Debate on third reading Amendments on third reading Conclusion of proceedings on third reading Bill passed 28.147It has already been explained (paras 28.126, 28.139 ) that, when a bill is reported from a Committee of the whole House without amendment, or when the consideration of a bill, as amended, is concluded, the Member in charge may move the third reading of the bill forthwith, or name a future day for that stage. The former course is the usual procedure, except where the bill is one of great importance or has been extensively amended on consideration; in such cases an interval before the third reading may be thought desirable.1 The passing of emergency and other expedited legislation, through all or several stages in one day, is described at paras 30.41 –30.47. On the reading of the order for third reading, the Queen's consent is signified to bills affecting the Crown's interests or prerogative if it has not already been signified (see paras 9.6 –9.7 ).

Footnotes 1. For example, CJ (1979–80) 684.

Debate on third reading 28.148Procedure on the third reading of a bill is similar to that on second reading, and the amendments that may be moved to the question for third reading follow the same pattern, although reasoned amendments which raise matters not included in the provisions of the bill are not permissible.1 The provisions of Standing Order No 62 concerning the questions to be proposed on such amendments apply equally to second and third reading (see paras 28.46–28.48 ).2 Debate on third reading, however, is more restricted than at the earlier stage, being limited to the contents of the bill,3 although on occasion debate on the third reading of the Finance Bill has been rather wider. Defeat on third reading (or the agreement of the House to a reasoned amendment to the question for third reading) brings proceedings on the bill to a close.4

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1935–36) 314, c 718. 2. For provisions for bills to be further debated in Grand Committee before a third reading debate, see para 27.4. 3. HC Deb (1918) 108, cc 974, 976; ibid (1976–77) 934, c 83; ibid (1977–78) 945, c 403; ibid (1998–99) 335, c 1480; ibid (2007–08) 470, c 482; ibid (2007–08) 471, cc 540, 544. 4. CJ (1976–77) 406.

The Council of Europe 10.2The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is the parliamentary organ of the Council of Europe, an organisation formed in 1949. From ten original signatories, its membership now comprises 47 Member States.1 Its aims are the maintenance and further realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms and the facilitation of economic and social progress by discussion of questions of common concern and by agreements and common action in economic, social, cultural, scientific, legal and administrative matters. Member States are expected to accept the principles of the rule of law and of the enjoyment by all persons within their jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms and to collaborate sincerely and effectively in realising the aims of the organisation. Member States are parties to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, better known as the ‘European Convention on Human Rights’, and are bound by decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. The statutory organs of the Council of Europe are the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly.2 The Committee of Ministers is composed of Ministers for Foreign Affairs from each Member State or their Deputies, who are usually the Permanent Representatives to the Council of Europe of governments of Member States. It carries out executive functions, including the conclusion of conventions or agreements and the adoption by governments of a common policy with regard to particular matters. These conventions include the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which came into force in 1953 and which represents a collective guarantee of certain human rights principles supported by the European Court of Human Rights and the European Commission of Human Rights. The European Convention on Human Rights was incorporated into United Kingdom law under the Human Rights Act 1998. For information on the work of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, see paras 41.11. The Assembly meets in full plenary session four times a year in the Palais de l'Europe in Strasbourg. Its committees and sub-committees meet in Strasbourg and elsewhere, including on occasion in the UK.3

Footnotes 1. The original signatories of the Statute of the Council of Europe, which was signed in London in May 1949, were the five signatories of the Brussels Treaty (Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Netherlands and the United Kingdom), Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Norway and Sweden. The other Member States with their years of accession in parentheses are: Greece, Turkey (1949/50); Iceland (1950); the Federal Republic of Germany (1951); Austria (1956); Cyprus (1961); Switzerland (1963); Malta (1965); Portugal (1976); Spain (1977); Liechtenstein (1978); San Marino (1988); Finland (1989); Hungary (1990); Czechoslovakia, Poland (1991); Bulgaria (1992); Estonia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Romania (1993); Andorra (1994); Latvia, Moldova, Albania, Ukraine, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (now the Republic of North Macedonia) (1995); Russia; Croatia (1996); Georgia (1999); Armenia, Azerbaijan (2001); Bosnia and Herzegovina (2002); Serbia and Montenegro (2003); Monaco (2004). Greece withdrew from the Council of Europe on 31 December 1970, but became a member again in 1974. The Czech and Slovak Federal Republic (Czechoslovakia) was dissolved on 31 December 1992 and Czechoslovakia ceased to be a Member State. The Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic were both admitted as Member States in 1993. The Parliaments of Canada, Israel and Mexico have Observer status and the Parliaments of Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Morocco and Palestine have Partner for Democracy Status. The Belarusian Parliament's Special Guest status was suspended in 1997. See www.assembly.coe.int. 2. In the Statute of the Council of Europe, the Parliamentary Assembly is referred to as the Consultative Assembly. In July 1974 the Standing Committee of the Assembly decided that the name ‘Parliamentary Assembly’ should be used in place of ‘Consultative Assembly’ since it reflected more accurately the role and composition of the Assembly. In February 1994 the Committee of Ministers decided to use in future the denomination ‘Parliamentary Assembly’ in all Council of Europe documents in conformity with the practice previously followed in statutory resolutions and in a certain number of conventions and recommendations adopted by the Committee of Ministers. 3. For example, the joint meeting of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, Sub-Committee on Refugee and Migrant Children and Young People, and the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, Sub-Committee on Culture, Diversity and Heritage at Westminster on 26 March 2018.

Conclusion of proceedings on third reading 28.150When debate on third reading has concluded, or when the time available for debate under the terms of a programme order has been exhausted, the Speaker puts the question already proposed from the Chair. If the question is on an amendment to the question ‘That the bill be now read the third time’, and it is decided that the word ‘now’ stands part of the question, the Speaker declares forthwith that the bill has been read the third time. If the question is on an amendment to leave out all the words after ‘That’ and insert other words, and that is negatived, the Speaker puts the main question forthwith.

Bill passed 28.151A bill, when read the third time, is recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and Journal as having been read the third time and passed, and, in addition, in the case of bills brought from the Lords, with or without amendment. The communication of the bill to the Lords and subsequent proceedings are described in Chapter 30.

Stages of a public bill in the Lords Contents Successive stages of a bill to be taken on different days Recommended minimum intervals between the stages of a bill 29.1Public bills in the House of Lords have five main stages: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Introduction and first reading Second reading Committee Report Third reading and passing.

Further stages may be necessary consequent on communications between the two Houses (see Chapter 30).

Successive stages of a bill to be taken on different days 29.2No two stages of a bill may be taken on one day. Standing Order No 46 provides that: ‘No Bill shall be read twice the same day; no Committee of the whole House shall proceed on any Bill the same day as the Bill has been read the Second time; no report shall be received from any Committee of the whole House the same day such Committee goes through the Bill, when any amendments are made to such Bill; and no Bill shall be read the Third time the same day that the Bill is reported from the Committee, or the order of commitment is discharged.’ Consequently, if it is intended to take more than one stage of a bill on one day, other than the report stage of a bill which has not been amended in committee, this Standing Order must be suspended and notice of the proposed suspension must be given (Standing Order No 84). In practice, Standing Order No 46 is often suspended for certain categories of bill which the Lords pass without amendment, for bills whose passage is urgent, or towards the end of a session or close to a recess when there is pressure on the time of the House.1

Footnotes 1. For example, LJ (2004–05) 384 and ibid (2009–10) 445. The motion to suspend SO No 46 may be opposed, and amendments (of which notice is not required) tabled to restrict its application: Crime (Sentences) Bill, HL Deb (1996–97) 579, cc 768–88. On 7 April 2010 two amendments were moved to the original motion: the first would also have suspended SO No 48, so allowing amendments to be moved on third reading without notice; the second would have excluded the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill 2010 from the original motion. The first amendment was defeated on division; the second was withdrawn.

Recommended minimum intervals between the stages of a bill 29.3The following minimum intervals between stages of public bills are usually observed:1 a. b. c. d.

two week-ends between the first reading (whether of a new bill or one brought from the Commons) and the debate on second reading; 14 days between second reading and the start of the committee stage; on all bills of considerable length and complexity, 14 days between the end of the committee stage and the start of the report stage; three sitting days between the end of the report stage and third reading.2

Notice is given whenever these minimum intervals are departed from, except when Standing Order No 46 has been suspended. Such notice is given by inserting a ‘§’ against the bill in House of Lords Business. Reasonable notice should when possible be given for consideration of Commons amendments, taking into account the number and scale of amendments and the availability of documents relating to them.3

Footnotes 1. LJ (1976–77) 821; ibid (1977–78) 23. This practice derived from the First Report from the Select Committee on Practice and Procedure, HL 141 (1976–77). 2. The 14-day periods are inclusive of the day on which the previous stage is concluded. The 3-day period is exclusive. 3. HL Deb (1987–88) 493, c 938; ibid (1991–92) 533, c 1466.

Bills introduced without notice or leave 29.4Any Member of the House may present a bill without notice and without seeking leave to bring it in.1 The Legislation Office should be informed of an intention to introduce a bill not later than the previous working day. Members are encouraged to submit a draft of any bill to the Legislation Office before introduction in order to ensure that, before being published, it is in proper form. The final text of the bill must be handed in to the Legislation Office before it is introduced.

Footnotes 1. Parl Hist 1179; Parl Deb (1805) 3, c 42.

Procedure on introduction 29.5A Lords Member who wishes to present a bill rises at the beginning of public business after oral questions or (on rare occasions) at the end of public business immediately before the adjournment of the House (Standing Order No 41(3)). The bill is introduced by reading out the long title. The first reading is then immediately moved and the question is put thereon from the Woolsack. The first reading of a bill is agreed to without debate or dissent,1 because at this stage the House has no knowledge of the contents of the bill. An order is then made for the bill to be printed. A Lords bill is always printed after it has been introduced, normally on the next working day. The bill is endorsed with the name of the Lords Member who has introduced it. It is not the practice to add other names. A bill may be introduced by one Lords Member on behalf of another.

Footnotes 1. Lords Procedure Committee Second Report 1981–82, agreed to 3 March 1982, following attempts to oppose first reading of two Commons bills on 22 December 1981. On occasions in times past the first reading has been opposed. The first reading of the Local Government (England and Wales) Act 1888 Repeal Bill [Lords] was negatived twice (4 December, 20 December 1888); a reasoned amendment to the motion for the first reading of the Parliament (Reform) Bill 1933 was defeated on a division (19 December 1933); the first reading of the Statute of Westminster 1931 (Amendment) Bill [Lords] was negatived (4 November 1943); the Parliament (No 6) Bill [Lords] was read a first time after a division (21 April 1969); and an attempt was made to debate and oppose first reading of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [Lords] (16 December 1993). First reading has been used as an occasion for remarks, eg explanation (14 February 1968), comments on business management (8 April 1970) and tributes (27 October 1987).

Private Members' Bill ballot 29.6On the second day of each session, a ballot is conducted to determine the order in which Private Members' Bills handed in on the day of State Opening receive their first readings on subsequent days. To enter the ballot a Lords Member must hand in the final text of the bill to the Legislation Office no later than the rising of the House on the day of State Opening. A Member may enter only one bill into the ballot, and a Member may not submit for entry to the ballot a bill of identical or substantially similar effect to a bill already entered for the ballot. A Member may use a first reading ‘slot’ determined by the ballot to introduce only the bill entered into the ballot. The ‘slot’ may not be handed to another Member.1

Footnotes 1. Procedure Committee, Third Report of Session 2013–14, Private Members' Bills Topic Questions for Short Debate: Select Committee Reports (HL 63).

Procedure on first reading 29.7A bill which has been initiated in the House of Commons and passed through all its stages in that House is brought to the House of Lords by a House of Commons Clerk with a message stating that the Commons have passed the bill. The message is read by the Clerk at the Table as soon as the item of business in progress has ended, and the first reading of the bill (whether a government bill or a Private Members' Bill) is moved forthwith by the Chief Whip or in their absence by another government Whip. As with Lords bills, the first reading of a bill received from the Commons is agreed to without discussion, both as a matter of courtesy and because at this stage no Lords Member has formally taken charge of it.1 After the first reading has taken place an order is made for the bill to be printed.2 A bill brought from the Commons is not endorsed with the name of the Lords Member in charge of the bill.

Footnotes 1. There are historic instances of a departure from this practice. The first reading of the Corn Importation Bill in 1846 was opposed (LJ (1846) 418). Attempts were made to oppose first reading of the Social Security Contributions Bill and the Consolidated Fund Bill on 22 December 1981. First reading has been used as an occasion for remarks, for example, discussion of timetable (22 June 1961), protest (25 March 1971) and explanation (19 December 1973). 2. By convention, Consolidated Fund and Appropriation Bills, or Supply and Appropriation Bills (since 2011), are not published or printed for the Lords, nor are Provisional Order Confirmation Bills unless subsequently amended on Consideration on Report. Other bills requiring expedition may not be printed if they have not been amended since the last Commons print or if the timetable for their consideration by the Lords makes printing impracticable, though they may be published online, for example, LJ (1990–91) 291; Northern Ireland (St Andrew's Agreement) (No 2) Act 2007; Taxation (International and other Provisions) Act 2010; Finance (No. 2) Act 2017.

Bills brought up and printed when House is not sitting 29.8A bill from the House of Commons may be carried up to the Lords when the House of Lords is not sitting. Under Standing Order No 50 it is deemed to have been brought from the Commons on that day and may be printed (together with its explanatory notes) before first reading if this is for the convenience of the House.

Notice of subsequent stages 29.9It is for the Lords Member in charge of the bill1 to give notice of a date for second reading, and for the stages thereafter. When a day is fixed for the second reading, or for any subsequent stage, notice is given in House of Lords Business. A Lords Member may move any stage of a bill on behalf of the Lords Member in charge of the bill. Bills once introduced are in the possession of the House and not in the sole ownership of the Lords Member in charge.2 And the Member in charge may change; this happens not infrequently with government bills.

Footnotes 1. The Lords Member who is to take charge of a Commons bill informs the Table or the Public Bill Office. In 1885 a dispute arose as to who should move the second reading of a Commons bill, the Medical Relief Disqualification Removal Bill, two Lords Members claiming the right to do so. The House decided in favour of the Lords Member who first gave notice to the Clerk of the Parliaments, LJ (1884–85) 414; Parl Deb (1885) 300, c 27. 2. HL Deb (1988–89) 510, cc 788–91; LJ (1992–93) 627, 629.

Government and Private Members' Bills 29.10In the House of Lords there is no procedural distinction between bills sponsored by a Minister and those introduced by other Members of the House save in respect of carry-over, human rights statements and the ballot (see above). In practice, the House normally accords priority to proceedings on government bills except where Private Members' Bills are not expected to give rise to debate. But there is no concept of government or private Members' ‘time’ in the Lords, nor any specific time when government or Private Members' Bills are taken.

Commons bills not taken up within 12 sitting days 29.11If a bill brought up from the Commons remains for 12 sitting days without any Lords Member having given notice of a date for second reading, it cannot be proceeded with except after 8 days' notice (Standing Order No 49). Motions to dispense with the Standing Order have been agreed to on occasion.1

Footnotes 1. For example, LJ (1933–34) 274; HL Deb (1979–80) 412, c 1193; ibid (1999–2000) 616, cc 12–13. In 2007, the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill died altogether in the Lords because no Lords Member took it up.

Withdrawal of bills 29.12By an old parliamentary rule, a bill from the Commons may not be withdrawn at any stage in the Lords. A bill originating in the House of Lords may, with the agreement of the House, be withdrawn by the Lords Member who presented it.1 This is achieved by the Lords Member in charge of the bill either begging leave to withdraw the motion for the relevant stage2 or, if the bill is between stages, tabling a separate motion, of which notice is given, ‘that the bill be withdrawn’.3 Unanimous leave of the House must be granted for a stage of a bill to be withdrawn, so that a single dissenting voice prevents leave being given and the question must in that case be put and decided. The granting of leave to withdraw a stage of a bill is treated as withdrawal of the bill, unless the Lords Member in charge of the bill indicates an intention to proceed with the bill on another day.

Footnotes 1. In the case of the Meteorites Bill, leave to withdraw the bill was refused on 24 March 1971 as there were dissenting voices, and the bill was read a second time on 30 March 1971, LJ (1970–71) 332, 342. 2. HL Deb (1995–96) 571, c 432; LJ (1999–2000) 265. 3. HL Deb (1988–89) 510, cc 788–91; LJ (1994–95) 188.

Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee 29.13All bills other than Consolidation Bills and, save in exceptional circumstances, Supply Bills are considered by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which reports to the House in relation to any delegation of legislative powers. The Committee aims to report before the Committee stage begins, though the House is under no obligation to delay proceedings if the Committee has not reported by that time.1 If time allows, the Committee may also report on government amendments, if these involve significant delegated powers. The Committee has reported on a Commons bill still in the Commons,2 on a Supply Bill still in the Commons,3 and on a government amendment to a Lords bill after third reading.4

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

For a fuller description of the Committee's work on delegated powers, see para 40.48. European Union (Withdrawal) Bill 2017. Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill 2018. Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [Lords] 2017.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Contents Membership 10.6The Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) has its origins in a part of a declaration by Heads of State and Government of the then Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) adopted in November 1990 in Paris: ‘Recognizing the important role parliamentarians can play in the CSCE process, we call for greater parliamentary involvement in the CSCE, in particular through the creation of a CSCE parliamentary assembly, involving members of parliaments from all participating States.1 In April 1991, parliamentarians from all CSCE participating States agreed the basic principles of procedure, working methods and distribution of seats for the Assembly. The Assembly's inaugural annual session was held in Budapest in July 1992 when Rules of Procedure were agreed. The Assembly changed its name to the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE following the Summit of Heads of State and Government of the CSCE in December 1995 which established the current permanent organs of the OSCE. The aims of the Assembly are to contribute to the development of OSCE institutions and the implementation of OSCE objectives and to support the strengthening and consolidation of democratic institutions in the OSCE participating States. The Assembly holds three meetings each year. The winter meeting is held in Vienna; the main Annual Session and the autumn meeting are hosted by member states. The Secretariat of the Assembly is based in Copenhagen.2

Footnotes 1. Charter for A New Europe Cm 1464, p 10. 2. See www.oscepa.org.

Second reading Contents Opposition to second reading Other motions on second reading 29.15The second reading is the stage at which the general principles of a bill are considered. As soon as the Clerk has read the notice for the second reading, the Lords Member in charge of the bill moves the motion for the second reading and explains the bill's purpose. Then the question ‘that this bill be now read a second time’ is proposed from the Woolsack and the debate follows. Discussion of the bill's details should be left to the committee stage. But Lords Members may indicate the points on which they think the bill needs amendment and the general nature of amendments which they will propose. In the case of Law Commission bills, the second reading debate may be held off the floor of the House, in a ‘second reading committee’ meeting. The formal motion that the bill be read a second time is taken later, in the Chamber, but is not normally debated.1

Footnotes 1. LJ (2007–08) 308, 446; Procedure Committee, Second Report of Session 2010–12, Law Commission Bills, HL 30; Perpetuities and Accumulations Bill 2009; Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Bill 2009; Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Bill [Lords] 2011; Trusts (Capital and Income) Bill [Lords] 2012; Partnerships (Prosecution) (Scotland) Bill [Lords] 2012; Insurance Bill [Lords] 2014; Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Bill [Lords] 2017.

Opposition to second reading Contents Second reading agreed to with amendment Procedure on amendments to second reading motion 29.16A bill may be opposed on second reading by an amendment to the effect that ‘this House declines to give the bill a second reading’. The amendment may add a reason (a ‘reasoned amendment’).1 The agreement of the House to such an amendment, with or without a reason, means automatic rejection of the bill. The question as amended is not put, and the bill is removed from the list of bills in progress. It is possible to oppose the motion ‘that this bill be now read a second time’, without tabling an amendment. However, it is uncommon for such opposition to take place, because notice of it, which is desirable in the interests of good order, cannot be given on the order paper.2

Footnotes 1. For example, LJ (1982–83) 272; ibid (1985–86) 245; ibid (1989–90) 415, 438. The ‘dilatory amendment’ to put off second reading for six months is an obsolete procedure following opposed second reading of the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill on 12 May 2006. See Procedure Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2006–07, Questions for Short Debate Grand Committees; Sitting time on Fridays; This day six months; Explanatory notes on Commons amendments (HL 188). 2. See HL Deb (1997–98) 590, cc 657–58.

Second reading agreed to with amendment 29.17In addition to amendments in opposition to the second reading of a bill, amendments may be moved which do not seek to negative the second reading but invite the House to put on record a particular point of view in agreeing to the second reading.1

Footnotes 1. LJ (1979–80) 344; ibid (1998–99) 298; European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, 30–31 January 2018.

Procedure on amendments to second reading motion 29.18Notice is required on the order paper of any amendment to the motion for second reading. If notice has been given of more than one amendment, they are dealt with in the order in which they relate to the motion, or, if they relate to the same place in the motion, in the order in which they were tabled. In such cases it is usual for the whole debate to take place on the first amendment, and the Members who tabled the other amendments speak in this debate to indicate the reason why they prefer their own amendments. When the debate is concluded, the question is put on each amendment successively. If an amendment opposing the second reading is agreed to, the bill is rejected (see above). In any other case, the question on the original motion or on the original motion as amended is then finally put and decided.

Motion for adjournment of second reading debate 29.19It is also possible to move that the second reading debate be adjourned, with or without notice or reasons.1 Such a motion, if agreed to, does not prevent the motion for the second reading being put down for a subsequent day; indeed, such a motion is necessary when the debate is scheduled over more than one day.2

Footnotes 1. LJ (1948) 106, 294; ibid (1971–72) 474; ibid (1987–88) 508. 2. For example, European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, 20–21 February 2017; European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, 30–31 January 2018.

Resolution on the same day as second reading 29.20A resolution deprecating or enlarging on certain provisions of a bill has been moved on the same day as the second reading.1 Any such motion must be sufficiently different from the bill so as not to offend against the rule that a question once decided may not again be put to the House in the same session. A motion to take note of a select committee report has been moved formally on the same day as the second reading of a bill, debate on the matter contained in the report having taken place on the motion for second reading.2 The report of the Economic Affairs Committee on the Finance Bill is regularly debated in this way.

Footnotes 1. Immigration Bill, LJ (1970–71) 597; British Nationality Bill, ibid (1980–81) 614. 2. Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill 1992 and Report of the Select Committee on the European Communities on the Common Fisheries Policy: LJ (1992–93) 240–41.

Commitment Contents Instructions 29.21After second reading, either immediately or at a later date, bills are committed to a committee on a motion in the name of the Lords Member in charge of the bill, except that in the case of a supply bill or a bill certified by the Speaker as a money bill the House may order that the Bill be not committed (‘committee negatived’).1 Bills are usually committed to a Committee of the whole House or a Grand Committee.2 In certain cases bills may be committed to other types of committee. These include public bill committees, special public bill committees and select committees, the procedures of which are described at para 29.50. Procedures attaching to particular classes of bill are described at paras 29.72 –29.80. Unless the House orders otherwise, the next stage of a bill committed to a Grand Committee, special public bill committee or a public bill committee is report; but a bill committed to a select committee is recommitted to a Committee of the whole House.

Footnotes 1. SO No 47(1). This is the invariable practice for bills of aids and supplies. 2. The Protection of Freedoms Bill 2010–12 was committed in part to a Grand Committee and in part to a Committee of the whole House (LJ (2010–12) 1689), as was the Deregulation Bill 2014–15 (House of Lords Minutes of Proceedings, 30 July 2014). In such cases the proceedings take place sequentially and the bill is reported in respect of the clauses and schedules separately from each committee. In the case of the Financial Services Bill 2012–13, a motion to commit to Grand Committee was withdrawn after debate (11 June 2012) and a proposal for split commitment was defeated in favour of Committee of the whole House (18 June 2012). The order to commit the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill to Committee of the whole House was discharged before the stage began in favour of Grand Committee (12 June 2012). The Immigration Bill 2015–16 was initially committed in totality to a Committee of the whole House; after four days in committee the remaining clauses and schedules were committed to a Grand Committee (House of Lords Minutes of Proceedings, 8 February 2016).

Instructions Contents Mandatory instructions Permissive instructions 29.22An instruction to any committee on a bill may be moved after second reading. Instructions may be either mandatory or permissive.

Mandatory instructions 29.23The most common mandatory instruction directs the committee to consider the clauses and schedules in an order other than that set out in the bill.1 An instruction was moved on the Coal Bill 1939 to leave out certain parts of the bill,2 and an instruction moved on the Firearms (Amendment) Bill 1997 to report a clause without amendment in order that it be instead re-committed to a select committee.3 An instruction was moved on the Hunting Bill 2001 that no amendments be considered except any amendments to insert three new clauses in place of clause 1 of the Bill.4

Footnotes 1. Such an instruction is normally moved in time to inform the marshalled list but on the House of Lords (Amendment) Bill [Lords] 2010–12 one was moved on the day of committee stage (21 October 2011). 2. LJ (1937–38) 204. 3. HL Deb (1996–97) 577, cc 280–93. 4. LJ (2000–01) 211.

Permissive instructions 29.24The object of a permissive instruction is to confer on the committee authority to do something which, without the instruction, they would have no power to do, for example, to divide a bill into two bills1 or to consolidate two bills into one.2 Instructions of this kind merely confer on the committee the power to take the course of action specified, leaving it to the discretion of the committee whether they exercise the power. An instruction to extend the scope of a bill is not in order in the Lords.3

Footnotes 1. LJ (1852–53) 289; ibid (1935–36) 197. In 1919, an attempt was made to divide a bill brought from the Commons (ibid (1919) 310) and this was defeated. But the instruction was objected to on its merits as well as on its unprecedented nature and the technical difficulties it would create. In 2010, a motion to divide a Commons bill was withdrawn (HL Deb (30 November 2010) 722, cc 1373–81), so the propriety of dividing a Commons bill during its passage through the Lords has not been decided. See Tom Mohan, ‘Coalition government in the House of Lords – some procedural challenges', The Table (Journal of the Society of Clerks-at-the-Table in Commonwealth Parliaments) 79 (2011). The Government of India Act 1935 was divided, between the date of Royal Assent and the date of coming into operation, by a separate Act (the Government of India (Reprinting) Act 1935). 2. LJ (1890–91) 158. 3. Procedure Committee, Second Report 1990–91, agreed 27 June 1991; HL Deb (1990–91) 530, cc 707–08.

Amendments Contents Rules as to amendments Publishing and marshalling of amendments All amendments to be called Grouping of amendments 29.25In the Lords amendments may be moved in committee, on report and on third reading. The following section describes general procedure for dealing with amendments. Issues specific to particular stages are described in subsequent sections.

Tabling of amendments 29.26Amendments may be tabled at any time after second reading.1 The late tabling of amendments is, however, strongly deprecated since Lords Members have only a limited time to consider them and move amendments to them.2 Amendments may be tabled during recesses.

Footnotes 1. Where the second reading and committee stages are expected to take place on the same day, amendments are accepted before second reading, for example, European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill 2016–17; Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Bill 2017–19. 2. HL Deb (1977–78) 387, cc 279–80.

Admissibility of amendments 29.27As in other matters of order, the admissibility of an amendment can ultimately be decided only by the House itself, there being no authority which can in advance rule an amendment out of order. The following general rules are observed: 1. Amendments must be relevant to the subject-matter of the bill1 and to the clause or schedule to which they are proposed. 2. Amendments proposed must not be inconsistent with a previous decision taken at the same stage, except where alternative amendments are proposed to the same place in the bill. 3. Amendments to a schedule are not in order if they go beyond the scope of, or are contrary to, the relevant clause which has been agreed to. 4. Amendments to the long title are not in order unless they are to rectify a mistake in the original title, to restate the title more clearly, or to reflect amendments made to the bill. 5. Clause headings and headings placed above ‘parts’ of the bill or above groups of clauses are technically not part of the bill and so are not open to amendment.2 Punctuation is also technically not part of the bill. The Legislation Office advises on whether an amendment is admissible and it is expected that this advice will be taken. If a Lords Member insists on tabling an amendment which the Legislation Office has advised is inadmissible, that Office writes to the Leader of the House, copying the advice to the other Leaders, the Chief Whips and the Convenor. The Leader of the House draws the House's attention to the advice when the amendment is called and asks the House to endorse the advice of the Legislation Office.3 Tabling amendments to bills originating in the House of Commons is unprofitable if such amendments appear to be material and intolerable infringements of Commons financial privilege, in that they impose a charge not covered by the terms of the Money or Ways and Means resolutions in the Commons, unless there is reason to believe that the Commons will pass a supplementary financial resolution.4

Footnotes 1. See HL Deb (1967–68) 288, cc 1075–86. 2. Parl Deb (1906) 166, c 1085. 3. This is rare. It last happened on 14 January 2013. On that occasion, despite the Leader's advice, the House agreed the amendment on division, HL Deb (2012–13) 742, c 490. On 3 April 2008, the Leader intervened on an amendment in Grand Committee; the amendment was not moved, HL Deb (2007–08) 700, c 193GC. 4. For example, Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill, HL Deb (1996–97) 579, cc 56–62; HC Deb (1996–97) 292, c 1080. See Chapter 37. See also Select Committee on the Constitution, Money Bills and Commons Financial Privilege, Tenth Report of Session 2010–12, Money Bills and Commons Financial Privilege, HL 97.

Publishing and marshalling of amendments Contents Marshalling Marshalled lists Manuscript amendments 29.28All amendments to a particular bill tabled on the same day are published in one daily sheet and are not numbered at this stage. The names of Lords Members supporting an amendment are printed above it, up to a maximum of four names, or five if the Lords Member in charge of the bill adds his or her name.1

Footnotes 1. LJ (1974–75) 142.

Marshalling 29.29Subject to the rules listed below, amendments are marshalled in the order of their page, line and word references in the bill, taking account of any instruction which has been tabled. The rules are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

Amendments to the preamble (if any) and the long title, in that order, are put last. Amendments to leave out words take precedence over amendments to leave out the same words and insert others. Amendments to leave out a shorter block of text take precedence over amendments to leave out a longer block of text. Amendments to leave out any block of text other than a complete clause or schedule come before amendments to the text. Amendments to a clause or schedule are considered before an amendment to leave out a clause or schedule and substitute another. Because each clause and schedule must be ordered to stand part of the bill in committee, an amendment to leave out a clause or schedule at that stage is not technically an amendment, but a statement of intention to oppose the question that the clause or schedule stand part of the bill. Notice is usually given of such intention by means of an un-numbered italic note at the appropriate place in the marshalled list.1 On report and third reading an intention to leave out a clause or schedule is indicated by tabling an amendment. The question that the clause or schedule stand part of the bill or (on report or third reading) an amendment to leave out the clause or schedule is considered after all amendments to the clause or schedule (including an amendment to leave out the clause or schedule and substitute another). At committee stage, amendments to divide a clause are taken after the clause has been stood part of the bill.2 At committee stage, amendments to transpose a clause or clauses, or part of a clause, to another place in the bill are taken after the clause (or the last of the affected clauses)3 has been stood part of the bill. Amendments to insert a new clause are considered at the place in the bill where it is proposed that the new clause is to be inserted. Amendments to amendments are considered immediately after the question on the original amendment has been put for the first time, in the order in which they relate to the text of the original amendment, and are disposed of before the question on the original amendment (as amended) is finally put. Where alternative amendments are tabled to the same place in the bill, they are marshalled in the order in which they are tabled, except that priority is given to an amendment tabled by the Lords Member in charge of the bill. A decision may be taken on each in turn, even if the second amendment is in substitution for the first amendment to which the House or Committee has already agreed.

Footnotes 1. HL Deb (1963–64) 258, cc 986–1001; ibid (1983–84) 443, c 1251. 2. For example, HL Deb (1996–97) 577, c 586 and amendment 8 at Third Reading of Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [Lords], ibid (21 November 2017) 787, c 93. 3. For example, HL Deb (1994–95) 566, c 468.

Marshalled lists 29.30For committee and report, two working days before the day appointed for the consideration of the bill, the various amendments are marshalled, numbered and published as a ‘marshalled list’. The list is published on the morning of the working day before that appointed for consideration of the bill. If further amendments are tabled on the day before that appointed for consideration, they are printed on supplementary sheets or are incorporated in a revised marshalled list. Any amendments not previously published, and amendments which have been altered since they were last published, are distinguished from other amendments by being marked with an asterisk on the marshalled list, but are otherwise treated identically to other amendments. When the stage is not completed in one day, further amendments may be tabled to parts of the bill not yet considered. These are printed on sheets supplementary to the marshalled list and further marshalled lists are published for each subsequent day of the stage. Marshalled lists for third reading are produced in the same way as for Committee and Report, except that amendments must be tabled by the working day before the stage. The list is usually published on the day of the stage. When third reading is on a Thursday the marshalled list may be published on the Wednesday.

Manuscript amendments 29.31Whenever possible, amendments should be tabled in time for inclusion in the marshalled list. However, except on third reading it is in order to move, as manuscript amendments, amendments of which notice has not been given on a marshalled list or supplementary sheet. Occasionally, a manuscript amendment is justified, for instance, to correct an amendment already tabled, or when an amendment under consideration is objected to and it is clear that with slight alteration of language it would become acceptable to the House or Committee. However, manuscript amendments should rarely be moved, since other Members of the House may not have had an opportunity of considering them and may be deprived of the opportunity of moving amendments to them.1 When a manuscript amendment is moved, the text of the amendment is read out, both by the mover and by the Lord putting the question, unless the House or Committee otherwise directs.

Footnotes 1. LJ (1970–71) 240.

All amendments to be called 29.32There is no selection of amendments in the Lords. Each amendment printed, and each manuscript amendment, is called in turn by the Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair, subject only to pre-emption. An amendment which has been tabled need not be moved, but if none of the Lords Members named as supporters of the amendment moves it, any other Lords Member may do so.1 Once an amendment has been moved, it can be withdrawn only by leave, which must be unanimous. If there is no such unanimity the question is put on the amendment. The question on all amendments is ‘that this amendment be agreed to’. If an amendment has been pre-empted by one previously agreed to by the House, usually because the text proposed to be amended has been left out of the bill, the amendment will not be called. The Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair alerts the House to this possibility, normally when putting the text of the pre-empting amendment after it has been moved, but sometimes (such as when the amendment is a key one which is expected to be divided on) when calling the pre-empting amendment.

Footnotes 1. HL Deb (1983–84) 449, c 1325. This applies to propositions on consideration of Commons amendments: Procedure Committee, Fifth Report 2017–19, agreed to 11 July 2018.

Grouping of amendments Contents Effect of groupings on third reading amendments 29.33In order to avoid repetition, related amendments are often grouped and debated together. Lists of such groupings are prepared by agreement between the Lords Members tabling the amendments and the Government Whips' Office, and are made available to the House. Groupings are informal and not binding. A Lords Member may speak to a group of amendments (not necessarily consecutive or in his or her own name) when the first amendment in the group is called. The debate takes place on the first amendment in the group, even though it may be a minor or paving amendment. The question is put separately on each amendment in the group when it is called in its place in the marshalled list. Proceedings on later amendments in a group are often formal but further debate may take place and later amendments will not necessarily be decided the same way as the first.

Effect of groupings on third reading amendments 29.34If a Lords Member believes that an amendment at committee or report stage has been wrongly grouped, he or she should make this clear in debate. Otherwise, under the rule against reopening at third reading an issue which has previously been decided, the amendment may be inadmissible at third reading, if another amendment in the group was decided at committee or report stage (see para 29.65 ).1

Footnotes 1. HL Deb (1991–92) 536, cc 1329–31.

Proceedings in Committee of the whole House Contents Powers and duties of Lord in the Chair Powers of Committee of the whole House Procedure in committee 29.35A Committee of the whole House consists, as its name implies, of all the Members of the House. It is, in fact, the House itself in a less formal guise, presided over by a Lord in the Chair instead of by a Lord on the Woolsack and conducting its business according to more flexible rules of procedure.

Powers and duties of Lord in the Chair 29.36The powers and duties of the Lord in the Chair are the same as those of the Lord on the Woolsack when the House is sitting. They are generally confined to the calling on of clauses, schedules and amendments in bills referred to the Committee, and putting the questions on them. The Lord in the Chair also makes the formal report of the Committee to the House. The Lord in the Chair may vote but does not have a casting vote.

Powers of Committee of the whole House 29.37A Committee of the whole House can only consider those matters which have been referred to it, including any instruction. Where a bill has been committed to a Committee, the whole bill is the Committee's order of reference. A Committee of the whole House has no power to adjourn the sitting altogether, only to break informally (eg for a short break or in an emergency) or to resume the House. If consideration of the bill is not completed, the House is resumed on motion and can again go into committee later or on a future day. If on a division in Committee on a bill, fewer than 30 Lords Members have voted, the Chair declares the question not decided and the House resumes without question put. It goes into Committee again on the bill at a subsequent sitting,1 when the Chair begins by putting the question previously undecided.

Footnotes 1. SO No 57.

Procedure in committee Contents Clauses Amendments and clauses moved en bloc Postponement of clauses Schedules Preamble and title House resumed 29.38Standing Order No 30, which forbids a Member to speak more than once to any motion, does not apply when the House is in committee.1 A next business motion (see para 25.53 ) is not admitted. When the notice has been read for the House to be in committee on a bill, the Lords Member in charge of the bill moves ‘That the House do now resolve itself into a committee upon the bill’. This motion is sometimes used as an opportunity to question the relevance of certain amendments2 or to raise general points relating to the amendments.3 The motion may be opposed by reasoned amendment4 or by an amendment to postpone the committee stage5 or to discharge the order of commitment and to commit the bill instead to a select committee.6 Opposition to the motion seldom occurs7 and rejecting it does not kill the bill but merely defers the stage. Subsequent motions ‘That the House do now again resolve itself into a committee upon the bill’ may likewise be opposed or used to raise matters relating to the progress of the bill.8 When the question has been agreed to, the Lords Member on the Woolsack leaves the Woolsack and takes the Chair (at the Table). Under Standing Order No 62, the Lord Speaker may take the Chair in Committee.

Footnotes 1. SO No 62. 2. Administration of Justice Bill, HL Deb (1967–68) 288, cc 1075–86; Rent (Agriculture) Bill, HL Deb (1975–76) 375, cc 1281–83. 3. HL Deb (1983–84) 445, c 120; ibid (1992–93) 547, cc 944–49; ibid (19 March 2009) 709, cc 405–6. 4. Royal Titles Bill, LJ (1876) 110; Agricultural Labourers' Holidays (Scotland) Bill, ibid (1887) 419. 5. Marriages (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Bill, LJ (1928) 266; Trade Union Bill, HL Deb (1983–84) 453, cc 85, 135; Animal Health Bill, HL Deb (2001–02) 633, cc 166–202. 6. HL Deb (1987–88) 488, c 350. 7. When the order of the day was read for the House to resolve itself into a committee on the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill 1924, a resolution was moved that the House, before going into committee, desired the setting up of an immediate inquiry into the possibility of achieving the objects of the bill by the use of building materials other than brick. The resolution was agreed to and the House then went into committee on the bill; LJ (1924) 334. In 2002 an amendment was moved on the motion that the House do resolve itself into a Committee on the Animal Health Bill, to postpone consideration of the Bill in committee until after the publication of responses to consultation on the Bill and the publication of the reports of two inquiries into the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak. The amendment was agreed to on a division, HL Deb (2001–02) 633, cc 166–202. 8. HL Deb (1987–88) 491, cc 313–14; ibid 495, cc 685–86; ibid (27 February 2008) 699, c 659. An amendment to the motion to continue committee stage of the Scotland Bill was moved on 22 February 2016.

Clauses 29.39The clauses of the bill are then considered in order, unless an instruction varying the sequence has been agreed to (see para 29.22 ). The Lord Chairman first calls the amendments to each clause. When those (if any) have been disposed of, the question is put that the clause, or the clause as amended, stand part of the bill. A general debate on the clause may take place and a Member who wishes to leave out the clause speaks to this question.

Amendments and clauses moved en bloc 29.40Where there are several consecutive clauses to which no amendment has been set down, it is the practice to put the question on all of them ‘en bloc ’, ie together. A Lords Member wishing to speak to a clause or move a manuscript amendment may do so when the group is called, preferably having warned the Lord in the Chair of this intention. Amendments may also be moved en bloc provided that they appear consecutively on the marshalled list, that (during Committee stage) they all relate to the same clause or schedule, that they have already been spoken to, and that no Lords Member objects. If any Lords Member objects to amendments being moved en bloc they must be moved separately to the extent desired. A division cannot take place on amendments en bloc. Instead, the first amendment is moved and the question on it resolved separately. If the first amendment is withdrawn or disagreed to, the other amendments are not normally moved. If the first amendment is agreed to, the other amendments may then be moved formally en bloc, without further debate.1 Amendments may not be withdrawn en bloc.

Footnotes 1. HL Deb (1982–83) 440, c 1234. Practice on consideration of Commons amendments is slightly different: propositions may be moved and spoken to en bloc provided they appear consecutively on the marshalled list and no Lords Member objects.

Postponement of clauses 29.41Clauses1 or whole parts of a bill2 may be postponed on a motion made to that effect of which notice has been given; and may also be postponed as the result of an instruction. A clause has been postponed without notice after consideration of it has begun3 but it may not be postponed if it has already been amended.

Footnotes 1. LJ (1967–68) 85: cl 11 of Consumer Protection Bill 1967. 2. LJ (1967–68) 201: Pt III of Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1968; LJ (1974) 104: Pt IX of Consumer Credit Bill. 3. LJ (1937–38) 226: cl 12 of Coal Bill 1938; HL Deb (1985–86) 469, cc 573–83: Shops Bill 1985, cl 1.

Schedules 29.42The schedules to the bill are considered in order after the clauses (subject to any instruction) and are dealt with in the same manner as clauses.

Preamble and title 29.43As soon as the clauses and schedules have been disposed of, the Lord in the Chair puts the questions ‘that this be the preamble of the bill’ (if there is one) and ‘that this be the title of the bill’. Amendments to the preamble and long title may be moved before each of these questions is put. Preambles have been omitted in committee1 and also amended,2 and it is in order to insert a preamble in a bill where none exists.3

Footnotes 1. Petroleum (Amendment) Bill, LJ (1928) 141. 2. Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, LJ (1930–31) 66; Judiciary (Safeguarding) Bill, ibid (1933–34) 107. 3. HL Deb (1971–72) 324, cc 207–09. See also Government of India Bill, HL Deb (1934–35) 98, cc 233–37.

House resumed 29.44If the committee stage is not completed at one sitting, it is necessary for a Lords Member (usually a government Whip) to move ‘that the House be resumed’. When this motion has been agreed to, the Lord in the Chair leaves the Chair and moves to the Woolsack. The House goes into committee again either later on the same day (on occasions when the House has been resumed in order to take other business) or on a future day. When it is agreed that there should be a break during a committee stage, and there is no other business to be taken, it is the practice not to resume the House and adjourn formally but simply to break off the committee stage without question put until a time announced by a government Whip.

Judicial function of the House of Lords Contents Peerage claims 11.5Since the establishment of the Supreme Court,1 the sole remaining judicial function of the House of Lords is in respect of peerage claims. In discharging its role in determining peerage claims, the House remains responsible, in certain circumstances, for determining individuals' rights and liabilities under the law.2 The House's jurisdiction in impeachments by the Commons has fallen into disuse.3

Footnotes 1. Constitutional Reform Act 2005, s 24. For a history of Appellate Jurisdiction, see Erskine May (23rd edn, 2004), pp 69–73. 2. Lords Procedure Committee, First Report of Session 2009–10, Oral questions to Secretaries of State, Committee for Privileges, and Standing Order 78 Personal Bills Committee, HL 13. 3. For impeachment by the Commons, see Erskine May (19th edn, 1976), pp 65–66.

Order of commitment discharged 29.46If, at the time appointed for the House to go into committee upon a bill, no amendment has been set down, and it appears that no Lords Member wishes to speak on the bill or to table a manuscript amendment, the Lords Member in charge of the bill may move ‘that the order of commitment (or re-commitment) be discharged’.1 This motion may be moved only on the day appointed for the committee stage and notice must be given on the order paper. If the motion is agreed to, the next stage is the third reading. In accordance with Standing Order No 46, the bill may not be read a third time on the same day as the order of commitment is discharged. The question cannot be put on the motion ‘that the order of commitment be discharged’ if any Lords Member objects.2 In such a case, the Lords Member in charge of the bill moves in the usual way ‘that the House do now resolve itself into a committee upon the bill’. In principle, several bills may be considered in committee without the House being resumed between each, provided that no amendments have been put down and it is unlikely that the bills will be debated.3 When the House is resumed after consideration of the last of the bills, each bill is separately reported.4 In practice, and provided that notice has been given, the order of commitment is now discharged in such cases. If no amendment has been tabled but the order of commitment has not been discharged, the Chairman may, with leave, report the bill without amendment forthwith instead of going through it clause by clause.

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

SO No 47(2). See HL Deb (1970–71) 311, c 1077. For example, LJ (1989–90) 123. First Report from the Procedure Committee, HL 95 (1967–68); LJ (1967–68) 231. There have been only three instances of this procedure since it was introduced: 4 March 1970, 13 March 1975 and 26 January 1978. All the bills were Consolidation Bills in committee on re-commitment.

Order of commitment changed 29.47The House has transferred commitment from Committee of the whole House to Grand Committee or vice versa, either before the stage began1 or in mid-stage.2

Footnotes 1. Voyeurism (Offences) (No 2) Bill, 13 November 2018. 2. Immigration Bill, 8 February 2016, between clauses; House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [Lords], 12 September 2018; Tenant Fees Bill, 13 November 2018, in mid-clause.

Committee negatived 29.48In the case of Supply bills, such as the Finance Bill, and Supply and Appropriation Bills, the committee stage is now invariably dispensed with. In order to effect this, the question is put after the second reading ‘that this bill be not committed’ and, if this is agreed to, the bill then awaits third reading. This practice may be applied to Money bills under the Parliament Act 1911 (see paras 37.28 –37.31 ), with a view to saving time when there is no wish in any quarter of the House to propose amendments.1

Footnotes 1. SO No 47(1).

Proceedings in Grand Committee 29.49A public bill may also be committed to a Grand Committee. As described above this is done on motion moved after second reading. Bills which are unlikely to attract amendments and which would have their committee stage discharged are not committed to Grand Committees. Any bill may be committed to a Grand Committee1 and any Member may take part. The proceedings and forms of words in Grand Committee are identical to those in a Committee of the whole House save that no votes may take place. Normally, only one bill per day may be considered in Grand Committee. Amendments, which may be tabled and spoken to by any Member, are printed and circulated as for Committee of the whole House. As divisions are not permitted in Grand Committee, decisions to alter the bill may be made only by unanimity. Thus, when the question is put, a single voice against an amendment causes the amendment to be negatived. If there is opposition to an amendment, it should be withdrawn in Grand Committee, to enable the House to decide the matter on report. For the same reason, the question that a clause or schedule stand part cannot be disagreed to unless there is unanimity. Provided that there is a single voice in favour, the clause or schedule must be agreed to. In Grand Committee, Members speak standing and, so far as they can, observe the same degree of formality as in the Chamber. The Committee adjourns for ten minutes for a division in the House. Notice of the proceedings is given on the Order Paper; the committee may sit whether the House is sitting or not. The verbatim report of the Grand Committee's proceedings is published in the Official Report, and the minutes are published as an annex to the Minutes of Proceedings and, ultimately, in the Journals. At the end of the stage, the Lords Member in the Chair simply says, ‘That concludes the Committee's proceedings on the bill’. The Grand Committee reports the bill back to the House by silent minute entry. Unless the House orders otherwise, the next stage of a bill reported from a Grand Committee is report.

Footnotes 1. Including a Private Member's Bill: Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty Bill [Lords] 1998–99; Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill [Lords] 2006–07; House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [Lords] 2017–19.

Commitment of bills other than to a Committee of the whole House Contents Public bill committee Special public bill committee Bill committed to select or joint committee 29.50Various procedures have been developed to afford scrutiny of public bills either instead of or additional to that in Committee of the whole House or Grand Committee. These are: 1. public bill committee; 2. special public bill committee; and 3. select or joint committee. The purpose of these procedures is either to save the time of the House itself by taking the committee stage off the floor or to enable more detailed examination of bills to take place, involving the hearing of evidence. Public bill committees (like Grand Committees) fall into the first category and the other procedures fall into the second. Bills may be considered under these procedures only if the House has agreed to a particular order of commitment, on a motion moved after the second reading. It is usual for such a motion to be moved immediately after the second reading has been agreed to. However, a motion to commit a bill to a select or joint committee may be moved at any time before third reading; and a motion that the order of commitment to a Committee of the whole House (or to a Grand Committee) be discharged and that an alternative order be made may be moved any day before the committee stage begins. Notice is required of any such motion. The members of a public bill committee, special public bill committee, select committee or joint committee are subsequently appointed by the House on the recommendation of the Committee of Selection.

Public bill committee 29.51A public bill committee is a select committee to which mainly technical and non-controversial government bills may be committed in order to save time on the floor of the House.1 The last public bill committee sat in 1994;2 they have been superseded by Grand Committees.

Footnotes 1. HL Deb (1987–88) 493, c 938. 2. Trade Marks Bill [Lords] 1993–94.

Special public bill committee 29.52Special public bill committees are public bill committees which are empowered to take written and oral evidence on bills before considering them clause by clause in the usual way. Law Commission bills are normally committed to a special public bill committee, but the procedure may also be used for any bill irrespective of the House of introduction.1 A bill is committed to a special public bill committee by a motion moved after second reading by the Lords Member in charge of the bill.2 Where it is proposed in advance that a bill be committed to a special public bill committee, the Committee of Selection reports on the membership of the committee before second reading to allow arrangements for taking evidence to be put in hand contingent on the bill being committed.3 The Government hold a majority over the other parties, with the balance held by the Crossbench Members. It has been the practice for the relevant Minister and frontbench spokesmen from the other parties to be members. Any Member of the House may attend any public meeting of the committee and may speak and move amendments but not vote. The committee is not normally given the other powers commonly possessed by select committees empowered to take evidence such as those to appoint advisers or to adjourn from place to place.4 The committee may sit whether the House is sitting or not. Special public bill committees must conclude their taking of evidence within a 28-day period beginning with the date on which they are appointed, excluding any adjournment of the House for more than three days, but there is no time limit for their subsequent proceedings. The relevant government department produces with the bill a summary of the consultation undertaken, with an indication of representations received and changes made. The evidence-taking usually begins with the Minister giving evidence, following which he or she rejoins the committee on the other side of the table. There is an interval after the conclusion of the evidence taking, to enable members of the committee to table amendments.5 The committee then meets to consider any amendments tabled. Notice of the proceedings is given on the Order Paper and amendments are published and circulated as for a Committee of the whole House. Proceedings are not time-limited. The Senior Deputy Speaker may take the Chair for these proceedings if desired but may not vote, not being a member of the committee. Special public bill committees, when considering amendments, follow the procedure of a committee stage in the Chamber as closely as possible. Members speak standing and, so far as they can, observe the same degree of formality as in the Chamber. The committee may vote on amendments and motions: if the question cannot be decided by collecting the voices, the Clerk reads out the names of the members of the committee. Each member when their name is called replies ‘Content’, ‘Notcontent’ or ‘Abstain’. If a division in the House is called, the committee adjourns for ten minutes. The committee does not produce any report on the bill other than the bill as amended, which is published in the usual way. The written and oral evidence is published, together with the verbatim report of the proceedings. After a bill is reported from a special public bill committee the next stage is Report.

Footnotes 1. LJ (1994–95) 45, 90; Procedure Committee, First Report 2007–08. 2. LJ (1993–94) 361; ibid (1994–95) 50, 204. The order of commitment of the Arbitration Bill 1996 was discharged and the bill committed to a Committee of the whole House: HL Deb (1995–96) 569, c 10. 3. HL Deb (1995–96) 567, cc 1279–88. 4. The special public bill committee on the Partnerships (Prosecution) (Scotland) Bill [Lords] received power to adjourn from place to place within the UK (22 January 2013). The committee on the Insurance Bill [Lords] was given power to appoint an adviser (25 November 2014). 5. Amendments may be tabled in the usual way at any time after second reading.

Bill committed to select or joint committee 29.53A public bill (other than a consolidation bill – see below) may be committed to a select committee or a joint committee of both Houses when detailed investigation is considered desirable or when the hearing of evidence is considered necessary. To achieve this, a motion ‘that this bill be committed to a select committee’ or ‘that it is desirable that a joint committee of both Houses be appointed to consider the bill’ may be moved. Such a motion is usually moved immediately after the second reading, or may be tabled as an amendment to the normal commitment motion1 but is admissible at any stage2 before the third reading. If the bill has previously been committed to a Committee of the whole House the order may be discharged and an order made to commit the bill instead to a joint3 or to a select4 committee. A motion may be tabled to commit a part of a bill to a select committee.5 If the bill is referred to a joint committee a message is sent to the House of Commons informing them and desiring their agreement.6 A bill may be committed to a select committee on another bill.7 The method of appointment and powers of the committee are the same as for an ad hoc committee on a general subject (see paras 40.3 –40.23 ); but the bill forms the committee's orders of reference and defines the scope of the inquiry. When the committee has completed its deliberations, it makes a report to the House on the provisions of the bill, recommending whether or not it should proceed. The committee usually gives reasons in a report similar to a report on a general subject. The committee has no power to put an end to the bill. If it considers that the bill should proceed, the committee reports it with such amendments as it thinks fit, and the bill is then recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in the form in which it has been reported.8 If the committee considers that it should not proceed, it reports the bill accordingly, without amendment. When a select committee reports that a bill should not proceed, the bill is not recommitted to a Committee of the whole House. The bill remains in the list of Bills in Progress until the end of the session under the heading ‘Reported from the select committee that the bill should not proceed’. The House normally acquiesces in a report from a select committee recommending that a bill should not proceed, and no further proceedings on the bill take place.9 If the bill is to proceed a motion, of which notice is required, has to be agreed that the bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House.10 A bill may also be recommitted to a committee after the latter has reported that it should not proceed.11 If a committee is unable to complete its consideration of the bill, it makes a special report to that effect and reports the bill without amendment.12 It is also possible for the House to appoint a committee not on the bill itself but on issues raised by the bill.13

Footnotes 1. LJ (1977–78) 182; ibid (1979–80) 305; ibid (1982–83) 334; ibid (1983–84) 41; ibid (1986–87) 143; ibid (1987–88) 86; HL Deb (1995–96) 567, cc 867–80; ibid (9 November 2010) 722, cc 186–87. The Constitutional Reform Bill [Lords] was committed to a select committee on division, by amendment of the motion to commit it to a Committee of the whole House (LJ (2003–04) 232); a carry-over motion was agreed alongside the motion to appoint the committee (LJ (2003–04) 283). 2. For example, 5 November 2013 (start of committee stage); LJ (1894) 181 (report stage); ibid (1878–79) 273 (third reading). 3. LJ (1974–75) 247. 4. LJ (1986–87) 143; ibid (1987–88) 36. 5. HL Deb (1996–97) 577, cc 280–93; 5 November 2013. 6. LJ (1958–59) 97. 7. LJ (1983–84) 58. 8. For example, LJ (1979–80) 895. 9. LJ (1975–76) 361; ibid (1977–78) 903; ibid (1983–84) 735; ibid (1987–88) 347. 10. HL Deb (1988–89) 510, cc 788–91. 11. LJ (1854–55) 277, 334. 12. LJ (1886) 306; ibid (1971–72) 693. A committee has reported that it had considered a bill up to clause 53 and had ordered the bill to be reported with some amendments, LJ (1888) 434. 13. Trade Union Political Funds and Political Party Funding Committee, appointed in 2016 ‘to consider the impact of Clauses 10 and 11 of the Trade Union Bill …’. The Committee sat over the same period as committee stage, which was in Committee of the whole House. Its report was debated before the clauses were reached on report.

Re-commitment 29.54A bill which has been referred to a select or joint committee is, after being reported by that committee, re-committed to a Committee of the whole House unless the select or joint committee has reported that the bill should not proceed.1 Consolidation bills and hybrid bills are the most common examples of bills which are re-committed. Other bills may, on motion (which is debatable and of which notice is required) moved at any time between committee and third reading, be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House or Grand Committee in their entirety,2 or, more commonly, in respect of certain clauses or schedules.3 This course is adopted when it is desirable to give further detailed consideration to the bill or certain parts of it without the constraints on speaking which apply on report and third reading; for instance when substantial amendments are tabled too late in the committee stage to enable them to be properly considered; or where there is extensive redrafting;4 or where amendments are tabled at a later stage on subjects which have not been considered in committee;5 or where for any other reason an extra amending stage is called for.6 A motion that the House resolve itself into a committee on re-commitment on a bill may be debated and opposed in the same way as the motion to resolve into a committee.7 Procedure on re-commitment is the same as in Committee of the whole House. The minimum interval between committee and report does not apply to re-commitment. Standing Order No 47(2) provides for the order of re-commitment to be discharged on the same conditions as apply in the case of the discharge of the order of commitment (see paras 29.46 –29.47 ).

Footnotes 1. A bill committed to a special public bill committee is not re-committed to a Committee of the whole House. 2. Consumer Protection Bill, LJ (1967–68) 81; Reserve Forces Bill, HL Deb (1995–96) 568, cc 1037–41. 3. For example, Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, HL Deb (2001–02) 639, cc 411–12. In this case, certain clauses of the Bill were re-committed to a Committee of the whole House after the main report stage. There was a subsequent report stage on those clauses, HL Deb (2001–02) 639, cc 1436–1558. See also the Water Bill, HL Deb (2002–03) 651, c 295. The Crime and Courts Bill, after Committee of the Whole House but before Report, was recommitted to Committee of the Whole House in respect of certain schedules on 5 November 2012. The Energy Bill [Lords] was recommitted to a Grand Committee in respect of certain clauses on 17 September 2015, between Committee of the Whole House and Report, to enable new government amendments to be considered. 4. Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill, LJ (1993–94) 192, 207; Reserve Forces Bill, HL Deb (1995–96) 568, cc 1037–41. 5. Airports Authority Bill, HL Deb (1964–65) 264, c 438; Companies Bill, ibid (1988–89) 505, c 1016; Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill, LJ (1992–93) 717, 723; Asylum and Immigration Bill, HL Deb (1995–96) 573, cc 1125–28. 6. The Sunday Trading Bill 1994, cl 1 and sch 1 were recommitted after the Committee of the whole House determined the principle of which of the three variant schemes for reforming the law relating to Sunday trading should be adopted. The Committee on recommitment then considered the detail of the preferred scheme set out in those parts of the Bill (LJ (1993–94) 224, 284, 312). 7. For example, Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill 1994, when the motion was debated in order for the Minister to explain developments since the committee stage and to outline the government's proposed amendments on report, HL Deb (1993–94) 552, cc 940–62.

Report Contents Amendments on report 29.55If a bill has been amended in committee, the report stage cannot be taken until a subsequent day (unless Standing Order No 46 has been suspended or dispensed with). On the appointed day, when the notice for the report stage has been read, the Lords Member in charge of the bill moves ‘that the report be now received’, and when the report stage is continued after any adjournment ‘that the bill be now further considered on Report’. The motion may be objected to and debated and divided on;1 an amendment may be moved to postpone the report, or a reasoned amendment may be moved in opposition to the motion2 or to record a particular point of view in assenting to the motion.3

Footnotes 1. LJ (1963–64) 400 (Refreshment Houses Bill); ibid (1998–99) 697, 736 (both on the Greater London Authority Bill). 2. LJ (1886) 309 (Shop Hours Regulation Bill); LJ (1985–86) 279 (Patents, Designs and Marks Bill). 3. The motion to receive the report on the Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Bill 1990 was amended to note the failure of the government to bring forward an amendment to which they had committed themselves on second reading but which was subsequently found not to be relevant to the bill, LJ (1989–90) 584.

Amendments on report Contents Repeat amendments Amendments grouped and en bloc Opposition to clause or schedule Manuscript amendments Rules of debate 29.56When the question that the report be now received has been agreed to, any amendments are called in the usual way. Notice of these is given in the same way as for committee, and the same practices apply for marshalling and grouping. The proceedings are confined to dealing with amendments, either in the order in which they relate to the bill or in a particular sequence agreed to in advance by order of the House.1

Footnotes 1. The order of consideration for the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill was amended after three days of a six-day report stage, 25 April 2018.

Repeat amendments 29.57Amendments identical (or of identical effect) to amendments pressed to a vote by the mover and defeated in committee may not be re-tabled on report.1 However, an issue which has been debated and voted on in committee can be re-opened, provided that the relevant amendment is more than cosmetically different from that moved in committee. An amendment agreed to on a vote in committee may not be reversed on report except with the unanimous agreement of the House.

Footnotes 1. First Report from the Procedure Committee, HL 33 (1998–99).

Amendments grouped and en bloc 29.58As in committee, amendments may be grouped, and a Lords Member may ask leave to speak to a number of related amendments. Likewise, consecutive amendments may be moved en bloc but without any need to confine each bloc within a clause or schedule.

Opposition to clause or schedule 29.59The question that the clauses and schedules stand part is not put on report, so a proposal to leave out a clause or schedule appears as an amendment. Such an amendment should not be tabled if the purpose underlying the amendment is to initiate a general debate, rather than a genuine desire to leave out the clause or schedule:1 it may, however, be appropriate when, for instance, a Member wishes to learn the outcome of an undertaking given in committee. A clause or schedule stood part on a vote in committee may not be removed on report except with the unanimous agreement of the House.

Footnotes 1. LJ (1970–71) 710.

Manuscript amendments 29.60Manuscript amendments are not out of order on report, but the disadvantages and inconvenience attaching to the moving of manuscript amendments on report are even greater than at committee stage.1 The rule requiring the text of such amendments to be read out to the House applies on report as in committee.

Footnotes 1. LJ (1970–71) 241.

Rules of debate 29.61On report, no Lords Member may speak more than once to an amendment, except: 1. the mover of the amendment in reply; or 2. a Lords Member who has obtained leave of the House, which may be granted only to: a. a Lords Member to explain some material point of his or her speech, no new matter being introduced; b. the Lords Member in charge of the bill; or c. a Minister.1 Only the Lords Member in charge of the bill or the mover of an amendment may speak after the Minister, except for short questions of elucidation or when a Minister has spoken early to assist the House in debate.2 Arguments fully deployed in Committee of the whole House should not be repeated at length on report.3 If amendments have been made on report, it is ordered that the bill be reprinted as amended.

Footnotes 1. SO No 30. 2. HL Deb (1987–88) 493, c 938; LJ (1994–95) 581–82; HL Deb (1995–96) 567, cc 461–62. 3. LJ (1976–77) 821; ibid (1977–78) 23.

Third reading and passing Contents Procedure on third reading Notice of amendments Admissibility of amendments on third reading Further proceedings after third reading Privilege amendment Passing of bill Bill sent to the Commons 29.62The third reading of a bill is normally confined to the formal moving of the motion ‘that this bill be now read a third time’. In exceptional circumstances a non-fatal amendment to the motion for third reading may be tabled, for instance to delay third reading so as to allow more time for amendments to be tabled or until some other condition is met.1 Notice of such an amendment is required. In all other circumstances, the motion for third reading is taken formally, without debate. General debate on or opposition to the bill normally now takes place on the subsequent motion ‘that this bill do now pass’.2 When a bill requires the Queen's or Prince of Wales's consent, this is signified before the motion for third reading is moved (see para 9.6 ).

Footnotes 1. LJ (2007–08) 656 (European Union (Amendment) Bill); Health and Social Care Bill (19 March 2012). 2. LJ (1994–95) 582; HL Deb (1995–96) 567, cc 461–62.

Procedure on third reading 29.63Amendments may be moved after the third reading has been agreed to and before the motion that this bill do now pass.

Notice of amendments 29.64Except for privilege amendments, which are moved without notice, notice of amendments must be given no later than the working day before third reading, in sufficient time to enable them to be printed and circulated in the form in which it is proposed to move them. Manuscript amendments are not in order.1

Footnotes 1. SO No 48.

Admissibility of amendments on third reading 29.65The practice of the House is normally to resolve major points of difference by the end of report stage, and to use third reading for tidying up the bill. The principal purposes of amendments on third reading are: 1. to clarify any remaining uncertainties; 2. to improve the drafting; and 3. to enable the Government to fulfil undertakings given at earlier stages of the bill.1 An issue which has been fully debated and voted on or negatived at a previous stage of a bill may not be reopened by an amendment on third reading.2 Where the Legislation Office considers that amendments fall clearly outside the guidance, including, for example, amendments which are identical, or very similar, to ones tabled and withdrawn at Committee and Report where no ministerial undertaking was given, or amendments raising completely new major issues, it will advise the Lords Member concerned. If the Lords Member tables the amendments notwithstanding this advice, the Legislation Office sends notification of these amendments to all Members of the Usual Channels and to the Convenor of the Crossbench Peers. They may then draw the matter to the attention of the House; it is for the House itself to decide what action to take.

Footnotes 1. HL Deb (1980–81) 417, c 132. The third point is taken to allow other Members to follow up a ministerial undertaking. 2. LJ (1960–61) 358; ibid (1976–77) 821. The House has agreed that this rule should be strictly interpreted, HL Deb (1988–89) 504, cc 656–58. The rule has been disapplied by a motion moved by the Leader of the House to enable an amendment in the same terms as one negatived on report to be retabled at third reading, Defamation Bill, HL Deb (1995–96) 571, cc 1404–6.

Further proceedings after third reading 29.66If the amendments are not disposed of on the same day as the third reading, ‘further proceedings after third reading’ are appointed for a subsequent date, when the debate on the amendments is resumed.1

Footnotes 1. Tenants Compensation Bill, LJ (1890) 555; Education Reform Bill, HL Deb (1987–88) 499, cc 512, 522; Asylum and Immigration Bill, HL Deb (1995–96) 573, c 1306.

Privilege amendment 29.67On the third reading of a bill originating in the House of Lords the provisions of which may infringe the privileges of the House of Commons with regard to the control of public money, a ‘privilege amendment’ is made formally after all the other amendments have been disposed of. The motion is made ‘that the privilege amendment be agreed to’, without notice, without the amendment being circulated and without stating its nature. The amendment consists of a new subsection, inserted at the end of the final clause of the bill, in the following form: ‘Nothing in this Act shall impose any charge on the people or on public funds, or vary the amount or incidence of or otherwise alter any such charge in any manner, or affect the assessment, levying, administration or application of any money raised by any such charge.’ When the bill is printed for the House of Commons these words are printed in bold type and the subsection is struck out by amendment in the House of Commons, making the imposition of the charge their own act. The subject of privilege amendments is more fully dealt with at para 37.14.

Passing of bill 29.68The motion ‘that this bill do now pass' is moved immediately after the third reading has been agreed to or, if amendments have been tabled, as soon as the last amendment has been disposed of. The motion is debatable and provides an opportunity for the House to review the bill in its final form. The motion may be opposed1 and reasoned or delaying amendments may be moved to it.2 In other circumstances there is normally no substantive debate; any remarks should be brief and should not seek to reopen debates at previous stages of the bill.3

Footnotes 1. Sexual Offences Bill, LJ (1966–67) 90; Marriage (Enabling) Bill, ibid (1980–81) 479; Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (No 2) Bill, ibid (1983–84) 451; Local Government Bill, ibid (1985–86) 216; European Communities (Amendment) Bill, ibid (1992–93) 893. 2. London Government Bill, LJ (1962–63) 422; Scotland Bill, ibid (1977–78) 741; Teachers Pay and Conditions Bill, HL Deb (1986–87) 484, c 888; Health and Social Care Bill, 19 March 2012; European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, 16 May 2018. 3. Procedure Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2014–15, Amendments to legislative procedures, HL 95.

Bill sent to the Commons 29.69When a bill which originated in the House of Lords has completed all its stages in that House, a fair print of it, known as the ‘House Bill’, is endorsed and signed by the Clerk of the Parliaments and sent to the House of Commons with a message desiring their agreement (see paras 30.1 –30.2 ).

Consideration of Commons amendments, etc 29.70The further procedures on bills after passing through the Lords, and in particular on the consideration of the amendments made by the Commons, are explained in Chapter 30.

Conventions and self-restraint 29.71The procedural freedoms enjoyed by individual Members of the Lords in proceedings on bills were considered by the Leader's Group on Procedure in the Chamber in 1999. They noted a concomitant requirement for self-restraint.1 Lords practice in considering bills is significantly conditioned by conventions of a constitutional or political, rather than a procedural, character. These were considered in 2006 by the Joint Committee on Conventions.2

Footnotes 1. Freedom and Function, HL 34 (1998–99). 2. Conventions of the UK Parliament, HL 265, HC 1212 (2005–06), debated Lords 16 January 2007, Commons 17 January 2007.

Consolidation bills Contents Moving of stages of consolidation bills en bloc 29.72Consolidation bills re-enact a body of existing law in a single statute and an improved form without substantive change. They are invariably introduced in the House of Lords. This applies to the following categories of bills which fall under the terms of Lords Standing Order No 51 and Commons Standing Order No 140: 1. consolidation bills, whether public or private; 2. statute law revision bills; 3. bills prepared pursuant to the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949, together with any memoranda laid pursuant to that Act and any representations made with respect thereto; 4. bills to consolidate any enactments with amendments to give effect to recommendations made by one or both of the Law Commissions together with any report containing such recommendations; 5. bills prepared by one or both of the Law Commissions to promote the reform of the statute law by the repeal, in accordance with Law Commission recommendations, of certain enactments which (except insofar as their effect is preserved) are no longer of practical utility, whether or not they make other provision in connection with the repeal of those enactments, together with any Law Commission report on any such bill. Second reading may be debated in a second reading committee – see above. On second reading the Lords Member in charge of the bill may indicate to the House the category into which the bill falls. The bill is then automatically referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills (see para 41.9 ). The bill is subsequently re-committed to a Committee of the whole House. If the Joint Committee amends a bill, an order is usually1 made for the bill to be reprinted as amended and it is the amended bill which is then considered. Amendments may be moved in the House to such bills only if they are restricted to the class of amendment which could have been moved in the Joint Committee. Bills which re-enact in the form in which they apply to Scotland the provisions of United Kingdom Acts, and consequential provisions bills which, although not consolidation bills, contain ancillary provisions normally found in a consolidation bill and form part of a consolidation, have also on occasion been specifically referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills on motion. If the motion is agreed to, a message is sent to the Commons to ask for their agreement.2

Footnotes 1. Occasionally, where the amendments do not justify reprinting the entire bill, only the amendments are ordered to be printed; for example, Education Bill, LJ (1995–96) 461; Charities Bill [Lords], 23 November 2012. 2. LJ (1991–92) 49; HL Deb (1996–97) 576, cc 588–89.

Moving of stages of consolidation bills en bloc 29.73Where the same stage of several linked consolidation bills is to be considered by the House the Lords Member in charge of the bills may, with notice (given by means of an italic note in House of Lords Business and on the Order Paper) move the bills en bloc if no amendments to the bills have been tabled. It is open to any Lords Member to propose instead that the bills be taken separately to the extent desired. The House may also resolve itself into a committee on re-commitment in respect of several consolidation bills at once in order to debate amendments tabled. In such a case the procedure is applied by business of the House motion.1

Footnotes 1. HL Deb (1991–92) 536, cc 1329–31.

Bills of aids and supplies Contents Finance Bills Supply and Appropriation Bills 29.74Supply bills, or bills of aids and supplies, such as Supply and Appropriation Bills and Finance Bills, are drafted in the form of a petition from the Commons to the Sovereign commencing with the words ‘Most Gracious Sovereign’. The Lords may pass or reject these bills but, since the supply is granted by the House of Commons, the Lords are debarred from offering any amendment (see para 37.15 ). Consequently, the committee stage is negatived. When these bills have been passed by the Lords, they are returned to the Commons if Royal Assent is to be signified by Commission, endorsed by the Clerk of the Parliaments with the formula ‘A ceste Bille les Seigneurs sont assentus’, and are brought up by the Speaker and receive Royal Assent before, and in a different form from, all other bills. A supply bill may, or may not, be certified as a ‘money bill’ (see below).

Finance Bills 29.75Finance Bills, which are supply bills, are frequently not certified as money bills. Finance Bills are usually debated on second reading, alongside a report from the Economic Affairs Committee, and their subsequent stages taken formally.

Supply and Appropriation Bills 29.76It does not offend the privileges of the Commons for the Lords to discuss or even to vote on Supply and Appropriation Bills, but the House has habitually passed such bills without publishing them and without discussion or dissent. It is now a convention that proceedings upon them are taken formally.1 The last time that the substance of such a bill was discussed was in 1907.

Footnotes 1. LJ (1992–93) 439, 441, 627, 628; HL Deb (1995–96) 567, cc 1279–88.

Bills under the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 Contents Money bills Other public bills 29.77Under the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 certain public bills may be presented for Royal Assent without the consent of the Lords (see also para 37.28 ). The Acts do not apply to bills originating in the Lords, bills to extend the life of a Parliament beyond five years,1 provisional order confirmation bills, private bills or delegated legislation. The conditions which must be fulfilled before a bill can be presented for Royal Assent under the Acts vary according to whether or not the bill is certified by the Speaker as a ‘money bill’ as defined in s 1(2) of the 1911 Act.

Footnotes 1. For instance, the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, Session 2010–12.

Money bills 29.78A money bill is a bill endorsed with the signed certificate of the Speaker that it is a money bill because in the Speaker's opinion it contains only provisions dealing with national, but not local, taxation, public money or loans or their management. The certificate of the Speaker is conclusive for all purposes. If a money bill, which has been passed by the Commons and sent up to the Lords at least one month before the end of a session, is not passed by the Lords without amendment within a month after it is sent to them, the bill shall, unless the Commons direct to the contrary, be presented for Royal Assent without the consent of the Lords under the Parliament Acts. This does not debar the Lords from amending such bills provided they are passed within the month, but the Commons are not obliged to consider the amendments. On a few occasions minor amendments have been made by the Lords to such bills and have been accepted by the Commons. Further explanation of the procedure applicable to money bills is set out in Chapter 37.1

Footnotes 1. Select Committee on the Constitution, Tenth Report of Session 2010–12, Money Bills and Commons Financial Privilege, HL 97.

Jurisdiction of both Houses Contents Exclusive cognizance 11.14This section describes the jurisdiction of both Houses in respect of their powers over their own precincts and proceedings and their power to enforce their own authority (penal powers). Historically, Parliament's powers over its own affairs have come either from privileges granted to it by the Sovereign or from its status as one of the principal institutions of the nation. The term ‘privilege’ may nowadays be applied both to the immunities and exemptions afforded to either House and their Members individually or collectively and to the rights and powers exercised by either House in its institutional or corporate capacity. The historical development of the privileges still claimed by the Speaker of the House of Commons at the start of every Parliament is described in Chapter 12. The law and custom of Parliament, lex et consuetedo Parliamentarii, is now understood to be part of the common law, but its former existence as a separate entity not susceptible to examination by the courts has lent to it an air of mystery and exclusivity which continues to this day. It is further complicated by the relatively recent practice of the courts to rely on Article IX of the Bill of Rights as the statutory (and therefore authoritative) basis for the protections provided to formal proceedings of Parliament. The law and custom of Parliament is of wider scope. Consequently, matters which fall within that scope but not within the terms of Article IX are often described as being subject to the exclusive cognizance of Parliament. Correctly, exclusive cognizance applies to all matters within the scope of the law and custom of Parliament, whether covered by Article IX or not. The application of Article IX is described in Chapter 13.

Order Confirmation Bills 29.80The special procedures which apply to Scottish Provisional Order Confirmation Bills are set out at para 42.19.1

Footnotes 1. See also Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), pp 949–64.

Introduction to proceedings on public bills 30.1This chapter deals with the proceedings on a bill subsequent to its third reading in the first House: its transmission to the second House, and the consideration of amendments made to it in the second House, including the consequences of the rejection of a bill. Next it describes the arrangements by which a bill may be carried over from one session to the next, and the arrangements for Royal Assent. It then describes certain departures from the usual practice, relating to emergency and other expedited legislation, bills passed under the Parliament Acts, and hybrid bills. A final section deals with proceedings following Royal Assent, the Queen's and the Prince of Wales's consent to bills, corrections, and informalities.

Exclusive cognizance Contents Control of proceedings General application of legislation to Parliament Proceedings, precincts and criminal acts 11.15Each House has exclusive cognizance of its own proceedings and of certain matters related to the precincts.

Bills sent by mistake or containing an error 30.3If a bill is carried to the other House by mistake,1 or if an amendment which should have been made was not made,2 or if the bill or any amendments conveyed with the bill to the other House were incomplete or inaccurate,3 or if any other serious error is discovered, a message is sent to have the bill returned or the error otherwise rectified.

Footnotes 1. CJ (1950) 102 (bill conveyed prematurely). 2. CJ (1945–46) 166 (privilege amendment not made); House of Lords Minutes of Proceedings, 22 February 2018 and Commons Votes and Proceedings, 22 February 2018 (privilege amendment not removed). 3. CJ (1844) 637, 638, 644; Parl Deb (1844) 76, cc 1994–95 (refusal of Commons to consider accidentally omitted Lords amendments); CJ (1969–70) 358; LJ (1971–72) 493; ibid (1974) 322; ibid (1979–80) 1139; ibid (1983–84) 381; ibid (1984–85) 190; ibid (1984–85) 644 (a private bill); ibid (1987–88) 345; ibid (2003–04) 513; LJ (2003–04) 697. But see HC Deb (23 April 2013) 561, c 767 for an occasion on which the return of a bill was not sought even though amendments in lieu had been omitted from the message and had not initially been printed.

Endorsement of bills 30.4The official record of the decision of one House with respect to a bill passed, or to amendments made, by the other House is by endorsement of the bill in Norman French. Every bill is authenticated upon leaving the first House by the signature of the Clerk of that House. Thus, when a bill is passed by the Commons, the Clerk of the House writes at the top of the first page ‘Soit baillé aux Seigneurs’, and signs the bill on the last page. When the Lords make amendments, the bill is returned with the endorsement of the Clerk of the Parliaments ‘A ceste bille avecque des amendemens les Seigneurs sont assentus’. When it is sent back with these amendments agreed to, the Clerk of the House of Commons writes, ‘A ces amendemens les Communes sont assentus’. When amendments are disagreed to, a message is sent to the Lords stating the fact and communicating the reasons agreed to by the House for their disagreement and the bill is endorsed ‘Ceste bille est remise aux Seigneurs avecque des raisons’. Bills are communicated by the Lords to the Commons with similar endorsements. If amendments made by the Lords are agreed to by the Commons, the latter return the bill with the message signifying their agreement. If amendments made by the Commons are agreed to by the Lords, the Lords send a message1 but retain the bill for Royal Assent (see para 30.36 ).

Footnotes 1. This message has been received by the Commons after the Royal Assent has been given to the bill, 2 Hatsell 339.

Consideration of Lords amendments Contents Time for considering Lords amendments Proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments ‘Double insistence’ and the loss of the bill ‘Packaging’ Bill originating in the Lords Practice with regard to bills rejected 30.5The following sections describe the further proceedings on a bill which has originated in the House of Commons and is returned with amendments1 from the House of Lords. These proceedings are commonly known as ‘ping-pong’. Certain restrictions on the Lords' right to amend bills are considered below (paras 37.15, 37.25 ). In the case of a bill which has originated in the Lords and is returned amended by the Commons, the roles of the two Houses will, of course, be reversed: it will be the Commons that first proposes amendments to the bill, and the Lords that first gives reasons for disagreeing to any such amendments.

Footnotes 1. An amendment of the second House may take the form of a new clause or schedule.

Time for considering Lords amendments 30.6A Lords message is ordinarily received without communication being made to the House, and the message and the order appointing a day for the consideration of the amendments are entered in the Votes and Proceedings, the Member in charge of the bill informing the Clerks at the Table of the day which he or she wishes to select. The amendments are normally ordered to be printed at the same time, usually together with Explanatory Notes.1 Lords amendments are normally ordered to be considered on a future day. On a day when consideration is set down as an order of the day, the House proceeds immediately to consider the amendments without any question being put, unless the Member in charge nominates a future day for their consideration or withdraws the bill. Alternatively, the Member in charge of the bill may, after notifying the Speaker, move that the amendments be considered forthwith (Standing Order No 78(1)), in which case the Speaker first reads the text of the Lords message concerning them. The motion for considering the Lords amendments forthwith may be made between any two orders of the day,2 or by interrupting the business under discussion.3 A motion for the consideration forthwith of Lords amendments is debatable, but debate on such a motion must not extend to the provisions of the bill.4 An order to consider Lords amendments forthwith results in their being considered without being set down as an order of the day, whether the order is made immediately following the communication of the Lords message to the House or later on the day on which the message is received.5 Programme orders have provided for Lords amendments6 or for any message from the Lords7 to be considered forthwith without any question being put.8 Programme orders regularly provide for further messages from the Lords to be considered forthwith without any question being put.9

Footnotes 1. Lords amendments are printed in broadly the same form as a bill; they are allocated a bill number and are treated as bills for the purposes of SO No 57A. Bills, as amended by the Lords, have been ordered to be printed in full, CJ (1856) 312, 324; ibid (1876) 365. 2. CJ (1890–91) 340; ibid (1906) 505; ibid (1917–18) 76; ibid (1919) 316; HC Deb (1919) 119, c 1861; CJ (1920) 382; ibid (1921) 362; HC Deb (1968–69) 775, c 1329; ibid (1996–97) 292, cc 982, 995 (despite the lack of notice, the Lords amendments were printed in pursuance of a formal order of the House, CJ (1996–97) 320, 327); HC Deb (1998–99) 327, c 33 (Lords amendments taken before the first item of main business). 3. CJ (1914–16) 31; HC Deb (1914) 68, c 1595; CJ (1919) 315; HC Deb (1919) 119, cc 1822–23; CJ (1933–34) 259; ibid (1938–39) 383. 4. Parl Deb (1894) 28, c 1489; ibid (1900) 87, c 825; HC Deb (1915) 74, c 2059 ff. 5. CJ (1933–34) 46, 47, 241, 243; ibid (1997–98) 819, 823; ibid (1998–99) 174. For previous practice for amendments being set down for consideration on a subsequent day without being set down as an order of the day, see CJ (1931–32) 276, 283; ibid (1933–34) 199, 200. 6. CJ (2004–05) 229. 7. Votes and Proceedings, 20 April 2016. 8. Four messages from the Lords relating to a bill have been considered forthwith at a single sitting (CJ (2004–05) 238–42; HC Deb (2004–05) 431, cc 1761–879). 9. CJ (2001–02) 809; ibid (2002–03) 596; Votes and Proceedings, 28 March 2017.

Proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments Contents Conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments under a programme order Changes to order in which Lords amendments are considered Lords amendments agreed to Lords amendments involving Commons financial privilege Consideration of Commons amendments in the Lords Stages in process of securing agreement between the two Houses Relevance of propositions relating to Lords amendments Lords amendments disagreed to, or amended, by the Commons Committee to draw up reasons Message to the Lords Bill returned to Lords Further proceedings in Commons 30.7Lords amendments are numbered and printed in the sequence in which they propose to alter the text of the bill as sent to the Lords, and are considered in that order unless the House otherwise orders. Lords amendments to the title are printed after the other amendments.1 The Speaker calls the amendments one by one, and unless it is proposed to amend (or to divide or postpone) the amendment, a motion is made, normally by the Member in charge of the bill, ‘That this House agrees (or disagrees) with the Lords in the said amendment’. Notice is commonly given of motions to disagree with Lords amendments. Notice may also be given of motions to agree with Lords amendments, but this is normally necessary only when a motion to disagree already stands on the notice paper and it is desirable to draw attention to a contrary intention.2 It is the prerogative of the Member in charge of the bill to propose groupings of Lords amendments for the purpose of debate,3 while the power to select (and therefore to group) amendments to Lords amendments lies with the Speaker, under Standing Order No 32. For the convenience of the House, a combined grouping list, covering both the Lords amendments and amendments proposed to them, is circulated in advance of consideration. After calling the leading amendment in a group, the Speaker will accordingly permit debate to range over all the other amendments in the group; but no debate on any amendment may extend to the general merits of the bill.4 A Lords amendment may be considered even though a devolved assembly has not expressly consented to it.5 No reply or second speech is permitted except by leave of the House6 and an amendment to insert the word ‘not’ in the question is inadmissible.7 If the question for disagreeing to an amendment is negatived the amendment is thereby agreed to.8 On occasions the question for agreeing or disagreeing with Lords amendments has been put by order of the House with respect to the amendments as a whole.9 Under modern practice a programme order or allocation of time order for a bill may enable a supplemental order or orders to be made for time limits to be applied to consideration of Lords amendments and subsequent proceedings.10

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1966–67) 737, c 1495. 2. For examples of notice given of a motion to agree with a Lords amendment, see Supplement to Votes (1968–69) 7013; ibid (1993–94) 2523; ibid (2007–08) 3627–38. 3. HC Deb (1999–2000) 357, c 978. 4. Parl Deb (1878) 241, cc 846, 1059; ibid (1906) 167, c 1879; ibid (1907) 181, c 1201; HC Deb (1911) 29, c 1104. 5. HC Deb (1 November 2016) 616, c 814. 6. Parl Deb (1869) 197, c 1949. 7. Parl Deb (1876) 231, c 1176. 8. CJ (1908) 511; ibid (1916) 260; HC Deb (1918) 101, c 2171; CJ (1975–76) 620; ibid (2005–06) 403; Votes and Proceedings, 29 January 2013. This principle has not been applied in the case of a motion on a ‘package’ (see para 30.26 ) where there is no proposition exactly contrary to the propositions in the package which could be held to have been agreed to (CJ (2003–04) 630). 9. CJ (1906) 491; ibid (1909) 529; HC Deb (1909) 12, c 2179. See also Public Entertainments Licences (Drug Misuse) Bill (CJ (1996–97) 321, 336), when the House ordered the question on Lords amendments to be put ‘forthwith’. 10. See for example Ivory Bill (Programme) (No. 3) Motion, Votes and Proceedings, 11 December 2018.

Conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments under a programme order 30.8Standing Order No 83F makes provision about the conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments to programmed government bills. A supplementary programme motion is customarily tabled once Lords amendments have been received. In order to bring proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order, the Speaker must first put forthwith any question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided. If that question is for the amendment of a Lords amendment, the Speaker must then put forthwith: a. a single question on any further amendments of the Lords amendment moved by a Minister; and b. the question on any motion made by a Minister, that this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their amendment (or in their amendment as amended). The Speaker must then put forthwith: a. a single question on any amendments moved by a Minister to a Lords amendment; and b. the question on any motion made by a Minister, that this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their amendment (or in their amendment as amended). The Speaker must then put forthwith: a. the question on any motion made by a Minister, that this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords amendment; and b. the question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords amendments. The authority for putting each question is recorded in the Journal. Standing Order No 83F (unlike Standing Order Nos 83D and 83E) makes no provision for the Speaker, when bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order, to select any amendment for separate decision, or to put the question on an amendment in lieu (or other subsidiary or consequential proceeding) unless moved by a Minister.1 A Minister has moved an amendment in lieu standing in the name of a private Member solely in order to enable the House to take a decision upon it.2 As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their amendments or disposed of an amendment relevant to a Lords amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker must put forthwith a single question on any amendments moved by a Minister relevant to the Lords amendment.3 In cases where the Standing Order requires the Speaker to put a single question on amendments or further amendments to a Lords amendment, or on any motion made by a Minister that the House agrees or disagrees with remaining Lords amendments, and some of those amendments are certified as relating exclusively to England or to England and Wales and as being within devolved legislative competence (on which see paras 27.22 –27.23 ), the Speaker must put single questions in the following order: a. b. c. d.

on amendments for which the certification is in relation to England; on amendments for which the certification is in relation to England and Wales; on amendments for which the certification is both in relation to England and in relation to England and Wales; and on any amendments for which there is no certification.4

A decision on a motion certified under Standing Order No 83O(2) is subject to a double (or possibly triple) majority division. For further details, see para 27.24.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (16 April 2013) 561, cc 289–93. SO No 83G, which deals with the conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords, is framed similarly. 2. HC Deb (2008–09) 499, cc 73–74. 3. See for instance Housing and Planning Bill, Votes and Proceedings, 3 May 2016. 4. See Housing and Planning Bill, Votes and Proceedings, 3 May 2016.

Changes to order in which Lords amendments are considered 30.9A Lords amendment may be read and postponed and subsequent amendments may be taken into consideration,1 but a motion for the postponement of an amendment cannot be made after the question for agreeing or disagreeing to it has been proposed.2 The House can order that amendments should be taken in a different order,3 and a programme order or allocation of time order may provide for Lords amendments to be disposed of in some particular order.4 The effect of Standing Order No 83F (see para 30.8 ) is that, when proceedings on Lords amendments are to be brought to a conclusion under a programme order, the Lords amendments are re-ordered for the purpose of putting the questions which are required to be put at that time: Lords amendments to which government amendments have been tabled, and then Lords amendments to which the Government proposes to disagree, are disposed of before other Lords amendments.

Footnotes 1. CJ (1835) 624; ibid (1887) 456. Consideration of Lords reasons for disagreeing to Commons amendments may also be postponed, CJ (1887) 456; ibid (1917–18) 315. 2. HC Deb (1919) 119, c 1869. See also Parl Deb (1891) 351, c 1470. 3. CJ (1972–73) 480. 4. See eg CJ (1985–86) 527; ibid (1996–97) 238; Votes and Proceedings, 10 January 2017. See also Business of the House motion, Votes and Proceedings, 26 April 2017.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

8.

9.

10. 11. 12.

1997 NI 359. For the Speaker's statement, see HC Deb (1997–98) 294, cc 35–36. McGuinness v United Kingdom (App No 39511/98) (1999). CJ (2001–02) 274–75. Chaffers v Goldsmid [1894] 1 QB 186, esp 187. R v Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, ex p Al Fayed [1998] 1 All ER 93, [1998] 1 WLR 669. Cf a decision that the rulings of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, being concerned with the proper functioning of the public service outside Parliament, are subject to judicial review, while the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is focused on the propriety of the working and the activities of those engaged within Parliament, R v Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, ex p Dyer [1994] 1 All ER 375, [1994] 1 WLR 621. See para 12.1. Adam v Ward [1917] AC 309 esp at 319, 322, commented on in Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd [1995] 1 AC 321 at 335, [1994] 3 All ER 407 at 416–17. In a lower court, it was suggested that the House of Commons might have elected not to assert its privileges in Adam v Ward (Television New Zealand Ltd v Prebble (1993) 3 NZLR 513 at 520–23 ). There is no evidence to this effect and in any case, since the privilege concerned was enshrined in statute—the Bill of Rights—it is hard to see how, short of legislation, the House could of its sole authority have permitted the court to interfere. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ([1995] AC 321 at 336, [1994] 3 All ER 407 at 417) concluded that the questioning in court of the conduct in the House of a member of the New Zealand House of Representatives for the purposes of assessing a defendant newspaper's defence of provocation in a libel action ‘should not have been allowed’ in News Media Ownership v Finlay [1970] NZLR 1089. (Article IX of the Bill of Rights applies in New Zealand, and if it can be given a meaning consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990, that meaning is to be preferred to any other.) Rost v Edwards [1990] 2 QB 460, commented on in Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd [1995] 1 AC 321 at 337, [1994] 3 All ER 407 at 418. A more limited case of judicial hearing of evidence on matters which might be regarded as within the exclusive view of Parliament was that of the admission of evidence regarding advice given by an Officer of the Commons to a Member of that House concerning its procedure in Chaffers v Goldsmid [1894] 1 QB 186. This matter was not subject to any subsequent review. See also Allason v Haines (1995) TLR 438. R (on the application of Wheeler) v (1) Office of the Prime Minister (2) Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Speaker of the House of Commons [2008] EWHC 1409 (Admin). [2008] EWHC 1409 (Admin), para 49. R (on the application of Miller and another) (Respondents) v Secretary of State for Exiting the UK [2017] UKSC 5, [2017] NI 141, [2017] 1 All ER 593.

General application of legislation to Parliament 11.17The interplay between exclusive cognizance and statute law has meant it is not always clear whether statute applies to the precincts of Parliament. Actions in respect of which exclusive cognizance is claimed and has been admitted are not restricted to formal acts of either House. This privilege has been held to extend to the sale of intoxicating liquor within the precincts of the House, though those responsible did not hold a licence.1 As the Supreme Court said in the Chaytor case: ‘Following Ex p Herbert there appears to have been a presumption in Parliament that statutes do not apply to activities within the Palace of Westminster unless they expressly provide to the contrary.’2 While the Supreme Court noted ‘That presumption is open to question’, there is a history of legislative confusion. In 2002, the Treasury Solicitor issued guidance to the effect that the parliamentary authorities should be consulted on whether any legislation proposed to apply to the Crown should also apply to Parliament, but this guidance was not consistently followed. In 2013, the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege noted that this had led to many inconsistencies in statute law. The Committee considered that it was not practicable to resolve these inconsistencies without sweeping retrospective change, which might have unforeseeable consequences. It concluded that, in the absence of legislation, ‘the safest way forward, however undesirable it may be as a statement of principle, is to reiterate and formalise the current presumption that legislation does not apply to Parliament unless it expressly provides otherwise.’ It recommended that each House should adopt a Resolution ‘stating that the House of Commons and the House of Lords should in future be expressly bound by legislation creating individual rights which could impinge on parliamentary activities, and that in the absence of such express provision such legislation is not binding upon Parliament.’3 Each House subsequently agreed a motion that ‘legislation creating individual rights which could impinge on the activities of the House should in future contain express provision to this effect’.4 Certain statutes in employment law may give rise to actions where acts which might otherwise be regarded as within Parliament's exclusive cognizance or might fall within the definition of ‘proceedings in Parliament’ may, depending on the particular circumstances, properly be brought before a court or tribunal. For example, some provisions relating to employment are explicitly applied to staff of both Houses by the Employment Rights Act 1996 and by virtue of that Act nothing in any rule of law or practice of Parliament is to prevent a person from bringing proceedings under the Act before an employment tribunal.5

Footnotes 1. R v Graham Campbell, ex p Herbert [1935] 1 KB 594. For the views of the 1999 Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege on this case, however, see HL 43-I, HC 214-I (1998–99) paras 249–51. See also R v Chaytor [2010] UKSC 52, [2011] 1 AC 684, [2011] 1 All ER 805, paras 70–78. 2. R v Chaytor [2010] UKSC 52, at 78. 3. Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, First Report of Session 2013–14, Parliamentary Privilege, HL 30, HC 100, paras 223–25. 4. CJ (2013–14) 891 and House of Lords Minutes of Proceedings, 20 March 2014. 5. Employment Rights Act 1996, ss 194(4) and 195(4).

Consideration of Commons amendments in the Lords 30.12In the Lords, when a message relating to Commons amendments is received, an entry is made in the Minutes of Proceedings and a day is appointed for considering the amendments which are published and circulated. If the bill is returned when the House is not sitting, the amendments may be published pursuant to Standing Order No 50(2). Reasonable notice of consideration of Commons amendments is given when possible.1 The amendments may, however, be considered forthwith without notice at any convenient time during public business (House of Lords Standing Order No 41(4)). In this case it is usual to give warning by means of an italic note on the Order Paper; the message from the Commons is read out to the House and a motion is moved to consider the amendments forthwith. Commons amendments may, with the leave of the House, be moved en bloc in groups provided that the amendments are all consecutive in the list and there is no other motion or amendment tabled to them.

Footnotes 1. HL Deb (1987–88) 493, c 938.

Stages in process of securing agreement between the two Houses 30.13When amendments made to a bill by the Lords are disagreed to by the Commons, or where amendments are made by the Commons to a Lords amendment, the process of securing agreement between the two Houses could in theory be carried on indefinitely.1 The successive stages and their complications are reviewed here only up to the point beyond which it would normally be impossible to proceed.

Footnotes 1. Lords amendments to the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill (2003–04) were considered on five occasions in each House before agreement between the two Houses was secured. Lords amendments to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill (2004–05) were considered on five occasions in the Lords and on four occasions in the Commons at the sitting on 10 March 2005 before agreement was reached, CJ (2004–05) 238–42.

Relevance of propositions relating to Lords amendments 30.14Before describing the proceedings in the Commons when that House desires to disagree to amendments which have been made by the Lords, or to make further amendments to them, general rules of practice with regard to such amendments are set out. 1. An amendment made to a Lords amendment must be relevant to the same subject-matter. If an amendment is proposed to a Lords amendment which is not consequent on or relevant to it, the question will not be put from the Chair.1 2. No objection can be taken to a Lords amendment on the ground of being outside the scope of the bill,2 or otherwise as to its orderliness (except so far as sanction by way of a financial resolution is concerned, see para 30.11 ). 3. According to a long-established rule, the Commons, when considering Lords amendments, may not leave out or otherwise amend anything which they have already passed themselves, unless such amendment be immediately consequent upon the acceptance or rejection of an amendment made by the Lords. In 1678 it was stated by the Commons ‘that it is contrary to the constant method and proceedings in Parliament to strike out anything in a bill which hath been fully agreed and passed by both Houses’;3 and whilst a degree of flexibility is necessarily allowed in respect of consequential amendments either in the body of the bill or in the amendments, the spirit of this rule is maintained.4 In the case of the Adoption and Children Bill in 2002, the Commons disagreed to certain Lords amendments, proposed amendments in lieu which comprised a ‘package’ (see para 30.26 ) relating to the definition of adoptive couples, and made further amendments to make those proposals effective. The amendments were held to be consequential on the rejection of the Lords amendments, and were agreed to by the Lords.5 In the case of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill in 2007, the Commons proposed, as one of several amendments in lieu, an amendment to a clause inserted into the bill by a Lords amendment to which the Commons had already agreed. The amendment was held to be consequential on the main purpose of the amendments in lieu, its purpose being to transfer a definition from another clause to the clause inserted by the Lords amendment.6 Likewise it would be permissible for the Commons, having disagreed to a Lords amendment to a clause, to propose an amendment in lieu leaving out the clause. The term `consequential amendment’ is interpreted narrowly and can be said to cover an amendment which is deemed necessary for the operation of the amendment or amendment in lieu to which it is consequential.7 The term ‘consequential’ has been held not to cover amendments which are consequential only in terms of policy. Thus in the case of the Companies Bill [Lords] in 2006, when the Lords wished to accept a Commons amendment and to make a further amendment to the same clause, they achieved that object, not by proposing a consequential amendment, but by disagreeing to the Commons amendment and proposing two amendments in lieu, one of which was identical to the amendment to which they had disagreed.8

Footnotes 1. CJ (1860) 494; see also LJ (1839) 643. 2. Parl Deb (1898) 64, c 241; ibid (1902) 116, c 1403; HC Deb (1916) 81, c 2690; ibid (1916) 85, c 2695; ibid (1919) 119, c 2105; ibid (1921) 146, c 1057. 3. CJ (1667–87) 547 (1678); cf CJ (1547–1628) 388 (1607). 4. Parl Deb (1854) 135, cc 827–28; HC Deb (1918) 101, cc 2204–6; ibid (1968–69) 780, cc 1823–24. See also CJ (1859) 375; ibid (1920) 430; HC Deb (1920) 134, c 1839. 5. CJ (2001–02) 797; HC Deb (2001–02) 392, cc 24–100. 6. Supplement to Votes (2006–07) 1534, 1536, 1616, 1665. See also motion paper for Commons consideration of Lords message relating to the Crime and Courts Bill [Lords], 22 April 2013, for a motion to amend a new clause agreed to in earlier exchanges between the two Houses. 7. In the Commons a less restrictive interpretation of `consequential’ has occasionally been adopted, CJ (2005–06) 882; HC Deb (2005–06) 451, cc 745–56. 8. HL Deb (2005–06) 686, cc 453–74.

Lords amendments disagreed to, or amended, by the Commons 30.15Several alternatives are open to the Commons, when it is proposed not to agree to the exact propositions embodied in amendments which have been made by the Lords. 1. Disagreement. The Commons may simply disagree with the amendment, either by agreeing to the question ‘That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment’, or by negativing the question, ‘That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment’. 2. Amendment and agreement. The Commons may amend the Lords amendment: a. by leaving out words in the amendment;1 b. by leaving out words in the amendment and inserting or adding words instead;2 or c. by inserting words in3 or adding words to the amendment.4 Notice is customarily given of amendments proposed to be moved to Lords amendments. The Speaker may nonetheless select manuscript amendments.5 The Speaker's powers of selection extend to amendments to Lords amendments (and to consequential amendments to the bill and to amendments in lieu of Lords amendments) but not, of course, to Lords amendments themselves.6 The Speaker will ordinarily make the selection known in advance in the same way as at the report stage (see para 28.102 ). Any amendments to a Lords amendment which have been selected will be called in sequence when the Lords amendment concerned is reached, and before the question is proposed for agreeing (or disagreeing) to the Lords amendment. Once that question has been proposed no amendment (or further amendment) may be moved to the Lords amendment concerned.7 3. Agreement with consequential amendment or amendment instead. While agreeing to the amendment, the Commons may make consequential amendments to the bill;8 or, where the Lords amendment proposes to leave out words of the bill, amendments may be made to the bill instead9 of the words left out.10 Any consequential amendment to the bill which has been selected will be called immediately after agreement with the Lords amendment to which it is consequential even though it is out of sequence with the subsequent amendments.11 Consequential amendments which involve the insertion of new clauses are treated as amendments. The long title of a bill can be amended to make it conform with the Lords amendments,12 and the short title of a bill may be changed in consequence of the House agreeing to Lords amendments13 (see also para 28.123 ). 4. Disagreement with amendment in lieu or amendment to words so restored. While disagreeing to the amendment, the Commons may make amendments to the bill in lieu of the Lords amendment (or amendments) to which they have disagreed;14 or, where the Lords amendment proposes to leave out words or to leave out words and insert other words,15 amendments may be made to the words so restored to the bill.16 In both these cases consequential amendments may also be made to the bill. Any amendment in lieu, including a new clause, is offered at a specific point in the text of the bill, and the practice at earlier stages in the Commons of leaving the position of new clauses to be settled by the Member in charge of the bill is not followed during the consideration of Lords amendments. 5. A Lords amendment may be divided into two or more parts so that separate decisions can be taken. Thus, for example, both parts of a Lords amendment may be agreed to,17 part of it may be agreed to and part disagreed to,18 two or more parts may be disagreed to,19 or one part may be agreed to and the other amended and agreed to.20 6. A Lords amendment may be agreed to, but the words proposed to be inserted may be transferred to another place in the bill.21

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

For example, CJ (1984–85) 544; Supplement to the Votes and Proceedings, 12 June 2018, p 7. For example, CJ (1993–94) 397; Votes and Proceedings, 20 June 2018. For example, CJ (1985–86) 596; ibid (1990–91) 485; ibid (1995–96) 491. For example, CJ (1984–85) 543. HC Deb (23 April 2013) 561, c 788. See also Announcement in the Commons Order Paper for 22 April 2014 for special arrangements made for Members to table manuscript amendments relating to Lords amendments on the morning of the day on which those amendments were to be considered. HC Deb (1952–53) 514, cc 821–22; ibid (1964–65) 714, c 181; ibid (1967–68) 770, cc 740, 742. Parl Deb (1907) 181, c 312; HC Deb (1918) 101, c 2171. For example, CJ (1985–86) 531. The word ‘instead’ is used in these relatively unusual circumstances, the words ‘in lieu’ being used in the case of disagreement. CJ (1919) 246; ibid (1919–20) 381; ibid (1967–68) 340; ibid (2001–02) 260. CJ (1934–35) 324; ibid (1947–48) 359; ibid (1956–57) 253; ibid (1967–68) 340. For example, CJ (1985–86) 593, 604. CJ (1981–82) 458. For example, CJ (1985–86) 529, 530; ibid (1995–96) 491; ibid (2001–02) 815–16 (in this case the amendment in lieu was made to a clause proposed by the Lords to which the Commons had agreed at an earlier stage; ibid (2006–07) 514). For examples of amendments made to a bill by the Commons in lieu of a number of scattered Lords amendments, see CJ (1992–93) 764; ibid (2001–02) 797; Votes and Proceedings, 26 April 2017. For example, CJ (1984–85) 543. CJ (1881) 445, 448, 449, 452, 453; ibid (1917–18) 310; ibid (1920) 509, 512, 513; ibid (1930–31) 382, 383; ibid (1966–67) 591; ibid (1972–73) 482; ibid (2005–06) 840. CJ (1937–38) 346; ibid (1966–67) 522, 541. CJ (1930–31) 384; ibid (1937–38) 346. CJ (1930–31) 382. CJ (1920) 512, 514.

21. CJ (1890–91) 510; ibid (1937–38) 343.

Committee to draw up reasons 30.16If any Lords amendments have been disagreed to by the Commons without any alternative proposal being offered, it is necessary to appoint a committee to draw up a reason for each such disagreement (see also para 37.19 for the particular considerations in respect of Lords amendments disagreed to for which financial privilege applies). A committee to draw up reasons is a select committee. Its chair has the same powers as any other select committee chair including, where relevant, a casting vote in the event of a tied vote. If the proceedings which give rise to the need for a committee to draw up reasons are subject to a programme order, a government motion for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a committee and the appointment of its chair is decided without debate;1 otherwise the chair is chosen by the committee unless the House makes the appointment,2 and the motion for the nomination of the committee is amendable and debatable.3 Motions of, or relating to, a Reasons Committee are not subject to the standing orders governing certification in connection with territorial application and devolved legislative competence.4 The committee is appointed at the conclusion of the consideration of the Lords amendments and withdraws immediately. If the proceedings on consideration of the Lords amendments were subject to a programme order, the committee is required under Standing Order No 83H to report before the conclusion of the sitting (although this does not prevent the House from adjourning in the normal way) and to conclude its proceedings in not more than half an hour. Otherwise, the committee normally reports its reasons at the same sitting but is not required to do so.5 For the purpose of bringing proceedings in the committee to a conclusion under Standing Order No 83H, the Chair must: a. first put forthwith any question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided; and b. then put forthwith successively questions on motions which may be made by a Minister for assigning a reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their amendments. The proceedings of the committee are then reported without any further question being put. The reasons, normally very brief, are taken as agreed to by the House and communicated by message to the Lords.6 If a Lords amendment is amended or if an amendment has been made to the bill in lieu of the amendment which has been disagreed to, or if words restored to the bill are amended, no reason for disagreement is offered and a committee is not appointed.7 If a Lords amendment has been disagreed to with a reason, no further reason is offered if the Commons subsequently insist on their disagreement, since the reason for insistence would be the same as the reason for the original disagreement.8

Footnotes 1. SO No 83H(2). 2. CJ (1997–98) 652; ibid (2010–12) 338 (a bill where the consideration of the sole Lords amendment was not programmed, the amendment being deemed to be disagreed to under SO No 78(3)). 3. For example, CJ (1984–85) 512. For an order which restricted debate on all such motions for the remainder of a session, see CJ (1975–76) 620. 4. See SO No 83O(11)(b). 5. For instances when the committee reported its reasons to the House at a subsequent sitting, see CJ (1967–68) 313; ibid (1975–76) 626. For an instance when the proceedings of the committee to draw up reasons were covered by an allocation of time motion, see CJ (1996–97) 239. 6. CJ (1852–53) 808, 809; ibid (1932–33) 277, 278; ibid (1937–38) 348; ibid (1953–54) 213; ibid (1955–56) 373. 7. For example, CJ (1985–86) 596–97. 8. For example, CJ (1975–76) 652, 661. The Commons have nonetheless occasionally offered the Lords the same reason for insistence as for disagreement (CJ (2003–04) 264, 299).

Message to the Lords 30.17Where a Lords amendment has been disagreed to with no alternative proposal, a message is sent to the Lords to communicate the reason for disagreement, together with the bill and the amendment. If any amendments have been made in respect of other Lords amendments to the bill, or if consequential amendments or amendments in lieu of amendments disagreed to have also been made to the bill, they are sent with the message communicating the reason and the bill. Where amendments of these types are put forward and no original amendment is disagreed to, the bill is returned to the Lords with the fresh proposals accompanied only by a message desiring concurrence.

Bill returned to Lords 30.18The bill having been returned to the Lords, that House has now to consider: 1. any Commons reason for disagreeing to a Lords amendment;1 2. any Commons amendments to or in lieu of a Lords amendment;2 3. any consequential amendments made to the bill by the Commons. In regard to (1), the Lords may: a. not insist on their amendment, in which case agreement is reached; b. not insist on their amendment but propose an amendment in lieu;3 c. insist on their amendment and give a reason.4 In regard to (2), the Lords may: a. agree to the Commons amendment, in which case agreement is reached; b. disagree to the Commons amendment and give a reason;5 c. propose further amendments6 to or in lieu of the Commons amendment or make a consequential amendment to the bill.7 The same courses are open to the Lords in (3) as in (2). The bill is then returned to the Commons with a message, in the case of disagreement communicating the reason, or in the case of alternative proposals once more desiring concurrence. When the Lords do not insist on their amendment or agree without amendment to the amendments now proposed by the Commons, a message is sent to that effect and the bill proceeds to Royal Assent.8

Footnotes 1. See eg Education Reform Bill (1987–88) and Local Government Finance Bill (1987–88), HL Deb (1987–88) 500, cc 10–50; ibid cc 153–91; Health and Medicines Bill (1987–88), ibid 501, cc 541–90. 2. See fn 1 above. 3. For example, CJ (1985–86) 587; ibid (2005–06) 537; House of Lords Minutes of Proceedings, 9 December 2014. 4. For example, CJ (1985–86) 599; ibid (2007–08) 372; House of Lords Minutes of Proceedings, 9 December 2014. 5. For example, CJ (1983–84) 550. 6. CJ (1983–84) 550. 7. For example, CJ (1985–86) 587. 8. For example, CJ (1985–86) 534.

Further proceedings in Commons Contents Conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords under a programme order Lords reason for insisting upon their amendment Lords reason for disagreeing to Commons amendment to Lords amendment Lords amendment to Commons amendment to Lords amendment or to Commons amendment in lieu Lords amendment to the bill in lieu of Lords amendment disagreed to by the Commons 30.19On a message being received in the Commons which shows that agreement has not been reached, an order is made according to the facts of the case for the consideration of (for example): 1. the Lords reason for insisting upon their amendment;1 2. the Lords reason for disagreeing to the Commons amendment to the Lords amendment;2 3. the Lords amendment to the Commons amendment to the Lords amendment,3 or to the Commons amendment proposed in lieu of the Lords amendment;4 4. the amendment which the Lords have made to the bill in lieu of their amendment disagreed to by the Commons.5 The consideration may be taken forthwith6 (see para 30.6 ) or appointed for a future day. In either case the reasons or amendments as the case may be are normally ordered to be printed.7

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

CJ (1881) 459; ibid (1917–18) 314; ibid (1919) 167; Votes and Proceedings, 10 December 2014. CJ (1920) 514; ibid (1975–76) 636; CJ (2001–02) 816. CJ (1881) 459; ibid (1917–18) 314; ibid (1920) 514. CJ (1983–84) 609; Votes and Proceedings, 5 May 2016. CJ (1917–18) 314; ibid (1937–38) 361; ibid (1975–76) 549, 636, 640, 651; Votes and Proceedings, 10 December 2014. CJ (1917–18) 314; CJ (2004–05) 229. CJ (1985–86) 599.

Conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords under a programme order 30.20It is routine for the length of time for debate on consideration of a Lords message or further message to have been specified in a supplementary programme order agreed by the House immediately before entering upon consideration of Lords amendments. If the time for debate has been exhausted, Standing Order No 83E requires the Speaker to first put forthwith any question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided. The Speaker must then put forthwith: a. the question on any motion made by a Minister related to the question already proposed from the Chair; b. the question on any motion made by a Minister on, or relevant to, any of the remaining items in the Lords message; and c. the question that this House agrees with the Lords in all of the remaining Lords proposals. The authority for putting each question is recorded in the Journal.

Lords reason for insisting upon their amendment 30.21Upon consideration of the Lords reason for insisting upon their amendment disagreed to by the Commons, the latter may resolve not to insist upon their disagreement to the Lords amendment, and thus agreement between the Houses is reached.1 The Commons have insisted on their disagreement but offered amendments to the bill in lieu of the Lords amendment disagreed to,2 or have insisted on their disagreement and made consequential amendments and amendments to the words restored to the bill by the disagreement.3 If, however, the Commons insist upon their disagreement, without offering alternative proposals, the bill would normally be lost (see para 30.25 ).4

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

CJ (1919) 172, 422; ibid (1930–31) 392; ibid (1947–48) 373. Votes and Proceedings, 13 January 2015. CJ (2002–03) 979; ibid (2006–07) 513. CJ (1906) 509; ibid (1912–13) 553.

Lords reason for disagreeing to Commons amendment to Lords amendment 30.22On considering the Lords reason for disagreeing to an amendment which the Commons have made to a Lords amendment, the Commons can amend the bill in lieu of their amendment to the Lords amendment disagreed to by the Lords1 or may insist upon their amendment,2 or not insist upon it.3

Footnotes 1. CJ (1929–30) 504. 2. CJ (1917–18) 315; ibid (1983–84) 610. 3. CJ (1929–30) 504; ibid (1975–76) 652.

Lords amendment to Commons amendment to Lords amendment or to Commons amendment in lieu 30.23The Commons may further amend the Lords amendment,1 or may disagree to it and communicate a reason, or may agree to it.2

Footnotes 1. CJ (1917–18) 316. 2. CJ (1985–86) 600.

Lords amendment to the bill in lieu of Lords amendment disagreed to by the Commons 30.24In the same way as in the preceding case, the Commons may amend the Lords amendment, or may disagree to it and communicate a reason,1 or may agree to it.2 The Commons have also disagreed to such a Lords amendment and made an amendment to the bill in lieu of the Lords amendment.3

Footnotes 1. CJ (1929–30) 504; ibid (1975–76) 652–53. 2. CJ (1985–86) 600. 3. CJ (1977–78) 501.

‘Double insistence’ and the loss of the bill 30.25In order to secure agreement and save the bill, every effort at compromise is usually made, and this interchange of amendments, as has been already stated (para 30.13 ), can be carried still further. Usually, however, the proceedings do not go beyond the stage already described, and one House or the other does not persist in its disagreement. A situation where one House insists on its amendment after the other House has insisted on its disagreement to it is described as ‘double insistence’. A bill is normally lost on ‘double insistence’. This is also referred to as ‘three shots at the same target’. The chain of events by which a bill originating in the Commons and amended by the Lords would normally be lost may be shown as follows: the Commons disagree to the amendment with a reason; the Lords insist on their amendment with a reason; the Commons insist on their disagreement to the amendment, or take no action before the end of the session. Thus, each House has one opportunity of drawing back from the position which it has taken up, unless it offers alternative proposals. In more complex exchanges between the two Houses, a bill may also be lost without ‘double insistence’ when it becomes apparent that stalemate has been reached. In the last of the exchanges on the European Parliamentary Elections Bill (1997–98), the Commons insisted on their disagreement to Lords amendments and offered an amendment in lieu, and the Lords insisted on their amendments and disagreed to the amendment in lieu, at which point the Bill was lost.1 It must be remembered, however, that there is no binding rule of order which governs these proceedings in either House, and, if there is a desire to save a bill, some variation in the proceedings may be devised in order to effect this object.2

Footnotes 1. CJ (1997–98) 821, 823. 2. See eg CJ (1907) 453; ibid (1948–49) 401–10; ibid (1983–84) 508, 550, 609, 625. For prolonged and ultimately successful attempts to find a compromise on an amendment to the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill, see CJ (2003–04) 159, 180, 202, 204, 211, 237, 241, 245, 250, 252, 259; see also HL Deb (2003–04) 661, cc 151–55.

‘Packaging’ 30.26Whilst Lords amendments are regularly grouped for debate in the same way as amendments and new clauses (see paras 28.102 –28.103 ), the practice has developed in the later stages of the exchanges between the Houses of grouping together as a ‘package’ a number of related amendments for the purposes of decision as well as debate. In the case of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill in 2004, two Lords amendments were under discussion in the final exchanges between the two Houses. In the Commons those amendments were treated as a package and a single Commons amendment was considered to be in lieu of both. But the reason given by the Commons for disagreeing to one of the Lords amendments made no mention of the link the Commons had made between the two, and it was held in the Lords that double insistence had been reached in respect of that amendment. The Lords resolved that it was desirable to vary the normal practice of the House to allow it to consider the Commons reason and amendment.1 A statement was subsequently agreed between the Clerks of the two Houses with a view to putting the practice of packaging on a more formal footing. The statement suggested that: ‘where one House insists on disagreement to more than one amendment and offers an alternative only to one, intending that single alternative to encourage the other House to reconsider all the relevant amendments, the most certain way of avoiding the need in future for a motion disapplying the double insistence rule will be to ensure that a single motion to disagree is laid before the House along the lines of “that this House insists on its disagreement to amendments 1, 2 and 3 but proposes the following amendment in lieu of amendment 1â€​. The other House will then be able to identify the group of amendments as a package. We are in agreement that in such a case the resultant message to the other House would not amount to a double insistence, whether or not the House receiving it chose to “unpackageâ€​ the amendments for the purposes of debate.’2 Whilst in a relatively simple case a motion relating to a package might invite the Commons to insist on its disagreement to certain Lords amendments but to propose other amendments in lieu,3 motions of much greater complexity are often made.4 Either House, if it receives amendments from the other in the form of a package, may consider those amendments as a package or as separate items, as it chooses. The Lords have resolved that packages from the Commons should be considered only if they are confined to single or closely related issues, but that, where the House does consider amendments as a package, the double insistence rule should apply to the whole package and not to individual amendments within it.5 A motion relating to a package is itself open to amendment.6 A motion relating to a package has been negatived, and a motion making different proposals in respect of the same Lords amendments has then been agreed to.7

Footnotes 1. CJ (2003–04) 298; HL Deb (2003–04) 661, cc 151–55. 2. HC Deb (2003–04) 424, cc 36–38WS; HL Deb (2003–04) 664, cc WS 19–21. See also First Report from the Select Committee of the House of Lords on Procedure of the House, HL 48 (2004–05) paras 4–14; HL Deb (2004–05) 671, cc 366, 371–72, 374, 381. 3. CJ (2004–05) 239; ibid (2005–06) 876. 4. See, for example, the proceedings on consideration of Lords messages on the Prevention of Terrorism Bill (2004–05), CJ (2004–05) 238–42. On that occasion the Lords messages were considered in the form of a series of packages. In respect of the first package, the final motion made was to insist on certain Commons amendments to a Lords amendment, to insist on disagreement to certain Lords amendments and insist on certain Commons amendments in lieu, to insist on disagreement to certain Lords amendments proposed in lieu of a Lords amendment, to insist on certain amendments to the words restored to the bill by the Commons' insistence on their disagreement to a Lords amendment, and to disagree to a Lords amendment in lieu. See also the proceedings on consideration of the Lords message on the Hunting Bill (CJ (2003–04) 629–30), when motions were made to insist on disagreement to certain Lords amendments, to disagree to other Lords amendments, and, as an amendment in lieu, to leave out a clause and insert a new clause. 5. First Report from the Select Committee of the House of Lords on Procedure of the House, HL 48 (2004–05) paras 4–14; HL Deb (2004–05) 671, cc 366, 371–72, 374, 381. 6. CJ (2003–04) 630; ibid (2005–06) 510. 7. CJ (2003–04) 630.

Bill originating in the Lords 30.27If the Commons pass a Lords bill without amendment, or if the only amendment made by the Commons is to remove the privilege amendment made by the Lords (on which see para 29.67 ), the bill then awaits the Royal Assent. In the latter case, the Commons amendment is deemed to be considered and agreed to without any proceedings taking place on it in the Chamber, and a message is sent to the Commons informing them of the Lords' agreement. If the Commons amend the bill in any other respect, the amendments (including the removal of any privilege amendment) are published. It is not necessary to describe at length the further stages of a bill originating in the Lords, which has been amended by the Commons; for, as has been observed above, the proceedings largely match those of a Commons bill amended in the Lords. A proposal to disagree to a Commons amendment or to put forward an amendment in lieu takes the form of an amendment to the motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their amendment,1 unless proposed by the member in charge of the bill. A marshalled list of amendments and motions is published on the day on which the Commons amendments are to be taken. In some cases, where it is of assistance to the House, the text of the Commons amendments, or of the relevant ones, is reproduced on the marshalled list. Manuscript amendments are deprecated but not out of order.2 If the Member in charge of the bill wishes to move that the House do agree or disagree to some or all of the Commons amendments en bloc, and there is no other motion or amendment tabled to those amendments, they explain their intentions and ask leave of the House to do so when the first of the bloc is called. In the Lords a committee to draw up reasons is appointed in the same circumstances as in the Commons. The motion for the appointment of the committee is not, however, formally moved in the House but is recorded in the Minutes of Proceedings. The committee, which is accordingly not a select committee, ordinarily consists of the proposer of the disagreement and one supporter, together with the Lords Member in charge of the bill. The committee immediately withdraws and agrees upon the reasons, which are reported to the House by means of an entry in the Minutes. The Lords may: 1. 2. 3. 4.

agree to the Commons amendments;3 agree to the Commons amendments with amendments,4 and make consequential amendments to the bill;5 disagree to the Commons amendments, with a reason;6 disagree to the Commons amendments but propose amendments in lieu thereof.7

When the bill is returned to the Commons the latter may: 1. insist on their amendments with a reason, or not insist;8 or 2. agree to any further amendments which the Lords have made;9 or 3. amend the bill in lieu of their amendment disagreed to by the Lords.10

Footnotes 1. Procedure Committee, Second Report, HL 55 (1999–2000), agreed to 19 April 2000. 2. Procedure Committee, First Report, HL 24 (1989–90), agreed to 12 February 1990. 3. CJ (1985–86) 186 etc, sometimes with consequential amendments to the bill, CJ (1928) 286; ibid (1952–53) 291; LJ (1979–80) 803; CJ (1985–86) 591; LJ (1985–86) 720; or with an amendment in lieu of words left out of the bill by the Commons amendment, CJ (2002–03) 509, 692. 4. CJ (1922) 324; ibid (1933–34) 299; ibid (1950) 229; LJ (1972–73) 664; CJ (1980–81) 503; LJ (1980–81) 881; Lords Minutes of Proceedings, 12 April 2016. 5. CJ (1906) 475; ibid (1933–34) 299; LJ (1972–73) 502; CJ (1980–81) 520; LJ (1980–81) 881. 6. CJ (1906) 475; ibid (1922) 324; LJ (1972–73) 502; CJ (1980–81) 503; LJ (1980–81) 847. 7. CJ (1906) 475; ibid (1922) 324; ibid (1931–32) 162; LJ (1972–73) 664; CJ (1984–85) 610; LJ (1984–85) 575. 8. For example, CJ (1997–98) 652, 728. 9. For example, CJ (1984–85) 640. 10. CJ (1922) 325; ibid (2002–03) 480.

Practice with regard to bills rejected Contents Proceedings in Lords with regard to bill laid aside by Commons Prorogation to revive bills 30.28When a bill has been rejected, or lost through disagreement, it should not, according to the practice of Parliament, be reintroduced in the same session1 (see also paras 8.6, 20.12, 28.17 ). This follows from the general rule that the same question should not be offered twice. In the case of bills which have passed one House and been rejected by the other the rule is not applied so rigidly as to prevent a portion at any rate of a rejected bill being introduced again as a new bill. If a bill is rejected in the second House, it cannot be brought from the first House a second time in the same session. However, when an element of a bill has been omitted by the Lords, and the Commons have agreed to such amendment, the element so omitted has been renewed in the same session in the form of a separate bill,2 and a bill deferred for six months by the Lords (a now obsolete procedure tantamount to rejection) has nevertheless been incorporated by way of amendment into another bill sent from the Commons.3

Footnotes 1. LJ (1578–1614) 435; CJ (1547–1628) 434. See also Erskine May (22nd edn, 1997), p 561. 2. CJ (1884–85) 317; Parl Deb (1884–85) 298, c 1590; CJ (1908) 384, 514. 3. CJ (1899) 386; ibid (1908) 500. For the obsolete ‘six months' amendment on second or third reading, see Erskine May (23rd edn, 2004), p 583, fn 7.

Proceedings in Lords with regard to bill laid aside by Commons 30.29When bills have been laid aside in the Commons because they infringe the Commons' financial privilege, the Lords have introduced second bills, identical in wording with the first, which were then taken formally through all their stages and sent to the Commons with the appropriate privilege amendments made.1

Footnotes 1. Guardianship and Maintenance of Infants (No 2) Bill, LJ (1950–51) 243; Trade Descriptions (No 2) Bill, LJ (1967–68) 147.

Prorogation to revive bills 30.30Parliament has occasionally been prematurely prorogued to give an opportunity to revive bills whose passage was blocked by disagreement between the two Houses. In 1948, Parliament was prorogued for one day only (from 13 September to 14 September) in order to meet the requirements of the Parliament Act 1911 for further consideration of the Parliament Bill, which ultimately resulted in the passing by the Commons alone of the Parliament Act 1949.1

Footnotes 1. CJ (1947–48) 399; ibid (1948) 403–5. See also CJ (1688–93) 272 (prorogation in order to revive the Bill of Rights, 1689); 2 Hatsell 127 (to revive a bill rejected by the Lords, 1707); CJ (1830–31) 935 (to bring in the third Reform Bill, 1831).

Carry-over of bills Contents In the Commons In the Lords 30.31Since the middle of the nineteenth century there had been several proposals to provide (either by statute or by standing orders) for the suspension of public bills from one session to another or for resuming proceedings upon such bills, notwithstanding a prorogation.1 This practice, known as carry-over of bills, is now permitted although not routine.

Footnotes 1. See, for example, Parl Deb (1848) 98, cc 329, 981, 1255; HC 268 (1878); HC 298 (1890); Select Committee on Procedure, Second Report, Public Bill Procedure, HC 49-I (1984–85). In Session 1903, provision was made for resuming the proceedings on the Port of London Bill as reported from the Joint Committee. A resolution for the resumption of proceedings on the bill was agreed to in the following session, but further progress was not made, CJ (1904) 181. See also Report of Joint Committee on Suspension of Bills, HL 109 (1928–29). In 1931–32 the London Passenger Transport Bill was carried over (CJ (1931–32) 322); it was ordered to be resumed in the next session (ibid (1932–33) 8). In Session 1919 a motion for the suspension of further proceedings on the War Emergency Laws (Continuance) Bill until the following session was withdrawn, CJ (1919) 428; HC Deb (1919) 123, c 1291. See also Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), p 526, fn 6.

In the Commons Contents Proceedings on carry-over motions Proceedings on bills carried over 30.32In 1997 the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons recommended a variety of methods by which the House's scrutiny of legislation might be improved. Since these would tend to increase the time bills took to complete their passage through Parliament the Committee recommended that in certain defined circumstances it should be possible to carry a bill over to complete its remaining stages in the next session.1 The Committee was also concerned to spread the burden of legislation more evenly through the session. It subsequently recommended that bills should be carried over by means of ad hoc motions; that in the interests of simplicity the procedure should be used in respect of bills which had not yet left the first House; and that the eligibility of bills for carry-over should be settled by agreement. It did ‘not see carry-over as an expedient to be resorted to if the Government were to lose its grip on its own legislative programme’.2 The type of ad hoc motion envisaged by the Committee was applied to just one bill, the Financial Services and Markets Bill, introduced in the Commons in 1999.3 A further report from the Modernisation Committee in 2002 called for a longer time-perspective for legislation so as to permit more thorough scrutiny within the parameters set by the duration of a Parliament and the associated mandate, and recommended that standing orders be amended to allow a bill to be carried over by resolution for an experimental period. It also recommended that no bill should be carried over for more than one extra session, and that if a bill was not completed (or had not arrived from the Lords) more than 12 months after its introduction it should not be further proceeded with in the Commons unless a fresh motion had been passed. The Committee saw carry-over as relevant to those bills introduced after Easter,4 and did not envisage that it should be restricted to those bills which had undergone pre-legislative scrutiny following publication in draft.5 On 29 October 2002, the House agreed to a temporary standing order embodying the Committee's proposals, and a number of carry-over motions were agreed to under its provisions.6 The temporary standing order was replaced by Standing Order No 80A on 26 October 2004.7 Specific provision for carry-over of bills brought in upon Ways and Means resolutions is made by Standing Order No 80B, to facilitate the carryover of finance bills once it became standard for prorogation and the State Opening of Parliament to take place in the spring rather than the autumn and when Budgets took place in the spring.8 For the suspension of hybrid and private bills, see para 45.37.

Footnotes First Report, The Legislative Process, HC 190 (1997–98) paras 67–69, 102. Third Report, Carry-over of Public Bills, HC 543 (1997–98). CJ (1998–99) 383. See Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 640 for more detail. At the time, sessions normally began and ended in the autumn. Second Report, Modernisation of the House of Commons: A Reform Programme, HC 1168-I (2001–02) paras 35–44. CJ (2002–03) 441; CJ (2002–03) 638; CJ (2003–04) 530, 579, 583. First applied to Welfare Reform Bill, CJ (2005–06) 780; for a more recent example, see Prisons and Courts Bill, Votes and Proceedings, 20 March 2017. For other examples of bills subject to carry-over motions, see R Kelly Carry-over of public bills (House of Commons Library Briefing Paper SN03236, 2017). 8. CJ (2010–12) 1039; HC Deb (14 December 2011) 537, c 814. First applied to Finance (No. 4) Bill, CJ (2010–12) 1289. See also Votes and Proceedings, 11 April 2016 and para 33.16. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Proceedings on carry-over motions 30.33Under Standing Order No 80A, a Minister may give notice of a carry-over motion to enable proceedings on a government bill which had not been completed before the end of the session to be resumed in the next session of the same Parliament. The question on a carry-over motion is to be put forthwith if the motion is made on the day of the bill's second reading or, additionally in the case of a bill brought in upon Ways and Means resolutions, on any day before its second reading.1 Otherwise the question is put after one-and-a-half hours. Proceedings on carry-over motions under the Standing Order are exempted business but are subject to deferred divisions after the moment of interruption, as the motion is not deemed to be a proceeding on a bill.2 A carry-over motion may not be made in respect of more than one bill, or in respect of a bill carried over from a previous session; and the provisions of the Standing Order do not apply to a carry-over motion made in respect of a Lords bill. If the bill is in committee at the end of the first session it is to be reported as so far amended; in any other case proceedings on the bill are to be suspended at the end of the first session.

Footnotes 1. SO No 80B, made on 14 December 2011. 2. CJ (2007–08) 625; ibid (2008–09) 348.

Proceedings on bills carried over 30.34If a bill is presented in the second session in the same terms as the bill reported (or suspended) at the end of the first session, it is to be read the first and second time without question put.1 The names of the presenter and supporters may differ from those in the first session. A new statement under s 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 is required, as are new explanatory notes if the text of the bill has changed since introduction in the first session. However, a programme order made in the first session continues to apply to the bill in the second session, and programme orders in the first session have specified dates by which committee stage must be completed, when it was known that those dates would fall in the second session.2 Certification of a bill in relation to its territorial application and devolved legislative competence, if made in one session, continues to have effect in relation to the bill in the second session.3 A bill reported from a public bill committee (or a Committee of the whole House) at the end of the first session stands committed, in respect of those parts of the bill not considered in the first session, to a public bill committee (or to a Committee of the whole House).4 If the bill had been committed to a public bill committee in the first session but proceedings on it had not begun, it again stands committed to a public bill committee. In any other case the bill is to be set down as an order of the day for committee, (further) consideration or third reading. Notices of amendments, etc, relating to parts of the bill not disposed of in the first session are reprinted as notices in respect of the bill as proceeded with in the second session. Proceedings on the bill in the second session lapse 12 months after the introduction of the bill in the first session, unless the House agrees to a government motion to extend proceedings for a specified period. Such a motion, if it falls within the terms of Standing Order No 80A(14), is debatable for up to one-and-a-half hours and is exempted business.5

Footnotes 1. Civil Aviation Bill, Votes and Proceedings, 10 May 2012. 2. Finance (No 2) Bill, Votes and Proceedings, 11 April 2016. See also Gambling Bill, CJ (2003–04) 582: the carry-over motion was made under the temporary standing order rather than SO No 80A. 3. Policing and Crime Bill certified under SO No 83J, 2 March 2016; no re-certification before re-introduction at resumption of report stage on 13 June 2016. 4. Finance Bill, Votes and Proceedings, 10 May 2012. 5. Votes and Proceedings, 12 January 2015 and 13 January 2015.

In the Lords 30.35A public bill brought from the House of Commons falls if it does not receive the Royal Assent in the same session. In general, the same rule applies to bills introduced in the Lords. However, in 1998 the House approved the principle that it should be possible for certain government bills to be carried over from one session to the next in the same way as private and hybrid bills.1 Carry-over is restricted to bills that have not yet left the House in which they originated, or to bills in their second House if they have been the subject of pre-legislative scrutiny, subject to agreement between the Houses.2 In the Lords: 1. eligibility of bills for carry-over is settled by informal discussion through the usual channels; 2. bills are carried over by ad hoc motions; 3. a Commons bill carried over in the Commons is treated in the same way as any other bill brought from the Commons. The procedure does not apply twice to the same bill or over a dissolution.

Footnotes 1. Third Report from the Select Committee on Procedure of the House, HL 106 (1997–98); LJ (1997–98) 862. The Constitutional Reform Bill [Lords] was carried over from Session 2003–04 to 2004–05, and the Trusts (Capital and Income) Bill [Lords] from 2010–12 to 2012–13. The former was committed to a select committee; the latter was based on work by the Law Commission; neither had received pre-legislative scrutiny. 2. Fifth Report from the Select Committee on Procedure of the House, HL 148 (2001–02), agreed to 24 July 2002. Reviewed by Leader's Group on Review of Working Practices 2003–04 and confirmed by Lords Procedure Committee Third Report 2003–04, agreed to 10 November 2004.

Royal Assent Contents Proceedings on Royal Assent 30.36When bills, either public or private, or Church of England Measures (on which see paras 31.46 –31.49 ), have been finally agreed to by both Houses, they await only the Royal Assent to be declared to Parliament to give them, as Lord Chief Justice Hale says, ‘the complement and perfection of a law’,1 and assent must be forthcoming.2 When Royal Assent is wanted, the Lord Chancellor submits to the Sovereign a list of those bills which are ready for Royal Assent or which are likely to have passed by the time Royal Assent is to be declared. The list is prepared by the Clerk of the Parliaments.3 An advance copy is sent to the Clerk of the Crown, who includes those bills in the Letters Patent4 by which the Sovereign is to signify the Royal Assent. Bills for granting aids and supplies to the Crown are placed first, followed by other public bills, provisional order bills, private bills, personal bills and Measures. Care is taken that all bills which are expected to have passed are included in the Letters Patent. Nevertheless, a bill not named in the Letters Patent may unexpectedly pass during the period after the submission to the Sovereign and before the Royal Assent is declared to Parliament. Since there is no authority for withholding from inclusion in the Letters Patent any bill which has passed all its stages, a further submission by the Lord Chancellor to the Sovereign must then be made for the Royal Assent to be given to the additional bill and for its inclusion in the Letters Patent. Similarly, any bill which unexpectedly fails to pass before the declaration of Royal Assent is struck out of the Letters Patent. When the list of bills for Royal Assent is finally settled, the Clerk of the Parliaments signs it to certify the passage of the bills through both Houses, and sends it to the Lord Chancellor. For Royal Assent to bills passed under s 2 of the Parliament Act 1911, see para 30.55. To avoid untimely submissions to the Sovereign, proceedings on third reading and on Lords amendments have been postponed.5 It is usual for the Royal Assent to be notified to each House sitting separately, by the Speaker of that House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967. But at the end of each session the five Lords who are appointed Commissioners by Letters Patent to prorogue Parliament are commanded by the same Letters Patent to declare the Royal Assent to both Houses together in the House of Lords.6

Footnotes 1. Matthew Hale Jurisdiction of the Lords' House of Parliament (1796) c 2. 2. See 2 Hatsell 339; LJ (1675–81) 756 (1681); G Burnet History of his Own Times (1833) ii, p 274; John Campbell Lives of the Lord Chancellors (1845–1869) iii, p 354. But see also Westco Lagan Ltd v A-G and the Clerk of the House of Representatives [2001] 1 NZLR 40, in which it was held that the submission of a bill for the Royal Assent was not a proceeding in Parliament and that article IX of the Bill of Rights did not prevent judicial intervention at that stage; and the report of the Privileges Committee of the New Zealand House of Representatives on the question of privilege relating to that case (March 2001), which expressed the contrary view. For article IX of the Bill of Rights, see Chapter 13. 3. Bills awaiting Royal Assent remain in the custody of the Clerk of the Parliaments, with the exception that, when the Royal Assent is to be pronounced by commission (see para 30.38 ), bills for granting aids and supplies to the Crown are kept in the custody of the Clerk of the House of Commons and brought up by him or her at the reading of the commission. 4. The forms of Letters Patent to be used for signifying the Royal Assent are prescribed by rules made by Order in Council pursuant to the Crown Office Act 1887. These Letters Patent now have the wafer Great Seal embossed instead of the pendent wax seal. 5. On 27 June 1991, consideration by the Commons of Lords amendments to the Highland Regional Councils (Harbours) Order Confirmation Bill was not moved, as the Bill had not been included in the Letters Patent submitted to the Sovereign in preparation for declaration of Royal Assent to bills later that day. 6. When the Royal Assent is given by commission at times other than prorogation, three Lords Commissioners are appointed for this purpose. For Royal Assent declared in person and refusal of Royal Assent, see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 644, fn 143.

Royal Assent notified by the Speaker 30.37Royal Assent is notified to each House, sitting separately, at a time convenient to each House during the course of the day's business by the Speaker of that House or, in the absence of the Speaker, by the person acting as Speaker. In the Commons, Royal Assent may be notified by a Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding that the House has not been informed of the unavoidable absence of the Speaker.1 The Speaker uses these words: ‘I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts [and Measures]’ (which are then listed). The Clerk of the Parliaments subsequently endorses the Acts with the customary Norman French formulae (see para 30.38 below); they are not spoken in either House. In the Commons, Royal Assent must be notified to the House itself, and not to a Committee of the whole House. It has been notified immediately after prayers,2 at the commencement of public business, between orders of the day, between speeches in a debate,3 between amendments on the consideration stage of a bill,4 and in the course of the end-of-day adjournment debate.5 The House on occasion6 agrees to orders providing that the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until the Royal Assent to a bill or bills has been notified; and acting under such an order the Speaker has suspended a sitting after the completion of business until a relevant bill has been passed by the Lords.7 Royal Assent has occasionally been notified in the Commons on a day following notification in the Lords; when this occurs, Royal Assent is not effective until the day when it is notified in the second House.8 In the Lords, Royal Assent is frequently notified before oral questions, but it may be notified at any convenient break between two items of business or at the end of business, if necessary after an adjournment. The words used are the same as in the Commons.

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

For example, Votes and Proceedings, 19 July 2018. Votes and Proceedings, 26 June 2018. HC Deb (1967–68) 765, c 2263; ibid (1998–99) 323, c 469. CJ (1968–69) 261. Votes and Proceedings, 8 April 2019. For example, CJ (1967–68) 133; ibid (1984–85) 340; ibid (1994–95) 459; ibid (2009–10) 212; Votes and Proceedings, 18 July 2018. 7. HC Deb (1967–68) 759, cc 1767, 1917; ibid (1971–72) 841, c 1454; ibid (1992–93) 216, c 588; ibid (3 September 1998) 317, c 934. 8. HL Deb (1992–93) 541, c 805; HC Deb (1992–93) 217, c 243.

Committal Contents Committal without a warrant Warrants of committal Period of committal and discharge 11.23The origin of the power to punish for contempt is probably to be found in the medieval concept of the English Parliament as primarily a court. The power to fine or imprison for contempt belongs at common law to all courts of record. The House of Lords has been held to be a court of record,1 and as such has power not only to imprison but to impose fines (see para 11.27 ). It may also imprison for a fixed time, and order security to be given for good conduct; and their customary form of committal is by attachment. The Commons' power to commit offenders was exercised frequently until the end of the nineteenth century;2 and repeatedly recognised by the courts.3 Offenders committed by order of either House have been either detained in one of HM prisons4 or in the custody of Black Rod,5 or the Serjeant at Arms,6 as the case may be.7

Footnotes 1. Per Lord Mansfield, reminiscing obiter, in Jones v Randall (1774) 98 ER 708. It has been held, in R v Flower (1799) 101 ER 1408, that the Lords, while exercising a legislative (as opposed to judicial) capacity, are not a court of record. However, that case concerned a breach of privilege, and the court accepted that in punishing such a breach by committal to prison and a fine the House was ‘sitting in a judicial capacity’. In the absence of any explicit provision on this point in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, it appears likely that the House of Lords remains a court of record for certain purposes. 2. It was calculated in 1810 that the number of instances of committal of delinquents at the order of the Commons was ‘little less than a thousand’ (C W Williams Wynn Argument upon the Jurisdiction of the House of Commons (1810), p 7). Between 1810 and 1880 there were a further 80 committals. The latest case in the Commons of detention of a Member is that of Bradlaugh (CJ (1880) 235), and in respect of a non-Member, that of Grissell in the same year (CJ (1880) 77). 3. The Aylesbury Men, R v Paty (1704) 92 ER 232; Brass Crosby's case (1771) 95 ER 1005; Burdett v Abbot (1811) 104 ER 501; Sheriff of Middlesex (1840) 113 ER 419; Select Committee on Printed Papers, HC 305, 397 (1845); HC 39 (1847). CJ (1640–42) 960; 5 State Tr 948; The Protector v Streeter (1654) 82 ER 824; Burdett v Abbot (1811) 104 ER 558; Sheriff of Middlesex (1840) 113 ER 425; Gosset v Howard (1847) 116 ER 158 at 172. It was held in 1955 by the High Court of Australia that the full powers of the United Kingdom's House of Commons being enjoyed by the Commonwealth Parliament and a warrant having been issued for the committal of two persons stating simply that they were ‘guilty of a serious breach of privilege’, the warrant was sufficient and conclusive (R v Richards, ex p Fitzpatrick and Browne (1955) 92 CLR 157 at 162 ). For consideration of whether the House of Commons is a court of record, see para 11.27 and Erskine May (23rd edn, 2004), p 160. 4. LJ (1767–70) 189; ibid 575; ibid (1779–83) 191; ibid (1783–87) 613, 647; ibid (1787–90) 338; ibid (1790) 649; ibid (1794–96) 241; ibid (1796–98) 509; ibid (1798–1800) 182; ibid (1801–02) 105; ibid (1810–12) 371, 372; ibid (1850) 367, 478; CJ (1818) 289; ibid (1826–27) 582; ibid (1835) 501; ibid (1843) 528; ibid (1865) 336; ibid (1878–79) 435; ibid (1880) 77. 5. LJ (1828) 34; ibid (1830–31) 471; ibid (1831–32) 387; ibid (1834) 743; ibid (1845) 729; ibid (1849) 135; ibid (1870) 77. See also ibid (1972–73) 56 and SO No 13. 6. CJ (1825) 455; ibid (1835) 501; ibid (1843) 523; ibid (1851) 288–89; ibid (1865) 336; ibid (1878–79) 366; ibid (1880) 235. 7. When at the time of committal the place of punishment was not determined (Parl Deb (1819–20) 41, c 1014) or the person adjudged guilty of contempt was not in the Serjeant's custody (CJ (1835) 501; ibid (1843) 523), the Commons has made an order for the offender to be taken into the custody of the Serjeant and then committed him to prison.

Assent given in the Sovereign's absence from the realm 30.39In pursuance of the Regency Acts 1937, 1943 and 1953, Letters Patent for Royal Assent may be signed by Counsellors of State appointed under these Acts.1

Footnotes 1. LJ (1938–39) 227; ibid (1943–44) 173.

Report of Royal Assent in the House of Commons 30.40When the Commons have returned from the House of Lords to their own Chamber, the Speaker reports that the Royal Assent has been given to certain Acts, and this is recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and Journal.

In the Commons Contents Emergency bill passed through all stages in one day More than one stage of a bill taken on the same day 30.41There are nowadays no rules in the Commons which forbid the taking of several or all of the stages of a bill at one sitting other than the rules for bills brought in upon Ways and Means resolutions described at para 33.23. Nonetheless, it is standard practice for a period of time to elapse between each stage. There are exceptions to that practice: Report stage and third reading of a bill are routinely taken on the same day. Programme motions will almost invariably so provide for government bills, and Standing Order No 77(2) disapplies the former rule in respect of the interval between these stages in respect of bills brought in upon Ways and Means resolutions. Standing orders prescribe an expedited procedure for Consolidated Fund and Appropriation Bills (under Standing Order No 56) (see para 34.39 ). It may be deemed expedient to pass legislation urgently in response to an emergency situation. The Member in charge of a bill may seek to accelerate its passage through the House by moving a motion that the next stage be taken immediately. In practice, this is now likely to arise only in relation to a Private Member's Bill. The last two of these exceptions are discussed in more detail below.

Emergency bill passed through all stages in one day 30.42When a pressing emergency arises, a bill may pass through all its stages on the same day.1 The previous practices of first inviting the House to agree to a motion giving leave for such a bill to be brought in,1 or to a paving procedural motion,2 are no longer followed. Such bills are now presented under Standing Order No 57 and proceeded with under the terms of a business of the House motion, which will typically enable Members to table amendments before second reading and which may allocate time for different stages.3 A bill has been brought from the Lords, passed through all stages, and returned to the Lords on the same day.4 Bills have also been passed by both Houses,5 and received the Royal Assent,6 on the same day. Leave has been given to bring in a bill, which has then passed through all its stages in both Houses and received the Royal Assent on the same day.7

Footnotes 1. CJ (1971–72) 171; ibid (1973–74) 156. 2. CJ (1979–80) 806; ibid (1995–96) 280–84 (in which case proceedings were also subject to an allocation of time order). 3. Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Bill, CJ (1997–98) 746; Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) (No. 2) Bill, CJ (2006–07) 257; Banking (Special Provisions) Bill, CJ (2007–08) 196; Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill, Votes and Proceedings, 20 March 2018; Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Bill, Votes and Proceedings, 21 March 2018. See also the Business of the House motion in respect of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill, a Private Member’s Bill, Votes and Proceedings, 3 April 2019. 4. CJ (1849) 475, 477. 5. CJ (1802–03) 645, 646, 647; ibid (1883) 126, 128; LJ (1883) 76; CJ (1914) 427; LJ (1914) 377; CJ (1914) 464; LJ (1914) 420. 6. CJ (1741–45) 636–39; ibid (1796–97) 555, 557, 558; ibid (1866) 87, 88, 89; ibid (1914) 407, etc; ibid (1930–31) 423, 424, 425; ibid (1936–37) 57, 58; ibid (1938–39) 410; ibid (1965–66) 11, 12 (the latter two bills were presented in the House of Commons on the previous sitting day); LJ (1971–72) 159. 7. CJ (1971–72) 171; LJ (1971–72) 159.

More than one stage of a bill taken on the same day 30.43Programme motions for relatively uncontentious government bills have provided for all stages subsequent to second reading to be taken on the same, future day.1 In the absence of a programme motion relating to a particular bill on the Order Paper, a Member may, without notice, move after second reading of that bill that it be committed to a Committee of the whole House. In practice, the opportunity rarely arises in relation to government bills as the question on any programme motion must be put immediately after the bill has been read a second time. A motion to commit a bill to Committee of the whole House may be moved after a Private Member's Bill has been given a second reading, although this practice is deprecated by the Chair, because it effectively disables Members from proposing amendments.2 Bills committed immediately after second reading, and reported without amendment, have been read the third time,3 or, if amended in committee, have been considered forthwith and read the third time.4 A bill has been considered in committee immediately after the second reading, and on being reported with amendments, has been ordered for consideration on a subsequent day,5 or on being reported without amendment has been ordered to be read the third time on the same6 or a future7 day. Similarly, a bill reported with amendments from a public bill committee has been considered on the same day.8 Sometimes, where a bill has been considered in committee immediately after the second reading, progress has been reported, usually in response to objections to completing the committee stage in one sitting.9 If it is desired to take on the same day the second reading and remaining stages of a bill for which a Money resolution is necessary, a motion needs to make specific provision for that;10 while on occasions the House has agreed to a motion dispensing with the requirement for a financial resolution in respect of a bill.11 (For the general rule with regard to bills imposing a financial charge introduced upon resolution, and the exceptions to it, see paras 28.126, 33.7 fn 2, 33.23.)

Footnotes 1. Votes and Proceedings, 4 July 2017, 18 April 2018. 2. For example, HC Deb (1971–72) 835, c 1015; ibid (1987–88) 131, c 520; ibid (1996–97) 287, c 586; ibid (1997–98) 310, c 1150; ibid (2009–10) 505, c 572 (when manuscript amendments were considered) and c 588. Acts of Indemnity, protecting persons against the consequences of breaches of law, have also been passed through the main stages at a single sitting (eg Niall Macpherson Indemnity Bill, CJ (1953–54) 197; Validation of Elections (No 3) Bill, CJ (1955–56) 129). 3. For example, CJ (1908) 512; ibid (1914) 439, 446; CJ (2002–03) 255, 388. 4. For example, CJ (1914) 438, 446, 457, 460; CJ (2002–03) 608. See also HC Deb (1982–83) 42, cc 737, 766–68. 5. CJ (1914) 458; ibid (1919) 29; ibid (1920) 19. 6. For example, HC Deb (1984–85) 73, c 1386; CJ (2009–10) 207. 7. CJ (1958–59) 127; ibid (1987–88) 515. 8. CJ (1982–83) 364, 366. 9. HC Deb (1917) 90, c 752, 764; ibid (1918) 101, c 950; ibid (1918) 108, c 276; ibid (1919) 114, c 187; ibid (1919) 117, cc 1261, 2142; ibid (1970–71) 811, cc 1158–59; Decisions: 2637. 10. For example, CJ (1955–56) 43; ibid (1964–65) 423; ibid (1979–80) 806; ibid (2002–03) 385. See also para 35.20. 11. CJ (1938–39) 402, 405; ibid (1965–66) 11. The Queen's recommendation was required for such motions: see para 33.17.

In the Lords Contents Standing Order No 46 dispensed with Standing Order No 46 suspended Emergency bill passed through all stages in one day Other procedural devices 30.44The time required for the successive stages of a bill is regulated in part by Standing Order No 46, which provides that no two stages be taken on one day, and in part by the minimum recommended intervals between stages (see paras 29.2–29.3 ).1 The Select Committee on the Constitution has commented on the procedures for fast-track legislation.2 The explanatory notes accompanying an expedited bill include an explanation of the reasons for using an expedited procedure.3

Footnotes 1. LJ (1976–77) 821. 2. See Fifteenth Report from the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, Fast-track Legislation: Constitutional Implications and Safeguards, HL 116 (2008–09). 3. HC Deb (2009–10) 502, cc 117–18WS; Explanatory Notes to the Video Recordings Bill 2009–10 (Bill 14–EN); ibid, Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill 2010 (Bill 62–EN).

Standing Order No 46 dispensed with 30.45It frequently happens that it is necessary for a bill to be passed with greater expedition than the observance of Standing Order No 46 would permit. It is then necessary for notice to be put on the Order Paper, usually in the name of the Leader of the House, of a motion to dispense with Standing Order No 46 for the purpose of taking the bill through its remaining stages, or such of them as may be necessary, on one day.1 Supply and Appropriation Bills are commonly taken through all their stages in one day, with committee negatived and therefore no report.2 It is essential that notice of the proposed suspension of the Standing Order be given, since Standing Order No 84 provides that no motion shall be granted for dispensing with a standing order unless notice shall have been given in the Order Paper to consider the said motion. If the bill is still in the Commons, notice may be given of a motion to dispense with Standing Order No 46 ‘in the event of the bill being brought from the Commons and read a first time’.3

Footnotes 1. LJ (2016–17) 585, 618. 2. LJ (2016–17) 123. 3. LJ (2016–17) 682.

Standing Order No 46 suspended 30.46Frequently, towards the close of a session or before a recess when the press of legislation is heavy, a motion is moved to suspend Standing Order No 46 for the remainder of the session,1 or until the adjournment for the recess,2 or for the remainder of the week3 or for the next day.4

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

LJ (2016–17) 866. LJ (1985–86) 502. LJ (1914–16) 18; ibid (1918) 230, 276; HL Deb (1918) 32, c 1. LJ (1985–86) 84.

Emergency bill passed through all stages in one day 30.47On occasions of national emergency, a bill has been passed through all its stages in both Houses in a single day. In such cases, since notice of the suspension of Standing Order No 46 cannot be given, a special procedure, laid down by Standing Order No 84, is observed. Standing Orders Nos 46 and 84 are read at the Table by the Clerk and a resolution is moved that it is essential for reasons of national security that the bill (or bills) should immediately be proceeded with and that the provisions of Standing Order No 46 should be dispensed with to enable the House to proceed that day with every stage of the bill (or bills) which it thinks necessary. Upon this motion being agreed to, any such bill may be passed through all its stages.1

Footnotes 1. This procedure was adopted for a bill to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland on 17 February 1866; for the Explosive Substances Bill on 9 April 1883; for the Postponement of Payments Bill on 3 August 1914; for the Gold Standard (Amendment) Bill on 21 September 1931, for a number of bills on 1 September 1939, and for the Northern Ireland Bill on 23 February 1972. See LJ (1866) 41; ibid (1883) 76; ibid (1914) 355; ibid (1930–31) 365; ibid (1938–39) 376, 377; ibid (1971–72) 159.

Other procedural devices 30.48On occasion a (No 2) bill, in identical form to a bill before the Commons, has been introduced in the Lords.1 Consideration of such a bill has, by general agreement, enabled the proceedings on the Commons bill to be abbreviated. When the bill is brought from the Commons it is treated pro forma up to the stage the (No 2) bill has reached, and the (No 2) bill is then withdrawn. Similar expedients, such as the presentation of the text of a Commons bill as a return to an order of the House, have also been adopted.2

Footnotes 1. Commonwealth Immigrants Bill 1968 (LJ (1967–68) 164); Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Bill 1972 (LJ (1971–72) 205); Community Land Bill 1975 (LJ (1974–75) 863); Banking Bill 2008 (LJ 2008–09) 7). 2. Prices and Incomes Bill 1966 (LJ (1966–67) 165); Prices and Incomes (No 2) Bill 1967 (LJ (1966–67) 615); Community Land Bill 1975 (LJ (1974–75) 955).

Procedure under the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 Contents Bills other than Money bills Challenge to validity of Parliament Act 1949 30.49Conditions are laid down by the Parliament Act 1911, as amended by the Parliament Act 1949, under which bills which have passed the House of Commons may acquire the force of law without passing the House of Lords. The Parliament Acts do not apply to (a) bills originating in the House of Lords;1 (b) bills to extend the maximum duration of Parliament beyond five years; (c) provisional order bills; (d) private bills; (e) delegated legislation. Public bills are divided for the purposes of the Act into ‘Money bills’ as defined by the Act, and other public bills. The procedure with regard to ‘Money bills’ is described in Chapter 37.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1997–98) 317, c 169.

Proceedings on the bill 30.50In the case of public bills, other than ‘Money bills’ within the meaning of s 1 of the Parliament Act 1911, it is provided that a bill which is passed by the House of Commons in two successive sessions (whether of the same Parliament or not), and which, having been sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the session, is rejected by the House of Lords in each of those sessions, shall, on its rejection for the second time by the House of Lords, unless the House of Commons direct to the contrary, be presented to Her Majesty and become an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified to it.1 One year must elapse between the second reading of the bill in the House of Commons in the first of these sessions and its passing in the House of Commons in the second session. Three Acts were passed into law under the terms of the 1911 Act, namely the Government of Ireland Act 1914, the Welsh Church Act 1914 and the Parliament Act 1949.2 Four further Acts have been passed under the Parliament Act procedure since the 1949 Act itself,3 namely the War Crimes Act 1991, the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999, the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 and the Hunting Act 2004, and two other bills have been introduced in a second session with a view to it.4

Footnotes 1. The Commons have never exercised the power to direct to the contrary: see Section 2 of the Parliament Act 1911, guidance by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, 2017, para 2.80. 2. Government of Ireland Act 1914, and Welsh Church Act 1914, LJ (1914) 423; CJ (1914) 466; Parliament Act 1949, LJ (1948–49) 518; CJ (1948–49) 445. For a conference on the Parliament Bill 1947, see Cmd 7380 (1948). 3. War Crimes Act 1991, CJ (1989–90) 265, 322, 353; ibid (1990–91) 239, 253, 271, 298, 306, 382; European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999, CJ (1997–98) 237, 823; ibid (1998–99) 21, 76; HC Deb (1998–99) 322, c 984; Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000, CJ (1999–2000) 141, 699; HC Deb (1999–2000) 344, cc 83–89; ibid (1999–2000) 357, c 1137; Hunting Act 2004, CJ (2003–04) 519, 631; HC Deb (2003–04) 424, cc 1274–1422. 4. Both bills were eventually agreed to by the Lords in the second session, see Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill (1975–76); Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill (1976–77). With the exceptions of the Government of Ireland Act 1914 and the Welsh Church Act 1914, the only other instance since 1911 of a bill introduced in a second session with a view to using the Parliament Act procedure was the Temperance (Scotland) Bill 1913. Since this bill was agreed to by the Lords in the second session, there was no need to resort to the Parliament Act.

Rejection of bill by the Lords 30.51If not otherwise rejected (see below), a bill is deemed to be rejected by the House of Lords under s 2(3) of the Parliament Act 1911 if it is not passed by that House by the end of business on the day before the scheduled date of prorogation either without amendment or with such amendments only as may be agreed to by both Houses. The Lords have rejected bills in terms by amending or negativing the question for second reading, and such bills have thereupon been certified by the Speaker (see below).1 Bills which the Lords have not rejected in terms have been deemed to be rejected when the last possible moment has been reached at which further progress could be made to allow the bill to be submitted for Royal Assent in the normal way, namely the eve of prorogation. Thus, the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill in 2000, which was in the Lords awaiting consideration on report,2 and the Hunting Bill in 2004, where consideration of the Lords amendments had reached deadlock,3 were each given Royal Assent on the last day of the second session.4 The Hunting Bill in 2003 received two days of consideration in committee in the Lords in October, made no further progress and was then treated as having failed to pass when the session ended in November. A bill may be deemed to have been rejected by the Lords even if they have passed the bill with amendments but the Commons have not considered those amendments.5

Footnotes 1. For example, European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999 (reasoned amendment made on second reading), LJ (1998–99) 60. See also Parliament Act 1949 (second reading negatived) and War Crimes Act 1991 (‘six months' amendment made on second reading). See also para 30.55. 2. LJ (1999–2000) 836. 3. CJ (2003–04) 631. 4. See also Government of Ireland Act 1914 and Welsh Church Act 1914 (second reading debate adjourned sine die ). See also para 30.50, fn 3 and para 30.55, fn 1. 5. Section 2 of the Parliament Act 1911, guidance by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, 2017, paras 2.31 and 2.32.

Limits of changes to bill in succeeding session 30.52A bill is deemed to be the same bill as the bill sent up to the House of Lords in the preceding session if, when it is sent up to the House of Lords, it is identical with the former bill or contains only such alterations as are certified by the Speaker to be necessary owing to the time which has elapsed since the date of the former bill,1 or to represent any amendments which were made by the House of Lords in the former bill in the preceding session, whether or not the Commons had agreed to them in the first session.2 Commons amendments made in lieu of Lords amendments and Commons amendments made to Lords amendments, if agreed to by the Lords in the preceding session, have been held to represent amendments made by the Lords for the purposes of the Parliament Acts and certified accordingly.3 If any of the amendments made by the Lords in the second session are agreed to by the Commons they are inserted in the bill as presented for the Royal Assent and are certified by the Speaker as having been so made and agreed to.4

Footnotes 1. CJ (1913) 235; ibid (1914) 226, 244, 264; ibid (1947–48) 410; ibid (1990–91) 306; ibid (1999–2000) 188; ibid (2003–04) 536. 2. CJ (1913) 244; ibid (1975–76) 114, 118; ibid (1976–77) 34. See Section 2 of the Parliament Act 1911, guidance by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, 2017, paras 2.42 and 2.43. 3. CJ (1976–77) 34; HC Deb (1976–77) 922, c 453. 4. The citation clause of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill (1998–99) was amended editorially since the year end fell between the rejection of the Bill by the Lords and its presentation for Royal Assent.

Suggestion of amendments by the Commons 30.53Provision is also made by which the House of Commons may, on the passage of such a bill through that House in the second session, suggest further amendments without inserting them in the bill.1 Such amendments must be suggested before the third reading of the bill,2 each suggested amendment being moved as a separate resolution. Suggested amendments can be moved only if they are included among the effective orders of the day.3 The Speaker has ruled that suggested amendments cannot be moved without notice.4 An order has been made for the consideration of any government motion for a suggested amendment.5 A motion for a suggested amendment has been amended.6 If agreed to, suggested amendments are sent to the House of Lords with the bill after it has passed the House of Commons.7 Any such suggested amendments are to be considered by the House of Lords, and, if agreed to by that House, are to be treated as amendments made by the House of Lords and agreed to by the House of Commons.8 It is also provided that the exercise of this power by the House of Commons shall not prejudice the position of the bill in the event of its rejection by the House of Lords.

Footnotes 1. CJ (1913) 243; HC Deb (1913) 55, c 469; CJ (1975–76) 102; ibid (1976–77) 33; ibid (2003–04) 521. 2. In the case of the Hunting Bill 2004 the House made an order for the consideration of suggested amendments after the second reading (and deemed report) of the bill and before third reading, all of which took place at the same sitting, CJ (2003–04) 519–20. 3. HC Deb (1999–2000) 345, c 127. 4. HC Deb (1948) 456, c 713. 5. CJ (2003–04) 519. 6. CJ (2003–04) 521. 7. HC Deb (1914) 61, c 1348; ibid (1914) 62, c 931; CJ (1975–76) 114; ibid (2003–04) 521–2. 8. In 1976 the Lords considered the Commons suggested amendments to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill, but moved them as amendments to the bill in identical form and agreed to them in this manner. They also made one further amendment to the bill before returning it to the Commons on 9 March. The Commons disagreed to the additional amendment, but accepted the remaining amendments. The Lords did not insist on the additional amendment to which the Commons had disagreed, and the bill subsequently received the Royal Assent in the normal way, CJ (1975–76) 222, 226. In 2004 the Lords considered the Commons suggested amendment to the Hunting Bill on a formal motion on the same day as second reading, 12 October (LJ (2003–04) 733), but the motion to agree to the Commons suggested amendment was not moved until the Lords consideration of Commons amendments on 17 November. That motion was disagreed to, LJ (2003–04) 892.

Enacting words 30.54Under s 4 of the Parliament Act 1911, as amended by the Act of 1949, a form of enacting words is prescribed for use in the case of a bill passed under the provisions of the Acts (see para 26.9 ).1

Footnotes 1. See eg 4 & 5 Geo 5, c 90, 91; 12, 13 & 14 Geo 6, c 103; 1991, c 13; 1999, c 1; 2000, c 44.

Speaker's certificate 30.55A bill other than a Money bill, when presented to Her Majesty for assent pursuant to s 2 of the Parliament Act 1911, must be endorsed with the signed certificate of the Speaker that the provisions of the section have been duly complied with.1 If the bill has not been passed by the day before prorogation, the Speaker instructs the Clerk of the House to write to the Clerk of the Crown stating that he or she intends to certify the Bill for Royal Assent on the following day and asking for confirmation of the intention to issue a Royal Commission. If such confirmation is forthcoming, the Clerk of the House writes to the Clerk of the Parliaments requesting return of the bill. When the Royal Assent has been signified by commission (see para 30.38 ) to such bills at the same time as to bills which have been agreed upon by both Houses, a separate commission has been issued for the purpose.2 Recent jurisprudence would suggest that there is no scope for the certificate to be questioned in judicial review proceedings.3

Footnotes 1. CJ (1914) 466; ibid (1948–49) 445; ibid (1990–91) 382; ibid (1998–99) 76; ibid (1999–2000) 699; ibid (2003–04) 631. Unless the bill has been returned to the Commons in the normal way the Clerk of the House of Commons requests the Clerk of the Parliaments, immediately before the bill is to be certified, to return it for that purpose. 2. LJ (1914) 423; CJ (1914) 466; ibid (1948–49) 445; ibid (1999–2000) 699. But a Commission in 2004 for Royal Assent was a single Commission with two Schedules, one for Acts passed in the usual way, the other for the Hunting Act, which was presented for assent under the Parliament Acts. 3. Jackson v Her Majesty's Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56, [2006] 1 AC 262, [2005] 4 All ER 1253, [49]–[51]. The conclusiveness of the Speaker's certificate was not challenged.

Challenge to validity of Parliament Act 1949 30.56In 2004 supporters of hunting with dogs took legal action to challenge the validity of the Hunting Act 2004 (which had been passed under the Parliament Acts) on the ground that the 1949 Act was itself invalid as being ultra vires the 1911 Act. Whilst on appeal to the House of Lords the case was dismissed and the validity of the 1949 Act thereby affirmed, the courts were nevertheless prepared to consider the validity of an Act of Parliament passed according to statutory process (see paras 16.21–16.22 ).1

Footnotes 1. Jackson v Her Majesty's Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56, [2006] 1 AC 262, [2005] 4 All ER 1253.

Proceedings on hybrid bills Contents Proceedings in the House of Commons Proceedings in the House of Lords 30.57Hybrid bills are public bills which are considered to affect specific private or local interests, in a manner different from the private or local interests of other persons or bodies of the same category, so as to attract the provisions of the standing orders relating to private business1 (see paras 42.2 –42.3, 43.2, 46.3–46.5 ). Such bills are subject in both Houses to certain proceedings additional to the normal stages in the passing of public bills. The Speaker has defined a hybrid bill as ‘a public bill which affects a particular private interest in a manner different from the private interest of other persons or bodies of the same category or class’.2 It is rare for public bills to be objected to on the ground that they ought to have been private bills,3 but it is not uncommon for objection to be taken that they ought to be treated as hybrid bills and ought to be referred accordingly to the Examiners under the procedure described below in relation to each House. As such objections of their nature arise from particular cases it is not easy to define the ground on which such objections have been sustained or overruled.4 A bill has not been regarded as hybrid if all the persons or bodies affected by it, and no others, belong to a category or class germane to the subject-matter of the bill5 and it is not the practice to treat as hybrid, bills dealing with matters of public policy whereby private rights over large areas or of a whole class are affected.6 A bill which sought to transfer compulsorily only certain canals, however, to a central canal trust7 and a bill in which one company was not proposed to be nationalised although it fulfilled the qualifying conditions8 have been ruled to be hybrid. A class must be defined by reference to criteria germane to the subject-matter of the bill.9 The subject of legislation may form a class of its own without necessarily rendering a bill prima facie hybrid. Thus, bills providing, for example, either separately or exclusively for London or for the Port of London Authority or for the City of London have, depending on their subject-matter, been ruled not to be prima facie hybrid10 (cf paras 42.4 –42.5 ). A bill relating to a privately-owned company in the nuclear generating industry, a class the only other member of which was a publicly-owned company which was not adversely affected by the bill, has been ruled not to be prima facie hybrid.11

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

For a consideration of the difference between public and private bills, see paras 26.2, 42.1-42.11. HC Deb (1962–63) 669, c 45. See Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), pp 807–8. See the Speaker's ruling on the House of Lords Reform Bill of 2012–13, HC Deb (9 July 2012) 548, c 23. HC Deb (1966–67) 732, cc 1221–23; Certificate from the Examiners relating to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill and Statement of Reasons therefor, HL 71 (1976–77) pp 11–12. The Railways Bill in 1921 (which amalgamated the main existing railways companies with larger companies), the Electricity (Supply) Bills of 1926 and 1934–35 and the Iron and Steel Bill of 1948–49 were all ruled to be matters of public policy and to treat alike the various classes of interests affected by the bills, HC Deb (1921) 142, cc 42–44; ibid (1926) 193, cc 1683–89; ibid (1934) 295, cc 1021–27; ibid (1948–49) 458, cc 47–51. See also London Government Bill 1962–63 (HC Deb (1962–63) 669, cc 45–48); certain clauses of the Finance Bill 1966–67 (HC Deb (1966–67) 729, cc 297–301). CJ (1905) 201, 210, 214–216. Another bill was similarly introduced but with somewhat different provisions and to this standing orders were held not to apply, CJ (1905) 289, 327. HC Deb (1975–76) 912, cc 299–305, 445. HC Deb (1966–67) 732, cc 1215–23; ibid (1987–88) 123, c 770. See eg London Government Bill 1962–63 and the special exceptions therein for the City; HC Deb (1983–84) 60, cc 1150–51; ibid (1986–87) 108, c 37. Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2003, HC Deb (2002–03) 398, c 581.

Before second reading 30.58Every public bill is considered before publication by the Public Bill Office. If it appears that the standing orders relating to private business may be applicable to a public bill1 notice of this circumstance is sent from the Public Bill Office to the Member in charge of the bill, and the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills (see para 43.2 ) are ordered by the House to examine the bill with respect to the applicability of those standing orders to the bill (Standing Order No 61).2 The order for examination does not supersede the order for the second reading of the bill, which remains on Future Business, with a note ‘to be reported upon by the Examiners’; but the second reading cannot be moved until the report of the Examiners has been received.3 Pending that report the bill is described as ‘prima facie hybrid’.4 An order for the examination of a bill before second reading has been discharged in the case of a bill which was reintroduced under the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, following its rejection by the Lords in the previous Session.5 In the case of a bill referred to them as prima facie hybrid, the Examiners examine the bill as a whole, including the possible application of the ‘Wharncliffe Orders' (see paras 45.3 –45.4 and Standing Order 224).6

Footnotes 1. For example, Severn Bridges Bill, CJ (1990–91) 42; Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, ibid (1994–95) 20; Crystal Palace Bill, ibid (2000–01) 315; Crossrail Bill, ibid (2004–05) 176. 2. For example, the High Speed Rail (West Midlands – Crewe) Bill 2017–19 was introduced on 17 July 2017 and referred to the Examiners on 18 July 2017. 3. Parl Deb (1886) 306, c 425; HC Deb (1985–86) 94, c 584. When the Examiners have reported compliance with standing orders on the day on which second reading was proceeded with, the fact that they had so reported was announced to the House from the Chair, HC Deb (1986–87) 106, c 667. 4. See para 30.63. 5. CJ (1976–77) 19. 6. Cf CJ (1945–46) 55 (Bank of England Bill).

Bills to which the standing orders do not apply 30.59If the Examiners report that none of the standing orders relating to private business, compliance with which would have to be proved before them, is applicable to the bill, the note ‘to be reported upon by the Examiners' is removed from Future Business and the bill proceeds on its course as an ordinary public bill.

Bills which have not complied with the standing orders 30.60If the Examiners conclude that the standing orders, compliance with which would have to be proved before them, are applicable to the bill, and report that those standing orders have not been complied with, the report is referred to the Standing Orders Committee (see paras 43.9–43.10 );1 the order of the day relating to the bill remains on the paper, with a note that the bill is to be reported on by the Standing Orders Committee. No further action can be taken on the bill in the House until the report is received.2 If the Standing Orders Committee reports that the standing orders ought not to be dispensed with, no further proceedings can take place on the bill.3

Footnotes 1. For example, Crystal Palace Bill, CJ (2000–01) 331; Crossrail Bill, ibid (2004–05) 237; High Speed Rail (West Midlands – Crewe) Bill, Votes and Proceedings, 12 September 2017. 2. For the reference to the Standing Orders Committee of a petition against dispensing with standing orders, notwithstanding that the petitioners had not presented a memorial to the Examiners as required by SO 107A, see CJ (1985–86) 345. 3. SO No 61. Cardiff Bay Barrage (No 2) Bill, CJ (1990–91) 570; Crystal Palace Bill, CJ (2000–01) 352. (In each of these cases the Report of the Standing Orders Committee was ordered to lie upon the Table, and the bill was not further proceeded with; but no order was made formally to discharge second reading of the bill.) For a case where the Standing Orders Committee reported that they declined to reach a decision, and the House ordered standing orders to be dispensed with, see CJ (1985–86) 371, 386. For a case where (at a later stage of a bill) the House ordered dispensation with standing orders notwithstanding that the Committee had recommended that they be not dispensed with, see CJ (1987–88) 55, 69, 77.

Bills in respect of which the standing orders have been dispensed with 30.61If the Standing Orders Committee reports that the standing orders should be dispensed with, the note ‘to be reported upon by the Standing Orders Committee’ is removed from the Order of Business, and the second reading of the bill may be moved in the ordinary way.

Environmental statements 30.62An environmental statement has to be deposited if the bill authorises work to be carried out on land specified in the bill. An environmental statement is not required in relation to any works for which planning permission has been granted. In the case of a hybrid bill, the statement is deposited at the same time as the bill is introduced.1 Members of the public can comment on the statement before a bill's second reading (Standing Order 224A). The public are granted a minimum of 56 days from the introduction of the bill in Parliament to submit comments on the environmental statement to the Government. The Government is required to publish the comments received. The comments are assessed and summarised by an independent assessor, appointed by the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills. The independent assessor's report must be submitted to the House within a period of not less than 28 days determined by the Examiners after consultation with the relevant Minister. If the assessment is submitted to the House, a period of 14 days must then elapse before the bill can be given a second reading (Standing Order 224A). If supplementary environmental information is submitted after the deposit of the environmental statement, a minimum of 42 days is provided for comments to be submitted on the supplementary information. These comments will be published and a summary of them, made by the independent assessor, must be published. At least 14 days must then elapse before the third reading of the bill (or, if the supplementary information was submitted before second reading, before the second reading of the bill).

Footnotes 1. SO 27A requires that an environmental statement is produced and deposited when the bill is introduced; such environmental statements must comply with the objectives of the EU Directive on Environmental Impact Assessments, which include a requirement that the public are consulted on the formal environmental statement (on the requirements for public consultation, see SO 224A which was revised in June 2013 to make that requirement explicit). SO 27A requires a hybrid bill to meet the requirements of the EIA Directive.

After second reading 30.63The Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills may be ordered by the House to examine public bills to determine whether the standing orders relating to private business are applicable to them at other stages as well as before second reading.1 Thus, when a hybrid bill was amended in a committee to an extent which, if it had been a private bill, would have required a petition for additional provision, the bill was referred to the Examiners on a motion moved by a member of the Government.2 When the Lords (as second House) similarly widened the scope of a hybrid bill, they communicated to the Commons that they had referred the amendments concerned to the Examiners;3 and on a motion moved by a member of the Government the amendments set out in the Lords message were referred to the Examiners.4 Where a hybrid bill was under consideration in a select committee, the Examiners reported that, in the case of certain amendments proposed in the committee, the standing orders had not been complied with in respect of time, and the Standing Orders Committee reported that the standing orders ought to be dispensed with.5

Footnotes 1. For examples: Police Bill (a bill ruled to be prima facie hybrid and referred to the Examiners after its second reading had been entered upon), CJ (1997–98) 376, 378; a bill ruled to be prima facie hybrid only after it passed its committee stage, a motion to dispense with standing orders was agreed to and a subsequent motion to refer the bill to a select committee was negatived, HC Deb (1975–76) 912, c 445; CJ (1975–76) 355, 359, 416. 2. CJ (1957–58) 147. 3. CJ (1986–87) 363–64; ibid (1992–93) 502–3. 4. CJ (1987–88) 46; ibid (1992–93) 553, 626. In the latter instance, the Standing Orders Committee, in agreeing that the standing orders should be dispensed with in respect of Lords amendments to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, added a rider that in general amendments of this kind should be made in the first House (HC 728i–xii (1994–95) p 195). 5. CJ (2006–07) 576, 591 (Crossrail Bill).

Hybrid bills originating in House of Lords 30.64Certain preliminary proceedings on a hybrid bill which originates and is pending in the House of Lords are regulated, so far as the House of Commons is concerned, by Standing Order 224, under which the Examiners are directed to report to the House of Commons whether any of the standing orders of that House relating to private business are applicable to the bill, and, if so, whether or not they have been complied with.1 If the Examiners report that the standing orders are applicable and have not been complied with, notwithstanding that the bill has not yet been introduced into the House of Commons, the report is forthwith referred to the Standing Orders Committee, which is empowered to report to the House whether such standing orders ought or ought not to be dispensed with (see Standing Order 104).

Footnotes 1. CJ (1934–35) 67; ibid (1936–37) 70; ibid (1963–64) 61; ibid (1937–38) 163, 193, 241; ibid (1983–84) 193.

Select committees: committal and instructions 30.65A hybrid bill, after being read a second time, is committed to a select committee (see para 28.63 ). The committal motion usually provides for the members of the committee to be nominated partly by the House and partly by the Selection Committee.1 But hybrid bills have been committed to committees of three,2 of nine,3 and of ten4 members nominated entirely by the Selection Committee. Nominations to the select committee are usually, but not invariably,5 made only after petitions have been submitted against the bill. Hybrid bills have also been committed to joint committees,6 the Commons Members being nominated, as a rule, by the Selection Committee. In addition to referring a hybrid bill to select committee, the House may also give instructions to the select committee. Instructions can prevent the select committee from amending certain provisions or allow it to make alterations to infrastructure provided for in the bill.7

Footnotes 1. For example, CJ (1985–86) 37; ibid (1994–95) 99. For an instance of a committee of six nominated in its entirety by the House, see Votes and Proceedings, 29 April 2014; and for an instance of a committee of five to be nominated only by the Selection Committee, see Votes and Proceedings, 30 January 2018. 2. Dean Forest Bill 1904, CJ (1904) 220. 3. Channel Tunnel Bill, CJ (1985–86) 397. When the proceedings on the bill were suspended at the end of the session, the House ordered that the bill should be committed to a committee consisting of the same Members in the following session, ibid 600. 4. Crossrail Bill, CJ (2005–06) 142. 5. For example, Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, CJ (1994–95) 99, 121, 125. 6. London Water Bill 1902; Port of London Bills 1903 and 1908; Ouse Drainage Bill 1927; Doncaster Area Drainage Bills 1929 and 1933; Public Offices (Sites) Amendment Bill 1931; London Passenger Transport Bill 1931; Roosevelt Memorial Bill 1946 for Members nominated by the House. 7. For example, the select committee considering the Crossrail Bill was instructed to treat the principle of the bill as including the termini of the railway and certain intermediate stations (HC Deb (19 July 2005) 436, c 1218); and the select committee considering the High Speed Rail (West Midlands – Crewe) Bill was instructed to treat the principle of the bill as including the termini of the railway. The latter instruction also limited the committee's discretion to vary the line of route, and provide for new stations or additional spurs to the railway: Votes and Proceedings, 30 January 2018.

Petitions against hybrid bills 30.66Standing Order 171B provides for a period of 25 days, starting on the day after the bill was given a second reading, for petitions against the bill to be submitted to the Private Bill Office. The House may make an order to vary the petitioning period, in which case the order states that any petitions submitted in the Private Bill Office not later than a certain number of days after the day the order is made are to stand referred to the select committee.1 The order may expressly provide that petitions against the bill may be submitted electronically, by post or in person to the Private Bill Office.2 Any petitioner is, subject to certain conditions, entitled to be heard by themselves, their counsel or their representatives or Parliament, and the Member in charge of the bill is to be entitled to be heard by their counsel or agents in favour of the bill against such petition.3 Standing orders provide that petitions against the bill may be submitted electronically, by post or in person in the Private Bill Office.4 Petitions against alterations in a hybrid bill are regularly referred by the House to the committee,5 usually by means of the order committing the bill to a select committee, and a public petition relating to a bill has been so referred.6 If no petitions are submitted or if all submitted petitions are withdrawn, at the end of the period specified in the order for committal a further order is made as a matter of course to discharge the committal, and the bill stands committed to a Committee of the whole House or to a public bill committee accordingly.7 When committees have determined that none of the petitioners should be heard since they had no right to have their petition considered (previously referred to as locus standi ) (see paras 44.4 –44.10 below), they have made special reports to the effect that they have not considered the provisions of the bills concerned and the bills have been re-committed to a Committee of the whole House8 or to a public bill committee.9

Footnotes 1. For example, CJ (2005–06) 142. 2. See Severn Bridges Bill, CJ (1990–91) 98; Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, ibid (1991–92) 57; Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, ibid (1994–95) 99; Crossrail Bill, ibid (2005–06) 142. 3. This order follows the recommendations of the Select Committee on Hybrid Bills (Procedure in Committee) (HC 191 (1947–48)), which was agreed to by the House subject to the modification that the bill could also, if unopposed, be committed to a standing committee. See Sugar Bill 1955, CJ (1955–56) 120, 125, for a bill committed to a standing committee. For a bill committed to a Committee of the whole House, see Commonwealth Telegraphs Bill, CJ (1948–49) 165, 174. Cf also Milford Haven Conservancy Bill, CJ (1957–58) 39, 41. 4. See Severn Bridges Bill, CJ (1990–91) 98; Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, ibid (1991–92) 57; Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, ibid (1994–95) 99; Crossrail Bill, ibid (2005–06) 142. 5. For example, CJ (1985–86) 398; ibid (1994–95) 99; ibid (2005–06) 142. 6. CJ (1960–61) 122. 7. For example, CJ (1985–86) 52. Such orders follow the recommendations of the Select Committee on Hybrid Bills (Procedure in Committee) (HC 191 (1947–48)), which was agreed to by the House subject to the modification that the bill could also, if unopposed, be committed to a standing committee. See Sugar Bill 1955, CJ (1955–56) 120, 125, for a bill committed to a standing committee. For a bill committed to a Committee of the whole House, see Commonwealth Telegraphs Bill, CJ (1948–49) 165, 174. Cf also Milford Haven Conservancy Bill, CJ (1957–58) 39, 41. 8. Charlwood and Horley Bill, CJ (1973–74) 67. 9. Park Lane Improvement Bill, CJ (1957–58) 121, 135; Transport (London) Bill, CJ (1968–69) 148, 152.

Punishment of Members: House of Commons Contents Suspension Suspension and the salary of Members Expulsion 11.30The House has power to punish its own Members. In the past it has used reprimand or admonition, or has committed Members to custody.1 In modern practice, the House is most likely to exercise its power of suspension, although it retains its power to expel and has admonished.

Footnotes 1. Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 197.

Bill was also given power to consider a wide range of matters and to make amendments with respect to any of them, CJ (2005–06) 364. 10. CJ (1927) 321. 11. For example, Special Reports of the Committees on the Channel Tunnel Bill (HC 34 (1986–87)), the Severn Bridges Bill (HC 439 (1990–91)), the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill (HC 204 (1995–96)) and the Crossrail Bill (HC 235 (2005–06)). The final Special Report of the Select Committee on the High Speed Rail (London–West Midlands) Bill (Second Special Report of Session 2015–16, HC 129) not only gave an account of the Committee's views on the bill's provisions but also set out a number of recommendations for changes to the procedures for petitioning against hybrid bills and for select committees on such bills. 12. CJ (1890–91) 398. 13. See Table of Fees in Standing Orders (Private Business) and paras 43.18 –43.19.

Report of bill and remaining stages 30.68A hybrid bill reported from a select committee or a joint committee is re-committed either to a Committee of the whole House, or, more frequently, to a public bill committee.1 From that point, proceedings upon it are the same as upon other public bills.

Footnotes 1. High Speed Rail (London–West Midlands) Bill, Votes and Proceedings, 22 February 2016. The bill was committed to a public bill committee.

Proceedings in the House of Lords Contents Reference of bills to Examiners Report from Examiners Petitions Committal to select committee Hybridizing amendments 30.69The procedure which applies in the House of Lords to hybrid bills is substantially similar to that in the Commons.

Reference of bills to Examiners 30.70Every public bill is considered before introduction by the Public Bill Office to see whether it may affect any private interests to which protection is given by the standing orders. If, prima facie, this is found to be so, an order is made referring the bill to the Examiners, and the second reading of the bill cannot be moved until the report of the Examiners has been received, although notice of second reading of the bill may be entered in the Order Paper. In the case of a Commons bill, an order is made for it to be referred to the Examiners if it was so referred by that House. It is open to any Lord who considers that a public bill may be hybrid, or has become hybrid as a result of any amendment made to it (see para 30.74 ), to move that the bill be referred to the Examiners. Such a motion is usually moved immediately before second reading, but may be moved with notice between stages at any time before third reading.1

Footnotes 1. The Local Government Bill [Lords] 2010 was found by the Public Bill Office not to affect private interests, but on the day on which the Bill was set down for second reading the House nevertheless ordered on a division that the Bill be referred to the Examiners, Minutes of Proceedings (2010–12) 8 June 2010; HL Deb (2010–12) 719, cc 603–13. The Examiners reported that no standing orders were applicable, Minutes of Proceedings (2010–12) 23 June 2010; HL 12 (2010–12). Motions to refer other bills to the Examiners have been negatived on division, London Government Bill 1962–63, LJ (1962–63) 226; House of Lords Bill 1998–99, LJ (1998–99) 742; Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill 2010–12, Minutes of Proceedings (2010–12), 15 November 2010.

Report from Examiners 30.71If the Examiners report that no standing orders are applicable, the bill may proceed on its ordinary course. However, if the Examiners find that the standing orders relating to private bills are applicable, the bill is a hybrid bill, and (unless the House orders otherwise1 ) an order of the House is made providing for petitions against the bill to be deposited by a given date.2

Footnotes 1. The Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill 1977, a government bill, was found by the Examiners to be hybrid. The Government then announced its intention of proposing amendments to delete the offending provisions of the bill, and on that basis the House agreed to a motion which enabled the bill to proceed as if it had not been hybrid, LJ (1976–77) 182, 223; HL Deb (1976–77) 380, c 641. A similar bill had been ruled to be prima facie hybrid in the Commons in the previous session, but that House resolved to dispense with standing orders relating to private business and with any consideration of their application, and so exempted the bill from the hybrid procedure. 2. LJ (2007–08) 121–22, Crossrail Bill.

Petitions 30.72If no petitions are deposited against the bill, the bill proceeds as a public bill in the usual way.1 If petitions are deposited, the bill is committed after second reading to a select committee.

Footnotes 1. Commons Registration Bill, LJ (1964–65) 109, 134; Caldey Island Bill, ibid (1989–90) 688, 701; Oversea Superannuation Bill, ibid (1990–91) 221, 223, 253; Agriculture and Forestry (Financial Provisions) Bill, ibid (1990–91) 374, 383.

Committal to select committee 30.73Since the bill is a public bill, and has been affirmed in principle on second reading, the preamble does not have to be proved before the select committee; but in other respects the committee broadly follows the procedure of a select committee on an opposed private bill (see paras 46.15 –46.27 ). When the bill is reported from the select committee it is re-committed to a Committee of the whole House and thereafter follows the usual course of a public bill. The bill is reprinted as amended by the select committee and the amendments are also printed separately.

Hybridizing amendments 30.74A bill may become prima facie hybrid as a result of an amendment made to it (and a hybrid bill may be amended in such a way as to affect private or local interests not previously affected). If an amendment is agreed to which, in the opinion of the Public Bill Office, has such an effect, the bill may be referred to the Examiners before its next stage, on a motion moved by the Chairman of Committees.1

Footnotes 1. Channel Tunnel Bill, LJ (1986–87) 355, 359, 362, 376.

Printing and promulgation of statutes 30.75As soon as a public bill has received the Royal Assent, a print of the Act in the form in which it was finally passed is prepared in the Public Bill Office of the House of Lords. The date on which the Royal Assent was signified is inserted after the title (see below) and the Act is given a chapter number. Acts are numbered serially throughout each calendar year in the order in which they receive the Royal Assent.1 Public General Acts form one series and are numbered in Arabic characters; Provisional Order Confirmation Acts and Local Acts2 form a second series and are numbered in small Roman characters; Personal Acts3 form a third series and are numbered in italicised Arabic figures; and General Synod Measures form a fourth series, numbered in Arabic characters. After examination of the text to ensure that it is correct, a proof copy of every public Act and Measure is certified by the Clerk of Legislation in the House of Lords and sent to the Queen's Printer,4 and a request is sent to the Controller of HM Stationery Office to issue instructions for its immediate publication. Two prints are prepared on archival paper. One of these is sent for custody to the National Archives; the other, having been endorsed with the words by which the Royal Assent was signified, is signed by the Clerk of the Parliaments and becomes the official copy of the Act, and is lodged in the Parliamentary Archives. Paper prints of the Act are placed on sale to the public, and such printed copies, known as Queen's Printer's copies, are accepted as evidence in courts of law. Acts are published online by the National Archives.

Footnotes 1. Acts of Parliament Numbering and Citation Act 1962. Before 1963 Acts were numbered serially by sessions, and the regnal year or years of the session were printed at the top. The session during which a bill was presented is now indicated by the number of the current Parliament and session thereof in the bottom right-hand corner of the title page. This is omitted in the Act copy. 2. The printing of these Acts is dealt with by the Private Bill Office in the House of Lords. 3. The printing of these Acts is dealt with by the Private Bill Office in the House of Lords. 4. See question relating to a printer's error in the Elementary Education Act 1891, Parl Deb (1892) 1, c 687.

Commencement of Act 30.76The date of Royal Assent is the date of commencement, when no other date is enacted. Every Act is in force for the whole of the day of its commencement, unless otherwise provided.1

Footnotes 1. See Interpretation Act 1978, s 4.

Documents accompanying the Act 30.77The final version of the explanatory notes (see paras 26.15–26.16 ) on each bill is published to accompany the Act. It may be referred to in litigation according to the rule in Pepper v Hart. A memorandum on the Act is produced subsequently by the appropriate government department to facilitate post-legislative scrutiny (see para 26.18 ).

Queen's and Prince of Wales's consent Contents Queen's consent in respect of the prerogative Queen's consent in respect of her interest Prince of Wales's consent Consents not required 30.78For the signifying of the Queen's and the Prince of Wales's consent on bills generally, see paras 9.6–9.8. The examples given below illustrate the circumstances in which consent has been required, or not, in respect of the royal prerogative, the Queen's interest, and the Prince's interest. Further examples are listed in Queen's or Prince's Consent, published by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. A bill may require consent in respect of both prerogative and interest.

Queen's consent in respect of the prerogative 30.79As stated in Chapter 9, bills affecting the royal prerogative1 require the Queen's consent. Thus consent has been required for bills affecting: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l. m. n. o. p.

royal marriages and the succession to the Crown;2 the prerogative to wage war by any means;3 the prerogative to dissolve, summon or prorogue Parliament;4 the prerogative to appoint the officers of the armed services,5 and to make other appointments;6 the prerogative control of the civil service;7 the rights of holders of peerages created under the prerogative;8 the prerogative power to issue a passport;9 the prerogative right of treasure trove;10 royal charters and bodies created by charter;11 lieutenancy arrangements;12 territorial waters;13 the relationship between the UK and territories ruled by the Crown;14 the prerogative of coinage;15 the prerogative of mercy;16 the Queen in her capacity as Visitor of a university;17 the power to legislate by prerogative Orders in Council,18

and for other bills affecting prerogative powers exercisable by ministers or subjecting the prerogative to statutory control.19 But the Queen's consent has not been required in a number of other instances, where: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

the prerogative is only very remotely or marginally affected by the bill;20 the bill does no more than re-enact the existing law;21 the bill has dealt with the prerogative in respect of matters which the Queen has already consented to put at the disposal of Parliament;22 bills related to actions under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union;23 only the sovereignty of the Queen in Parliament, rather than the prerogative, has been affected;24 the Crown has been empowered to do by Order in Council what it might have done by prerogative;25 the prerogative might be affected by an order made under the bill rather than by the bill itself;26 the bill has been introduced following a message under the sign manual27 (see para 9.2 ).

Footnotes 1. On the prerogative, see paras 1.5–1.7; Fourth Report from the Select Committee on Public Administration, Taming the Prerogative: Strengthening Ministerial Accountability to Parliament, HC 422 (2003–04), Government Response to the Report, Cm 6187, July 2004 and The Governance of Britain, Review of the Executive Royal Prerogative Powers: Final Report, Ministry of Justice, 2009. 2. Royal Marriages and Succession to the Crown (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill (2008–09); Succession to the Crown Bill (2012–13). 3. Chemical Weapons Bill (1995–96); Landmines Bill (1997–98); Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Bill [Lords] (2009–10). The Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Bill [Lords] (1997–98) did not require the Queen's consent because it preserved the right to wage war by any means. 4. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 abolished the prerogative power to dissolve Parliament. 5. HC Deb (1995–96) 278, c 37. 6. Greater London Authority Bill (1998–99); Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill (2008–09) and (2009–10). Consent has not been required in relation to appointments not made by Letters Patent or under the Sign Manual: Forensic Science Regulator Bill (2017–19). 7. Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which put most of the Civil Service on a statutory footing; Crown Employment (Nationality) Bill (2002–03) (and similar bills introduced in subsequent sessions). 8. House of Lords Bill (1998–99); Disqualification from Parliament (Taxation Status) Bill (2007–08). 9. Identity Cards Bills (2004–05) and (2005–06); Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill (2007–08). 10. Treasure Bill (1995–96). 11. Further and Higher Education Bill [Lords] (1991–92) (which abolished a body established by charter); Armed Forces Bill (1995–96) (which set aside a charter relating to Greenwich Hospital). But the Health and Social Care Bill (2007–08), which affected the statutory functions of a body established by royal charter but did not affect the prerogative power to grant new charters to professional bodies, did not require the Queen's consent. 12. Local Government etc (Scotland) Bill (1993–94). But the Local Government (Wales) Bill (1993–94), which amended the existing statutory regime for lieutenancies, did not require the Queen's consent. 13. Coal Industry Bill 1993–94; Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Bill [Lords] (1993–94). 14. Representation of Gibraltar at Westminster and in the European Union Bill, and Representation of Dependencies at Westminster Bill, Order Paper, 4 December 1997. 15. European Communities (Amendment) Bill (1992–93). 16. Criminal Appeal Bill (1994–95). 17. Higher Education Bill (2003–04). 18. Children's Rights Bill [Lords] (2009–10).

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

Scotland Bill (1997–98); Crown Prerogatives (Parliamentary Control) Bill (1998–99). For example, Charities Bill (1982–83); Local Government and Greater London Authority Acts 1999, which both affected council tax. For example, Supreme Courts Bill (1980–81). Consent may be required if the existing law is re-enacted with modifications. European Union (Accessions) Bill (2002–03). Consent was needed for the European Union Bill (2004–05); although the European Communities Act 1972 received consent, the reworking of that Act by the later bill was substantial enough to require consent again. European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill (2016–17) and European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill (2017–19): HC Deb (4 April 2019) 657, c 1130. Canada Bill (1981–82). Anguilla Bill (1980–81). Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Bill (1972–73). Regency Bill (1953–54).

Queen's consent in respect of her interest 30.80Consent in respect of the Queen's interest is required for a bill which affects the hereditary revenues, personal property or personal interests of the Crown or the Duchy of Lancaster or Cornwall. This includes the Royal Household and the Royal Palaces (including the Palace of Westminster),1 the Crown Estate and the Crown Estate Commissioners, the Queen's private estates, and the Queen's interest as a landlord or an employer. Provisions requiring such consent have included: a. b. c. d.

restrictions on the use that might be made of premises on Duchy land;2 the creation of further statutory nuisances arising from land which might have exposed the Crown to the risk of legal proceedings;3 the express application of data protection legislation to personal data processed by the Royal Household and the Duchy of Lancaster;4 the abolition of the office of coroner of the Queen's household, so that deaths of members of the royal family were to be investigated under the same rules as any other deaths;5 e. the application of legislation about construction contracts to contracts entered into on behalf of the Queen in right of the Duchy of Lancaster or on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall;6 f. the designation of rights in gas importation and storage zones in areas outside the territorial sea as rights belonging to Her Majesty.7

Consent is also required for bills which relate to matters such as intestacy and bona vacantia in which the Crown and the Duchies have a historic interest,8 unless the effect is remote.9 Consent is required if the repeal of a protective provision may have an adverse effect on the Queen's interest,10 and is required even if the adverse effect resulting from the bill itself needs consent.11 Consent is required in respect of substantial consequences for the Queen of changes in the general law,12 but has not been required for insignificant or remote consequences of such changes.13 Where consent has already been given in respect of a particular change in the law, it has not been required to be given again in respect of further changes which could not have affected the basis on which the original consent was given.14 In cases where the effect of a bill is doubtful it is the practice to require the Queen's consent.15 A bill relating to the civil service which required consent in respect of the prerogative also required consent in respect of the Queen's interest because it applied to the Crown Estate Commissioners.16

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

13. 14. 15. 16.

Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Bill (1991–92). Gambling Bill (2003–04) and (2004–05). Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill (2004–05). Data Protection Bill [Lords] (1997–98); Data Protection Bill [Lords] (2017–19). Coroners and Justice Bill (2008–09). Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill [Lords] (1995–96); Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [Lords] (2008–09). Energy Bill (2007–08). Law Reform (Succession) Bill [Lords] (1994–95); Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Bill [Lords] (2003–04); Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Bill (2008–09). Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [Lords] (2007–08). Mines Management Bill (1969–70). Gas Bill (1964–65); Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill (2005–06). For example, Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill (1993–94); Statutory Sick Pay Bill (1993–94); National Insurance Contributions Bill (2005–06). Whilst substantial changes to liability for national insurance contributions, etc have required the Queen's consent, increases in contributions have not. The Housing Act 1996, making significant changes to landlord and tenant law, required consent; the Civil Partnership Act 2004, making more limited changes to housing law, did not. For example, Employment Relations Bill (1998–99); Financial Services and Markets Bill (1998–99); Employment Bill [Lords] (2007–08). For example, VAT (Finance Act 1972); Mobile Homes Act 2013 (no consent) following Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (consent). For example, Perpetuities and Accumulations Bill [Lords] (2008–09). Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill (2008–09) and (2009–10).

Prince of Wales's consent 30.81The Prince's consent is required for a bill which affects the rights of the principality of Wales and earldom of Chester,1 or which makes specific reference to, or special provision for, the Duchy of Cornwall;2 and the Prince's consent may (depending on the circumstances) be required for a bill which amends an Act which does any of those things.3 The need for consent arises from the Sovereign's reversionary interest in the Duchy of Cornwall.4 For that reason, if a bill affects the Duchy of Cornwall in the same way as it affects other Crown land, separate Prince's consent has not been required, the Queen's consent being sufficient.5 The Prince's consent was not required for provisions amending an Act which did not apply to the Duchy, even though those provisions referred expressly to communications with the heir to the Throne.6 A bill affecting the Duchy of Cornwall in its capacity as harbour authority for the Isles of Scilly has required the Prince's consent.7 For the Duchy of Cornwall's interest in intestacy and bona vacantia, see para 30.80.

Footnotes 1. House of Lords Bill (1998–99). 2. For example, Railways Bill (1992–93); Data Protection Bill [Lords] (1997–98); Hunting Bills (2002–03) and (2003–04); Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords] (2008–09); Data Protection Bill [Lords] (2017–19). 3. Prince's consent was required on the bill for the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. Although it did not mention the Duchy expressly, it amended provisions in the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 which did and for which Prince's consent had been required. 4. See Craies on Legislation (11th edn, 2017), p 298, fn 113; HC Deb (1995–96) 276, c 419W. 5. For example, Animal Welfare Bill 2005–06; Business Rate Supplements Bill 2008–09; Rating (Valuation) Act 1999; High Hedges Bills (2000–01) and (2002–03); Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013; Infrastructure Act 2015. 6. Amendments to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill 2009–10 amending the Freedom of Information Act 2000, HC Deb (2009–10) 506, cc 829–49. 7. For example, Pilotage Bill (1986–87); and Marine Navigation Aids Bill [Lords] (2009–10).

Consents not required 30.82Consent has not been required for a bill which expressly binds the Crown, if it affects only the Queen's servants, such as Ministers or people working for government departments, or property belonging to them as her servants, such as the property of a government department;1 though, as explained above, consent is required for a bill which affects the Royal Household. Nor has consent been required for a bill which binds the Crown, but where nothing in it affects Her Majesty in her private capacity, or Crown (or Duchy) land.2 The Queen's consent was not required for the abolition of the common law offences of sedition and seditious libel, the purpose of which was to protect the authority of the Crown;3 the removal of clergy disqualification from membership of the House of Commons4 or the abolition of the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel,5 both of which could be seen as affecting the Queen's position as Supreme Governor of the Church of England; the replacement of the oath of allegiance to the Queen with a citizenship pledge;6 nor a change in the promise to serve the Queen in the form of attestation for constables.7

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

For example, Education and Adoption Bill (2015–16). Flood and Water Management Bill (2009–10). Coroners and Justice Bill (2008–09). House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Bill (2000–01). Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill (2007–08). Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill (2001–02). Police (Northern Ireland) Bill (1997–98); Police Reform Bill [Lords] (2001–02).

Corrections to the text of a bill 30.83Throughout all the stages and proceedings in each House the bill itself continues in the custody of the Public Bill Office, and, with the exceptions mentioned below, no alteration is permitted to be made in it, without the express authority of the House or a committee, in the form of an amendment regularly put from the Chair, and recorded by the Clerks.1 A change to the text of a bill may be made by way of silent correction where in the judgment of the Public Bill Office a failure to correct would leave a minor imperfection, and where the proposed correction plainly reflects what would be generally assumed to be the intention of the author of the text, and is not of a nature to require the authorisation of the House. No change is permitted by way of silent correction in the clearly underlying intended meaning of the text. Within that guiding principle, silent correction is generally allowed to internal or external cross-references where the original intention is self-evident; to punctuation, numbering or conjunction; to purely drafting points where the intention is clear; to typographical or grammatical errors, or errors as a result of varying practices on the identification of material to be omitted; to titles and headings, which are not technically part of the bill; and to non-operative provisions.2 The removal of an internal inconsistency does not necessarily justify a silent correction. Any alterations in a bill which are necessitated by the renumbering of clauses or by a change in the date of the citation title are also made by the Public Bill Office before the bill is reprinted at any stage.3 As to amendments made consequentially to a ‘Keeling schedule’, see para 28.117, fnn 3 and 4.

Footnotes 1. See eg 23 Parl Hist c 989. 2. An example of a non-operative provision would be a part of a textual amendment which described in brackets the provision being amended. 3. See HC Deb (1947–48) 446, cc 1873–75.

Forms not binding in progress of bills 30.84Although the forms of passing bills which have been explained are commonly observed by both Houses, it must be understood that they are not absolutely binding. Though founded upon long parliamentary usage, either House may vary its own peculiar forms, without question elsewhere, and without affecting the validity of any Act which has received, in proper form, the ultimate sanction of the three branches of the legislature. If an informality is discovered during the progress of a bill through the House in which it originated, that House will either order the bill to be withdrawn, or will annul the informal proceeding itself, and all subsequent proceedings;1 but if irregularities escape detection until the bill has passed, no subsequent notice can be taken of them by the other House, as it is the business of each House to enforce compliance with its own orders and practice.

Footnotes 1. CJ (1851) 82, 209; ibid (1852–53) 412, 578; ibid (1854) 96; ibid (1859) 138; ibid (1878–79) 300; ibid (1926) 217; ibid (1927) 270; ibid (1937–38) 360; ibid (1948–49) 323; ibid (1956–57) 201; ibid (1974) 256; ibid (1985–86) 155; LJ (1969–70) 278; ibid (1983–84) 381, 383; ibid (1984–85) 190, 193.

Informalities in the agreement of both Houses 30.85Although a departure from the usage of Parliament during the progress of a bill will not vitiate a statute, informalities in the final agreement of both Houses have on occasion been treated as if they might affect its validity. If a bill should receive the Royal Assent without the amendments made by one House having been communicated to the other and agreed to, serious doubts naturally arise concerning the effect of this omission because the assent of the Queen, Lords, and Commons is essential to the validity of an Act, except where the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 are enforced. It is not certain whether the Royal Assent will cure all prior irregularities, in the same way as the passing of a bill in either House would preclude inquiry as to informalities in any previous stage in that House; whether the endorsement on the bill, combined with the enacting formula recording the assent of Queen, Lords, and Commons, is conclusive evidence of that fact; or whether the Journals of either House should be permitted to contradict it. The point has never been directly determined in a court of law, but judgments delivered in modern cases have maintained that no attack should be permitted in the courts upon the validity of the enacting provisions of an Act of Parliament.1 On occasion informalities have been noticed and have been rectified by legislation.2 For a challenge in the courts to the validity of an Act of Parliament, see paras 16.21 –16.22, 30.56.

Footnotes 1. Pickin v British Railways Board [1974] AC 765, [1974] 1 All ER 609; and see also para 16.10, fnn 1 and 3 and the other cases mentioned in that appeal. 2. In the cases of the Cotton Factories Regulation Bill 1829 and the Schoolmasters' Widows Fund (Scotland) Bill 1843, amendments made in the second House were included in the Acts concerned without being approved by the first House; in the cases of the Local Government Bill 1972 and the Rent (Agriculture) Bill 1976, amendments made in the second House were not submitted to the first House, and were omitted from the Acts concerned. In the latter cases, subsequent legislation enacted the missing amendments, but did not expressly validate the original Acts. The consequence of any defect or informality in the commission or Royal Assent is illustrated in the following case. In 1546, when Henry VIII was dying, the Royal Assent was not formally given in Parliament to the Act of Attainder against the Duke of Norfolk. The Duke was saved, owing to the King's death. Some years later the Act of Attainder was declared void by statute because, after reciting certain informalities in the commission, no record existed showing that the commissioners did give the King's Royal Assent to the bill, which therefore ‘remayneth in verie dede as no Acte of Parlyament, but as a bill onelie exhibited in the saide Parlyament, and onelie assented unto by the saide lordes and comons, and not by the saide late king.’

Transposition of titles 30.86In 1809 the titles of two bills relating to the town of Worthing were transposed, and the Royal Assent signified to both, so incorrectly endorsed, without further notice. In 1821 the titles of two local Acts were, by a similar error, transposed in the endorsement when the bills received the Royal Assent. Each Act, consequently, had been passed with the title belonging to the other; and the mistake was corrected by Act of Parliament.1

Footnotes 1. 1 & 2 Geo 4, c xcv (local and personal).

Royal Assent given by mistake 30.87In 1844 there were two Eastern Counties Railway Bills in Parliament. One had passed through all its stages, and the other was still pending in the House of Lords, when on 10 May the Royal Assent was given, by mistake, to the latter, instead of to the former. On the discovery of the error an Act was passed by which it was enacted that when the former Act: ‘shall have received the Royal Assent it shall be as valid and effectual from 10 May as if it had been properly inserted in the commission, and had received the Royal Assent on that day; and that the other bill shall be in the same state as if its title had not been inserted in the commission, and shall not be deemed to have received the Royal Assent.’1

Footnotes 1. 7 Vict c xix (local and personal), CJ (1844) 328.

Overview of delegated legislation Contents Explanatory material Outline of committee scrutiny Legal challenges to secondary legislation 31.1Parliament often delegates legislative power upon the executive by statute, and has made various arrangements for the scrutiny of the executive's exercise of this power.1 The justification and advantages of delegated legislation arise from its speed, flexibility and adaptability. Once Parliament has by statute laid down (often in some detail) the principles of a new law, the executive may by means of delegated legislation work out the application of the law in greater detail within these principles, adapting it to fit changing circumstances.2 Power may even be conferred, by what is known as a ‘Henry VIII clause’,3 to amend the statute itself by delegated legislation or to amend other statutes. Criticism of the volume of delegated legislation and its lack of scrutiny by Parliament has been frequently made by committees of both Houses and by external observers.4 There have consequently been repeated attempts to improve scrutiny through better provision of information (see para 31.2 ), or creation of enhanced procedures for instruments of particular importance.5 This Chapter gives a brief overview of the topic, before dealing with the form and character of statutory instruments and Parliamentary control and scrutiny of such instruments, and the way in which scrutiny varies according to the type of instrument, in more detail.

Footnotes 1. The House of Lords Constitution Committee noted the Government had designated ‘functions for which delegated powers may be appropriate, including: providing for the technical implementation of a policy; filling in detail that may need to be updated frequently or is otherwise subject to change; and accommodating cases where the detailed policy has to work differently in different circumstances. Such purposes constitute reasonable uses of delegated powers.’ The Committee considered use of delegated legislation to formulate policy, create new criminal offences or public bodies ‘constitutionally unacceptable’: House of Lords Constitution Committee, Sixteenth Report, The Legislative Process: The Delegation of Powers, HL 225 (2017–19). 2. The use made of delegated legislation is subject to periodical review in the special reports of the Commons Statutory Instruments Committee and of the JCSI. See, for example, JCSI, First Special Report (2017–19) (HL 151, HC 1158); First Special Report (2013–14) (HL 6, HC 167). There have been three general reviews of the subject, namely that of the Committee on Ministers' Powers in 1932 (Cmd 4060), that of the Select Committee on Delegated Legislation in 1953 (HC 310 (1952–53)) and that of the Joint Committee on Delegated Legislation in 1972 (HL 184, HC 475 (1971–72)) and in 1973 (HL 188 and 204 (1972–73), HC 407 and 468 (1972–73)). Scrutiny arrangements for delegated legislation were reviewed by the Commons Procedure Committee in 1996 and 2000 (HC 152 (1995–96) and HC 48 (1999–2000)) and by the Lords Procedure Committee in 2003 and 2009 (HL 115 (2002–03) and HL 39 (2008–09)). Both the Commons and the Lords Procedure Committees have recently reviewed the procedure for the scrutiny of instruments to give effect to EU law or to revise UK law to take account of the UK's withdrawal from the European Union (HC 386 (2017–19), HL 163 (2017–19)). The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has published information on how it would go about the task: Thirty-Seventh Report, Sifting ‘proposed negative instruments' laid under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: criteria and working arrangements, HL 174 (2017–19). For further information about special treatment of such proposed negative instruments, see para 32.3. 3. See Committee on Ministers' Powers, Cmd 4060 (1932), pp 36–37 and 123, Annex II; and, for an exceptionally wide-ranging Henry VIII power, s 75 of the Banking Act 2009. Further examples of ‘Henry VIII clauses' making incidental, consequential and similar provision are set out in the annexes to the Third Report of the House of Lords Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform, HL 21 (2002–03). This Committee's report on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill stated that ‘The Bill confers on Ministers wider Henry VIII powers than we have ever seen’ (HL 22 (2017–19), para 9). 4. See, for example, Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, Special Report, HL 216, HC 31–xxxvii (1985–86) and Special Report, HL 103, HC 582 (1995–96); House of Lords Constitution Committee, Sixteenth Report, The Legislative Process: The Delegation of Powers, HL 225 (2017–19); Ruth Fox and Joel Blackwell, The Devil is in the Detail: Parliament and Delegated Legislation (Hansard Society, 2014). 5. For example, Legislative Reform Orders, Remedial Orders and certain orders under the Localism Act 2011 (see para 31.14 ).

Explanatory material 31.2Delegated legislation is often extremely complex in its terms, by reason of the involved nature of the matter with which it is dealing, and because it is often necessary to set out its provisions at length and in detail. For this reason, brief explanatory notes are added to statutory instruments, to give the general reader ‘a concise and clear statement of the purport of the instrument’.1 Every such note is prefaced by the warning that the note is not part of the instrument. From 1 March 2001, the Government has supplied Parliament with explanatory memoranda on affirmative instruments, to assist parliamentary consideration of the instrument by giving fuller information, such as the policy background. Since the establishment of the Lords Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee in December 2003 (now renamed the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee2 ), memoranda are now provided and published for every instrument subject to the affirmative or negative resolution procedures laid before Parliament.3 Such explanatory memoranda are also laid for instruments subject to proceedings in the House of Commons only.

Footnotes 1. Statutory Instrument Practice (5th edn, 2017) para 3.23. Such notes were first adopted in relation to Defence Regulations. See Report of Committee on Ministers' Powers, Cmd 4060 (1932) p 66, and observations of the scrutiny committees on such notes (Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, Sixth Report, HL 40, HC 15-viii (1981–82), Special Report, HL 216, HC 31-xxxvii (1985–86); and Government observations, Cmnd 8600 (July 1982), and Special Report, HL 103, HC 582 (1995–96)). 2. House of Lords Procedure Committee, Twelfth Report of Session 2010–12, Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee (LJ (2010–12) 2333). 3. Third Report of the House of Lords Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, HL 73 (2003–04).

Outline of committee scrutiny 31.3The task of scrutinising statutory instruments falls to several different types of committee, as discussed further below, but, broadly speaking, there are three main ‘scrutiny committees'.1 Two of them, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Commons Select Committee on Statutory Instruments (see paras 31.32 –31.33, 38.70 and 4.10 ), may draw the attention of both Houses or of the Commons only, as the case may be, to a statutory instrument on specified grounds, materially identical, set out in Standing Order No 151 in the House of Commons and Standing Order No 73 in the House of Lords (see para 31.32 ).2 Those grounds include doubts as to the vires of the instrument.3 The third scrutiny committee is the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (see para 31.35 and 40.50 ) which, apart from a few exceptions, examines the merits of every instrument laid before both Houses of Parliament which is subject to parliamentary proceedings (usually either the affirmative or negative procedure).4 The committee draws to the special attention of the House any instrument which falls within the grounds specified in the committee's orders of reference; broadly whether it is of general policy interest, appropriate or inadequately explained by the Government.5

Footnotes 1. There are further arrangements for scrutinising specific types of instrument. Remedial orders under the Human Rights Act 1998 are examined by the Joint Committee on Human Rights (see paras 31.39–31.41 ) and drafts of some secondary legislation laid under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 are examined by the Commons' European Statutory Instruments Committee (see para 32.3 ). 2. In outline, the specific grounds are: i. imposition of a charge on public revenues or (conversely) of a requirement to make payments for services; ii. being made in pursuance of an enactment excluding court challenge; iii. unauthorised retrospection; iv. unjustified delay in publication or laying; v. unjustified delay in sending any required notifications for coming into force before laying; vi. doubtful vires or unusual or unexpected use of enabling powers; vii. calling for elucidation in respect of form or purport; and viii. defective drafting, or residually on any other ground not impinging on the merits of the instrument or the policy behind it. In recent years defective drafting has been by far the most common reporting ground, followed by the residual ground, and there have been no reports based on either of the first two specific grounds. 3. For example, Thirtieth Report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, HL 176, HC 542-xxx (2017–19). 4. The exceptions are: remedial orders, and draft remedial orders, under s 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998; (b) draft orders under ss 14 and 18 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, and subordinate provisions orders made or proposed to be made under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001; (c) Measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 and instruments made, and drafts of instruments to be made, under them. See Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Terms of Reference, www.parliament.uk (www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/secondary-legislation-scrutiny-committee/role/tofref/ ). 5. House of Lords, Liaison Committee, First Report, HL 57 (2002–03); Procedure Committee, Third Report, HL 115 (2002–03); LJ (2002–03) 547; ibid (2003–04) 66; Fifth Report of the Procedure Committee, HL 167 (2013–14); Fifth Report of the Procedure Committee, HL 163 (2017–19), HL Minute, 11 July 2018. See paras 31.35 and 40.50.

Legal challenges to secondary legislation 31.4While the courts cannot strike down primary legislation1, they may declare secondary legislation invalid. If the exercise of power by delegated legislation should be ultra vires, ie beyond the powers clearly authorised by the enabling Act, the validity of that delegated legislation can be contested in the courts.2 The other grounds on which delegated legislation may be challenged in the courts are that the purported exercise of the power is unreasonable, or insufficiently certain; or that there has been procedural deficiency or irregularity.3 A provision of delegated legislation which is found to be incompatible with ‘Convention rights’ within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998, s 1 may be so declared by the courts if the primary legislation under which it has been made prevents the removal of the incompatibility. Such a declaration does not affect the validity of the provision.4

Footnotes 1. Except in the case where it is incompatible with EU law. 2. See R (on the Application of The Public Law Project) (Appellant) v Lord Chancellor (Respondent) [2016] UKSC 39, [2016] AC 1531, [2017] 2 All ER 423. In R (on the application of UNISON) (Appellant) v Lord Chancellor (Respondent) [2017] UKSC 51, [2017] 4 All ER 903 Lord Reid held ‘In determining the extent of the power conferred on the Lord Chancellor by section 42(1) of the 2007 Act, the court must consider not only the text of that provision, but also the constitutional principles which underlie the text, and the principles of statutory interpretation which give effect to those principles’. Doubts concerning the vires of delegated legislation do not prevent the House from discussing the orders in question, HC Deb (1954–55) 535, cc 1914–16; ibid (1966–67) 734, cc 842–44; Votes and Proceedings, 1 July 2014 and 9 July 2014. There is no principle of law which circumscribes the extent to which the courts may review a statutory instrument on the sole ground that it has been approved by both Houses: see R (Javed) v Home Secretary [2001] EWCA Civ 789, [2002] QB 129, [2001] 3 WLR 323 at 351. 3. Craies on Legislation (11th edn, 2017), para 3.6.2. 4. Human Rights Act 1998, s 4(4).

Form and character of statutory instruments Contents Statutory Instruments Reference Committee Sub-delegation 31.5The Statutory Instruments Act 1946, which was brought into force for material purposes on 1 January 1948, gave the comprehensive name of ‘Statutory Instruments' to most, but not all, delegated legislation. In cases where the parent statute was passed in or after 1948, every Order in Council is a statutory instrument and every instrument made by a Minister of the Crown1 is a statutory instrument if the parent statute so provides. In cases where the parent statute was passed before 1948 and the provisions of the Rules Publication Act 1893 designated instruments under the parent statute as statutory rules, instruments under the parent statute made after 1948 were similarly named. With a few exceptions, a statutory instrument is defined as every document, being of a legislative and not of an executive character, made after the commencement of the 1946 Act by a rule-making authority2 in the exercise of a statutory power conferred on that authority by or under any Act of Parliament passed before the commencement of the 1946 Act.3 The 1946 Act extended the ambit of ‘statutory instruments’ to cover, if the parent statute so provides, instruments which confirm or approve subordinate legislation made by another authority.4 It should be noted that by no means all instruments made under statutory powers fall within the terms of the 1946 Act. Certain documents, such as Immigration Rules, alterations to the Highway Code, equality codes of practice, and animal welfare codes of practice,5 although technically not statutory instruments, are by virtue of their parent Acts required to be laid before Parliament and are by the provisions of those Acts made subject to approval or disapproval by either House. A parent Act may provide that a Secretary of State may make orders and regulations, but that they shall not be exercisable by statutory instrument: such instruments are not therefore subject to the provisions of the 1946 Act.6 In addition, the various classes of by-laws made under statutory powers by local authorities or public corporations, though they may require confirmation by a Minister, are neither made nor confirmed by statutory instrument and are not required to be laid before Parliament. Statutes under which other delegated legislation not subject to the terms of the 1946 Act is made may also prescribe a different period during which parliamentary control may be exercised, which may be longer or shorter than the 40 days prescribed by the 1946 Act (for which, see, para 31.16 ), and may even be calculated in a different manner.7 All instruments are published online at legislation.gov.uk. By the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, immediately after a statutory instrument has been made, it must be sent to the Queen's Printer (the Controller of HM Stationery Office, which is now part of the National Archives) and, with certain exceptions, printed and put on sale. Ministers when sending instruments to the Queen's Printer are required to classify them as local or general, according to their subject-matter.8 Those printed and sold are, broadly speaking, ‘general’ instruments, analogous to public general Acts.9 Local instruments are exempt from printing and sale unless the Minister concerned requests otherwise.10 Other instruments are so exempt if the Minister gives the appropriate certificate. In most cases the Minister's certificate may be overridden by the Statutory Instruments Reference Committee (see below).11 The Statutory Instrument Registrar is responsible for allocating statutory instruments to the series of the calendar year in which they are made. They are numbered consecutively in that series as nearly as may be in the order in which they are received by the Registrar. Instruments may be cited by the year and number in the series, as well as by the short title assigned to each.

Footnotes 1. See the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, s 1(1). Certain statutes (eg Solicitors Act 1974 (c 47), s 46) confer on documents issued by nongovernmental bodies the status of statutory instruments. 2. The Rules Publication Act 1893 (c 66) defined ‘a rule-making authority’ as Her Majesty in Council, all government departments, and any person or body authorised to make rules of court. 3. The definition is found in reg 2(1) of the Statutory Instruments Regulations 1947 (SI 1948/1), made by the Secretary of State who, with the concurrence of the Speakers of both Houses, is empowered to make regulations determining the classes of cases in which the exercise of power by a rule-making authority does or does not constitute the making of a statutory instrument (Statutory Instruments Act 1946, s 8(1) (d)). 4. A corresponding extension has been applied in cases where the parent statute was passed before 1948. See Statutory Instruments Act 1946, s 9(1); Statutory Instruments Regulations 1947 (SI 1948/1); Statutory Instruments (Confirmatory Powers) Order 1947 (SI 1948/2). 5. See, for instance, Immigration Act 1971 (c 77), s 3; Road Traffic Act 1988 (c 52), s 38; Equality Act 2006, (c 3), s 14; Animal Welfare Act 2006 (c 45), ss 14 and 15. 6. See, for example, the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c 31), s 138(2). 7. See College Charter Act 1871 (c 63), s 2; Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Act 1923 (c 33), sch, para 50. 8. Statutory Instrument Practice 2017, para 1.4.31. 9. It is usual to include under ‘general’ those instruments which refer to London. 10. Statutory Instrument Practice 2017, para 1.4.31. 11. See Statutory Instruments Regulations 1947 (SI 1948/1), regs 5–8. Such certificates may relate to general instruments regularly printed and made available to persons affected thereby; temporary instruments; related schedules or other bulky documents; and confidential instruments during the period before coming into force.

Statutory Instruments Reference Committee 31.6The Statutory Instruments Reference Committee is nominated by the Lord Speaker and the Speaker. It consists of the Senior Deputy Speaker (formerly referred to as the Lord Chairman of Committees), the Chairman of Ways and Means, and six senior officers of both Houses. The Reference Committee (which rarely meets) may override certificates by Ministers for exemption from printing and sale of instruments (except confidential instruments). It may also consider such matters as the numbering, classification, printing and publication of statutory instruments, and whether an instrument made under an Act passed before 1948 is to be regarded as a statutory instrument.1

Footnotes 1. See Statutory Instruments Act 1946 (c 36), s 8(1); Statutory Instruments Regulations 1947 (SI 1948/1), reg 11; Statutory Instrument Practice (5th edn, November 2017) paras 1.5.5, 2.15.11, 5.6; and the Reports of the Statutory Instruments Reference Committee, No 1, 1 January 1948 to 31 December 1950 (HMSO, 1951). The Lord Speaker and the Speaker of the House of Commons lay the Reports of the Reference Committee on the Table of their respective Houses, eg LJ (1984–85) 112; CJ (1995–96) 7–8; ibid (2001–02) 245.

Sub-delegation 31.7An instrument made under a statute is to be regarded as a second ‘tier’ of legislation, but the statute may also empower the maker of the instrument to create further tiers.1 For example, instruments made under Defence Regulations were exposed to annulment by resolution of either House.2 Departmental directions resulting from sub-delegation have been judicially criticised in circumstances where they have escaped the system of official publicity.3 The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has drawn attention to the need for departments to take care not to include in instruments provisions amounting to sub-delegation where the parent statute did not so provide.4

Footnotes 1. The Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939 (c 62), s 1(3) (now repealed) authorised a three-tier system: first the enabling statute, second Orders in Council under that statute in very wide language, and third instruments made under the Orders in Council. The Select Committee on Statutory Rules and Orders commented on instances of five-tier legislation, Third Special Report, HC 187 (1945–46). See also Civil Aviation Act 1982 (c 16), s 60 and sch 13; Air Navigation Order 2016 (SI 2016/765), arts 31, 97, 239 and 249; and regulations made thereunder. 2. Section 4(1) of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act 1945 (c 10) (now repealed). 3. Per Scott LJ, Blackpool Corpn v Locker [1948] 1 KB 349. 4. Third Report (HL 13, HC 332-iii (2014–15)), para 5.6.

Parliamentary control and scrutiny Contents Compatibility with the ECHR Composite procedure Laying before Parliament Notification of laying The affirmative procedure The ‘super-affirmative’ procedure The negative procedure Time limits Treaties Proceedings on delegated legislation in the House of Commons Delegated Legislation Committees: referral and related proceedings Procedure in Committee Proceedings on the floor of the House ‘Out of time’ prayers Delegated legislation relating exclusively to England, or England and Wales, within devolved competence Explanation of effect of certification – affirmative types of instrument Explanation of effect of certification – negative types of instrument Scope of debate 31.8The conditions of the making of statutory instruments and the degree of parliamentary control over them will depend in each case upon the particular statute which authorises them, although the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 standardised certain procedures. It should be remembered that a great many statutory instruments are not subject to any parliamentary control: their parent Act may provide for them to be laid before Parliament, but for no proceedings to ensue; they may not be required to be laid before Parliament (this is the case, for example, for most commencement orders bringing into force all or part of an Act); or they may be local in character. There have been attempts to ensure a connection between the subject-matter of a particular instrument and the procedure to which it may be subjected, although these have not resulted in uniformity.1 In 1973, the Joint Committee on Delegated Legislation established some general presumptions about how to assess the significance of an instrument. There are three criteria: Do the powers ‘substantially affect’ the provisions of an Act of Parliament? Do the powers allow the imposition or increase of taxation? Are there other powers of special importance—for example, creating serious criminal offences?2 In general, the more significant an instrument, the greater the degree of scrutiny which is appropriate. In the Lords, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee scrutinises all bills (other than consolidation and, save in exceptional circumstances, supply bills3 ) and reports on whether the provisions of any bill inappropriately delegate legislative power or subject the exercise of delegated power to an inappropriate degree of parliamentary scrutiny (see para 40.48 ). If the enabling Act seeks a high level of parliamentary supervision, it will probably direct that the document be laid as a draft and that it be not made unless approved, or that, if made, it shall cease to have effect unless approved within a specified time. This is known as the affirmative procedure. Thus the instrument has no effect, or no continuing effect, unless Parliament has expressly approved it. Under another type of procedure, the negative procedure, the instrument may be annulled if, within a time limit, either House records its disapproval; the Address to Her Majesty praying that an instrument be annulled is colloquially known as a ‘prayer’. There is also a more rare ‘super-affirmative’ procedure, based on a model initially set out in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. There are variations on super-affirmative models, but in essence the procedure provides for increased parliamentary scrutiny, based on an initial examination of a legislative proposal, recommendations for amendment, if appropriate, and further scrutiny of a draft instrument. These three types of procedure are examined in more detail below (paras 31.13 –31.15 ). If the subject of the instrument is taxation, the required resolution will be that of the House of Commons only. Thus, draft Orders in Council affording relief from double taxation are not submitted to Her Majesty unless they have been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.4 Orders under the Customs and Excise Duties (General Reliefs) Act 1979 (c 3), s 17(4), which restrict relief from customs or excise duty or value added tax, lapse within 28 days unless approved by that House. Draft Orders in Council defining certain Treaties as Community Treaties within the meaning of the European Communities Act 1972 are nevertheless subject to affirmative procedure in both Houses, even if a charge arises from an obligation under such a Treaty.5 Certain instruments made under the European Communities Act 1972 (sch 2, para 2(2)) may be subject to either affirmative or negative procedure, at the option of the executive.6 Similar provisions apply in relation to certain instruments laid under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (s 22, sch 7), although there is provision for parliamentary scrutiny of the Government's decision to use the negative procedure,

described in more detail in Chapter 32.

Footnotes 1. See Joint Committee on Delegated Legislation, Second Report, HL 204, HC 468 (1972–73), and Procedure Committee, Fourth Report, HC 152 (1995–96) paras 6–8. 2. Second Report from the Joint Committee on Delegated Legislation, Session 1972–73, HL 204, HC 468, para 46; Procedure Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2017–19, Scrutiny of delegated legislation under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, HC 1395. 3. See report on the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill, a supply bill, which the Committee reported on whilst in the House of Commons (Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, Eleventh Report, HL 65 (2017–19)). 4. Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 (c 8), ss 2 and 5(2). 5. European Communities Act 1972 (c 68), s 1(3) as read with s 2(3); HC Deb (1978–79) 964, cc 49–51. 6. The manner in which this choice should be exercised has been commented on by the scrutiny committees (Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, Second Report of Session 2010–12, HL 23, HC 354-ii, paras 1.8–1.10. A different power is available under s 81D of the Banking Act 2009 (c 1), where an instrument may be approved in draft or, if it is necessary to make it without laying a draft, expires unless approved within 28 days of making.

Compatibility with the ECHR 31.9Where Ministers invite Parliament to approve statutory instruments or draft statutory instruments by way of the affirmative resolution procedure, the responsible Minister is expected to indicate their view regarding the compatibility of the instrument with ‘Convention rights' within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998, s 1. A declaration of compatibility is also made in all cases where secondary legislation, whether subject to the affirmative or the negative procedure, amends primary legislation.1 Declarations of compatibility may be included in the separate explanatory memoranda which accompany all instruments subject to affirmative or negative resolution. Alternatively, the responsible Minister may make the declaration by writing to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.2

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1999–2000) 341, c 138W. 2. HC Deb (1999–2000) 341, c 138W. Note that declarations of compatibility in respect of secondary legislation are made voluntarily, whereas there is a statutory duty for Ministers to make declarations of compatibility in respect of primary legislation.

Composite procedure 31.10Exceptionally, a parent Act may contemplate the making of an instrument part of which requires affirmative approval and part of which may be exposed to annulment on a negative ‘prayer’.1 It has, however, been ruled that the House of Commons cannot accept the type of composite document in which regulations already accepted by the House are joined with regulations subject to annulment.2 The scrutiny committees have adversely commented on an instrument, part of which is not subject to any parliamentary procedure and part of which is susceptible to annulment.3

Footnotes 1. For example, Orders in Council under the Census Act 1920 (c 41), s 1(2). In this case, the provisions which are subject to the affirmative procedure have been identified by being printed in italics in the order as laid. In the House of Commons, motions relating to both parts of the order have sometimes been tabled so that the scope of debate on the order was not restricted to those parts which required affirmative resolution (CJ (1959–60) 209; ibid (1964–65) 181; ibid (1969–70) 165). See also HC Deb (1964–65) 708, cc 1617, 1643–44; ibid (1969–70) 796, c 329; and ibid (1974–75) 889, c 407. In 2009, the motion referred only to the parts requiring approval: ibid (2009–10) 501, c 1030, but the debate was held in a Delegated Legislation Committee (Official Report, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 30 November 2009). 2. HC Deb (1950–51) 480, cc 1797–99. 3. Thirty-second Report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, HL 249, HC 31-xli (1985–86), para 3 and Eleventh Report of the same committee, HL 75, HC 29-xiv (1986–87), para 6.

Laying before Parliament 31.11The first step in parliamentary control is the requirement that a document be laid before Parliament, though, if its contents are of minor significance only, the enabling Act may not impose such a requirement, or may require nothing more in the way of parliamentary control. A document prepared for laying must be a hard copy of the imprinted pdf produced by legislation.gov.uk Publishing, which includes the wording ‘certified copy from legislation.gov.uk Publishing’.1 Statutory instruments and other documents which require to be laid must be complete and in full,2 and correct.3 If a mistake in the laid copy is more than an obvious printer's error it must be considered a matter of substance.4 While copies of draft statutory instruments can be withdrawn and relaid, copies of made instruments which are found to be defective cannot be withdrawn. Where the laid copy is a true copy of the original instrument, but the original is found to be defective, it is normally revoked by another instrument.5 Section 4 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 requires that, where instruments have to be laid, every copy must bear on the face of it a statement of the date on which it came or will come into operation, and either a statement of the date on which copies were laid or a statement that copies are to be laid. Instruments laid before Parliament other than draft instruments also bear the date on which they were made. Breach of a statutory duty to lay an instrument before Parliament will not of itself invalidate the instrument. The resulting situation has been dealt with both by statute and by statutory instrument.6 Under the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, s 4, if an enabling statute requires a statutory instrument to be laid before Parliament, a copy must be laid before each House and ‘shall be so laid before the instrument comes into operation’. If, however, it is essential that an instrument should come into operation before copies can be laid, the instrument may be made so as to come into operation before laying; in this event, the Lord Speaker and the Speaker of the House of Commons must forthwith be notified that copies have yet to be laid, with an explanation why there has been no laying before operation.7 By Standing Order No 160 in the House of Commons and Standing Order No 71 in the House of Lords, the Speaker and the Lord Speaker are directed to lay the notification on the Table. What constitutes laying must be a matter for the decision of each House. In 1948, however, the Laying of Documents before Parliament (Interpretation) Act 1948 was passed ‘for the removal of doubt’. It declares that statutory references to the laying of instruments or other documents before either House are (unless the contrary intention appears) to be construed as references to the taking, during the existence of a Parliament, of such action as, under the standing or sessional orders or other directions of that House, or under the practice of that House, constitutes laying, notwithstanding that the action can be taken at a time when that House is not sitting. By Standing Order No 159, the House of Commons has directed that the delivery of a copy of a statutory instrument to the Votes and Proceedings Office on any day during the existence of a Parliament shall be deemed to be a laying. As a matter of practice, instruments are not normally laid on Saturdays, Sundays, bank holidays, Good Friday, Christmas Day or after 3 pm on Fridays, unless the House is still sitting. The Standing Order does not apply to special procedure orders or to any other instruments, including some of those subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which are required to be laid before Parliament or before the Commons only before coming into operation. These can be laid only on sitting days, although this proviso does not extend to documents laid under para 3(3)(b) or 17(3)(b) of sch 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.8 By Standing Order No 70, the House of Lords similarly accepts as laying the deposit of a copy in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments, and Standing Order No 70A similarly allows certain documents laid under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to be laid when the House is not sitting.9 The times for this are currently between 11 am and 3 pm on any day during the existence of a Parliament when that House is not sitting for public business, except Saturdays, Sundays, bank holidays, Christmas Day or Good Friday. For the number of copies of each class of instrument to be supplied to the Votes and Proceedings Office, the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office, see Statutory Instrument Practice.10

Footnotes 1. National Archives, Statutory Instrument Practice (5th edn, November 2017) para 4.8.17. 2. HC Deb (1950–51) 486, c 660. See also Parl Deb (1899) 69, cc 625, 647; ibid (1901) 96, c 1007; HC Deb (1910) 17, c 1315; ibid (1950–51) 486, c 205. 3. HC Deb (1945–46) 422, c 1881; ibid (1985–86) 98, cc 459–60. See also Special Report of the Statutory Instruments Committee, HC 324 (1948–49) p 12. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has drawn attention to an instrument on the ground that the laying copy contained an unacceptable number of manuscript amendments and additions (Twelfth Report, HL 51, HC 34–xii (1995–96)). The Speaker ruled that the form of the instrument was a matter for the department concerned (HC Deb (1995–96) 272, c 733). The House of Lords has declined to approve a code of recommendations which contained obvious errors: HL Deb (2002–03) 644, cc 385–401. 4. For errors before an instrument is laid see Statutory Instrument Practice (5th edn, November 2017) paras 4.7.2–4.7.5; HC Deb (1945–46) 422, c 1881, and 423, c 998; ibid (1954–55) 535, cc 2704–20; ibid (1978–79) 965, cc 1182–84. See also ibid (1934) 296, cc 918, 967 and the Speaker's comment at c 969. 5. See eg Education (Publication of School Proposals) (No 2) Regulations 1980 (SI 1980/658). For an instance of a failure to follow this prescription, see Eighteenth Report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, HL 125, HC 31-xxiii (1985–86). For an instance of mistakes in an instrument corrected by a subsequent statutory instrument, see the Housing Renewal Grants and Home Repair Assistance (Amendment) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/3119). 6. The National Fire Services (Regulations) Indemnity Act 1944 and the Town and Country Planning Regulations (London) Indemnity Act 1970 (both now repealed) declared that instruments not laid should be deemed to have been laid. SI 1984/887 and SI 1984/1213 revoked and re-enacted instruments not laid which ought to have been laid. Older statutes (eg Court of Chancery Acts 1841 and 1850) had

7. 8. 9. 10.

expressly stipulated that instruments made thereunder, if not laid, should be of no effect. In the absence of such stipulation, the requirement has been deemed to be merely directory, see Stacey v Graham [1899] 1 QB 406, esp per Channell J at 412, and Bailey v Williamson (1873) LR 8 QB 118. See also HC Deb (1969–70) 797, cc 269–72. In R v Secretary of State for Social Services, ex p Camden London Borough Council [1987] 2 All ER 560 it was decided, in the case of regulations which were not to be made until a draft had been approved by Parliament, that, while express approval was required before the regulations could come into force, the reference in the regulations to a separate document that had not been laid did not invalidate the regulations. When it was discovered in 2002 that six Orders of Council made by the General Medical Council under the Medical Act 1983 (c 54) in 2000 had not been laid before Parliament as the Act required, but that the instruments were not thereby invalidated, they were laid forthwith, notwithstanding the elapse of time since the making of the instruments, Thirty-third Report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, HL 136, HC 135-xxxiii (2001–02), paras 3–6. Scrutiny committees (see paras 31.32 –31.33 ) are empowered to draw special attention to any case of unjustifiable delay in sending this notification. Votes and Proceedings, 16 July 2018. House of Lords Minute, 11 July 2018. 5th edn (2017) paras 4.1.4-4.11.6. See also HC Deb (1997–98) 316, cc 126–27.

Notification of laying 31.12When papers are laid in the House of Commons, notice appears in an Appendix to the daily Votes and Proceedings. A list of statutory instruments is updated daily on the parliamentary website.12 Each instrument has an individual web page displaying a timeline of parliamentary activity, with links to relevant publications such as Hansard and committee reports. Instruments subject to the negative procedure include the date of expiry for moving a motion to annul. In the House of Lords, notice that an instrument has been laid appears in the Minutes of Proceedings. House of Lords Business also contains lists of statutory instruments currently before the House which include all affirmative instruments, those negative instruments which are a subject of a prayer motion or have been reported by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (or both), and some other instruments.

Footnotes 1. The list also includes those Acts of the Northern Ireland Assembly which, by virtue of the fact that they deal with excepted or reserved matters, must lie before either House for 20 days before being submitted for Royal Assent (Northern Ireland Act 1998 (c 47), ss 14–15), and treaties subject to negative procedure (see para 31.17 ). 2. beta.parliament.uk/find-a-statutory-instrument

The affirmative procedure 31.13The affirmative procedure is usually used for substantial and important pieces of delegated legislation, on which a high degree of scrutiny is sought. The procedure takes one of three forms, according to the formula of the enabling Act. An instrument may be made by the appropriate authority, and have immediate effect, subject to the requirement that its effect shall not continue beyond a specified period (usually 28 or 40 days) unless one or both Houses within that period agree to the appropriate resolutions approving the document.1 The second form provides that an instrument falls to be laid in draft before one or both Houses, and that the appropriate authority does not have power to make it unless one or both Houses present Addresses to the Crown praying for the order to be made, or have agreed to resolutions approving the draft instrument.2 In the third case, a Minister may make and lay an instrument, but it will have effect only after a resolution has been passed approving it.3 The second type is by far the most common. The first type is frequently resorted to when delegated legislation must come into force immediately on being made, and without any prior consultation—usually, but by no means always, in the field of taxation. The Government has agreed in normal circumstances to avoid the use of the third type in future enactments.4 Regulations made under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (c 36) (replacing similar provisions in the Emergency Powers Act 1920 (c 55)) must be presented to Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, but do not continue in force after the expiration of seven days from the time when they are so laid, unless a resolution is passed by both Houses providing for their continuance; the resolution may add to, alter or revoke regulations.5 The duration of such regulations is in any event limited to 30 days maximum, but that does not preclude making of replacement regulations.6 Power has occasionally been given to both Houses to approve a draft Order in Council or draft departmental order with modifications,7 and in such cases the orders could be made only with such modifications as have been agreed to by both Houses. If the two Houses differ in their amendments, machinery must be improvised for reconciling the differences.8 This rare procedure has been superseded by the various forms of super-affirmative procedure described further below (see para 31.14 ). Motions which propose to treat delegated legislation, or other matters subject to proceedings in pursuance of an Act of Parliament, in a manner which would be outside the provisions of the parent statute, such as motions to refer instruments to select committees, or motions not to approve instruments or to approve them upon conditions, may be moved in the House of Commons as independent motions, but not as amendments to questions which arise in the normal way out of proceedings under the parent Act.9 It has been ruled that the question cannot be put on a motion to approve a draft instrument which depends on a bill which has not yet received Royal Assent.10

Footnotes 1. As examples of the first form of procedure, see Export Control Act 2002 (c 28), s 13(2); Bank of England Act 1998 (c 11), s 19(4); Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections and Periods of Suspension) Act 2003 (c 12), s 6(7); Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc Act 2010 (c 38), s 29(6). 2. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Fire Brigades Union [1995] 2 AC 513, [1995] 1 All ER 888 established in the case of an Act commencement power, which in the absence of other authority appears to be materially parallel, that there was not a specific duty on the part of the appropriate authority to bring the Act into force but that there was a continuing duty to keep the question of commencement under review, as opposed to ruling out the possibility of doing so. As examples of the second form of procedure, see Energy Act 2010 (c 27), ss 4 and 31; Communications Act 2003 (c 21), s 97(4). For an example of a provision requiring a resolution of the House of Commons only, see Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 (c 13), s 13. Use of the exceptional statutory formula whereby resolutions of the two Houses authorise the making of an Order in Council but no draft need be laid (eg in the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945 (c 18), s 8(3)) was deprecated by the Commons Select Committee on Statutory Instruments (Special Report, HC 324 (1948–49) para 6). For occasions when the House of Commons approved an instrument, and the relevant motion was defeated in the House of Lords, see CJ (1967–68) 296, 343; LJ (1967–68) 381, 487; CJ (2006–07) 281; LJ (2006–07) 382; CJ (2012–13) 402; LJ (2012–13) 565; Votes and Proceedings, 15 September 2015; LJ (2015–16) 368. For an instance of the agreement of the House of Commons to a motion that an instrument ‘be not approved’, see CJ (1969–70) 31. An approval motion was negatived in the Commons in July 1978 (CJ (1977–78) 492). 3. As an example of the third form of procedure, see Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c 27), s 134(4). 4. Second Report of the Joint Committee on Delegated Legislation, HL 204, HC 468 (1972–73) para 49. 5. Civil Contingencies Act 2004, ss 20, 27, 28, materially replacing Emergency Powers Act 1920, s 2(2), (4). 6. Civil Contingencies Act 2004, s 26 (c 36). 7. CJ (1920) 314. An amendment to the question approving an order suggesting a modification in the order must be drafted in such a way as to specify the amendment which it is sought to make, HC Deb (1920) 132, c 829. 8. To meet such a difficulty in the case of motions for Addresses to approve orders under the Government of India Act 1935, it was informally agreed that debate on the motion for the Address under the Act should be adjourned in the Commons until the relevant select committee had reported to the House of Lords. If thereafter the latter House amended the order, similar amendments could then be moved in the Commons, LJ (1935–36) 329; CJ (1935–36) 324, 344. For a written answer on the then Government's policy on making statutory instruments amendable, see HC Deb (2003–04) 421, c 1299W. 9. See Parl Deb (1889) 339, c 1742; HC Deb (1966–67) 741, cc 483, 487; ibid (1974–75) 872, c 1051; ibid (1975–76) 902, c

1531; ibid (1976–77) 925, c 1368. See also Notices of Motions (1963–64) p 6126. For an instance of the moving of such an amendment where it was possible for the House to amend the order, see CJ (1932–33) 241: and cf the case of amendments to a motion to approve a statutory report (HC Deb (1983–84) 52, c 637). 10. HC Deb (1979–80) 971, cc 605–7.

The ‘super-affirmative’ procedure 31.14The super-affirmative procedure has been implemented in enactments where an exceptionally high degree of scrutiny is thought appropriate, for instance, for the scrutiny of certain items of delegated legislation made, or proposed to be made, under ‘Henry VIII’ powers. Sometimes it is the only procedure available and sometimes the responsible Minister is given a choice of order-making powers that includes the procedure, a choice that can be constrained at a preliminary stage by either House.1 The super-affirmative procedure provides both Houses with opportunities to comment on proposals for secondary legislation and to recommend amendments before orders for affirmative approval are brought forward in their final form. (It should be noted that the power to amend the proposed instrument remains with the Minister: the two Houses and their committees can only recommend changes, not make them.) Under this procedure, a Minister's proposal for a statutory instrument is laid in the form of a draft of the instrument: the parent Act generally provides that an explanatory statement should accompany the proposal. A period of time (usually 60 days, not including days on which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or on which both (or either) Houses are adjourned for a period of more than four days) is allowed for parliamentary consideration of the proposal. Following the expiry of that period, the Minister may lay a draft of the statutory instrument for approval by affirmative resolution of both Houses. In doing so the Minister is generally required to lay a statement summarising any representations made during the period for parliamentary consideration, and any changes which have been made to the instrument as a result of such representations. Some enactments using the super-affirmative procedure also provide for an alternative ‘urgent’ procedure, where an order may be made and laid before Parliament (for example, the Human Rights Act 1998, see paras 31.39 –31.41 ). However, Orders in Council made under the urgency provisions in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, s 85(7) are not subject to super-affirmative procedures: they cease to have effect if they are not approved by both Houses within 40 days of being made. There are also variations on the procedure, which allow each House, or even committees, to give enhanced scrutiny to affirmative orders without locking the Government into the full two-stage super-affirmative process.2 Standing orders in both Houses provide that proposals and draft orders subject to the super-affirmative procedure (or similar procedures) that are laid under particular enactments are referred to specific select committees for scrutiny. Legislative Reform Orders and Localism Orders are referred to the Regulatory Reform Committee in the House of Commons and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the House of Lords (see paras 38.68, 40.48 ). Proposals for draft orders, draft orders and orders made or laid under the Human Rights Act 1998, sch 2 are referred to the Joint Committee on Human Rights for scrutiny (see para 41.11 ).3 The Government has undertaken, where possible, to make provision for proposals for orders laid under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, s 85 to be considered by the Northern Ireland Grand Committee.4 There is at present no stipulated procedure for Commons consideration of proposals for secondary legislation laid under the super-affirmative procedure provided for in the Local Government Acts 1999, 2000 and 2003 or the Local Transport Act 2008. In the House of Lords, the Lords Procedure Committee has recommended that orders made under these provisions be scrutinised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.5

Footnotes 1. For an example of an enabling power with a required super-affirmative procedure, see Local Government Act 2000 (c 22), s 9. Enactments which contain a choice that includes super-affirmative procedure comprise the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 (c 21), s 5E, the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 (c 51), s 18, the Localism Act 2011 (c 20), s 7 and the Public Bodies Act 2011 (c 24). 2. For example, under the Public Bodies Act 2011 (c 24), s 11, draft orders under the powers in ss 1–5 were required to lie before Parliament for 40 days before they could be approved. If either House resolved, or a Committee recommended an extension of this time within the first 30 days of that period, the period of scrutiny was increased to 60 days. At the end of that period, the draft order could be approved by both Houses in its initial form, but the Minister was also given the power to lay a revised draft order before Parliament, together with an explanation of the changes made. 3. In the House of Commons, draft orders under the Public Bodies Act 2011 were scrutinised by the relevant departmental select committee, unless the Liaison Committee designated another committee in its place (House of Commons SO No 152K). Similarly, the Liaison Committee has power to designate an existing committee or recommend the appointment of a National Policy Statement Committee (House of Commons SO No 152H) to scrutinise national planning policy statements laid under Part II of the Planning Act 2008 (c 29). 4. Fourth Special Report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, HC 523 (2000–01); and see, for example, Stg Co Deb (2000–01), Northern Ireland Grand Committee, 22 March 2001. Section 85 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 also provides that the Secretary of State must refer a proposal for an order to the Northern Ireland Assembly for consultation, and may request that the Assembly report on the proposal. The Assembly may report on the proposal, and must do so in response to a request from the Secretary of State: any report on the proposal adopted by the Assembly must be laid before Parliament. 5. House of Lords Procedure Committee, Third Report of Session 2012–13, HL 81, paras 10–15.

The negative procedure 31.15The commonest type of parliamentary control is a provision in the parent Act that the instruments made under it, though taking effect forthwith or on some named future date, shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, provided that the resolution is adopted within a specified time limit. In pre-1948 Acts there was necessarily a provision that the instrument, when made, should be laid before Parliament; since 1947 this stage has been universally required by the standardised procedure prescribed by the Statutory Instruments Act 1946. If the parent Act stipulates that a statutory instrument made under its provisions ‘shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament’, this formula attracts the requirement of laying and the conditions of annulment contained in s 5(1) of that Act.1 Under the same section, a resolution to annul does not prejudice the making of a new instrument of similar effect or the validity of anything previously done under the instrument, although no further proceedings can take place on its authority.2 The negative method very occasionally occurs in a different form. A draft of the document is required to be laid before Parliament; if, within a time limit, either House resolves that the statutory instrument be not made (or, in the case of an Order in Council, that the draft be not submitted to Her Majesty), then no further proceedings are to be taken on it. This procedure does not prevent a fresh draft being laid before Parliament.3 Power has, extremely rarely, been given to both Houses to resolve against part of an instrument subject to annulment.4

Footnotes 1. Examples of annulments: CJ (1945–46) 119, 121; ibid (1950–51) 273, 278; ibid (1969–70) 220, 230; ibid (1978–79) 45; ibid (1979–80) 188. For instances of annulments in the House of Lords, see para 31.27, fn 1. For an instance of regulations made in the form of a statutory instrument and laid before Parliament subject to the negative procedure, which in the event were shown to be neither of such a character nor subject to such procedure, see Eleventh Report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, HL 75, HC 29-xiv (1986–87). A motion to oppose changes in the immigration rules is tabled as a motion that the statement ‘be disapproved’ (see eg EDM 595, 2010–12). 2. HC Deb (1950–51) 478, c 466. See eg the Fats, Cheese and Tea (Rationing) (Amendment No 2) Order 1951 (SI 1951/470), revoked by SI 1951/640, and HC Deb (1974–75) 885, cc 1107–8, and 887, cc 506–7W. 3. See the Second Report of the Joint Committee on Delegated Legislation, HL 204, HC 468 (1972–73) para 49, for the Government's agreement in normal circumstances to avoid the use of this type of procedure in future enactments. For a recent power to lay a draft instrument (subject to annulment by virtue of s 6(1) of the 1946 Act), see the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (c 20), s 59(9). For a resolution that a draft instrument be not made and the laying of a fresh draft, see CJ (1978–79) 45, 48. 4. For example, Census Act 1920 (c 41), s 1(2).

Time limits 31.16A time limit will not be relevant to an instrument that cannot be made or come into effect at all until approved. When a limit is put on proceedings in Parliament in relation to delegated legislation to which the first form of affirmative procedure applies, ie an instrument which has effect immediately on making, but which must be approved within a particular time, the parent statute itself lays down details. The period during which a negative resolution in relation to a statutory instrument may be moved is standardised at 40 days in respect of either the negative procedure for annulment, or the negative procedure for preventing further proceedings in the case of a draft instrument.1 In the case of documents which are statutory instruments, the period begins for each House when a copy is laid before it. If, however, the document is a draft of a statutory instrument and is laid before each House on a different day, the period begins with the later of these days. In reckoning this period of 40 days, no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.2 A further informal time limit in parliamentary scrutiny and control of delegated legislation is the ‘21-day rule’ operated by the Joint and Select Committees on Statutory Instruments. This rule is the embodiment of an undertaking that, wherever possible, an instrument subject to the negative procedure will be laid at least 21 days before it is to come into effect. This enables those affected to make necessary changes before the instrument comes into force. There is therefore also an opportunity for scrutiny of the instrument before its provisions come into force, qualified by the fact that laying in adjournment periods is possible.3 Breaches of the 21-day rule are usually reported by the JCSI for failure to comply with proper legislative practice as part of the residual ground at the end of para 1(B) of House of Commons Standing Order No 151 and para 73(2) of House of Lords Standing Order No 73.

Footnotes 1. Statutory Instruments Act 1946, ss 5, 6: for the position of delegated legislation other than statutory instruments, see para 31.5. 2. Statutory Instruments Act 1946, s 7. Practical difficulties and questions of calculation which arise in the operation of this section were discussed by the Joint Committee on Delegated Legislation (HL 184, HC 475 (1971–72); and HL 188, HC 407 (1972–73)). See also the Speaker's ruling that time continued to run during the ‘swearing in’ days following the death of the King (HC Deb (1951–52) 497, c 1515). Unless the parent Act otherwise provides (see Customs and Excise Duties (General Reliefs) Act 1979 (c 3), s 17(4)), calculations based on the sitting days of the Lords will affect praying time for instruments laid before the Commons only. 3. This is a convention established by Government and set out in successive editions of the Government's Statutory Instrument Practice, now reflected in para 2.11, 5th edn, November 2017. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments commented on this rule in their First Special Report in 1973 (HC 184, HL 76 (1972–73)), para 6 and in their First Special Report (2017–19) (HL 151, HC 1158) paras 2.15–2.23. The scrutiny committees expect to be informed of the reasons for non-compliance with the rule in any case.

Treaties 31.17Under Part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, a treaty requiring ratification is to be laid before Parliament for 21 sitting days,1 and may then be ratified if neither House has resolved that it should not be. If the House of Commons resolves against the treaty, the Minister may lay a statement that they are of the opinion that the treaty should be ratified and explaining why, and may then ratify the treaty after another period of 21 sitting days unless the House of Commons resolves again that the treaty should not be ratified. If the House of Lords has resolved against the treaty but the House of Commons has not, the Minister may ratify the treaty immediately after laying a statement of this opinion. The Act also provides for the 21-day period to be extended and for treaties of various kinds (including ones requiring approval by Act of Parliament and double taxation conventions and arrangements) to be exempt from the procedure, and for an explanatory memorandum to be laid with each treaty. Following comment by the scrutiny committees, the Government agreed that where an international agreement is made or amended and, though it is not subject to ratification, a statutory instrument needs to be made before implementation, the text of the agreement or amendment will be made available to Parliament, preferably when the instrument is made and normally before it comes into force.2

Footnotes 1. For these purposes, a ‘sitting day’ is a day on which both Houses sit, and the 21-day period begins on the sitting day after the treaty is laid (Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, s 20(2) and (9)). 2. See Erskine May (23rd edn, 2004), p 264, fn 3, for the ‘Ponsonby Rule’, which was replaced by the provisions in the 2010 Act as regards treaties requiring ratification.

Proceedings on delegated legislation in the House of Commons 31.18Instruments subject to the affirmative procedure automatically require debate and approval. A motion to annul an instrument subject to the negative procedure is first tabled as an Early Day Motion in the form of a ‘prayer’—a motion for an Address praying that the instrument be annulled (see paras 20.3, 31.5 ). Where such a motion is signed by Shadow Ministers, the Government has normally found time for the motion to be debated, although it cannot be compelled to do so.1 Motions to annul or revoke instruments have also been the subject of opposition days (see para 31.21 ).

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (26 March 2018) 638, cc 547–48.

Delegated Legislation Committees: referral and related proceedings 31.19In the Commons, most debates on statutory instruments are held in a delegated legislation committee rather than on the floor of the House. Under Standing Order No 118(3), all instruments subject to the affirmative procedure automatically stand referred to such a committee, once an approval motion is tabled, unless notice has been given by a Minister of a motion that the instrument shall not stand so referred or the instrument is referred to the Scottish or the Northern Ireland Grand Committee. There is no requirement for the House to agree to a motion to de-refer an instrument, or for even for that motion to be moved, for the instrument to be taken on the floor of the House. In recent times the tabling of a motion to debate a statutory instrument on the floor of the House has been taken to imply such notice.1 Documents requiring affirmative approval which are not instruments, such as Codes of Practice, are now commonly treated as subject to the provisions of Standing Order No 118 and hence automatically referred to committee.2 However, in some cases a separate motion has been made on the floor of the House providing that such a document should be proceeded with as if it were subject to the provisions of the standing order.3 The same procedure is sometimes used for debates on a variety of motions unrelated to instruments, such as motions to consider appointments to bodies such as the Electoral Commission.4 In the case of prayers against instruments subject to the negative procedure, and similar motions in relation to other instruments,5 a motion may be made by a Minister to refer the instrument to a delegated legislation committee. If the motion is made at the commencement of public business, the question is decided without amendment or debate, though if 20 or more Members rise in their place to signify their objection, the question is negatived.6 Referral motions are now more often put down at the end of the day's business, when they are debatable if reached before the moment of interruption.7 Debate should not extend to the merits of the instrument.8

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

See House of Commons Order Paper, 17 December 2018. CJ (2009–10) 257, 271, 277; ibid 257, 271, 277. CJ (2001–02) 669. For example, CJ (1998–99) 450; ibid (2007–08) 12; CJ (2008–09) 14, 294, 642; CJ (2009–10) 49; Votes and Proceedings, 24 October 2016. For example motions to take note of a statutory instrument or a motion relating to a Measure under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919. See paras 31.46 –31.50. SO No 118(4). See Votes and Proceedings, 21 February 2017 for a recent (undebated) example. HC Deb (17 October 2006) 450, c 843.

Procedure in Committee 31.20Delegated Legislation Committees consider instruments (whether subject to the affirmative or the negative procedure) on a motion ‘That the Committee has considered the instrument (or draft instrument)’. The motion is moved by a Minister if the affirmative procedure applies, or a signatory of the prayer if the instrument is subject to negative procedure. Debate in committee may continue for up to one-and-a-half hours (twoand-a-half hours in the case of instruments relating exclusively to Northern Ireland).

Proceedings on the floor of the House 31.21Following debate in Delegated Legislation Committee, a motion to approve an instrument subject to the affirmative procedure is put formally in the House and decided without debate. Such motions do not fall within the exemptions in Standing Order No 41A and may be subject to deferred division if opposed. Although it is possible to table a motion on the floor of the House in the case of an instrument subject to the negative procedure previously debated in Committee, there is no requirement to do so, even where the motion that the Committee has considered the instrument has been negatived.1 Opposition parties have occasionally tabled motions to annul statutory instruments already debated in Committee for decision without debate during the course of opposition days.2 Instruments may also be debated substantively on the floor of the House, rather than in Committee. For a description of the limits imposed on the duration of debate on motions relating to delegated legislation which are debated on the floor of the House, see paras 18.25 –18.26; for the particular arrangements in relation to draft legislative reform orders made under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, see para 18.28.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (14 January 2016) 604, cc 1019–20. 2. CJ (2005–06) 275; ibid (2006–07) 155; see HC Deb (14 January 2016) 604, cc 1019–20.

‘Out of time’ prayers 31.22A negative instrument may be debated after the 40-day praying period has expired; in this case a motion is tabled that the instrument be revoked rather than annulled (or that a draft instrument be withdrawn, rather than ‘not made’). Any debate in a delegated legislation committee still takes place on a motion that the committee has considered the instrument, and any debate on the floor of the House is outside the terms of Standing Order Nos 16 and 17 and is therefore not exempted business unless the House makes specific provision.1 A resolution that an instrument be revoked has no legal effect.2 For the composition and procedure of Delegated Legislation Committees, see paras 39.34 –39.38.

Footnotes 1. See eg CJ (1966–67) 81, 333, 336; ibid (1970–71) 208; ibid (1985–86) 42; and also ibid (1963–64) 203 and HC Deb (1963–64) 693, c 1017 ff. The House had in fact before 1964 occasionally considered prayers after praying time had expired, eg CJ (1951–52) 166, 167, and HC Deb (1951–52) 498, cc 339–40. Such motions are amendable (CJ (1974–75) 245). For a case where debate was resumed on a motion praying that an instrument be annulled notwithstanding the elapse of praying time between the adjournment and resumption of the debate, see ibid (1965–66) 35, 49. For a motion that an instrument which the parent statute did not require to be laid be withdrawn, see ibid (1966–67) 406; ibid (1968–69) 145. If an out-of-time motion were to be agreed to, the provision under the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 to the effect that no further proceedings may be taken under the instrument does not apply. A business motion to allow debate to continue after the moment of interruption may or may not specify an overall time limit analogous to that in SO No 17; see CJ (1967–68) 57, 210 and ibid (1985–86) 40. When a time limit is set for such proceedings, unless the motion setting out the limit so provides, the Speaker has no powers has analogous to those under SO No 17 to put forthwith the necessary question (HC Deb (1967–68) 769, cc 203–5, 1125). 2. HC Deb (1951–52) 498, cc 340, 1413–15.

Delegated legislation relating exclusively to England, or England and Wales, within devolved competence 31.23In the House of Commons, special procedures have been introduced in respect of legislation of limited territorial extent which falls within the legislative competence of one or more of the devolved legislatures. A full account of them is found in Chapter 27. These provisions apply to delegated legislation. The starting point for the application of the procedures is a system of certification, whereby the Speaker determines if every provision of an instrument meets the two criteria for certification: relating exclusively to England or to England and Wales, and within devolved legislative competence.1

Footnotes 1. SO No 83P.

Explanation of effect of certification – affirmative types of instrument 31.24In outline, the following table applies in relation to procedure of an affirmative type: Statutory enabling power indicates that the Secretary of State has power to make an instrument only if a draft ‘has been laid before and approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament’ and the draft is certified as relating exclusively to England (assume House of Lords approves the draft) and voted on Permutation Result (1) Majority of Members representing UK constituencies approves the draft The Secretary of State has power to make the instrument (2) Majority of Members representing constituencies in England approves the draft The Secretary of State has no power to make the (1) Majority of Members representing UK constituencies does not approve the draft instrument (2) Majority of Members representing constituencies in England does not approve the draft The Secretary of State has no power to make the (1) Majority of Members representing UK constituencies does not approve the draft instrument (2) Majority of Members representing constituencies in England approves the draft The Secretary of State has no power to make the (1) Majority of Members representing UK constituencies approves the draft instrument (2) Majority of Members representing constituencies in England does not approve the draft 1 The same system applies, mutatis mutandis, where the qualifying constituencies are those in England and Wales or, as the case may be, England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Explanation of effect of certification – negative types of instrument 31.25In outline, the following table applies in relation to procedure of a negative type: Statutory enabling power, in the case of an instrument certified as relating exclusively to England, indicates that a statutory instrument ‘shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament’. In consequence, s 5(1) (or the materially similar s 5(2)) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 provides that if either House, within the period of 40 days starting with the laying day, ‘resolves that an Address be presented to [Her] Majesty praying that the instrument be annulled, no further proceedings shall be taken thereunder after the date of the resolution …’. Permutation Result No further action may be taken under the On a vote within the 40 days: instrument (a) the majority of Members representing UK constituencies votes in favour of annulment (b) the majority of Members representing constituencies in England votes in favour of annulment There is no vote within the 40 days The instrument survives unscathed The instrument survives unscathed On a vote within the 40 days: (a) the majority of Members representing UK constituencies does not vote in favour of annulment (b) the majority of Members representing constituencies in England does not vote in favour of annulment On a vote within the 40 days: The instrument survives unscathed (a) the majority of Members representing UK constituencies does not vote in favour of annulment (b) the majority of Members representing constituencies in England votes in favour of annulment On a vote within the 40 days: The instrument survives unscathed (a) the majority of Members representing UK constituencies votes in favour of annulment (b) the majority of Members representing constituencies in England does not vote in favour of annulment 1 The same system applies, mutatis mutandis, where the qualifying constituencies are those in England and Wales or, as the case may be, England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Scope of debate 31.26Debate on any statutory instrument, whether subject to the affirmative or the negative procedure, is confined to the contents of the instrument, and discussion of alternative methods of achieving its object is not in order.1 Where the effects of an instrument are confined to a particular geographical area or areas, discussion of other areas is out of order.2 Nor is criticism of the provisions of the parent Act permitted.3 An attempt to discuss the method by which an annulled order had been made has been ruled to be out of order.4 Where the instrument merely consolidates previous instruments without altering the law, debate will, by analogy with the procedure on Consolidation Bills (para 28.110 ), be restricted.5 On a motion to annul an instrument which substantially amended a previous instrument, it was ruled that discussion must be confined to the amending order.6

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1950–51) 484, c 1537; ibid (1963–64) 691, c 174; ibid (1977–78) 940, c 30. 2. HC Deb (1948–49) 463, c 1343; ibid (1952–53) 511, c 2221. 3. HC Deb (1950–51) 484, cc 1537–39. In the case of an instrument made necessary by the provisions of an Act of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, criticism of that Act was not permitted, ibid (1961–62) 663, cc 1639–41. See also ibid (1953–54) 531, c 1459. 4. Although the 40-day period had not expired, the Chair expressed the opinion that it was a waste of parliamentary time to discuss the annulment of an order which was already dead. Debate was accordingly confined to the effect of the instrument, HC Deb (1951–52) 497, cc 1508–14. 5. HC Deb (1946–47) 433, c 2012; ibid (1960–61) 631, c 335; ibid (1977–78) 940, cc 1830–31; ibid (1989–90) 172, c 837. 6. HC Deb (1945–46) 421, cc 499–500.

Practice of the House of Lords on delegated legislation Contents Affirmative instruments Hybrid instruments Negative instruments Other motions relating to statutory instruments 31.27The general principles of parliamentary control and scrutiny described earlier in this chapter apply to the House of Lords as they apply to the Commons. But the Lords' practice and procedure in respect of delegated legislation differ in some aspects, as described below. The Parliament Acts do not apply to delegated legislation. The House of Lords has only occasionally rejected delegated legislation,1 though the House has resolved ‘That this House affirms its unfettered freedom to vote on any subordinate legislation submitted for its consideration’.2 Delegated legislation may be debated in Grand Committee, but must return to the floor of the House if a formal decision is required.3

Footnotes 1. The last four instances of rejection of an affirmative instrument were 18 June 1968 (Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) Order 1968); 22 February 2000 (Greater London Authority (Election Expenses) Order 2000); 28 March 2007 (Gambling (Geographical Distribution of Casino Premises Licences) Order 2007(; and 3 December 2012 (Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Amendment of Schedule 1) Order 2012). A motion for an address praying against a negative instrument (Greater London Authority Elections Rules 2000) was agreed to on 22 February 2000. Motions to defer consideration of the Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 were agreed to on 26 October 2015, prompting a government review of procedure relating to delegated legislation (see Strathclyde Review: secondary legislation and the primacy of the House of Commons (Cm 9177)). 2. LJ (1993–94) 683; HL Deb (1993–94) 558, cc 356–83. See also House of Lords Constitution Committee, Sixteenth Report, The Legislative Process: The Delegation of Powers, HL 225 (2017–19). 3. House of Lords Procedure Committee, Third Report of Session 2003–04, HL 184; House of Lords Procedure Committee, First Report of Session 2008–09, HL 39.

Lords: privileges of Parliament and of peerage 12.2The Lords enjoy their privileges simply because of their immemorial role in Parliament as advisers of the Sovereign. In addition to privilege of Parliament, which is enjoyed by all Members of the House of Lords, whether they are bishops or peers, there is a separate privilege of peerage, which extends to all peers, whether or not they have seats in the House, including peers who are minors, and also to wives and widows of peers.1 Unlike privilege of Parliament, it is not interrupted by a long prorogation or dissolution.2 The extent of the privilege of peerage is not entirely clear, but it has been shown in recent times to confer immunity from arrest on civil process.3 The Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 1999 recommended its abolition.4

Footnotes 1. By the Acts of Union of 1706 and 1800 peers of Scotland and Ireland were accorded the same privileges as peers of England (Holiday et al v Colonel Pitt (1734) 27 ER 767, 93 ER 987; case of Viscount Hawarden (LJ (1828) 28–34)). If, however, a peer of Ireland is elected to the Commons they are not entitled to privilege of peerage so long as they continue to be a Member of that House (Union with Ireland Act 1800, art 4). The Peeresses Act 1441 (20 Hen 6, c 9) conferred the right of trial by the House of Lords upon peeresses; since that time it has been the law that women peers and wives and widows of peers have had the same immunity from arrest on civil process as peers (Countess of Rutland's case, ed J H Thomas and J F Fraser Reports of Sir Edward Coke (1826) vi, p 52; cases of Lady Purbeck (1625); Lady De la Warr (1642); Lady Dacre (1660); Lady Petre (1664); Countess of Huntingdon (1676); Countess of Newport (1699); Lady Abergavenny (1727); LJ (1828) 28–34). A peeress by marriage forfeits her privilege of peerage if she marries a commoner (SO No 83). 2. For interruption of privilege of Parliament, see paras 14.12–14.13; House of Lords SO No 82; Sir Edward Coke First Part of the Institutes (1823) s 9 [16b]; LJ (1660–66) 298; ibid (1691–96) 241; ibid (1666–75) 714; ibid (1675–81) 67, 79, 80, 659. 3. Stourton v Stourton [1963] P 302; Peden International Transport, Moss Bros, The Rowe Veterinary Group and Barclays Bank plc v Lord Mancroft (1989), see Patricia Leopold, ‘The freedom of peers from arrest’, Public Law (Autumn 1989). See also para 14.13. 4. HL 43-I, HC 214-I (1998–99) para 329.

Hybrid instruments 31.29In the House of Lords but not in the House of Commons, there is a procedure for the consideration of hybrid instruments. House of Lords Private Business Standing Order 216 provides that, where in the opinion of the Chairman of Committees (known as the Senior Deputy Speaker), an affirmative instrument, as defined by Lords Public Business Standing Order No 72(2), is such that, apart from the provisions of the Act authorising it to be made, it would require to be enacted by a private or hybrid bill, the Chairman shall report that opinion to the House and to the Minister or other person responsible for it. An instrument upon which such a report has been made is known as a hybrid instrument1 and is subject to petitioning procedure. No motion to approve a hybrid instrument may be moved until the proceedings under Standing Order 216 have been terminated.2 Any petition asking the House not to affirm a hybrid instrument must be deposited with the Clerk of the Parliaments within 14 days following the day on which the Chairman's report is laid before the House. If no petition is received, the Chairman reports accordingly to the House. Any petition received during the period, together with the instrument petitioned against, stands referred to the Hybrid Instruments Committee. The Hybrid Instruments Committee, after considering any representations by the parties to the proceedings, decides whether the petitioner has a right to have their petition considered (locus standi ). If it so decides, the Committee reports to the House, in accordance with the criteria specified in Standing Order 216, whether there ought to be a further inquiry by a select committee into all or any of the matters specified by the petitioner. A select committee on a hybrid instrument consists of five members, appointed by the House on the proposal of the Committee of Selection, with orders of reference specified by the House.3 Where the Hybrid Instruments Committee reports that there ought not to be an inquiry, or where the House so resolves, proceedings under the Standing Order are concluded.4 The procedure is modified in the case of an expedited hybrid instrument which is defined in Standing Order 216A as an instrument which, by virtue of the Act authorising it to be made, is, after the expiry of a period prescribed by that Act (the ‘prescribed period’), to proceed in Parliament as if its provisions would, apart from that Act, require to be enacted by a public bill that is not hybrid.5 The hybrid instruments procedure does not apply to negative instruments or those not subject to parliamentary control.

Footnotes 1. SO 216 provides that orders made under the Manoeuvres Act 1958 (c 7), s 1 shall not be the subject of a report. It is not uncommon for a statute to contain a provision requiring an instrument to be treated for the purposes of the standing orders as if it were not a hybrid instrument, see eg Local Government Finance Act 1988 (c 41), s 143(11); Railways Act 1993 (c 43), sch 11, para 13(3); Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (c 24), s 13; Licensing Act 2003 (c 17), s 197(5); Charities Act 2006 (c 50), s 74(6). This approach was debated in relation to the Railways Bill 1993, HL Deb (1992–93) 548, cc 715–44; ibid 549, cc 166–76 and 595–604. 2. A motion has been moved to dispense with Private Business SO 216 in respect of an amending order laid to give effect to the recommendations of the Hybrid Instruments Committee; London Docklands Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) (Amendment) Order 1981, HL Deb (1980–81) 421, cc 965–66. 3. For examples of select committees on hybrid instruments, see London Docklands Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1980, LJ (1980–81) 123; Cardiff Bay Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1987, ibid (1986–87) 202, 292; Bristol Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1988, ibid (1987–88) 842, 953; and West Northamptonshire Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 2004, ibid (2003–04) 677. In all four cases, the House agreed that the proceedings should be conducted ‘as if they were a committee on an opposed Private Bill’. 4. In 1990, the House agreed to the report of the Hybrid Instruments Committee that the London Docklands Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (London Borough of Southwark) Order 1989 be referred to a select committee, and so ordered. The House subsequently discharged the orders and referred the order back to the Hybrid Instruments Committee which concluded that no inquiry by a select committee should take place, LJ (1988–89) 729, 742; ibid (1989–90) 195–245; HL Deb (1988–89) 512, c 1319; ibid (1989–90) 516, c 833. 5. Expedited hybrid instruments may be made under the Offshore Petroleum Development (Scotland) Act 1975, s 1(7). There have been no instances of expedited hybrid instruments since SO 216A was made (LJ (1974–75) 437).

Negative instruments 31.30A prayer to annul a negative instrument is taken after other business but before questions for short debate, unless the business is taken in the dinner or lunch break,1 or the order of business is varied by a Business of the House motion.2 Prayers to annul negative instruments may be moved en bloc, subject to the same considerations as apply to motions to approve affirmative instruments.3 As with affirmative instruments, critical amendments or motions may be moved relating to negative instruments, inviting the House to call on the Government to take action or record a particular point of view, without annulling the instrument itself.4 The House has also agreed that negative instruments may be debated on neutral ‘take note’ motions, either in Grand Committee or in the Chamber.5

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

SO No 40; see para 25.29. For example, HL Deb (1996–97) 577, cc 1081 and 1438. For example, LJ (1988–89) 578. For example, HL Deb (30 March 2010) 718, cc 1294–1300. House of Lords Procedure Committee, First Report of Session 2008–09, HL 39.

Other motions relating to statutory instruments 31.31The House has agreed to a motion to approve an instrument even though it was not by its parent Act subject to affirmative resolution.1 A motion to revoke an instrument not subject to parliamentary proceedings has been tabled,2 and motions have been tabled seeking the amendment of instruments in force and no longer subject to parliamentary scrutiny.3 Instruments may also be the subject of motions to take note,4 or of questions for short debate.5

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Export of Goods (Control) (Iran Sanctions) Order 1980, HL Deb (1979–80) 410, cc 136–56. LJ (1994–95) 185. LJ (1990–91) 582; ibid (1992–93) 146; HL Deb (1990–91) 531, cc 1050–64. LJ (1982–83) 161; HL Deb (1986–87) 486, cc 1205–22; ibid (2008–09) 710, cc 76–86. LJ (1987–88) 477; ibid (1993–94) 715.

Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments 31.32The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments is constituted by House of Commons Standing Order No 151 and by Lords Standing Order No 73.1 The Committee consists of seven Members of each House, of whom two are a quorum. The Chairman is normally a Commons Member from the Opposition side of that House. The Joint Committee considers instruments laid before each House and upon which proceedings may be, or might have been, taken;2 other instruments where, pursuant to statute, the proceedings are by way of an affirmative resolution; and special procedure orders (para 42.18 ).3 General statutory instruments (except certain Scottish and Welsh ones) are also considered by the Committee, even though not subject to parliamentary proceedings. The Committee does not consider draft orders under Part 1 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, under s 5E of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 or under ss 7 or 19 of the Localism Act 2011, subordinate provisions orders under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 (c 6), proposals for remedial orders and draft remedial orders under the Human Rights Act 1998, and Church of England Measures and instruments made under them (see paras 31.36 –31.38, 31.39 –31.41, and 31.48 –31.49 ).4 The Committee may draw the attention of Parliament to an instrument on any of a series of specified grounds, or on any other ground not impinging on the merits of or policy behind the instrument. The particular grounds on which the Committee may act are: that an instrument imposes or prescribes a charge on the public revenues or requires payments to be made for any licence or consent or other service from a public body; is made under an enactment excluding it from challenge in the courts; purports to have retrospective effect where the parent statute does not so provide; has been unjustifiably delayed in publication or being laid before Parliament; has not been notified in proper time to the Lord Speaker and the Speaker of the House of Commons where it comes into effect before being presented to Parliament; gives rise to doubts whether it is intra vires, or appears to make an unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the parent statute; requires elucidation as to its form or purport; or is defective in drafting. Before drawing the special attention of Parliament to an instrument, the committee must give to the department concerned an opportunity of making explanations orally or in writing; at times departments have chosen to waive that opportunity for timing reasons (see para 31.16 ). The Committee is also empowered to take evidence from Her Majesty's Stationery Office concerning the printing and publication of an instrument. It is not expressly permitted to take evidence from any other person.5 The Committee publishes a report of each meeting showing the instruments that it has considered and setting out its reports and the explanations of government departments in relation to instruments to which it has drawn the attention of both Houses. Up to the end of 2009, the Committee made an annual report listing the observations it had made on statutory instruments and responses received from government departments. The Committee also issues themed special reports from time to time.6

Footnotes 1. The Committee was initially appointed by sessional order (LJ (1972–73) 161; CJ (1972–73) 141). The Commons Standing Order was first made in 1983, and the Lords Standing Order first made in 1997 and supplemented by a Resolution of the House (LJ (1997–98) 411–12). 2. Statutory instruments and draft statutory instruments, as well schemes (including amendments of schemes and draft schemes) requiring approval by statutory instrument. 3. This includes statutory instruments laid under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, although these are also scrutinised in the Commons by the European Statutory Instruments Committee. 4. LJ (1976–77) 586; CJ (1976–77) 355; LJ (1994–95) 78; ibid (2001–02) 1108; CJ (2001–02) 556. 5. The House of Commons has conferred on the Commons Members the power to send for persons, papers and records at a particular meeting and to report the minutes of evidence taken at that meeting (CJ (1977–78) 372). The House of Lords now confers on the Lords Members a similar power to send for persons, papers and records at the start of each session (for example, LJ (2009–10) 28). 6. The final annual report is the First Special Report of Session 2010–12, Scrutinising Statutory Instruments: Departmental Returns 2009, HL 24, HC 402; the first themed Special Report (Excluding the inert from secondary legislation ) is HL 6, HC 167 (2013–14).

Commons Select Committee on Statutory Instruments 31.33When the House of Commons nominates Members to join with the committee appointed by the Lords on statutory instruments as the Joint Committee, an instruction is given to those Commons Members nominated not to join with the Lords for the consideration of certain instruments. The excluded instruments are those which are directed by Act of Parliament to be laid before and subject to proceedings in the House of Commons only, being statutory instruments, schemes requiring approval by statutory instrument, and other instruments where, pursuant to statute, the proceedings are by way of affirmative resolution in that House only. Instruments not subject to any parliamentary proceeding but laid before the Commons only are not within the Select Committee's orders of reference and therefore fall to be scrutinised by the Joint Committee. The Commons Members enjoy the same powers in the consideration of such instruments as they do when joined with the Lords as a joint committee to consider instruments laid before both Houses. In addition, the Commons Committee (only) has power to appoint sub-committees to consider any of the matters within its order of reference (although the power has rarely been invoked), and any sub-committee is empowered to sit notwithstanding the adjournment of either House (see para 38.27 ). Though the membership so far as the Commons is concerned is the same, the reports and proceedings of the Joint and Select Committees are distinct. However, in practice, the Select Committee publishes a report only when it has drawn an instrument to the special attention of the House of Commons, or when there is some other reason to do so.

Reports 31.34Under Lords Public Business Standing Order No 72, no motion may be moved for an affirmative resolution of the House of Lords in connection with any instrument subject to examination by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments until the report of the Joint Committee has been laid before the House (see para 31.28 ).1 The House of Commons is not similarly prevented from taking proceedings on any instrument, notwithstanding that the Committee has not concluded its consideration of it.2 The scrutiny committees have expressed concern, however, that the timing of debate in the Commons on an instrument within their order of reference should not precede the completion of their work.3 The Government has agreed that, where possible, such a situation should be avoided. Such cases will be kept to a minimum but, in the Government's view, circumstances may arise where the pressure of business necessitates an occasional breach of the general rule.4 When a notice of motion relating to an instrument (other than a notice given for ‘an early day’) appears first on the Order Paper, if a scrutiny committee has not begun its consideration of the instrument, or having begun its consideration, has not concluded it, an italicised note is printed below the notice of motion, drawing the attention of the House to the fact. When a notice stands on the Order Paper in respect of an instrument to which a scrutiny committee has drawn special attention, this fact too is noticed. In the Lords, notice is given of reports by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (for which see below). There is no special procedure in either House in cases where a scrutiny committee has drawn special attention to an instrument.

Footnotes 1. Similar provision requires the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to have reported on a draft order proposed to be made under Part 1 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2006, a subordinate provisions order made or proposed to be made under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, a draft order laid under or by virtue of ss 7 or 19 of the Localism Act 2011, or a draft order laid under or by virtue of s 5E of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, and the Joint Committee on Human Rights to have reported on a remedial order or draft remedial order laid under the Human Rights Act 1998, sch 2, before motions to approve such instruments may be debated. Measures laid under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 and regulations made Part 2 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 are exempted from the requirements under SO No 72. 2. For example, HC Deb (1963–64) 696, c 1487, and ibid (1974) 872, cc 379–80. 3. First Special Report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, HL 51, HC 169 (1977–78); Sixth Report (HL 40, HC 15-viii (1981–82)). See also Fourth Report of the Procedure Committee, HC 152 (1995–96), para 20; First Special Report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, HL 103, HC 582 (1995–96) para 16; and First Report of the Procedure Committee HC 48 (1999–2000) para 21. 4. Cmnd 8600 (July 1982).

Freedom of speech 12.4The first claim in the Speaker's petition, and regarded as the most significant, is for freedom of speech in debate. By the latter part of the fifteenth century,1 the Commons of England seems to have enjoyed an undefined right to freedom of speech, as a matter of tradition rather than by virtue of a privilege sought and obtained. Earlier Speakers made no claim for such a privilege but instead to favourable construction of their remarks and those of the House.2 The earliest evidence of a shift of emphasis away from reliance on traditional assumptions and attempts to avoid the visitation of royal displeasure on the Speaker, and towards a distinct claim of privilege for the House, appears to be the petition of Speaker Sir Thomas More in 1523, asking Henry VIII ‘to take all in good part, interpreting every man's words, how uncunningly soever they may be couched, to proceed yeat of a good zeale towardes the profitt of your Realme’. More's plea may or may not have been answered,3 and what was sought in the immediately following Parliaments is not clear. By the first Parliament of Elizabeth I, however, a claim for freedom of speech in debate was certainly made,4 and in 1563 it was justified as ‘according to the old antient order’.5 Though no claim appears to have been made in 1566, by the end of the century the practice had become regular. Although it was recognised that freedom of speech was important and the Crown ought not to act against a Member directly for something said in the House, it seems to have been common ground that decorum and obedience to the Sovereign's wishes ought to be respected. Just as the House increased its ability to protect its Members from arrest and molestation, so it was frequently ready to take punitive action, without waiting for the Crown or Council, against those who overstepped the mark in debate.6 There was much in these views with which the Crown agreed. Lord Keeper Sir Edward Coke emphasised the executive's view in 1593 when he reminded the Speaker that: ‘Her Majesty granteth you liberal but not licentious speech, liberty therefore but with due limitation … To say yea or no to bills, God forbid that any man should be restrained or afraid to answer according to his best liking … which is the very true liberty of the House; not, as some suppose, to speak there of all causes as him listeth … No King fit for his state will suffer such absurdities.’7 Much of what was unresolved under Elizabeth remained debatable in the years before the civil war, though under Charles I the acuteness of successive political crises diminished the likelihood of resolution. Those who took the view that the basis of freedom of speech was inherent argued in the Apology of 1604 that it was erroneous to believe that the House's privileges were ‘of grace only, renewed every Parliament … upon petition and so to be limited’. The view was expressed in Committee on the Commons petition in 1610 that freedom of speech ‘could not well be taken from us without shaking the foundations of the liberties of Parliament’. In 1621, James VI and I challenged these assumptions. Privileges, he said, ‘were derived from the grace and permission of our ancestors and us’. To this the House rejoined: ‘that every Member of the House of Commons hath and of right ought to have freedom of speech … and … like freedom from all impeachment, imprisonment and molestation (other than by censure of the House itself) for or concerning any speaking, reasoning or declaring of any matter or matters touching the Parliament or parliament business.’ The Protestation of 1621 had much in common with Elizabethan views, not least because it explicitly contemplated the reference to the king of anything questioned or complained of in Parliament, provided it was ‘with the advice and assent of all the Commons’.8 The actions of Charles I appeared to challenge this tradition, particularly when in 1629 Sir John Eliot and two other Members were arrested and found guilty in King's Bench of seditious words spoken in debate and for violence against the Speaker, who had been physically restrained in the Chair in order to delay the adjournment of the House. Among the Crown's arguments were the contentions that parliamentary privilege did not protect seditious comments in the Chamber, and that King's Bench could properly take note of day-to-day events in the High Court of Parliament, such as the assault on the Speaker.9 By the time of the final breakdown in the early 1640s, the House had in practice bypassed Elizabethan conventions which denied Members the initiative in debate on great matters of State, and the limits of what was unacceptable in criticism of the Government had been drastically narrowed. When the 11 years of Charles I's personal rule came to an end, the attention of the Commons returned to free speech and the events of 1629. Consequently, in 1641, as the political relationship between Parliament and the King was on the verge of breakdown, the arrests of Eliot and the others were declared to be contrary to the law and privilege of Parliament.10 It is apparent that on the return of the Stuarts from exile in 1660, not only was Parliament anxious to preserve at least some of what had been gained in the years of the Republic and the Commonwealth but that the arrests of 1629 still rankled in some quarters. A bill for maintaining and confirming the rights and privileges of Parliament was read for the first time in the Commons within months of the re-establishment of the monarchy. Much of its purpose was of course to emphasise the illegality of the way the Commons had been treated in the 1640s and 1650s, but it also made the clear statement that ‘the Parliaments of England and the Members thereof shall forever hereafter fully and freely enjoy all their ancient and just rights and privileges in as ample a manner as … formerly’.11 The following year, the Treason and Seditious Practices Act repeated in statutory form the claim to freedom of speech in debate.12 In 1667, a Commons committee was nominated to review the issue of freedom of speech, and in particular the case of the arrests, then nearly 40 years in the past. The Commons declared that the Court of King's Bench should not have accepted jurisdiction in the cases of Eliot and the others, and that the judgment was illegal and against the privileges of Parliament.13 The Lords then took up the cause. One of those arrested in 1629, by then a peer, successfully moved to reverse the judgment.14 Though the decision of a court had been overturned, there remained the possibility of direct royal intervention in debate, in response to what Charles II or James II deemed politically unacceptable. In the event, such a threat failed to materialise.15 Nevertheless, when in the revolutionary circumstances of 1688–89 the constitutional initiative passed to Parliament, the opportunity was taken to repeat in the fullest form the claim to freedom of speech, and to protect its status by grounding it in statute, secure from royal interference in or through the courts. The assertion in Article IX of the Bill of Rights that freedom of speech and debates and proceedings in Parliament are not to be ‘impeached or questioned in any

Legislative reform orders and orders under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, and the Localism Act 2011 Contents Proceedings in the Commons Proceedings in the Lords 31.36‘Henry VIII clauses' (see para 31.1 ) are sometimes included in statutes to enable the executive to make delegated legislation which amends the statutes themselves; but the scope of such a power is normally quite limited. There are however three relatively recent examples of wide powers that are subject to special procedures. The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 (c 51), Part 1, gives Ministers a power to make orders to amend any Act of Parliament, subordinate instrument etc, in circumstances where they consider that making the order would serve the purpose of removing or reducing ‘any burden … resulting … for any person from any legislation’ or in order to promote regulatory principles.1 There have been two previous similar order-making powers: deregulation orders under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 (c 40) and regulatory reform orders under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 (c 6).2 Section 3 of the 2006 Act sets out the preconditions for making such orders, notably requiring Ministers to consider that the policy objective could not be satisfactorily secured by non-legislative means and that the provision is not of constitutional significance. Sections 4–11 set out exclusions from the power and when consents are required to exercise it. Section 12 then introduces the procedure for making such orders. Following consultations specified in section 13, the Minister lays a draft order before Parliament, accompanied by an explanatory document including the Minister's views on why various of the statutory conditions are satisfied, and the details of the consultation, representations received and any changes made as a result of them. The document also contains the Minister's recommendation as to whether the draft order should be proceeded with in Parliament under the negative, affirmative or super-affirmative procedure. The Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 (c 21), s 5A(1),3 empowers specified fire and rescue authorities to do anything they consider appropriate for the purposes of the carrying-out of any of their functions, or for purposes incidental to those functions.4 Section 5C empowers Ministers to amend, repeal, revoke or disapply provisions in primary legislation by order, where they think that such a provision constrains relevant fire and rescue authorities from exercising those powers. Ministers are required to consider that the effect of the provision is proportionate to the policy objective, could not be satisfactorily secured by non-legislative means and that the provision is not of constitutional significance.5 Following consultations,6 the Minister lays a draft order before Parliament, accompanied by an explanatory document including the Minister's views on why various of the statutory conditions are satisfied, and the details of the consultation, representations received and any changes made as a result of them. The document also contains the Minister's recommendation as to whether the draft order should be proceeded with in Parliament under the negative, affirmative or super-affirmative procedure.7 The Localism Act 2011 (c 20), s 1, empowers local authorities to do anything individuals can do (subject to exceptions in ss 2–4). Section 5 empowers Ministers, where they think that a statutory provision constrains relevant local authorities from exercising powers conferred by s 1, to amend, repeal, revoke or disapply that provision by order. Section 6 sets out the preconditions for making such orders, which are analogous to those in the Fire and Rescue Services Act described above. Section 7 then introduces the procedure for making such orders. Following consultations specified in s 5 and possibly further consultation, the Minister lays a draft order before Parliament, accompanied by an explanatory document including the Minister's views on why various of the preconditions are satisfied, and the details of the consultation, representations received and any changes made as a result of them. The document also contains the Minister's recommendation as to whether the draft order should be proceeded with in Parliament under the negative, affirmative or super-affirmative procedure. In Parliament, orders under these provisions are examined by the Regulatory Reform Committee in the Commons and by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the Lords. Either Committee may recommend ‘upgrading’ the proposed procedure (from negative to affirmative or super-affirmative, or from affirmative to super-affirmative), and such a recommendation has effect unless the relevant House rejects the committee's recommendation.8 To be effective, any decision to upgrade must be made within 30 days beginning with the day on which the draft order was laid before Parliament, not counting periods of prorogation or dissolution or when either House is adjourned for more than four days.9 A decision by either House to upgrade affects the procedure in both. The Committees are also charged with examining each draft order for its compliance with the conditions in the Act, and also with regard to those matters which would otherwise be examined by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. In the case of the Commons Committee, the procedure is set out in detail in Standing Order No 141 (for legislative reform orders) and Standing Order No 142 (in the case of orders under the 2004 and 2011 Acts). If the super-affirmative procedure is applicable, there is a period of 60 days after laying in which either committee may recommend that the draft order should be proceeded with unamended, that a revised draft order should be laid, or that the draft order should not be proceeded with.10 Except in the last case, the Minister, after taking into account the recommendations of the Committees and any other representations made, may decide to proceed with the draft order in its original form or lay a revised draft order, in either case laying a statement of the representations received and of any revisions proposed. The Committees consider the draft order again (in its original or revised state as the case may be) and report on whether it should be approved. If both Houses then approve the draft order, it can be made. If the affirmative procedure applies, the Committees may, within a period of 40 days after laying, report whether the draft order should be approved. If both Houses approve the draft order after the expiry of the period, it may then be made. If the negative procedure applies, the Committees may, within a period of 40 days after laying, report whether the draft order should be made.

Unless either House resolves that the draft order shall not be made within this period, it may be made without any further parliamentary proceedings.11 The legislation provides that if a Committee of either House recommends that no further proceedings be taken under the draft order (or revised draft order), or in the case of the negative procedure that the Minister should not make an order in the terms of the draft, the order may not be made unless the relevant House, in the same session, rejects the Committee's recommendation. The Commons Committee has, on one occasion, disapproved a draft order while stating that it did not intend to engage the statutory provisions.12 There have been relatively few examples of such orders; a list of legislative reform orders considered by the Committees is kept by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and, in general, there have been at most four a year.13

Footnotes 1. Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, ss 1, 2. A ‘burden’ covers a financial cost, an administrative inconvenience, an obstacle to efficiency, productivity or profitability or a sanction affecting the carrying on of any lawful activity. For an order under s 2 (Power to promote regulatory principles), see SI 2008/960. 2. For the procedures under the 1994 and 2001 Acts, see Erskine May (22nd edn, 1997), pp 593–95, and ibid (23rd edn, 2004), pp 689–93. The 2001 Act provided that regulatory reform orders could contain powers to make ‘subordinate provisions orders'. The effect of the relevant parts of that Act are preserved so that such orders may continue to be made (Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, s 30(4)). 3. Inserted by the Localism Act 2011. 4. Section 5B of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 provides exceptions to this power. 5. Section 5D of the 2004 Act. 6. Specified in s 5C of the 2004 Act. 7. See s 5E of the 2004 Act. 8. For examples of upgrading recommendations by committees, see LJ (2006–07) 837; CJ (2008–09) 99. In addition, either House may upgrade the procedure by resolution (s 15(6)(a)). 9. This method of calculation applies to all periods of days specified in the Act: note that it differs from that used under the Statutory Instruments Act 1946. 10. See Third Report of the Regulatory Reform Committee, Draft Legislative Reform (Horseracing Betting Levy) Order 2018, HC 1756 (2017–19) and Forty-first Report from the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, Draft Legislative Reform (Horserace Betting Levy) Order 2018, HL 249 (2017–19), for an example of an order recommended to be treated as superaffirmative, where both the Commons and Lords Committees recommended that the proposed reforms were unsuitable for taking forward through delegated legislation. 11. For further details of the procedures, see ss 15–19 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 which is materially applied to the other two Acts. 12. HC 181 (2008–09), para 22. The recommendation was disagreed to in the House and the draft Order agreed to, CJ (2008–09) 239, 250. 13. See www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/delegated-powers-and-regulatory-reformcommittee/lros/alphabetical-list-of-lros/; there have been two orders under the Localism Act, The Harrogate Stray Act 1985 (Tour de France) Order 2014 (SI 2014/1190) and The Harrogate Stray Act 1985 (Tour de Yorkshire) Order 2017 (SI 2017/34).

Proceedings in the Commons 31.37If the affirmative procedure applies, the Minister must wait for the 40-day period to elapse before moving a motion in the House to approve the draft order.1 If the super-affirmative procedure applies, the Regulatory Reform Committee is required to report within 15 sitting days of the Minister's statement that he or she proposes to proceed with the draft instrument without amendment, or within 25 sitting days of a revised draft order being laid.2 The Minister is not obliged to wait for the Committee's report before moving a motion in the House to approve the draft order, but normally no such motion is tabled until the Committee has reported, because the form of the proceedings on the motion is determined by the Committee's recommendation. If the Committee has recommended that the draft order be approved, and if this report was agreed without a division in the Committee, the question on the motion to approve the draft order must be put forthwith. If the Committee has recommended approval of the draft order, but only after a division, debate on the motion may continue for not more than one-and-a-half hours. If the Committee has reported that a draft order should not be approved, the House has first to consider a motion to disagree with the Committee's report (a motion which may be debated for not more than three hours). If the House should resolve to disagree with the report, the question on the motion to approve the draft order must then be put forthwith.3 A list setting out draft legislative reform orders before the Commons, and summarising the Committee's action upon them, is issued once a week on the parliamentary website.

Footnotes 1. See CJ (2008–09) 477, 570, for an occasion on which the 40-day limit was overlooked and the approval motion was moved again. 2. SO No 141(7). 3. SO No 18.

Proceedings in the Lords 31.38The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee produces a substantive report on whether the criteria set out in the Act are satisfied, and also performs the functions of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in respect of the order. The Committee also applies its own test of whether the proposal is appropriate to proceed as a legislative reform order.1 If the affirmative procedure applies, the Minister must wait for the 40-day period to elapse before moving a motion in the House to approve the draft order. No such motion may be moved until the Committee has reported on the order. If the super-affirmative procedure applies, the Committee undertakes second-stage scrutiny when the Minister has laid a statement to proceed with the draft order in its unamended state, or when a revised draft order has been laid. No motion to approve the order may be moved until the Committee has reported.2 In its second report on a draft order, the Committee considers the extent to which any recommendations previously made about the form or content of the order have been reflected in the draft.

Footnotes 1. Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, Twentieth Report of Session 2005–06, HL 192. 2. SO No 72(1).

Remedial orders Contents Non-urgent procedure Urgent procedure 31.39A remedial order is a form of subordinate legislation which has the power to amend or repeal primary legislation for purposes and in circumstances specified in the Human Rights Act 1998.1 It is a fast-track method of removing incompatibilities with Convention rights which emerge in the course of litigation in courts in the United Kingdom or at the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg. The relevant provisions are contained in ss 4 and 10 of, and sch 2 to, the Human Rights Act 1998. A remedial order may make such amendments to the incompatible legislation (and, where the legislation in question is subordinate legislation, to primary legislation which prevents removal of the incompatibility) as the Minister considers necessary to remove the incompatibility.2 An order may: amend any primary or subordinate legislation, repeal primary legislation and revoke subordinate legislation;3 contain such incidental, supplemental, consequential or transitional provision as the person making it considers appropriate;4 have retrospective effect5 (save that nobody is to be guilty of an offence solely as a result of the retrospective effect);6 make provision for the delegation of specific functions;7 and make different provision for different cases,8 allowing (for example) parties to the litigation in which a declaration of incompatibility was made and to other similar litigation, but not other people, to be retrospectively relieved of the effects of the incompatibility. The trigger for giving a Minister the power to make a remedial order is: either the making of a declaration of incompatibility by a United Kingdom court in respect of legislation,9 followed by a written statement by all parties with a right of appeal that they do not intend to appeal or the completion of any appeal process or the expiry of the time limit for an appeal; or a finding by the European Court of Human Rights, made on or after 2 October 2000, in proceedings against the United Kingdom, which makes it appear to a Minister or to Her Majesty in Council that a provision of legislation is incompatible with an obligation of the United Kingdom arising under the European Convention on Human Rights.10 After one of these events, a Minister may start the process of removing the incompatibility by way of a remedial order if, and only if, the Minister ‘considers that there are compelling reasons for proceeding under this section’, that is for using subordinate legislation rather than proceeding by way of a bill.11 The Act contemplates two types of remedial order, essentially for non-urgent and urgent action, as the case requires.

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

The first remedial order to be made was the Mental Health Act 1983 (Remedial) Order 2001 (SI 2001/3712). Human Rights Act 1998, s 10(2). Human Rights Act 1998, sch 2, para 1(2)(a) and (b) as read with s 21(1) of the Act, under which ‘amend’ includes ‘repeal’. Human Rights Act 1998, sch 2, para 1(1)(a). This normally provides for those affected by an incompatible provision to be relieved of its consequences by treating the rectifying legislation as having come into effect at a date before the remedial order is made. Human Rights Act 1998, sch 2, para 1(1)(b) and (4). Human Rights Act 1998, sch 2, para 1(1)(c). Human Rights Act 1998, sch 2, para 1(1)(d). That is, a declaration under the Human Rights Act 1998, s 4 that a provision of legislation is incompatible with a ‘Convention right’ as defined by the Act, and that primary legislation prevents the removal of the incompatibility (disregarding, in the case of subordinate legislation made under the incompatible primary legislation, the possibility of revocation of that subordinate legislation). Human Rights Act 1998, s 10(1). The Joint Committee on Human Rights commented on the interpretation of ‘compelling reasons' in its Seventh Report, Making of Remedial Orders, HL 58, HC 473 (2001–02) para 33.

Non-urgent procedure 31.40Unless the circumstances dictate that the urgent procedure is required, the following steps must be taken in making a remedial order. The Minister must lay before each House a document which contains: 1. a draft of the proposed order; 2. an explanation of the incompatibility which the proposed order seeks to remove, including particulars of the relevant declaration of incompatibility, finding or order of the United Kingdom court or the European Court of Human Rights; 3. a statement of the reasons for proceeding by way of the remedial order procedure; and 4. a statement of the reasons for making an order in the terms proposed.1 A period of 60 days, beginning on the day on which the document containing the proposal for a draft order was laid, must be allowed for representations to be made to the Minister. The period does not include any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.2 Within this period, the terms of reference of the Joint Committee on Human Rights (see para 41.11 ) require it to report to each House its recommendation whether a draft order in the same terms as the proposal should be laid before the House.3 After the expiry of the 60-day period, the next step is for the Minister to lay a draft order before each House. If representations have been made during the initial 60-day period, the draft order must be accompanied by a statement containing a summary of those representations and details of any changes made to the proposed draft order as a result of those representations. Within a second 60-day period (calculated in the same way as the first one), the terms of reference of the Joint Committee on Human Rights require it to report to each House its recommendation whether the draft order should be approved; and whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to the draft order on any of the grounds specified in the standing orders of each House relating to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, that is: that it imposes a charge on public revenues (eg in the case of a remedial order by requiring the payment of compensation to victims of violations of Convention rights) or requires payments to be made to a public authority; that there is doubt as to whether it is intra vires; that it appears to make unusual or unexpected use of the power under which it is made; that for any special reason its form or purport calls for elucidation; or that its drafting appears to be defective.4 Two of the grounds on which the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments might draw an instrument to the special attention of each House are not relevant to remedial orders. These are: that it may have been made in pursuance of an enactment excluding it from challenge in the courts; and that it purports to have retrospective effect when the parent Act does not expressly authorise it (the Human Rights Act 1998 does expressly authorise retrospective effect). After the Joint Committee on Human Rights has reported, and the second 60-day period has expired, a motion may be moved by a Minister in each House to approve the draft order. If the draft order has been approved by resolution of each House, the Minister may proceed to make the order.5

Footnotes 1. Human Rights Act 1998, sch 2, paras 3(1) and 5 (the ‘required information’). 2. Human Rights Act 1998, sch 2, paras 3(1) and 6. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has recommended that the 60-day periods specified here and elsewhere in the schedule should exclude times when either House is not sitting for more than four days, in its Seventh Report of Session 2001–02, Making of Remedial Orders, HL 58, HC 473, at para 40 (see also First Report of the House of Commons Procedure Committee, Making Remedial Orders: Recommendations by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, HC 626 (2001–02). 3. See SO No 152B(3)(a) of the House of Commons and LJ (1999–2000) 573. 4. See SO No 152B(3)(b) of the House of Commons and LJ (1999–2000) 573. 5. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has recommended that draft orders should be able to be approved before the end of 60 days once it has reported on them, Seventh Report, HL 58, HC 473 (2001–02), paras 41–43 (see also First Report of the House of Commons Procedure Committee, HC 626 (2001–02)).

Urgent procedure 31.41If it appears to the Minister that it is necessary to remedy the incompatibility without delay, the Minister may make a remedial order without a draft order being previously approved.1 An order made under this procedure is time limited (see below). Having made an urgent procedure order, the Minister must lay the order before each House of Parliament as soon as possible after it is made, accompanied by: 1. an explanation of the incompatibility which the order seeks to remove, including particulars of the relevant declaration of incompatibility, finding or order of the United Kingdom court or the European Court of Human Rights; 2. a statement of the reasons for proceeding by way of the remedial order procedure; and 3. a statement of the reasons for making an order in the terms proposed.2 After a period of 60 days starting with the day on which the order was made (not necessarily the day on which it was laid before Parliament), the Minister must lay before each House a statement containing a summary of any representations which have been made to them on the order and details of any changes the Minister now considers it appropriate to make to the original order.3 If the Minister considers that changes are appropriate, they must make a further order, replacing the original; and must lay any replacement order before each House. The original remedial order, or any replacement order, lapses if it is not approved by affirmative resolution of each House within the period of 120 days starting with the day on which the original order was made.4 The periods of 60 and 120 days do not include any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.5 During the 120-day period, the Joint Committee on Human Rights is required to report to each House whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to the order on any of the grounds specified in the standing orders relating to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (noted above). It must also consider whether there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in the publication or laying of the order, or in notifying the Speaker of the House of Commons and Lord Speaker where the instrument has come into effect before being laid (which is a test applicable to remedial orders only if made under the ‘urgent’ procedure). It is also required to report whether: 1. the order should be approved in the form in which it was originally laid before Parliament; or 2. the order should be replaced by a new order modifying its provisions; or 3. the order should not be approved.6 The Committee has indicated that in practice it will examine any urgent order during the first 60-day period and report on any changes which it considers are required, thereby ensuring that its report will be considered by the Minister when making the statement on representations and, if necessary, when drafting a replacement remedial order. If the Committee proposes no change to the original order, and is content, it has indicated that it will be unlikely to make any further report, and the Government will be free to move the motion in each House for the order to be approved. If it recommends changes, or the Minister for other reasons lays a replacement order, the Committee has indicated that it will report again, later in the 120-day period, in the light of its recommendations and of the Minister's statement about representations and any resulting modifications made to the order in its replacement.7

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Human Rights Act 1998, sch 2, para 2(b). Human Rights Act 1998, sch 2, paras 4(1) and 5 (the ‘required information’). Human Rights Act 1998, sch 2, para 4(2). Human Rights Act 1998, sch 2, para 4(3) and (4). Human Rights Act 1998, sch 2, paras 4 and 6. See SO No 152B(4) of the House of Commons and LJ (1999–2000) 573. Seventh Report, HL 58, HC 473 (2001–02) para 23.

Delegated legislation affecting Northern Ireland Contents Consideration of Northern Ireland Assembly legislation in reserved and excepted matters 31.42At the time of writing, the Northern Ireland Act is suspended although there has been legislation to ensure that the public service can continue (see para 11.9, fn 2). This section accordingly describes the framework in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. This Act established the Northern Ireland Assembly with competence to legislate for matters devolved from Westminster. The extent of the Assembly's legislative competence is set out in s 6 of the 1998 Act. Schedule 2 to the Act sets out matters which are excepted from the Assembly's legislative competence, such as international relations and defence, nationality, United Kingdom taxation and national insurance arrangements. Schedule 3 sets out matters in which legislative competence is presently reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament: these include postal services and financial services and markets. The Northern Ireland Act 1998, s 85 provides that Her Majesty may, by Order in Council, make provision for certain of the reserved matters set out in sch 3 to the Act.1 Orders made or proposed to be made under s 85 are subject to the super-affirmative procedure described above (para 31.14 ).

Footnotes 1. The specific reserved matters are set out in sch 3, paras 9–17. They include civil defence, firearms and explosives.

Consideration of Northern Ireland Assembly legislation in reserved and excepted matters Contents Proceedings in the Commons Proceedings in the Lords 31.43The Northern Ireland Assembly legislates freely on transferred matters, ie those neither excepted nor reserved and the United Kingdom Parliament has no part to play in the enactment of such legislation. However, certain matters such as nationality are excepted legislation by the United Kingdom Parliament and others are reserved to it except where the Secretary of State consents. In other words, with the consent of the Secretary of State, the Northern Ireland Assembly can legislate on reserved matters; it is also given power to legislate on excepted matters which are ancillary to the main purpose of a bill that is within its competence.1 The Northern Ireland Act 1998, s 15, provides that, where a bill of the Northern Ireland Assembly can only become law if the Secretary of State consents, the Secretary of State may not submit the bill for Royal Assent unless they have laid the bill before the United Kingdom Parliament. When such a bill has been laid at Westminster, each House has 20 sitting days within which a motion, signed by the requisite number of Members, to oppose the bill may be tabled. If such a motion is tabled in either House, the bill may not be submitted for Royal Assent until the motion has been either withdrawn or rejected. In an urgent case, the Secretary of State may submit the bill for immediate Royal Assent, but they must then lay the Act before both Houses at Westminster. Each House then has 20 sitting days within which a motion praying that the Act of the Assembly shall cease to have effect may be tabled. If such a motion is carried in either House, Her Majesty may repeal the Act by Order in Council.

Footnotes 1. Northern Ireland Act 1998, ss 6 and 8.

Proceedings in the Commons 31.44Procedure on these motions in the House of Commons is as follows: 1. when a Northern Ireland Assembly bill or Act is laid before the House, its laying is recorded in the Votes and Proceedings, and in Section A of the Statutory Instrument List (entitled ‘Bills and Acts of the Northern Ireland Assembly laid before Parliament under section 15 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998’). This list shows the date on which the bill or Act was laid and the number of days of the 20-day statutory period which remain unexpired. If 20 sitting days pass and no motion is put down, the House's involvement is at an end; 2. if within the 20 days a Member of the House tables a motion to oppose the bill or Act, the motion is printed in the list of Notices of Motions (EDMs). Members may add signatures to the motion as they would to any other Early Day Motion; 3. if, at the rising of the House on the twentieth day, the number of signatories has not reached 20, the motion is ineffective. If the number of signatories has reached 20, arrangements may be made for the motion to be debated.

Proceedings in the Lords 31.45Procedure on these motions in the House of Lords is as follows: 1. when a Northern Ireland Assembly bill or Act is laid before the House, its arrival is recorded in the Minutes of Proceedings, and in a table entitled ‘Northern Ireland Assembly Legislation on Reserved/Excepted Matters in Progress'. This table shows the expiry date of the 20day statutory period. If 20 sitting days pass and no motion is put down, the House's involvement is at an end; 2. if within the 20 days a Member of the House tables a motion to oppose the bill or Act, the motion is printed among the ‘Other Motions for Debate’ section of House of Lords Business. Signatures may then be added. The master copy of the motion, with a consolidated list of signatures, is kept in the Table Office, and is open for inspection. A Member of the House of Lords may withdraw their signature at any time, by giving written authority; 3. if, on the twentieth day, the number of signatories has not reached 20, the motion is ineffective. If it has reached 20, the motion may be put down for a day and debated in the usual way. When the motion is put down for a day, only the name of the Lords Member who originally tabled the motion appears on the Order Paper as the Lords Member who is to move the motion. The total number of signatures which the motion has attracted is indicated with the text of the motion.

Delegation in Church of England matters Contents Measures Ecclesiastical Committee Proceedings in both Houses Sub-delegation 31.46Delegated legislation in matters concerning the Church of England is governed by the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, as amended by the Synodical Government Measure 1969 (No 2). Measures under that Act are passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, and are presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent in pursuance of resolutions of both Houses of Parliament.

Measures 31.47Measures are defined by the Act of 1919 as legislative measures touching matters concerning the Church of England, intended to receive the Royal Assent and to have effect as Acts of Parliament in accordance with the provisions of that Act.1 They have express authority to amend or repeal Acts of Parliament, including the Act of 1919, with the exception of those provisions which relate to the composition, powers or duties of the Ecclesiastical Committee (see below) or the procedure in Parliament prescribed by s 4 of that Act. Measures have dealt with a broad range of subjects, from the liturgy used in the Church of England, the disciplinary arrangements for its clergy and the ordination of women as priests and their consecration as bishops, to arrangements for clergy pensions and the powers of parochial church councils.2

Footnotes 1. The Human Rights Act 1998, s 10(6) excludes Church of England Measures from the definition of legislation which may be altered by the remedial order procedure, where it has been found to be incompatible with Convention rights by a United Kingdom court, or with the European Convention on Human Rights by the European Court of Human Rights. 2. A Measure may in terms apply to the Isle of Man, but more usually will provide for its extension thereto, with or without modifications, by Act of Tynwald. Measures which do not expressly extend to the Channel Islands may contain provisions for such an extension by the special procedures of the Channel Islands (Church Legislation) Measures 1931 and 1957.

Ecclesiastical Committee 31.48Measures agreed to by the General Synod are submitted by its Legislative Committee to the Ecclesiastical Committee of Members of both Houses set up under the 1919 Act. The Ecclesiastical Committee is different in form from the usual joint committee (see Chapter 41) since it is a statutory body and its proceedings are not proceedings in Parliament; but the Committee has power by statute to regulate its own procedure except as otherwise provided by s 2 of the 1919 Act, and has in fact done so in terms of a resolution (22 March 1921) to adopt the procedure of joint committees. The Committee is appointed for the duration of a Parliament and consists of 15 Members of the House of Lords nominated by the Lord Speaker, and the same number of Members of the House of Commons nominated by the Speaker.1 Casual vacancies are filled by nominations by the Lord Speaker or the Speaker of the House of Commons, as the case may be.2 The quorum of the Ecclesiastical Committee is 12 of its members, and the Committee may sit whether Parliament is sitting or not, and notwithstanding a vacancy in its membership. The Committee appoints its own Chairman, who has always been a Member of the House of Lords and since 1947 always a serving or retired judge. The Committee has appointed sub-committees.3 When a Measure is submitted to the Ecclesiastical Committee (along with such comments or explanations as the Legislative Committee may deem it expedient or be directed by the General Synod to add), it is considered with a view to the presentation to Parliament of a report dealing with its nature and legal effect. The report contains also the Committee's views on the Measure's expediency ‘especially with relation to the constitutional rights of all Her Majesty's subjects’. The Ecclesiastical Committee may not amend a Measure. Witnesses are not heard; but representatives of the Synod assist the Committee in its consideration of a Measure and a conference between the Legislative Committee and the Ecclesiastical Committee concerning a Measure may be arranged at the instance of either committee.4 A meeting with representatives of the Synod, or a conference, is held in public and a transcript of the proceedings published with the Committee's report. Other parts of the Committee's deliberations are held in private. The Ecclesiastical Committee is bound, before presenting its report to Parliament, to communicate it in draft to the Legislative Committee, and not to present its report to Parliament until the Legislative Committee signifies its desire that it shall be so presented (see para 31.49, fn 3). If the Legislative Committee signifies such a desire, the Measure and report are presented forthwith to both Houses and printed as parliamentary papers. If at that time Parliament is not sitting, the presentation is made immediately after the next meeting of Parliament. In addition, the Legislative Committee may, at any time before the presentation of the Ecclesiastical Committee's report to Parliament, withdraw a Measure from the further consideration of that Committee and has invariably done so in the face of an unfavourable draft report.5

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

For example, Minutes of Proceedings, 27 July 2010, and Votes and Proceedings, 26 October 2010. For example, LJ (2002–03) 67; CJ (2007–08) 433. Ecclesiastical Committee, Minutes of Proceedings I, 253 and 379 (20 July 1927 and 21 May 1930). For example, 19 March 1964 (Clergy (Ordination and Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure); 13 February 1989 (Clergy (Ordination) Measure); 5 July 1993 (Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure and Ordination of Women (Financial Provisions) Measure (see HL 116, HC 895 (1992–93) p 125 ff)); 24 May 1999 (Churchwardens Measure). For assistance by Members of the General Synod, see Ecclesiastical Committee, 236th Report – published 14 March 2018 (HL 91, HC 749 (2017–19), Minutes of Proceedings). 5. Clergy Pensions Measure 1923; Parsonages Measure 1928; Ecclesiastical Fees Measure 1961; Churchwardens Measure 2001; Church of England (Pensions) Measure 2001. In the case of the Clergy (Ordination and Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure 1964, the Committee reported adversely on a part of the Measure. When the Measure was laid it was divided into two and the Clergy (Ministration to NonResident Electors) Measure, which contained the provisions to which the Committee had objected, was not proceeded with, see HL Deb (1963–64) 258, cc 368–71.

Proceedings in both Houses 31.49When a Measure has been laid before Parliament, the Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Chairman of Committees) and the Chairman of Ways and Means may, if they are of the opinion that it deals with two or more subjects which might more properly be divided, divide the Measure into two or more other Measures. The Measures are then printed separately.1 When a Measure and report have been laid before Parliament and ordered to be printed, a motion is tabled in both Houses that the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which it was laid before Parliament. In the House of Commons, neither the motion itself nor the Measure is open to amendment,2 and such motions, being in pursuance of an Act of Parliament, are exempt from interruption at the moment of interruption, and proceedings on them may continue for an hour-and-a-half after their commencement (Standing Order No 16) (see paras 17.12, 18.27, 18.42 and 19.40 ).3 Where proceedings in relation to a Measure have not been completed in one session of Parliament, the Measure is not required to be laid again in the following session nor is the Ecclesiastical Committee of a new Parliament required to consider again a Measure reported on in the previous Parliament.4 Motions for the submission of a Measure have sometimes been agreed to by one House, and disagreed to by the other.5 The most notable example of the use of the powers conferred on Parliament to reject a Measure is the rejection by the House of Commons of a Prayer Book Measure in 1927 and 1928.6 The Queen's consent must be signified to Measures affecting the prerogative or interest of the Crown before the question is proposed on motions for the presentation of such Measures to Her Majesty.7

Footnotes 1. Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, s 4; LJ (1963–64) 224; CJ (1963–64) 200. 2. HC Deb (1926) 200, c 1531; ibid (1957–58) 581, c 1129; ibid (1968–69) 772, c 315. 3. The Speaker has declined to propose the question that a Measure be presented to Her Majesty when it appeared that the Legislative Committee had not formally signified its desire that the Ecclesiastical Committee's report on the Measure should be presented to Parliament, along with the Measure. The Measure in question was withdrawn and relaid (HC Deb (1967–68) 768, cc 1676–77; ibid 769, cc 1000–1; ibid (1968–69) 772, c 311; CJ (1967–68) 373, 378; ibid (1968–69) 9, 61). 4. For example, the Church of England (Legal Aid and Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure 1987, laid and reported on in Session 1986–87 and considered by both Houses in Session 1987–88 (new Parliament): LJ (1986–87) 352; ibid (1987–88) 135: CJ (1986–87) 359–60; ibid (1987–88) 272. 5. LJ (1926) 55, 244, CJ (1926) 49, 378; LJ (1974–75) 819, CJ (1974–75) 653. When the Commons rejected the Appointment of Bishops Measure 1984 (ibid (1983–84) 697), the motion to approve the Measure was withdrawn from the Lords Order Paper. When the Commons rejected the Clergy (Ordination) Measure, which had been approved by the Lords, it was retabled and approved in the following session, LJ (1988–89) 501; CJ (1988–89) 509; ibid (1989–90) 189–90. 6. CJ (1927) 378; ibid (1928) 204. 7. For example, LJ (1967–68) 306; CJ (1971–72) 93; ibid (1974–75) 112; ibid (1979–80) 628; ibid (1983–84) 697; ibid (1985–86) 197, 417. The Government has made clear that the signification of Queen's Consent to a Measure does not necessarily imply government support for the proposal (HC Deb (1983–84) 64, cc 126–27).

Sub-delegation 31.50It is often the case that Measures contain provisions enabling schemes, regulations or orders to be made under them, so that these documents stand in the same general relationship to Measures as statutory instruments to their parent Act. These schemes, etc, are not invariably subject in terms of the Measure to parliamentary scrutiny, and unless the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 is applicable, any expression of parliamentary disapproval would have no necessary effect. The matter of sub-delegation was considered by a sub-committee of the Ecclesiastical Committee in 1930, when it was concluded that sub-delegation should be restricted within the closest limits, and the subjects upon which such schemes or regulations might be made should be clearly defined. It recommended that such powers should be carefully scrutinised by the Ecclesiastical Committee.1 Measures may provide in terms for forms of parliamentary control over schemes or other documents made under them.2 A number of Measures provide that once the General Synod has agreed to a scheme or other document under those Measures, the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 shall apply to that scheme or other document as if they were statutory instruments and as if the Measure were an Act providing that the scheme or document should be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.3

Footnotes 1. Ecclesiastical Committee, Minutes of Proceedings I, 379–82; see 236th Report, HL 91, HC 749 (2017–19) paras 17–19 for an analogous discussion of a Legislative Reform Measure which is intended to make it possible to remove or reduce burdens resulting from ecclesiastical legislation by way of order made by the Archbishops' Council, with the approval of the General Synod and subject to annulment by either House of Parliament, rather than going through the legislative process that applies to Measures. 2. See Second Special Report from the Commons Statutory Instruments Committee, HC 7-v (1953–54). 3. For example, Faculty Jurisdiction Measure 1964; Clergy Pensions (Amendment) Measure 1972. Certain schemes made under the Ecclesiastical Fees Measure 1962 may amend private, personal or local Acts, but before coming into effect, they are to be laid by the Church Commissioners before Parliament, and only part of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 is to apply to them.

Introduction to parliamentary oversight on matters relating to the EU 32.1At the time this edition was being prepared the United Kingdom was a Member State of the European Union and the date and terms of its exit from the European Union had not been decided. The provision of scrutiny processes in respect of EU legislative and other activity, both during any transitional or implementation period following the UK's exit from the EU and in the longer term, remains under consideration in both Houses. This chapter first considers the arrangements for the scrutiny of the withdrawal process and then sets out a high-level description of the processes for scrutinising EU legislation which have been in force during the UK's membership in order to provide context to the consideration of scrutiny processes in the future. More detail of the procedures for scrutinising European legislation can be found in previous editions.1 Committees of both Houses scrutinise the Government's actions in giving effect to the result of the 2016 referendum, in particular its negotiations with the European Commission's ‘Task Force 50’ (representing the other 27 EU Member States) on the terms of withdrawal, and on the terms of the future UK-EU relationship. The House of Commons Exiting the European Union Committee, appointed in 2016 following the creation of the Department for Exiting the European Union,2 and, in the House of Lords, the European Union Committee, play a key role in scrutiny of the withdrawal process, but other committees have also engaged closely on matters where EU exit is relevant to their remit. The process of leaving the European Union has required the creation of dedicated arrangements to scrutinise the Government's proposals for transitional and post-exit arrangements. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 contains very broad powers for Ministers to amend existing primary and secondary legislation as a consequence of the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972. This chapter focuses on those orders. Other arrangements relating to implementing withdrawal or dealing with the consequences of withdrawal have been dealt with through individual statutes, which may themselves confer order-making powers of the sort dealt with in the chapter on delegated legislation.3 The parliaments of Member States of the European Union (EU) affect the transaction of EU business, and the actions of the institutions of the Union, mainly by influencing and calling to account Ministers of national governments in their capacity as members of the Council of the European Union (formerly the Council of Ministers, and usually referred to as ‘the Council’). Both Houses of the United Kingdom Parliament have established systematic methods of scrutiny of EU documents, through the European Scrutiny Committee in the House of Commons (see paras 32.13 and 38.72 ) and the Select Committee on the European Union in the House of Lords (see paras 32.14 and 40.51 ) (‘the scrutiny committees’).

Footnotes 1. Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 701 ff. 2. For details on the Exiting the EU Committee, see Chapter 38. 3. See, for example, the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.

Scrutiny of the Withdrawal Agreement 32.2The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 sets out arrangements for parliamentary approval of the outcome of the negotiations with the EU. It provides that the Withdrawal Agreement can be ratified only if: a. a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament: i. a statement that political agreement has been reached; ii. a copy of the negotiated Withdrawal Agreement; and iii. a copy of the framework for the future relationship; b. the negotiated Withdrawal Agreement and the framework for the future relationship has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown; c. a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the negotiated Withdrawal Agreement and the framework for the future relationship has been tabled in the House of Lords by a Minister of the Crown and: i. the House of Lords has debated the motion; or ii. the House of Lords has not concluded a debate on the motion before the end of the period of five Lords' sitting days beginning with the first Lords' sitting day after the day on which the House of Commons passed the resolution mentioned in paragraph (b), and d. an Act of Parliament has been passed which contains provision for the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement. It also provides that, so far as practicable, the Government should arrange business so that the House of Commons considers the motion to approve the Withdrawal Agreement and framework for the future relationship before the European Parliament decides whether it consents to the Withdrawal Agreement (s 13(2)). The Act provides that if the House of Commons does not approve the motion, a Minister has to make a statement in writing setting out how the Government proposes to proceed in withdrawal negotiations.1 If such a statement is made, a Minster has to move a motion in neutral terms to the effect that the House has considered the statement within seven sitting days beginning with the day on which the statement was made.2 Similar provision requires a take note motion in the House of Lords. The Act also required debates in the Commons and the Lords if before the end of 21 January 2019 the Prime Minister made a statement saying that no agreement in principle could be reached on the arrangements for withdrawal and the framework for future agreement, and required those debates to be held within five sitting days in the Commons and seven sitting days in the Lords. Similar arrangements were prescribed if there was no agreement in principle in negotiations at the end of that date, although the time limit in this case was reduced to five sitting days.3 A statement was made on 24 January 20194 and debates were held in the Lords on 28 January and in the Commons on 29 January.5 These provisions do not affect the requirements set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 relating to the ratification of treaties, which also apply in relation to the Withdrawal Agreement.6 The Government twice brought forward motions pursuant to s 13(1)(b) of the Act, but the House of Commons declined to approve the negotiated Withdrawal Agreement and Future Framework on both occasions, even after supplementary declarations had been secured seeking to interpret the provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement applying to the Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland border.7 On a subsequent occasion, the House was invited to approve the Withdrawal Agreement alone and declined to do so.8 On 27 March 2019, the House of Commons approved a Statutory Instrument to amend the definition of ‘exit day’ in the European Union Withdrawal Act.9 The process in the House of Commons was notable in that backbenchers were repeatedly successful in making amendments to Business of the House motions.10 On some occasions, such amended motions removed Government control of the Order Paper on specified days, and allowed the House to determine the conduct of business. On two such occasions, backbench attempts to use a series of indicative votes, conducted by use of ballot papers, under arrangements supervised by the Speaker, similarly failed to establish a majority in favour of any of the options for the future relationship between the UK and the European Union put forward for the ballot and selected by the Speaker.11 On 3 April 2019, the House of Commons passed the European Union Withdrawal (No 5) Bill, after agreeing to take all stages in the same day.12 This provided for the House of Commons to agree to an extension of the period specified in Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union to a period ending on a date to be specified in a motion to be moved by the Prime Minister the day after the Bill received Royal Assent. On 4 April 2019, the Bill was given first and second readings in the House of Lords, after a Business Motion was agreed to enable all stages to be taken in a singe day.13 The interplay of parliamentary procedure and statute in these proceedings raises interesting constitutional issues; the interpretation of statute law is a matter for the courts, but not only does article IX of the Bill of Rights prevent impeaching and questioning of proceedings (see Chapter 13), each House has exclusive cognizance of its own proceedings and power to determine its own procedures, as Bradlaugh v Gosset showed (see para 16.3 ).

Footnotes 1. Section 13(4). 2. Statements under s 13(4) were made on two occasions: see HC Deb (21 January 2019) 653, c 4WS; and ibid (15 March 2019) 656, c 40WS. 3. All time limits began with the day on which the relevant statement was made. 4. HC Deb (24 January 2019) 653, 25WS. 5. HL Deb (28 January 2019) 795, c 916; HC Deb (29 January 2019) 653, c 688.

6. European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, s 13(14). 7. See House of Commons Votes and Proceedings 15 January 2019, 12 March 2019. 8. House of Commons Votes and Proceedings 29 March 2019; HC Deb (29 March 2019) 657, c 695; non-statutory motions were also brought forward in the Commons on 13 March 2019, 14 March 2019 and 14 February 2019. 9. House of Commons Votes and Proceedings, 27 March 2019. Motion to approve the draft European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Exit Day) (Amendment) Regulations 2019, HC Deb (27 March 2019) 657, c 429; HL Deb (27 March 2019) 796, c 1843. 10. House of Commons Votes and Proceedings, 4 December 2018, 29 January 2019, 25 March 2019, 27 March 2019, 1 April 2019 and 3 April 2019. 11. House of Commons Votes and Proceedings, 27 March 2019 and 1 April 2019. 12. House of Commons Votes and Proceedings, 3 April 2019; HC Deb (3 April 2019) 657, c 1058. 13. HL Deb (4 April 2019) 797, c 230 ff. Although the Business Motion was agreed to, the House adjourned after second reading.

Scrutiny of delegated legislation made under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 32.3Section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 provides that the European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on Exit day. To ensure legal continuity, ss 2–4 of the Act provide that EU-derived domestic legislation will continue to have effect, EU legislation with direct effect will form part of domestic law and that, with certain exceptions, any rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures which, immediately before Exit day, are recognised and available in domestic law by virtue of s 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972, continue. Retained EU law can be varied by Act of Parliament, but Ministers also have power to make a very broad range of amendments to primary or secondary legislation by statutory instrument. Ministers may make regulations to deal with deficiencies in retained EU law arising from withdrawal within two years of Exit day (s 8) and to make legislative changes to implement the exit agreement in relation to those measures which should be in place for Exit day (s 9).1 Corresponding powers are given to devolved authorities (s 11). Ministers may also make consequential or transitional provisions for a period of up to ten years following Exit day (s 23). The nature of the order-making powers are set out in sch 7 of the Act. Some instruments will always be subject to the affirmative procedure. Broadly speaking they are: a. b. c. d.

instruments transferring an EU legislative power to a UK body; instruments relating to fees; instruments which create or widen the scope of a criminal offence; instruments which create or amend a power to legislate (not including repealing or revoking such a power).2

In addition, an instrument laid under s 9 to amend the date of Exit day is subject to the affirmative procedure.3 Where a Minister decides that, for reason of urgency, an instrument exercising powers under (a) to (c) above subject to the affirmative procedure must be made and brought into force before the regulations have been approved by both Houses, the instrument may be made and brought into force before being laid before Parliament, but must be approved by resolution of both Houses within 28 days of the date of laying if it is to remain in force. An instrument made under the urgent procedure must contain a declaration of urgency and is not subject to a sifting procedure (see below).4 In other cases, the default will be the negative procedure save that the Minister will have a discretion as to whether to use affirmative procedure in its place. There are mechanisms for scrutinising and influencing this ministerial choice. The Act provides that before proceeding under the negative procedure, draft regulations must be laid before Parliament accompanied by a statement that the Minister considers that the negative procedure is appropriate, and a memorandum from the Minister explaining the reason for choosing that procedure. If a period of ten sitting days has passed without the relevant committees of the House of Commons and the House of Lords making a recommendation as to the procedure used, the Minister may proceed.5 If such a committee recommends the affirmative procedure, the Minister may accept that recommendation. If they wish to proceed with the negative procedure despite the committee's recommendation they may do so, but must make and publish a statement setting out why they do not agree with the recommendation of the committee, or, if they fail to make such a statement, why they have failed to do so.6 In the Commons, the European Statutory Instruments Committee was established7 to examine and report on: i. any of the following documents laid before the House of Commons in accordance with paras 3(3)(b) or 17(3)(b) of sch 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: a. a draft of an instrument; and b. a memorandum setting out both a statement made by a Minister of the Crown to the effect that in the Minister's opinion the instrument should be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament (the negative procedure) and the reasons for that opinion, and ii. any matter arising from its consideration of such documents. Paragraph 2 of the Committee’s standing order states that in its consideration the Committee shall include in respect of each proposed negative instrument: a. whether it contains provisions which, under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (paras 1(2) or 10(2)), require it to be subject to the affirmative procedure; and b. whether it otherwise appears to make an inappropriate use of the negative procedure. The Procedure Committee suggested that in coming to a determination under paragraph 2(b) the European Statutory Instruments Committee should consider: whether the instrument proposes a change which is legally important—that is, whether it proposes to amend existing law or make new law in a way which is significant; whether the instrument is politically important—for instance, whether the Government is proposing a legislative change which involves a change in policy which merits further debate before it is approved;

whether a proposed change in legislation, taken together with other proposals, is significant enough to require further scrutiny. The Procedure Committee also considered that the Committee should consider the level of interest in any debate if it recommended the affirmative procedure.8 Before reporting on any document, the Committee shall provide to the government department concerned an opportunity to provide orally or in writing to it or any sub-committee appointed by it such further explanations as the Committee may require except to the extent that the Committee considers that it is not reasonably practicable to do so within the period provided by the Act (Standing Order No 4). The Standing Order states that it shall be an instruction to the Committee that it shall report any recommendation that the affirmative procedure should apply within the period specified by the Act. The outcome of the Committee's considerations is reported to the House via the Votes and Proceedings on the days of its meetings, and in addition the Committee makes narrative reports where it recommends that an instrument be subject to the affirmative procedure.9 The Committee is appointed under a temporary standing order, with effect until the end of the 2017 Parliament. In any event, the relevant provisions of the standing order will lapse as the power to make regulations under ss 8, 9 or 23(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 falls away and shall lapse entirely upon expiry of the last such remaining power.10 In the House of Lords, the task of sifting instruments laid under ss 8, 9 or 23(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is undertaken by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.11 To that end, the Committee has been given power to appoint sub-committees and to co-opt members to those sub-committees. This power will lapse on expiry of the power to make the relevant instruments under the Act. Sub-committees share the main Committee's general powers such as to send for persons, papers and records, appoint specialist advisers and to report from time to time.12

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

The powers under s 9 expire on Exit day. European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, sch 7(1). European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, sch 7(10)(1). European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, sch 7(19)(2). See European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, sch 7(17) and (11) for the calculation of sitting days. European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, sch 7(17)(7)–(9). Temporary Standing Order, Votes and Proceedings, 16 July 2018; see para 38.71 for details of the Committee's membership and powers. House of Commons Procedure Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2017–19, Scrutiny of delegated legislation under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, HC 1395. For example, see Votes and Proceedings, 5 September 2018; and European Statutory Instruments Committee, First Report of Session 2017–19, HC 1532. Votes and Proceedings, 16 July 2018. See para 40.50. House of Lords Procedure Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2017–19, European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: Sifting of proposed negative instruments by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Consideration of Commons Amendments, Grand Committees on Questions for Short Debate, HL 163.

the release of a Member by sending the Serjeant with the Mace to the prison concerned (CJ (1705–08) 471). The House ordered the release of a Member entitled to privilege (ibid (1807) 654; ibid (1819) 44). Action has also been taken by the Lords to punish those who caused the arrest (see LJ (1810–12) 60, 63; ibid (1828) 34; and Report of Precedents 28) and by the Commons in respect of those who brought an action for a Member's escape against the keeper of a gaol who released a Member in accordance with the orders of the House (CJ (1819–20) 286). 38. See L O Pike A Constitutional History of the House of Lords (1894), p 259.

Reasoned opinions 32.5Articles 6 and 7 of the Subsidiarity Protocol put in place a procedure for national parliaments to submit reasoned opinions where they consider that a draft legislative Act does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity.1 A parliament or chamber may challenge draft European Union proposals on the grounds of subsidiarity by adopting a ‘reasoned opinion’ to that effect within eight weeks of the proposal's transmission to national parliaments. Where reasoned opinions on non-compliance represent at least one-third2 of the votes allocated to national parliaments (a so-called yellow card), the draft must be reviewed by the originator, normally the European Commission, which may then decide to maintain, amend or withdraw the draft, giving reasons for its decision. If the reasoned opinions represent a simple majority of the votes allocated to national parliaments, the Commission must again review the proposal. If it decides to maintain the proposal, its reasons will be submitted to the European Parliament and the Council; if either body decides the proposal does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity, it falls. If the European Scrutiny Committee (see para 32.13 ) considers that a proposal does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity and merits the submission of a reasoned opinion, it produces a report on the proposal and appends to it a reasoned opinion setting out its concern. The Government tables an amendable motion to endorse the Committee's recommendation.3 In the House of Lords it is normal practice that the House's consideration of a motion for resolution would follow the publication of a report by the Select Committee on the European Union (see para 32.14 ), and that the Committee's report and the resolution would be debated together. However, it would remain open to any Member to table a free-standing motion for resolution, containing a short, self-contained ‘reasoned opinion’, as required by the Protocol. The Government has made a commitment that it will not support a proposal in the Council which has been the subject of a reasoned opinion from either House without first communicating to Parliament its reasons for doing so.

Footnotes 1. Article 5(3) of the Treaty on European Union states: ‘Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level’. The full procedure is set out in Protocol No. 2, ‘On the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality’. 2. Or one-quarter for certain justice and home affairs measures. 3. Official Report, European Committee B, 21 October 2010; Votes and Proceedings, 25 October 2010. For the European Scrutiny Committee report, see HC 428-iii (2010–12) Chapter 7.

Parliamentary scrutiny reserve 32.6If the Council considers a document which is still subject to parliamentary scrutiny in a Member State, the Minister representing that State can withhold agreement, or may give agreement ‘subject to a parliamentary scrutiny reserve’. This reserve has no formal status, but is an accepted element in Council business.

United Kingdom parliamentary scrutiny of EU legislation Contents Explanatory Memoranda The Scrutiny Reserve Resolutions Scrutiny clearance Opt-in and opt-out decisions 32.7The European scrutiny system in both Houses is primarily concerned with ‘EU documents' as set out in a House of Commons standing order and in the Terms of Reference of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union. These include proposals for EU Regulations, Directives and Decisions, Council Decisions in the CFSP field, some delegated acts and certain non-legislative documents. These EU documents are deposited in Parliament by the Government within two working days of receipt in London. The EU institutions also transmit EU documents to national parliaments.

Explanatory Memoranda 32.8Not later than ten working days after the deposit of a document, the Government provides an Explanatory Memorandum (EM), signed by the responsible Minister. This gives a factual description of the subject-matter (and, for a legislative proposal, the effect), and covers United Kingdom ministerial responsibility, interest of the devolved administrations, application to the EAA, legal and procedural issues, conformity with the subsidiarity principle, a fundamental rights analysis, financial implications (including an impact assessment where appropriate), any public consultation, the Government's policy towards the document and the timetable for its consideration by the institutions. The EM, along with the original proposal, forms the starting point for subsequent committee scrutiny.

The Scrutiny Reserve Resolutions 32.9A Resolution of the House of Commons of 17 November 19981 constrains Ministers from giving agreement in the Council or the European Council to any proposals which have not received parliamentary scrutiny clearance (see below). A similar Resolution of the House of Lords was updated (taking into account the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty) on 30 March 2010. Both resolutions provide for exceptions, and for a Minister to give agreement for ‘special reasons’; but in the latter case the Minister has to explain those reasons to the two scrutiny committees at the first opportunity, and in the case of a proposal awaiting debate in either House, to that House at the first opportunity after giving agreement. Additionally, the European Scrutiny Committee has taken oral evidence from Ministers who have breached the scrutiny reserve without what it saw as good cause. In the Lords, the Chairman of the select committee regularly tables a question for written answer requesting a list of all scrutiny overrides.

Footnotes 1. For details of the text of the Resolutions, see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), pp 705–6, fnn 12 and 13.

Scrutiny clearance 32.10In the House of Commons, EU documents are cleared in one of two ways; either (the majority) by the European Scrutiny Committee or by debate in the House. If the Committee recommends a debate, the document is cleared when the House agrees to a resolution on it, either following a debate on the floor or (without debate on the floor) when a European Committee has previously considered and reported on the document (see para 39.39 ff). A document is cleared from scrutiny in the Lords when the Chairman (either in conducting the weekly sift or in subsequent correspondence) indicates that it has completed its scrutiny. Where a document is recommended for debate, it is cleared once the debate has been held.

Opt-in and opt-out decisions 32.11The Government has also made undertakings for enhanced scrutiny of decisions to ‘opt in’ to measures in areas where, under the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, the UK is not obliged to participate.1 The UK is also entitled to opt out of matters relating to the Schengen acquis,2 and a similar system applies to such opt-outs.

Footnotes 1. The Treaty on European Union, Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. For details of these measures, see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), pp 708–9. 2. The Treaty on European Union, Protocol (No 19) on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the European Union.

The scrutiny committees Contents House of Commons House of Lords 32.12While the UK remains a member of the European Union, the mechanisms described below provide parliamentary scrutiny of EU legislative proposals. It is possible that some scrutiny arrangements for EU developments will be retained during the transition period or even beyond.

House of Commons 32.13The European Scrutiny Committee of the House of Commons (see also para 38.72 ) is appointed and nominated for the whole of the Parliament, and consists of 16 members (with a quorum of five). It is empowered to appoint sub-committees and to draw upon the assistance of specialist advisers. The Committee is assisted by Speaker's Counsel.1 It also has power to seek the opinion of any departmental select committee or the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Committee of Public Accounts, or the Environmental Audit Committee on any EU document and to specify the time within which that opinion must be given.2 It normally meets weekly when the House is sitting. The main elements of the Committee's work are: to assess the legal and political importance of every document, and to recommend a debate (in European Committee (see also para 39.39 ff) or on the floor of the House) in appropriate cases; in its weekly reports3 to assess each document found to be of legal or political importance, providing a critical analysis of the document and of the Government's policy towards it; to monitor business in the Council, the negotiating position of United Kingdom Government Ministers, and the outcome; to keep under review legal, procedural and institutional developments in the EU which may have implications for the United Kingdom and for the House; and in co-operation with the Select Committee on the European Union in the House of Lords, to monitor the operation of the scrutiny system and the discharge of the Government's obligations to Parliament. The majority of documents are cleared by the European Scrutiny Committee reporting to the House that it is clearing them. The Committee will often withhold clearance pending further information or assurances from the Government (usually obtained in writing but occasionally through oral evidence), or further progress in negotiations on the proposal, and may therefore report on the same document several times. It will not, however, withhold clearance because of its view of the merits of a document; clearance indicates that scrutiny is complete and a debate is not required, rather than approval of the proposal. Under Standing Order No 119, documents recommended for debate automatically stand referred to a European Committee.4 If the Government accepts the Committee's recommendation that a document should be debated on the floor of the House, this debate replaces the debate in the European Committee.5

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1974) 872, c 524W; SO No 143(3). 2. See Thirtieth Report of the European Scrutiny Committee, HC 152-xxx (2001–02) para 82. Responses to such requests have usually been in the form of a letter, but for an example of a full report, see Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, Seventh Report, HC 347 (2007–08). 3. Available on the Internet at www.parliament.uk. 4. See para 39.39 ff. 5. SO No 119(2) provides for motions that specified EU documents should not stand referred to a European Committee, but in practice such motions are not made.

House of Lords 32.14In the House of Lords the Select Committee on the European Union (see also Chapter 40, in particular paras 40.45, 40.51 ) normally meets weekly when the House is sitting. The Committee's Chairman is a salaried office-holder, who is formally appointed by the House on the first day of each session as Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees. The Chairman gives up any party affiliation for the duration of their appointment. The Committee has power to appoint sub-committees, and at present there are six sub-committees covering defined policy areas: Energy and Environment, External Affairs, Financial Affairs, Home Affairs, Internal Market and Justice. The select committee occasionally appoints ad hoc sub-committees to conduct inquiries into specific subjects. The sub-committees consider EU matters in their policy areas, and scrutinise the documents referred to them by the Chairman of the Select Committee who, each week when the House is sitting, and as required in recesses, conducts a ‘sift’ of documents deposited in the House of Lords in the previous week. The Chairman distinguishes between those documents which do not require further scrutiny (which are ‘cleared’) and those requiring further examination. Detailed examination of documents is undertaken by the select committee or sub-committees, which typically engage in correspondence with Ministers. When the responsible committee or sub-committee is satisfied that its questions have been answered or its concerns addressed, it normally clears the document, thereby lifting the scrutiny reserve. In addition to reports on specific documents, the Committee makes more general reports on aspects of EU policy or practice. Since the 2016 referendum, the Committee's reports have focused on the implications of UK withdrawal from the European Union in a range of policy areas, and on the Government's conduct of the negotiations with the EU. Reports from the sub-committees are subject to the approval of the Select Committee and may be made for information or for debate. The Government has undertaken to reply to all reports within two months of publication and to ensure that debates on specific documents recommended by the Committee are held before those documents are adopted by the Council.1 In 2010, the Committee was given two additional tasks as follows: ‘To assist the House in relation to the procedure for the submission of Reasoned Opinions under Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union and the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; To represent the House as appropriate in interparliamentary cooperation within the European Union.’

Footnotes 1. HL Deb (1974–75) 354, c 641.

National Parliament Office 32.15In 1998, the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons recommended the establishment of a National Parliament Office (NPO) in Brussels,1 the prime purpose of which ‘must be to act as a forward observation post for the House, and to act as the eyes and ears of the European [Scrutiny] Committee acting on the House's behalf’.2 Following the House's agreement to the Committee's report,3 the office was opened in October 1999, with accommodation provided by the European Parliament in Brussels. The House of Lords sent its first representative in 2004, and most Member State, and some non-Member State, parliaments have now established similar arrangements. National Parliament representatives meet regularly to exchange information and best practice. The NPO has regularly assisted select committees and Members on official visits to Brussels.

Footnotes 1. Seventh Report, The Scrutiny of European Business, HC 791 (1997–98) paras 40–43. 2. HC 791 (1997–98) para 42. 3. CJ (1997–98) 812.

Interparliamentary relations within the European Union 32.16The national Parliaments of EU Member States and the European Parliament have a number of fora in which to exchange views. Several events take place within the Parliamentary Dimension of the rotating six-month Presidency of the Council of the EU. The Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs, usually known by its French acronym COSAC, is the longest established of these events.1 Each national parliament is represented by up to six members of its European Affairs Committee or Committees; the European Parliament also has a delegation of six. Non-EU Member States may also attend, by invitation, as observers. A preparatory meeting of the Chairpersons of European Affairs Committees and representatives of the European Parliament (with a delegation size of two Members per parliament) is held prior to each COSAC meeting. COSAC has its own Secretariat, comprised of officials from the Parliaments of the previous, current and future Presidencies and the European Parliament, plus one Permanent Member of the secretariat who provides continuity. In addition, the following meetings are now held each Presidency: Interparliamentary Conference for the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Common Security and Defence Policy (CFSP/CSDP); Interparliamentary Conference on Stability, Economic Coordination and Governance in the EU; Joint Parliamentary Scrutiny Group (JPSG) on Europol. The Presidency Parliament is also responsible for organsing the annual Conference of the Speakers of European Union Parliaments and the preparatory Meeting of the Secretaries General of European Union Parliaments.2 The parliament of the country holding the rotating Presidency may also arrange ad hoc Interparliamentary Meetings or seminars on specific topics. European Parliament Committees also organise a series of Interparliamentary Committee Meetings every six months.

Footnotes 1. Conférence des organes specialisés dans les affaires communautaires (www.cosac.eu ). 2. The Conference is made up of the Speakers of the national parliaments of EU Member States and the President of the European Parliament. Extraordinary meetings can be convened with the agreement of two-thirds of the Conference's members.

Content of Chapters 33 to 37 33.1This chapter and the ensuing four chapters which together form Part 5 describe the specific adaptations of the procedure of the two Houses, largely of legislative procedure, in relation to financial business. The current chapter provides an overview of the concepts of ‘Supply’ and ‘Ways and Means’ and the scope of financial procedure, the main rules of such procedure in the House of Commons and the main forms of financial legislation. The final section describes the role of Parliament in relation to wider fiscal matters, and the relationship to the formal financial procedures of the House of Commons. Financial procedure is described in the following chapters in more detail as follows: Chapter 34 considers the annual authorisation of ordinary Government expenditure through ‘Supply’ proceedings and subsequent Supply and Appropriation Bills; Chapter 35 examines the authorisation of new Government expenditure not previously authorised by statute through Money resolutions and the procedure for legislation the main purpose of which is to create a charge on public expenditure; Chapter 36 considers the procedures for authorising charges upon the people, including Budget resolutions and Finance Bills; Chapter 37 describes the role of the House of Lords in relation to financial legislation.

Financial relations between the Crown and Parliament 33.2It was a central factor in the historical development of parliamentary influence and power that the Sovereign was obliged to obtain the consent of Parliament (and particularly of the House of Commons as representatives of the people) to the levying of taxes to meet the expenditure of the State. But the role of Parliament in respect of State expenditure and taxation has never been one of initiation: it was for the Sovereign to request money and for the Commons to respond to the request. The development of responsible government and the assumption by the Government of the day of the traditional role and powers of the Crown in relation to public finance have not altered this basic constitutional principle: the Crown requests money, the Commons grant it, and the Lords assent to the grant. In more modern terms, the Government presents to the House of Commons its detailed requirements for the financing of the public services; it is for the Commons, acting on the sole initiative of Ministers, first to authorise the relevant expenditure (or ‘Supply’) and, second, to provide through taxes and other sources of public revenue the ‘Ways and Means’ deemed necessary to meet the Supply so granted. The role of the House of Lords is confined to assenting to such financial provisions of the House of Commons as require statutory authorisation.1 The financial control of the House of Commons is exercised at two different levels. So far as policy is concerned, it authorises the various objects of expenditure and the resources to be used and the sums to be spent on each; it also authorises the levying of taxes. On the level of administration, it satisfies itself that its expenditure decisions have been duly carried out—in other words, that the amounts it has authorised, and no more, have been used for the purposes for which they were granted, and for no other purposes. For both sets of functions the House of Commons has, partly through its own procedure and partly through legislation and administrative practice, devised appropriate machinery.

Footnotes 1. See paras 37.2–37.6.

Introduction 33.3Financial procedure is primarily concerned with the authorisation of public expenditure (sometimes referred to as ‘charges upon the public revenue’ or ‘upon public funds') and of taxation (sometimes referred to as ‘charges upon the people’). Historically, the first stage in the authorisation of the components of public expenditure subject to annual control was the responsibility of the Committee of Supply, and the resolutions providing for that authorisation are still termed Supply resolutions.1 The first stage in authorisation of charges upon the people was the responsibility of the Committee of Ways and Means, and authorising resolutions for such charges are known as Ways and Means resolutions.

Footnotes 1. For the procedure in Committee of Supply and its abolition, see Erskine May (17th edn, 1964), pp 721–25; ibid (18th edn, 1971), pp 689, 716. The release of sums from the Consolidated Fund also required the passage of resolutions of the Committee of Ways and Means.

Charges upon the public revenue or upon public funds 33.4A charge ‘upon the public revenue’ or ‘upon public funds’ now means an obligation (or a potential obligation)1 to make a payment out of the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund to cover an item of public expenditure. In relation to expenditure, financial procedure is, with one exception,2 exclusively concerned with payments made out of the two Funds and the accompanying use of resources. Charges upon the public revenue are divided into charges payable out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, ie moneys voted year by year3 (and ultimately drawn from either Fund) in response to requests presented in the form of Estimates; and charges payable directly out of the Consolidated Fund and the National Loans Fund, ie moneys payable out of the Funds under an original authorising statute without the need for further, annual, parliamentary authority.

Footnotes 1. See para 35.3. 2. Under SO No 48, ‘the releasing or compounding of any sum of money owing to the Crown’ (ie the writing off of any portion of a debt owed to the Consolidated Fund) is also treated as a charge upon public funds. 3. Either form of charge upon the public revenue may, of course, be a single payment.

Charges upon the people 33.5The term ‘charge upon the people’ now primarily covers taxes or duties, the proceeds of which are payable into the Consolidated Fund (see paras 36.1 –36.2 ). For a more detailed exposition of this term and the exceptions to it, as well as its application to levies and other financial impositions which, though not taxes in the strict sense of the term, are nonetheless classed as charges upon the people, see paras 36.3 –36.16.

Limitation of scope of financial procedure in relation to local government finance 33.6Because of the scale of the contribution by central government to local authorities' revenues, financial procedure is concerned with any expenditure which, though administered locally, represents a potential claim on national public funds1 (see para 35.8 ). By contrast, local taxation, insofar as the proceeds are directly payable into local funds, is generally exempt from the rules of financial procedure concerning charges upon the people (see para 36.17 ).

Footnotes 1. Local authority finances also fall within the sphere of public finance with respect to which the Commons claim privilege against the Lords (see para 37.7 ).

General rules of financial procedure of the Commons Contents Rule 1: Legislative authorisation and appropriation of charges Rule 2: Preliminary consideration of resolutions Rule 3: The financial initiative of the Crown Resolutions and sessional requirements Enforcement of rules of financial procedure Relaxation of financial rules in urgent cases 33.7The general rules which (subject to the exceptions described in the following pages) govern the financial procedure of the House of Commons can be stated under three principal heads.

Rule 1: Legislative authorisation and appropriation of charges. A charge, whether upon public funds or upon the people, has to be authorised by legislation; and it must originate in the House of Commons (except to the extent that the Commons waive their privilege,1 or when a bill is brought from the Lords pursuant to Standing Order No 50(2)).

Rule 2: Preliminary consideration of resolutions. A charge of either kind must first be considered in the form of a resolution (a ‘charging’ or ‘founding’ resolution), which, when agreed to by the House, forms a necessary preliminary to the bill or clause by which the charge is authorised.

Rule 3: The financial initiative of the Crown. A charge of either kind cannot be taken into consideration unless it is sought by the Crown or recommended from the Crown. These three rules are described in more detail below.2

Footnotes 1. See para 37.21. 2. Formerly, a fourth such rule was recognised, according to which not more than one stage of a bill founded upon a charging resolution (more specifically a Ways and Means resolution) could be taken on the same day. The process by which the scope and importance of this rule have in recent years been diminished is described at para 33.23. The first and second rules were also formerly subject to restrictions arising from sessionality, a matter described at para 33.16.

The requirement for legislative authorisation 33.8The rule that legislation is necessary to give legal authority to taxation and expenditure is based on ancient constitutional usage.1 The Commons have from the earliest times claimed predominant rights—financial privilege—in relation to such legislation. The right of the Lords to initiate such legislation was denied; their power over them was reduced to the simple giving or withholding of assent; and a special enacting formula was employed which explicitly asserted the rights of the Commons.2 The modern procedure in respect of privilege arising from the role of the House of Lords in relation to bills authorising expenditure and taxation is dealt with in Chapter 37. Although as a general principle legislation is needed to give final sanction to parliamentary grants of Supply and Ways and Means, since 1913 a temporary and provisional validity has been conferred by statute on certain Ways and Means resolutions imposing taxation (see para 36.36 ). These powers are regularly used as part of the annual Budget process, in order to allow immediate effect to be given to changes in, for example, excise duties.

Footnotes 1. In relation to taxation, see Bill of Rights 1689 (c 2), article IV; in relation to expenditure, see Auckland Harbour Board v The King [1924] AC 318, at 326–327. 2. See para 26.9.

Appropriation of expenditure 33.9Appropriation was originally ‘a system of attributing sums advanced to particular services of the Government (ie showing what sums were appropriated to what services) for the purpose of establishing whether the estimates presented to Parliament were reflected in the eventual pattern of expenditure’.1 The appropriation by the House of Commons of the individual amounts authorised as Supply to the specific services for which they were voted in the Estimates is secured through the appropriation provisions of Supply and Appropriation Acts. Outside Parliament this principle is enforced by permanent machinery for administering and accounting for the sums issued to departments and the resources used in accordance with the relevant parliamentary authorisation. Three important precepts of financial practice are implied in the appropriation of expenditure: 1. An amount appropriated to a particular service cannot be used for another service. 2. The amount appropriated is a maximum amount. 3. The amount is available only to defray costs or the use of resources which have arisen during the financial year in respect of which the amount has been appropriated by the relevant Act. The procedure governing the appropriation of Supply is described in detail in the next chapter.

Footnotes 1. Craies on Legislation (11th edn, 2017), pp 65–66. Appropriation now also applies to the use of resources under Resource-based Supply, on which see para 34.5.

Destination of revenue 33.10Taxes are payable into the Consolidated Fund by virtue of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866, s 10, which originally provided that the gross sums collected by the Revenue Departments should be directed, after deduction of certain items such as drawbacks,1 into the Exchequer Account at the Bank of England. The moneys paid into the Exchequer form what is termed the Consolidated Fund. Any excess of payments into the Consolidated Fund over issues out of it must be paid into the National Loans Fund. The hereditary revenues of the Crown are directed to be paid into the Exchequer and made part of the Consolidated Fund under the Civil List Act 1952, s 1(1).2 Other items of revenue are payable to the Exchequer under specific statutory provisions. Income realised by departments in the course of their duties (for example revenue from certain kinds of fees) is not as a rule paid into the Exchequer, but is directed under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000, s 2 to be applied in aid of their Estimate.3

Footnotes 1. A refund of excise or import duty where an imported item is subsequently re-exported or used in the production of goods for export. 2. Certain hereditary revenues relating to Scotland are, however, paid into the Scottish Consolidated Fund by virtue of s 1(2) of the same Act. 3. See para 34.11.

Legislative authorisation for objects of expenditure 33.11It is a general principle of constitutional propriety that new functions which are to be exercised on a continuing basis and which are to be financed out of ‘money to be provided by Parliament’ through the annual Appropriation Acts should be authorised by specific Act, supported by a financial resolution, and not by the Appropriation Act alone. This general principle is subject to certain recognised exceptions in cases where the Government incurs expenditure in the exercise of functions and powers derived from the royal prerogative, for example in relation to defence. In the past the Government sought to assert Parliament's legal power to authorise any expenditure or services by the Appropriation Act alone, and its own corresponding right to invite Parliament to exercise that power. The Committee of Public Accounts, however, has upheld the general principle stated above, and the Treasury has agreed that practice should normally accord with the view of the Committee.1 Some government bills are introduced with the principal or sole purpose of giving effect to this practice, which are sometimes referred to as ‘Concordat’ or ‘Baldwin convention’ bills.2 The abbreviated procedure now prescribed in Standing Order Nos 54 to 56 for the House's consideration of Supply Estimates and Consolidated Fund and Appropriation Bills3 provides additional justification for the maintenance of the principle. The same principle applies, a fortiori, to the inclusion in the Supply Estimates and the Appropriation Acts of financial provisions or objects of expenditure which are inconsistent with, or which override, the express provisions of other Acts. The Committee of Public Accounts has expressed the view that ‘such a procedure should be resorted to as rarely as possible, and only to meet a temporary emergency’.4 In 1995, when deciding the issue whether the Home Secretary was acting lawfully in introducing, under prerogative powers, a criminal injuries compensation scheme at variance with the provisions of a scheme laid down in an Act of Parliament (though not yet brought into force), the Court of Appeal (in a judgment subsequently upheld by the House of Lords) held that the inclusion in the Appropriation Act 1994 of financial provision for the prerogative scheme had no bearing on the lawfulness of the Home Secretary's actions.5 As an alternative to financing a service or object of expenditure from money provided by Parliament through the annual procedure of voting the Supply Estimates and passing the Appropriation Acts, a charge to public expenditure may be imposed directly upon the Consolidated Fund. In that case the Act of Parliament and financial resolution which authorise the necessary expenditure also provide the once for all authority for the appropriation of the money necessary to meet the expenditure. By far the largest single item among these so-called Consolidated Fund standing services is the regular stream of payments to the National Loans Fund to service the National Debt. Examples of other such items are payments to international organisations including the European Union; the remaining payments in respect of the Civil List;6 the salaries of the Speaker, of the Leader of the Opposition and two senior Opposition Whips, of judges, of the Comptroller and Auditor General, of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, of the Information Commissioner and of the Electoral Commissioners; and the expenses of returning officers at parliamentary elections.

Footnotes 1. In the 1932 concordat with the Public Accounts Committee (the Baldwin convention) the Treasury undertook to ‘aim at the observance’ of the principle that ‘where it is desired that continuing functions should be exercised by a Government Department (particularly where such functions involve financial liabilities extending beyond a given year) it is proper that the powers and duties to be exercised should be defined by specific statute’, Second Report from the Committee of Public Accounts, HC 93 (1931–32) para 3; Epitome of the Reports from the Committees of Public Accounts, Vol I (1857–1937), HC 154 (1937–38) pp 723, 725, 730–31. See also National Audit Office Resource accounting and budgeting in government—the white paper proposals, HC 334 (1995–96) pp 2, 16. 2. See, for example, the Loans to Ireland Bill (2010–12) and the High Speed Rail (Preparations) Bill (2012–13). 3. See paras 34.26, 34.39. 4. First Report from the Committee of Public Accounts, HC 166 (1908) para 11; Epitome of the Reports from the Committees of Public Accounts, Vol I (1857–1937), HC 154 (1937–38) p 497. 5. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Fire Brigades Union [1995] 1 All ER 896, 909. For a dissenting opinion by Hobhouse LJ, see ibid 904–5, 908. 6. This remains the case for continuing payments under the Civil List Acts (see, for example, Civil List Act 1952, s 8), but the Sovereign Grant is authorised as part of the annual Estimates process and the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 ended the large majority of payments under the Civil List Acts: see Sovereign Grant Act 2011, ss 1(6), 10 and sch 1.

Rule 2: Preliminary consideration of resolutions 33.12The authority of a resolution of the House must be obtained before a charge on public funds or on the people can be considered in the form of a bill or a clause of a bill. Thus, Supply and Appropriation Bills are brought in upon Supply resolutions (see paras 28.3, 34.35 ); bills making provision for support for the royal household are brought in upon a resolution (see para 34.42 ); Finance Bills and other taxing bills are brought in upon Ways and Means resolutions (see paras 36.29, 36.34, 36.43 ); and financial resolutions are necessary preliminaries to the consideration in committee of the charging provisions of any other kind of bill. In the case of taxation clauses, such authorising resolutions are likewise described as Ways and Means resolutions. In relation to clauses containing items of novel expenditure, that is to say expenditure not previously given statutory authority, the authorising resolution is known as a Money resolution.

Rule 3: The financial initiative of the Crown Contents Supply and Ways and Means New expenditure authorised by financial resolutions 33.13The long-established and strictly observed rule of procedure, which expresses a principle of the highest constitutional importance, that no charge on public funds or on the people can be incurred except on the initiative of the Crown, seems to be differently based in the case of Supply and Ways and Means, on the one hand, and in the case of novel expenditure authorised by financial resolutions on the other.

Supply and Ways and Means 33.14The rule which withholds from the Commons the initiative in granting Supply and Ways and Means reflects the long-standing constitutional principle that a request from the Crown must invariably precede a grant by the Commons.1 The Crown's sole right of initiative in these matters is implied in procedure rather than expressly asserted.2 Thus, an announcement that Estimates will be laid before the House of Commons is contained in the Queen's Speech at the opening of a session; the Estimates are presented ‘by command’ of Her Majesty; and the resolutions by which they are voted are partly expressed in terms of grants to the Crown. In the case of Ways and Means resolutions for imposing taxes, the exercise of the royal initiative, otherwise unexpressed, is taken to be implied through the principle that no more money should be raised by taxation than is deemed necessary by the Crown to cover the Supply already voted by, or at any rate requested from, the House of Commons.3

Footnotes 1. With the development of parliamentary control over the Exchequer, the granting of Supply, a concept which hitherto had embraced both expenditure and taxation, was differentiated into two functions—the voting of sums of money (the recent usage of the term ‘Supply’) and the provision of revenue by taxation (or ‘Ways and Means’). Thereafter, it was accepted without question by the House of Commons that the rule applied to both of the now clearly distinguished functions of Supply and of Ways and Means, as well as to any business which belonged to either of these classes. 2. The Crown's recommendation is explicit in the case of Money resolutions and implied (through the requirement for them to be moved by a Minister) in the case of Supply and Ways and Means resolutions. 3. Modern practice has extended the scope of Ways and Means (see paras 36.1 –36.2 ).

New expenditure authorised by financial resolutions 33.15New Government expenditure not previously authorised by statute must be authorised through Money resolutions. While the royal initiative in Supply and Ways and Means rests upon ancient constitutional usage, in respect of novel expenditure it is based on standing orders, more specifically Standing Order No 48, made in 1713. The importance of this Standing Order has always been recognised. It embodies the constitutional principle underlying the already long-established practice whereby a request by the Crown invariably precedes the grant of Supply, and applies that Supply to proposals for new expenditure not previously authorised by statute.1

Footnotes 1. The intention underlying this procedure was in effect that the Queen's recommendation in relation to new expenditure, signified by a Minister, should be an exercise of the financial initiative analogous to the Crown's demand for Supply. Thus, if the Queen chose to recommend to the Commons a proposal for expenditure not originally made by herself, she could be regarded as adopting it as an addition to her request for Supply.

Resolutions and sessional requirements 33.16It was formerly a requirement under the House's financial procedure and, in the case of taxation, under legislation, that resolutions which served as founding resolutions had to be given full statutory effect in the same session as that in which they were passed.1 Following the move to spring-to-spring sessions from 2012, this rule has been modified in several respects. First, in relation to Supply, resolutions relating to Votes on Account passed in one session (usually in March) have full effect even if not appropriated in the same session, and the same applies to votes setting maximum numbers for defence services.2 It remains the case that amounts authorised by Supply resolutions relating to Estimates, Supplementary Estimates and Excess Votes must be appropriated in the same session as that in which they are passed. Second, in relation to Ways and Means resolutions having provisional statutory effect by virtue of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968, the former requirement for the legislation giving permanent authority to be enacted in the same session of Parliament has been removed where the bill is the subject of a carry-over order.3 Third, all founding resolutions for a bill brought in upon Ways and Means resolutions have effect in the ensuing session to that in which they were agreed to in any case where the bill arising from those resolutions is subject to a carry-over order.4

Footnotes 1. Erskine May (23rd edn, 2004), pp 878–79. 2. CJ (2010–12) 1040; HC Deb (14 December 2011) 537, cc 811–34. 3. Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968, s 1(5A)–(5D) (as amended by the Finance Act 2011, s 88). The removal does not apply in the case of a dissolution. 4. SO No 80B(6); and see para 30.32.

Enforcement of rules of financial procedure 33.17The rules of financial procedure, whether based on practice or upon standing orders, are strictly observed by the House of Commons. In discharging its duty to disallow any proceedings which would infringe the rules of financial procedure, the Chair relies in the last resort upon its power to decline to propose the necessary questions. Unless the recommendation of the Crown enjoined by Standing Order No 48 for a motion relating to public money has been signified, the Speaker will not propose the question on a motion which comes within the scope of that standing order. Accordingly, if any such motion is offered to be moved for which the Queen's recommendation has not been signified, it is the duty of the Chair to announce that no question can be proposed on the motion.1

Footnotes 1. 3 Hatsell 168; CJ (1808–09) 266. See also paras 33.22, 33.23.

Relaxation of financial rules in urgent cases 33.18On rare occasions, the provisions of the financial standing orders have been overridden by an order of the House1 (to which, however, the Queen's recommendation was signified) providing that the requirements of some or all of the standing orders, and the practice of the House relating to the imposition of charges on the public revenue, should be deemed to have been complied with in respect of the provisions of a bill or of any government amendment moved thereto (see also paras 30.42, 35.31 ).

Footnotes 1. CJ (1938–39) 402, 405; ibid (1939–40) 138; ibid (1946–47) 373; ibid (1947–48) 188; ibid (1953–54) 96; ibid (1965–66) 11.

Application to amendments of rules regulating financial procedure Contents The Crown's recommendation fixes the upper limits of a charge 33.19The House of Commons has long found it necessary to place restrictions on the moving of amendments in order to keep intact the principle of the financial initiative of the Crown.

The Crown's recommendation fixes the upper limits of a charge 33.20The Crown's recommendation lays down the maximum amount of a charge on public funds or on the people, as well as its objects and purposes. An amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown not only if it increases the amount, but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the Crown has recommended a charge. Similarly, no amendment to a motion relating to Supply is in order except one which proposes a reduction in the amount sought. If a motion for a financial resolution is amended, it is the final version of the resolution which is effective and the charge imposed may not exceed the limits so laid down. The effect of the terms of founding Ways and Means resolutions on the admissibility of amendments is discussed in more detail at paras 36.45 –36.48.

Bills of Aids and Supplies 33.21Some financial legislation takes the form of Bills of Aids and Supplies. Such bills can be divided into four categories, the first two concerned with legislative authorisation of expenditure and the last two concerned with the legislative authorisation of taxes: Supply and Appropriation Bills (see paras 34.35 –34.37 ); bills providing for statutory authorisation for support for the royal household (see para 34.42 ); Finance Bills (see paras 36.34 –36.35, 36.39 ); other bills founded upon Ways and Means resolutions (see para 36.43 ). The three distinguishing characteristics of Bills of Aids and Supplies are that they must originate in the House of Commons, that they must be derived from founding resolutions and that they have particular words of enactment and forms of signification of Royal Assent reflecting their character as Bills of Aids and Supplies. The words of enactment were considered in Chapter 26 (see para 26.9 ) and the other aspects are considered in subsequent chapters. Bills of Aids and Supplies are subject to a different and more limited form of proceedings in the House of Lords, described in Chapter 37 (see paras 37.15 –37.16 ). Under Lords procedure, Bills of Aids and Supplies are sometimes referred to as Supply bills. For a description of the pronouncing of the Royal Assent by Commission to a Bill of Aids and Supplies, see para 30.38.

Other bills subject to rules of financial procedure 33.22The introduction of and subsequent proceedings on other bills are also affected by the rules of financial procedure in ways considered in subsequent chapters: bills the main object of which is the creation of a charge on public expenditure may only be presented or brought in by a Minister and only taken up when brought from the Lords by a Minister (see para 35.24 ); bills with other provisions creating a charge on public expenditure require a Money resolution to be agreed to before those provisions can be considered in committee (see para 35.26 );1 bills with provisions not amounting to the main purpose of the bill which create a charge on the people require a Ways and Means resolution to be agreed to before those provisions can be considered in committee (see para 36.2 ). Bills in the second and third categories may be introduced by a private Member in the Commons or taken up by a private Member when brought from the Lords. Because bills the main purpose of which is to create a charge on public expenditure may only be presented or taken up by a Minister and because bills the main purpose of which is to create a charge on the people can only be brought in upon Ways and Means resolutions which may only be moved by a Minister, a private Member may not introduce a bill in either category. When bills which should have been brought in on resolutions (see paras 28.3, 33.12 ) have been introduced without such preliminary proceedings, the Speaker has declined to propose the necessary questions and the bills have not been proceeded with.2

Footnotes 1. Proceedings in committee and on third reading of a bill at a previous sitting have been declared null and void because the necessary financial resolution authorising the provisions of a clause creating a charge on public funds had not been passed, CJ (1985–86) 155. 2. HC Deb (1912) 35, c 1495, etc.

6. (1677) 86 ER 792. 7. Committee of Privileges, Second Report, HC 222 (1978–79); Select Committee on Procedure, First Report, Conduct of Members in the Chamber and the Alleged Abuse of Parliamentary Privilege, HC 290 (1988–89); Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, Report, HL 43-I, HC 214-I (1998–99) paras 224–25. The Speaker has advised that ‘privilege should always be exercised wisely and consideration given to those being criticized’, HC Deb (2006–07) 5, c 34. 8. A v United Kingdom (Application No 35373/97) (2002) 36 EHRR 917, ECtHR. 9. A v United Kingdom (Application No 35373/97), judgment p 27. There was also a dissenting judgment which went further in the need for enhancing individual rights in modern parliamentary practice: judgment p 31. 10. Report of the Committee on Super-Injunctions, Super-Injunctions, Anonymised Injunctions and Open Justice, 20 May 2011, www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Reports/super-injunction-report-20052011.pdf 11. Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions, First Report of Session 2010–12, Privacy and Injunctions, HL 273, HC 1443, summary; this view was endorsed by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, Parliamentary Privilege, HL 30, HC 10 (2013–14) para 160. 12. HC Deb (21 June 2017) 626, c 33. 13. In the New Zealand case of Attorney-General v Leigh [2011] NZSC 106, [2012] 2 NZLR 713 (SC), the New Zealand Supreme Court held that a civil servant's briefing of a Minister in preparation for a Parliamentary Question was not covered by absolute privilege. The Parliament of New Zealand subsequently clarified the law in the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014, which had the purpose of affirming and clarifying the nature, scope and extent of privileges, immunities and powers exercised by the House of Representatives and in securing adequate protection from civil and criminal legal liability of the communication of and documents relating to proceedings in Parliament.

The role of the House of Lords in relation to bills subject to financial procedure 33.24The role of the House of Lords in relation to bills subject to financial procedure in the House of Commons and how that role is affected by the rights and privileges of the House of Commons in relation to financial business is considered in Chapter 37.

Money bills under the Parliament Act 1911 and relationship to Commons financial procedure 33.25The rights and privileges of the House of Commons in respect of financial legislation are complemented by specific legislative provisions in s 1 of the Parliament Act 1911. Those provisions, the procedure for certification and the effect of certification on proceedings in the House of Lords, are considered in Chapter 37.1 It is possible for bills that are not subject to any of the specific provisions of Commons financial procedure to be certified as Money bills under s 1 of the Parliament Act 1911.2 The definitional relationship between Bills of Aids and Supplies and bills certified as Money bills under s 1 of the Parliament Act 1911, including recent instances of certification, is considered in Chapter 37.3

Footnotes 1. See paras 37.28 –37.32. 2. Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill, CJ (2010–12) 222–23, 285; Northern Ireland Budget Bill, Votes and Proceedings, 13 November 2017; Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipations and Adjustments) Bill, Votes and Proceedings, 20 March 2018; Northern Ireland Budget (No 2) Bill, Votes and Proceedings, 9 July 2018. 3. See para 37.31.

Introduction 33.26This section considers the relationship between the financial procedures of the House and major fiscal policy announcements, including longterm spending plans and the Budget. It also describes the role of the Office for Budget Responsibility.

Fiscal rules 33.27Successive Governments have sought to establish rules in relation to fiscal policy. In 1998, the Government put in place a Code for Fiscal Responsibility. Under the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, the Government is required to prepare a Charter for Budget Responsibility, as part of which the Government is required to set objectives relating to fiscal policy and explain how these fiscal objectives will be achieved. The Charter requires approval by a resolution of the House of Commons. Proceedings on the motion for this resolution are governed by the ordinary procedure for proceedings pursuant to an Act of Parliament. Consequently, the contents of the Charter may not be amended by the House and the proceedings do not form part of the financial procedure of the House.1

Footnotes 1. Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, s 1; Votes and Proceedings, 24 January 2017.

Long-term expenditure plans 33.28The Government's long-term public expenditure plans are currently set out every three to five years in a Spending Review. Most recently, the 2015 Spending Review1 contained Departmental Expenditure Limits (DEL) plans for 2016–17, 2017–18, 2018–19 and 2019–20. The next Spending Review is scheduled for 2019.2 The overall plans are expressed in terms of Total Managed Expenditure, an aggregate that is consistent with the national accounts. Total Managed Expenditure is composed of expenditure within Departmental Expenditure Limits, which are set by the Spending Review, and Annually Managed Expenditure, which is forecast initially in the Spending Review and is revised annually. Annually Managed Expenditure consists of expenditure which cannot be controlled within fixed budgets, such as expenditure on social security benefits, locally-financed expenditure and government debt interest payments. The relationship between the totals set out in Spending Reviews and those contained in the annual Estimates which are subject to authorisation through Supply proceedings in the House of Commons and the subsequent passage of Supply and Appropriation Bills is considered at paras 34.2, 34.6 and 34.36 –34.37.

Footnotes 1. Cm 9162. 2. HC Deb (13 March 2018) 637, c 719.

The timing of the Budget and the Spring Statement 33.29For most of its history since the eighteenth century, the Budget has taken place in March or April, and thus either shortly before the start of the financial year or shortly thereafter. This was seen as appropriate and necessary when the main elements of the Budget were the statement of forecast revenue and expenditure outturns for the financial year just ending, expenditure plans for the financial year just beginning and planned tax changes for that year. In autumn 2016, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced plans to move the Budget to the autumn with effect from 2017.1 Under the Industry Act 1975 and successor legislation considered in the next section, there has been a requirement to present two economic and fiscal forecasts to the House in the course of each financial year. This has generally been presented in a distinct fiscal event, known from 1997 to 2010 as the Pre-Budget Report and from 2010 to 2016 as the Autumn Statement.2 From 2018, the economic and fiscal forecasts were included in a Spring Statement, designed to be more limited in scope than its predecessors.3

Footnotes 1. From 1993 to 1996, the Budget was also delivered in the late autumn, see Erskine May (22nd edn, 1997), pp 741–42. 2. See Erskine May (23rd edn, 2004), pp 859–60; ibid (24th edn, 2011), p 722. 3. HC Deb (13 March 2018) 637, cc 717–22.

The Office for Budget Responsibility and the content of the Budget 33.30The Office for Budget Responsibility was created in May 2010 and given a statutory basis in the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, assuming the economic and fiscal forecasting role previously undertaken within the Treasury. The Office prepares economic and fiscal forecasts for the Budget and the Spring Statement, taking account of tax and spending measures being proposed.1 As well as laying these forecasts before the House of Commons, the Chancellor of the Exchequer accompanies the Budget with a Financial Statement and Budget Report which contains detailed proposals for taxation and additional expenditure announcements made in the Budget amending plans set out in the preceding Spending Review.2 The debate on the Budget and the procedures for giving effect to the taxation proposals in the Budget are considered in Chapter 36.

Footnotes 1. Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, s 4(3). 2. Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, s 2, which also requires that it adhere to additional requirements in the Charter for Budget Responsibility. The document is sometimes referred to as the Red Book.

Introduction to public expenditure and Supply Contents Estimates The Supply cycle Funding allocated to devolved administrations Financial reporting to Parliament and financial scrutiny Alignment of departmental budgets and Estimates 34.1This chapter is concerned with the procedure, known as Supply, under which most expenditure of the Government and a number of independent or parliamentary bodies is proposed, authorised by the House of Commons through legislation, and, subsequently, once incurred, reported back to the House. The chapter explains the main varieties of Estimates and the form in which they are presented; the procedure for voting Estimates; how the Supply and Appropriation Bills authorise the use of resources and the issue of sums out of the Consolidated Fund, and the means by which the actual expenditure incurred is subsequently reported back to Parliament. The chapter also considers exceptional grants and legislation authorising such grants. Of the other kinds of expenditure, that on ‘Consolidated Fund standing services’ has been mentioned at para 33.11, while the authorisation of novel expenditure by legislation introduced specifically for that purpose forms the subject of Chapter 35.

Estimates 34.2Each government department produces a Main Estimate, early in the financial year, and may also later in the year publish a Supplementary Estimate seeking modifications to its plans. The Main Estimates are based on the spending limits (known as Departmental Expenditure Limits) proposed and announced in the preceding Spending Review (see para 33.28 ), as modified in Budgets or otherwise, plus proposed budgets, based on latest forecasts, for less predictable spending (known as Annually Managed Expenditure), which falls outside of those planned spending limits. Cash payments to the devolved administrations are also included. Departments must include within each Estimate the total amounts of money for which approval is sought, and a list of what it is intended to be spent on. All Estimates must be approved by Parliament through Supply and Appropriation bills. These bills arise from resolutions of the House of Commons agreed under Supply procedures.

The Supply cycle 34.3In summary form, the annual cycle of Supply and Appropriation for a typical financial year is as follows: April: Government departments' spending plans (Main Estimates) are published June/July: Supply resolutions authorising the Main Estimates are approved; Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill passed July: Government departments lay their Annual Reports and Accounts (for the financial year ending the previous March) before Parliament October/November: the Budget is presented, which can include proposed spending changes for the current or future financial years February: Government departments' revised spending plans for the current financial year (Supplementary Estimates) are published February/March: Supply resolutions authorising Supplementary Estimates, Votes on Account for the next financial year, Defence Votes A for the next financial year and Excess Votes for the previous financial year approved; Supply and Appropriation (Anticipations and Adjustments) Bill passed. Although most Government spending1 is subject to Supply procedure, a significant proportion is not. Equally, some amounts included within Estimates, notably the payment of cash to the devolved administrations, are not generally regarded as public spending until the spending plans of those administrations are approved by the relevant devolved legislature. Overall, Total Managed Expenditure—the total amount of planned government spending—can be significantly different from the total spending included in the Supply Estimates.2 For the alignment of the Estimates presented to Parliament with the budgets set for individual departments, see para 34.6.

Footnotes 1. The sum of planned government spending through DELs and Annually Managed Expenditure, known as ‘Total Managed Expenditure’, or TME. 2. For 2018–19, Total Managed Expenditure (as projected on 13 March 2018 by the Office for Budget Responsibility, Table 4.16, Economic and Fiscal Outlook) was £812.9bn, whereas the total amount to be voted for the same financial year (in Main Estimates 2018–19, Table 2 Grand total, sum of all of the Resource, Capital and Non-Budget expenditure limits sought, published on 19 April 2018) was £601.8bn.

Funding allocated to devolved administrations 34.4The UK Government's Spending Review also determines overall United Kingdom funding for the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The portion of the funding for these devolved administrations classified as within Departmental Expenditure Limits is determined principally by a formula reflecting a population-based share of planned changes in comparable spending allocations to be expended in England for United Kingdom Departments.1 Much of the cash to support this funding is distributed to the administrations from amounts voted by Parliament as part of the Supply procedure described in this chapter. Subject to funding for certain United Kingdom programmes administered by devolved institutions, it is for respectively the Scottish Parliament and Government, the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Government, and the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive to determine the allocation of funds.2

Footnotes 1. Since the late 1970s the non-statutory Barnett formula has determined how devolved administrations' Departmental Expenditure Limits (block grants) change from one year to the next. The formula does not determine the absolute level of the grants. The block grants (determined by the Barnett formula) make up the majority of the devolved administrations' Departmental Expenditure Limits. 2. The Acts establishing the devolved administrations gave them power over expenditure allocations. See also HM Treasury, Funding the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly: A Statement of Funding Policy (7th edn, November 2015). Alongside funding provided by the UK Government, the devolved administrations are each able to generate further funding through various powers including taxation, charging and borrowing. As a result of the continued absence of a Northern Ireland Executive following the Assembly election on 2 March 2017, Parliament has passed legislation providing for the authorisation and appropriation of the Northern Ireland Budget: Northern Ireland Budget Bill 2017–19; Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipations and Adjustments Bill) 2017–19; and Northern Ireland Budget (No. 2) Bill 2017–19.

Financial reporting to Parliament and financial scrutiny 34.5In addition to the formal proceedings for the authorisation of Estimates described in this chapter, Parliament receives a range of additional financial information which can be the subject of scrutiny. Each government department publishes, usually before the summer recess (July), an Annual Report and Accounts.1 The document is divided into three main parts: a performance report; an accountability report; and the financial statements. The performance report sets out the department's objectives and priorities and gives information on past performance, including selected metrics, sometimes known as key performance indicators (consistent with the planned objectives and measures previously published in Single Departmental Plans). The accountability report includes information on corporate governance, risk management, and accounting officer responsibilities, and includes an audited Statement of Parliamentary Supply—comparing actual outturn against the budgets approved in Supply and Appropriation Acts. The financial statements comprise the audited accounts, prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), as modified for the public sector. The Annual Reports and Accounts are `consolidated’—meaning that they also incorporate the financial activities of designated arm's length bodies funded by the department. Each Annual Report and Accounts also includes a set of `core tables'. These set out past and projected future spending by activity against the same subhead categories as Estimates. The Treasury also publishes an annual summary document entitled ‘Public Expenditure: Statistical Analyses’. This replicates, in a single publication, the core tables from each of the Annual Reports and Accounts and also provides tables on central government and local authority expenditure, and analyses of Total Managed Expenditure by country and region. Technical appendices explain measurement conventions and economic assumptions, and provide detailed breakdowns of the component elements of Total Managed Expenditure. Each government department for which an Estimate is approved by the House of Commons is required under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 to prepare accounts for each financial year and to send those Departmental Resource Accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor General by the end of November in the following financial year. The Accounts compare outturn with the approved Estimate for both the use of resources and the expenditure of cash. The Accounts must be laid before Parliament, together with a report on the Comptroller and Auditor General's audit, no later than the end of the following January, although most departments have in recent years laid their audited accounts before the House before the summer recess. The Committee of Public Accounts may examine such Accounts. It always does so where expenditure (of cash or resources) exceeds, or falls outside the ambit of, the Supply granted by Parliament, as part of the procedures relating to Excess Votes (see paras 34.20 –34.21 ). The Committee may also carry out other examinations of the Accounts. Such examinations generally occur when the audit opinion and report of the Comptroller and Auditor General indicate shortcomings or other notable features relating to financial control or accountability or to the regularity or propriety of expenditure. Scrutiny of departmental expenditure is one of the core tasks of departmental select committees established by the Liaison Committee at the invitation of the House.2 Departmental select committees hold regular evidence sessions on departmental reports and other aspect of expenditure, and the Treasury Committee examines arrangements for financial accountability of departments. Notwithstanding the continuing development of opportunities for scrutiny of public expenditure by the House and its committees, the formal role of the House in relation to individual spending proposals continues to be based on its consideration of the Supply Estimates.

Footnotes 1. Since financial year 2001–02, public expenditure has been planned and subject to parliamentary control primarily on an accruals basis. A department's annual accounts or financial statements consolidate the expenditure of a department and its arm's length bodies. They form part of the Annual Report and Accounts. Resource Accounts are prepared on the basis of International Financial Reporting Standards as modified for the public sector and the Government Financial Reporting Manual. They are audited, usually by the National Audit Office. 2. First Report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, HC 224 (2001–02) paras 31–35; CJ (2001–02) 552–53; First Report from the Liaison Committee, HC 558 (2002–03) paras 12–14, 21. See also para 38.64.

Alignment of departmental budgets and Estimates 34.6The Clear Line of Sight (Alignment) reforms published in March 2009 simplified the Government's financial reporting to Parliament by aligning, as far as possible, the recording of government spending in Supply Estimates with departmental budgets and accounts.1 The reforms provided that: 1. Parliament should vote, that is, formally approve, the Departmental Expenditure Limits (DELs) and Annually Managed Expenditure (AME) totals, and the accounts would report expenditure against those limits; 2. the voted limits would include the expenditure both of departments and bodies which they sponsor, whose expenditure falls within central government; 3. the voted limits would be on a net basis, removing the formal control of the House of Commons over the limits on departmental income; 4. capital budgets would be brought within the parliamentary control process; and 5. the publication timetable would be revised, by bringing departmental annual reports and accounts together, and generally having a single Supplementary Estimate each year.

Footnotes 1. The Clear Line of Sight Project introduced a number of changes to Supply procedure, which were first implemented in full in the 2011–12 financial year: CJ (2010–12) 69; HC Deb (2010–12) 513, cc 85–108.

The Supply process 34.7The approval of public spending through the supply process arises from requests in: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Main Estimates1 Votes on Account Supplementary Estimates and New Estimates Excess Votes

In the past, requests for Supply have also occasionally been met by Votes of Credit. These are described at para 34.23. Exceptional grants are considered at para 34.24.

Footnotes 1. Including Revised Estimates, see para 34.14.

Main Estimates Contents Presentation and form of Estimates The contents of the Estimates Income Token Estimates Negative limits Revised Estimates Defence Votes A 34.8At the opening of a new session, the Queen's Speech customarily contains a reference to the fact that Estimates for the public services are to be laid before the House of Commons. This announcement relates principally to the Main Estimates which set out the use of resources and the grants of cash which will, during the financial year to which the Estimates relate, be required to make financial provision for the civil and defence services, and five independent services namely: the House of Commons Administration, the National Audit Office, the Electoral Commission, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and the Local Government Boundary Commission for England.1 On presentation, the Estimates are ordered to be printed. It should be noted that, although presented ‘by Command’, the Estimates are, unlike other Command Papers, presented not to both Houses of Parliament but to the House of Commons only, and are printed not at the instance of a department but by order of the House. They are numbered as House of Commons papers, and not in the Command Paper series.

Footnotes 1. In recognition of the independence from the Government of the bodies concerned, the Estimates for House of Commons Administration, the Electoral Commission, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and the Local Government Boundary Commission for England are laid by the Speaker, and the Estimate for the National Audit Office by the Chair of the Public Accounts Commission, and not by the Treasury. However, the House of Commons: Members Estimate is laid by the Treasury, as is that for the House of Lords.

Presentation and form of Estimates 34.9Proceedings on the Main Estimates provide for parliamentary authority for the expenditure for all government departments (and the five independent services) for the current financial year (ie the financial year which began the immediately preceding April), following the advance which departments receive for the start of the year through a Vote on Account. The Main Estimates are usually laid before the House in April.1 On behalf of the Government, and subject to the requirements of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866 and the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000, the Treasury is responsible for the form in which government Estimates are presented.2 Under established usage, however, important changes in the customary form of the Estimates should not be made without the previous approval of the relevant committees of the House of Commons. In deference to this practice, Treasury alterations in the Estimates are restricted to such rearrangements as involve no question of principle.3

Footnotes 1. In Election years practice varies. In 2010 and 2015, main Estimates were published after the Election, in July. In 2017, they appeared before the Election, in April. 2. HC Deb (1963–64) 691, c 37. The Treasury effectively controls the content of Estimates within Government by the powers granted to it by Parliament in relation to the content of the ensuing accounts by the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000, s 5 (and before that by the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866, s 22). Other bodies—the House of Commons Commission, the National Audit Office, the Electoral Commission, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and the Local Government Boundary Commission for England—although not subject to the Treasury's authority, usually take account, in the preparation of their own Estimates, of developments in government practice in this area. 3. The Committee of Public Accounts has taken an interest in the form of the Estimates since its establishment. A complementary function has been performed by the Treasury Committee. However, in practice it is now the Liaison Committee which takes the lead: it has acted on behalf of departmentally-related select committees in matters to do with the Treasury's proposals for the alignment of Estimates with departmental budgets, including agreement with the Treasury on a process whereby Parliament will be consulted in advance of changes to policy, content and structure affecting the Estimates (see para 34.6 and Second Report from the Liaison Committee, Financial Scrutiny: Parliamentary Control over Government Budgets, HC 804 (2008–09)). For past reports on the form of the Estimates by the Committee of Public Accounts, the Estimates Committee, the Expenditure Committee and the Treasury and Civil Service Committee, see Erskine May (22nd edn, 1997), pp 744–45.

Hansard, transcripts of evidence taken before select or public bill committees and other House papers such as the Order Paper or Votes and Proceedings are published on the internet on the authority of the two Houses and as such attract protection under the 1840 Act.

Footnotes 1. Wason v Walter (1868–69) 4 QB 73, esp at 93. Even before statutory protection was given to ‘proceedings in Parliament’ by the Bill of Rights 1689, an individual who delivered to a select committee printed copies of a petition containing ‘false and scandalous’ allegations nevertheless received judgment in his favour in Lake v King (1667) 83 ER 387, 84 ER 226, 290, 312, 415, 417, 506, 526, 85 ER 128, 137 since the committee had power to examine the truth and falsehood of the petition, and it was the order and course of proceedings in Parliament to print and deliver copies of petitions. A fair and accurate report of proceedings in public of a legislature anywhere in the world is protected by qualified privilege: see the Defamation Act 1996, sch 1. 2. See eg the remarks of Lord Denman on R v Dangerfield in Stockdale v Hansard (1839) 112 ER 1112. 3. For fuller details, see para 16.3. 4. (1837) 112 ER 1168–73, 1177–78. See CJ (1941–42) 123 for a Report which the House ordered to be printed for the use of Members only. 5. Under the provision of this statute the action of Harlow v Hansard was stayed on 14 July 1845 by Wightman J in chambers, on the production of the Speaker's certificate. In the case of Houghton v Plimsoll (1874) Times, 2 April, Baron Amphlett directed the jury that the report of a Royal Commission, presented to Parliament by command of Her Majesty, came within the provisions of the Act, ‘since it was a report which had been adopted by Parliament, and of which a distribution of copies had been ordered by Parliament’. This judgment was followed in Mangena v Edward Lloyd Ltd (1908) 98 LT 640, an action for libel brought in respect of statement contained in an extract from a paper presented to Parliament by command of His Majesty. The judge, however, observed (at 644) that the 1840 Act protected only those who published a command paper by printing: reading it out at a meeting, for example, was not protected. The decision in that case, the proceedings of which were presented to both Houses (see Cd 4403), was followed in Mangena v Wright [1909] 2 KB 958. Papers presented by command are not, however, printed by order of either House, and notwithstanding these judgments, where the protection of the Parliamentary Papers Act is particularly desired, the normal practice is for a paper presented in response to an order for a return to be ordered to be printed (see paras 7.30–7.33 ). For a commentary on the protection afforded by the 1840 Act to reports of parliamentary proceedings in criminal cases, see Committee of Privileges, First Report, HC 667 (1977–78) and Second Report, HC 222 (1978–79). 6. The matter of the application of the law of defamation to broadcasts of parliamentary proceedings was studied by the Joint Committee on the Publication of Proceedings in Parliament (HL 26, HC 48 (1969–70)) and the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege (HL 43-I, HC 214-I (1998–99) paras 358–61). 7. It was decided in the case of Dingle v Associated Newspapers Ltd [1961] 2 QB 162 that damages arising from the publication of unprivileged material should not be reduced on the ground that a plaintiff had acquired a bad reputation by reason of the publication of a select committee's report. See also para 16.7. 8. See Second Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, HC 362 (2009–10) paras 94–102. The case concerned a socalled ‘super-injunction’, ie one where the fact of the injunction was known to the parties but was otherwise to be kept confidential. 9. [1868–69] 4 QB 73. 10. [1868–69] 4 QB 88 ff. In giving judgment, Lord Cockburn CJ distinguished between the publication of documents covered by the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 and that of debates. The use in argument of cases involving parliamentary privilege he dismissed as ‘very wide of the present question’ (ibid 84, 91, 92). In making a complete analogy between reports of proceedings in courts and those of Parliament, he added that the limitations on one attach to the other, and a ‘garbled or partial report or of detached parts of proceedings, published with intent to injure individuals, will be equally disentitled to protection’ (ibid 94). 11. Cook v Alexander [1973] 3 WLR 617, esp at 623. 12. Defamation Act 1996, s 15 and sch 1. The scope of the protection afforded by the section extends to local legislatures and the European Parliament. It does not, however, cover the publication to the public (or a section of the public) of matter which is not of public concern, and the publication of which is not for the public benefit. Nor does the Act cover the publication of matter where such publication is prohibited by law. Fair and accurate copies of or extracts from notices or other matter issued by or on behalf of a legislature in any member State of the European Union or the European Parliament for the information of the public enjoy qualified privilege, subject to explanation or contradiction, unless their publication is shown to have been made with malice. 13. Joint Committee on the Publication of Proceedings in Parliament, Second Report, HL 109, HC 261 (1969–70); HC 34 (1966–67); Joint Committee on Sound Broadcasting (HL 123, HC 284 (1976–77)); and Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting, First Report (HC 376 (1981–82)). The matter was also dealt with by the Faulks Committee on Defamation, 1975 (Cmnd 5909) paras 203–10, 216–26. 14. HC 43 (1998–99) para 374. 15. Joint Committee on the Draft Defamation Bill, First Report of Session 2010–12, Draft Defamation Bill, HL 203-I, HC 930-I, para 51. 16. Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions, First Report of Session 2010–12, Privacy and Injunctions, HL 273, HC 1443, para 241. 17. HM Government, Parliamentary Privilege, Cm 8318, April 2012, para 311. 18. Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, First Report of Session 2013–14, Parliamentary Privilege, HL 30, HC 100, paras 187, 195–96.

Income 34.11The expenditure totals which are subject to parliamentary control – the budget boundaries and the cash requirement for each Estimate – are expressed in net terms. Parliament gave up control over income limits as part of the Clear Line of Sight reforms in 2011–12.1 The Treasury may, under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000, s 2, issue a direction permitting income included in a departmental Estimate to be retained and offset against related expenditure. The direction takes the form of a set of rules laid out in the Main Estimate booklet.2 The rules direct that income within the relevant income ambits may be applied against gross expenditure within that Estimate. Without such authority, the cash must be surrendered to the Consolidated Fund as Consolidated Fund Extra Receipts (CFERs). Certain services are financed and accounted for through trading funds, which operate outside the Supply Estimates system. A trading fund is characterised by the fact that by law its revenues consist principally (that is to say, more than half of such revenues) of receipts in respect of goods and services provided through the fund. Such a fund, established under the Government Trading Funds Act 1973 (as amended by the Government Trading Act 1990, the Finance Acts 1991, 1993 and 2001 and the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000) and generally having public corporation status, has standing authority to use its receipts to meet its outgoings without the need for annual sanction. Similarly, moneys in the hands of a trading fund at the end of the financial year do not have to be surrendered to the Consolidated Fund. The separation from the Supply system is not, however, absolute, because a department may make payments from Estimates to a trading fund by way of subsidy, provided that the statutory requirement for funding to consist principally of receipts in respect of goods and services provided through the fund is not thereby breached. Departmental income and receipts might be expected to be presented as Consolidated Fund Extra Receipts (CFERs) rather than used to offset expenditure where: income is of a type not anticipated by the department and therefore outwith the scope of the income ambit; the income is classified by HM Treasury as non-budget; or legislation specifically dictates that income should be paid into the Consolidated Fund.3

Footnotes 1. For control over income, principally through the procedures in respect of appropriations-in-aid, see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), pp 728–29, 737. 2. See s 4 of Central Government Supply Estimates 2018–19, Main Supply Estimates April 2018, HC (2017–19) 957. 3. Some taxes and revenues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland pass to the Consolidated Funds of the devolved administrations; some are collected on behalf of the UK Government and passed onto those administrations (including sums raised as a result of Scottish income tax rates).

Token Estimates 34.12Parliament must be asked to vote an actual amount, whether positive or negative, for any control limit where the departmental Estimate includes spending and/or income. If the control limit would otherwise be zero, perhaps because spending is fully offset by income, the Estimate must show a token £1,000 to be voted.

Negative limits 34.13It is possible for a department to seek approval for a negative budgetary limit or net cash requirement. This is most likely to occur where the department meets all expenditure from income or expects to sell a valuable asset. The department must stay within voted limits in order to avoid an Excess Vote.

Revised Estimates 34.14It sometimes proves necessary to vary the terms of an Estimate. It would be wrong to present provision for a substantially incorrect Estimate and in certain circumstances a Revised Estimate may be presented, for example to correct an ambit or re-allocate expenditure against subheads. A Revised Estimate cannot be used to seek an increase or decrease in budgets or cash: these should be sought through presentation of a Supplementary Estimate. A Revised Estimate will look like the Main Estimate that it replaces. This can only be done before the original Estimate has been voted. Any increase in a Main Estimate is sought by means of a Supplementary Estimate.

Defence Votes A 34.15In addition to the ordinary defence Estimates, the Secretary of State for Defence presents each February the ‘Defence Votes A’ for the Navy, Army and Air Force. These seek parliamentary authority to maintain during the following financial year the total numbers of officers and of men and women of other ranks expected to serve in each regular armed force and, in accordance with the provisions of the Reserve Forces Act 1996, for the maximum numbers of officers and of men and women of other ranks to be maintained for service with the reserve armed forces. Parliamentary authority may also be sought for the modification of such limits for the current financial year. The question on motions to provide the authorisation sought in the Defence Votes A is put forthwith on the day set aside for votes on outstanding Estimates not later than 18 March (see para 34.33 ). Reference to the maximum numbers so authorised is usually made in the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill, which also appropriates the expenditure to fund the armed services for the financial year in question.

Votes on Account 34.16Parliament does not authorise expenditure for which authority is sought by the Main Estimates until after the start of the financial year to which the Main Estimates relate. It is therefore the established practice, during one financial year (usually in February), to seek authority for some provisional allocation of amounts for the financing of the public service during the next financial year, pending parliamentary approval of the corresponding Main Estimates. Accordingly, special Estimates are presented seeking ‘Votes on Account’, which comprise total amounts for resources and cash to cover the needs of the Government and the independent services, for the first three or four months of the financial year, until final authority can be given by the passage into law of the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimate) Act. The Votes on Account for the coming year normally contain a standard provision to advance amounts equivalent to 45 per cent of the resources and cash which were previously voted for each Estimate for the current year. Greater or lesser amounts may be sought where there has been a transfer of responsibility between departments, where allocation of resources and cash is expected to be significantly different in the early months of the coming financial year, or where expenditure will be incurred for a new service.1 Although requests for Votes on Account are generally restricted to such services as have received the sanction of Parliament, provision may also be sought for a new service in respect of which specific legislation is currently before Parliament and where expenditure may be incurred in connection with that service before the passage of the Appropriation Act.2

Footnotes 1. See First and Second Reports of the Select Committee on Procedure, HC 410 and 411 (1968–69); and Special Report from the Committee of Public Accounts, HC 27 (1968–69). 2. HC Deb (1999–2000) 346, cc 177–78. See Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 731 for a description of the previous arrangements for the authorisation through appropriation of Votes on Account before a dissolution which no longer apply due to changes to the rules regarding sessionality: see para 34.38.

Substantive Supplementary Estimates and New Estimates 34.17A substantive Supplementary Estimate may be presented either: (1) for authorisation of further amounts in respect of an existing service, in addition to the amounts already sought for the current financial year; or (2) for authorisation of further amounts required for a fresh object of expenditure the requirement for which has arisen since the presentation of the Main Estimates, such as the costs of providing a service newly provided for in statute, or the requirement to deal with an unexpected emergency. Supplementary Estimates contain the ambit of the Estimate affected, amended as necessary to take account of any new services, together with a statement of the changes to the spending limits for which authorisation is sought. Supplementary Estimates are usually presented in February. Since the 2011 reforms there is now only one opportunity to lay Supplementary Estimates during the financial year.1 The Supplementary Estimates are presented before the Main Estimates for the following year are published, enabling the figures of expenditure for the current year to be repeated in the subsequent Main Estimates, for the purpose of facilitating comparison between the two financial years. Where a new department is established after the Main Estimates for the year have been presented to Parliament and the new department is not replacing a previous department the Estimate for which it will amend accordingly, a New Estimate is required. The format of a New Estimate follows that of the Main Estimates. A New Estimate is usually laid at the same time as Supplementary Estimates.2 Supplementary Estimates may also seek to reduce previously agreed spending limits where it is known that funding previously requested is no longer required.3

Footnotes 1. See Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 732 for details of previous practice. 2. See New Estimate for the Department for Exiting the European Union, HC 946 (2016–17), pp 739–47. 3. For examples of reductions in Resource Departmental Expenditure Limits in respect of the Department for Exiting the European Union and the Department for Work and Pensions, see Supplementary Estimates 2017–18, HC 808 (2017–19), pp 8, 10. For previous limitations on reductions, see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 732.

Token Supplementary Estimates 34.18The principal occasions on which a ‘token’ Supplementary Estimate (normally an Estimate for an amount of £1,000) is required are the following: 1. when it is desired to incur expenditure on a service which is not within the ambit of an existing spending limit, although the additional expenditure can be fully covered by savings on other subheads within that spending limit; in such a case, a token amount is sought, the additional expenditure being shown in gross terms under the appropriate subheads and the savings (allocated by subheads) shown as a deduction from them; 2. similarly, where it is desired to retain income which is not within the current ambit of the income to be used in support of spending against an existing spending limit; 3. when it is necessary to secure parliamentary authority for a new service, even if savings on other existing services have been identified; and 4. when it is proposed to make a material change in the conditions under which an original amount has been voted, even though the change itself may not require the specific approval of Parliament.

Out-of-turn Supplementary Estimates 34.19It is possible for Supply proceedings relating to ordinary annual expenditure to take place other than on Estimates days or at the times set aside for the roll-ups described below at para 34.33. Such additional proceedings are most likely to arise from ‘out-of-turn’ Supplementary Estimates presented other than in February. The Treasury permits out-of-turn Supplementary Estimates to be laid only in the most exceptional circumstances, where urgent additional resources, increases of a net cash requirement, or both, are needed at short notice and cannot await the next usual round of requests for authorisation or be met through a cash advance from the Contingencies Fund.1

Footnotes 1. HM Treasury, Supply Estimates: a guidance manual (July 2011), para 3.61. Proceedings on such Supplementary Estimates are not governed by SO No 55 and provision can be made by order for the putting of questions: see CJ (2007–08) 612, 614.

Excess Votes Contents Procedure on Excess Votes 34.20The need for an Excess Vote arises when a department has incurred expenditure or other use of resources upon an existing service beyond the amounts authorised for it during the financial year in question, or where there is no proper parliamentary authority for the service.1

Footnotes 1. The House, by resolution (CJ (1849) 190), has attached great importance to the duty of departments not to exceed the limits to their expenditure established by Parliament. However, the Committee of Public Accounts has also drawn attention to the undesirability of overestimating on the part of departments as a means of avoiding an Excess Vote (eg HC 362 (1968–69) para 29).

Procedure on Excess Votes 34.21Requests for excess amounts are not brought before the House of Commons until the following steps have been taken. When the exact amount of the excess expenditure or other use of resources has been ascertained on completion of the audit of the Departmental Accounts (see para 34.5 ), the Comptroller and Auditor General makes a report to the House. The findings come before the Committee of Public Accounts, which, after an examination of the explanation provided by the relevant department, submits its own report to the House, if possible in February or early March of the financial year following that in which the excess occurred, setting out the reasons and stating the objections (if any) to the excess being approved.1 The Treasury, as soon as possible after the report from the Committee of Public Accounts has been agreed, presents a Statement of Excesses, which takes the form of a combined request for amounts of resources and cash to make good the aggregates of excess expenditure or other excess use of resources on the various Estimates affected. The individual net excess amounts are authorised and appropriated in the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipations and Adjustments) Bill (see para 34.37 ).2

Footnotes 1. Although the Committee of Public Accounts frequently draws general conclusions from particular Excess Votes, there is no case of its objecting to an Excess Vote being authorised. 2. On occasions, in order to offer an opportunity for further discussion, Excess Votes have not been taken until a late date in the session, CJ (1902) 402; Parl Deb (1902) 104, c 296; CJ (1903) 378; see also ibid (1943–44) 152; ibid (1945–46) 311; ibid (1974) 293.

Contingencies Fund 34.22An exception to the rule that Parliament must vote money for a service before any expenditure is incurred is provided by the Contingencies Fund. The Treasury can authorise issues out of this Fund up to a limit fixed by statute to meet expenditure in advance of the granting of authority by Parliament. At present the limit is 2 per cent of the total Net Cash Requirement for the year ending on the previous 31 March authorised by Supply and Appropriation Acts passed before that date.1 The main circumstances in which the Fund is used are to meet expenditure (other than on new services) in excess of the amount granted in a Vote on Account; to meet (until a Supplementary Estimate is available) expenditure on unforeseen new services; to meet further expenditure on existing services when the provision for the Net Cash Requirement for the Estimate is exhausted; and to finance working balances over the turn of the financial year. The accounts of the Fund are presented annually to the House of Commons in pursuance of an order for a return and each instance of recourse to the Fund is reported to Parliament. By propriety rather than by law, no final charge is permitted to rest on the Fund, and Parliament is invariably asked to authorise the necessary expenditure in due course to enable repayment to be made. If expenditure requiring specific legislation necessitates the use of the Fund, recourse to it is deferred until the bill has had a second reading.2

Footnotes 1. Contingencies Fund Act 1974 (c 18), s 1(1). 2. HC Deb (1974) 873, c 1250.

Votes of Credit 34.23Unexpected demands upon the resources of the United Kingdom, for example for a military undertaking, which on account of the magnitude or indefinite nature of the service cannot be stated with the detail given in an ordinary Estimate, have been brought before Parliament by an application, based on an assessment of the total sum required, for a Vote of Credit.1 Sums obtained upon a Vote of Credit are, like other forms of Supply, available to be expended solely during the financial year in respect of which the grant has been made.2 Votes of Credit were last used during the Second World War.3

Footnotes 1. For example, CJ (1882) 407; ibid (1944–45) 24, 136; ibid (1945–46) 34. 2. Parl Deb (1884) 285, c 875. 3. For an account of how Votes of Credit were authorised, appropriated and accounted for, see Erskine May (22nd edn, 1997), p 752.

Exceptional grants 34.24Expenditure of an exceptional character may be initiated in a variety of ways. Provision for the Sovereign and the royal household has regularly been undertaken in response to a request by message from the Sovereign under the sign manual1 (see para 9.2 ). In a case where the Crown's right of initiative is exercised in this way, opportunity may exist for the moving of amendments which, though they increase the expenditure authorised by the particular resolutions, do not exceed the terms of the royal message.2 Any payments required have then been authorised by the Acts subsequently passed in response to the message. This procedure is considered in para 34.42. Exceptional grants to or in respect of distinguished statesmen or military commanders have been made on the initiative of the Crown or of the House itself. In these cases also, the expenses were either borne on Supply resolutions or were made charges upon the Consolidated Fund by ensuing Acts of Parliament.3

Footnotes 1. For example, CJ (1901) 60; ibid (1951–52) 236; ibid (1970–71) 445; ibid (2010–12) 744. 2. Spencer Walpole Life of Spencer Perceval (1874) ii, p 303. A message requesting new financial provision for the Civil List, for instance, merely requests the House ‘to adopt such measures as may be suitable for the occasion’, without specifying any limits. Accordingly, an amendment which proposed to remove the upper limit on expenditure laid down in the Government's Civil List motion has been held to be in order, CJ (1951–52) 308. 3. See Erskine May (22nd edn, 1997), p 753.

The voting of Estimates Contents Estimates days Voting the remaining Estimates under Standing Order No 55 Other Supply proceedings 34.25The House's consideration of the Estimates is largely divided into two categories: those Estimates chosen for debate on ‘Estimates days', and the remainder which are dealt with formally. These two procedures and procedures governing other Supply proceedings are described in more detail in the following paragraphs.

Procedure under Standing Order Nos 54 and 55 34.26Standing Order No 54 provides for three days1 (one of which may be divided into two half-days)2 specifically for the consideration of Estimates recommended for debate by the Liaison Committee. Standing Order No 55 lays down the procedure governing the House's consideration of all the remaining Estimates (see para 34.33 ). The basic purpose of these standing orders is twofold. They enable the Government to obtain at regular intervals the finance necessary to carry on its essential business. At the same time, they enable the House to devote a specific amount of time to the consideration of selected Estimates and to vote, if necessary, on them and on any amendments which may be selected by the Chair. The procedures also take account, through the formal role of the Liaison Committee,3 of the need for the House to decide which Estimates or matters arising from them merit a debate.

Footnotes 1. Not Fridays. 2. SO No 54(3) provides for proceedings on an Estimates half-day either to be interrupted, or to be entered upon, at 7 pm on a Monday or Tuesday, at 4 pm on a Wednesday, or 3 pm on a Thursday; but a Business of the House order has provided for proceedings to be interrupted after three hours, CJ (2004–05) 228. 3. See paras 34.28, 38.82 and SO No 145. In its choice of Estimates to recommend for consideration on an Estimates day prior to the changes described at para 34.28, the Liaison Committee was not limited to those which had been the subject of inquiry (whether directly or indirectly) by select committees.

Timing of Estimates days 34.27The timing of the three days appointed for consideration of the Estimates under Standing Order No 54 is flexible, the only proviso being that they must be taken before 5 August. It is thus possible for the House to devote all three days to the Main Estimates or to devote one, two or even all three days to the Supplementary Estimates. The date of an Estimates day is announced in the business statement in the usual way, even though the Government does not determine the subject of debate. Estimates days must be no later than the days on which the remaining Estimates are voted under the ‘roll-up’ procedure (see para 34.32 ). They are often on the same day as the roll-up, but there is no procedural requirement for them to be so.

Choice of Estimates for debate and vote 34.28Responsibility for determining which Estimates are considered on each of the three allotted days and the order in which they are considered formally rests with the Liaison Committee. However, from February 2018, the Liaison Committee agreed, following a recommendation of the Procedure Committee, that it would make its recommendations to give effect to proposals for debate agreed by the Backbench Business Committee.1 In consequence of these changes: any backbench Member, rather than just select committees, can seek an Estimates day debate; the Backbench Business Committee will take the lead in allocation of Estimates day debates;2 bids for Estimates day debates will need to relate to government spending plans in the Estimates; bids for Estimates day debates will not need to relate to a recent select committee report. Under Standing Order No 145 the Liaison Committee is required to report its recommendations as to the allocation of time for consideration by the House of the Estimates on any day allotted for that purpose. On a day when two Estimates (or sets of Estimates) are being considered, it is customary for the available time to be divided roughly equally between them. No formal provision is made for a time limit within which the Liaison Committee must report before the House considers the Estimates; but if the Committee reports some days beforehand, adequate notice can be given to the House as to which Estimates are to be considered and amendments can be tabled accordingly. A motion to agree with the report of the Liaison Committee may be made either at the beginning of proceedings on the day itself or, more usually, on a previous day, and the question on such a motion is put forthwith. Once agreed to, the recommendations of the Committee have the effect of an order of the House.3 When two Estimates debates arose on the same formal Estimates motion, the Estimates day was divided informally between the two subjects and Members were permitted to speak twice to the same question, once on each subject.4

Footnotes 1. Fifth Report of the Procedure Committee, Authorising Government expenditure: steps to more effective scrutiny, HC 190 (2016–17). In return, the Liaison Committee selects topics on three of the days available for Backbench business. 2. Formal approval will still rest with the Liaison Committee under standing orders, but the Liaison Committee has agreed to endorse the Backbench Business Committee's proposals for a pilot period of the remainder of the 2017–19 session. 3. SO No 145(3). 4. CJ (2003–04) 379; HC Deb (24 June 2004) 422, c 1484.

‘Proceedings in Parliament’ 13.12The term ‘proceedings in Parliament’ has received judicial attention1 (not all of it in the United Kingdom)2 but comprehensive lines of decision have not emerged and indeed it has been concluded that an exhaustive definition could not be achieved.3 The primary meaning of proceedings, as a technical parliamentary term, which it had at least as early as the seventeenth century, is some formal action, usually a decision, taken by the House in its collective capacity. While business which involves actions and decisions of the House are clearly proceedings, debate is an intrinsic part of that process which is recognised by its inclusion in the formulation of Article IX. An individual Member takes part in a proceeding usually by speech, but also by various recognised forms of formal action, such as voting, giving notice of a motion, or presenting a petition or report from a committee, most of such actions being time-saving substitutes for speaking. Officers of the House take part in its proceedings principally by carrying out its orders, general or particular. Members of the public also may take part in the proceedings of a House, for example by giving evidence before it or one of its committees, or by securing the presentation of a petition. For consideration of whether writing to a Member can be considered to form part of a proceeding in Parliament, see para 15.25.4 Letters to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards are not considered to be privileged unless and until the Commissioner decides that the complaint is appropriate for inquiry (see para 5.22 ). On a number of occasions, the House of Commons or a committee has endeavoured to elucidate this very broad understanding. The Select Committee on the Official Secrets Act in 1938–39 argued that ‘proceedings' covered both the asking of a question and the giving of written notice of the question, and includes everything said or done by a Member in the exercise of his functions as a Member in a committee of either House, as well as everything said or done in either House in the transaction of parliamentary business.5 After considering the scope of the protection, the committee concluded: ‘cases may be easily imagined of communications between one Member and another or between a Member and a minister so closely related to some matter pending in or expected to be brought before the House that, although they do not take place in the Chamber or a committee room, they form part of the business of the House, as for example where a Member sends to a minister the draft of a question he is thinking of putting down, or shows it to another Member with a view to obtaining advice as to the propriety of putting it down or as to the manner in which it should be framed.’6 The conclusions of the committee were later agreed to by the House.7 In 1947, the House of Commons accepted the conclusion of its Committee of Privileges that ‘attendance of Members at a private party meeting held in the precincts…during the parliamentary session to discuss parliamentary matters…is attendance in their capacity as Members of Parliament’. Such meetings did not enjoy ‘all the privileges which are attached to the transactions of Parliament as a whole’, but financial arrangements to induce a Member to disclose information from such a meeting about his work in Parliament was a form of bribery and a breach of privilege. The Member who accepted the payment was for that and other reasons found guilty of a contempt.8 On the other hand, in 1958 the House rejected the opinion of the Committee of Privileges in the Strauss case that a particular letter written by a Member to a Minister relating to a nationalised industry was a proceeding in Parliament.9 The 1999 Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege concluded that complexities of establishing boundaries and definitions led them to not recommending an extension of absolute privilege to correspondence, noting that qualified privilege at common law had enabled Members to carry out their duties satisfactorily.10 In another case in 2008, the Speaker intervened in proceedings in the Appeal Court against the use by both parties of a report of the Public Administration Select Committee. The judge accepted the arguments made on the Speaker's behalf that statements of the then Leader of the House as to the intention and effect of legislation passed in an earlier session and the reports of the Committee were not admissible as legitimate aids to construction.11 Notwithstanding such purely parliamentary attempts to clarify the interpretation of the phrase, Article IX is of course statute law, and the courts have in the past drawn attention to that limitation on its interpretation by either House. In Bradlaugh v Gosset, Stephen J said that the House of Commons, though capable of effectively superseding the general law so far as its internal affairs were concerned (see para 16.3 ), could not properly extend the scope of the term ‘proceedings in Parliament’ so as to preserve Bradlaugh from the effect of a statute, and the courts would take no notice if the House tried.12 In OGC v Information Commissioner, the Speaker intervened on the grounds of a possible breach of Article IX of the Bill of Rights. The case concerned an appeal against two decisions of the Information Tribunal which had ordered the disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 of information relating to gateway reviews carried out by the Office of Government Commerce of the Government's identity card programme. The Speaker took no view on the substantive issue of the case but argued that the Tribunal had infringed Article IX and the wider principle of parliamentary privilege inter alia by assuming jurisdiction to consider the adequacy of a Minister's reply to a parliamentary question. Although the Information Commissioner had refused to treat the parliamentary question as a valid request for the purposes of the Act, he had treated a subsequent request for a review of the answer to that question from the Member who had asked it as such a request. This was criticised by the judge as necessarily challenging the correctness of the ministerial answer when such a challenge cannot be the subject of a judicial decision. In response to the Speaker's intervention, the judge concluded that ‘it would be better if Parliamentary questions are not answered by a Ministerial statement as to the result of the application of [the Freedom of Information Act] to a particular case’.13

Footnotes 1. Recently, in the Supreme Court judgment in the case of R v Chaytor [2010] UKSC 52, [2011] 1 AC 684, [2011] 1 All ER 805. See also the dissenting judgment in R v Bunting (1885) 7 OR 524 at 563; and Gruban v Booth (1915), referred to in Re Parliamentary Privilege

Form of amendments 34.30In accordance with the principle that only the Crown can initiate expenditure, no amendment to an Estimates motion is in order which seeks to increase a total amount sought. A proposal to reduce an Estimate would be expressed in the form ‘That resources for use [for capital purposes ] be reduced by £X relating to [services described in the ambit of the Estimate ]’,1 the concluding words being included if it is desired to draw attention to a particular item in the Estimate.

Footnotes 1. CJ (2001–02) 642. The form in that instance has been modified to reflect subsequent changes to the form of Estimates motions.

Relevance in debate 34.31The normal rules of debate apply to the consideration of Estimates. In proposing an Estimate for debate, the Backbench Business Committee may specify a particular subject of expenditure.1 The report from the Liaison Committee setting out the recommendation of the Backbench Business Committee, when it is agreed to by the House, determines the scope of debate on the motion.

Footnotes 1. See para 34.28.

Voting on individual Estimates 34.32When the time for debate on a particular Estimate has expired or the debate has come to an end, the question on the motion is deferred until the moment of interruption on the day on which Estimates motions have been set down for decision under the roll-up procedure under Standing Order No 55. When a question has been so deferred on an Estimates day preceding that day, the Chair proceeds immediately either to call a Minister to move the motion relating to the next Estimate which is due for consideration, or, if no further Estimate has been set down, to go on to the next business. An amendment may be withdrawn either at the end of the relevant debate or at the day and time for decisions. If proceedings on Estimates on that day conclude before the moment of interruption, the Speaker may suspend the sitting until that time.1 At the moment of interruption, debate on the last Estimate set down for consideration is interrupted. The Chair then proceeds to put successively under Standing Order No 54(6): any questions on Estimates motions on a preceding Estimates day deferred under Standing Order No 54(4) and again set down for consideration on the day under para (5) of that Standing Order; any questions deferred under Standing Order No 54(4) that were debated that day; and any questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on other Estimates motions appointed for consideration on a preceding Estimates day or that day, but which were not the motions moved before the start of a debate. The questions necessary to dispose of proceedings in the first two of those categories include those on any amendment proposed from the Chair, followed by the question on the Estimate itself.2 If an amendment is carried, the subsequent question put by the Chair on the Estimate is ‘That [further] resources, not exceeding £[A minus B], be authorised for use, etc’ (where A is the original amount requested and B the reduction proposed in the successful amendment).

Footnotes 1. For example, HC Deb (1995–96) 281, c 1394; ibid (2005–06) 440, c 1077. 2. These arrangements reflect SO No 55 as modified on 14 December 2011. For arrangements prior to that, and modifications of those arrangements made by an order of the House in respect of Estimates half-days, see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), pp 738–39.

Voting the remaining Estimates under Standing Order No 55 34.33Under Standing Order No 55, any outstanding Estimates (in other words, those Estimates not selected for debate on an Estimates day) may be dealt with under the so-called ‘roll-up’ procedure, that is to say without debate, provided that at least two days' notice has been given and that the dates on which they are put down for consideration comply with certain deadlines at different stages of the session.1 These deadlines, and the Estimates to which they apply, are:

Not later than 18 March2 Votes relating to personnel numbers for defence services (Defence Votes A); Votes on Account for the coming financial year; Supplementary and New Estimates for the current financial year which have been presented at least 14 days previously; Excess Votes relating to the preceding financial year, provided that the Committee of Public Accounts has reported that it sees no objection to the amounts necessary being authorised by Excess Vote.

Not later than 5 August Amounts set out in outstanding Estimates. In determining the total amounts required for each financial year, account has to be taken of the amounts voted for particular Estimates on any of the three Estimates days; those amounts are subtracted from the total amounts sought in a ‘roll-up’ motion. Under Standing Order No 55(1) the Speaker is required at the moment of interruption on any day designated for ‘roll-up’ motions to put the question on any outstanding vote relating to numbers for defence services (Defence Votes A) and any motion authorising amounts, set out in outstanding Estimates. It remains open to Members to vote against any of these questions, but no amendment may be proposed, nor is it possible for Members to vote against any of the individual items or sub-totals which go to make up the total amounts put to the House under the procedure laid down by Standing Order No 55.3

Footnotes 1. Paras (2) and (3) of SO No 55 each apply to only one day in a normal session. In the case of a long session which lasts beyond one normal Supply cycle, what is now SO No 55(3) has applied to two separate days ‘not later than 5 August during the same session in successive calendar years, eg Votes and Proceedings, 4 July 2017 and 3 July 2018. 2. In 2006, the deadline was changed to 20 March, CJ (2005–06) 484, 518. 3. The roll-up procedure does not apply to Votes of Credit or votes for supplementary or additional Estimates for war expenditure (SO No 55(5)).

Other Supply proceedings 34.34It is possible for Estimates motions to be considered on days when business is not governed by Standing Order Nos 54 or 55. Such motions may be tabled where exceptional circumstances require Supplementary Estimates to be voted upon other than on a day usually set aside for Supply proceedings.1 Provision has been made by way of Business of the House orders to allow for debates on Estimates motions other than on a day governed by Standing Order Nos 54 or 55 to be proceeded with until any hour2 or to continue for a specified length of time.3 Questions on such Estimates motions have also been put at a designated time in accordance with the provisions of a Business of the House order.4 Such Estimates motions, when agreed to, have given rise to separate Consolidated Fund Bills,5 have been followed immediately by the introduction of Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bills,6 or have served as founding resolutions for such bills brought in on subsequent days.7

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

CJ (1985–86) 154; ibid (1991–92) 174–75; ibid (2007–08) 614. CJ (2002–03) 53. CJ (1991–92) 172; ibid (2007–08) 612. CJ (1992–93) 505, 521–22. CJ (1992–93) 522. CJ (2002–03) 58; ibid (2007–08) 614. Such a bill would now be introduced with the title Supply and Appropriation Bill. CJ (1985–86) 154, 235. On that occasion, payment was made from the Contingencies Fund after the resolution was passed pending passage of the subsequent Consolidated Fund Bill, HC Deb (1985–86) 91, cc 48–50.

Supply and Appropriation Bills Contents The Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimate) Bill The Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill 34.35As has been emphasised, the Supply resolutions of the House of Commons do not themselves constitute authority for expenditure. Those resolutions serve as a foundation for the legislation which provides the authorisation (see paras 33.7–33.11 ). The bills for this purpose are known as Supply and Appropriation Bills, and are brought in upon the relevant Supply resolutions, usually as soon as the resolutions have been agreed to. As bills founded on charging resolutions, they form a category of Bills of Aids and Supplies and have an enacting formula reflecting the role of the Commons in their origination.1

Footnotes 1. See para 26.9 for details on enacting formula. See para 33.21 for Bills of Aids and Supplies.

The Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimate) Bill 34.36Statutory authorisation of the Supply motions agreed at the time of the summer roll-up is given by the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimate) Bill. The Bill authorises departments to use net resources, net capital and spend cash up to the amounts requested in the Main Supply Estimates (or, exceptionally, as amended by any Revised Estimates). The Bill gives parliamentary authority for total resources and capital requested to be used, and cash to be issued, from the Consolidated Fund, in pursuance of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866 and the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000. It also limits the way in which the resources and capital can be used by prescribing how the overall sum is to be appropriated to particular budgets in order to finance specified services.

The Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill 34.37Statutory authorisation of the Supply motions agreed at the time of the spring roll-up is given by the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill. This Bill authorises and appropriates the amounts requested in the Supplementary Estimates, the Excess Votes and the Votes on Account.

Sessional requirements in respect of appropriation 34.38The constitutional importance of the principle of appropriation was emphasised earlier (see paras 33.7–33.11 ). In accordance with the principle, there was formerly a requirement that all legislative authorisation for expenditure through a Supply bill was required to take place in the same session as that in which the founding resolutions were agreed. It remains the case that amounts authorised by Supply resolutions relating to Estimates, Supplementary Estimates and Excess Votes must be appropriated in the same session as that in which they are passed, so that all such authorisations would be nullified in the absence of an Appropriation Act. However, resolutions relating to Votes on Account passed in one session (usually in March) have full effect even if not appropriated in the same session, and the same applies to votes setting maximum numbers for defence services.1

Footnotes 1. CJ (2010–12) 1039; HC Deb (14 December 2011) 537, cc 811–34. For example: the Defence Votes A in 2013 were included in the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act 2013, on the basis of Supply resolutions passed in March, alongside the Supplementary Estimates and Votes on Account in the previous session. See also Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), pp 742–43 for instances where additional Appropriation Acts were required to give effect to the principle.

Proceedings in the Commons 34.39Under Standing Order No 56, proceedings on a Supply and Appropriation Bill are purely formal. The question on second reading is put forthwith as soon as the order of the day is read,1 no order is made for the committal of the bill, and the question for third reading is then likewise put forthwith. Proceedings on such bills may be decided at any hour, even if opposed.

Footnotes 1. A Consolidated Fund Bill has been presented and immediately proceeded with as if its second reading stood as an order of the day, in pursuance of an order of the House, CJ (2005–06) 485, 519. SO No 56 refers to Consolidated Fund and Appropriation Bills, but in modern practice a distinct Consolidated Fund Bill which does not also appropriate the amounts so authorised is unlikely.

Proceedings in the Lords 34.40Supply and Appropriation Bills are invariably certified by the Speaker of the House of Commons as ‘Money bills’ under the Parliament Act 1911 (see paras 37.28 –37.32 ) and they can therefore be submitted for the Royal Assent under that Act if they are not passed by the Lords within one month. In practice, proceedings on such bills are usually completed in one or two days in the Lords. Such bills are never committed; nor are they ordered to be printed and by convention proceedings upon them are taken without debate.1

Footnotes 1. See para 29.74.

Royal Assent 34.41For a description of the pronouncing of the Royal Assent by Commission to a Bill of Aids and Supplies, including Supply and Appropriation Bills, see paras 30.38.

Bills authorising exceptional grants 34.42Financial provision for the Sovereign and the royal household may be made by way of an exceptional grant. On such occasions, the consideration of expenditure proposals is initiated by a message from the Queen under the sign manual, presented to the House by a Minister of the Crown in the prescribed formal manner (see para 9.8 ). Requests made by message are presented to both Houses, the form of the message being varied so as to ask for a grant from the House of Commons and concurrence in such grant from the House of Lords.1 Following such a message, a resolution has been moved upon which a bill making the appropriate provision has been founded.2 The motions for those resolutions do not themselves require the Queen's recommendation in the same way as a Money resolution (see Chapter 35). If the expenditure proposed in the bill as brought in falls short of the terms of the message from the Queen which initiated the expenditure proposal, it may be increased in amount or scope up to that limit.3 The bills arising from such resolutions are a category of Bills of Aids and Supplies. This is reflected in their words of enactment.4

Footnotes 1. This procedure has also been used to request the reward of persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State. 2. CJ (2010–12) 752; Sovereign Grant Bill (2010–12). The Sovereign Grant Act 2011 provides for the charges for the Sovereign and the heir to the throne to be met from Estimates; other costs which continue to be met from the Civil List are chargeable upon the Consolidated Fund. On previous occasions, a select committee was established to prepare the founding resolution. On previous arrangements for the Civil List, see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), pp 753–54. 3. Civil List Bill 1936, HC Deb (1935–36) 312, c 117; CJ (1935–36) 221. 4. See paras 33.21, 26.9. Legislation arising from other exceptional grants may also take the form of a Bill of Aids and Supplies: see, for example, Mr. Speaker King's Retirement Act 1971. This arose from a practice that is now superseded: see Erskine May (22nd edn, 1997), p 753.

Introduction to expenditure: Money resolutions 35.1The creation of a new and continuing service, function or purpose which will entail increased public expenditure normally requires to be authorised by specific primary legislation (see para 33.11 ). In accordance with Rule 2 of the general rules governing financial procedure (see para 33.12 and Standing Order No 49), the expenditure entailed by such an enactment must be initiated by resolution; and in accordance with Rule 3 of those rules (see para 33.13 ) (which, for this purpose, is set out in Standing Order No 48), any such resolution must first be recommended from the Crown. Resolutions of this kind, providing authorisation for the financial consequences of proposed legislation and known as Money resolutions, are the primary subject of this chapter. The financial consequences of legislation which are covered by Money resolutions normally relate to expenditure, but may extend to certain other matters which are not strictly expenditure but involve a loss to the Exchequer: for example, the remission of debts owed to the Crown. The chapter also deals with the procedure on bills sanctioning expenditure, including bills the main object of which is the creation of a charge on public expenditure, so far as that procedure is affected by the requirement for a Money resolution (for public bill procedure in general, see Chapters 27–30); and finally the chapter describes other types of proceedings which, while not directly linked to provisions in proposed legislation, have expenditure implications and therefore may be subject to the general rules of financial procedure.

Matters requiring a Money resolution and Crown recommendation Contents The expenditure involved must be new and distinct The expenditure must be payable out of the Consolidated Fund or National Loans Fund New or additional charges upon local authority revenues Expenditure charged to the National Insurance Fund Remission or compounding of debts due to Crown Increase of expenditure by extension of time Increase of expenditure by extension of purposes, etc Increase of amount of expenditure Variation of appropriation and diversion of revenue 35.2This section describes the criteria which are applied to determine whether a particular legislative proposal requires to be authorised by a Money resolution recommended from the Crown, in accordance with Standing Order Nos 48 and 49. The criteria are applied to make that determination not only in relation to the provisions of a bill as presented to the House but also in relation to amendments proposed to the bill during its passage through the House and consideration of amendments proposed by the House of Lords.

The expenditure involved must be new and distinct 35.3Standing Order Nos 48 and 49 apply in cases when a proposal involves ‘a charge upon the public revenue’ (see para 33.4 ). In practice, this is interpreted to mean a proposal for new or increased expenditure which is not already covered by legislative authorisation. So it is possible, though infrequent, that a proposal involving expenditure may escape the requirement for a Money resolution because an existing statute and the Money resolution associated with that statute were framed in sufficiently broad and open-ended terms to provide adequate authority in the new situation.1 This can be established only by a comparison between the new proposal and the existing law. If there is any doubt on the matter and it appears that the new proposal may entail an extension of previously enacted purposes of expenditure or an increase in the expenditure potentially liable to be incurred in pursuit of such a purpose (see para 35.12 ), a Money resolution will be required. A Money resolution is also required in the case of a totally new legislative purpose which imposes only a potential liability on public expenditure. For example, a proposal to confer on a Minister a discretionary power to expend money in certain circumstances does not escape the need for a Money resolution on the ground that the circumstances may not arise or the discretion may not be exercised.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (3 April 2019) 657, c 1130. See also Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), pp 751–53 for several earlier examples of matters involving money which did not require the Queen's recommendation because the expenditure was covered by existing statutory authority.

The expenditure must be payable out of the Consolidated Fund or National Loans Fund Contents Money to be provided by Parliament The Consolidated Fund National Loans Fund 35.4This criterion is expressly stipulated in Standing Order No 48, which defines a charge upon the public revenue as either ‘payable out of the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund’ or ‘out of money to be provided by Parliament’. Particular questions arise in applying that definition to local authority expenditure and to expenditure out of the National Insurance Fund: those questions are considered at paras 35.8 –35.9. The definition excludes any method of financing expenditure by intercepting the proceeds of taxation or other sources of revenue before they are paid into the Consolidated Fund. There are cases of such intercepts being provided for in statute and not being authorised by Money resolution;1 but a Money resolution has been required to authorise deductions from the gross revenues of the Inland Revenue to pay tax credits.2 Expenditure which is to be met by appropriations from the Consolidated Funds of Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales does not require authorisation by Money resolution.3 Similarly, bills which were only concerned with the authorisation and appropriation of amounts from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund did not require a Money resolution.4

Footnotes 1. Isle of Man Act 1979 (c 58), s 2; Transport Act 1980 (c 34), s 49(5). Both were introduced as government bills. 2. Finance Bill, CJ (1999–2000) 281; Tax Credits Bill, ibid (2001–02) 252. 3. HC Deb (1981–82) 24, cc 1071–87; Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bills 1975–76 and 1988–89. The constitutional position in respect of Wales was changed by the Government of Wales Act 2006. 4. Northern Ireland Budget Bill (2017–19), Votes and Proceedings, 13 November 2017; Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill (2017–19): Votes and Proceedings, 20 March 2018; Northern Ireland Budget (No 2) Bill (2017–19), Votes and Proceedings, 9 July 2018. All of these bills were, however, certified as Money Bills under s 1 of the Parliament Act 1911: see para 33.25, fn 2.

Money to be provided by Parliament 35.5Money to be provided by Parliament is by far the most common source of expenditure authorised by Money resolution. A resolution in those terms initiates the process of giving legislative sanction to annual expenditure for new or expanded purposes as yet unauthorised. The sanctioning of such expenditure is therefore a two-stage procedure: (1) It is initiated by a Money resolution authorising expenditure payable out of money to be provided by Parliament. Such a resolution is normally in entirely general terms, with no precise financial sums being specified;1 (2) It is subsequently presented to the House of Commons in the form of an Estimate specifying a definite amount of expenditure for the financial year in question, which receives final sanction in a Supply and Appropriation Act. Although the initial Money resolution is intended only to authorise the eventual presentation of an Estimate, it is nonetheless regarded as a motion for a charge upon the public revenue in the terms of Standing Order No 48 and therefore could not be brought before the House of Commons without the recommendation of the Crown (on which see also para 35.16 ). The following examples may be given of the types of expenditure charged upon moneys to be provided by Parliament: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

The expenses connected with the establishment of a new public body. The expenses arising out of the imposition of new duties on an existing department or authority. Grants authorised to be paid, whether annually or otherwise, to specified bodies. Any proposal whereby the Crown would incur a liability or a contingent liability payable out of money to be voted by Parliament. The transfer of expenses from local revenues to Estimates.

Footnotes 1. For an instance of a Money resolution setting upper limits on cumulative financial support from the National Loans Fund, see Money resolution on the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill (2016–17), Votes and Proceedings, 29 November 2016. See also para 35.28. The explanatory notes accompanying the relevant bill should, however, include an informal estimate of the amount of expenditure expected to be incurred.

The Consolidated Fund 35.6The Consolidated Fund is the ultimate source of money provided by Parliament under the procedure described above. Legislation may alternatively make provision for charging expenditure directly to the Consolidated Fund, thus avoiding the need for the annual approval of an Estimate and its enactment in the Appropriation Act. The following are categories of expenditure provision of this nature, all of which require authorisation by Money resolution: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

The imposition of an annual charge on the Consolidated Fund. Contingent or prospective charges on the Consolidated Fund (such as might arise from a Treasury guarantee). Issue of money from the Consolidated Fund to the Contingencies Fund. The making of advances out of the Consolidated Fund to be repaid out of moneys provided by Parliament.1 The authorisation of a single payment out of the Consolidated Fund.

Footnotes 1. For example, the payment out of the Consolidated Fund, in urgent cases, of expenditure which would otherwise be paid under the Act out of money provided by Parliament, CJ (2008–09) 132.

proceedings could have a chilling effect on what Ministers were prepared to say in proceedings or it could lead to judicial evaluation of the way in which parliamentary committees reached their conclusions. The then Lord Chief Justice described some of the uses made of proceedings as ‘a mistake’. The Committee considered that no action was immediately necessary, but recommended that Parliament should be prepared to legislate if necessary to protect freedom of speech in Parliament from judicial questioning.20

Footnotes 1. Plunkett v Cobbett (1804) 170 ER 763; Chubb v Salomons (1851) 175 ER 469. For petitions to the House of Commons seeking leave for a Member to give evidence in court, see eg CJ (1966–67) 578; ibid (1967–68) 98, 108; ibid (1981–82) 175. In 1948, the Commons gave leave to certain Members to give evidence in court ‘touching certain incidents’ in the House in an action for libel brought by another Member. Leave was also given to other Members (and other persons) to attend and produce documents touching the conduct of a Member as such (CJ (1948–49) 14 and Braddock v Tillotsons Newspapers Ltd [1948–49] 2 AC 306 ). 2. CJ (1818) 389, which followed the proceedings in R v Merceron (1818) 171 ER 675, when a shorthand writer employed by the House of Commons gave evidence in court of what an accused had said when being examined as a witness before a parliamentary committee. See also Parl Deb (1828) 18, cc 968–74. For modern instances where leave was given to officers by the House of Commons to give evidence in court, see CJ (1962–63) 201; ibid (1964–65) 276; ibid (1967–68) 125; ibid (1969–70) 153; ibid (1974–75) 730; ibid (1975–76) 45, 346, 426, 428, 617; ibid (1976–77) 152, 453; ibid (1977–78) 441; ibid (1978–79) 49, 144, 188; ibid (1979–80) 73, 591, 605. In other instances, petitions have not been proceeded with (ibid (1958–59) 313) or proceedings on the motion for leave stood over for lack of a quorum and were not resumed (ibid (1974–75) 567, 571). For the procedure on such motions, see para 20.6. 3. The agreement of the House to a motion based on a petition for leave to an officer to give evidence in court remains necessary, even when the action before the court is based on a statute making an implied amendment of the Bill of Rights as it affects the status of ‘proceedings in Parliament’, as eg formerly under the Defamation Act 1996, s 13 (see para 16.19 ). In Forbes v Samuel [1913] 3 KB 706, which concerned whether a Member had sat and voted contrary to the House of Commons (Disqualification) Act 1801, a shorthand writer who had taken notes at a select committee gave evidence in court (at 725), as did two clerks in connection with the proceedings in a division (at 725 and 730). In Tranton v Astor (1917) 33 TLR 383, which also concerned disqualification, when the court declined to admit Hansard as evidence, official reporters testified regarding the presence of the accused in the Chamber, producing their notes and personally identifying the individual concerned. Leave was given by the House in both cases (CJ (1913) 101 and ibid (1916) 213). 4. CJ (1851) 212, 277; ibid (1852) 291; ibid (1967–68) 125. For a motion not preceded by a petition, see eg HC Deb (1939–40) 365, c 135. 5. CJ (1994–95) 299, 366 and HC Deb (1994–95) 261, cc 333–54, and Supplement to the Votes and Proceedings, 26 April 1995. See also Rost v Edwards [1990] 2 QB 460, [1990] 2 All ER 641. 6. CJ (1979–80) 823; Committee of Privileges, First Report, HC 102 (1978–79). It has never been held to be contrary to the Bill of Rights to refer in court to the Official Report where no inferences are sought to be drawn from the reference (see para 16.11 ). The House agreed that select committee papers could be included in the papers exchanged between the parties in Harmon CFEM Facades (UK) Ltd v Corporate Officer of the House of Commons (see (2000) 72 ConLR 21 ); CJ (1997–98) 281. 7. Millar v Taylor (1769) 98 ER 201. See also Francis Bennion, Statutory Interpretation (5th edn, 2008), p 644 ff. 8. Pickstone v Freemans plc [1989] 2 AC 66, commented on in Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593 at 609, [1993] 1 All ER 42 at 61, 63, 65, 68. 9. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Brind [1991] 1 AC 696 esp at 713, 715–16, 755, 758. For other cases involving scrutiny of ministerial decisions as announced to the Commons and therefore recorded in the Official Report (on the parole system), see Findlay v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1985] AC 318; Pierson v Home Secretary [1997] 3 All ER 577; R v Home Secretary, ex p Venables [1998] AC 407, [1997] 3 All ER 97; R v Home Secretary, ex p Hindley [1998] QB 751, [2000] 1 QB 152. As explained in Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2003] UKHL 40, [2004] 1 AC 816, [2003] 4 All ER 97, the use of Hansard in Brind and in cases like it is evidential; it is the Minister's decision not the statement which evidences it which is the subject-matter of the review. 10. Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593, [1993] 1 All ER 42. 11. [1993] 1 All ER 63, 65, 68. 12. It was ruled in Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No 2) [1996] 2 All ER 363 esp at 366, that where a court is seeking to construe a statute purposively and consistently with any European materials, and it is of particular importance to ascertain the true purpose of an Act which introduces into United Kingdom law the provisions of an international convention or European directive, it may adopt a more flexible approach to the admissibility of parliamentary materials than that established for the construction of a particular provision of purely domestic legislation. In the case of National Westminster Bank and Barclay's Bank [1993] VCIR76TC1 the question of construction of legislation was commenced prior to third reading of the relevant Finance Bill but judgment delivered after the Bill was passed. 13. Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593 at 645, [1993] 1 All ER 73 at 74. 14. [2003] UKHL 40. 15. See [2003] UKHL 40 at 113 and 140; Lord Steyn ‘Pepper v Hart, a re-examination’ in Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 21 (2001), p 59; and R v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex p Spath Holme Ltd [2001] 1 All ER 195, [2001] 2 AC 349 at 391, 398, 402, 407. 16. See Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2003] UKHL 40 at 67: ‘The court is called upon to evaluate the proportionality of the legislation not the minister's exploration of the policy options or of his explanations to Parliament. The latter would contravene Article IX of the Bill of Rights’; and also paras 117, 139 and 143. Reviewing the Wilson case, Blake J suggests that Wilson may justify the limited use of parliamentary materials in compatibility cases: [2009] EWHC 2336 (Admin), para 65. 17. See eg OGC v Information Commissioner [2008] EWHC 737 (Admin). For a decision by the courts against the use of the Official

New or additional charges upon local authority revenues 35.8Money raised by local authorities by way of council tax is not itself subject to the House's rules of financial procedure. However, the statutes relating to local government finance provide for the payment of Revenue Support Grant to local authorities, out of money provided by Parliament; and in practice Revenue Support Grant makes up a significant proportion of local authorities' income.1 There is no longer a statutory obligation on Ministers, when determining the amounts of grant to be paid, to have regard to the level of local authority expenditure or to the extent of local authorities' statutory powers and functions; but the Speaker has ruled that a Money resolution is nevertheless required for any bill which implies an increase in the expenditure of local authorities, on the ground that it is reasonable to expect that, in practice, Revenue Support Grant will take account of that expenditure.2

Footnotes 1. The relevant statutory provisions are to be found in the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (which introduced Revenue Support Grant in substitution for the former Rate Support Grant), and in the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (which introduced council tax in substitution for the former community charge). The proceeds of non-domestic rating are partly retained by billing authorities or shared with other local authorities, but a central share is distributed among local authorities in conjunction with Revenue Support Grant; see Local Government Finance Act 1988, sch 7B (inserted by the Local Government Finance Act 2012). 2. Speaker's private ruling, 6 December 1989; HC Deb (1989–90) 163, c 448. The same principle is applied to similar grants to local authorities payable out of Estimates, such as grants made under the Education Act 2002, s 14.

Expenditure charged to the National Insurance Fund 35.9The National Insurance Fund is maintained under provisions of social security legislation which are currently set out in Part 12 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. The Fund is funded primarily by the National Insurance contributions which are payable by earners, employers and others in accordance with the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. Contributory benefits are paid out of the National Insurance Fund; other social security benefits (non-contributory and income-related benefits) are paid out of money provided by Parliament.1 The Social Security Act 1993, s 2 makes provision for supplementing the income of the National Insurance Fund by Exchequer contributions payable out of money provided by Parliament; such contributions are subject to a maximum limit of 17 per cent of benefit expenditure in any particular year. Any increase in the amounts of such expenditure charged to the fund therefore has the effect of raising the maximum (albeit potential) level of Exchequer contribution, and any provision in a bill which entails such an increase accordingly requires authorisation by Money resolution. It would also be out of order, without a Money resolution, to propose to make use of the Fund for purposes other than those covered by existing social security legislation.

Footnotes 1. Social Security Administration Act 1992, s 163. See also ibid s 165.

Remission or compounding of debts due to Crown 35.10The remission or compounding of a debt to the Crown (in other words, writing off a debt or allowing it to be replaced by another obligation) requires, under Standing Order No 49, to be initiated by a resolution, and by practice it also requires a Money resolution. In addition to more obvious cases,1 the following types of provision have been regarded as falling within this general category: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Extension of the period within which sums issued to the Contingencies Fund are to be repaid to the Exchequer.2 Reduction of repayments due to the Consolidated Fund.3 Remission of statutory contributions from salaries.4 Reduction of the commencing capital debt of a nationalised industry to a Minister.5 Conversion into public dividend capital of amounts outstanding by way of initial loan forming part of an NHS trust's originating capital debt.6 Disposal of, or disclaimer of title to, property vesting in the Crown.7 Refunds of taxation.8 Release of a non-resident parent from liability to the Crown under the Child Support Act 1991.9

Remission of liability to pay duties is not regarded as remission of debt but as exemption from taxation and does not require a Money resolution. For the same reason the bills to replace certain social security benefits with income tax credits required Money resolutions in respect of administrative expenses only.10

Footnotes 1. See eg Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill (1994–95), CJ (1994–95) 231–32; Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill (1998–99), CJ (1998–99) 262. 2. CJ (1920) 253, 271. 3. CJ (1921) 159, 165. 4. CJ (1955–56) 147. 5. CJ (1968–69) 245. This does not apply, however, where the cancellation of debt is matched by a corresponding financial benefit to the Crown, such as rights in shares in a successor company to the nationalised industry. See, for example, British Aerospace Act 1980, ss 2 and 4; CJ (1979–80) 241. Nor does it apply to the extinguishment of the public dividend capital of a Government Trading Fund, this being an internal Crown transaction. For example, Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Act 1990, s 4. 6. CJ (1998–99) 257. 7. CJ (1995–96) 295 (Treasure Bill). 8. CJ (1996–97) 24 (Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office Bill). 9. Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill (2006–07 and 2007–08), CJ (2006–07) 461. 10. Tax Credits (Initial Expenditure) Bill (1997–98) (presented under SO No 50), CJ (1997–98) 554; Tax Credits Bill (1998–99), ibid (1998–99) 91.

Increase of expenditure by extension of time 35.11If a provision of a bill increases a defined period for which a service, function or purpose of expenditure has previously been authorised or removes a previous restriction so as to give rise to a similar consequence, then the provision requires authorisation by a Money resolution. Provisions of the following description have been treated as falling into this category: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Transfer to the Consolidated Fund of expenses chargeable upon money provided by Parliament. Continuation of expiring enactments involving expenditure. Increase in potential expenditure through postponement of the date appointed for the commencement of a previous enactment. Provision for increasing expenditure with retrospective effect from a date before that on which the bill becomes law.

A provision extending the time within which a previously defined sum might be expended, but not increasing the defined sum itself, has been held not to require authorisation by Money resolution.1

Footnotes 1. Coal Industry Bill (1969–70), cl 3.

Increase of expenditure by extension of purposes, etc 35.12When a bill contains a provision extending the purposes of expenditure already authorised by statute (for example, by adding to the functions of an existing government agency or publicly funded body, extending the classes of persons entitled to a statutory grant or allowance, or extending the range of circumstances in which such grants or allowances are payable), that provision will normally require authorisation by Money resolution. In determining this question, regard is taken only of the particular provision in the bill. Counter-balancing reductions in expenditure purposes provided for elsewhere in the bill are disregarded, as are statements in the explanatory notes accompanying the bill to the effect that costs will be met from within existing financial resources or that no overall increase in public expenditure is expected to result from the bill. A bill, the effect of which was to authorise a reduction in the fee income generated under an earlier Act, required a Money resolution to cover any increase in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under that Act.1 A bill required a Money resolution where the bill itself did not give rise to expenditure, but the delegated powers under the bill might be exercised in ways that did so.2 Where a bill creates a new licensing regime, but the enforcement of that regime is undertaken by officers appointed under existing legislation, the costs of those officers are treated for the purposes of the Money resolution as expenditure under the bill rather than as increases in the sums payable under other Acts.3 The extension of methods of carrying out a function, rather than the extension of the function itself, does not require a Money resolution;4 nor does an extension of the potential objects of expenditure, if funding mechanisms and amounts are not affected.5

Footnotes 1. Public Trustee (Liability and Fees) Bill [Lords] (2001–02), cl 2; CJ (2001–02) 647. 2. Public Bodies Bill [Lords] (2010–12), CJ (2010–12) 792. 3. For example, National Minimum Wage Bill (1997–98), CJ (1997–98) 284; Gangmasters (Licensing) Bill (2003–04), ibid (2003–04) 180. 4. Audit (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (1995–96); Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill (1995–96). 5. Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill (1995–96).

Increase of amount of expenditure 35.13When a bill contains provisions varying a formula for grant so that an increased payment would result, or raising or removing a previously stipulated limit on expenditure, a Money resolution is required.

Variation of appropriation and diversion of revenue 35.14The recommendation of the Crown is required for any proposal to divert expenditure previously approved for one purpose to another purpose. On this principle, it was ruled in 1928 that a bill which proposed to substitute a new purpose for an existing statutory grant should have been introduced on a resolution recommended by the Crown; and the bill was accordingly not proceeded with.1

Footnotes 1. Empire Settlement Bill (1928).

Matters involving money but not requiring a Money resolution 35.15In the following cases, which have financial implications, authorisation by Money resolution and recommendation by the Crown are not required: Transfer of charges from the Consolidated Fund to the Estimates The transfer to the Estimates of a payment previously chargeable by law upon the Consolidated Fund amounts to converting the payment from a statutory standing charge to a payment which requires to be voted annually (see para 33.11 ), thus limiting the duration of the expenditure, and accordingly a Money resolution and Crown recommendation are not required.1 A transfer in the reverse direction, however, would require authorisation. Expenditure provisions in Consolidation Bills A Money resolution is not required for consolidations of re-enactments that do not change the law.2 Expenditure to be incurred from the House of Commons Administration and Members' Estimates A Money resolution is not required for expenditure from the House of Commons Administration Estimate or the Members' Estimate. The reimposition of a charge on public funds which has temporarily been suspended3 Liability on the Crown or local authorities to pay costs, compensation or damages4 A Money resolution is not required if such a liability arises as an incidental consequence of a proposal to apply or modify the general law. Widening the jurisdiction of a court or judicial tribunal, or creating new criminal offences A Money resolution is not required, although such proposals may have the incidental consequence of increasing the costs of the administration of justice. If, however, a change in the criminal law is likely to give rise to a need for substantial and quantifiable extra resources, a Money resolution is required.5 Proposals for the establishment of new tribunals, to deal with cases which would otherwise have been dealt with by existing courts, did not require a Money resolution to cover the legal aid costs associated with those tribunals.6 Minor administrative expenses Where the implementation of legislation will entail administrative work by the government department which is unlikely to impose more than a minimal continuing demand on its resources, a Money resolution is not required to authorise the notional costs of the work involved. For this purpose likely annual expenditure of less than £500,000 is generally treated as notional, although regard is had to the nature and scale of the public body incurring the expenditure. A Lords amendment affecting expenditure below that amount may nonetheless engage the financial privilege of the Commons (see paras 37.18 –37.19 ). A Money resolution is required for a bill even where the expenditure involved is regarded as notional, if an equivalent bill in the Scottish Parliament required a financial resolution.7 Expenditure by bodies charging fees Authorisation by Money resolution is not required for the conferring of additional functions on bodies which are funded, not out of Estimates, but out of fees charged for their services. Thus, a provision giving the Secretary of State a duty to safeguard the health of persons on board aircraft did not require a Money resolution, because it also made arrangements for functions relating to health to be exercisable by the Civil Aviation Authority, which could require the aviation industry to meet the cost through a charging scheme imposed under existing legislation.8 Likewise a Money resolution is not required for the expenses of a body such as the Land Registry,9 which is a trading fund. Provisions involving the reduction of expenditure No special form of procedure applies to proposals to reduce existing expenditure or the scope of existing purposes of expenditure, and such proposals may be moved in the House or in committee without recommendation from the Crown. A proposed reduction of expenditure may consist in lowering a stated amount, restricting the objects of expenditure, inserting limiting conditions, or shortening the period during which expenditure is to be incurred. Exemption from penalties due to Crown A bill which exempts persons or bodies from financial penalties which would otherwise be payable is not regarded as falling within the terms of Standing Order No 49.

Motions expressed as an opinion It is possible, by framing a motion as no more than an expression of opinion by the House, to bring forward a proposition relating to an increase in public expenditure without the need for recommendation by the Crown, and so avoid the restrictions on amendment which Crown recommendation would entail. This procedure, which is not applicable to a Money resolution related to a bill, was formerly adopted for motions relating to the salaries and allowances of Members of Parliament, in order to allow Members to move amendments to increase the figures proposed.10 It continues to be used for motions relating to financial support for opposition parties.11 Motions of this type, which are sometimes described as ‘abstract’ motions, cannot by themselves provide the necessary authority for incurring the increased expenditure. This can be done only by the approval of the appropriate Estimate.

Footnotes 1. For example, Public Trustee (Liability and Fees) Bill [Lords] (2001–02), cl 1. 2. Where, however, a Consolidation Bill incorporates minor amendments and improvements, suggested by the Law Commission (see paras 28.110, 41.9 ), which have potential financial consequences, authorisation by Money resolution may be necessary. For example, Justices of the Peace Bill [Lords], CJ (1979–80) 259; Town and Country Planning Bill [Lords], ibid (1989–90) 422. 3. See Finance (No 2) Act 1915, s 49, and Finance Act 1920, s 62. 4. For example, Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933, s 7; Party Wall etc Act 1996, ss 7 and 19. 5. For example, Crime (Sentences) Bill, CJ (1996–97) 27; Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill [Lords], ibid (1998–99) 265. 6. Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill (2005–06), Sch 2, para 5(1) and Sch 5, para 2(2). (Other provisions of the Bill required a Money resolution.) 7. Census (Amendment) Bill [Lords], CJ (1999–2000) 456. 8. Civil Aviation Act 2006, s 8. 9. Land Registration Bill [Lords] 1996–97. 10. See, for example, CJ (2005–06) 423, 633. Members' salaries and allowances are now determined by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority: see para 4.10. 11. Votes and Proceedings, 23 March 2016. See also para 4.8.

Signification of Queen's recommendation 35.16The recommendation of the Crown to a Money resolution is signified by notification from a Minister of the Crown (normally the Financial Secretary to the Treasury) before the motion for the resolution is tabled. A note stating ‘Queen's Recommendation signified’ is then appended to the title of the motion on the Order Paper (see also paras 7.3, 9.5 ).

When a Money resolution may be taken 35.17A Money resolution is not part of the proceedings on a bill, and may be taken at any time before the detailed consideration of the provisions of the bill which necessitate the resolution.

Money resolutions on bills whose main purpose is to create a charge on the public revenue 35.18A bill whose main purpose is to create a charge on the public revenue can be introduced by a Minister without a founding resolution under Standing Order No 50 (on which see para 35.24 ), so that it is very rare for a bill (apart from a Supply and Appropriation Bill)1 to be brought in upon a Money resolution, even if the bill's main purpose is to create a charge upon public expenditure.

Footnotes 1. Supply and Appropriation Bills are founded on a particular type of financial resolution, known as Supply resolutions, on which see paras 28.3, 33.12, 34.35.

Proceedings on Money resolutions 35.19If the motion for a Money resolution in connection with a bill is made at the same sitting as that at which the bill has been read a second time, which is usually the case for government bills (see para 35.20 ), the question is put forthwith, without debate.1 If the motion is made at any other sitting, the question is put not later than three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings.2 Debate, if it takes place, must be confined to the terms of the resolution itself and must not be extended to the related bill,3 nor to the merits of matters excluded from the resolution.4

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

SO No 52(1)(a). See also para 28.68. SO No 52(1)(b). For example, HC Deb (1946–47) 432, cc 886–92; ibid (1948–49) 462, cc 2239–40; ibid (2009–10) 505, c 777. HC Deb (1968–69) 772, c 1201; ibid (2008–09) 487, c 1265.

Money resolutions in respect of government bills 35.20In the case of government bills, a Money resolution is normally considered immediately after the second reading of the bill to which it relates. Such resolutions have also been considered after presentation but before second reading,1 or immediately before consideration in the Committee of the whole House.2 Money resolutions, or additional Money resolutions, have also been moved in the course of committee stage3 and before the report stage to provide cover for the consideration of amendments requiring Money cover.4 Similarly, Money resolutions have been taken before consideration of Lords amendments which impose a charge on the public revenue.5

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

CJ (1974–75) 97, 99; ibid (1990–91) 297, 304. CJ (1995–96) 353 (after bill reported from select committee). CJ (2009–10) 187. For example, CJ (1993–94) 269; ibid (2009–10) 275. See also para 28.113. For example, Votes and Proceedings, 23 March 2016 and 23 January 2017.

Money resolutions in respect of Private Members' Bills 35.21in the case of Private Members' Bills, a Money resolution is most usually considered on a day subsequent to the day on which the bill is read a second time, but before the committee on the bill meets.1 Such resolutions have been taken while the public bill committee was considering the bill.2 In 2013 and 2015, Ministers indicated that it was government policy to bring forward Money resolutions when requested even when they did not support a bill to which the resolution related.3 In May 2018, a Minister stated that ‘money resolutions will be brought forward on a case-bycase basis’.4 On 19 June 2018, a motion that would have enabled a specific Public Bill Committee to consider provisions of a bill requiring Money cover, but not to report the bill until the House had passed a Money resolution, was negatived.5

Footnotes 1. See, for example, Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill (2017–19), Votes and Proceedings, 20 October 2017 and 13 November 2017. 2. See, for example, Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Bill (2017–19), Votes and Proceedings, 18 April 2018 and 24 April 2018. 3. Procedure Committee, Private Members' Bills, Oral evidence, 13 March 2013, Q 344; HC Deb (3 November 2015) 601, c 922. 4. HC Deb (22 March 2018) 638, c 407. 5. Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill (2017–19); HC Deb (19 June 2018) 643, cc 252–302.

Amendments to Money resolutions 35.22In accordance with the constitutional principle which reserves the initiative in finance to the Crown (and which is set out in Standing Order No 48), the terms of the resolution recommended by the Queen are treated as laying down a maximum charge, which amendments may reduce in scope but may not extend in respect of the amount of the expenditure, the area of its operation or the objects to which, or conditions under which, it is to be applied.1 An amendment proposing to substitute for the resolution an argumentative justification for the refusal of the request is out of order,2 as are also amendments proposed with a view to substituting an alternative scheme to that proposed in the Money resolution.3 Where the terms of a Money resolution have recommended payment of a grant from public funds, it has been held that an amendment to substitute for that provision a repayable advance of public money was out of order, on the ground that the amendment changed the method of financing from that recommended by the Crown.4 The limitation on the power of proposing amendments applies equally to Ministers as to private Members. If the Government itself wishes to extend, or to accept amendments extending, the scope of the expenditure proposed to be authorised, it is necessary to withdraw the resolution and submit another containing the desired modification,5 or at a later date to submit a second resolution.6

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

For a selected amendment limiting the amount of expenditure, see HC Deb (16 October 2018) 647, cc 568–89. HC Deb (1910) 19, c 1624; ibid (1920) 134, c 1552; ibid (1936–37) 320, c 1035. HC Deb (1917) 98, c 617. HC Deb (1953–54) 525, cc 1753–56. CJ (1929–30) 165, 169. See also HC Deb (1930–31) 248, cc 1095–49. For example, CJ (1992–93) 367. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill (2008–09 and 2009–10) had four Money resolutions, CJ (2008–09) 641; ibid (2009–10) 187, 217, 275.

Procedure on bills sanctioning expenditure Contents Presentation under Standing Order No 50 Interpretation of ‘main object’ in relation to a bill Italicised provisions Amendments in committee (or on report) Restrictive effect of terms of Money resolution 35.23This section describes those particular features of proceedings in the House of Commons on bills sanctioning expenditure which arise from the requirement for a Money resolution. It does not apply to Supply and Appropriation Bills, which are dealt with in Chapter 34.

Presentation under Standing Order No 50 35.24Bills the main object of which is the creation of a charge on public expenditure, except Supply and Appropriation Bills, may be presented or brought in by a Minister in the same manner as bills which involve a charge that is subsidiary to the main object: that is to say, the bills do not need to be founded on previously adopted Money resolutions, and the necessary Money resolutions may instead be considered after the second reading of the bill in the same way as are Money resolutions relating to other bills. The same dispensation extends to bills brought from the Lords, so long as they are ‘taken up’ (see paras 28.8, 28.11 ) by a Minister (Standing Order Nos 50(2) and 80). Bills presented in the House of Commons under Standing Order No 50 are recorded accordingly in the Journal and are distinguished by a note at the top of the first page; the same applies to bills brought from the House of Lords and proceeded with in accordance with Standing Order No 80. Bills the main purpose of which is to provide legislative authorisation for a new object of expenditure which would otherwise rest on the sole authority of an Appropriation Act (sometimes known as ‘Concordat’ or ‘Baldwin convention’ Bills) are introduced under Standing Order No 50.1 The provisions of Standing Order No 50 apply only to bills presented or taken up by a Minister. It follows that a private Member may not introduce a bill the main object of which is the creation of a charge on public expenditure, or take up such a bill which has originated in the House of Lords. Thus, the Speaker has declined to allow a private Member to present a bill of which notice had been given having concluded that the main objective of the bill was to impose a charge on the revenue.2 The criteria which are adopted to determine whether the ‘main object’ of a bill is or is not to create a charge on public expenditure are outlined below. The practice which requires certain stages of financial bills to be taken on different days (see para 33.23 ) does not apply to bills proceeded with under Standing Order No 50.

Footnotes 1. See para 33.11. 2. Political Contribution Bill, HC Deb (1969–70) 801, cc 410–13.

Interpretation of ‘main object’ in relation to a bill 35.25In relation to the bill authorising it, a charge to public expenditure may vary from being the sole purpose to covering minor provisions which only incidentally involve expenditure. A bill may have for its main object the creation of a new service which consists in the disbursement of public funds. Such a bill (eg the Legal Aid and Advice Bill (1948–49)) is regarded as having the establishment of the service rather than the resulting charge to public expenditure as its main object. On the other hand, a bill of which the main object is to extend such a service to new classes of persons or to relax the conditions upon which it is available (eg the Legal Aid Bill (1959–60)) is regarded as having the creation of an additional charge on public expenditure as its main object. Furthermore, a bill may have several purposes, of which some consist only in the creation of a charge on public expenditure, while others do not create such a charge at all or create one only incidentally. In such cases it has to be considered whether the public expenditure purposes are sufficient to outweigh the substantive provisions which are not primarily directed at public expenditure. Thus, the main object of the Savings (Government Contributions) Bill (2016–17) was considered to be the provision of government financial contributions to certain savings accounts, creating a charge on the public revenue, even though other provisions of the same bill allowed for a tax charge on early withdrawals from those accounts greater than the government contribution; and the Bill was therefore introduced under Standing Order No 50.1 On the other hand, the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill (1995–96) had two quite distinct purposes: to provide for the making of grants out of public expenditure in respect of nursery education; and to empower the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools to borrow from private sources. Although the first purpose by itself would have satisfied the criteria of Standing Order No 50, the second purpose (which did not involve public expenditure) was regarded as of comparable significance and in no way incidental to the first. The Bill was therefore introduced without recourse to the Standing Order.

Footnotes 1. For an earlier example, see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 756.

Italicised provisions 35.26Before the clauses and provisions giving rise to increased expenditure can be considered by the committee on the bill, a Money resolution must be passed to sanction them. When bills introduced into the Commons are first printed, the clauses and provisions which directly create these charges on public expenditure are printed in italics to mark the fact that they do not unconditionally form part of the bill and that no question can be proposed on them unless they have been authorised by a Money resolution.1 (Similarly, no question can be proposed on such clauses and provisions in bills brought from the House of Lords unless they have been so authorised, although italics are not used in the printing of such bills (see para 28.14 ). The words printed in italics must be ‘covered’ by the relevant Money resolution, that is, the expenditure that they authorise may not be larger in amount or more extensive in purpose than that recommended by the Crown. If they are found not to be so covered, they may not be considered in committee until a further resolution covering the deficiency has been agreed to. Alternatively, the italicised words must themselves be amended so as to be brought within the terms of the resolution. This rule is enforced in committee by the refusal of the Chair to propose the question on a clause, schedule or amendment involving expenditure which is not covered by a Money resolution related to the bill.2 This has been held to apply not only to the direct expenditure provisions which are printed in italics but also to those other clauses which depend on the expenditure provisions for their practical effect.3 On the other hand, those clauses of a bill which do not entail expenditure may be considered before a resolution has been agreed to authorising the other clauses which do entail expenditure.4

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1865) 177, c 1308. 2. See, for example, Stg Co Deb (1969–70) Co C, Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill, c 145; ibid (1978–79) Co C, Official Information Bill, c 10; ibid (1995–96) Co C, Wildlife Bill, c 3. In the case of bills which were subsequently found not to require a Money resolution, the question on the redundant ‘expenses’ clause was put and negatived, Stg Co Deb (2001–02) Co C, Private Hire Vehicles (Carriage of Guide Dogs etc) Bill, cc 3, 18; Public Bill Committee, Assaults on Emergency Workers Bill, HC Deb (15 November 2017) 631, c 4. 3. Stg Co Deb (1972–73) Co C, Alkali Inspectorate Bill, cc 3–5. See also ibid (1974–75) Co C, Dogs Bill, c 3; ibid (1979–80), Affiliation Orders and Aliments (Annual Up-rating) Bill, cc 3, 34. 4. Stg Co E, Proceedings (1949), Analgesia in Childbirth Bill, p 6; Stg Co Deb (1950–51), Co B, New Streets Bill, c 589; Public Bill Committee, Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Bill, HC Deb (28 March 2018) 638, cc 3–4. See also para 39.29.

Amendments in committee (or on report) 35.27Amendments which would entail expenditure not covered by the Money resolution are ruled out of order. If the question has been proposed on an amendment which in the course of debate is shown to involve unauthorised expenditure in this way, it is the duty of the Chair to intervene and the question on the amendment cannot be put.1 Similarly, an amendment which seeks to divert expenditure authorised by a Money resolution from the purpose for which it was recommended by the Crown to another purpose is always ruled out of order. If by inadvertence a public bill committee reports a bill containing words not covered by a Money resolution, the bill may be re-committed to the public bill committee (see paras 28.141, 39.28 –39.29 ) or to a Committee of the whole House.2

Footnotes 1. For example, CJ (1920) 280; HC Deb (1920) 131, c 1900. 2. CJ (1989–90) 310, 312–13.

Restrictive effect of terms of Money resolution 35.28In view of the way in which the terms of a Money resolution limit the scope of the expenditure provisions of a bill, the Speaker has had occasion to deprecate an excessive amount of detail in the drafting of such resolutions as tending to restrict unduly the power of private Members to propose amendments. The view of the Government on the proper practice in this matter was laid down by a Treasury circular, which was communicated to the House and accepted by the Speaker at the time as conforming to the legitimate desires of the House.1 There continue, nevertheless, to be occasional cases of Money resolutions drafted in considerable detail or setting financial limits.2

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1934–35) 295, c 1236; ibid (1937–38) 328, cc 1593–60; ibid (1939–40) 357, c 1193. See also ibid (1956–57) 569, cc 85–86W. 2. See, for example, Electricity Bill [Money], CJ (1988–89) 47–9; Railways Bill [Money], CJ (1992–93) 389–90; Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill [Money], Votes and Proceedings, 29 November 2016.

Other forms of proceeding for the initiation of expenditure Contents Standing Orders Business of the House motions 35.29Although a Money resolution is now almost invariably the form of proceeding employed to initiate expenditure for new purposes, certain other proceedings in the House may have implications for the approval of public expenditure, and may therefore require prior recommendation from the Crown in accordance with the principle embodied in Standing Order No 48. This section briefly describes those forms of proceedings.1

Footnotes 1. The use of petitions for initiating expenditure has lapsed. The effect of the reference in SO No 48 to petitions ‘for sums relating to public service’ has become purely negative—to prevent the reception of such petitions. This result is reinforced by SO No 49.

Standing Orders 35.30A motion for the adoption, inter alia, of Standing Order No 53 and of Standing Order 156A (Private Business) was held to require the recommendation of the Crown because those Standing Orders exempted from compliance with the standing orders and practice of the House relating to the authorisation of charges upon the public revenue provisions of certain classes of bill authorising expenditure by a local authority which would or might have the effect of increasing amounts payable by way of Exchequer Equalisation Grant (now Revenue Support Grant).1

Footnotes 1. CJ (1948–49) 18; see also ibid (1953–54) 336.

Business of the House motions 35.31Business of the House or procedure motions, passed on rare occasions, usually of emergency, which have exempted bills from the necessity of compliance with the standing orders and practice of the House relating to provisions authorising charges upon the public revenue have received the Crown's recommendation.1

Footnotes 1. CJ (1938–39) 402, 405; ibid (1939–40) 138; ibid (1946–47) 373; ibid (1947–48) 188; ibid (1953–54) 96; ibid (1965–66) 11. See also CJ (1908) 39 and (1910) 102, instances of the Crown's recommendation being signified to allocation of time motions. See also paras 30.42, 33.18.

The scope of Ways and Means Contents Matters requiring authorisation by Ways and Means resolution Matters, akin to charges upon the people, not initiated by Ways and Means resolutions Charges not effective till applied by subsequent legislation 36.1The fundamental rules of financial procedure which reserve the right of initiative to the Crown and require that new charging proposals be authorised by resolution of the House apply to the business of Ways and Means (‘charges upon the people’) as they do to proposals for new expenditure (‘charges upon the public revenue’). But, whereas in the case of expenditure those rules are set out explicitly in the standing orders, in the case of Ways and Means they are based largely on the established practice of the House. Another difference is that, for historical reasons, referred to in para 33.14, a Ways and Means resolution is not recommended by the Crown; but it can be moved only by a Minister and, once moved, it has the same limiting effect upon amendments relating to taxation as a Money resolution recommended by the Crown has upon amendments relating to expenditure, whether such amendments are offered by private Members or by Ministers. This effect is explained in paras 36.44 –36.46. A further consequence of the rule requiring Ways and Means to be initiated by a resolution moved by a Minister is that instructions offered by private Members for the purpose of initiating or increasing charges in relation to Finance Bills and other bills imposing taxation are out of order.1

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1894) 24, c 1218; ibid (1901) 95, c 755.

Matters requiring authorisation by Ways and Means resolution Contents Taxation Repeal or reduction of alleviations of taxation Delegation of taxing powers Fees, levies and other payments imposed by legislation Grant of borrowing powers Payments into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund 36.2Matters which are covered by the term ‘charges upon the people’ may be briefly summarized as: (a) the imposition of taxation, including the increase in rate, or extension in incidence, of existing taxation; (b) the repeal or reduction of existing alleviations of taxation, such as exemptions or drawbacks; (c) the delegation of taxing powers; and (d) the imposition of levies, charges or fees which are akin to taxation in their effect and characteristics. Other matters, while not ‘charges upon the people’ in a direct sense, relate to the raising of revenue and so come within the scope of Ways and Means. These matters are: (e) the granting of borrowing powers to the Crown; and (f) provision for the payment into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund of receipts which do not arise from taxation. Matters of all these categories require to be authorised by a Ways and Means resolution moved by a Minister in accordance with the procedure outlined in paras 36.25 –36.32, whether they are original provisions in bills or are proposed by way of amendments to bills. Further explanations and examples of each category are given in the following paragraphs. Although impositions are not generally charges on the people unless the proceeds are payable into the Consolidated Fund, the absence of a requirement for payment into the Consolidated Fund is not by itself conclusive indication that a charge upon the people has been avoided. If, for example, money raised by a statutory imposition is not to be channelled through the Consolidated Fund but is nonetheless to be used for the benefit of the public at large or for purposes which might otherwise have required to be financed from the Consolidated Fund, that imposition is likely to need authorisation by a Ways and Means resolution.1 The payment of fees into a trading fund usually requires authorisation by a Ways and Means resolution, since trading funds can run surpluses which can be paid into the Consolidated Fund.2 On the other hand, local taxation and loans and even burdens imposed by Parliament, the proceeds of which are payable to local funds, fall outside the scope of Ways and Means. The proposal of an alleviation of taxation, such as a drawback or a reduction in the rate of a tax, does not involve a charge on the people and does not require the special procedure appropriate to charges (see para 36.18 ).

Footnotes 1. See eg Merchant Shipping Act 1974, s 2, CJ (1973–74) 60; London Regional Transport Act 1984, s 49, ibid (1983–84) 261. See also paras 36.11 –36.14. 2. Government Trading Funds Act 1973, s 4. See, for example, Road Safety Act 2006 (c 49), ss 36, 39 and 40, CJ (2005–06) 478.

Taxation Contents New taxation Continuation of an expiring tax Re-imposition of a repealed tax Increase in the rate of an existing tax Extension of incidence of tax 36.3A Ways and Means resolution is a necessary preliminary to the imposition of a new tax, the continuation of an expiring tax, an increase in the rate of an existing tax, or an extension of the incidence of a tax so as to include persons not already taxpayers. It is immaterial whether the tax is solely intended to provide revenue for the public service, or whether its primary purpose is to regulate imports or to promote other public policy objectives.

New taxation 36.4New taxes and duties are subject to special requirements in two respects: (1) they may not come into force immediately under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968 (although security can be demanded in the case of new duties) (see para 36.36 ); (2) new duties on separate commodities cannot be included in the same Ways and Means resolution (see para 36.28 ).

Continuation of an expiring tax 36.5Most taxes are imposed indefinitely or for a period of years. But for the purpose of maintaining parliamentary control, the rates at which income and corporation tax are to be charged are imposed annually by successive Finance Bills. The extension of the duration of a tax requires a Ways and Means resolution.

Re-imposition of a repealed tax 36.6The revival of a repealed or expired tax is treated in the same way as the imposition of a new tax; and consequently the resolution authorising the re-imposition cannot become effective under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968 and cannot include several separate commodities.1 For the re-imposition of a suspended tax, see para 36.22.

Footnotes 1. Ways and Means resolutions were required when the ‘new duties' imposed by the Finance (No 2) Act 1915, allowed to lapse in 1924, were re-imposed by the Finance Act 1925 (CJ (1924–25) 176); and when the duty on tea, abolished in 1929 (ibid (1928–29) 211), was re-imposed on a permanent basis in 1932 (ibid (1931–32) 156).

Increase in the rate of an existing tax 36.7The increase in the rate of a permanent tax must be initiated by a Ways and Means resolution for that purpose. The resolution may authorise the increase indefinitely1 or for a limited period.

Footnotes 1. For example, Remote gaming duty, Votes and Proceedings, 1 November 2018.

Extension of incidence of tax 36.8A Ways and Means resolution is required to authorise extension of the scope of a tax, for example to cover new classes of taxpayers,1 or new categories of income or benefit.2 The requirement for a Ways and Means resolution also applies to any proposal for a change in tax law or the administration of tax collection which may lead, albeit incidentally, to an increased or accelerated tax burden for any class of taxpayers. Ways and Means resolutions have accordingly been needed to authorise the Treasury to vary the way in which certain taxes have effect in relation to a transfer of property, rights or liabilities.3 Resolutions authorising such charges are often expressed in very general terms, because the increased burden is impossible to specify with precision.4

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

Finance No 2, 1931, CJ (1930–31) 415; Finance 1926, CJ (1926) 139. For example, Taxation of cash vouchers (income tax), CJ (1975–76) 273. Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, CJ (2005–06) 881; Localism Bill, CJ (2010–12) 651. For example, Self-assessment, CJ (1995–96) 51.

Repeal or reduction of alleviations of taxation 36.9A Ways and Means resolution is required to authorise any withdrawal or restriction of a relief from, or remission of, taxation, for example: the withdrawal of zero-rating from a particular service or commodity for the purposes of value added tax;1 the restriction of repayments or drawbacks in respect of excise duties on goods;2 the removal of a class of property from those previously defined as qualifying for stock relief in respect of income and corporation taxes;3 or depriving a person of a right transferred from another person to a repayment of tax.4

Footnotes 1. For example, Restriction of zero-rating (food), CJ (1983–84) 434; Value added tax (fuel and power), ibid (1992–93) 510; Value added tax (preparations etc of meat, yeast or egg), ibid (1998–99) 417. 2. For example, Excise duties (repayments, allowances and drawbacks), CJ (1995–96) 44. 3. Stock relief, CJ (1979–80) 499. 4. Effects of transfer of rights to payment, etc, CJ (2007–08) 497.

Delegation of taxing powers 36.10Provisions delegating the House's powers to determine the rates and incidence of taxation have been incorporated in bills founded upon Ways and Means resolutions.1 On the introduction of purchase tax in 1940, the founding Ways and Means resolution specifically empowered the Treasury to make orders varying the rates of the tax and the categories of goods on which it was chargeable, but provided at the same time for any such orders to be subject to approval by the House.2 These arrangements are still incorporated in the legislation relating to value added tax, the successor to purchase tax.3

Footnotes 1. See in particular Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Bill 1931, CJ (1931–32) 28, and the Speaker's ruling on that occasion, HC Deb (1931–32) 259, c 719 ff. See also HC Deb (1919) 122, c 213. In 1917 a government amendment to the Finance Bill proposing such a delegation had been ruled out of order, HC Deb (1917–18) 95, c 828. 2. CJ (1939–40) 217. 3. Value Added Tax Act 1994, ss 2(2), 5 and 97. For the Ways and Means resolution on which value added tax was originally founded, which was entirely general in terms, see CJ (1971–72) 232.

Fees, levies and other payments imposed by legislation Contents Raising revenue Service previously financed by money voted by Parliament Scheme for the general benefit 36.11Levies upon an industry for purposes beneficial to that industry are regarded as not covered by the rules of financial procedure and so do not require authorisation by Ways and Means resolution. The same applies to fees reasonably charged for the provision of services. Examples of these two exempt categories are given at paras 36.19 and 36.20. Legislation, however, frequently makes provision for the imposition of other types of fees or payment which, although not taxes in a strict sense, have enough of the characteristics of taxation to require to be treated as ‘charges upon the people’ and therefore to be authorised by a Ways and Means resolution moved by a Minister. This distinction between the types of payments which are or are not covered by the rules of financial procedure is not always straightforward in practice. The following sections give examples of the circumstances in which a Ways and Means resolution will normally be required.

Raising revenue 36.12A Ways and Means resolution will normally be required where the primary, or a significant, purpose of imposing the payment is to raise revenue, over and above the cost of any service to which the payment is related, and in particular where no defined limit is set to the payment: for example, provision requiring the holders of broadcasting licences to make payments (of unspecified amounts) in respect of those licences.1 In the case of the Trade Marks Bill [Lords] 1993–94, fees payable to the Patent Office Trading Fund were held to require authorisation by Ways and Means resolution, because the trading fund was required to achieve an operating surplus and part of any such surplus was subject to transfer to the Consolidated Fund under ministerial direction.2 In the case of the Energy Bill [Lords] 2003–04, a power given to the Secretary of State to fix charges at an appropriate level, having regard to the costs that the Secretary of State was likely to incur in carrying out the functions in respect of which the charge was imposed, was held to require authorisation by Ways and Means resolution.3 In the case of the Education and Skills Bill 2007–08, the charging of non-refundable annual fees for the periodic inspections of independent educational institutions was held to require authorisation by Ways and Means resolution, even though: (i) the existence of an inspection regime was of benefit to the institutions as well as for the general benefit, and (ii) the fees were intended to recover no more than the cost of the inspections from the institutions taken as a whole, because in a particular case an institution might be charged a fee that exceeded the cost of the service provided to it, or a fee for a service that was not provided to it.4 In the case of the Health and Social Care Bill 2010–12, the powers of a sector regulator to impose a levy on providers of NHS services for the purpose of raising money to be used for ensuring continuity of service provision when providers went into special administration was held to require authorisation by Ways and Means resolution. The levy was held to have the characteristics of a tax as it was not to the advantage of providers effectively to pay towards funding the services of other providers.5 Ways and Means authorisation was required for levies in the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [Lords] 2017–19 on pension schemes to cover the costs incurred in connection with the establishment and functions of a single financial guidance body's function of providing pensions guidance, which were judged to be akin to taxation because the establishment and operation of the single financial guidance body would be for the general benefit of the public, and not solely in the interests of the industry being regulated. Such authorisation was also required for the imposition by the same Bill of a new fee to cover the costs of the Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers or the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland in connection with the provision of information and advice to members of the public in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, because the functions that were being funded, though not UK-wide, would benefit a sufficiently broad part of the public to have the character of a tax.6

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Broadcasting Bill, CJ (1989–90) 74. CJ (1993–94) 300; Government Trading Funds Act 1973, s 4(3). CJ (2003–04) 316; Energy Act 2004, s 188. CJ (2007–08) 693; HC Deb (2007–08) 483, cc 41–2; Education and Skills Act 2008, s 111. CJ (2010–12) 409; Health and Social Care Act 2012, s 139. Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [Lords] 2017–19, Votes and Proceedings, 22 January 2018.

Service previously financed by money voted by Parliament 36.13A Ways and Means resolution will normally be required where the proceeds of the imposition are intended to meet the cost of providing a service which has previously been financed by money voted by Parliament: for example, a provision requiring the payment of fees in respect of applications for, or the grant of, indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom under the Immigration Acts.1 In the case of the Financial Services Bill 1998–99 and 1999–2000, charges imposed by the Financial Services Authority on authorised persons for its own costs, and for the costs of the ombudsman scheme, were regarded as levies upon an industry for its own purposes (see para 36.19 ), but the imposition of charges, payable ultimately into the Consolidated Fund, in respect of the cost of legal assistance which had traditionally been paid for out of Estimates, was held to require authorisation by Ways and Means resolution.2 A Ways and Means resolution was also required for a provision for imposing charges to meet the costs (which were not payable into the Consolidated Fund) of a consumer financial education body.3 In the case of the Education Bill 2001–02, the charging of fees in respect of the inspection of independent schools was held to require authorisation by Ways and Means resolution because, to the extent that schools were already inspected under existing legislation, no charge was made and the costs of inspections were met from the public purse.4 The imposition on providers of railway services of a railway safety levy (the proceeds of which were not payable into the Consolidated Fund) required a Ways and Means resolution, because the money was to be used for expenditure which would otherwise have been met from Estimates, and because the amount paid by a person subject to the levy did not depend on the functions performed in respect of that person.5 Provision enabling the making of contribution orders, whereby certain persons granted a right to publicly-funded legal representation could be required to repay some or all of the cost, also needed a Ways and Means resolution.6 The introduction of fees for public health and medical research functions previously funded from money voted by Parliament required a Ways and Means resolution.7 The charging of fees by financial regulators to meet the cost of expenses connected with United Kingdom membership of international organisations required a Ways and Means resolution.8 The creation of a wide delegated power to charge fees for courts and tribunals in connection with services previously funded from money voted by Parliament required a Ways and Means resolution.9

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Immigration Bill, CJ (1987–88) 157. CJ (1999–2000) 118–19; Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, s 136. Financial Services Bill, CJ (2009–10) 28. Education Bill, CJ (2001–02) 242. Railways and Transport Safety Bill, CJ (2002–03) 148. Criminal Defence Service Bill [Lords], CJ (2005–06) 337. Health and Social Care Bill, CJ (2010–12) 409; Care Bill, CJ (2013–14) 470. Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill, CJ (2012–13) 611. Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, CJ (2013–14) 61.

Scheme for the general benefit 36.14A Ways and Means resolution will normally be required where the payment is imposed in order to meet the cost of enforcing a new regulatory regime which is for the general benefit rather than for the benefit of the industry or profession subject to regulation: for example: the imposition of charges in connection with environmental licences;1 the imposition of charges on certain postal operators to cover the costs of OFCOM's regulation of the postal sector;2 the charging of fees by the licensing authority established to license the provision of adventure activities for young persons;3 the charging of fees by the independent adjudicator for the health professions;4 the charging of fees by the Office of Rail Regulation to the operator of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link;5 the charging, to an applicant for a criminal record certificate, of an additional fee (to cover costs additional to running costs) to obtain certain immigration information about himself or herself;6 the charging of registration fees to certain childcare providers who were not required to register under the existing law;7 the imposition of a levy on gambling licensees, the proceeds of which were not paid directly into the Consolidated Fund but were spent on social projects connected with gambling;8 the creation of a levy on the electricity supply industry which was held to be intended to benefit the industry more generally and consumers.9 Similarly, a Ways and Means resolution was required to authorise a provision which required contributions from air travel organisers to a fund designed to compensate customers in the event of an organizer's financial failure. This was held to be a tax rather than a levy because, although it could be argued that the resultant restoration of public confidence was beneficial to the industry, the Government had absolute discretion to dispose of the assets of the fund in the event of its being wound up, to the benefit of the Consolidated Fund.10 A resolution was also required to authorise a levy on retailers to cover the costs of a Grocery Market Ombudsman, since the Ombudsman regime was principally for the general good rather than the for the benefit of the grocery market.11 It was also decided that a Ways and Means resolution was required in the case of the Merchant Shipping Bill 1973–74, which imposed an obligation on importers of oil to contribute to an international fund for compensation for oil pollution damage (even though the contributions were not to pass through the Consolidated Fund).12

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

For example, Water Bill [Lords], CJ (2002–03) 568. Postal Services Bill, CJ (2010–12) 227. Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) Bill, CJ (1994–95) 159, 277. See also Stg Co Deb (1986–87) Co A, cc 18–19, 55–56. Health and Social Care Bill, CJ (2007–08) 124; HC Deb (2007–08) 470, cc 796–804. Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill, CJ (2007–08) 29. Policing and Crime Bill, CJ (2008–09) 65. Childcare Bill, CJ (2005–06) 301. Gambling Act 2005, s 123; CJ (2003–04) 583. Energy Bill, CJ (2012–13) 432–33. CJ (1974–75) 236. Grocery Market Ombudsman Bill, CJ (2009–10) 366. Provisions in the same bill enabling the Ombudsman to order a party to pay a monetary penalty or to pay costs did not require a Ways and Means resolution. 12. CJ (1973–74) 60. See also Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill [Lords] 1996–97, ibid (1996–97) 213.

Grant of borrowing powers 36.15Provisions in a bill authorising the Government to raise special loans to meet emergencies or particular categories of Supply expenditure require to be based on a Ways and Means resolution.1 The more routine arrangements for meeting the public sector borrowing requirement, by means of Treasury bills and securities, are authorised by permanent statutory provision.2

Footnotes 1. War Loan Bill, CJ (1917–18) 193; ibid (1918) 153; Defence Loans Bill, ibid (1936–37) 130; National Loans Bill, ibid (1942–43) 89; Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Bill, ibid (1958–59) 21. 2. Treasury Bills Act 1877; National Loans Act 1968, ss 12–17 (as amended).

Payments into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund 36.16Taxes are payable into the Consolidated Fund under statute. The payment into the Consolidated Fund of receipts from a statutory source other than taxation is also normally authorised by a Ways and Means resolution; for example, fees charged for certificates of approval under the Disability Discrimination Bill 1994–95,1 or payments in respect of licences to supply electricity or gas.2 Payments into the National Loans Fund must be authorised in the same way; for example, sums received by way of repayment of debt or advances.3 Authorisation is not required where payments into the Consolidated Fund result from a bill but have been authorised by a previous resolution.4 When such receipts are minor matters incidental to the exercise of functions which involve expenditure and there is no other provision in the bill necessitating a Ways and Means resolution, authority for the payment of the receipts into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund usually, for the sake of convenience, forms part of the Money resolution (the ‘paying-in limb’).5

Footnotes 1. CJ (1994–95) 531. 2. Electricity Bill, CJ (1988–89) 49; Gas Bill, ibid (1994–95) 218. 3. For example, Post Office Bill, CJ (1968–69) 20; Local Government etc (Scotland) Bill, ibid (1993–94) 114; Banking Bill, ibid (2007–08) 612. 4. Industrial Development (Financial Assistance) Bill, CJ (2002–03) 194. 5. For example, Statistics and Registration Service Bill, CJ (2006–07) 87; UK Borders Bill, ibid (2006–07) 147; Serious Crime Bill, ibid (2006–07) 398; Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, ibid (2006–07) 552–53. A ‘paying-in limb’ has also authorised the payment into the relevant fund of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act, Pensions Bill, ibid (2006–07) 106.

Local receipts and taxes 36.17The rules of financial procedure do not apply to the receipts of local authorities, when they form the subject of legislation, unless, of course, they are in the form of grants from the Consolidated Fund. Provisions in bills dealing with local loans do not require authorisation by Ways and Means resolution; nor do bills empowering local authorities to levy charges, rates or taxes, even if the proceeds of a charge collected by a local authority are distributed to other public authorities.1 Likewise, Ways and Means authorisation was not required for provisions giving power to require applications for licences to be accompanied by a fee, payable to local authorities in their capacity as licensing authorities and not paid into the Consolidated Fund, even though the power was conferred on, and the level of fees was determined by, the Secretary of State.2 On the other hand, because some of the proceeds of non-domestic rates pass through the Consolidated Fund, the imposition of a liability to such rates requires Ways and Means authorisation.3

Footnotes 1. Violent Crime Reduction Bill (2005–06). 2. Licensing Bill [Lords] (2002–03). 3. See ss 54 and 148 of, and sch 7B to, the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and Caldey Island Bill [Ways and Means], CJ (1989–90) 472. See also Local Government Finance Bill [Ways and Means], ibid (1987–88) 459 (authorising the payment of sums to the Secretary of State in respect of non-domestic rating and the payment of those sums into the Consolidated Fund); and Local Government and Rating Bill [Ways and Means], ibid (1996–97) 31 (authorising any increase in the sums payable into the Consolidated Fund resulting from the imposition of liability for non-domestic rates on the Crown).

Alleviation of taxation 36.18Provisions for the alleviation of taxation are not subject to the rules of financial procedure; so a private Member may bring in a bill to provide relief from taxation (see para 28.15 ), and such a bill does not require to be founded on resolutions. However, the repeal or reduction of a tax, for instance by a provision of the Finance Bill, is sometimes preceded by a specific Ways and Means resolution.1 This procedure is necessary, in particular, if the reduction or relief is to have immediate effect under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.2 In the case of any Finance Bill in respect of which there is an ‘Amendment of the law’ resolution (see para 36.37 ), provisions for the repeal or reduction of taxation or the granting or extension of exemptions or reliefs can be included in the Bill, or inserted by amendment, under the authority of that resolution. Such measures which are wholly relieving can be presented in other bills without any authorisation by Ways and Means resolution. If the requirement for authorisation by Ways and Means resolution is not to apply, a scheme for the alleviation of taxation must not include any incidental increase of the burden upon any taxpayer, however indirect or relatively insignificant that increase may be.3 It is customary to include among the Budget resolutions one authorising any incidental or consequential changes to any duty or tax (including any changes having retrospective effect) which may arise from provisions designed in general to afford relief from taxation.4

Footnotes 1. For example, General betting duty (rate) and Vehicle excise duty (old vehicles), CJ (1995–96) 44, 46. 2. See, for example, Votes and Proceedings, 28 November 2017 (Stamp duty land tax (relief for first-time buyers)). 3. Thus, on 12 April 1916, the Chairman, in allowing an amendment to be moved in committee on the Finance (New Duties) Bill with the object of altering the method of levying a new tax, insisted that the amendment should be so framed as not to increase the charge that would be imposed on any individual payer of the tax, HC Deb (1916) 81, c 1812. 4. For example, Votes and Proceedings, 1 November 2018 (Incidental provision etc).

Levies upon an industry for its own purposes 36.19Levies upon employers in a particular industry for the purpose of forming a fund used to finance activities beneficial to the industry are not normally regarded as charges upon the people, provided they are so framed as not to fall into the categories outlined at paras 36.11 –36.14. The following examples may be given of provisions which have been treated as falling within this rule and therefore as not requiring authorisation by Ways and Means resolution: the imposition of a levy on persons engaged in the white fish industry to finance the White Fish Authority;1 a levy on bookmakers for purposes connected with the advancement of horse racing;2 a levy on employers in a particular industry to finance the activities of a training board for that industry;3 provision for registration fees to be paid by veterinary drug merchants, to be used for the purpose of maintaining or improving standards in the industry;4 the charging of fees by an inshore fishing and conservation authority for fishing permits, the existence of a regime for conserving fish stocks being for the benefit of local fishermen as well for the general benefit;5 the requirement on higher education institutions to pay fees to the operator of a student complaints scheme (and to the Secretary of State if he were specified as the person to review complaints in the event of the operator's ceasing to provide the scheme).6

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Sea Fish Industry Act 1951, s 15. Betting Levy Act 1961. See also CJ (1972–73) 76. Industrial Training Act 1964, s 4. Animal Health and Welfare Act 1984, s 14. Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, s 156. Higher Education Act 2004, ss 15, 18.

Fees imposed for services rendered by departments 36.20Payments which are intended to do no more than cover the expenses of a government department in performing services for the public or sections of the public, and are retained by the department, are not regarded as charges.1 Such payments may take the form of fees or licences. This rule is not allowed to legitimise payments so disproportionate to the cost of the services rendered or so broadly based as to amount to taxation (see para 36.12 ).2 If the power to impose payments is not constrained by the bill, a statement as to the level at which the payments are to be set is included in the explanatory notes. The following are examples of fees and licence payments which have been regarded as falling within this exemption and have therefore been enacted without Ways and Means authorisation: fees for import and export licences and certificates under the Plant Health Acts;3 fees levied on members of a profession under a statutory registration scheme;4 fees in respect of the assessment and collection of child support maintenance, and payment of interest on arrears;5 payments by registered social landlords in respect of registration fees and subscriptions to cover costs of housing complaint schemes,6 and fees paid by registered social landlords to the Audit Commission for inspections of their services;7 charges paid by police authorities or by fire and rescue authorities for the use of equipment, facilities or services provided by the Secretary of State;8 charges paid by local authorities to NHS bodies to reimburse the National Health Service for its costs in accommodating a patient who is ready to be discharged but for whom the local authority has not arranged the necessary community care services.9

Footnotes 1. For the authority for this procedure, see para 34.11. Cf also SO No 79(2). 2. The payment for the issue of a licence granted by a government department does not require a Ways and Means resolution if it is a small fee of an administrative character, HC Deb (1917–18) 100, c 164; ibid (1920) 136, c 1000. 3. Agriculture Act 1986, s 3. 4. For example, Osteopaths Act 1993, s 6; Chiropractors Act 1994, s 6. 5. Child Support Act 1991, ss 41, 47. 6. Housing Act 1996, s 3, sch 2, para 11. 7. Local Government Act 2003, s 109 (which inserted s 41B of the Audit Commission Act 1998). 8. Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, s 23; Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, s 29. 9. Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc) Act 2003, s 6.

National Insurance contributions 36.21To the extent that they are payable into the National Insurance Fund (see para 35.9 ), contributions paid by earners, employers and others under the provisions of social security legislation are not regarded as charges upon the people or as subject to the rules of financial procedure. An increase in the rate of contributions, therefore, does not by itself require authorisation by a Ways and Means resolution. However, an amount known as the National Health Service allocation is deducted from National Insurance contributions and retained by the Secretary of State before the residue of the contributions is paid into the National Insurance Fund.1 A Ways and Means resolution is accordingly required to authorise any increase in the proportion of contributions to be deducted by way of National Health Service allocation, even though that allocation does not pass through the Consolidated Fund.2 When a National Insurance surcharge was introduced, payable directly into the Consolidated Fund, the bill imposing it was founded upon a Ways and Means resolution.3 A bill to increase National Insurance contributions and to apply the increases towards the cost of the National Health Service was likewise founded upon a Ways and Means resolution.4

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

Social Security Administration Act 1992, s 162. For example, Social Security Bill, CJ (1984–85) 52; Social Security (Contributions) Bill, ibid (1993–94) 87. CJ (1976–77) 17. CJ (2001–02) 526.

Provisions authorised by existing law 36.22Just as it has been ruled that provision for a charge upon public funds does not require a Money resolution if it is a variant of and in substitution for a provision authorised by a previous statute (see para 35.3 ), so it has been ruled that a scheme for raising a loan did not require to be preceded by a Ways and Means resolution, since it was covered by powers of borrowing conferred by a previous Act and in substitution for the particular scheme authorised by that Act.1 On the same basis, a tax authorised by a Finance Act and subsequently suspended has been re-imposed by a later bill without a Ways and Means resolution.2 Provisions for the creation of a new statutory corporation as the successor to an existing body which was to be dissolved, where the two bodies were to be treated as the same person for tax purposes, so that the new body became potentially liable (on any disposal of an asset transferred from the old body) to a greater amount of tax than it would otherwise have had to pay, did not need to be authorised by a Ways and Means resolution, because the tax provisions were merely part of the machinery involved in converting the old body into the new body.3 The levying of fees in respect of anything dealt with by the Supreme Court, in connection with the replacement by that body of the House of Lords in its judicial capacity, where the charging of fees was already authorised, was not treated as authorised by the existing law, and a Ways and Means resolution was accordingly required to authorise it.4

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

See American Loan Bill 1914–16, HC Deb (1914–16) 74, cc 1219, 1272. Finance Act 1920, s 62 and Finance (No 2) Act 1915, s 49. Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, s 93. Constitutional Reform Act 2005, s 52; CJ (2004–05) 92.

Fines and penalties 36.23Fines, and civil sanctions equivalent to criminal penalties, are not regarded as charges. Examples which have not required Ways and Means authorisation include: financial penalties imposed on employers who had failed to meet their statutory obligation to pay the national minimum wage;1 penalties imposed by a fixed penalty notice on parents whose child has been excluded from school and is in a public place during school hours;2 penalties imposed on suppliers of heating fuel who fail to meet targets relating to supply from renewable heat sources;3 confiscation orders made against defendants who have benefited from their criminal conduct;4 powers given to the Information Commissioner to impose new penalties for failure to comply with data protection legislation which were considered to be equivalent to criminal penalties.5 But Ways and Means authorisation was required for: a provision allowing the Gambling Commission to require a licensee to pay a penalty for breaching a condition of their licence, the penalty being paid into the Consolidated Fund after certain deductions;6 the imposition of penalties on water companies, which were to be paid into the Consolidated Fund, and where interest might be charged on unpaid penalties;7 penalties imposed by Employment Tribunals and costs orders and penalties imposed by the Competition and Markets Authority which were to be paid into the Consolidated Fund;8 penalties that could be imposed by the Oil and Gas Authority to be paid into the Consolidated Fund, which were held to require Ways and Means cover because of the relationship between those penalties and certain regulatory requirements;9 penalties to be imposed for non-compliance with conditions imposed by an authority, which were not subject to any other authorisation or process; in such a case, financial penalties were considered to have the character of a tool for deterring non-compliance with conditions, rather than a quasi-criminal sanction for unlawful behaviour.10

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Employment Act 2008, s 9 (which substituted s 19A of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998). Education and Inspections Act 2006, s 105. Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill 2005–06, cl 10. Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, ss 6, 92. Data Protection Act 2018, ss 155–159. Gambling Act 2005, s 121; CJ (2003–04) 583. Water Act 2003, s 48 (which inserted the Water Industry Act 1991, ss 22A–22F); CJ (2002–03) 568. Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, ss 16, 31, 40, 54 and sch 11, para 1; CJ (2012–13) 45. Energy Act 2016, ss 44–46, Votes and Proceedings, 18 January 2016. Digital Economy Act 2017, ss 7–8, Votes and Proceedings, 13 September 2016.

Charges not effective till applied by subsequent legislation 36.24Provisions in Finance Bills which alter the fiscal law may have the effect of increasing the charge upon the taxpayer, but this increase may be contingent upon the passing of subsequent legislation. In such a case a Ways and Means resolution is required not for the provision authorising the increase, but for the provision which puts it into effect. The following instances may be mentioned: the abolition of the three years' average for the assessment of income tax by the Finance Bill 1926 (put into effect by the Finance Act 1927); the substitution of surtax for supertax by the Finance Bill 1927 (made effective by the Finance Act 1928); the imposition of pay-as-you-earn by the Wage-Earners' Income Tax Bill 1943 (made effective by the Finance Act 1944, s 19(2)). See also Finance Act 1947, s 14(2) which gave effect to various minor provisions relating to income tax contained in bills of the previous session. No Ways and Means resolution was needed to found a clause in the Finance Bill 1967–68 which provided that if arrangements were made in such manner as Parliament might thereafter determine for the holding of a national lottery, nothing in any enactment relating to lotteries should make those arrangements unlawful.

Procedure on Ways and Means resolutions and bills (general) Contents Notice Scope of debate and amendment Inclusion of several duties in one resolution Bills founded on Ways and Means resolutions: the main object rule Relationship between resolutions and bills Debate on bills founded upon resolutions Bills with subsidiary Ways and Means provisions 36.25This section describes the general rules of procedure applying to the consideration of Ways and Means resolutions and the two types of bills associated with such resolutions, namely bills brought in upon such resolutions and bills with subsidiary Ways and Means provisions. The three following sections deal in more detail with: (a) the particular procedures which apply to the Budget and the Finance Bill (including those which arise from the application of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968); (b) bills other than Finance Bills brought in upon Ways and Means resolutions; and (c) amendments to bills brought in upon Ways and Means resolutions.

Notice 36.26Standing Order No 51(1) provides that a Ways and Means motion may be made in the House without notice on any day, as soon as an Address has been agreed to in answer to Her Majesty's speech. This provision is of particular relevance in respect of Budget taxation proposals and other cases where the public interest in minimising loss of revenue through forestalling is paramount.1 In other circumstances it is the practice to give notice of Ways and Means motions in the same way as for other motions. Although, under the Standing Order, formal notice is not required, it has been held contrary to precedent to proceed upon a Ways and Means motion unless an indication of such an intention has been given to the House. This indication may, however, be given in general terms, for example in a business statement. In view of the absence of any need for formal notice, the Chair has allowed a Ways and Means resolution of which notice had been given to be moved in an altered form at the request of the Minister in charge.2

Footnotes 1. Votes and Proceedings, 28 June 2016; HC Deb (28 June 2016) 612, c 263. 2. Horticultural Products (Emergency Duties), HC Deb (1931–32) 260, c 783. For a resolution moved in a different form from that set out in the resolutions published on the day of the Budget, see Company residence and migration, CJ (1987–88) 404; Corporation tax (counteracting tax arbitrage), CJ (2004–05) 283, HC Deb (2004–05) 432, c 48WS; Stamp duty land tax (unit trust schemes), CJ (2005–06) 548, HC Deb (2005–06) 444, cc 41–42WS.

Scope of debate and amendment 36.27Where a bill is to be founded on more than one Ways and Means resolution, only the first such resolution is debated, and the question is put forthwith on all subsequent resolutions (Standing Order No 51(3)). The scope of debate on the first resolution thus includes the subject-matter of all the other resolutions.1 Additional latitude is permitted for the scope of debate on the Budget resolutions (see para 36.34 ). When a resolution has been moved and proposed from the Chair it is in the same position with regard to potential amendment as a resolution recommended by the Crown (on which see para 35.22 ).Thus, the resolution is not amendable in such a way as to increase the charge which it authorises, whether such an amendment is proposed by a private Member or by a Minister. However, where a resolution proposes to reduce a tax rate or increase a relief, it is possible to amend the resolution in such a way as to reduce the relieving effect, provided that it does not involve an increase in the charge compared with the law as it stands prior to the proposed change. Taxing resolutions may be framed in general terms, without specifying the detailed provisions of the clause or clauses to be founded on them. Because the questions upon all resolutions that serve as founding resolutions for a bill brought in upon Ways and Means resolutions other than the first such resolution are put forthwith (Standing Order No 51(3)), it is rarely possible to propose amendments to taxing resolutions. However, if an amendment is offered, it is compared with the terms of the resolution proposed from the Chair, and is ruled out of order if it in any way increases the amount or extends the area of incidence of the charge defined in those terms.2 Similarly, in the case of a Ways and Means resolution which proposed to increase the amount authorised by law to be raised by loan for certain services, amendments for the purpose of extending the services were disallowed.3

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (20 November 2017) 631, c 758. 2. For an amendment selected to a Ways and Means resolution which was the first Budget resolution, see Votes and Proceedings, 1 November 2018. 3. HC Deb (1938–39) 344, c 59.

Inclusion of several duties in one resolution 36.28Objection is taken to the inclusion of several new duties relating to different commodities in a single resolution.1 No objection applies to the imposition of a number of new duties of a similar kind,2 or the renewal at an increased rate of a number of existing taxes,3 by means of a single resolution.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1916) 83, cc 560, 771; ibid (1925) 183, c 1015 ff. For an enabling resolution see ibid (1931–32) 269, c 153 ff. 2. CJ (1909) 151; HC Deb (1909) 4, cc 1467, 1737. 3. CJ (1901) 139; ibid (1916) 108.

Bills founded on Ways and Means resolutions: the main object rule 36.29By virtue of the established practice (which has not been modified in respect of taxing bills in the same way as Standing Order No 50 has modified it in respect of expenditure bills—see para 35.24 ), any bill the main object of which is to impose a charge upon the people must be founded upon resolutions. The tests applied to determine whether or not the main object of a bill is to impose a charge upon the people are similar to those applied in the case of bills which create a charge upon the public revenue (see para 35.25 ). There is, however, less room here for doubtful cases, as taxation for the revenue of the year is concentrated in a single bill, and even when taxation is not primarily for this purpose, it is normally the main purpose of the bill which authorises it. Occasionally, however, general taxing provisions in a bill have been treated as subsidiary. In the Land Commission Bill 1966–67, for example, the imposition of betterment levy was regarded as subsidiary to the establishment of the Land Commission, and accordingly the Ways and Means resolution was agreed to after the second reading of the bill.1 The requirement for a founding Ways and Means resolution does not apply only to the imposition of new taxation. For example, a bill providing for the advance payment, on account, of an existing tax was required to be founded on a Ways and Means resolution.2 An important consequence of the traditional practice described above, taken in conjunction with the rule that a Ways and Means resolution can be moved only by a Minister, is that a private Member may not seek to introduce a bill the main object of which is to impose a charge upon the people. A bill the entire object of which was to grant a temporary relief from taxation was nonetheless founded upon Ways and Means resolutions, because it was desired that the resolutions should have immediate statutory effect under the provisions of the Finance Act 1973, s 50.3

Footnotes 1. CJ (1966–67) 62. See also the Speaker's ruling on the Imports and Exports Regulation Bill 1919, HC Deb (1919) 122, c 211. 2. Petroleum Revenue Tax Bill, CJ (1979–80) 272. 3. Stamp Duty (Temporary Provisions) Bill, CJ (1991–92) 131–32.

Relationship between resolutions and bills 36.30The resolutions on which a bill is founded may be passed on different days. In such a case the usual practice is for the bill to be ordered when the last resolution is passed, with an entry in the Journal recording that it is based as well on earlier resolutions indicated by the days on which they were agreed by the House.1 The Members appointed to bring in the bill are then named and the bill is formally presented. Two bills have been founded upon the same series of resolutions. In certain of these cases there was a resolution common to both bills.2 In other cases, however, there has been no common resolution, and each bill has been founded on separate resolutions in the series.3 In 2005, shortly before a dissolution, the Finance Bill having been withdrawn, certain of the founding resolutions for that Bill were ordered to be read, whereupon a Finance (No 2) Bill was presented upon those resolutions and was immediately proceeded with.4 When a bill is based on Ways and Means resolutions, all its substantive provisions, and not only those which impose taxation, must be covered by the resolutions on which it is brought in.5 A Money resolution required to authorise subsidiary expenditure provisions in such a bill may be among the resolutions on which the bill is founded,6 or may be taken after the second reading of the bill in the normal way.7 If any provisions of a bill are found to go beyond the resolutions on which the bill is founded, further resolutions must be passed before those provisions are considered in committee on the bill (see paras 36.44 –36.46 ), or the bill must be amended so as to conform to the resolutions to which the House has agreed.8

Footnotes 1. CJ (1924) 182. 2. For example, in 1916 the Finance Bill and the Revenue (New Duties) Bill (CJ (1916) 48, 65), and in 1968 the Revenue Bill and the Revenue (No 2) Bill (ibid (1967–68) 65, 93). 3. For example, in 1924 the British Sugar Subsidy Bill and the War Charges (Validity) Bill (CJ (1924–25) 45), and in 1974 the Finance Bill and the Oil Taxation Bill (ibid (1974–75) 68–69). 4. CJ (2004–05) 314; HC Deb (2004–05) 432, c 1431. 5. For example, Erskine Bridge Tolls Bill, CJ (1967–68) 14. 6. Gas Levy Bill, CJ (1980–81) 118; Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill, Votes and Proceedings, 20 November 2017. 7. CJ (1967–68) 37. 8. CJ (1894) 204; Parl Deb (1894) 25, c 982; CJ (1914) 352; HC Deb (1914) 64, c 1973.

Debate on bills founded upon resolutions 36.31With the exception of the Finance Bill, where some latitude is normally permitted (see para 36.40 ), debate on, and any reasoned amendments to, the question for the second and third reading of bills introduced on Ways and Means resolutions are governed by the ordinary rules of relevancy.1 Under Standing Order No 15(1)(a), the proceedings on any stage of a bill brought in upon a Ways and Means resolution (including the Finance Bill) are exempt from interruption and may be proceeded with until any hour, though opposed. In respect of stages subsequent to second reading it is now usual, however, for this exemption to be superseded by the provisions of a programme order.

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1895) 33, c 1376; ibid (1903) 123, c 327; ibid (1905) 146, c 589; ibid (1906) 158, c 355; HC Deb (1918) 107, c 655; ibid (1919) 118, c 439; ibid (1920) 132, cc 1472, 1495.

Bills with subsidiary Ways and Means provisions 36.32Apart from the rare cases when general taxing provisions in a bill have been treated as subsidiary to another, non-revenue raising, purpose (see para 36.29 ), there are other, much more common, instances where subsidiary provisions in a bill require authorisation by Ways and Means resolution.1 Examples include provisions for the payment of receipts into the Consolidated Fund or National Loans Fund,2 and most of the cases where legislation imposes fees or charges which are not general taxation but nevertheless amount to charges on the people.3 As in the case of bills containing clauses involving expenditure, provisions of this nature are printed in italics in the copies of the bill as presented, and cannot be considered in committee until the necessary Ways and Means resolutions have been passed. Under Standing Order No 80, bills containing subsidiary Ways and Means provisions may be proceeded with by the Commons after being brought from the Lords.4 It is not the practice to print in italics provisions involving Ways and Means in bills brought from the Lords. If a motion for a Ways and Means resolution in connection with a bill is made at the same sitting as that at which the bill has been given a second reading, the question is put forthwith, without debate. If the motion is made at any other sitting, the question is put not later than three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings (Standing Order No 52). As in the case of Money resolutions, a Ways and Means resolution may be moved at any stage before the consideration of the provisions (or amendments) to which it relates. Thus, a Ways and Means resolution may be moved subsequent to second reading, but prior to committee stage in respect of a Private Member's Bill,5 prior to report stage to provide cover for amendments to be moved at report stage,6 and prior to consideration of Lords amendments where cover is needed for amendments made by that House.7

Footnotes 1. Provisions in the Currency and Bank Notes Bill 1928 involving the payment of receipts into the Exchequer, which accordingly required to be authorised by a Ways and Means resolution, were regarded as authorised by one of the resolutions on which the Finance Bill of that session was founded, CJ (1928) 121, 138. 2. For example, Social Security Bill [Ways and Means], CJ (1992–93) 279. 3. See paras 36.11 –36.14. 4. For example, Pensions Bill [Lords], CJ (1994–95) 292. 5. For example, Parking (Code of Practice) Bill, Votes and Proceedings, 17 July 2018. 6. For example, Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, CJ (2013–14) 301. 7. For example, Scotland Bill, Votes and Proceedings, 23 March 2016.

The Budget and the Finance Bill Contents Debate on Budget resolutions Finance Bills not arising from Budgets and out-of-turn Budgets Provisional collection of taxes The ‘Amendment of the law’ resolution Procedure in the absence of the ‘Amendment of the law’ resolution Scope of Finance Bills Scope of debate on second and third reading of the Finance Bill Finance Bill: committee stage A Bill of Aids and Supplies 36.33The consideration of the annual financial statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the ensuing resolutions is the most important business of Ways and Means. Since the introduction of the ‘unified Budget’ in 1993 (see para 33.29 ), the Chancellor's statement has included details of the Government's plans for public expenditure as well as taxation. But the subsequent proceedings of the House, and the formal proposals which the House is called upon to approve, are concerned predominantly with the taxation provisions of the Budget. The Chancellor's statement1 surveys the state of the economy, reports on economic and fiscal forecasts prepared by the Office for Budget Responsibility and outlines proposed changes to taxation and expenditure. The Budget documents described at para 33.30 prepared by the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Treasury are made available immediately at the conclusion of the Budget statement, as are the terms of the Budget resolutions.2 The resolutions which usually form the core of the Chancellor's proposals are the resolutions for the continuance, during the forthcoming financial year, of income tax and corporation tax, and the imposition of any new duties or increases of permanent duties necessary for the purpose of adjusting the revenue to the expenditure of the year; and upon these and any other necessary resolutions, the bill is introduced which gives legislative effect to the Government's tax proposals.

Footnotes 1. For a Budget statement delivered in answer to an urgent question, see HC Deb (1988–89) 149, cc 293–309. 2. See eg HC Deb (1967–68) 761, c 251; ibid (1987–88) 129, c 993, etc. When an error was found in the text of the Budget resolutions made available to the House, the House was informed and a corrected text provided, HC Deb (2002–03) 403, c 296.

Debate on Budget resolutions 36.34The scope of debate in respect of the Budget resolutions, on which the Finance Bill is introduced, differs from that for other debates on Ways and Means resolutions since the House must be at liberty to consider the resolutions proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as forming, together with existing taxation, a complete scheme of revenue to be debated as a whole; and must also be at liberty to consider expenditure in its relation to the burden of providing the necessary revenue. A general debate, which is on the broadest lines, is accordingly allowed, covering all these matters and comprising all the Ways and Means and any Money or procedure resolutions1 required to authorise the provisions of the resulting Finance Bill. The debate takes place upon the first resolution proposed—which has generally been the general resolution providing for the amendment of the fiscal law.2 It usually begins with a speech from the Leader of the Opposition, and during that speech and the speech by the spokesperson for the second largest opposition party interventions are not taken.3 The debate is generally held over four days, at the end of which the question is put on the first resolution, and then under Standing Order No 51(3) the questions are put forthwith upon all the resolutions upon which the bill is to be brought in.4 The consequences of this procedure are, on the one hand, to permit mature consideration of the Budget resolutions (which by their nature must be secret until the financial statement is made) before the House is required to pronounce upon them, but, on the other hand, to prevent individual consideration of the resolutions and to deny the opportunity of amending any of the resolutions save the first. If two bills are founded on the same series of resolutions (see para 36.30 ), the first resolution for the second bill does not have to be put forthwith under Standing Order No 51(3), and a special motion needs to be passed at the commencement of public business to make this obligatory.5

Footnotes 1. See para 36.39. 2. In 1929, the resolution for the repeal of the tea duty was used for this purpose, CJ (1928–29) 211; in the first Budget of 1974–75 the resolution for the capital transfer tax, ibid (1974–75) 60; in the first Budget of 1997–98 the resolution for the windfall tax, ibid (1997–98) 87; in the Budget of June 2010 the resolution for the rates of capital gains tax, ibid (2010–12) 46; and in the Budgets of November 2017 and October 2018 the resolution for income tax (charge), Votes and Proceedings, 22 November 2017 and 29 October 2018. 3. HC Deb (8 July 2015) 598, cc 321, 348; ibid (22 November 2017) 631, cc 1046, 1071. 4. For example, Votes and Proceedings, 28 November 2017. 5. CJ (1974–75) 65.

Finance Bills not arising from Budgets and out-of-turn Budgets 36.35In any case where the dissolution is expected or decided upon soon after a Budget takes place, negotiations between parties often result in some provisions of a Finance Bill being dropped where they are not covered by provisional collection of taxes resolutions (on which see para 36.36 ).1 In such cases, it is most common for Ways and Means resolutions to be introduced in the subsequent Parliament to serve as founding resolutions for a subsequent Finance Bill which does not arise from a Budget.2 In such cases, a single day debate generally takes place.3 In other cases, in contrast, a second Budget has taken place following a General Election, leading to a subsequent Finance Bill.4 In September 2010 (the previous Budget statement having been made in June), notice was given of further resolutions, including an ‘Amendment of the law’ resolution, which were agreed to after a brief debate, and a second Finance Bill was ordered to be brought in.5

Footnotes 1. For example, Votes and Proceedings, 25 April 2017. 2. CJ (1974–75) 65; ibid (1997–98) 92; ibid (2005–06) 28–38; Votes and Proceedings, 6 September 2017. 3. HC Deb (6 September 2017) 628, cc 196–255. In 2005 certain resolutions were re-introduced following a dissolution and agreed to without debate, ibid (2005–06) 434, c 826. 4. CJ (1979–80) 49; ibid (2010–12) 46; Votes and Proceedings, 8 July 2015. A Budget also took place in July 1997, the first Budget since November 1996, but presaging a return to Spring Budgets: CJ (1997–98) 87. 5. HC Deb (2010–12) 515, cc 906–11; CJ (2010–12) 172–74.

Provisional collection of taxes 36.36As explained above, the practice following the Budget statement is for a general debate to take place on the first Ways and Means resolution and for the questions to be put on all the resolutions upon which the Finance Bill is to be founded at the end of the last day of the Budget debate. Provision has first to be made, however, for giving immediate provisional validity to those proposals which are to come into force (many of them on Budget day itself) before specific statutory authority can be obtained. This is done under the terms of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968 (as amended), or under the Finance Act 1973, s 50 (as amended). The Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968, s 5 provides that provisional validity may be given to specified Budget resolutions by means of a single motion. This omnibus motion is made immediately after the conclusion of the Budget speech and the question on it is put forthwith under Standing Order No 51(2).1 The Budget resolutions thus given provisional force must be passed within the next ten days on which the House sits for their validity to be continued. The Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968 does not apply to new taxes. Section 1 provides, in the case of income tax, corporation tax, value added tax, customs and excise duties and certain other duties and levies specified in that section, for the renewal for a further period of any tax in force (with or without modifications) and for the variation or abolition of any existing tax. Section 3 of the Act provides for securing new duties of customs and excise. Section 1, as amended by the Finance Act 2011, s 88,2 lays down that resolutions passed which contain a declaration that it is expedient in the public interest that they should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Act, shall be valid for a period of seven months. A resolution ceases to have statutory effect, however, if a bill varying or renewing the taxes to which it relates is not read a second time by the House within the next 30 days on which the House sits after the resolution is agreed to. The resolution also ceases to have statutory effect in the event of a dissolution of Parliament, or on the passage of an Act renewing or varying the tax,3 or on the rejection of the provisions giving effect to the resolution. If the resolution is modified by the House it has effect as so modified. The application of the Act is limited by s 1(8) to one resolution of the same effect during the same session. The Finance Act 1973, s 50, as amended by the Finance Act 1993, s 207, lays down broadly similar provisions in relation to changes in stamp duty. Since section 1 relates only to pre-existing taxes and duties, it is necessary to make separate provision for the protection of the revenue to be obtained from new duties of customs and excise. Section 3 of the Act provides that, in respect of new duties which have been imposed by means of resolutions as from a prescribed date, provision may be made for securing their collection from that date by the requiring of security in the case of customs duties and by regulations to be made by the Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs in the case of excise duties.

Footnotes 1. See the Speaker's statement, HC Deb (1967–68) 761, c 251. 2. The changes made in 2011 were principally concerned to provide for carry-over of Finance Bills between sessions (on which see also SO No 80B and para 30.32 ). Additionally, they made provision for cases where a bill is not re-introduced in a new session and removed references to specific months of the year; on the changing timing of the Budget, see para 33.29. 3. In 1981, an increase in the excise duty on hydro-carbon oil took immediate effect under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act. When the ensuing Finance Bill was amended to provide for a lower rate of increase, it was further amended to provide that the full increase should have effect for the period between Budget day and 2 July of that year (see Finance Act 1981, s 4).

The ‘Amendment of the law’ resolution 36.37As mentioned in para 36.34, the resolutions on which the Finance Bill is founded have generally been headed by a resolution in general terms and entitled simply ‘Amendment of the law’. This takes the form of a declaration ‘that it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance’, followed by a series of restrictive provisions aimed at excluding specified types of amendments from being proposed to the bill, notably amendments seeking to zero-rate or otherwise provide relief from value added tax for particular classes of goods or services.1 The ‘Amendment of the law’ resolution when included among the Budget resolutions has generally been the first such resolution and thus (because of the effect of Standing Order No 51(3), on which see para 36.27 ) the only Budget resolution to which amendments may be proposed. Amendments have accordingly been moved on occasions, seeking either to remove the restrictive provisions altogether,2 or to modify them so as to admit a specified type of value added tax amendment.3 In December 1994, an amendment of the latter kind to the ‘Amendment of the law’ resolution was agreed to by the House, and led to the Government's making significant changes to its tax proposals.4 In March 2016, two amendments were made to the motion to provide for the possibility of amendments allowing specific reliefs from value added tax.5 The ‘Amendment of the law’ resolution gives cover for the inclusion in the Finance Bill of tax administration and relief provisions not otherwise authorised by specific Ways and Means resolutions. But it has been ruled that the resolution is not sufficient authority for the inclusion of a taxing provision not separately covered by a specific resolution.6 Nor does the ‘Amendment of the law’ resolution give authority for any extension in the traditional scope of a Finance Bill (see para 36.39 below).

Footnotes 1. Between 1950 and 1972, similar restrictions in relation to purchase tax were incorporated in the resolution. For similar restrictions embodied in a separate founding resolution for the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill, see Votes and Proceedings, 20 November 2017 (Value added tax and excise duty on goods (Ways and Means)). 2. CJ (1982–83) 247. 3. CJ (1995–96) 42. 4. HC Deb (1994–95) 251, cc 243–48, 280–83; CJ (1994–95) 39–40, 63–66. 5. Votes and Proceedings, 22 March 2016; HC Deb (22 March 2016) 607, c 1481. 6. HC Deb (1913) 56, cc 319, 1010.

Procedure in the absence of the ‘Amendment of the law’ resolution 36.38On occasions, the ‘Amendment of the law’ resolution has not been included among the Budget resolutions. This has most commonly been the case when a dissolution is anticipated,1 but is has also applied after second or additional Budgets of the year following a General Election,2 when Ways and Means resolutions to serve as founding resolutions for a Finance Bill have not followed a Budget,3 and in other circumstances following the November 2017 and October 2018 Budgets.4 In any such case, the first Budget resolution serves as the basis for debate in the same way as would the Amendment of the Law resolution if that were the first resolution. The first Budget resolution remains the only resolution to which amendments can be proposed.5 In such instances, the scope for amendment of the bill is strictly limited to what is authorised by the specific resolutions on which the bill is founded: see para 36.30.

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

CJ (1944–45) 138; ibid (1954–55) 133; ibid (1978–79) 271–72. CJ (1997–98) 92; ibid (2010–12) 46. CJ (1974–75) 65; Votes and Proceedings, 6 September 2017. Votes and Proceedings, 22 November 2017 and 29 October 2018. See, for example, Votes and Proceedings, 1 November 2018.

Scope of Finance Bills 36.39The long title of a Finance Bill normally describes it as a bill ‘to grant certain duties, to alter other duties, and to amend the law relating to the National Debt and the Public Revenue, and to make further provision in connection with finance’. These words must be interpreted in the light of the functions of the former Committee of Ways and Means, on the resolutions of which Finance Bills were formerly founded. Although the Committee itself was abolished in 1967, its traditional terms of reference, ‘to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the supply to be granted to Her Majesty’, continue to determine the proper scope of a Finance Bill. Thus, the public revenue and finance referred to in the long title is that of the central government only, and does not include the financing of other bodies within the public sector, such as local authorities; and the expenditure for which the revenue is to be raised is central government expenditure as a whole, rather than particular items or purposes of expenditure. A provision to authorise borrowing or the imposition of a charge for a specified expenditure purpose would, therefore, be outside the scope of a Finance Bill. The scope of a Finance Bill is not limited to the imposition and alteration of taxes for the purpose of adjusting the revenue of a particular year. It is not intended to be an annual Act in the same sense as the Appropriation Act, but normally includes many provisions of a permanent character for the regulation of fiscal machinery and other purposes. But, although the taxation it imposes may extend beyond the immediate financial year, a Finance Bill is regarded as exceeding its proper scope if it imposes a tax which is not to be charged until after the close of the current financial year. The same restriction applies to any taxation change which is not to take effect until a future financial year, including reliefs and changes in tax machinery or administration.1 To avoid this limitation on the scope of Finance Bills, provisions are frequently included in founding resolutions which expressly authorise the inclusion of the proposals in the bill ‘notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House’.2 Such provisions are usually included among the resolutions on which the bill is founded, but may be introduced at a later stage.3 Provisions not essentially connected with national finance, or not incidental to the taxing or administrative provisions of a Finance Bill, are outside the scope of a Finance Bill, and their inclusion might justify an accusation of ‘tacking’ (see para 37.17 ). From time to time, however, resolutions are passed, similarly beginning with the words ‘notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House’, to authorise the inclusion in the bill of provisions which, while not falling within the strict definition of matters appropriate to a Finance Bill, are nevertheless sufficiently closely related to those matters to justify inclusion. Examples of provisions which have been authorised by procedure resolutions of this kind in recent years are: general provisions with respect to the finances of government trading funds;4 provisions relating to National Loans Fund interest and loans;5 provision about security for excise duties charged in other EU Member States;6 provisions for the mutual exchange with other governments of information necessary for carrying out laws concerning direct taxes;7 provision for allowing tax credits to be paid to companies in respect of research and development expenditure relating to vaccines or medicines8 or of expenditure on film making activities;9 provision for the extension of relief for makers of television programmes to new types of programming;10 provision requiring manufacturers of tobacco products not to facilitate smuggling,11 and provision for a registration scheme for raw tobacco;12 provision for first-year tax credits to be paid in connection with first-year qualifying expenditure under the Capital Allowances Act 2001;13 certain provisions in connection with anti-avoidance, including a single anti-avoidance regime covering social security contributions as well as taxes14 and measures relating to country-by-country reporting and publication of tax strategies by certain companies.15 By practice, such resolutions are not permitted in respect of matters which are so far removed from central finance as to make their inclusion in the Finance Bill indefensible.

Footnotes 1. However, an amendment to postpone a proposed change in tax machinery from the immediate financial year to the subsequent one has been ruled to be in order, HC Deb (1995–96) 270, c 506 ff. 2. For example, Votes and Proceedings, 1 November 2018, resolutions 6, 15, 18, 34 and 62. It was formerly the practice to make such provision in a separate resolution: see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 781. 3. For example, CJ (1984–85) 549. 4. Finance Act 1991, s 119; CJ (1990–91) 296; Finance Act 1993, s 210; CJ (1992–93) 518; Finance Act 2001, s 108; CJ (2000–01) 216. 5. Finance Act 1983, ss 44 and 45; CJ (1982–83) 265; Finance (No 2) Act 1992, s 80; CJ (1992–93) 41. 6. Finance Act 2000, s 27; CJ (1999–2000) 280. 7. Finance Act 2000, ss 146 and 147; CJ (1999–2000) 280. 8. Finance Act 2002, s 54; CJ (2001–02) 505. 9. Finance Act 2006, s 38; CJ (2005–06) 550. 10. Finance Act 2015, ss 30 and 31; Votes and Proceedings, 23 March 2015. 11. Finance Act 2006, s 2; CJ (2005–06) 549. 12. Finance Act 2016, s 179; Votes and Proceedings, 22 March 2016. 13. Finance Act 2008, sch 25; CJ (2007–08) 289. 14. Finance Act 2016, s 161 and sch 18; Votes and Proceedings, 22 March 2016.

Misconduct in presence of either House or a committee Contents Members of the public Witnesses 15.3Any disorderly, contumacious or disrespectful conduct in the presence of either House or a committee will constitute a contempt, which may be committed by members of the public, parties, witnesses or by Members of either House.1

Footnotes 1. A Member present at a committee, who is not of the committee or attending in accordance with the provisions of a relevant standing order, must be considered as standing, in most respects, on the same footing as a member of the public.

Scope of debate on second and third reading of the Finance Bill 36.40While the normal rules relating to the scope of debate on second and third reading apply to the Finance Bill as much as to other bills, some latitude is permitted provided that this does not extend to re-opening an entirely general debate on economic policy or public expenditure unrelated to the Bill.1

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1992–93) 228, c 898; ibid (2008–09) 492, c 217.

Finance Bill: committee stage 36.41Committee stage of the Finance Bill is usually divided between the Committee of the whole House and a public bill committee by means of a programme motion (see para 28.83 ),1 except when the imminence of a dissolution has led to such bills being considered entirely in Committee of the whole House.2

Footnotes 1. For example, Votes and Proceedings, 11 December 2017. The Finance Bill 1968 was the first such bill committed to what was then a standing committee. In 1969, the Finance Bill was divided according to what has since become the normal practice. Before the amendment of SO No 63 in 1967, Finance Bills and other bills for imposing taxes were required to be committed to a Committee of the whole House for their committee stage. 2. A Business of the House motion shortly before the 2015 General Election made provision for second reading, as well as Committee of the whole House stage and subsequent stages to be taken on a single day: Votes and Proceedings, 24 March 2015. On 18 April 2017, a programme motion tabled in respect of the Finance Bill and providing for a split committal was not moved after the Prime Minister's announcement that she would invite the House to agree to a resolution for an early General Election, and provision for committal to a Committee of the whole House and for subsequent stages was made in a Business of the House motion on a subsequent day: Votes and Proceedings, 24 April 2017.

A Bill of Aids and Supplies 36.42A Finance Bill is a Bill of Aids and Supplies (on which see para 33.21 ). This is reflected in the words of enactment (on which see para 26.9 ) and the form of announcing Royal Assent by Commission (on which see para 30.38 ).

Bills other than Finance Bills founded on Ways and Means resolutions 36.43Although the Finance Bill is the most common form of bill brought in upon Ways and Means resolutions, other bills the main object of which is to create a charge upon the people may also be brought forward by the Government, which must also be brought in upon such resolutions. Recent examples include the National Insurance Contributions Bill 2001–02, the HGV Road User Bill 2012–13, the Stamp Duty Land Tax Bill 2014–15 and the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill 2017–19. In each case, a debate has taken place on the founding resolution or resolutions.1 Under modern practice, all bills brought in upon Ways and Means resolutions are Bills of Aids and Supplies (on which see para 33.21 ).2 This is reflected in the words of enactment, which can sometimes take the same form as for a Finance Bill, or can take a specific form reflecting the provisions of the bill.3 This is also reflected in the form of announcing Royal Assent by Commission (on which see para 30.38 ).

Footnotes 1. For example, HC Deb (23 October 2012) 551, cc 861–90; ibid (4 December 2014) 589, cc 450–77; ibid (20 November 2017) 631, cc 758–826. 2. On former practice, whereby certain bills were viewed as having the characteristics of a Bill of Aids and Supplies, but not classified as such (including the Safeguarding of Industries Bill 1921, which was amended by the House of Lords, and the Severn Bridge Tolls Bill 1964–65, which was viewed as containing provisions susceptible to amendment in the Lords), see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 791. 3. For bills with the same enacting formula as a Finance Bill, see the four bills cited in Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 791 and the HGV Road User Act 2013. For variant forms, see the Stamp Duty Land Tax Act 2015, the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 and the example cited in para 26.9.

The scope for amendment 36.44The content, and therefore the scope for amendment, of a bill founded upon resolutions is defined by those resolutions. It is out of order to seek to introduce new material (even of a non-charging nature) which is not covered by the founding resolutions. In the case of the Finance Bill, the effect of this restriction has usually been limited by the inclusion among the founding resolutions of one providing for the general amendment of the fiscal law (see para 36.37 ). In the absence of such a general resolution, the scope for amendment may, depending on the way the founding resolutions are drafted, be limited severely. For example, the Finance (Income Tax Reliefs) Bill 1977 was a purely relieving measure, brought in on specific resolutions covering the reliefs specified in the Bill, and accordingly no amendments extending the reliefs were in order.1 The absence or presence of an ‘Amendment of the Law’ resolution does not affect the wider rules concerning amendments with a charging effect. It is out of order to seek to amend a bill founded upon Ways and Means resolutions so as to increase the rate or extend the incidence of a tax beyond that authorised in the relevant founding Ways and Means resolution. However, it is possible to amend a provision which reduces a tax rate or increases a relief to reduce the relieving effect, provided that the amendment does not involve an increase in the charge compared with the law as it stands prior to the proposed change. The scope for amendment of a bill founded upon resolutions may, however, be extended by further resolutions agreed to by the House after the bill has been introduced. For the purpose of linking such a resolution with the bill to which it relates, the House on agreeing to the resolution orders an instruction to the committee on the bill enabling it to amend the bill accordingly; this may be done after the committee has begun consideration of the bill.2 On the other hand, if such a resolution is agreed to after the bill has been reported from a committee, no instruction is required because the House does not need to instruct itself.3

Footnotes 1. CJ (1977–78) 22–23. 2. For example, CJ (1993–94) 245. See also ibid (1894) 204, 236; Parl Deb (1894) 24, c 1201. 3. For example, CJ (1992–93) 742.

Amendments in committee and on report 36.45Amendments in committee on the Finance Bill and other bills founded upon Ways and Means resolutions are governed in the first place by the ordinary rules applicable to bills generally (see paras 28.103 –28.105 ); but in addition there are other considerations which arise from the special procedural characteristics of the Finance Bill. When one of the resolutions on which a Finance Bill is founded is the ‘Amendment of the law’ resolution, no instruction is needed to enable the committee to receive new clauses for the remission of taxes in force which are not dealt with by the bill. Where, however, there is no ‘Amendment of the law’ resolution, no amendment may be moved unless the relief proposed is covered by one of the Ways and Means resolutions on which the bill is founded. Nor may an amendment so covered exceed any figure prescribed in the relevant resolution.1 When the ‘Amendment of the law’ resolution had been agreed to by the House in a restricted form so as to exclude the consideration of import duties imposed by another Act of the same session, amendments for the remission of those duties were not in order.2 The restrictions now regularly incorporated in the ‘Amendment of the law’ resolution have a similar effect in relation to amendments proposing partial remissions of value added tax.3

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1954–55) 540, cc 997–98. 2. CJ (1931–32) 177. 3. See eg HC Deb (1995–96) 274, c 1120.

Rules forbidding the increase of charges 36.46Amendments must not exceed the scope, increase the amount or extend the incidence of any charge upon the people, defined by the terms of the Ways and Means resolutions by which the provisions proposed to be amended are authorised.1 The rule is essentially the same as that in connection with financial resolutions explained at paras 28.105, 28.113 and 35.27. Where a Ways and Means resolution is framed in general rather than specific terms, modern practice is not to permit a private Member to propose an amendment the effect of which would be to increase the liability to tax of any person beyond what has been proposed by the Crown (see para 33.20 ). If it is desired to move new clauses or amendments which exceed the terms of the relevant Ways and Means resolutions, further resolutions must be passed, with instructions to the committee on the bill before such new clauses or amendments can be considered.2 If it is desired to re-commit the bill and then proceed on the same day to the report stage, an order must be made to set aside the practice of the House regarding the interval between the stages of a bill brought in on a financial resolution (see para 33.23 ).3

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1894) 24, c 1219; ibid (1901) 96, c 473; ibid (1904) 136, c 591; ibid (1904) 138, c 527; CJ (1909) 473; HC Deb (1909) 11, c 1763; ibid (1912–13) 41, cc 2425, 2451; ibid (1914) 64, c 690; ibid (1914–16) 75, cc 202, 204, 217; ibid (1916) 83, c 941; ibid (1919) 118, c 325; ibid (2005–06) 437, c 57. 2. For example, CJ (1992–93) 79, 679. 3. CJ (1974) 276.

Charge in bill less than that authorised by resolution 36.47When a tax is imposed in a bill, subject to alleviations of any kind which were not expressed in the resolution authorising the tax, or for a shorter period than the period (if any) specified in the resolution, amendments are in order in committee on the bill to omit the alleviation1 or extend the period2 up to the limit laid down by the resolution.

Footnotes 1. For example, HC Deb (1914–16) 75, c 218; ibid (1981–82) 22, cc 737–65 etc. 2. HC Deb (1914–16) 75, c 249.

Provisions reducing existing charges 36.48The rule that the repeal or reduction of an existing tax, though it may be embodied in a Ways and Means resolution, is not subject to the rules of financial procedure, applies to the committee and also to the report stages of bills. Hence, at these stages amendments are in order to reduce or omit reliefs or other alleviations of existing taxes proposed by the bill.1 Cases of unalloyed reduction of existing taxes should, however, be distinguished from cases where, in a Ways and Means resolution, an existing tax is increased in conjunction with the increase of an existing, or creation of a new, alleviation such as a relief. In such a case, the new or increased alleviation could not be reduced or omitted without an increase of the whole charge, of which it is regarded as forming a limiting condition.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1914–16) 76, c 1074; ibid (1917–18) 95, c 829.

Introduction to the role of the House of Lords in financial procedure 37.1The financial powers of the House of Lords are limited, first by the ancient ‘rights and privileges’ of the House of Commons, and second by the terms of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949.

Concurrence in Supply and taxation 37.2Stated generally, the role of the Lords in the grant of Supply for the service of the Crown, and in the imposition of taxation, is to agree, and not to initiate or amend. Thus, while the Queen’s Speech on the opening of a session is addressed to both Houses of Parliament, the demand for Supply is directed to the Commons; the Lords may scrutinise the financial legislation which that demand creates but only within limits. Their concurrence is sought but, if withheld, it may be dispensed with in respect of bills certified under s 1 of the Parliament Act 1911.

Insistence by the Lords on the financial powers reserved to them 37.3While the Lords acquiesce in the Commons' claim to financial privilege,1 they in their turn claim the proper recognition of their constitutional responsibilities in those matters of finance reserved to them. So for instance they regularly debate Money bills (other than Supply and Appropriation Bills) at second reading and make amendments with financial implications to other bills.

Footnotes 1. The Lords resolution of 1702 condemning the practice of ‘tacking’ (see para 37.17 ) virtually admitted their inability to amend bills of Supply and it is explicit in the Companion to the Standing Orders of the House of Lords (2017 edn), para 8.197.

Messages from the Crown for pecuniary aid 37.4The Lords have taken exception if a message from the Crown for pecuniary aid is sent exclusively to the Commons,1 and it is a longestablished custom to present such messages to both Houses, if possible on the same day, addressing the demand for the grant to the Commons, and desiring the concurrence of the Lords, a procedure which maintains the constitutional relations of the two Houses of Parliament in matters of Supply. The reply made by the Lords to the message is an Address to the Crown, declaring their willingness to concur in the measures which may be adopted by the other House.2

Footnotes 1. Messages respecting the Civil List on 11 March 1936, 16 March 1937 and 18 November 1947 were presented to the Commons alone, CJ (1935–36) 123; ibid (1936–37) 171; ibid (1947–48) 51. 2. LJ (1951–52) 195. The bill for the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 was preceded by messages from the Queen to both Houses on 29 June 2011; the Lords agreed an Address in response on 30 June 2011.

Consideration of public expenditure 37.5The Lords also express their opinion upon public expenditure, and the method of taxation and financial administration, both in debate and by resolution, and they have investigated these matters by their select committees.1

Footnotes 1. See eg HL 238-II (1984–85) pp 553, 702 Report of the Select Committee on Overseas Trade; and from the annual inquiry by a subcommittee of the Select Committee on Economic Affairs into the Finance Bill.

Basis of modern practice with respect to privilege 37.6Practice in respect of the Commons' financial privileges is based upon the resolution of 1671 ‘That in all aids given to the King by the Commons, the rate or tax ought not to be altered by the Lords’; and on the much more broadly drawn resolution of 3 July 1678: ‘That all aids and supplies, and aids to his Majesty in Parliament, are the sole gift of the Commons; and all bills for the granting of any such aids and supplies ought to begin with the Commons; and that it is the undoubted and sole right of the Commons to direct, limit, and appoint in such bills the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations, and qualifications of such grants, which ought not to be changed or altered by the House of Lords.’1 The principles expressed in the resolutions of 1671 and 1678 were restated and amplified by subsequent resolutions2 of the Commons on two notable occasions in the financial history of the two Houses—in 1860 after the rejection by the Lords of the Paper Duty Repeal Bill and in 1910 after the rejection by the Lords of the Finance Bill 1909; and these are still the principles which are applied in determining (among other things) whether or not a Lords amendment involves questions of privilege (see paras 37.18 –37.22 ).

Footnotes 1. CJ (1667–87) 235, 509. 2. See Resolutions, CJ (1860) 360; Parl Deb (1860) 159, c 1383; and CJ (1910) 95.

Local revenues and National Insurance within the scope of privilege 37.7The Commons have long included not only bills dealing with public expenditure and revenue but also bills which deal with local revenues or charges as matters to which their privilege extends. Hence they have claimed to waive their privilege in considering Lords amendments to bills proposing council tax1 and have disagreed to Lords amendments to bills proposing a community charge on grounds of privilege;2 and they have similarly claimed to waive their privilege in respect of bills relating to other revenues, such as land drainage rates where river boards were financed by contributions from local authorities and had power to levy charges on agricultural property.3 Privilege is now claimed in respect of charges on the National Insurance Fund, which since 1993 has been supplemented out of money provided by Parliament4 (see para 35.7 ).

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

Local Government Finance Bill 1991–92, CJ (1991–92) 258. Local Government Finance Bill 1987–88, CJ (1987–88) 679–83. Land Drainage Bill 1961, CJ (1960–61) 306. National Insurance Contributions Bill, CJ (2007–08) 548.

Funds not within the scope of privilege 37.8On the other hand, the claim to an exclusive right over financial legislation asserted by the Commons has not been extended to bills dealing with funds set apart for the purposes of general, but not public, utility. Bills comprising charges upon the property and revenues of the Church,1 and bills applying to various purposes the fund created by the Irish Church Act 1870, have been received from the Lords by the Commons, or amended by the Lords, without objection on the ground of privilege.2 Privilege has not been claimed in respect of Lords amendments entailing a charge on the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland;3 and the Northern Ireland Budget Bills of 2017 and 2018, introduced because the Northern Ireland Assembly had not appointed an Executive, were not Bills of Aids and Supplies, although certified as Money bills under s 1 of the Parliament Act 1911.

Footnotes 1. Church Endowment Bill 1843; Ecclesiastical Commissioners (England) Bill 1841; Bishopric of Manchester Bill 1847; Tithe Bill 1936. 2. Intermediate Education (Ireland) Bill [Lords], CJ (1878) 338; Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill, ibid (1882) 451. 3. Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill, CJ (1988–89) 539–40.

Actions which infringe privilege 37.9The Commons' claim to sole rights in respect of financial legislation applies indivisibly to public expenditure and to the raising of revenue to meet that expenditure. For convenience, the traditional term ‘charge’ is used in the remainder of this chapter to denote both types of financial provision; that is to say, both charges on the public revenue and charges upon the people (see para 33.5 ). With regard to the charges in respect of which they claim privilege, the Commons treat as a breach of privilege by the Lords not merely the imposition or increase of such a charge but also any alteration, whether by increase or reduction, of its amount or of its duration, mode of assessment, levy, collection, appropriation or management; and, in addition, any alteration in respect of the persons who pay, receive, manage, or control it, or in respect of the limits within which it is leviable.1 Bearing in mind the connotation hereby given to the term ‘privilege’ the Commons' claim to ‘privilege’ may be analysed into: 1. restriction of the Lords' right to initiate bills; 2. restriction of the Lords' right to amend bills; 3. admission of the Lords' right to reject bills. It is the function of the Speaker to direct the attention of the House of Commons, when occasion arises, to a breach of its privileges in bills or amendments brought from the Lords, and to direct the special entries to be made in the Journals by which the House, in respect of particular amendments, signifies its willingness to waive its privilege without thereby establishing a general precedent.

Footnotes 1. See Speaker's rulings on Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill 1839, Parl Deb (1839) 50, c 3; Local Government (England and Wales) Bill 1893, Parl Deb (1894) 21, c 686; Public Libraries (Scotland) Bill 1920, HC Deb (1920) 133, c 368; Unemployment Insurance Act (1920) Amendment Bill 1921, ibid (1921) 138, c 2066; Police Pensions Bill 1921, ibid (1921) 144, c 1699; Unemployment Insurance (No 2) Bill 1924, ibid (1924) 176, c 2210; and the Commons' claim to privilege in respect of a Lords amendment to the Water Bill providing for the repayment of government grants, see CJ (1988–89) 465.

Restrictions on the Lords' right to initiate bills Contents Relaxation of privilege by standing order Privilege amendment 37.10Formally speaking, the Commons are not prepared to consider bills sent from the Lords which contain provisions infringing privilege in any of the ways mentioned above. Bills which thus infringe the privileges of the Commons, when received from the Lords, would, in the absence of the expedient described below, either be laid aside or (according to the former practice) postponed for six months.1 The expedient for avoiding the formal infringement of privilege in Lords bills, the so-called ‘privilege amendment’ (see paras 28.14, 28.113, 29.67, 37.14 ), is frequently resorted to, and is admissible even in the case of Lords bills whose main object is to create a charge upon the public revenue and which are proceeded with in the Commons as government bills pursuant to Standing Order Nos 50(2) and 80.

Footnotes 1. CJ (1660–67) 311; ibid (1801) 88; ibid (1830–31) 905; ibid (1837) 659; ibid (1846) 724; ibid (1850) 458; ibid (1860) 308, 361; Parl Deb (1860) 159, c 539; CJ (1889) 304, 316; ibid (1950–51) 290; HC Deb (1950–51) 490, c 1246; CJ (1967–68) 106; HC Deb (1967–68) 758, c 1156.

Relaxation of privilege by standing order Contents Pecuniary penalties and fees Private legislation 37.11The Commons have by standing order relaxed their privilege in the following cases:

Pecuniary penalties and fees 37.12The claim to exclusive jurisdiction over charges imposed upon the people was formerly extended by the Commons to the imposition of fees and pecuniary penalties, and to provisions which concerned methods of exacting fees and penalties,1 and to their application when recovered; and they denied to the Lords the power of dealing with these matters. The rigid enforcement of this claim proved inconvenient, and in 1849 the Commons adopted a Standing Order (now No 79), based on a resolution passed in 1831,2 which waives their privileges on Lords bills or amendments dealing with pecuniary penalties, forfeitures, or fees in certain specified cases, namely: when the object of such a penalty or forfeiture is to secure the execution of the Act or the punishment or prevention of offences, or where the fees are imposed in respect of benefit taken or service rendered under the Act and are not made payable into the Consolidated Fund or in aid of the public revenue.

Footnotes 1. 8 March 1692, CJ (1688–93) 845; 3 Hatsell 126, 134. 2. CJ (1830–31) 477; ibid (1849) 557.

Private legislation 37.13Under Standing Order 191 the Commons have surrendered their privileges as far as they affect private bills sent from the House of Lords, which refer to tolls and charges for services performed, not being in the nature of a tax, or to local authorities' finance, or to sums payable by way of revenue support grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland (see para 45.4 ). Standing Order 191 is applied to provisional order bills by Standing Order 219 and to special procedure order bills by Standing Order 248A.

Privilege amendment 37.14The expedient of a ‘privilege amendment’ (see also para 29.67 ) is adopted when a bill containing provisions which deal with charges is proceeded with first in the Lords. In the past this expedient could be employed only in cases where the financial provisions were a subsidiary portion of a bill, and was not considered justifiable where such provision was the main purpose of a bill, whether it involved a charge upon public funds or merely upon local revenues. Since Standing Order No 80 was made in 1972, however, the Commons may proceed with a Lords bill, except a Bill of Aids and Supplies (see para 37.16 ), which would have as its main object the imposition or alteration of a charge upon the people or upon public funds so long as it contains a formula stating that no such charge is imposed or altered, and provided that it is taken charge of in the Commons by a Minister of the Crown.1 The method of incorporating such a formula to avoid formal infringement of the Commons' privileges is for the Lords to insert a ‘privilege amendment’ on the third reading of a bill in the form of a subsection added to the final clause of the bill. This subsection reads as follows: ‘Nothing in this Act shall impose any charge on the people or on public funds, or vary the amount or incidence of or otherwise alter any such charge in any manner, or affect the assessment, levying, administration or application of any money raised by any such charge’. This device, which in effect negates the financial consequences of the provisions of the bill to which it relates, is designed to show that the ability of the Lords to legislate on such matters is not absolute but is subject to the tolerance of the House of Commons. The words of the privilege amendment are distinguished by bold type in the bill when it is printed for the Commons. Any provisions in the bill which (but for the privilege amendment) would have the effect of creating, imposing or increasing a charge must then be authorised by a Money or Ways and Means resolution; and the privilege subsection is subsequently removed by an amendment in committee. When Lords bills have been brought to the Commons without the privilege amendment incorporated in the text of the bill, messages have been sent asking the Commons to return the bill.2 Likewise, when the Commons returned a Lords bill without having removed the privilege amendment, they sent a message asking the Lords to return the bill.3 It should be noted that Standing Order No 80 refers not just to bills the main object of which is to impose a new charge by way of expenditure or taxation but also to bills the main object of which is to alter such a charge. Thus, if a bill brought from the Lords with a privilege amendment would, but for that amendment, have for its main object the reduction of a charge, that bill can be taken up only by a Minister of the Crown and not by a private Member.

Footnotes 1. For example, Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill [Lords] CJ (1985–86) 133; Farm Land and Rural Development Bill [Lords], ibid (1987–88) 253; State Pension Credit Bill [Lords], ibid (2001–02) 363; Concessionary Bus Travel Bill [Lords], ibid (2006–07) 150. 2. See LJ (1945–46) 196, 198; ibid (1999–2000) 278. For an instance in the case of a private bill, see ibid (1974) 97. 3. Space Industry Bill [Lords] 2017–19; Votes and Proceedings, 22 February 2018 and House of Lords Minutes of Proceedings, 22 February 2018.

Restrictions on the Lords' right to amend bills Contents Lords amendments to Bills of Aids and Supplies Lords amendments to other bills infringing privilege Relaxation of privilege by standing order in the case of Lords amendments Right to reject bills retained by Lords 37.15The Commons' resolution of 1678, cited on para 37.6, conceals, in its final clause, a very important distinction between two kinds of amendment by the Lords which, as breaches of privilege, are of very unequal significance in the eyes of the Commons. One of them is often tolerated, the other never. This distinction depends upon a distinction of kind in the bills amended. There is a certain kind of bill which descends from the earliest days of the Commons' history, and which is felt by them to embody privilege in its most essential form. This is the ‘Bill of Aids and Supplies’.1 The four types of such bills are described in para 36.43. The most common types are Finance Bills for taxation and Supply and Appropriation Bills for expenditure. Any amendment by the Lords of such a bill, whether or not the amendment in itself involves interference with a charge, is regarded by the Commons as an intolerable breach of privilege.2 In the case of any other bill, to constitute a breach of privilege, an amendment must in itself involve some interference in a charge. The Commons feel themselves at liberty to accept such breaches of privilege when they choose, with no more than a special record of the fact that they have waived their privilege. The practice is, therefore, treated here under the separate headings: 1. Lords amendments to Bills of Aids and Supplies. 2. Lords amendments to other bills.

Footnotes 1. This historical term is no longer in common use, but still appears in SO No 80 (House of Commons) and (in a slightly different form) in SO No 52 (House of Lords). 2. 3 Hatsell 153–54.

Lords amendments to Bills of Aids and Supplies Contents Provisions ‘tacked’ to Bills of Aids and Supplies 37.16So completely do the Lords accept the restriction resulting from the Commons' privileges upon their power to amend Bills of Aids and Supplies, that the committee stage of such bills is now invariably negatived. The last debate on a Consolidated Fund Bill was in 1907; since then proceedings have been purely formal.1 The Lords have in the past preferred to accept a provision for the resumption of Irish grants, tacked to a Supply bill of 1700, rather than cut out the provision, and to reject the Finance Bill of 1909 rather than amend it by the excision of the provisions to which they objected. Since the start of the sessional series of Consolidated Fund or Supply and Appropriation Bills (1787)2 and Finance Bills (1861),3 these two kinds of bill have in practice comprised the vast majority of instances of Bills of Aids and Supplies. Other Bills of Aids and Supplies in recent times are referred to at para 36.43. They are founded on Ways and Means resolutions and incorporate a special enacting formula used with variant forms since the seventeenth century for Bills of Aids and Supplies. One such bill, having a modified version of the traditional enacting formula, was the Safeguarding of Industries Bill 1921. The Commons disagreed to Lords amendments to the bill, giving a single reason, namely ‘because they infringe the sole and undoubted rights of the Commons to impose taxation’. But it was not claimed that the bill could not be amended at all without a breach of privilege, nor did the reason given include an assertion that the action taken by the Lords was unconstitutional.4 No Bill of Aids and Supplies has been amended since then, and none has been considered in committee since 1968.5 The Companion to the Standing Orders of the House of Lords says, ‘In order to save the time of the House, supply bills and money bills are not usually committed. This is the invariable practice in the case of supply bills...’6 Subject to the general rules of financial privilege, a Lords bill or a Lords amendment to a Commons bill may amend an Act arising from a Bill of Aids and Supplies.7

Footnotes 1. See First Report from the Select Committee on Procedure (Supply), HC 118-III (1980–81), pp 20–21. See also para 34.40. 2. The latter title has been used since 2011. 3. The first Finance Bill presented under that title was in 1894. Between 1861 and 1894 the bills were known as Customs and Inland Revenue Bills. See also Parl Deb (1894) 24, cc 1203–18. 4. CJ (1921) 364; HC Deb (1921) 146, c 1695. See also Report on Tax Bills, HC 414 (1860); 3 Hatsell 141 n. 5. Erskine Bridge Tolls Bill and Revenue (No. 2) Bill 1967–68. 6. Companion to the Standing Orders of the House of Lords (2017 edn), para 8.48. 7. For instance, the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 amended three Finance Acts.

Provisions ‘tacked’ to Bills of Aids and Supplies 37.17In former times, the Commons abused their right to grant Supply without interference from the Lords, by tacking to Bills of Aids and Supplies provisions which, in a bill that the Lords had no right to amend, must either have been accepted by them unconsidered, or have caused the rejection of a measure necessary for the public service. This practice infringed the privileges of the Lords no less than their interference in matters of finance infringes the privileges of the Commons. It has been met by the Lords by Standing Order No 52, embodying a resolution of 9 December 1702: ‘The annexing of any clause or clauses to a bill of aid or supply, the matter of which is foreign to and different from the matter of the said bill of aid or supply, is unparliamentary, and tends to the destruction of constitutional government.’1 This Standing Order has not been invoked as the basis for rejection of a Commons bill since 1807. Although complaints have occasionally been voiced about the inclusion of allegedly inappropriate provisions in the Finance Bill, no such complaint has been upheld by the House of Lords in recent times.2 As explained in the previous chapter (para 36.39 ), the rules of order of the House of Commons exclude the possibility of foreign matter being tacked to such bills by way of amendment; and respect for constitutional practice prevents the inclusion of such matters among their original provisions.

Footnotes 1. LJ (1701–05) 185. 2. HL Deb (1975–76) 372, cc 1225–29; ibid (1981–82) 431, cc 451–52. On the former occasion the allegation of tacking was considered by the House of Lords Select Committee on Practice and Procedure, which did not endorse it; LJ (1976–77) 762–63, HL Deb (1977–78) 392, cc 6–44. The bill which was the subject of the allegation was certified by the Speaker as a Money bill under the Parliament Acts, HC Deb (1975–76) 915, cc 1290, 1520.

Lords amendments to other bills infringing privilege Contents Rejection of amendments infringing privilege Rejection by Commons of amendments infringing privilege in respect of the imposition of a charge Acceptance by the Commons of amendments infringing privilege Amendments infringing privilege with respect to local revenue 37.18In the case of bills other than Bills of Aids and Supplies, if the Lords return a bill with amendments which infringe the privileges of the Commons, the action open to the Commons, when the Speaker has called their attention to the breach of privilege,1 is according to the nature of the case, either to disagree with the amendments on the ground of privilege, or to agree with them, waiving privilege specifically for that purpose. They need not necessarily, however, be confronted with this choice. For just as in the case of Lords bills, so in the case of Lords amendments to Commons bills, some part of the Commons' privilege remains in abeyance under standing order, and by the co-operation of both Houses certain expedients are in use for the purpose of avoiding formal infringement of privilege.

Footnotes 1. The Speaker's decisions on the attribution of privilege to Lords amendments are normally accepted without comment by the House of Commons. But occasionally, because of the likely consequences of a claim of privilege for subsequent proceedings in the House of Lords, such a decision has been questioned, eg HC Deb (1993–94) 248, cc 452–53.

Rejection of amendments infringing privilege 37.19When Lords amendments are disagreed to by the Commons, and the amendments are in breach of the Commons' privileges, the disagreement is made on the ground of privilege alone; and in the message to the Lords from the Commons, communicating the reasons for their disagreement, the assertion of this claim usually takes the form of a statement that the amendments would interfere with the public revenue, or affect the levy and application of local revenues, or involve a charge on public funds, or alter the area of taxation, or alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, or affect the administration of public funds, or otherwise infringe the privileges of the House, and that the Commons do not offer any further reason, ‘trusting that the reason given may be deemed sufficient’.1 This hint of privilege is generally accepted by the Lords, and the amendment is not insisted on.2 Lords amendments may infringe the privileges of the Commons if they affect the arrangements for authorising expenditure, whether or not they would result in increased expenditure. The Lords need not anticipate what view the Commons may take of any Lords amendments with respect to Commons financial privilege, with the exception of those deemed ‘unprofitable’ (see below).3 The Lords may offer amendments in lieu of amendments disagreed to by the Commons on the ground of privilege.4 On the Unemployment Insurance (No 2) Bill in 1929 the Lords returned a message to the Commons insisting upon certain amendments disagreed to by the Commons on grounds of privilege. Instead of ordering the reasons given by the Lords for insisting on their amendments to be laid aside, or deferring their consideration for three or six months, which was then held to be the correct procedure, the Commons did not insist on disagreement with the amendments, but proposed amendments to certain of them, to which the Lords agreed.5

Footnotes 1. For example, CJ (2007–08) 368, 548, 703, 709. 2. On occasions, however, there has been adverse comment on the restrictive consequences of the Commons' claim of privilege, and even on the substance of the claim itself, HL Deb (1984–85) 463, cc 957–67; ibid (1987–88) 500, cc 168–89; ibid (1997–98) 592, cc 736–42; ibid (2002–03) 652, cc 1079–81; Planning Bill, ibid (2007–08) 705, cc 1357–67; Identity Documents Bill, 21 December 2010. Following the Planning Bill, the Clerk of the Parliaments deposited a paper on financial privilege in the Library of the House of Lords; it was subsequently appended to the Lords Constitution Committee's Tenth Report of Session 2010–12, Money Bills and Commons Financial Privilege, HL 97. 3. Companion to the Standing Orders of the House of Lords (2017 edition, para 8.180). 4. See for example HL Deb (1984–85) 463, c 958; ibid (2002–03) 652, c 917. The Joint Committee on Conventions recommended that ‘it is contrary to convention for the House of Lords to send back Amendments in lieu which clearly invite the same response’: Joint Committee on Conventions, Report of Session 2005–06, Conventions of the UK Parliament, HL 265, HC 1212, para 252. 5. CJ (1929–30) 179; HC Deb (1929–30) 234, c 1861.

Rejection by Commons of amendments infringing privilege in respect of the imposition of a charge 37.20Amendments have been rejected in the Commons without debate when the Speaker has drawn the attention of the House to the fact that the amendments sought to impose a charge which had not been authorised by a financial resolution.1 A new paragraph (3) was added on 30 March 1983 to Standing Order No 78, which provides that if the Speaker is satisfied that a Lords amendment imposes a charge upon the public revenue such as is required to be authorised by a Money resolution under Standing Order No 49, and that the charge has not been so authorised, he shall declare that he is so satisfied and the amendment shall be deemed to have been disagreed to.2 The Standing Order does not cover the case of a Lords amendment which would impose a charge upon the people which has not been authorised by a Ways and Means resolution. Accordingly in such a case the Speaker has drawn the attention of the House to the infringement of privilege and has called upon the Member in charge of the bill to move forthwith that the House disagree to the amendment.3 The Companion to the Standing Orders of the House of Lords describes such amendments as ‘unprofitable … unless there is reason to believe that the Commons will pass a supplementary financial resolution’. It adds, ‘Advice may be obtained from the Legislation Office.’4

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1977–78) 948, cc 1801–2, and 954, c 1011. 2. For example, CJ (1987–88) 675; ibid (1989–90) 328; ibid (1990–91) 484–85; ibid (2007–08) 548; HC Deb (2007–08) 479, c 146. 3. HC Deb (30 April 1985) 78, cc 220–22. The motion to disagree is technically debateable. 4. Companion to the Standing Orders of the House of Lords (2017 edn), para 8.57.

Acceptance by the Commons of amendments infringing privilege 37.21The Commons, when they so wish, ‘waive privilege’ in individual cases, and accept amendments by the Lords, so long as they do not materially infringe the privileges of the Commons by seeking to impose a charge which has not been authorised by a financial resolution (see above and para 30.11 ).1 In such cases they record their action by an entry inserted in the Journal, under direction from the Speaker. Formerly, there was a variety of forms of entry, but since 1968 a standard form has been adopted, stating merely that the Commons are willing to waive their privileges.2

Footnotes 1. It was indicated, for example, that amendments proposed in the House of Lords to provisions of the Television Bill 1962–63 relating to payments by programme contractors for the benefit of the Exchequer were likely, if agreed to, to be regarded as a material infringement of the Commons' privileges, HL Deb (1962–63) 252, cc 480–89. 2. For example, CJ (2005–06) 557.

Amendments infringing privilege with respect to local revenue 37.22The Commons now generally waive their claim regarding amendments made to bills that they have sent to the Lords, dealing with local revenues; more especially when those amendments affect charges upon the people incidentally only, and are made for the purpose of giving effect to the legislative intentions of the Commons.1

Footnotes 1. See eg the extensive Lords amendments to the Local Government Finance Bill, 1987–88, CJ (1987–88) 679–83. However, certain of the Lords amendments which infringed privilege were disagreed to, and in those cases the customary privilege reasons were assigned. For a reason not based on privilege where privilege had been waived, see Landed Property (Ireland) Bill 1847, ibid (1847) 594, 606.

Pecuniary penalties and fees 37.23The Standing Order (No 79) referred to above (para 37.12 ) which relaxes the Commons' claim to privilege in matters affecting pecuniary penalties and fees applies to amendments made in the Lords as well as to bills originating in the Lords. This Standing Order, therefore, relieves the Speaker of the duty of directing the attention of the House to Lords amendments dealing with the matters to which it applies.

Local revenues in private bills 37.24Standing Order 191, which relaxes the Commons' privileges in respect of private bills sent from the Lords dealing with local revenues, applies equally to Lords amendments, dealing with similar matters, made to Commons bills. This Standing Order is extended to provisional order bills by Standing Order 219, to confirmation bills under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936 by Standing Order 228A, and to bills under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945 by Standing Order 248A.

Right to reject bills retained by Lords Contents Adoption of the practice of an annual inclusive Finance Bill Rejection by Lords of separate financial provisions in non-financial bills 37.25The Lords may reject bills involving financial provisions, including Bills of Aids and Supplies, without infringing privilege. However, though rejection of these bills is permissible, it has virtually ceased to be practicable. The legal right of the Lords to withhold their assent from any bill whatever, to which their concurrence is desired, is unquestionable; and in former times their power of rejecting a bill for granting aids or supplies to the Crown was expressly acknowledged by the Commons:1 but, until 1860, though the Lords had rejected numerous bills concerning questions of public policy, in which taxation was incidentally involved, they had respected bills exclusively relating to matters of finance. The Lords have not rejected a Bill of Aids and Supplies since the Finance Bill 1909.

Footnotes 1. 3 Hatsell 110–157; T E May (ed F Holland) Constitutional History of England (1912) i, p 379; Report on Tax Bills, HC 414 (1860).

Adoption of the practice of an annual inclusive Finance Bill 37.26Before 1860, it was not unusual for the repeal or imposition of separate classes of duties or taxes to be effected by separate bills, but the rejection by the Lords in that year of the Paper Duties Repeal Bill led the Commons to adopt the practice of including all the fiscal changes of each year in a general or composite bill.1 This practice had become accepted as normal by 1894, with the technical result that the omission or restoration of a particular duty by the Lords would have constituted an amendment of a Bill of Aids and Supplies—an inadmissible proceeding—instead of its rejection. So, although the Commons still acknowledged the right of the Lords to reject such a bill, its composite nature rendered the exercise of that right a practical impossibility.

Footnotes 1. See Resolutions, CJ (1860) 360; Parl Deb (1860) 159, c 1383.

Rejection by Lords of separate financial provisions in non-financial bills 37.27The right of the Lords to reject a bill for granting aids and supplies to the Crown has been held to include a right to omit provisions creating charges upon the people, when such provisions form a separate subject in a bill which the Lords are otherwise entitled to amend. An example of the Lords proceeding in that way with such a provision was in the case of Part III of the Land Commission Bill 1966–67 (which provided for a betterment levy). The Lords amended the Part, but then left it out in its entirety, on third reading.1 The Commons disagreed to the amendment leaving the Part out, but then amended the words so restored to the bill, including some of the amendments which the Lords had earlier made to the Part.2

Footnotes 1. LJ (1966–67) 344. 2. CJ (1966–67) 325. Cf proceedings on the Coal Mines Bill 1930, in which the Lords omitted two clauses setting up a Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission (ibid (1929–30) 382, 385); and on the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill 1930–31 (LJ (1930–31) 218; CJ (1930–31) 382–85, 392). These, however, were provisions entailing expenditure rather than charges upon the people. For the nineteenth-century precedents, see Erskine May (16th edn, 1957), p 817, fnn (t) and (u).

Limitations imposed by the Parliament Act 1911 Contents Definition of Money bill Commons procedure in passing Money bill ‘Money bills’ under Parliament Act and Bills of Aids and Supplies Lords amendments to Money bill 37.28The practice of collecting all changes in taxation together and embodying them in a single composite Finance Bill made it impossible for the Lords to reject such a bill without destroying the entire financial provision of the year. The situation created by the Lords' rejection of the Finance Bill of 19091 resulted in the passing of the Parliament Act 1911, the financial provisions of which are set out below.

Footnotes 1. LJ (1909) 453; T E May (ed F C Holland) Constitutional History of England (1912) iii, p 353.

Definition of Money bill 37.29Section 1(2) of the Act defines a ‘Money bill’1 as a public bill which in the opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following subjects, namely, the imposition, repeal, remission, alteration, or regulation of taxation; the imposition for the payment of debt or other financial purposes of charges on the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund,2 or on money provided by Parliament or the variation or repeal of any such charges; Supply; the appropriation, receipt, custody, issue or audit of accounts of public money; the raising or guarantee of any loan or the repayment thereof; or subordinate matters incidental to those subjects or any of them. For the purposes of this definition the expressions ‘taxation’, ‘public money’, and ‘loan’ respectively do not include any taxation, money, or loan raised by local authorities or bodies for local purposes, matters which, on the other hand, are included within the scope of Commons financial privilege.

Footnotes 1. A ‘Money bill’ should not be confused with a bill introduced under SO No 50 (procedure on bills whose main object is to create a charge upon the public revenue) (see paras 35.24 –35.25 ). 2. See National Loans Act 1968, s 1.

Commons procedure in passing Money bill 37.30A ‘Money bill’ which has been passed by the House of Commons and sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the session, but is not passed by the House of Lords without amendment within one month after it is so sent up, is, unless the House of Commons direct to the contrary,1 to be presented for the Royal Assent2 and becomes an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified to it. A ‘Money bill’, when it is sent up to the House of Lords and when it is presented to Her Majesty, must be endorsed with the Speaker's certificate that it is such a bill. Before giving this certificate the Speaker is directed to consult, if practicable, those two members of the Panel of Chairs (see para 4.26 ) who are appointed for the purpose at the beginning of each session by the Committee of Selection.3 When the Speaker4 has certified a bill to be a ‘Money bill’ this is recorded in the Journal; and s 3 of the Parliament Act 1911 stipulates that such certificate is conclusive for all purposes and may not be questioned in a court of law. No serious practical difficulty normally arises in deciding whether a particular bill is or is not a ‘Money bill’; and criticism has seldom been voiced of the Speaker's action in giving or withholding a certificate.5 A bill which contains any of the enumerated matters and nothing besides is indisputably a ‘Money bill’.6 If it contains any other matters, then, unless these are ‘subordinate matters incidental to’ any of the enumerated matters so contained in the bill, the bill is not a ‘Money bill’.7 Furthermore, even if the main object of a bill is to create a new charge on the Consolidated Fund or on money provided by Parliament, the bill will not be certified if it is apparent that the primary purpose of the new charge is not purely financial.8 The Speaker does not consider the question of certifying a bill until it has reached the form in which it will leave the House of Commons, and has declined to give an opinion on whether the acceptance of a proposed amendment would prevent a bill from being certified as a Money bill.9 Similarly, in committee the Chairman has declined to anticipate the Speaker's decision in this matter or to allow the effect of an amendment in this regard to be raised as a point of order.10

Footnotes 1. In the case of a bill which by inadvertence has not been read the third time by the Lords within a month, as required by the Parliament Act 1911, s 1(1), the Commons have ordered that the provisions of the subsection shall not apply, CJ (1933–34) 272. The Commons have also ordered that the provisions of s 1(1) of the Act should not apply in the case of a bill to which the Lords could not readily agree within the period of one month because of a Parliamentary recess, ibid (1972–73) 90, ibid (1975–76) 542, HC Deb, (1997–98) 300, c 365. Such orders are generally made only after the Lords have passed the bill. But when the Lords passed a Money bill after the Commons had adjourned at the end of July, the bill received Royal Assent in the ordinary way in October without an order in the Commons to disapply s 1(1) of the Act (Rate Support Grants Bill 1985–86). 2. This would take place on the next occasion of Royal Assent, the timing of which is a matter for the Government. 3. For example HC Deb (1975–76) 915, c 1520. 4. Bills have been endorsed as being ‘Money bills’ by the Deputy Speaker, CJ (1914) 453; ibid (1947–48) 68; ibid (1950–51) 146; ibid (2005–06) 525. 5. For an exception to the general rule, see Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill, HL Deb (23 November 2010) 722, c 1008. An amendment to a business of the House motion to allow remaining Lords stages of that bill to be taken on the same day, as is normal for Money bills, was defeated on 29 November 2010. The Lords Constitution Committee subsequently reported in its Tenth Report of Session 2010–12, Money Bills and Commons Financial Privilege, HL 97. 6. Since the start of the 2010 Parliament, the following bills other than Supply and Appropriation Bills and Finance Bills have been certified: Equitable Life (Payments) Bill 2010–12; Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill 2010–12; Loans to Ireland Bill 2010–12; Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill 2010–12; Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Bill 2012–13; Small Charitable Donations Bill 2012–13; HGV Road User Levy Bill 2012–13; High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill 2013–14; Childcare Payments Bill 2014–15; Taxation of Pensions Bill 2014–15; Stamp Duty Land Tax Bill 2014–15; Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill 2014–15; Small Charitable Donations and Childcare Payments Bill 2016–17; Savings (Government Contributions) Bill 2016–17; Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill 2016–17; Northern Ireland Budget Bill 2017–19; Northern Ireland Budget (Appropriations and Adjustments) Bill 2017–19; Northern Ireland Budget (No. 2) Bill 2017–19. 7. The Tax Credits Bill 2001–02, which established two new tax credits but also made changes to the administration of child benefit and guardian's allowance, was not certified. 8. See eg Family Allowances Bill 1944–45; Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Bill 1992–93. 9. HC Deb (1912–13) 41, c 2667. See also ibid (1911) 31, c 1209; ibid (1975–76) 915, c 1290. 10. HC Deb (1914–16) 72, c 1704.

‘Money bills’ under Parliament Act and Bills of Aids and Supplies 37.31A ‘Money bill’ within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911 is not the same as a Bill of Aids and Supplies. For instance, a bill which has the exclusive purpose of creating or extending the scope of a charge on public expenditure is likely to be held to be a ‘Money bill’, but it is not a Bill of Aids and Supplies. On the other hand, a Bill of Aids and Supplies, such as a Finance Bill, is not necessarily a ‘Money bill’, for it may and often does include provisions dealing with other subjects than those enumerated in the definition of a ‘Money bill’. Approximately half of the Finance Bills sent to the Lords since the Parliament Act 1911 was passed have not been certified as Money bills.1

Footnotes 1. In the sessions from 2010–12 to 2017–19, only the Finance Bill and the Finance (No. 2) Bill 2010–12, the Finance (No. 2) Bill 2016–17 and the Finance (No. 2) Bill 2017–19 were certified.

Lords amendments to Money bill 37.32The purpose of the Parliament Act 1911, s 1 is to debar the Lords from blocking ‘Money bills’. But s 6 of the Parliament Act provides that ‘nothing in this Act shall diminish or qualify the existing rights and privileges of the House of Commons'. This in practice gives the Commons a choice of proceeding upon Lords amendments under their privileges or according to the procedure laid down by the Act, and consequently they are free to consider1 and, if they choose, accept2 amendments made by the Lords to a certified bill. This result follows from the fact that, as stated above, ‘Money bills’ include bills, the amendment of which by the Lords is not held by the Commons to be in itself a breach of privilege. But it would not be possible for the Commons, while agreeing to certain amendments made by the Lords to a certified bill and disagreeing to others, to secure the Royal Assent to the bill under the terms of s 1 of the Act. In recent years, the normal,3 but not invariable, practice of the House of Lords has been not to go into committee on ‘Money bills’, whether or not they are also Bills of Aids and Supplies; and so the possibility of Lords amendments to such bills rarely arises.

Footnotes 1. CJ (1921) 347, 364; HC Deb (1921) 146, cc 835, 1689. 2. Certified bills to which the Commons agreed to Lords amendments were the Unemployment Assistance (Temporary Provisions) Extension Bill 1935–36, CJ (1935–36) 92; Inshore Fishing Industry Bill 1946, ibid (1945–46) 103; and the China Indemnity (Application) Bill 1925, where, before the Commons had ordered the amendment to be considered, the month specified in s 1 of the Parliament Act expired; the Commons, however, agreed to the amendment, ibid (1924–25) 284. 3. The Companion to the Standing Orders of the House of Lords says, ‘In order to save the time of the House, supply bills and money bills are not usually committed. This is … the normal practice for money bills.’ (2017 edn), para 8.48. The last time the House of Lords went into Committee on a ‘Money bill' was on 9 January 1995, on the European Communities (Finance) Bill, LJ (1994–95) 86. On 29 November 2010 a motion that would have enabled the House to go into Committee on the Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grants Bill was defeated on division (HL Deb (2010–12) 722, cc 1269–82).

Introduction to select committees in the House of Commons 38.1Select committees are established to undertake a wide range of tasks which require a different, and often more flexible, mode of operation than is found in Chamber proceedings; in particular, they can report opinions and observations on issues.1 These attributes can be brought to bear through select committees charged with regular scrutiny of government, or with routine issues relating to House governance and administration, or with addressing specific immediate problems or issues not easily addressed through other committees or mechanisms.2 Select committees are thus distinct from general committees (eg public bill committees), discussed in Chapter 39, which are established primarily as a means of accommodating business which might otherwise be taken in the Chamber and which operate broadly on lines similar to those in the House. Although many variations of powers and remits have been deployed, select committees invariably share two key characteristics not otherwise easily available to the House. Firstly, they may seek out, and publish – to a greater extent than can public bill committees – written and oral evidence (which becomes part of the House's formal proceedings). Secondly, they may meet in private to discuss (to ‘deliberate’), and agree (by consensus, by voting, or by a combination of the two) conclusions and recommendations, based on the evidence gathered, for reporting to the House. Select committees have become over recent years the principal mechanism by which the House discharges its responsibilities for the detailed scrutiny of government policy, spending and actions. Increasingly, this detailed scrutiny work has become the most widely recognised and public means by which Parliament holds government Ministers and their departments and agencies to account. Select committees possess no formal authority except that which they derive by delegation from the House. They acquire an informal authority from their performance and impact. It is the tradition of select committees, bolstered by their practice of deliberating in private, to proceed as far as possible by consensus and with as little regard as possible to party affiliations. Select committee members, being usually appointed for the duration of a Parliament, have the opportunity to acquire significant levels of expertise in the specific areas for which their committee is responsible. This, together with the specialist resources available to them, has reinforced the authority and influence of select committee reports. Select committees are composed of a number of specifically named Members. Membership reflects the political composition of the House as a whole. Although individual select committees' formal powers vary according to the role they are expected to fulfil, they are customarily given most, or variations of, the powers set out in the table below: Formal wording of power

Explanation To gather oral and written evidence and To send for persons, papers and records request specific documents To employ experts to advise them on matters To appoint specialist advisers within their remits To publish reports and evidence at times of To report from time to time their choosing To meet when the House is not sitting To sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House (otherwise prohibited under Standing Order No 123) To hold informal and formal meetings away To adjourn from place to place from Westminster, including in other countries To take oral evidence from witnesses in public To admit the public during oral evidence sessions (as well as in private) To establish a sub-committee to undertake a To appoint a sub-committee specific task or role and to report to the committee To meet concurrently with any committee or sub-committee of either House of Parliament for the Formally to work with other committees of purpose of deliberating or taking evidence either House To communicate its evidence to any other select committee, or sub-committee of either House of To exchange papers with other committees in Parliament or to the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern either House or the devolved Parliaments and Ireland Assembly or to any of their committees assemblies in the UK Aspects of normal select committee practice can be set aside by resolution or order of the House in response to some practical or political need. For example, in the 2017–19 Session, in the face of protracted political negotiations around the nomination of the Committee of Selection,3 the Leader of the House tabled the motions required to secure the nomination of Members to select committees, notwithstanding usual practice.4 In similar vein, the House has established select committees with specific features for specific purposes, such as the appointment of ‘lay members’ to the Standards Committee (see para 38.78 ) or the establishment of a joint committee with the specific title of a ‘Commission’ with powers to operate in some respects more flexibly than a normal select committee (see Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, para 41.2 ).

Footnotes 1. SO No 133. 2. See for example CJ (2012–13) 180–81 (Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards); Votes and Proceedings, 10 September 2014 (House of Commons Governance Committee).

3. HC Deb (4 July 2017) 626, cc 1077–88. 4. HC Deb (11 September 2017) 628, c 605.

Appointment and nomination Contents Procedures for appointment Election of Chairs by the House Nomination of members Lists of Members serving on select committees Addition of Members to, and discharge of Members from, select committees Resignation or removal of Chairs elected by the House Participation in committees of other Members of the House Participation in committees of non-Members of the House 38.2In principle, select committees are established in two stages (in both cases via motions which are debatable and amendable). Firstly, a committee is appointed with an order of reference determining its name, remit, size, powers and duration, etc. Subsequently, specific Members are nominated to serve on it (with, in the case of most of the permanent committees, the Chair elected under a separate process from that of the other committee members). Accordingly, unless, as is sometimes the case (eg in relation to the nomination of the Chair),1 the motion for appointment makes specific provisions to the contrary in respect of a particular committee, it is not normally in order, on the motion for the appointment of a select committee, to discuss the proposed names of the Members to compose it.2

Footnotes 1. For example, CJ (1987–88) 423, 429; ibid (2008–09) 571; CJ (2014–15) 202–03 (Select Committee on Governance of the House). 2. Parl Deb (1880) 252, c 489; for scope of debate on motion for appointing, see HC Deb (1937–38) 337, c 2157; ibid (1938–39) 342, c 906; see also Parl Deb (1905) 146, c 993; CJ (2002–03) 144, 148–49, HC Deb (2002–03) 398, cc 677–88 and cc 831–50. The converse, that it is not in order to debate the appointment of a committee in a motion for nomination of its members, is also true: see ibid (2009–10) 502, c 749.

Procedures for appointment 38.3New select committees are usually proposed by a motion in the name of a government Minister after appropriate political negotiation (in part in order to reflect the need to consider the resource implications), though there is no bar to a proposal to appoint a committee being in the name of any Member. In practice, the orders of reference for the majority of select committees have been agreed as standing orders, setting out the number of members and the committee's powers.1 Such committees' orders of reference normally contain the provision that the members of the committee are nominated for the remainder of the Parliament.2 Committees so appointed do not require any motion of appointment at the beginning of a new Parliament, but only a motion or motions to nominate their new membership. Select committees are also established under temporary standing orders valid until the end of the Parliament.3 Committees which are set up upon motions with no specific provision as to their duration cease to exist at prorogation (ie at the end of the session) or, if they have not been given power to report ‘from time to time’, after they have made their report to the House.4 Conversely, standing orders sometimes still contain orders of reference for select committees whose work is generally regarded as completed or, at least, in abeyance.5

Footnotes 1. For example, SO Nos 143–49, 152, 152A, 152D, 152G. In the past, limits have been placed on the size of committees by standing order, see Erskine May (22nd edn, 1997), p 628, fn 1. Different forms of expressing the size of a committee have not been regarded as material (‘not more than X’, ‘shall consist of X’ are regarded as equivalent) and committees may – and frequently do – operate without their maximum complement of members. 2. For example, SO Nos 143–49, 152, 152A, 152D, 152G. 3. For example, CJ (1974–75) 72, 73; ibid (1987–88) 428; ibid (1992–93) 293; ibid (1997–98) 44; Votes and Proceedings, 11 October 2016. 4. The House has ordered that a standing order appointing a committee be repealed when the committee shall have reported to the House, CJ (1994–95) 554; Votes and Proceedings, 15 October 2015 (Armed Forces Bill Select Committee). 5. See SO No 152G, Committee on Members' Expenses, and SO No 152C, Tax law rewrite (Joint Committee).

Election of Chairs by the House 38.4The Chairs of committees listed in Standing Order No 122B (currently the departmental committees together with the Environmental Audit Committee, the Petitions Committee, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Committee of Public Accounts, the Procedure Committee, and the Committee on Standards) are elected by the House by secret ballot.1 Chairs of temporary select committees may also be elected in this way where the House has so agreed.2 The details of the process are set out in Standing Order No 122B. The key steps are: at the start of each Parliament, negotiation between the parties of the allocation of each committee Chair post to parties on the basis of advice from the Speaker on the composition of the House; approval of this allocation by the House via a motion in the name of the relevant party leaders; the submission of candidatures subject to various conditions (chiefly, that candidates are from the party allocated the relevant Chair, and that Members can be a candidate in only one such election3 ); statements from the candidates are published with the House papers; conduct of the ballots (timings and deadlines are indicated in the standing order, but para (12) also explicitly grants the Speaker powers to vary these timings); the election takes place using the alternative vote method. An elected Chair formally takes up the position, and their associated additional remuneration commences, when the remaining members of the committee are nominated by the House.4 The Chair of a select committee not within the scope of Standing Order No 122B is chosen by the committee itself (see para 38.17 ) except in rare cases when the House orders that the Chair should be chosen in some other way (for example, typically, by specifying the Chair within the order appointing the committee).5

Footnotes 1. CJ (2009–10) 291 and HC Deb (2009–10) 506, cc 1062–1100. 2. Votes and Proceedings, 11 October 2016 (Committee on Exiting the European Union). 3. In addition, under SO No 122B, candidates must be nominated by 15 Members from the same party, or 10 per cent of the Members elected to the House as members of that party, whichever is lower, and may also receive additional nominations from members of other parties. See HC Deb (2010–12) 511, c 465. 4. HC Deb (10 June 2010) 511, c 465. 5. See 10 September 2014 (the House of Commons Governance Committee); CJ (1847–48) 555; ibid (1852–53) 518; ibid (2009–10) 265.

Nomination of members 38.5The members of a select committee, other than a Chair elected by the House, are nominated by a motion in the House. Motions in respect of most select committees may be tabled and moved only on behalf of the Selection Committee1 (by the Chair or another member of that committee) although amendments may be tabled by other members.2 Motions to nominate the Liaison Committee, the Selection Committee, the Committee on Standards, the Committee of Privileges and any committee established under a temporary standing order are normally tabled and moved by a member of the Government, although on occasion the nomination of other committees has been delegated to the Selection Committee.3 A motion to agree with a report from the Liaison Committee to appoint, and nominate Members to, a National Policy Statement Committee under Standing Order No 152H may be made on behalf of the Liaison Committee by the Chair or another member of that committee. The House has endorsed the principle that, in proposing nominations for select committee membership for the Selection Committee or the Government to put to the House, parties should elect members of select committees in a secret ballot by whichever transparent and democratic method they choose.4 Standing Order No 121 requires notice to be given of the names of Members intended to be proposed as members of select committees, and two sitting days' notice in the case of nominations to select committees other than the Liaison Committee, the Selection Committee, the Committee on Standards, the Committee of Privileges and any committee established under a temporary standing order.5 A Member intending to move for the nomination, addition or substitution of members of a select committee must endeavour to ascertain previously whether each Member proposed to be named by them to serve on the committee will give their attendance thereupon and must endeavour to give notice to any Member whom they propose to be discharged from a select committee (Standing Order No 121).6 But a Member cannot be relieved from their obligation to obey the commands of the House by declining to serve on a committee.7 Although in principle a motion might be made, and a question put, in respect of each Member proposed as a member of a committee, in practice the Speaker treats the nomination of all the proposed members of a select committee as a single motion. If no objection is taken to any of the proposed names, they are considered to have been accepted by the House. Otherwise, questions may be put separately on the name of each Member being proposed.8 Amendments may be tabled to replace one name with another.9 In July 2001, objection to the omission of two specific Members from two departmental select committees was expressed by voting against the nomination of the committees as a whole.10 In general, the membership of select committees is drawn from the backbenches. There are exceptions: Government and Opposition Whips regularly serve on internally-facing select committees concerned with proceedings and arrangements within the House, for example on the Selection Committee, and on the Finance and Administration Committees; specific government Ministers are members of the Committee of Public Accounts and the Environmental Audit Committee (but by convention do not attend their meetings);11 and successive Leaders of the House chaired the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons between 1997 and 2010.12 In general, it has also been the practice that Opposition frontbench spokespersons and Whips have not been members of departmental select committees or other select committees the principal responsibility of which is the scrutiny of government. The Liaison Committee has stated that it is ‘strongly opposed … in principle’ to the nomination of Opposition frontbench spokespersons or Whips to serve on departmental select committees.13 Previously, it was also the case that Parliamentary Private Secretaries were not generally appointed to select committees; although, in reflection of the growing number of select committee places to be filled, this practice is not now rigidly followed, it remains irregular for such a Member to be appointed to the departmental committee scrutinising the department to which their Minister is attached.14 It is accepted practice that no single party should have a majority on the Committees on Standards and of Privileges and that Parliamentary Private Secretaries should be excluded from their membership.15 The House has approved the principle that the principal select committees should be nominated within six weeks of the beginning of the first session of a new Parliament.16 There are a number of steps required for this process to be completed: allocation of committee Chairs to parties; the election of Chairs by the House; the election of committee members within their parties; the tabling of nomination motions via the Selection committee; and the agreement of those motions by the House.17

Footnotes 1. For the 2017 Parliament, the role of the Committee of Selection has been replaced by a Selection Committee established for the remainder of the Parliament: Votes and Proceedings, 12 September 2017. 2. For example, Votes and Proceedings, 12 July 2010. Until 2004, the Committee of Selection was only responsible for nominating departmental and domestic select committees under SO Nos 142 and 152, see HC Deb (2003–04) 422, cc 94–115. 3. For example, select committees on hybrid bills (see paras 43.11, 45.11 and Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), Ch 38). The committees on the New Forest Bill 1949, and the New Forest Bill [Lords] 1964, both hybrid bills, were appointed partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, CJ (1948–49) 365; ibid (1963–64) 229. The committee on the Channel Tunnel Bill, also a hybrid bill, was wholly appointed by the Committee of Selection, HC Deb (1985–86) 98, cc 1195–276 and CJ (1985–86) 397; see also CJ (1990–91) 216, 243; ibid (1991–92) 101, 118; ibid (2005–06) 318. Committees on opposed private bills are not designated select committees in the Commons. The power for a backbench Member to move the nomination of members of a select committee under SO No 23 (motions for leave to bring in bills and nomination of select committees at commencement of public business) has not been used since 26 February 1975, CJ (1974–75) 248–49. 4. CJ (2009–10) 293 (4 March 2010). 5. SO No 121. In July 2001, the House resolved to set aside this rule so that certain select committees could be set up before the House rose for the summer adjournment, CJ (2001–02) 98, and HC Deb (2001–02) 372, cc 506–7. Since 1983, the Committee of Selection has resolved early in each session that no motion to alter the membership of select committees it is responsible for appointing may be tabled

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

14. 15. 16. 17.

on behalf of the committee unless previously approved at a meeting of the Committee of Selection, eg CJ (2010–12) 49, Votes and Proceedings, 13 September 2017. CJ (1714–18) 59; Chandler Deb 19; 7 Parl Hist 58. See HC Deb (1992–93) 211, cc 828–29, 913 and ibid (1991–92) 211, c 829. On three occasions, on each of which there were special circumstances, a Member has been nominated to serve on a committee before taking the oath; see para 8.28, fn 6. As the Speaker has reminded the House, it could order a Member to attend, HC Deb (1988–89) 144, c 297. Parl Deb (1857) 147, c 1011. For orders allowing all names to be put as a single question, see CJ (1990–91) 115; ibid (1992–93) 132. See also Erskine May (20th edn, 1983), pp 683–84. CJ (2002–03) 148–49. CJ (2001–02) 79, 80. A Treasury Minister and a Minister with appropriate responsibilities for the environment and/or sustainable development, respectively. In the past, Leaders of the House regularly chaired the Privileges Committee and the Services Committee. The Leader of the House also served on the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege between 1997 and 1999, see CJ (1997–98) 157. Second Report of Session 2001–02, HC 692, para 35. See also the First Report of the House of Commons Reform Committee of Session 2008–09, HC 1117, paras 53–55. In 1979, when the House was debating the first motions from the Committee of Selection for the nomination of the select committees relating to government departments, the Chair of the Committee of Selection indicated that the Committee would not for the time being propose members of the Government, Parliamentary Private Secretaries and regular Opposition frontbench spokesmen (ibid (1979–80) 974, cc 3W and 1029–36). Select Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, First Report of Session 2008–09, HC 1117, para 53 HC Deb (2002–03) 407, c 1240. CJ (2009–10) 240. For allocation of committee Chairs to parties, see 26 May 2010, 3 June 2015, and 4 July 2017; for election of Chairs by the House, see 10 June 2010, 18 June 2015, and 12 July 2017; for agreement to nomination of committee members, see 30 June 2010, 6 July 2015, and 11 September 2017.

Lists of Members serving on select committees 38.6By Standing Order No 122, lists are to be posted in appropriate conspicuous places and in the lobby of the House of all Members serving on each select committee. The current membership of select committees is also available on the parliamentary website and in various commercial publications.

Addition of Members to, and discharge of Members from, select committees 38.7Once nominated, a select committee may subsequently be enlarged by the addition of other members appointed in the same manner. Members cannot be added so as to increase the size of the committee beyond such number as the House may have agreed upon, unless a motion that the committee shall consist of the larger number has previously been agreed to by the House. A Member (other than a Chair elected by the House) cannot formally resign from a committee and thus remains a member of the committee unless and until a motion discharging them from membership is agreed to by the House, although Members may under certain circumstances, such as when they become Ministers or accept an official position which is incompatible for one reason or another with continued membership of the committee concerned, cease to take any part in that committee's proceedings.1 In practice, changes in membership, even of committees set up under a standing order which itself requires that membership should continue for the remainder of a Parliament, are by no means infrequent. A single motion is often used to discharge one Member and add another. A Member may be added by a motion to replace one who has ceased to be a Member of the House. Members have been added to a select committee for the purpose of their consideration of a particular matter within the committee's order of reference.2 The House has endorsed a recommendation of the Select Committee on Reform of the House of Commons that ‘there should be clear consequences for unreasonable absence from select committees’3 and directed that where the attendance of any member of a select committee in any session is below 60 per cent of the committee's formal meetings, at the end of that session the Speaker may invite the Chair of the Committee of Selection to propose to the House that any such member should be discharged and that an election to fill that vacancy should be held within two weeks of the beginning of the next session.4

Footnotes 1. In November 2001 and subsequently, the motion appointing the members of the Liaison Committee specified that the Chairs ‘for the time being’ of certain select committees should be members of the Liaison Committee. Consequently, a Member who ceases to be the Chair of such a committee ceases also to be a member of the Liaison Committee, CJ (2001–02) 167; CJ (2010–12) 106. For a Member discharged following a special report from a committee, see HC Deb (1994–95) 251, cc 718–43. 2. CJ (1967–68) 123. 3. Select Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, First Report of Session 2008–09, HC 1117, para 55. 4. CJ (2009–10) 293.

Resignation or removal of Chairs elected by the House 38.8Chairs elected by the House under Standing Order No 122B may give written notice to the Speaker of their wish to resign as Chair. Where such notice has been given, including for a future day, or where a Chair has ceased to be a Member of the House, the Speaker declares the Chair vacant and, as soon as practicable, announces the date of the election of a replacement. This must be ten or more sitting days after the announcement of the vacancy.1 The Speaker will declare a vacancy in similar manner where a Chair has ceased to be a Member of the House. A committee whose Chair is elected by the House may resolve that it has no confidence in its Chair. At least ten sitting days' notice must be given of such a motion. A no confidence motion must be agreed to without a division, or the majority of the membership of the committee, including at least two members from the largest party represented on the committee and at least one member from another party, must vote in favour. A motion of no confidence cannot be made in a committee in the six months following the election of a Chair by the House or in the year following a vote on such a motion.2 A resolution of no confidence must be reported to the House, whereupon the Speaker declares the Chair vacant and announces the date of the election of a replacement.3

Footnotes 1. SO No 122C. The Speaker has announced a resignation intended to take effect on a future day, thereby allowing an election to take place on the same day as the resignation took effect: Votes and Proceedings, 4 September 2018 and 15 October 2018. 2. SO No 122C(3)–(5). 3. SO No 122C(1)(c).

Participation in committees of other Members of the House 38.9Although Members of the House are formally entitled to be present at the sittings of committees, whether they are deliberating or examining witnesses, Standing Order No 126 empowers any select committee, or sub-committee thereof, to direct a Member to withdraw forthwith if it considers that the presence at a meeting, or part of a meeting, to which the public are not admitted, of any specified Member of the House would obstruct the business of the committee.1 A Member of the House attending a committee of which they are not a member may not address the committee, put questions to witnesses, or interfere in any manner whatever in the proceedings.2 In a substantial development from this principle, the House agreed in November 2018 that any committee (with evidence-taking powers) could invite members of other committees to attend and, at the discretion of the Chair, to ask questions and otherwise participate, but not to move motions, vote or count towards a quorum.3 Further exceptions are made in the following cases: the Committees on Standards and on Privileges, in respect of the Attorney General, the Advocate General, and the Solicitor General, where they are Members of the House, who may take part in deliberations (see Standing Orders Nos 148A(9) and 149(12)); committees considering proposed national planning policy statements, in respect of any Member invited by the Committee, who at the Chair's discretion take part in proceedings (see Standing Order No 152H(3)); and the Regulatory Reform Committee, which has a wider power than the Standing Order No 137A(1)(e) power referred to above, in that the power extends to any Member, not just a member of another committee (see Standing Order No 141(13)). Committees have recommended to the House the nomination by the House of additional Members to serve on sub-committees appointed by them.4 This procedure has been mentioned in a committee's order of reference.5

Footnotes 1. CJ (1994–95) 286. SO No 126 also requires the Serjeant at Arms to act on any instructions received from the Chair of a committee in pursuance of this order. No use has yet been made of this power by any committee. 2. 4 Hatsell 135; Parl Deb (1844) 73, cc 725–26; nor has a Member (not being a member of the committee) who is giving evidence to a committee any right to be present during any deliberation upon the answers given by them, CJ (1780–82) 870. 3. SO No 137A(1)(e); Votes and Proceedings, 27 November 2018. 4. CJ (1966–67) 479, 507; see also Fifth Special Report of the Science and Technology Committee of Session 1966–67, HC 463. In one case, a committee recommended such nominations but the House took no action, Second Special Report of the Education and Science Committee of Session 1967–68, HC 231. 5. CJ (1965–66) 44, 52; ibid (1966–67) 69, 80. See also Special Reports of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) of Session 1965–66, HC 27, and of Session 1966–67, HC 64.

Participation in committees of non-Members of the House 38.10The Welsh Affairs Committee may invite members of any specified committee of the National Assembly for Wales to attend and participate in its proceedings (but not to vote).1 Provision is made for ‘lay members’ to participate in the work of the Committee on Standards (see paras 5.4 and 38.78 for the role and powers of the lay members).2 A committee has also been given power to invite such persons as it might select to attend any of its meetings, and to take part in the deliberations of the committee and its sub-committees, although the power was not used.3 A joint committee was appointed in 1933 with power to ‘call into consultation representatives of the Indian States and of British India’.4

Footnotes 1. SO No 137A(3) and see Procedure Committee, HC 582 (2003–04), HC Deb (2003–04) 422, cc 73–92 and CJ (2005–06) 127. 2. Votes and Proceedings, 24 July 2018. 3. CJ (1975–76) 371. Committees have also been authorised to appoint persons not being Members of the House to serve on subcommittees, CJ (1917–18) 170; ibid (1918) 13, 72, 204; ibid (1919) 98; ibid (1920) 94 (committees on National Expenditure, Luxury Duty and Transport). 4. CJ (1932–33) 137; the representatives concerned sat with the committee and put questions to the witnesses subject to the direction of the Chair but did not take part in the deliberations of the committee (see also Procedure Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2010–12, Lay membership of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, HC 1606, para 21).

Orders of reference 38.11As noted earlier, a select committee possesses no formal authority except that which it derives by delegation from the House. When a select committee is appointed to consider or inquire into a matter, the scope of its deliberations or inquiries is defined by the order by which the committee is appointed (the order of reference). The interpretation of the order of reference of a select committee is, however, a matter for the committee.1 Committees have sometimes resolved that certain matters were within the scope of their order of reference.2 However, when a bill is committed, or referred, to a select committee, the bill itself is the order of reference, and the inquiries and deliberations of the committee must be confined to the bill and amendments relevant to its subject-matter. Departmental select committees have regularly found when inquiring into questions of government policy that such questions cross departmental boundaries. In such cases committees have, for example, taken evidence from several Ministers from different departments appearing together. It is customary for the Chair of a committee to inform other Chairs when an inquiry is being considered into issues which overlap with the responsibilities of other committees and, should a dispute arise, the Liaison Committee has a role in resolving it. Motions establishing committees to inquire into specific matters3 or draft bills4 have usually required the committee to report by a certain date.

Footnotes 1. The Speaker has upheld this practice in a particular case, HC Deb (1982–83) 40, c 184 and ibid (2008–09) 485, c 304. 2. In 1981, the Welsh Affairs Committee resolved ‘That in the opinion of the Committee, the Boundary Commission for Wales may be regarded for the purposes of this order of reference as an associated public body of the Welsh Office’, see Minutes of Proceedings of Session 1980–81, HC 494, p xxii; and see HC Deb (1993–94) 248, c 1273. The Select Committee on Post Office Servants divided on the question ‘That (a certain subject) is within the terms of reference of the committee’, Session 1906, HC 226, Qs 677–78. The Speaker having been consulted as to the regularity of this proceeding gave it as his view that the Chair had been right in leaving the matter for the decision of the committee. For other instances of committees coming to resolutions as to the scope of their orders of reference, see Proceedings of Committees on Ministers' Money (Ireland), Session 1847–48, HC 559, pp x–xi; Income and Property Tax, Session 1852, HC 570, pp xi–xii; Indian Territories, Session 1852–53, HC 768, pp iv–v; Land Transport Corps, Session 1857–58, HC 401, p viii; Contagious Diseases Acts, Session 1881, HC 351, p x; Privilege (Mr Gray), Session 1882, HC 406, pp xix–xx; and Aged Deserving Poor, Session 1899, HC 296, p xv. 3. For example, House of Commons Reform Committee, CJ (2008–09) 571; Select Committee on Governance of the House, CJ (2014–15) 202–3. 4. For example, Draft Mental Incapacity Bill and Draft Civil Contingencies Bill, CJ (2002–03) 534; Draft Constitutional Renewal Bill, CJ (2007–08) 358; Draft Restoration and Renewal Bill, Votes and Proceedings, 26 November 2018.

Instructions 38.12The House may give a select committee authority to extend its inquiries beyond the limits laid down in the order of reference by means of an instruction or by resolving to refer a matter to the committee.1 Such an instruction may be either mandatory,2 or permissive.3 Instructions may also restrict the scope of a committee's inquiry or limit its powers. The same result has been achieved by an amendment made to the order of reference on a subsequent day.4 Where an instruction is proposed to be given to a committee on its appointment, it may be moved immediately after the committee has been appointed; but it is more convenient to move it after the members have been nominated, the quorum has been fixed, and the committee given power to send for persons, papers and records.

Footnotes 1. CJ (1966–67) 420; CJ (2005–06) 143 (Committee on the Crossrail Bill to report on matters relating to the environmental impact of the railway scheme provided for in the bill); CJ (2010–12) 643–44. 2. For example, CJ (1836) 215; ibid (1961–62) 106; ibid (1994–95) 21, 93, 470. 3. For example, CJ (1880) 48; ibid (1884) 388; ibid (1902) 119. 4. CJ (1945–46) 72, 263; ibid (1947–48) 95.

Reference of papers to select committees 38.13Under Standing Order No 137A, all select committees, including any sub-committees, with power to send for persons, papers and records, have the power to communicate their unreported evidence to any other select committee or sub-committee of either House of Parliament, or to the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly or to any of their committees. Reports of previous committees, or the evidence taken before them, and other papers which have been laid upon the Table of the House, are sometimes referred to committees.1 Such a reference may serve to direct the particular attention of the committee to documents relating to the subject of its inquiry, or, in particular cases, to explain or enlarge the original terms of reference. Reports or written or oral evidence of previous committees which have lapsed are frequently referred to later committees which are to continue inquiries left uncompleted (see para 38.52 ). If a committee wishes to use documents in the custody of the officers of the House of Lords, the House will, at the request of the committee, send a message to the House of Lords requesting it to communicate a copy of the document. The document, when communicated, will be referred to the committee.

Footnotes 1. Report of a previous committee, eg CJ (1936–37) 100; ibid (1990–91) 522; evidence given before a previous committee, eg ibid (1974–75) 73; memoranda received by a previous committee, ibid (1992–93) 164; evidence given before and memoranda received by a previous committee, eg ibid (1990–91) 123, 138; ibid (1995–96) 132; ibid (1997–98) 91; minutes of evidence taken before a committee appointed by a government department, ibid (1931–32) 276; reports of, and evidence given before, a commissioner, ibid (1898). Petitions against a hybrid bill have been referred to a committee in the next session, CJ (1994–95) 538.

Proceedings in select committees Contents Declaration of interests Time of first meeting Chair of a select committee Quorum Voting in select committees Rescission of resolutions of select committees Matters sub judice Formal minutes 38.14Select committees are regarded as extensions of the House, limited in their inquiries by the extent of the authority given them, but governed for the most part in their proceedings by the same broad rules as those which prevail in the House. Select committee proceedings are generally more informal in character than in either the House itself or in Committee of the whole House. Members do not stand in order to speak and address each other by name. The use of laptops and other similar devices is permitted.1 Many decisions, including decisions of a formal character or involving the exercise of a formal power (such as the appointment of a specialist adviser or the authorisation of expenditure), are sometimes effectively taken by select committees without any question being explicitly proposed or put from the Chair. Such decisions may include, for example, from whom to seek evidence in connection with any inquiry. Other matters, however, do require the explicit formal putting of questions. These include the agreement of draft reports. In the case of any disagreement which cannot otherwise be resolved, a division can take place only on a question formally put from the Chair.

Footnotes 1. Use of electronic equipment is governed by the resolution of the House of 13 October 2011; CJ (2010–12) 905; and Resolution of the Liaison Committee, 24 October 2011. Laptops must be used with decorum and without disturbance to others. While there is no prohibition on committee members sending or receiving communications during public sessions, Members should, out of courtesy, refrain from making public comments on the evidence being taken by a committee whilst the session is in progress.

Declaration of interests 38.15As set out in the Members' Code of Conduct, Members are expected always to be open and frank in declaring any relevant interests they may have. The particular requirements as they apply in select committee work are set out in the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members.1 In any proceeding of a select committee, Members must disclose any relevant financial interest or benefit of whatever nature, whether direct or indirect, that they may have had, may have or may be expecting to have. Although this obligation is expressed in terms of financial interests, it is taken in practice to include relevant interests of a non-financial nature, such as membership of a trade union or pressure group.2 This requirement on select committee members is additional to the requirement on all Members to register interests in the Register of Members' Financial Interests (see para 5.8 ), and includes some types of interests which do not require registration. All such declarations made in private session are entered in the formal minutes of the committee (see para 38.26 ). Before the first meeting of the committee after its appointment or reconstitution, a copy of the registered interests of each of its members is circulated to the committee. Members are required to supplement this, either in writing or orally, with details of any other financial, or other nonregistered, relevant interests for circulation at that meeting.3 A similar process is followed for any Member who joins a committee after its first meeting. It is the responsibility of Members to declare any subsequent changes to the declarations so recorded in the formal minutes, and they are sent a reminder sessionally to do so. Members are, however, also required to make a declaration of interests which are of particular relevance to an inquiry when the committee is deciding on the subject of the inquiry, even if interests have already been recorded in the formal minutes. This should be done at the beginning of any inquiry to which that interest relates; and should be repeated at evidence sessions where witnesses particularly connected with any such interest are heard, including when asking questions which relate, or might reasonably be thought by others to relate, directly to any such interest.4 Such declarations should be made while the witnesses are present5 and in a similar form to that required on the floor of the House. Where a member of the committee, particularly the Chair, has a financial interest which is directly affected by a particular inquiry, or considers that a personal interest may reflect upon the work of the committee or its subsequent report, they should stand aside from the committee proceedings relating to it.6

Footnotes 1. Code of Conduct together with Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members, Session 2017–19, HC 1882. 2. See First Report of Committee on Members' Interests of Session 1990–91, HC 108, para 12. 3. CJ (1992–93) 155; First Report of Select Committee on Members' Interests of Session 1990–91, HC 108. For recent examples, see the Formal Minutes of most select committees at the beginning of Session 2015–16 and Session 2017–19. 4. See eg Fifth Report of the Culture Media and Sport Committee of Session 2000–01, HC 458-II, Q345; Welsh Affairs Committee, Session 2009–10, HC 274, Q2; Health and Social Care Committee, Formal Minutes of Session 2017–19, HC 523, Q187. 5. And will thus be recorded in the transcript of the evidence session, published on the committee website. 6. For instances of Members taking no further part in inquiries into matters in which they have a direct personal interest, see eg Agriculture Committee, Minutes of Proceedings of Session 1995–96, HC 717, p iv; International Development Committee, Minutes of Proceedings of Session 2003–04, HC 1308 (10 February 2004).

Time of first meeting 38.16The day and hour of the first meeting of a select committee are fixed either by the Chair elected by the House or, if the committee chooses its own Chair, by the senior member of the committee, that is, the person who has been a Member of the House for the longest period irrespective of continuity of service.1 The meeting may be held on a day on which the House is not sitting only if, as is now a common practice, the committee has been empowered to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House. Nor may a select committee hold its first meeting on the day on which it is appointed, unless the House has given it leave to sit and proceed forthwith.2 But where a committee is appointed under a standing order or an order made on a previous day, it may meet as soon as the members have been nominated.

Footnotes 1. If the committee has the same terms of reference as one which lapsed in the previous session (a General Election not having intervened in the meanwhile), the day and hour of meeting are fixed by the Member who was Chair of the committee in the preceding session unless they were not re-nominated to the committee. 2. The last occasion on which such power was given was in the case of the Select Committee on Mr Gladstone's Funeral, CJ (1898) 224. It is the general practice for committees appointed to draw up reasons for disagreeing to Lords amendments to be given the power to sit forthwith, eg CJ (2008–09) 702.

Election of Chair by a committee 38.17The first proceeding of a committee whose Chair is not elected by the House is to choose a Chair (see para 38.15 for the rule that details of members' financial and other relevant interests should be circulated to members prior to the election of the Chair). The Chair may be called to the Chair by the general voice of the members present, on the proposal of one of the members, with a clear entry in the formal minutes; but if there is a difference of opinion as to who shall be called to the Chair, the practice is that the Clerk of the committee puts the question that the member first proposed ‘do take the Chair of the committee’. If the majority is in favour, that member thereupon takes the Chair; but if not, a similar question is put in relation to the second member proposed. This process has to be repeated until a member has secured a majority. When a vote on this question has resulted in a tie, or where no member of the committee has been willing to make a motion that a member do take the Chair, a committee has called a member to the Chair for a single sitting only and a decision was taken on a permanent Chair at a subsequent meeting.1 A committee has considered a motion to elect a member whose election had been negatived at a previous meeting.2 A committee with power to appoint two sub-committees has elected the two members who were to be Chairs of the sub-committees to act as joint Chairs (or alternate as Chair) of the main committee.3 A member has been chosen Chair in their absence,4 in which case it is necessary to call another member to the Chair for that meeting. Another member is sometimes appointed Chair in place of the one first chosen.5 Such motions require notice (see para 38.24 ).

Footnotes 1. Home Affairs Committee, First Report of Session 1979–80, HC 434, p ix; Select Committee on European Legislation, Minutes of Proceedings of Session 1987–88, HC 43-i, p xxx; HC 43-ii, p xlviii; HC 43-iii, p xl; HC 43-iv, p xxviii. Where a committee has had a serious disagreement over the election of a Chair, it has reported its formal minutes earlier than it would otherwise have done so in order to allow public debate of that disagreement – see International Development Committee, Minutes of Proceedings of Session 2001–02 (18 July 2001), HC 1326. 2. Employment Committee, Minutes of Proceedings of Session 1992–93 (15 July and 29 October 1992), HC 961. 3. Environment, Transport and the Regions Committee, Minutes of Proceedings of Session 1997–98 (15 July 1997), HC 1162; Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee, CJ (2001–02) 106. 4. Clergy Disqualification, Session 1952–53, HC 200, p vii; Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, First Report of Session 1969–70, HC 10-i, p 5. 5. Following appointment of Chair to ministerial office, Environment Committee, Minutes of Proceedings of Session 1993–94, HC 712, pp 18–20 and of Session 1994–95, HC 841; CJ (2002–03) 552 (Home Affairs Committee).

Absence of a Chair 38.18If at any sitting the Chair is absent, or has to leave before the sitting is concluded, the other members present choose a temporary Chair for that sitting, or the remainder of it, on a formal decision; the temporary Chair vacates the position on the Chair's arrival or return.1 A similar course is followed if the Chair leaves the Chair to give evidence. In the case of a contest for the position of temporary Chair, the same procedure is adopted as for the election of the Chair by a committee.2 A select committee has resolved that in the absence of the Chair, a particular member shall take the Chair,3 or has ordered a particular member to take the Chair whenever the committee is informed by the Clerk of the unavoidable absence of the Chair.4 Formally, however, such a resolution debars the committee from proceeding in the event of both the Chair and the other member being absent.5 Occasionally, by prior agreement, a member of the committee has acted as Chair in the place of the usual Chair when evidence is being taken on a particular matter.6 This does not preclude the attendance of the usual Chair and would not vest any formal powers of the Chair—as opposed to the task of chairing a particular meeting—in the member acting in this capacity.

Footnotes 1. For example, Trade and Industry Committee, Minutes of Proceedings of Session 1995–96, HC 740, p xv. 2. Education Science and Arts Committee, Minutes of Proceedings of Session 1983–84, HC 646, p x. 3. National Expenditure Committee, Minutes of Proceedings of Session 1942–43, HC 133, p 9; ibid, Session 1943–44, HC 125, p 5; ibid, Session 1944–45, HC 104, p 5; Estimates Committee, Minutes of Proceedings of Session 1946–47, HC 149, p ccxxviii; ibid, Session 1947–48, HC 205, p iv; Defence Committee, Minutes of Proceedings of Session 1979–80, HC 842, p 3. 4. Estimates Committee, Minutes of Proceedings of Session 1953–54, HC 293, p 5; ibid, Session 1954–55, HC 130, p xii; ibid, Session 1955–56, HC 427, p 5; ibid, Session 1956–57, HC 308, p 4. 5. But see Select Committee on National Expenditure, Minutes of Proceedings of Session 1942–43, HC 133, p 11. 6. Minutes of Proceedings, Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 1993–94, HC 713; ibid, Treasury and Civil Service Committee, Session 1992–93, HC 976, p xvi; ibid, Employment Committee, Session 1994–95, HC 840, p ix; Welsh Affairs Committee, Formal Minutes of Session 2009–10, 3 December 2009, 14 January 2010.

Payment of Chairs 38.19The Chairs of certain select committees receive additional payments in respect of their role as Chairs, see para 4.44.

Powers of Chair 38.20The Chair of a select committee takes a full part in the proceedings of the committee, and, in practice, normally exercises a substantial measure of authority in the determination of the conduct of the committee's affairs. It is customary for committees to delegate decisions on routine matters, such as adjustments to the timing of meetings and the organisation of oral evidence sessions, to the Chair. Committees may also delegate to their Chair the power to report specified written evidence received between meetings, including during a recess.1 In addition, the Chair has, and exercises, within the more limited authority conferred on the committee, formal duties, such as the proposing and putting of formal questions and the announcing of the results of divisions which are similar to those of the Chair in a Committee of the whole House. There is thus an inherent right in the Chair of a select committee, if it seems that the transaction of business is becoming impossible, to attempt to secure the progress of business,2 although the Chair has few formal powers to assist in this. Standing Order Nos 32, 35, 36, 42 and 43 do not apply to proceedings in a select committee; consequently the Chair does not have the power of accepting a motion for the closure of a debate, the power to deal with dilatory motions (though a dilatory motion may be moved)3 or with irrelevance and repetition in debate. Nor, when a committee is considering a draft report, does the Chair have the power to select amendments for consideration. Similarly, if the select committee is considering a bill, the Chair does not have the power of selecting which new clauses or amendments shall be proposed, which is exercised by the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Deputy Chairmen in Committees of the whole House, and by the Chairs of general committees (see para 20.33 ).

Footnotes 1. Use has also been made of this power to enable written evidence received just before a dissolution to be reported to the House. 2. Parl Deb (1893) 10, c 913. 3. For example, First Report of the Energy Committee, HC 165 (1986–87) p lxxxi.

Tenure of Chair 38.21Standing Order No 122A limits the term of office of any Chair by prohibiting a select committee from having as its Chair any member who has served as Chair of that committee for the two previous Parliaments or a continuous period of ten years, whichever is the longer.1 The rule does not place any restriction on a member being elected to the Chair of a different committee; if it is uncertain (because of changes to the remit or structure of a committee) whether a committee is the same or a different committee, the matter is resolved by the Speaker.2

Footnotes 1. The permanent standing orders provide for a continuous period of eight years, CJ (2001–02) 556 and ibid (2005–06) 122; a decision of the House extended the period from eight to ten years for the remainder of the 2017 Parliament, Votes and Proceedings, 18 April 2018. 2. HC Deb (4 July 2017) 626, c 1077.

Quorum 38.22Standing Order No 124 provides that the quorum of a select committee shall be three or a quarter of the number of its nominated members, whichever is the greater, and in calculating the quorum fractions are to be counted as one. In determining whether a quorum of a select committee is present, the Chair is to be counted. The quorum of a sub-committee is frequently set in the order providing for its appointment (see para 38.42 ). A select committee or a sub-committee cannot proceed to business unless a quorum is present, and if, after a committee has proceeded to business, the number of members present should fall below the quorum, the Clerk of the committee is required to call the attention of the Chair to the fact, and the Chair must thereupon either suspend the proceedings till a quorum is present, or adjourn the committee to a future day.1 Where, under Standing Order No 137A, more than two committees (or sub-committees) meet together for purposes other than agreeing a draft report or agreeing a Chair, Standing Order No 124 provides that the quorum of each shall be two. The quorum of the Commons members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights is also two;2 the quorum set for the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards (a joint committee) was also two members from each House, with a quorum of one (from either House) for sub-committees.3

Footnotes 1. SO No 124; HC 571 (1849) p vii; HC 775 (1852–53) p v, etc. For procedure when the Chair also is absent, see HC 426 (1955–56) p 6 and CJ (1955–56) 348. See also HC Deb (2008–09) 489, c 158. 2. HC Deb (2000–01) 374, cc 1021–30. 3. CJ (2012–13) 181; LJ (2012–13) 233.

Voting in select committees 38.23Questions are determined in select committees in the same manner as in the House, except that when a division is taken, the names of the members are called out in alphabetical order by the Clerk, and the members, as their names are called, answer ‘aye’ or ‘no’, or state that they decline to vote. As in the House, the occupant of the Chair may vote only when there is an equality of voices;1 in exercising their casting vote, a Chair is not bound to follow the same principles as in the House (see para 20.89 ff) though they may choose to do so. When a division is being taken, the doors of the committee room are deemed to be locked, and a member's vote has been disallowed, as they were not in the room when the question was put.2 A member who has voted by mistake may be allowed to correct the error.3 By Standing Order No 128, in the event of a division taking place, the name of the proposer of the motion or amendment, the question put, and the respective votes of each member must be entered in the formal minutes of the committee. Following the practice in the House, abstentions are not recorded.4 In a select committee, unlike a general committee, the Chair is not obliged to suspend the sitting to enable members to vote in a division in the House, though it is the general practice to do so.

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1836) 32, cc 501–4; CJ (1836) 214, etc. This rule does not apply to a joint committee where (with the exception of the Joint Committee on Tax Law Rewrite Bills, see SO No 152C(5)) the practice of the Lords prevails (see para 41.7 ), nor to a private bill committee (see para 45.19 ). 2. Railways (Rates and Fares) Committee, Minutes of Proceedings of Session 1882, HC 317, p lxiii. 3. Railways (Rates and Fares) Committee, Minutes of Proceedings of Session 1882, HC 317, p l. 4. For example, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Tenth Report of Session 2002–03, HC 873.

Rescission of resolutions of select committees 38.24Select committees follow similar principles to those applying to proceedings in the Chamber, in that resolutions once formally decided should not lightly be overturned. Where, therefore, a formal decision has been taken resulting in an order or resolution recorded in the committee's formal minutes,1 previous notice must be given to all the members of the committee of any motion which would involve rescission. As noted above, many decisions of a committee are taken informally (that is, without the recording of a formal question and decision in the formal minutes of the committee) and such decisions are not affected by the rule.

Footnotes 1. Minutes of Proceedings of Committees on Imprisonment for Debt, Session 1873, HC 348, p xx; Railways, Session 1881, HC 374, p xvi; Tuberculosis (Animals) Compensation Bill, Session 1904, HC 272, p ix; House of Commons Members' Fund, Session 1946–47, HC 110, p xv; Scottish Affairs, Session 1981–82, HC 539, pp 3–4; Transport, Session 1987–88, HC 733, p 11; Trade and Industry, Session 1991–92, HC 382, p vii.

Matters sub judice 38.25The resolution of the House prescribing its practice with regard to matters that are awaiting judgment in the courts (see paras 20.11, 21.19 ) includes proceedings in select committees.1 The discretion available to the Chair should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances and, if time allows, following consultation with the Speaker. Committees have suspended inquiries in progress because a witness had been charged with criminal offences related to the subject-matter of the inquiry2 or have decided not to take evidence from particular witnesses in the course of an inquiry because the committee had been informed that the witnesses would also be witnesses in impending criminal or civil proceedings.3 The bar does not, however, operate when committees are deliberating, since they do so in private, nor when evidence is being taken in private and, since there is no restriction on the right of the House to legislate, the proceedings of a select committee on a bill need not be affected by it.

Footnotes 1. CJ (2001–02) 194–95. Previously, the principle that such matters should not be prejudiced by public comment held good in select committees: Science and Technology Committee, Genetic Engineering Sub-Committee, Session 1978–79, HC 355, p 19; Energy Committee, Session 1987–88, HC 307, p 110. 2. See Trade and Industry Committee, Minutes of Proceedings of Session 1989–90, HC 693, pp x–xii; Committee of Privileges, First Report of Session 2016–17, Conduct of witnesses before a select committee: Mr Colin Myler, Mr Tom Crone, Mr Les Hinton, and News International HC 662, paras 10–15 (and see also Committee of Privileges, First Special Report of Session 2014–15, Matter of Privilege referred to the Committee on 22 May 2012, HC 1068, paras 2–5). 3. In these circumstances, the committee may make a special report to the House explaining the circumstances. See Second Special Report of the Social Security Committee of Session 1992–93, HC 527; First Special Report of the Trade and Industry Committee of Session 1989–90, HC 403.

Formal minutes 38.26The formal minutes1 of a select committee record the formal proceedings and decisions of a committee. Standing Order No 128 requires the names of the members present at each sitting of a select committee to be entered. Also recorded in the formal minutes are details of the declaration of members' interests (see paras 38.15 ), any formal decisions come to by the committee as orders or resolutions (typically including such matters as decisions to begin an inquiry into a particular topic, to seek to undertake a UK or overseas visit, or to appoint a specialist adviser), details of divisions (see para 38.23 ) and details of the committee's consideration of draft reports, including the text of any draft report which does not form the basis of a published report and the text of any proposed paragraph which does not (amended or otherwise) appear in the committee's report and of any amendment which is divided upon, negatived or withdrawn (see para 38.46 for procedure on consideration of draft reports). Visits within the UK or overseas are also recorded. By Standing Order No 129, the formal minutes of a select committee must be reported to the House during the session to which they relate, unless the committee proposes to bring them up with a report in a following session of the same Parliament. There is no reference in the Standing Order to the formal minutes of sub-committees,2 but the usual practice is to publish them with the formal minutes of the parent committee. Current practice is for the formal minutes of each meeting of most select committees to be published on the Internet after an interval.3 A complete version of the formal minutes for the session is published on the Internet as soon as possible at the end of each session. The formal minutes relating to consideration of reports are published with the reports to which they relate. When a committee has made no report, its formal minutes have been ordered to be laid before the House.4

Footnotes 1. Formerly, before Session 2005–06, known as Minutes of Proceedings. 2. Departmental select committees are, however, authorised to report the formal minutes of sub-committees (SO No 152(4)(c)). 3. This is authorised by an order of the House, see, for example, CJ (2010–12) 169; CJ (2013–14) 13. The Administration Committee's practice has been to publish on the Internet a fuller record of its proceedings. 4. CJ (1936–37) 252; ibid (1955–56) 429; ibid (1985–86) 81.

Sittings and adjournment of select committees Contents Sittings outside the precincts of the House Sittings outside the United Kingdom 38.27It is usual for select committees to be given power on appointment ‘to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House’ and such a provision is included in the standing orders governing the appointment of the select committees regularly appointed.1 When this power has been given to a committee, it has been extended in most cases to its sub-committees. Select committees not given this power would require the leave of the House to sit on days when the House does not sit and, under Standing Order No 123, a motion for such leave may not be moved without notice. Select committees may not, however, sit during periods when Parliament is prorogued.2 When it has been necessary further to adjourn a committee beyond the date fixed for its next meeting, or otherwise change the date or time of the next meeting, the general practice has been that such arrangements are made informally on the instruction of the Chair. Where possible in such circumstances steps are taken to consult the members informally.3 Similarly, committees have sometimes agreed to leave arrangements for the reassembling of the committee to the Chair.4

Footnotes 1. With the exception of the Selection Committee. 2. HC Deb (1996–97) 292, c 883; meetings at which evidence is being taken which are underway at the time of prorogation have been permitted a short overrun to allow the evidence to be completed. 3. Strictly, however, the Chair does not have the power to alter the decision of the committee and on occasion the House, on the application of the Chair, has made the necessary order, CJ (1934–35) 48; ibid (1955–56) 300; ibid (1956–57) 67; ibid (1957–58) 67; ibid (1969–70) 194, 262. 4. For example, Social Security Committee Minutes of Proceedings of Session 1995–96, HC 736, pp ix, xxi, etc. On 17 April 1996 the Committee resolved ‘That the Chairman of the committee be authorised to summon meetings of the Committee at short notice for the purpose of taking evidence’, ibid, p xii.

Sittings outside the precincts of the House 38.28The majority of select committees are given leave on appointment ‘to adjourn from place to place’ which allows them to sit and hear evidence outside the precincts of the House.1 If such provision is not made in its order of reference, a committee must obtain the leave of the House to meet outside the precincts.2 It is also the regular practice for select committees having the power to adjourn from place to place, especially those concerned with investigations into aspects of government policy or more general issues, to make informal visits outside the precincts of the House for a variety of purposes relevant to their inquiries. A committee has also been given power to travel to and hold sittings in a particular place3 or within the United Kingdom only.4

Footnotes 1. In this connection, see Committee of Privileges, Second Report of Session 1968–69, HC 308. 2. CJ (1864) 255; ibid (1881) 336; ibid (1914–16) 22; ibid (1983–84) 451 (when a sub-committee, having power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom, was given, for the remainder of the session, power to visit Canada and the United States); see also HC Deb (1983–84), 56, cc 1143–52; ibid (1990–91) 194, cc 916–17. 3. CJ (1928) 203; see also ibid (1834) 69; ibid (1835) 39. 4. For example, CJ (1975–76) 122; ibid (1979–80) 58; ibid (1994–95) 21. The Joint Committee on the Draft Gambling Bill was established in the House of Commons with power ‘to adjourn from place within the United Kingdom’ (CJ (2002–03) 534); subsequently the order of reference was amended to allow it also to travel overseas (CJ (2002–03) 634). The original order establishing the Joint Committee on Human Rights gave the committee power ‘to adjourn to institutions of the Council of Europe outside the United Kingdom no more than four times in any calendar year’, in addition to travelling within the United Kingdom (CJ (2000–01) 61); the restrictions were removed in the following session (CJ (2001–02) 282).

Sittings outside the United Kingdom 38.29The Liaison Committee (see para 38.82 ) examines, under delegated authority from the House of Commons Commission, applications for overseas travel by select committees. Guidelines for the submission of applications were originally issued by the Commission and applied by the Liaison Committee. The Commission now leaves the decisions to the Liaison Committee with a limit fixed each year by the Commission on the total expenditure which may be incurred by select committees on overseas travel. Furthermore, committees may make visits to certain European Union institutions without requiring prior approval by the Liaison Committee, provided that the cost does not exceed a fixed amount. For the most part, select committees travelling overseas do so for the purpose of gathering information through informal visits and private discussions with representatives of official and other organisations in the countries visited. In such cases, no formal meetings take place and no formal evidence is heard, though it is common practice for the staff of the committee to prepare a memorandum recording exchanges and information received during a visit, and this may be published with a report.1 Oral evidence (or memoranda containing transcripts of discussions), however, is sometimes taken from British nationals whilst a committee is engaged on a visit overseas,2 and oral evidence has also been given by foreign nationals overseas.3 Sometimes, agreed minutes of discussions held abroad between committees or sub-committees and foreign nationals have been published by select committees.4 Authority is sometimes given for the expenses of witnesses normally resident overseas to be paid, thus in effect obviating the need for the committee to travel. (For the position of foreign nationals coming as witnesses to give evidence before select committees sitting in the United Kingdom, see para 38.39.) The prohibition on meetings of select committees during prorogation strictly applies only to formal meetings.5

Footnotes 1. For example, Seventh Report of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee of Session 2001–02, HC 827, annex; Third Report of the Health Committee of Session 2002–03, HC 69, appendix; Second Report of the Education and Skills Committee of Session 2002–03, HC 486, annex; Third Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee of Session 2008–09, HC 196, annex; Education Committee, Third Report of Session 2010–12, HC 744; Public Accounts Committee, Fifty-fourth Report of Session 2017–19, HC 1404. For an appendix to minutes of evidence, see Fourth Report of the Social Security Committee of Session 1995–96, HC 440, Appendix 4. 2. See Seventh Report of the Estimates Committee of Session 1967–68, HC 442, p v and Fourteenth Report of Session 1966–67, HC 666, p vii; Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 1982–83, Minutes of Evidence, HC 31-viii, xii. 3. Select Committee on European Secondary Legislation, Session 1972–73, HC 463-ii, pp 217–47, 264–71; Treasury and Civil Service Committee, Session 1984–85, HC 405, pp 27–51; European Legislation Committee, Session 1994–95, HC 239-II; Digital Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Session 2017–19, Minutes of Evidence, HC 363. 4. For example, Third Report of the Science and Technology of Session 1994–95, HC 41-I. 5. In recent years, previously arranged select committee overseas visits have on occasion gone ahead when Parliament was prorogued and significant nugatory expenditure or inconvenience to others would otherwise be incurred; however, formal sittings may not take place in such circumstances and formal evidence may not be heard.

Admission of the public 38.30Select committees (and their sub-committees, except as the committee otherwise orders) have the power to admit the public during oral evidence sessions (Standing Order No 125). The effect of this standing order is that, unless a resolution is passed to allow the admittance of the public (formally ‘strangers’), evidence has to be held in private. However, it is standard practice now for committees to pass a general resolution at their first meeting, so as to ensure that the great majority of evidence is now heard in public.1 Where the public is admitted, meetings are open to the press and media and a committee has no power, for example, to exclude broadcasters from the meeting other than by going into private session (see also para 6.25 ). The only exceptions are the Committees on Standards and of Privileges, which have power to refuse to allow proceedings to which the public is admitted to be broadcast (Standing Order Nos 149(11) and 148A(8) respectively). When committees are deliberating, the public may not be admitted. This rule does not apply to appropriate officials of the House, or to specialist advisers (see para 38.43 ).2 It has become the practice for select committees on the quinquennial Armed Forces Bills to have the power to admit the public during the consideration of the bill.3 When the public are admitted, the rules which govern their conduct when present at sittings of the House (see para 6.55 ff) and at sittings of general committees (see para 38.16 ) generally apply.4 Under Standing Order No 161, the power granted to the Serjeant at Arms to take into custody any members of the public who, having been admitted into the gallery of the House, misconduct themselves or do not withdraw when ordered to do so, may, if the Chair so directs, be exercised in select committees sitting within the precincts of the House.5

Footnotes 1. For example, Transport Committee, Formal Minutes of Session 2010–12, 13 July 2010. The public are from time to time excluded by resolution during the examination of particular witnesses, eg Defence Committee, Evidence (Future size and role of the Royal Navy's Surface Fleet), Session 1987–88, HC 309, pp 20, 39, 56; Foreign Affairs Committee, Evidence, Session 1994–95, 7 December 1994, HC 34–ii. The Liaison Committee admitted Members and other passholders to its meeting to hear oral evidence from the Prime Minister on 6 July 2004 and admitted non-passholders to an adjacent committee room where the proceedings were relayed by video link. This practice has been adopted on subsequent occasions. 2. During 2008, the European Scrutiny Committee was ordered (on a temporary basis till 1 January 2009) to sit in public, unless it determined otherwise in relation to a particular meeting or part thereof; the power lapsed and was not renewed, CJ (2007–08) 188; European Scrutiny Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2008–09, HC 156, paras 9–12. 3. CJ (2005–06) 333; ibid (2010–12) 359; Votes and Proceedings, 15 October 2015. 4. Members of the public (including representatives of the media) may, however, use recording devices in public evidence sessions. For an attempt to serve a writ on a witness in presence of a committee, see Home Affairs Committee, First Special Report of Session 1993–94, HC 107. 5. The Standing Order was based on a private ruling by Mr Speaker published in HC Deb (1981–82) 19, c 385.

Witnesses and evidence Contents Papers and records Witnesses Attendance of Members and Officers Evidence from civil servants Oral evidence Administration of oaths by committees Hearing of parties before committees Witnesses from overseas Publication of oral and written evidence Publication of evidence before it is reported to the House 38.31In the conduct of their inquiries, select committees rely very largely on written and oral evidence. The House requires truthful evidence from witnesses and seeks to protect them from being obstructed from giving evidence (see paras 15.5 and 38.59 ). The House almost invariably delegates its powers ‘to send for persons, papers and records' to a select committee as part of its order of appointment.1 In practice, however, evidence is almost always secured in response to invitations rather than in express exercise of this power. It is the common practice of select committees to seek written evidence initially in particular from those whom the committee intends later to invite to give oral evidence in addition to issuing a general invitation to submit written evidence. This section therefore looks at the practice as it relates firstly to written evidence and the production of papers, and secondly to witnesses. For matters relating to disobedience of orders of a committee, the obstruction of witnesses and the premature disclosure of committee proceedings, see para 38.55 ff.

Footnotes 1. CJ (1894) 236; ibid (1946–47) 45. The Committee on Fisheries (Ireland) was given power to send for papers and records only, CJ (1849) 75. The Committee on the Boundaries of Boroughs was given leave only to receive and call for maps, memorials, reports, papers and records concerning the boroughs in question, ibid (1867–68) 183. A comprehensive description of the powers of select committees to send for persons, papers and records, is contained in the memorandum by the Clerk of the House in the First Report of the Select Committee on Procedure, Session 1977–78, HC 588-I, pp 15–37.

Papers and records 38.32Committees frequently issue calls for evidence at the beginning of an inquiry inviting interested bodies and individuals to send written evidence on the subject of an inquiry to the Clerk of the committee. Once received by the committee as evidence, papers prepared for a committee become its property and may not be published without the express authority of the committee. Some committees have agreed to a resolution at the beginning of an inquiry authorising witnesses to publish their own evidence.1 Committees may, however, decide not to accept unsolicited documents as evidence. A select committee has no power to send for any papers which, if required by the House itself, would be sought by Address (see para 7.30 ). Consequently, a select committee is not capable of taking the formal step of ordering a Secretary of State to produce papers. Nor can a committee require an officer of a public department to produce any paper which, according to the rules and practice of the House, it is not usual for the House itself to order to be laid before it (see para 7.30 ). Select committees have occasionally argued that there should be a procedure to enable them to challenge in the House a department's decision to withhold papers. Governments have opposed recommendations for a formal procedure to give them that opportunity, but have instead relied on the terms of the House's Resolution on Ministerial Accountability of March 1997 (see para 11.40 ), and in particular its provision that ‘Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest’.2 In addition, the Government has given an undertaking that ‘where there is evidence of widespread general concern in the House regarding an alleged Ministerial refusal to divulge information to a select committee’, time would be provided for a debate in the House.3 The House itself has resolved by Address for papers to be provided to a specified select committee, without a request from the committee; where there was uncertainty as to whether the obligation had been complied with, the Speaker was guided by the opinion of the committee itself.4 There is no restriction on the power of committees to require the production of papers by private bodies or individuals, provided that such papers are relevant to the committee's work as defined by its order of reference. Select committees have formally ordered papers to be produced by the Chairman of a nationalised industry5 and a private society.6 Solicitors have been ordered to produce papers relating to a client;7 and a statutory regulator has been ordered to produce papers whose release was otherwise subject to statutory restriction.8 Although the power is normally given to select committees in general terms, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments is given power to require any government department concerned to submit a memorandum explaining any instrument or other documents which may be under its consideration or to depute a representative to appear before it for the purpose of explaining any such instrument or other document.9 No document received by the Clerk of any select committee of the House may be withdrawn or altered without the knowledge and approval of the committee (Standing Order No 127).10 Under Standing Order No 137A, all committees with powers to send for persons, papers and records have the power to communicate their evidence to any other select committee in either House and also to the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly or to any of their committees.11

Footnotes 1. See Agriculture Committee, Minutes of Proceedings of Session 1995–96, HC 717, p xi. For resolution at beginning of Parliament, see Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Committee, Minutes of Proceedings of Session 2004–05, 18 July 2005; Transport Committee, Formal Minutes of Session 2010–12, 13 July 2010; Defence Committee, Formal Minutes of Session 2017–19, 12 September 2017. For resolution at beginning of proceedings, see Public Service Committee Minutes of Proceedings of Session 1995–96, HC 733 (1995–96) p iii. 2. See HC Deb (1997–98) 315, cc 865–963. 3. For example, HC Deb (1981–82) 966, c 1312; see also Procedure Committee, First Report of Session 1977–78, HC 588–I, para 7.18–27; Procedure Committee, Second Report of Session 1989–90, HC 19-I, para 162; Public Service Committee, Second Report of Session 1995–96, HC 313-I, paras 126–30; Public Service Committee, First Special Report of Session 1996–97, HC 67, p xiii. 4. Votes and Proceedings, 1 November 2017 (and see Exiting the European Union Committee, Formal Minutes of Session 2017–19, 6 December 2017; HC Deb 14 (December 2017) 633, c 605); Votes and Proceedings, 5 December 2017. In a 2010 case in the Canadian House of Commons, the Special Committee on the Canadian Commission in Afghanistan reported its opinion that the Government's refusal to hand over documents relating to Afghan detainees on grounds of national security was a breach of privilege. The report was adopted by the House and, when the Government still refused to hand over the documents, the Speaker ruled that it had committed a prima facie contempt (Debates of the Canadian House of Commons, 27 April 2010, pp 2039–45). 5. CJ (1977–78) 126. 6. Home Affairs Committee, Minutes of Proceedings of Session 1997–98, 19 February 1998, HC 573. 7. Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Formal Minutes of Session 2009–10, 19 January 2010. 8. Treasury Committee, Formal Minutes of Session 2017–19, 7 February 2018. 9. SO No 151(6). 10. For examples of leave being formally given, see Welsh Affairs Committee, Minutes of Proceedings of Session 1979–80, HC 840, p xi; Overseas Aid Committee, CJ (1969–70) 41. 11. CJ (2001–02) 557.

Witnesses 38.33As noted above, the general practice of select committees is to request witnesses to give evidence to them by means of an informal invitation issued through their Clerks or the Chair of the committee. Such requests are almost always complied with, so that committees seldom use their formal powers to summon individuals, preferring to keep them in reserve. When a select committee has the power to send for persons, that power is unqualified,1 except to the extent that it conflicts with the privileges of the Crown and of Members of the House of Lords, or with the rights of Members of the House of Commons. When a committee decides to summon a witness formally, the witness is summoned to attend the committee by an order signed by the Chair.2 Failure to attend a committee when formally summoned is a contempt and if a witness fails to appear when summoned, their conduct is reported to the House.3 If in the meantime the witness appears before the committee, the order for their attendance has been discharged;4 but if the person summoned still neglects to appear, they will be dealt with as in other cases of disobedience to an order of the House (see para 11.19 ff).5

Footnotes 1. For the position in respect of witnesses overseas, see para 38.39. If a witness whose attendance is desired by the House or by a select committee is serving a term of imprisonment, the Speaker may be asked to issue their warrant, which is personally served upon the appropriate person responsible for the prisoner's custody by a messenger of the Serjeant at Arms and by which they are directed to cause the prisoner to be brought to the House to be examined, CJ (1940–41) 9; for the case of a Member in custody, see ibid (1939–40) 227. For examples of a prisoner attending a select committee, see Report of the Select Committee on Conduct of Members, Session 1976–77, HC 490, xxii; Education, Science and Arts Committee, Minutes of Evidence, Session 1982–83, HC 45-II, 128 ff. 2. Second Report of the Energy Committee of Session 1982–83, HC 135 (Pit Closures); Energy Committee, Minutes of Proceedings of Session 1982–83, 24 November 1982, HC 392; Welsh Affairs Committee, Formal Minutes of Session 2009–10, 24 November 2009. 3. A witness who has been reported to the House by a committee for his failure to attend has been ordered to attend the committee, CJ (1920) 263. 4. CJ (1836) 352. 5. See Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Third Report of Session 2017–19, Failure of a witness to answer an Order of the Committee: conduct of Mr Dominic Cummings, HC 1115; also see Privileges Committee, Session 2016–17, Select committees and contempt inquiry, Written evidence from the Clerk of the House of Commons, February 2017.

Attendance of Members and Officers 38.34Members of the House, including Ministers, may not be formally summoned to attend as witnesses before select committees.1 When the attendance of a Member as a witness is required before a select committee, and they have not agreed to attend in the normal way, the Chair sends a written request for their attendance. Pursuant to the resolution of 16 March 1688, ‘if any Member of the House refuse, upon being sent to, to come to give evidence or information as a witness to a committee, the committee ought to acquaint the House therewith, and not summon such Member to attend the committee’.2 On occasion, Members have been ordered by the House to attend select committees.3 There has been no instance of a Member persisting in a refusal to give evidence when ordered by the House to do so.4 In a case where a Treasury Minister refused to give evidence to a departmental select committee, the committee made a special report to the House recommending that it order a Treasury Minister to attend.5 The Government, however, declined to provide time for a debate, arguing that Ministers should not be expected to appear before select committees except to answer questions on matters for which their department had responsibility.6 As with Members of the House of Commons, Members of the House of Lords, including Ministers, may not be formally summoned to attend. Under Lords Standing Order No 24 (Lords attendance at Commons Select Committees), any Lords Member requested by a committee of the Commons to attend as a witness before it or before any sub-committee appointed by it, is given leave to attend if they think fit. No messages are exchanged. Under Standing Order No 138, the House of Commons has given a general leave to attend to any Member requested to attend as a witness before a Lords committee or its sub-committees, if the Member thinks fit.7 If a committee wishes to examine any Officer of the other House, a message requesting their attendance is sent to the other House and leave given by it.8

Footnotes 1. An exception to this rule is the Committee on Standards and Privileges, which has the power to order the attendance of any Member of the House of Commons before the committee or any of its sub-committees (SO No 149(6)). 2. CJ (1688–93) 51. For an instance of a Member (a former Minister) initially refusing to give evidence, see Agriculture Committee, Session 1988–89, HC 108-I-II, para 102, pp 182–90; for an instance of a Member refusing to give evidence, see Trade and Industry Committee, Session 1991–92, HC 86, para 67. In each of these cases the committee publicly criticised the Members for their refusal. 3. CJ (1718–21) 403. In 1731, Sir Archibald Grant, a Member, was committed to the custody of the Serjeant at Arms ‘in order to his forthcoming to abide the orders of the House’, and was afterwards ordered to be brought before a committee, from time to time, in the custody of the Serjeant, ibid (1727–32) 851, 852. 4. A committee reported that a Member had declined to comply with its request for his attendance. A motion was made for ordering him to attend the committee and give evidence; but, the Member having at last expressed his willingness to attend, the motion was withdrawn, CJ (1842) 438, 453, 458; see also Report on Precedents, ibid 449; HC 392 (1842). 5. HC (2001–02) 773. 6. HC Deb (2001–02) 383, c 704. A Minister of the Crown has declined an invitation to give evidence before a select committee on the grounds that, according to the principle of collective Cabinet responsibility, another Minister had direct ministerial responsibility for giving evidence on the matter in question on behalf of the Government, HC Deb (1975–76) 903, c 287. 7. A committee unable to take evidence from a government adviser because he was a Member of the House of Lords has reported the matter to the House, Fourth Report of the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee of Session 2001–02, HC 655. 8. For example, CJ (1988–89) 501.

Evidence from civil servants 38.35Civil servants frequently give evidence to select committees, although successive governments have taken the view that they do so on behalf of their Ministers and under their direction, and that it is therefore customary for Ministers to decide which official should represent them for that purpose.1 The Government issues guidance to civil servants appearing as witnesses before select committees, which is published.2 The guidance says that a Minister will usually agree to a request from a committee to take evidence from a particular named official, but retains the right ‘to suggest an alternative civil servant, or additional civil servant(s), to the person named by the Committee if the Minister believes that would be a better way to represent them’, and that if ‘there is no agreement about which official should most appropriately give evidence, the Minister can offer to appear personally before the Committee’. The guidance, however, has not been approved by Parliament and has no parliamentary status. Although select committees have from time to time commented upon its provisions, they have never formally agreed to them.3 The guidance also says that ‘it is not the role of select committees to act as disciplinary tribunals'; where a committee is likely to ask a named official to give evidence about their personal responsibility or about the allocation of blame as between them and others—particularly where the official concerned is the subject of existing or possible internal inquiries or disciplinary proceedings—Ministers might want to suggest another official to give evidence instead.4 The guidance suggests that if committees require details of disciplinary proceedings which identify individuals, they should be given in confidence, after the proceedings are complete.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1985–86) 93, c 10W. From time to time Governments have taken the view that it would not be appropriate for certain officials to appear before select committees, eg ibid (1984–85) 76, c 13W (the Director General of the Security Service or members of his staff). See also ibid (1983–84) 92, cc 895–96. See also European Scrutiny Committee, Formal Minutes of Session 2017–19, 11 July 2018, where a named civil servant was formally summoned and attended. 2. Giving evidence to select committees (known as the ‘Osmotherly rules’), most recently issued in October 2014; for the history of the guidance, see Procedure Committee, First Report of Session 1977–78, HC 588, para 7.12; Procedure Committee, Second Report of Session 1989–90, HC 19, para 155; Treasury and Civil Service Committee, Fifth Report of Session 1993–94, HC 27, para 130; Public Service Committee, Second Report of Session 1995–96, HC 313, para 72; Liaison Committee, First Report of Session 2004–05, HC 419, paras 124–32. 3. Second Report of the Procedure Committee, Session 1989–90, HC 19, para 155. 4. For the background to these commitments see Cm 78, pp 4–5; HC 100 (1986–87); Cmnd 9916, para 44; HC 519 (1985–86); HC 62 (1986–87).

Oral evidence 38.36Committees normally take evidence while sitting in public. Evidence may also be taken in private session. When taking evidence, Members sit around a horse-shoe shaped table with the witnesses at a separate table at the open end facing the Chair. Questions may be asked by any member of the committee and the order and allocation of the questioning is directed by the Chair. Where appropriate and with the prior approval of the committee, witnesses may make use of projectors or other visual aids.1 Evidence has on occasion been taken by video link. The Committee Office produces a Guide for Witnesses giving written or oral evidence to a House of Commons select committee which contains information and advice on what to expect and how they should conduct themselves.2 The degree of formality in the questioning of committees depends on the terms of reference of the committee and the subject-matter of the questioning. However, committees, being extensions of the House, possess substantial powers to require answers to questions.3 Evidence may be given in Welsh, with both the Welsh and English versions published in the official record;4 it can also be given in other languages via an interpreter, with the interpretation into English forming the transcribed text and formal record of evidence. Witnesses are bound to answer all questions which the committee sees fit to put to them,5 and cannot excuse themselves, for example, on the ground that they may thereby subject themselves to a civil action,6 or that they have taken an oath not to disclose the matter about which they are required to testify,7 or that the matter was a privileged communication, as where a solicitor is called upon to disclose the secrets of a client;8 or on the ground that they are advised by counsel that they cannot do so without incurring the risk of self-incrimination9 or exposure to a civil suit,10 or that it would prejudice them as defendant in litigation which is pending,11 some of which would be sufficient grounds of excuse in a court of law. Nor can a witness refuse to produce documents in their possession on the ground that, though in their possession, they are under the control of a client who has given instructions not to disclose them without express authority.12 (For the treatment of matters sub judice, see paras 21.19, 38.25.) However, a witness who is unwilling to answer a question, after stating their reasons, may ask the Chair either to be excused from answering or to answer in private. Where evidence is taken in private, a witness may also request that the whole or part of their evidence should not be published (see para 38.40 ). It is generally the case that members of select committees co-operate with the Chair and with each other in questioning witnesses in order more effectively to achieve the purposes for which the committee was appointed by the House. Thus a member of a committee seldom interrupts another member except to obtain elucidation of the question being asked or to contribute to the questioning. However, a question put to a witness may be objected to by a member.13 If a question should be objected to, or if any difference should arise in regard to the questioning of a witness, witnesses and any members of the public who are present are directed by the Chair to withdraw, and the committee proceeds to consider the matter.14 When the committee has come to a decision, the witness is again called in, and the questioning proceeds.15

Footnotes 1. For example, Environment Committee, Session 1993–94, Minutes of Evidence, HC 366-II, pp 42–53. 2. The Guide (February 2016) can be found on the parliamentary website (www.parliament.uk ). 3. See also para 15.5. These powers have been confirmed from time to time. In 1947, the House of Commons resolved ‘that the refusal of a witness before a select committee to answer any question which may be put to him is a contempt of the House and an infraction of the undoubted right of this House to conduct any inquiry which may be necessary in the public interest’, CJ (1946–47) 378. See also Privileges Committee Report, Session 1946–47, HC 138. 4. Votes and Proceedings, 1 March 2017; see for example Welsh Affairs Committee, Session 2017–19, 18 December 2018, HC 1207. 5. CJ (1946–47) 378; and see para 15.5. 6. Parliamentary Oath (Mr Bradlaugh) Committee, Session 1880, HC 226, p vi. 7. Parl Deb (1823) 9, cc 113, 119, 120, 493. 8. Parl Deb (1828) 18, c 968 ff. 9. See First Special Report from the Social Security Committee of Session 1991–92, HC 353. 10. Parl Deb (1806) 6, cc 353–59. 11. Loans to Foreign States Committee of Session 1875, HC 367, p liii. 12. British South Africa Committee of Session 1897, HC 311, p 473. 13. See Third Report of the Procedure Committee of Session 1997–98, HC 990. 14. Formally the direction to withdraw follows the agreement of the Committee to a motion to that effect. 15. For example, Committee on the Official Secrets Acts, Session 1937–38, Minutes of Proceedings, HC 173, p xlv; Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 1997–98, Minutes of Proceedings, HC 1192, pp xxiv–xxv and xxvii.

Administration of oaths by committees 38.37The Parliamentary Witnesses Oaths Act 18711 empowers the House of Commons and its committees to administer oaths to witnesses, and attaches to false evidence the penalties of perjury. By Standing Order No 132, oaths, and affirmations under the Oaths Act 1978, are administered to witnesses before a select committee, by the Chair or by the Clerk attending the committee. By the Perjury Act 1911, s 1, where evidence is given upon oath, the giving of false evidence is punishable as perjury.2 The power of either House to punish for false evidence is not, however, superseded by this Act. Where evidence is not given upon oath, the giving of false evidence is punishable as a contempt (see para 15.5 ). It is not usual, however, for select committees to examine witnesses upon oath, except upon inquiries of a judicial or other special character.3

Footnotes 1. For the background to this Act, see Select Committee on Witnesses, 8 July 1869, House of Commons. 2. See also para 13.14. For a case where evidence given on oath was referred to the Metropolitan Police for further consideration by them, see Home Affairs Committee, Session 2016–17, Formal Minutes, 15 November 2016. 3. The Committee on Foreign Loans in 1875 was the first to examine witnesses upon oath under the Act; more recent examples include the Select Committee on the Conduct of Members, CJ (1975–76) 589, HC 490 (1976–77); the Trade and Industry Committee, Session 1987–88, HC 732; and the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 1988–89, HC 281. In 1997, the Standards and Privileges Committee took evidence on oath from a Member, Eighth Report of Session 1997–98, HC 261. See also Public Accounts Committee, Sixty-first Report of Session 2010–12, HM Revenue & Customs 2010–11 Accounts: tax disputes, HC 1531, Oral evidence, 7 November 2011 (Q533).

Hearing of parties before committees 38.38As in the Lords, a select committee may not hear counsel unless authorised by the House.1 However, by leave of the House, parties whose conduct forms the subject, or one of the subjects, of an investigation by a select committee, or whose rights and interests, as distinct from those of the general public, are directly affected by a public bill or other matter which has been referred to the consideration of such a committee, have sometimes been allowed to be heard in person or by counsel before the committee. The terms of such orders have given the committee leave to hear counsel to such extent as it shall see fit;2 or to hear parties by themselves, their counsel3 or agents.4

Footnotes 1. In 1992, two witnesses before the Social Security Committee appeared accompanied by their counsel. In this instance, however, the counsel's status was that of a witness before the Committee. See First Special Report of the Committee, HC 353 (1991–92). See also Employment Committee Minutes of Evidence, HC 638-i (1992–93) QQ 115–118. For counsel before the Committee of Privileges, see para 15.36. 2. CJ (1888) 234; ibid (1897) 29; ibid (1900) 178; ibid (1912–13) 384, 388, 430; ibid (1913) 18; ibid (1918) 65; ibid (1931–32) 178; ibid (1932–33) 26; ibid (1934–35) 103; ibid (1967–68) 150; ibid (1975–76) 590; ibid (1978–79) 140. Leave has also been given ‘to hear counsel upon the matters referred to’ a select committee, CJ (1861–62) 307; ibid (1890) 458. 3. See 10 Chandler Deb, 68. For instances of leave given to hear parties by counsel and agents, see CJ (1854–55) 367; ibid (1864) 193. 4. CJ (1880) 188; ibid (1935–36) 289; ibid (1936–37) 33; ibid (1938–39) 59; ibid (1966–67) 163. Committees have also been given power to hear parties by themselves or their counsel, no mention being made of agents, ibid (1868–69) 51; ibid (1939–40) 247–48; ibid (1940–41) 8. In the last two cases, the committee was empowered to hear the Member whose conduct was the subject of the inquiry by himself or his counsel, and to hear counsel on behalf of any other persons.

Witnesses from overseas 38.39Committees sitting abroad cannot exercise a power formally to send for persons, papers and records. Nor are witnesses summoned from overseas to give evidence in the United Kingdom, though foreign nationals are often invited to attend to give evidence before committees.1 Commissioners or officials of the European Commission, irrespective of nationality, have regularly given evidence.2 Select committees frequently obtain written information from overseas persons or representative bodies, either directly or through government departments, about matters within the committee's order of reference. There is no record of foreign nationals resident (temporarily or permanently) in the United Kingdom being formally summoned to give oral evidence. But on the analogy of the process in courts of law, there would appear to be no bar to their being summoned if they are present within the jurisdiction of Parliament, and a foreign national temporarily resident in the United Kingdom has been served an order for production of papers.3

Footnotes 1. For cases prior to 1939, see Erskine May (20th edn, 1983), p 698, fn 9. The International Development Committee, for example, has invited ministers of foreign states to give evidence, see Session 2002–03, HC 1260-I (Ministers of the transitional state of Afghanistan); Session 2002–03, HC 400-ii (Prime Minister of Ethiopia). 2. For example, Treasury and Civil Service Committee, Session 1987–88, HC 248, pp 9–12; Environment Committee, Session 1988–89, HC 22–II, pp 253–65; Agriculture Committee, Session 1996–97, HC 45-II, pp 272–84; International Development Committee, Session 2001–02, HC 417-ii; Work and Pensions Committee, Session 2002–03, HC 680-i. 3. Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Formal Minutes of Session 2017–19, 19 November 2018.

Publication of oral and written evidence 38.40Evidence taken by a committee, save where issues of secrecy or confidentiality are involved (see below), is published on the committee's website as soon as practicable, once it has been reported to the House.1 Oral evidence taken in public is reported to the House immediately after the relevant sitting, every select committee having leave under Standing Order No 133 to report the evidence taken before it. Sub-committees do not have power to report evidence to the House on their own behalf, unless that power is given to them explicitly either in the standing order under which they are constituted or their order of appointment. The parent committee is generally given power to report the evidence taken before any sub-committee.2 Once the oral evidence is reported, the House will normally order it to be published, a process recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and the Journal of the House.3 A transcript of the evidence is prepared under the direction of the Editor of the Official Report and is published on the website. Witnesses (and committee members) may submit proposed alterations confined to the correction of inaccuracies in the reporting of the evidence, or to the correction of matters of fact which do not materially alter the sense of the answer. Witnesses seeking to add further information or correct errors in their evidence may be permitted to do so either by means of a footnote to the relevant answer or in a supplementary memorandum which may be published by the committee with the evidence to which it relates. Written evidence, whether received in connection with a specific inquiry or with other committee work,4 including correspondence with the Chair, is routinely reported to the House, for publication, shortly after it is received. The decision to report for publication in this way is recorded in the formal minutes of the committee and the publication order is recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and the Journal. Where a witness considers that the publication of oral evidence (or part of it) given in private or written evidence (or part of it) submitted in confidence would be prejudicial to the public interest (for example, on grounds of national security), or cause unwarranted distress to an individual, or would disclose matters of commercial confidentiality, or would be undesirable on similar grounds, a request may be made that the evidence in question should not be published. The committee may then at its discretion refrain from reporting that evidence to the House or may report such summary of the evidence as appears necessary in order to present the grounds of its conclusions to the House.5 If for these reasons only part of the evidence given to a committee is reported to the House, the committee will indicate in the evidence as published the places in the text where the unreported material has been omitted.6 Once evidence has been reported and published,7 it cannot subsequently be altered or any content removed.8 Occasionally, the House has ordered unreported evidence to be laid before it, usually ordering such evidence to be published.

Footnotes 1. Previously, the majority of evidence, written and oral, was printed in hard copy, either as a free-standing publication or as part of the relevant committee report. For practice in relation to such printing, see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 825. Occasionally, copies of transcripts of evidence have been placed in the Vote Office in circumstances where a debate in the House is imminent upon a matter to which that evidence relates. 2. For instances of leave given (on a date subsequent to the appointment of the committee) to report oral evidence taken before a subcommittee, see CJ (1945–46) 303, 340, 405. 3. For the practice when evidence is taken during a period when the House is adjourned for more than two days, see SO No 137 and para 38.50. 4. A committee has, exceptionally, agreed to report to the House certain internal working papers, of a sort not normally published, for the purpose of making them available to an inquiry investigating the circumstances surrounding the death of a person who had appeared as a witness before the committee: Foreign Affairs Committee, Minutes of Proceedings of Session 2002–03, 29 July 2003; CJ (2002–03) 582. 5. Parl Deb (1837) 38, c 191; HC Deb (1948–49) 466, cc 456–58. The practice by which witnesses indicate their request that certain evidence should not be published is known as ‘side-lining’. 6. For example, Sixth Report of the Defence Committee of Session 2001–02, HC 518-II, pp 86–99; First Report of the House of Commons Privileges Committee of Session 2003–04, HC 1021, pp 3–16. 7. Evidence taken before a committee in the preceding session has similarly been ordered to be reported to the House, see eg CJ (1837–38) 703, 707; ibid (1962–63) 13, 15. The House has also discharged an order made in the previous session for printing evidence, eg CJ (1985–86) 87. 8. A very limited amendment has exceptionally been allowed to the version available on the website where for example it emerges that data is published in a way which interferes with or damages a witness's reasonable expectations of privacy or peace of mind.

Publication of evidence before it is reported to the House 38.41Evidence given to a committee may not be published before it has been reported to the House and received an order for publication. Three exceptions are below: To reflect the introduction of broadcasting of select committee public evidence sessions, Standing Order No 136 provides that the House will not entertain any complaint of contempt or breach of privilege in respect of publication of such evidence.1 Under Standing Order No 135, all select committees having power to send for persons, papers and records have power to authorise the publication by the witnesses concerned or otherwise of evidence submitted by them. Under the same Standing Order, the Speaker has the power to authorise such publication in the case of any select committee which is no longer in existence. Standing Order No. 137 makes provision for evidence and reports from committees in a recess to be deemed to have been reported in advance of the next sitting of the House. For the procedure in cases of premature disclosure of evidence, see para 38.56.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1980) 991, c 922.

Sub-committees 38.42A select committee has only a delegated authority. Thus it requires the express permission of the House formally to establish sub-committees and to apportion its functions among such sub-committees, or to delegate to a sub-committee any of the authority delegated to it by the House. This authority is commonly provided by either the standing order1 or the order of the House2 under which a committee is appointed. All select committees relating to government departments, as well as the Committees on Standards and of Privileges, the Administration Committee, the Environmental Audit Committee, the European Scrutiny Committee, the European Statutory Instruments Committee, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, the Liaison Committee, the Petitions Committee, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the Regulatory Reform Committee, have been given powers under standing orders to establish one or more sub-committees. Where a committee is empowered to appoint sub-committees, the House usually makes an order prescribing the quorum of such sub-committees, and investing them with power to send for persons, papers and records.3 Other restrictions and requirements have also been placed by the House on the use of sub-committees. The House has limited the number of subcommittees which a committee may appoint.4 Committees have been empowered to divide themselves into sub-committees consisting of no more than seven members;5 to appoint one or more sub-committees and to apportion the subjects referred to the committee between them;6 to appoint one or more sub-committees to take evidence or to consider any matter that may be referred to them by the committee;7 or to appoint a subcommittee for a specified purpose.8 A sub-committee has been granted the power to invite specialist advisers to question witnesses, where the same power was granted to the committee itself.9 Though committees with power to appoint sub-committees cannot confer on such sub-committees powers in excess of those which the House has authorised, they may nevertheless make orders regulating the transaction of business by their sub-committees. Thus, committees may, and usually do, appoint the Chairs of sub-committees.10 A committee has also ordered that a Member be appointed to a sub-committee on appointment to the committee.11 A sub-committee may not report directly to the House, but only to the committee by which it has been appointed.12 When, as is now generally the case, the committee has been given power to report from time to time the evidence taken before its sub-committees, it is usual for the Chair of the sub-committee to report the evidence to the House without a prior meeting of the main committee for that purpose.13 Under Standing Order No 137A, any sub-committee may meet concurrently with a committee or sub-committee of either House for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence.14 Although committees may not formally appoint sub-committees without authority from the House, several have agreed informally that certain members of the full committee should meet regularly to deal with particular inquiries, sometimes with a member other than the Chair acting as Chair, or to undertake activities connected with the business of the committee, such as drafting; in such a case the committee members meeting in this way are formally acting as the full committee.15 A committee has resolved that its formally appointed sub-committees always be discharged after taking evidence and that the reports of sub-committees be drafted by members meeting informally. The subsequent text is presented to the committee in the name of the Chair of the former sub-committee.16

Footnotes 1. See SO Nos 143 (European Scrutiny Committee), 148A (Committee on Privileges), 152 (select committees related to government departments) etc. 2. See for example CJ (2012–13) 180 (Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards). 3. For example, SO No 152(4). 4. SO No 152(3). 5. CJ (1994–95) 554 (then SO No 149(4) relating to the former Committee on Standards and Privileges). 6. See the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Minutes of Proceedings of Session 1997–98, HC 1162, p iii. 7. See eg the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Minutes of Proceedings of Session 2001–02, HC 1316, p 6. 8. For example, SO No 145(6) and (7), under which the Liaison Committee, in addition to establishing a general sub-committee, is empowered to appoint a sub-committee with a specific role in relation to National Policy Statements. 9. CJ (2012–13) 180 (Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards). 10. See the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Minutes of Proceedings of Session 2001–02, HC 1316, p 17; Select Committee on Science and Technology, First Special Report of Session 1969–70, HC 28 and First Special Report of Session 1974–75, HC 57. Co-ordinating sub-committees may appoint chairs of other sub-committees, CJ (1942–43) 10. Provision may also be made for the absence of the Chair of a sub-committee by specifying by resolution of the committee that a certain Member should take the Chair, or that the sub-committee should choose a Member to take the Chair: Estimates Committee, Minutes of Proceedings of Session 1946–47, HC 149, p ccxxviii; ibid Session 1956–57, HC 308, pp 3, 4. 11. Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Minutes of Proceedings of Session 2001–02, 27 November 2002. 12. In 1979, provision was made for setting up from time to time a sub-committee, drawn from the membership of two or more of certain departmentally-related select committees, to consider any matter affecting two or more nationalised industries. The order did not identify the select committee to which the sub-committee should report and no joint sub-committee was in the event so established. See Second Report from the Procedure Committee of Session 1989–90, HC 19-I, paras 37–41. 13. For example, CJ (2001–02) 385, 464, 592, 616, 764. 14. Previously, such a power had been specifically granted to a committee: see SO No 151(3) relating to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

15. Select Committee on the Official Secrets Act of Session 1937–38, HC 173, p xlvi. For a recent example of such a sub-committee, see Welsh Affairs Committee, Minutes of Proceedings of Session 1979–80, HC 840, pp v–vi, viii. Some committees have appointed rapporteurs to gather information before an inquiry has been launched, see Liaison Committee, First Report of Session 2006–07, HC 406, para 76. 16. Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Minutes of Proceedings of Session 2001–02, HC 1316, p 23.

Specialist advice and assistance 38.43Committees are regularly empowered to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference.1 Such advisers normally attend not only meetings of the committee at which oral evidence is taken but also meetings at which the committee deliberates. They do not examine witnesses2 or take part in voting. They are normally paid for work done on a daily basis.3 Committees may also commission research in connection with their inquiries.4 Other persons,5 being in most cases staff of the House with special responsibility in the matter concerned, attend sittings of committees (including their deliberations) without being witnesses. For example, Counsel to the Speaker is appointed to assist the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (see para 31.32 ) as is Counsel to the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords. Other committees receive assistance of a similar kind.6 The duties of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards include advising the Committee on Standards on the interpretation of the Code of Conduct and on questions of propriety and investigating specific complaints from Members and from members of the public in respect of registration and declaration of interests and other aspects of the propriety of a Member's conduct, and reporting on these matters to the committee.7 Committees may also be assisted by other staff of the House, such as the financial and legal specialists in the Committee Office Scrutiny Unit, the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology and other research specialists from the Library. Select committees also regularly arrange informal meetings (including seminars) attended by persons who can assist them in fulfilling their duties to the House. Such persons are not treated as witnesses and the information they give is not evidence. Nonetheless, the information obtained from such occasions may very well contribute to the conclusions of the committee as expressed in its report.8 In addition, committees have increasingly used innovative techniques for gathering information relating to their inquiries, such as Internet forums.9

Footnotes 1. Select Committee on Procedure, Fourth Report of Session 1964–65, HC 303, p ix; Estimates Committee, Fifth Special Report of Session 1964–65, HC 161; Select Committee on House of Commons (Services), First Report of Session 1965–66, HC 70. 2. Exceptionally, the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards (a joint select committee) was given power by both Houses to invite specialist advisers (including counsel appointed as specialist advisers) to question witnesses: CJ (2012–13) 180; LJ (2012–13) 233. 3. Committees have been specially empowered to consult with certain individuals officially concerned with the matters of their inquiry, CJ (1867–68) 182–183; ibid (1932–33) 136; ibid (1933–34) 12. These persons were not present at the deliberations of the committees. Committees on the Army, Air Force, and Naval Discipline Acts have sometimes been given authority to communicate with governmental drafting committees, ibid (1951–52) 245; ibid (1952–53) 10; ibid (1953–54) 9; ibid (1955–56) 194. 4. For example, Liaison Committee, Third Report of Session 2007–08, The work of the committees in 2007, HC 427, para 87; and First Report of Session 2012–13, Select committee effectiveness, resources and powers, HC 394, para 78. For an example of the use of this facility to conduct a Citizens' Assembly, see joint Report from the Health and Social Care (Ninth Report) and the Housing, Communities and Local Government (Seventh Report) Committees of Session 2017–19, Long-term funding of adult social care, HC 768, paras 7–8. 5. The general practice is, however, stated by a Speaker's private ruling (Mr Speaker FitzRoy, 1930) that the rule that the deliberations of a committee should be conducted in private ought to be observed strictly. See Estimates Committee, First Report of Session 1926, HC 59; Estimates Committee, Sixteenth Report of Session 1948–49, HC 306, p 102. 6. See para 38.68 (Regulatory Reform); para 38.72 (European Scrutiny); para 38.79 Finance Committee); and para 38.79 (Administration Committee). See also para 38.66 (Public Administration Committee, in respect of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner) and para 38.65 (Committee of Public Accounts, in respect of the Comptroller and Auditor General). 7. SO No 149. See paras 5.5, 38.78. 8. For example, Sixth Report of the Defence Committee of Session 2002–03, HC 93-I, p 31, n 138. 9. Liaison Committee Reports of Session 2008–09, HC 291, paras 103–5, and of Session 2009–10, HC 426, paras 111–26.

Power of committees to report their opinion 38.44By Standing Order No 133 every select committee may report its opinion and observations upon the matters referred to its consideration, even where it is not expressly directed to do so by its order of reference.

Preparation of draft report 38.45When an inquiry nears its conclusion, a meeting is commonly held for the purpose of discussing the contents of the committee's report and, in particular, the conclusions to which the evidence leads and the general line to be adopted in the recommendations. This is frequently done by reference to an internal document known as ‘heads of report’. Thereafter, a draft report is prepared on behalf of, and under the direction of, the Chair. Copies of the Chair's draft report are then circulated to the other members before consideration by the committee. Every member of a committee is entitled to submit a draft report for the consideration of the committee. Any draft report brought up before the committee but not forming the basis of an agreed report is entered in full in the formal minutes of the committee (and therefore published). However, no alternative draft report can be submitted once a draft report has been ordered to be taken into consideration, or to be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph, unless the final question for agreeing to the draft report (as amended) is negatived (see below).

Consideration of draft report 38.46It is common practice for committees to consider a draft report informally before proceeding to formal consideration. Informal consideration allows Members to discuss the draft report both in general terms and in detail and also to explore how far areas of apparent difference may be resolved without resort to a formal decision. In such a case the text before the committee may be amended and recirculated for formal consideration at a subsequent meeting, or—if it is being formally considered at the same meeting—the text before the committee is deemed to contain all the changes agreed informally. However, a draft report can ultimately be agreed by a committee only through formal consideration. The procedure for formal consideration is as follows. If only one draft report is submitted for consideration, the report is taken as read the first time. The Chair then proposes the question, ‘That the draft report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph’, to which a reasoned amendment may be proposed (see para 38.48 ). If, however, more than one draft report is submitted, a motion must be made, that a draft in the name of one of them (usually that submitted by the Chair) be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph. To this question an amendment may be moved, to leave out the name of the Member, with the object of substituting the alternative (or, if more than two draft reports have been submitted, another) draft report, as the basis of the committee's report.1 If the decision is against the amendment, further amendments having for their object the substitution of other draft reports can be moved in turn. Each paragraph of the draft report adopted as the basis for the committee's report is then separately considered and becomes liable to amendment according to the ordinary rules which govern amendments. It is common practice for a committee to agree that substantive amendments to a draft report should be submitted to the Clerk in writing, to agree on a time limit for the submission of such amendments, and to instruct the Clerk to prepare a marshalled list of amendments to a draft report. Although the Chair of a select committee, unlike the Chair of a general committee, has no power to select or to group amendments for the consideration of the committee, the Chair does have a responsibility to promote the orderly conduct of business. Consideration of a paragraph may be postponed until the committee has taken decisions on subsequent paragraphs. After a decision has been given on an amendment to any part of a paragraph, an earlier part cannot be amended, nor can the further consideration of a paragraph be postponed after a decision has been come to upon an amendment proposed thereto. If no amendment is offered to a paragraph, or when all amendments proposed thereto have been disposed of, a question is put, that the paragraph, or the paragraph as amended, stand part of the report. After this question has been agreed to, no further amendment can be made to the paragraph. An amendment consisting of a new paragraph or paragraphs may be moved when the committee reaches the place in the draft report where it is proposed to insert the new paragraph or paragraphs. For convenience, to reflect the way an argument is developed in a draft report, a committee may find it necessary to consider several paragraphs, or amendments to them, together; in such a case each member must retain the opportunity to record their support for or against the different elements in the normal way (for example, there must be an opportunity to offer amendments to any new paragraphs proposed in this way). Portions of a draft report other than that being formally considered may be offered as amendments to the latter provided they are relevant to it. When every paragraph and proposed new paragraph has been considered and disposed of, the question is put, ‘That the report (as amended) be the report of the committee to the House’. Once this question has been agreed to, the report cannot be further amended. If the question is negatived, the committee may either proceed with the consideration of one of the other draft reports, if any, or of any further draft which may be submitted by any member of the committee2 If it is an ad hoc rather than permanent committee it may choose to make a special report to the effect that it is unable to agree upon a report.3 It is now common practice for select committees to agree to a summary of the report's main points. This summary is formally agreed to as an annex to the report, although it appears at the beginning of the report as published. Where, instead of a draft report, resolutions are submitted, the procedure to be followed for their formal consideration is analogous to that for draft reports. Committees are now almost invariably appointed with the power to report from time to time, which allows them to make as many reports as they choose to. When, however, a committee without that power makes a report to the House, the committee is dissolved, and if further proceedings were desired, it would be necessary to revive the committee.4

Footnotes 1. For example, Second Report of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, Minutes of Proceedings of Session 1999–2000, HC 589. 2. Workmen's Trains Committee of Session 1905, HC 270, p xix ff. 3. CJ (1919) 426; ibid (1923) 297; see also Select Committee on Wealth Tax of Session 1974–75, HC 696. 4. CJ (1801) 273 and Parliamentary Register xv 50 (13 April 1801); CJ (1955–56) 68.

Consideration of reports from sub-committees 38.47Consideration of reports from sub-committees, from individuals acting on behalf of former sub-committees or from Members acting as rapporteurs1 are considered in the same way as described above. Committees are often content to report sub-committee reports as the committee's reports to the House without significant amendment.2 On occasion, a committee has substantially amended a report3 or referred it back to the sub-committee in whole or in part;4 or, having considered the sub-committee's report, has adopted it as the basis of a report and ordered the Chair to prepare a draft report accordingly.5 Occasionally, sub-committees have considered separate aspects of the same subject and their reports have constituted parts of the committee's report6 or have been published as an appendix to a committee's report.7 For the treatment of draft reports not formally agreed to by a sub-committee, or from informal sub-committees, see the preceding paragraph.

Footnotes 1. See First Report of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons of Session 2001–02, HC 224; Tenth Report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee of Session 2002–03, HC 873. 2. Tenth Report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee of Session 2002–03, HC 873. 3. For example, Third Report of the House of Commons (Services) Committee of Session 1984–85, HC 437. 4. National Expenditure Committee, Minutes of Proceedings of Session 1942–43, HC 133, p 9; ibid, Session 1943–44, HC 125, p 12. 5. National Expenditure Committee, Minutes of Proceedings of Session 1942–43, HC 133, p 7; Estimates Committee, Minutes of Proceedings of Session 1952–53, HC 296, p vii. 6. Select Committee on Scottish Affairs of Session 1969–70, HC 267; ibid, Session 1971–72, HC 511. 7. First Report of the Nationalised Industries Committee of Session 1966–67, HC 340, App; First Report of the Procedure Committee of Session 1977–78, HC 588, Apps A and B.

Minority reports 38.48It is the opinion of the committee, as a committee, not that of the individual members, which is required by the House, and, failing unanimity, the conclusions agreed to by the majority are the conclusions of the committee. Thus, save as indicated in the next paragraph, the report may not be accompanied by any counterstatement, memorandum of dissent, or protest from any dissenting or non-assenting member or members. It is not the usual practice of the House to entertain the inclusion in the substance of a report from one of its committees observations which a minority or any individual member desires to offer, but which are not subscribed to by the majority. If a member disagrees to certain paragraphs in the report, or to the entire report, they can record disapproval by dividing the committee against those paragraphs to which objection is taken, or against the entire report, as the circumstances of the case require; and can put on record observations and conclusions, as opposed to those of the majority, by proposing an alternative draft report or moving an amendment to the question for reading the draft report a second time.1 For the entry of an alternative draft report in the formal minutes, see para 38.45. A draft report which has been submitted to the committee, but has not been entertained by it, may not be printed as an appendix to the report.2

Footnotes 1. Such alternative drafts are sometimes referred to as minority reports: Denison 68–70; Select Committee on House of Commons (Procedure), First Report of Session 1906, HC 89, p ix; Select Committee on the Radio-telegraphic Convention of Session 1907, HC 246, p lii; Select Committee on Members' Interests (Declaration) of Session 1969–70, HC 57, p xxxi; Reform of the House of Commons Committee, Session 2008–09, HC 1117, p 95; Science and Technology Committee, Session 2009–10, HC 45, p 48. 2. Select Committee on Railways, Session 1847, HC 236, Qq 106, 108, and CJ (1847) 682–83. But see also First Report of Select Committee on the Modernisation of House of Commons of Session 2000–01, HC 382.

Procedure where a committee is unable to agree upon a report 38.49Where a committee is unable to agree on a report, it may choose to make a special report to that effect.1 As its formal minutes are laid before the House, the text of any draft report which it may have considered and rejected will anyway be made public, albeit without any observations or expression of opinion.2

Footnotes 1. Nationality of Married Women (Joint) Committee, Session 1923, HC 115, pp vi, xxiv–xxv; CJ (1923) 297; Wealth Tax Committee, Session 1974–75, HC 696. 2. Inland Revenue and Customs Establishment, Session 1863, HC 424, p xxiv; Scottish Affairs, Session 1985–86, HC 133; CJ (1985–86) 81. Historically, when formal minutes (minutes of proceedings) might not be published until the next session, a committee might in these circumstances expedite the publication of the minutes.

Laying of reports before the House 38.50Once a select committee has agreed to a report, an entry to that effect is printed in the Votes and Proceedings and the Journal and the report is ordered to be printed.1 A report, once made to the House and ordered to be printed, cannot be withdrawn except by a further order of the House. Certain reports such as those made by the Liaison Committee recommending the consideration of certain estimates are set out in full in the Votes and Proceedings and the Journal (see paras 38.82, 34.26–34.28 ).2 In war-time, a sub-committee has been given power in cases where considerations of national security precluded the publication of certain recommendations, to address a memorandum to the Prime Minister for the consideration of the War Cabinet.3 Under Standing Order No 137, whenever the House stands adjourned for more than two days, and any select committee having power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House has agreed to a report, or has resolved that its formal minutes should be published or that the evidence taken before it or before any sub-committee appointed by it or any papers laid before it should be reported to the House and published, the committee has power to direct the publishing of such report, minutes, evidence or papers, and such publishing is done under the authority of the House. Any such reports, minutes, evidence or papers are deemed to have been reported to the House and are laid upon the Table when the House next sits.4

Footnotes 1. On rare occasions, the House has ordered that only such number of copies of the report of a committee, with an appendix to it, or the minutes of evidence be printed as shall be sufficient for the use of the Members of the House, CJ (1801–02) 413; see also ibid (1835) 544. For details of another such order, including provision for most copies of the report to be destroyed after the report had been considered by the House, see Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), pp 646–47. The report in question was subsequently ordered to be reprinted without the minutes of evidence (CJ (1945–46) 121). Alternatively, the House has ordered that the report be printed, together with the minutes of proceedings, but without the minutes of evidence, ibid (1874) 204. For an example of an order to print being discharged, see CJ (2002–03) 169; where a committee proposed to publish by special report a government reply which the Government laid by Command on the same day. 2. CJ (1985–86) 75, etc. See also Special Report from the Select Committee on the Adoption and Children Bill, ibid (2000–01) 352. 3. CJ (1939–40) 146; ibid (1940–41) 9; ibid (1941–42) 10; ibid (1942–43) 9; ibid (1943–44) 14; ibid (1944–45) 31. 4. CJ (1979–80) 805; ibid (2001–02) 743.

Special reports 38.51Besides reports relating to the subject-matter referred to it, a committee may also make a ‘special report’ in reference to some matter incidentally arising, relating to the powers, functions or proceedings of the committee. Such reports are similar to, and are proceeded upon in the same manner as, the principal reports of the committee.1 Special reports have been published by committees setting out how they intend to proceed;2 or have been used to publish correspondence between a committee and a government department in relation to a matter into which the committee wished to inquire.3 A report from a committee desiring the instructions of the House as to the authority of the committee or the proper course for it to pursue,4 or a report that a witness has failed to obey a summons to attend5 or has refused to answer questions addressed to him by the committee,6 are other examples of such special reports. It is also common practice for committees to make a special report incorporating government replies to their reports when such replies are made in the form of a memorandum to the relevant committee (see para 38.54 ). In such a case, the committee may set out briefly the context for the reply and make observations about the process (for example, drawing attention to an unwarranted delay in the submission of the government reply), but if any substantive comments are to be included (for example, adverse comments on particular elements of the response) then they should be published as a report and not as a special report, with the Government's response appended to it.7

Footnotes 1. On 5 November 1940 a special report from a committee was read by the Clerk at the Table, after which a motion founded on the report was moved by the Chair of the committee, HC Deb (1939–40) 365, c 1205. 2. First Special Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee of Session 2001–02, HC 389. 3. First and Second Reports of the Foreign Affairs Committee of Session 1997–98, HC 760 and HC 852. 4. Parl Deb (1812) 23, c 883. 5. CJ (1920) 263. 6. CJ (1897) 361; ibid (1912–13) 543; ibid (1985–86) 282; the following day the committee made another special report to the effect that the witness had now answered the questions which he had previously refused to answer, ibid (1985–86) 287. 7. See for example, Fourth Report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee of Session 2016–17, HC 926.

Unfinished inquiries 38.52Committees appointed by standing order for a Parliament are terminated by a dissolution. In the case of committees appointed on a sessional basis, orders appointing them cease to have effect at prorogation.1 When a committee finds that it lacks sufficient time to complete an inquiry, it reports the fact, together with any evidence which it may have taken, to the House.2 Such evidence may or may not be ordered to be published.3 Occasionally, a committee has made a special report explaining the circumstances to the House.4 Committees, finding themselves unable to complete the consideration of a draft report, have appended the text of the draft to a special report to the House, explaining the circumstances.5 A committee appointed by standing order may make a recommendation that its successor committee continue work that it has begun but not completed. Likewise, a sessionally-appointed committee may recommend the appointment of a committee in the next session of Parliament to continue the inquiry. If such a committee is re-appointed, the evidence taken in the previous session is referred to the new committee.6 Where for any reason the evidence taken before the committee of the previous session has not been reported, the House has ordered the evidence to be laid before it, and when the evidence was presented has referred it to the committee.7 When the latter presented its report, the House ordered the evidence taken in the previous session to be printed.8

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

HC Deb (1921) 148, c 177. For example, CJ (1929–30) 495; ibid (1969–70) 350. CJ (1960–61) 338; ibid (1962–63) 313; ibid (1965–66) 113. The Trade and Industry Committee made a Special Report to the House in 1994, that it had been unable to complete its inquiry into trade with South Africa to its satisfaction as it had been unable to carry out its proposed visit to South Africa, CJ (1993–94) 211; see also Social Security Committee Second Special Report of Session 1991–92, HC 354. Treasury and Civil Service Committee, Second Special Report of Session 1982–83, HC 385, App A; Agriculture Committee, Second Special Report of Session 1986–87, HC 379, App A. For example, CJ (1930–31) 33. A committee has been appointed to inquire into that portion of the reference to the original committee on which that committee had been precluded by lack of time from reporting in the preceding session, CJ (1890–91) 139; ibid (1975–76) 122. CJ (1857) 326, 339; ibid (1969–70) 14, 41. Where a committee is not expected to sit before the anticipated date of prorogation, and has not reported the evidence taken before it, the House has ordered the evidence to be laid before it, and when presented has ordered it to be printed, CJ (1934–35) 349, 350.

Publication of reports, etc 38.53Information on such matters as the commencement of inquiries, dates of proposed evidence meetings, the date and time of publication of reports and the date of any press conferences to be held by members of the committee on publication is generally made public through press notices and social media communications issued on the instructions of the committee. Committees are assisted by media officers in publicising their work.1 Press notices issued at the time of publication of a report commonly contain the text of the summary of the report. These press notices are also routinely placed on the committee's website. Press conferences held by committees are not formal proceedings and do not therefore attract parliamentary privilege. (See Chapter 13 for the protection afforded to formal proceedings.) It is for a committee to decide when to publish any report which it has agreed. Standing Order No 1342 provides that all select committees have power to authorise, under embargo, the supply of advance copies of their reports to officers of government departments, to those witnesses they consider appropriate, to lobby journalists and to such other press representatives as the committee thinks fit after they have been reported to the House, but not more than 72 hours3 before the intended time of publication of the report. Such advance copies are to be regarded as strictly confidential until publication of the report. Since 2013, under Standing Order No 22D, a committee may apply to the Backbench Business Committee for allocation of time to make a statement on publication of a committee report, within five sitting days after publication of the report.4

Footnotes 1. See Liaison Committee, First Report of Session 2008–09, HC 291, paras 115–19. 2. For origins of the Standing Order, see Procedure Committee, Second Report of Session 1963–64, HC 295; CJ (1966–67) 45; ibid (1967–68) 18, 36. 3. Including weekends and other non-sitting days. 4. Votes and Proceedings, Thursday 22 March 2018 (Westminster Hall); Votes and Proceedings, Thursday 10 May 2018.

Government replies to reports 38.54Where a select committee has made a report relating to government administration or policy, it is expected that the Government will reply to the committee's recommendations and observations. Such a reply may be published as a Command paper1 or submitted by the department most directly concerned as a memorandum to the committee. In the latter case, the usual practice is for the committee to publish the observations appended to a special report,2 and the timing of publication therefore rests with the committee. Occasionally, the reply has been given in the House in debate3 and on one occasion in debate in a general committee,4 or as a letter to the Chair. A reply to a report has also been given in a written answer to a parliamentary question.5 In other cases, a memorandum submitted by a department together with oral evidence given by a Minister upon it constituted the reply.6 A reply has been published as an annex to a government White Paper.7 In the case of the Committee of Public Accounts, Treasury Minutes are laid before the House as Command Papers several times each session embodying the Government's views on previous committee reports;8 the Treasury co-ordinates replies from all government departments. Likewise, in the case of Northern Ireland, a Northern Ireland Department of Finance memorandum, corresponding to a Treasury Minute, has been laid.9 A report on a matter which was the responsibility of the House of Commons Commission and not of the Government has been replied to by the Commission.10 Committees have also published replies from other public agencies, with the government reply.11 In whatever form they are made, replies are normally expected by all committees engaged in scrutinising government activity and are requested if they are not forthcoming. Following recommendations made by the Select Committee on Procedure in 1978,12 it was agreed by government departments that replies should if possible be made within two months of the publication of a report. In some circumstances, a longer delay may be considered permissible when those circumstances have been explained to the committee concerned. Following a published reply, a committee has invited a Minister to give evidence on the progress made in implementing recommendations,13 or has taken further evidence and made a further report.14 The Committee of Public Accounts frequently asks the accounting officers from government departments to report on actions taken on reports in preceding sessions. Some committees have also asked departments for progress reports on recommendations previously made by them.15 A committee has declined to publish a government reply submitted as a memorandum, on the grounds that it failed to address the main conclusions of the committee's report.16

Footnotes 1. For example, Cm 7887 in response to Transport Committee Report, Session 2009–10, HC 414. 2. For example, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Session 2010–12, HC 351 and HC 352. 3. HC Deb (1979–80) 984, cc 289–92. In a case where a report dealt with a statutory instrument which was the subject of a motion for a negative resolution, the Minister's reply to the debate on the motion constituted the Government's reply to the report, HC Deb (1987–88) 129, cc 477–80. 4. Sixth Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, etc, 20 February 1980. 5. For example, HC Deb (1968–69) 787, c 24; ibid (1979–80) 988, cc 359–60; ibid (1980–81) 992, cc 150–52; ibid (1996–97) 292, c 976. 6. Science and Technology Committee of Session 1972–73, HC 63; and of Session 1971–72, HC 473. 7. For example, Cm 249, Promoting Better Health, pp 66–78, government response to the Social Services Committee Report on Primary Health Care, Session 1986–87, HC 37-I. 8. For example, Cm 7818, responding to the First to the Fifth Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 2009–10; Cm 9667, responding to the Thirty-eighth to the Forty-second Reports of the Committee of Session 2017–19. The Treasury also produces biannual Treasury minutes progress reports, detailing progress on implementation of recommendations. 9. For example, Cm 2988, responding to the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 1994–95, HC 24 and HC 25. 10. Construction of Portcullis House, The new Parliamentary building, Session 2001–02, HC 1261, responding to the Sixty-third Report of Session 2001–02 of the Committee of Public Accounts, HC 861 and the Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, Session 2001–02, HC 750. 11. For example, First Special Report of the Scottish Affairs Committee of Session 2001–02, HC 696, for responses from the Government and the Scottish Executive; Third Special Report from the Children, Schools and Families Committee of Session 2009–10, HC 486 for responses from the Government and Ofsted; First Special Report of the Communities and Local Government Committee of Session 2008–09, HC 1013 for responses from the Government and three public bodies. 12. First Report of the Select Committee on Procedure of Session 1977–78, HC 588-I, pp lxxii–lxxiv. This principle was reaffirmed by the Government in its response (Cm 4737, para 31) to the First Report of the Liaison Committee of Session 1999–2000, Shifting the Balance: Select Committees and the Executive, HC 300. 13. Welsh Affairs Committee, Session 1993–94, HC 234. See also Science and Technology Committee, First Special Report of Session 1971–72, HC 181, letters exchanged between the Prime Minister and the Chair of the committee. 14. Expenditure Committee, Sixth Report of 1973–74, HC 167; Science and Technology Committee, Session 1995–96, HC 231-I; Environment Committee, Session 1996–97, HC 124 and HC 210. 15. For example, Energy Committee, Minutes of Evidence, Session 1987–88, HC 513, App; Transport Committee, Minutes of Evidence, Session 1987–88, HC 398. Between 1995 and 1997, the Welsh Affairs Committee received twice-yearly progress reports on the implementation of recommendations in its Third Report of Session 1994–95, Severe Head Injuries Rehabilitation, HC 103. 16. Liaison Committee, First Report of Session 1996–97, HC 323-I, Appendix 16, Report by Chairman of the National Heritage Committee; Education and Skills Committee, Minutes of Proceeding, Session 2002–03, 25 June 2003. The Department concerned in the

latter case subsequently submitted a revised response, see Third Special Report of the Committee of Session 2002–03, HC 1026.

Contempts relating to select committees Contents Premature publication or disclosure of committee proceedings Disobedience to orders of committees Obstructing witnesses 38.55Acts or omissions which obstruct or impede the work of a committee or any of its members or officers, or which tend, directly or indirectly, to produce such results, may be treated as a contempt of the House and investigated and punished, as appropriate. A description of the nature of contempts to the House in general and to committees of the House1 is given in Chapter 15. This section amplifies contempts relating to select committees.

Footnotes 1. Including reference to the obligation to give truthful evidence; see also para 38.37 above.

Premature publication or disclosure of committee proceedings 38.56Any disclosure of written evidence or a committee's internal working papers which has not been authorised by the committee may be treated as a contempt.1 In particular, disclosure of a draft report which has been submitted to a committee, before such a report has been agreed to by the committee and presented to the House,2 may be treated as a contempt (see para 15.10 ). The former Committee on Standards and Privileges, in its privileges role, has stated that any Member or other person who receives an unauthorised copy of a select committee report before its publication should return it without delay to the Clerk of the select committee and should make no use of it.3 In the event of premature disclosure of the content of a report which a committee has under consideration, or which it has agreed but not yet published, certain procedures should be followed: 1. the committee should carry out its own investigation to try to discover the source of a leak, in particular by formally asking all members of the committee and the committee's staff if they can explain how the leak came about; 2. the committee should decide whether or not the leak constitutes a substantial interference, or the likelihood of such, with the work of the committee, with the select committee system or with the functions of the House; 3. it should inform the Liaison Committee, so that it may take a view; 4. in the light of the views of the Liaison Committee it should make a special report to the House to that effect, outlining the action it has taken and the conclusions it has reached; 5. such a special report would automatically be referred to the Committee of Privileges without a debate in the House: it is then for that Committee to consider the matter and make a report to the House, whereupon the House would consider its recommendations.4 The Speaker has declined to permit more than passing reference to matters under consideration by the Committee of Privileges during debates on the subject-matter of leaked reports.5 In 1999, two inquiries into disclosures of committee papers resulted in identification of the Members concerned, who were suspended by the House.6 The Committee of Privileges had previously stated that it retained the right to recommend a severe judgment against any Member or other person who, by a breach of trust or otherwise, chose to inflict serious damage on a select committee by making possible the premature publication of its proceedings.7 However, the House has tended to be reluctant in modern times to exercise its penal powers against those who give wider publicity to unauthorised disclosures.8

Footnotes 1. For the position with regard to oral evidence, see SO No 136 and para 38.41. For a complaint of contempt involving evidence taken in private, see Committee of Privileges, Second Report of Session 1967–68, HC 357 and CJ (1967–68) 361. For a complaint involving a ‘heads of report’ paper, see Standards and Privileges Committee, Seventh Report of 2008–09, HC 501-I. For a complaint involving legal advice given to the European Scrutiny Committee, see Committee on Standards and Privileges, Twentieth Report of Session 2007–08, HC 1212. Written evidence already circulated to third parties before being sent for by a committee may be referred to in the House or elsewhere before being reported, notwithstanding that it was marked confidential on reaching the committee (HC Deb (1984–85) 69, cc 349–50, 351). See also Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, ss 1 and 2 which oblige local authorities to make publicly available papers—which may include draft memoranda to be submitted to select committees—under consideration at public meetings of the authority. 2. CJ (1831–32) 360. 3. Eighth Report of Session 1998–99, HC 607. The House approved the Report, CJ (1998–99) 433. 4. For a full description of this procedure and its application in a particular case, see the Second Report of the Privileges Committee of Session 1984–85, HC 535, the Second Special Report of the Environment Committee of Session 1985–86, HC 211 and the First Report of the Privileges Committee of Session 1985–86, HC 376. 5. HC Deb (1998–99) 326, c 889. 6. Session 1998–99, HC 607, paras 19, 31 and Appendix 2; and HC 747, CJ (1998–99) 433, 516. For the Special Reports from the Committees concerned, see Session 1998–99, HC 293, 365 (Foreign Affairs Committee); HC 482 (Social Security Committee). See also Committee of Privileges, Second Report of Session 2016–17, Unauthorised disclosure of a draft Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, HC 672. 7. First Report of Session 1989–90, HC 117, p vi, para 11. 8. The Committee of Privileges recommended (First Report of Session 1975–76, HC 22) that the editor of a weekly journal in which a disclosure was published and the journalist who wrote the article should be excluded from the precincts for six months. The House rejected the recommendation (CJ (1975–76) 64), and no legislation has been enacted to enable the House to fine offenders, as the Committee believed appropriate to the case. In 1985–86, the Committee recommended the temporary exclusion from the precincts of a journalist in similar circumstances, and the reduction for a time of the number of Lobby passes available to the newspaper (Session 1985–86, HC 376). Again, the House took a different view (CJ (1985–86) 374).

Disobedience to orders of committees 38.57Disobedience to the order of a committee made within its authority is a contempt of the House. Individuals have been held to be in contempt who did not comply with orders for their attendance made by committees with the necessary powers to send for persons;1 as have those who have disobeyed or frustrated committee orders for the production of papers.2 To prevent, delay, obstruct or interfere with the execution of the orders of a committee (or of either House) is also a contempt. Among the particular actions which have been considered to fall within this decision are absconding in order to avoid being served with a summons to attend a committee (or the House),3 assisting those whose attendance is required as witnesses to avoid giving their attendance,4 and attempting illicitly to procure from a third party a document the production of which had been required before a committee.5

Footnotes 1. CJ (1688–93) 162, 180; ibid (1702–04) 551; ibid (1718–21) 143, 582, 583, 590; ibid (1722–27) 91; ibid (1780–82) 967; ibid (1790–91) 342; ibid (1803–04) 215. 2. CJ (1714–18) 46; ibid (1732–37) 51. 3. CJ (1774–76) 323–24, 357–58, 370; ibid (1818–19) 539; ibid (1819–20) 404; ibid (1826–28) 297; ibid (1835) 324, 330; ibid (1843) 333; ibid (1851–52) 147, 152. 4. CJ (1835) 324, 330. 5. CJ (1806–07) 175.

Arrest 38.58The House resolved in 1688 that ‘it is the undoubted right of this House that all witnesses summoned to attend this House, or any committee appointed by it, have the privilege of this House in coming, staying and returning’.1 Parties who arrest2 witnesses or other persons summoned to attend either House or any committee of either House while going to, attending, or returning from, such House or committee may be punished for contempt.3

Footnotes 1. CJ (1688–93) 45. 2. Or, historically, procured the arrest on civil process. 3. CJ (1640–42) 454, 457; ibid (1697–99) 364, 367, 368, 386; and see LJ (1691–96) 529.

Molestation of or interference with witnesses 38.59It is a contempt to deter prospective witnesses from giving evidence before either House or a committee, or to molest any persons attending either House as witnesses, during their attendance in such House or committee. Assaults upon witnesses in the precincts of the House1 and the use of threatening or abusive language within the precincts have been proceeded against.2 On the same principle, molestation of or threats against those who have previously given evidence before either House or a committee will be treated as a contempt. Such actions have included assault or a threat of assault on witnesses,3 insulting or abusive behaviour,4 misuse (by a gaoler)5 or censure by an employer.6 Under the provisions of the Witnesses (Public Inquiries) Protection Act 1892, persons who publish, damnify, or injure witnesses before committees of either House of Parliament on account of their evidence, unless such evidence was given in bad faith, are liable on conviction to be fined or imprisoned and ordered to pay the costs of the prosecution, as well as a sum by way of compensation to the injured persons (see para 13.14 ). Committees have taken evidence from witnesses without divulging their names where there was reason to apprehend that private injury or vengeance might result from publication.7

Footnotes 1. CJ (1718–21) 290; ibid (1826–28) 345, 351 and Parl Deb (1827) 16, c 1305 and ibid 17, c 7; and see LJ (1696–1701) 144. 2. CJ (1648–51) 413; ibid (1667–87) 54; ibid (1818–19) 223 and Parl Deb (1819) 39, cc 978, 986. See also Home Affairs Committee, First Special Report of Session 1993–94, HC 107; Culture Media and Sport Committee, Session 2010–12, HC 903-ii. 3. CJ (1667–87) 678; ibid (1688–93) 579; ibid (1708–11) 498, 503, 535; ibid (1818–19) 223. 4. CJ (1714–18) 371. 5. CJ (1688–93) 514, 523, 534; ibid (1727–32) 247. 6. CJ (1732–37) 146; ibid (1892) 129, 157, 166; Parl Deb (1892) 3, cc 595, 698, 883 and Special Report of the Select Committee on Railway Servants (Hours of Labour), Session 1892, HC 125. See also Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, Second Special Report of Session 1974–75, HC 237 and Committee of Privileges, Third Report of Session 1975–76, HC 27 where an individual was not considered to have been adversely affected by his employer for having been a witness in Parliament. Also see Constitutional Affairs Committee, First Special Report of Session 2003–04, HC 210 and Standards and Privileges Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2003–04, HC 447. 7. See eg Committees on Home Work of Session 1908, HC 246, p xxii; Debtors (Imprisonment) of Session 1908, HC 344, p viii; and Violence in Marriage of Session 1974–75, HC 553-II, pp 15–31. When a prisoner gave evidence to an inquiry by the Education Committee into prison education, his name was not published, Session 1982–83, HC 45-II. See also written evidence to the Agriculture Committee, Session 1996–97, HC 45-II and Environment Committee, Session 1996–97, HC 42-II, Annex III (names of tenants visited and location of estate not published at estate management's request).

Tampering with witnesses 38.60Deterring or hindering a person from giving evidence to either House or a committee of either House is a contempt which has often been punished in the past.1 Tampering with a witness may involve an attempt by persuasion or solicitations of any kind to induce a witness not to attend, or to withhold evidence or to give false evidence, as well as corruption or intimidation. In 1935, the House of Commons resolved that it agreed with the report of a select committee that, in the committee's opinion, it was a breach of privilege to give any advice to a witness which took the form of pressure or of interference with his freedom to form and express his own opinions honestly in the light of all the facts known to him.2

Footnotes 1. CJ (1640–42) 81; ibid (1699–1702) 400, 404; ibid (1708–11) 433, 479; ibid (1727–32) 480, 711; ibid (1809) 35 and Parl Deb (1809) 12, c 460; CJ (1835) 324, 421, 478, 508; ibid (1851–52) 147–48; see also Parl Deb (1857) 146, c 97. 2. Report of the Select Committee on Witnesses of Session 1934–35, HC 84, p vii and CJ (1934–35) 294. It is generally the case that civil servants give evidence, not on their own account, but on behalf of their Ministers.

Legal proceedings against witnesses 38.61The House of Commons resolved in 1818 ‘That all witnesses examined before this House, or any committee thereof, are entitled to the protection of this House in respect of anything that may be said by them in their evidence’.1 Both Houses may treat the bringing of legal proceedings against any person on account of any evidence which they may have given in the course of any proceedings in the House or before one of its committees as a contempt. Both Houses have taken action against those who brought or as agents assisted in the bringing of actions for slander in respect of evidence given before either House or a committee.2 The courts have refused to entertain such actions based on statements made in evidence before a committee.3

Footnotes 1. CJ (1693–97) 591, 613; ibid (1945) 672, 680, 696 and Parl Deb (1845) 81, c 1436. Also see LJ (1845) 690, 712, 729 and Parl Deb (1845) 82, cc 431, 494. 2. LJ (1845) 690, 712, 729 and Parl Deb (1845) 82, cc 431, 494; CJ (1693–97) 591, 613; ibid (1845) 672, 680, 696 and Parl Deb (1845) 81, c 1436. 3. Goffin v Donnelly (1881) 6 QBD 307, 50 LJ (QB) 303 was an action for slander in respect of evidence given to a select committee by a witness. Field J observed: ‘it may be a hardship upon individuals that statements of a defamatory nature may be made concerning them [before a select committee] but the interest of the individual is subordinated by the law to a higher interest, viz that of public justice, to the administration of which it is necessary that witnesses should be free to give their evidence without fear of consequences.’ He went on to rebut the contention that there was a difference in this respect between evidence in court and evidence given to the Commons (though without making any reference to article IX of the Bill of Rights).

Select committees regularly appointed Contents Scrutiny of government policy, administration and expenditure Scrutiny of secondary legislation, etc Internal House of Commons business and administration Other committees appointed in the past 38.62Short descriptions of those select committees regularly or frequently appointed are set out below. Except where otherwise indicated, they have all the powers listed at para 38.1. While all select committees are subject to the same basic governing rules and principles, they have a range of kinds of functions given to them by the House and these affect the ways different committees operate. It is useful, in describing the committees briefly, to look at them in four groups, broadly according to these roles: those charged primarily with scrutinising government policy, administration and expenditure; those charged primarily with assisting the House in its scrutiny of secondary legislation and other instruments of a legislative or quasilegislative nature (including European legislation); those with a primarily internal role in relation to House business or administration; and other committees appointed in the past. The attribution of different committees between these groups is only indicative; for example, several committees not listed in the first group (in particular the Regulatory Reform, European Scrutiny, Petitions Committees and Liaison Committees) have explicit roles or powers linked to scrutiny of government in addition to their other tasks.

Select committees related to government departments 38.63First established in the 1979–83 Parliament,1 the departmental committees have been reappointed in each successive Parliament. They represent the largest part of the select committee structure. Standing Order No 152, which governs the appointment of departmental select committees, specifies that committees ‘shall be appointed to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the principal government departments' and ‘associated public bodies'. The government departments concerned and the titles of the committees are listed in the standing order. The current list of committees, the government departments with which they are concerned and the maximum number of members, in each case are as follows: Name of Maximum Principal government departments concerned Committee members 1 Business, Energy and Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy 11 Industrial Strategy 2 Defence Ministry of Defence 11 3 Digital, Culture, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport 11 Media and Sport 4 Education Department for Education 11 5 Environment, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 11 Food and Rural Affairs 6 Foreign Foreign and Commonwealth Office 11 Affairs 7 Health and Department of Health and Social Care 11 Social Care 8 Home Home Office 11 Affairs 9 Housing, Communities Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government 11 and Local Government 10 International Department for International Development 11 Development 11 International Department for International Trade 11 Trade Ministry of Justice (including the work of staff provided for the administrative work of courts and tribunals, but excluding consideration of individual cases and appointments, and excluding the work of the Scotland and Wales 12 Justice Offices and of the Advocate General for Scotland); and administration and expenditure of the Attorney General's 11 Office, the Treasury Solicitor's Department, the Crown Prosecution service and the Serious Fraud Office (but excluding individual cases and appointments and advice given within government by Law Officers) Northern Ireland Office; administration and expenditure of the Crown Solicitor's Office (but excluding individual cases 13 Northern and advice given by the Crown Solicitor); and other matters within the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Ireland 13 Northern Ireland (but excluding the expenditure, administration and policy of the Office of the Director of Public Affairs Prosecutions, Northern Ireland and the drafting of legislation by the Office of the Legislative Counsel) 14 Science and Government Office for Science 11 Technology Scotland Office (including (i) relations with the Scottish Parliament and (ii) administration and expenditure of the offices 15 Scottish of the Advocate General for Scotland (but excluding individual cases and advice given within government by the 11 Affairs Advocate General)) 16 Transport Department for Transport 11 17 Treasury Treasury, HM Revenue & Customs 11

Name of Principal government departments concerned Committee 18 Welsh Wales Office (including relations with the National Assembly for Wales) Affairs 19 Women and Government Equalities Office Equalities 20 Work Department for Work and Pensions and Pensions

Maximum members 11 11 11

Changes to the structure of government, such as the establishment of new departments of state or the abolition of a department and the transfer of its functions to another department (or departments), have been followed by government motions to amend the standing order.2 The structure of the system of committees has thus been adapted to mirror the current structure of the Government. Normally, the order changing the committee's name provides that the new committee shall be treated as if it were the former committee for all purposes relating to its proceedings and the House's rules. But, where there has been delay in implementing such amendments to the standing order, committees have continued to operate in the meantime under their existing titles and orders of reference. Where a government department (the Department for Exiting the European Union) was established on a specifically non-permanent basis, the House established a committee to monitor that department, along similar lines to the departmentally-related committees (save for the number of members of the committee), by temporary standing order.3 The standing order provides that each of the committees may appoint a sub-committee. Committees (including select committees not appointed under Standing Order No 152) are able to meet jointly for certain purposes under Standing Order No 137A (Select committees: power to work with other committees). These powers allow committees to take evidence and to consider draft reports jointly. The formal agreement of a report must however be made separately by each committee: what are procedurally then two or more reports, with an identical text, are published as one document in the names of the participating committees.4 The Defence, Foreign Affairs, International Development and International Trade Committees (and their predecessors) have routinely met jointly in this way since 1999, operating under the informal title of the Committees on Arms Export Controls,5 to consider issues relating to strategic export controls.6 Other committees have worked jointly on a more ad hoc basis.7

Footnotes 1. See HC Deb (1979–80) 969, cc 33–252. 2. For example, CJ (1990–91) 559; ibid (1994–95) 558; ibid (1997–98) 102; ibid (2001–02) 57, 714–15; ibid (2005–06) 122. SO No 122B(4) provides for changes to the structure of select committees arising from a machinery of government change at the beginning of a Parliament to be included within the motion setting out which party is to chair each committee. 3. Votes and Proceedings, 11 October 2016, renewed 4 July 2017. 4. In 2016–17, where four committees had conducted a joint inquiry, but only two agreed the final report, the report was published as a joint report from those two committees only (First Joint Report of the International Development and International Trade Committees, Session 2016–17, HC 679); a third committee agreed its own separate report (Fourth Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 2016–17, HC 688) and the fourth (the Defence Committee) agreed no report. 5. Formerly the Quadripartite Committee. 6. For example, First Joint Report of the Committees on Arms Export Controls, Session 2009–10, Scrutiny of Arms Export Controls (2010): UK Strategic Export Controls Annual Report 2008, Quarterly Reports for 2009, licensing policy and review of export control legislation, HC 202. 7. For example, the Work and Pensions and Business, Innovation and Skills Committees (First Report of the Work and Pensions Committee and Fourth Report of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, BHS, Session 2016–17, HC 54); the Environmental Audit Committee (Fourth Report), Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee (Fourth Report), Health and Social Care Committee (Third Report) and Transport Committee (Second Report), Session 2017–19, Improving Air Quality, HC 433.

Core tasks 38.64In February 2002, the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons recommended that there should be an agreed statement of core tasks for the departmental select committees, which should be drawn up by the Liaison Committee and for which they provided an illustrative model.1 The recommendation was agreed to by the House on 14 May 2002,2 and in June 2002 the Liaison Committee accordingly agreed a list of ten indicative core tasks for the departmental select committees. Updated core tasks were agreed by the Liaison Committee in November 2012, and endorsed by the House in January 2013, covering examination of departmental strategy and objectives, examination of policy, examination of expenditure, scrutiny of draft bills, consideration of bills and statutory instruments, post-legislative scrutiny, scrutiny of European Union proposals, scrutiny of major public appointments, production of timely reports to assist parliamentary debate, and assisting the House in engagement with the public.3 The core task of scrutinising major public appointments has assumed increasing significance. Arrangements for departmental select committees to scrutinise certain public appointments before they are made were agreed by the Liaison Committee and the Government in 2008.4 The Government has published a list of posts it considers suitable for pre-appointment hearings,5 although committees have held hearings with candidates for posts not on the Government's list.6 Following a hearing committees, have chosen to support a candidate's appointment;7 or to support it subject to conditions, such as discharging a conflict of interest;8 or to recommend that a candidate not be appointed.9 Both the Liaison Committee and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committees have published further reports on practice in this area.10 The Treasury Committee is given a specific statutory role in relation to the Chair of the Office of Budget Responsibility, in that the consent of the Committee is required to the appointment of the OBR Chair.11 The inclusion of post-legislative scrutiny in the core tasks reflected in particular the leading role given to departmental committees (alongside Lords and ad hoc committees) in the Government's arrangements for post-legislative scrutiny of Acts, launched in 2008.12 Under these arrangements, for most Acts the relevant government department publishes a post-legislative assessment of the Act three to five years after a law has been passed, which is submitted to the relevant departmental select committee.13 Several committees (the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee; the Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee; the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee; the Transport Committee; and the Welsh Affairs Committee) have a particular role in relation to consideration of national policy statements under the Planning Act 2008, in that any Planning: National Policy Statement Committee (see para 38.69 below) must be comprised of members of these committees.14

Footnotes 1. First Report of Session 2001–02, HC 224. See also First Report of the Liaison Committee of Session 2002–03, HC 558, Appendices 1–3. 2. CJ (2001–02) 553. 3. Liaison Committee, Second Report of Session 2012–13, Select Committee effectiveness, resourcing and powers, HC 697, para 16; CJ (2012–13) 511. 4. Liaison Committee, Session 2007–08, First Report, HC 384 and First Special Report, HC 594; and see Treasury Committee, Third Report of Session 2010–12, HC 476-I. The Treasury Committee agreed in 1998 to scrutinise appointments to the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, see First Report of Session 1997–98, HC 282; Third Report of Session 1997–98, HC 571; Twelfth Report of Session 2008–09, HC 764, etc. 5. Cabinet Office, Pre-appointment scrutiny by the House of Commons select committees, 2013, annex A. 6. Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, Third Report of Session 2014–15, HC 223. 7. Science and Technology Committee, First Report of Session 2017–19, Pre-appointment hearing: chair of UK Research & Innovation and executive chair of the Medical Research Council, HC 747. 8. Health and Social Care Committee, Tenth Report of Session 2017–19, Appointment of the Chair of NHS England, HC 1351, which recommended the candidate resign their party's whip in the Lords prior to taking up their appointment. 9. Health Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2013–14, Appointment of the Chair of Monitor, HC 744. The Government has on occasion chosen to appoint a candidate contrary to a committee's recommendation: Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, First Special Report of Session 2017–19, Appointment of the Chair of the Charity Commission: Government Response to the Committee's Third Report of Session 2017–19, HC 908. 10. For example, Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Tenth Report of Session 2017–19, Pre-Appointment Hearings: Promoting Best Practice, HC 909. 11. Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, s 1. 12. Cm 7320, Post-legislative Scrutiny – The Government's Approach, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons, March 2008. See also Liaison Committee, Second Report, HC 426 (2009–10) paras 137–39. 13. See for example, Post-legislative assessment of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, Department of Health, July 2014, Cm 8909; Department for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Post-Legislative Assessment of the Mobile Homes Act 2013, January 2019, CP 6; see also Liaison Committee, First Report of Session 2014–15, paras 69–73. 14. SO No 152H(2)(a).

Committee of Public Accounts (Public Accounts Committee) 38.65The Committee of Public Accounts (commonly known as the Public Accounts Committee) was first appointed in 1861.1 Standing Order No 148 now provides for its examination of the resource accounts and of ‘such other accounts laid before Parliament as the committee may think fit’. The number of members of the Committee is fixed at not more than 16. One of its members is by convention a Treasury Minister, who receives agendas but does not attend meetings. Its Chair must be a member of the Official Opposition.2 The committee is principally concerned with whether policy is carried out efficiently, effectively and economically, rather than with the merits of government policy. Its main functions are to see that public moneys are applied for the purposes prescribed by Parliament, that extravagance and waste are minimised and that sound financial practices are encouraged in estimating and contracting and in administration generally. The committee has a particular duty to look at excess votes (votes which seek approval for spending above what had been authorised in prior estimates), the questions on which cannot be put under the provisions of Standing Order No 55(3) unless the committee has reported that it sees ‘no objection to the sums necessary being provided by excess vote’.3 It is also notified when a government departmental minute has been laid before Parliament indicating that the department intends to take on a contingent liability or make a gift in excess of £300,000, and where the Government proposes not to follow normal practice in relation to contingent liabilities (see para 7.34 ). The committee bases its work on reports by the Comptroller and Auditor General, presented to Parliament under the National Audit Act 1983, s 9, together with those on the appropriation and other accounts laid before Parliament. The committee has examined the accounts of the BBC and Bank of England to reflect the broader remit of the National Audit Office. The committee also considers memoranda submitted to it by the Comptroller and Auditor General (either as own-initiative exercises or in response to requests made by the committee4 ), and Treasury Minutes containing the Government's observations on previous committee reports. The Comptroller and Auditor General is required to take into account any proposals made by the committee in determining the National Audit Office's programme of economy, efficiency and effectiveness examinations.5 The committee has also reported on the Northern Ireland Accounts, with the assistance of the Comptroller and Auditor-General (Northern Ireland).6 The Comptroller and Auditor General (see para 6.44 ) attends all meetings, and regularly appears (as does the Treasury Officer of Accounts) as a witness, and is thus able to participate in exchanges with other witnesses. Other witnesses are normally the permanent secretaries of government departments, who (as accounting officers) have a direct and personal responsibility for their departments' expenditure, and other accounting officers. Less frequently, the committee takes evidence from other kinds of witness to provide context for its questioning of accounting officers.7 The Chair is ex officio a member of the Public Accounts Commission (see para 6.45 ). The Chair also has to give agreement to the motion for an Address moved by the Prime Minister to appoint a new Comptroller and Auditor General (see para 6.44 ).8

Footnotes 1. CJ (1861) 130. 2. SO No 122B(8)(f) and CJ (2009–10) 292. It had previously been the convention that the Chair of the Committee was a member of the Official Opposition. 3. See para 34.21, Excess Votes; CJ (1981–82) 479. 4. Since 1991, such memoranda may be exchanged with departmental select committees, CJ (1990–91) 559; SO No 137A. 5. National Audit Act 1983, s 7A, as inserted by s 18 of the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, places a duty on the Comptroller and Auditor General to ‘have regard to any proposals made by the Committee of Public Accounts' (replacing a similar duty under s 1(3) of the 1983 Act). 6. This function is now statutorily devolved to the Public Accounts Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly, but during periods when the Assembly is suspended, reverts on an informal basis to the Committee of Public Accounts in the House of Commons. 7. Public Accounts Committee, Session 2016–17, Oral evidence: Restoration and Renewal, 21 February 2017, HC 1005. 8. Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, s 11. For a wider description of aspects of the Chair's functions, see HC Deb (1986–87) 109, cc 245–49.

Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee 38.66The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee is currently established under Standing Order No 146, in succession to the Select Committee on Public Administration (and with an expanded remit to take on that of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the 2010–15 Parliament). It operates akin to a departmental select committee in examining the work of the Cabinet Office, including the quality and standards of administration within the Civil Service, together with constitutional issues. It also examines the reports laid before the House of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (the Parliamentary Ombudsman) and Health Service Commissioner for England (Health Service Ombudsman), positions jointly held by a single official known as the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.1

Footnotes 1. See also para 6.46.

Corruption or impropriety 15.28The acceptance by a Member of either House of a bribe to influence them in their conduct as a Member, or of any fee, compensation or reward in connection with the promotion of or opposition to any bill, resolution, matter or thing submitted or intended to be submitted to either House, or to a committee, is a contempt. Any person who is found to have offered such a corrupt consideration is also in contempt.1 A transaction of this character is both a gross affront to the dignity of the House concerned and an attempt to pervert the parliamentary process implicit in Members' free discharge of their duties to the House and (in the case of the Commons) to the electorate.2 The adoption by both Houses of Codes of Conduct for their Members, and the development of new procedures and structures for enforcing compliance with these Codes have, however, considerably altered the approach taken by both Houses to the punishment of offences of this kind. Instances where the House of Commons or one of its committees has considered allegations of the offer of a bribe to a Member or their acceptance are not common, and many are some time in the past.3 There were only a limited number of cases in the twentieth century.4 (For fuller discussion of recent developments and current procedure in connection with standards and Members' interests, the Code of Conduct and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, see Chapter 5. For historical background, see Erskine May (23rd edn, 2004), p 134 ff and (24th edn, 2011), p 254 ff.)

Footnotes 1. See House of Commons 2008–09, Code of Conduct, together with the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members, HC 735. The Commons resolved in 1695 that ‘the offer of money or other advantage to any Member of Parliament for the promoting of any matter whatsoever, depending or to be transacted in Parliament, is a high crime and misdemeanour’ (CJ (1693–97) 331). 2. Members of the Commons found guilty of such offences have been expelled (CJ (1667–87) 24; ibid (1693–97) 274, 275, 277, 651, 689, 693 and 5 Parl Hist 900–10 (Speaker Sir John Trevor; and CJ (1693–97) 283 and 5 Parl Hist 911 (the Chairman of a committee)); or committed (CJ (1693–97) 236 and 5 Parl Hist 886). In 1947–48, a Member was expelled and another reprimanded for conduct which, though not characterised as a contempt, was considered by the House to be dishonourable and deserving to be severely punished (CJ (1947–48) 22, 23). 3. See CJ (1697–99) 528; ibid (1702–04) 480; ibid (1711–14) 493, 494, 498; ibid (1718–21) 541, 542; ibid (1745–50) 148, 154. It has also been declared that it is a contempt for a Member of the Commons to enter into an agreement with another person to advocate the claims of that person in the House for pecuniary reward, see CJ (1857–58) 68, 77, Parl Deb (1858) 148, c 1855; and HC 115 (1857–58) p iii, a case where a select committee was appointed to consider whether a Member had taken money from an Indian prince to advocate the latter's claim to recover certain territory which they alleged had been wrongfully confiscated by the East India Company. On a subsequent occasion, it was found not to be a contempt but dishonourable conduct ‘in the nature of bribery’ for a Member of the Commons corruptly to accept payment for disclosure of matters to be proceeded within Parliament, obtained from other Members under obligations of secrecy. Those who committed such acts were to incur the grave displeasure of the House, which would take such action in the matter as it saw fit (CJ (1947–48) 20–23, 88; HC Deb (1947–48) 443, c 1094 ff). 4. In 1942–43, the Committee of Privileges considered the offer of ‘contingent expenses' to a Member, and concluded that the offer was made ‘not so much as to get [a] matter raised in the House as to bring pressure to bear on a government department to withdraw a prosecution’. The Committee were of the opinion that the individual who made the offer was ill-advised, but in the circumstances was not in contempt (HC 103 (1942–43)). Similarly, when in 1944–45 evidence came to light of an offer to pay money to a constituency association, conditional upon a Member's taking up a matter with a Minister, the Committee decided that what had happened was objectionable but not a contempt (HC 63 (1944–45)).

Regulatory Reform Committee 38.68A Deregulation Committee was first appointed in Session 1994–95, following the enactment of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. Following the passage into law of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, the Committee's name was changed to the Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee, and its standing order amended to allow it to deal with orders prepared under both Acts.1 Once the last of the deregulation orders had passed through its parliamentary stages, the Committee's name was changed to the Regulatory Reform Committee.2 The Committee's standing order was again amended in 2007 so that the committee can deal with draft orders laid under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 (see para 31.36 ).3 The Committee's remit was expanded in 2012 to include certain draft orders under the Localism Act 2011 and the Fire and Rescue Act 2004.4 The Committee can also examine general matters relating to regulatory reform. The Committee consists of 14 members and has the usual select committee powers, including power to appoint a sub-committee. In addition, the Committee and its sub-committee have the power to invite Members of the House who are not members of the Committee to attend meetings at which witnesses are being examined in relation to draft legislative reform orders and, at the Chair's discretion, to ask questions. Such Members are not permitted to participate in other proceedings of the Committee or sub-committee and may not vote or count towards the quorum. The Committee is advised by one of the Speaker's Counsel.

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

CJ (2000–01) 342. CJ (2001–02) 557. CJ (2006–07) 462–64 and Procedure Committee, First Report of Session 2005–06, HC 894, especially paras 66–74. CJ (2010–12) 1219–21.

Committees considering national planning policy statements 38.69The Liaison Committee (see para 38.82 below) has responsibility for recommending how proposals for national policy statements laid before Parliament under the Planning Act 2008, s 9, should be scrutinised. A sub-committee of the Committee considers whether the statements should be scrutinised by a designated departmental select committee or by an ad hoc National Policy Statement Committee, appointed under Standing Order No 152H; the main committee reports its conclusions to the House.1 If formed, a National Policy Statement Committee would be comprised of between 7 and 14 members, nominated by the Liaison Committee, all of whom must be drawn from the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Transport and the Welsh Affairs Committees. It has the usual powers of a select committee (except that it may not travel overseas) and additionally may invite Members who are not members of the committee to participate in its proceedings (but not to move any motion, amendment or draft report, vote or count towards the quorum). This power is also available to any departmental select committee designated to consider a proposed national policy statement, in the course of its proceedings on the statement. A committee scrutinising a national policy statement must report on the proposal within a specified period or the Chair must report that the committee makes no recommendation.2

Footnotes 1. For designation of a committee, see Formal Minutes of the Liaison Committee and Votes and Proceedings, 11 December 2013; no ad hoc National Policy Statement Committee has yet been appointed. 2. SO No 152H, and CJ (2008–09) 378.

Select Committee on Statutory Instruments 38.70The Select Committee on Statutory Instrument operates principally as the Commons membership of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments whose powers and terms of reference are set out in Standing Order No 151. It meets separately to consider statutory instruments laid before the Commons only (see paras 31.32 and 41.10 ).

European Statutory Instruments Committee 38.71The European Statutory Instruments Committee was established by temporary standing order in July 2018. Its role is to examine and report on the appropriate procedure for proposed negative statutory instruments laid before the House of Commons in accordance with paras 3(3)(b) or 17(3)(b) of sch 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.1 The Committee has 16 members of which the quorum is four. The order establishing the Committee provided, innovatively, that it must contain at least seven women and at least seven men. Committee members are nominated to the Committee for the Parliament. The Committee elects its own Chair. It may appoint sub-committees and refer to them any of the matters referred to the Committee. Such sub-committees may have any number of members and have a quorum of two. The Committee and its sub-committees may meet at any time (except when Parliament is prorogued or dissolved) and anywhere within the United Kingdom and overseas. They are assisted by Speaker's Counsel, and the Committee has powers to appoint specialist advisers. The Committee and sub-committees may exchange evidence and documents and hold meetings with other select committees or sub-committees, including Lords select committees. The Committee also has the power to request an opinion from another committee (including a committee appointed to join with the Lords) within a specified time. The Committee is appointed under a temporary standing order, with effect until the end of the 2017 Parliament. In any event, the relevant provisions of the standing order will lapse as the powers to make regulations under ss 8, 9 or 23(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 are extinguished, lapsing entirely upon expiry of the last such remaining power.2 The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee performs a similar sifting role in the House of Lords.

Footnotes 1. See for example European Statutory Instruments Committee, Eleventh Report of Session 2017–19, HC 1795. 2. Votes and Proceedings, 16 July 2018.

European Scrutiny Committee 38.72The European Scrutiny Committee's functions, as set out in Standing Order No 143, are to examine European Union documents, to report its opinion on the legal or political importance of such documents, to give its reasons for its opinion, to report what matters of principle, policy or law may be affected thereby, to make recommendations for the further consideration of such documents, and to consider any issue arising upon any such document or group of documents, or related matters.1 European Union documents are defined in the standing order (see also para 32.7 ).The Committee's practice is to make weekly reports when the House is sitting. It hears evidence from time to time, usually in public. The procedures for the scrutiny of European Union matters are more fully described in Chapter 32.

Footnotes 1. See for example European Scrutiny Committee, Forty-ninth Report of Session 2017–19, HC 301-xlviii; for an example of a report from the Committee discussing wider issues arising from documents, see Nineteenth Report of Session 2017–19, EU Withdrawal: Transitional provisions and dispute resolution, HC 763.

Procedure Committee 38.73The House agreed in 1997 to establish a Procedure Committee on a permanent basis by standing order, with the terms of reference given to its predecessor on a temporary basis in the 1992 Parliament, that is, ‘to consider the practice and procedure of the House in the conduct of public business’.1 The Committee regularly undertakes inquiries on its own initiative, with a view to producing changes in the procedures of the House,2 as well as responding to requests from the House, the Speaker, the Leader of the House, committees or individual Members to examine specific matters which require resolution.3 Beginning in the 2013–14 Session, the Committee has also conducted on behalf of the House periodic reviews of the performance of government departments in the timely answering of written parliamentary questions.4

Footnotes 1. The House in the past frequently appointed select committees on procedure for a session or for a Parliament, either to report on its procedures in general terms or to consider one or more specific issues referred to it. A previous committee with terms of reference restricted to public business also reported on the timing of opposed private business, Session 1971–72, HC 512. See para 38.83 below for other committees appointed in the past relating to procedural reform, such as the Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and the Committee on Reform of the House of Commons. 2. For example, Procedure Committee, First Report of Session 2015–16, Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, HC 894; Procedure Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2016–17, Authorising Government expenditure: steps to more effective scrutiny HC 190; Procedure Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2017–19, Revision of Standing Orders, HC 654. 3. For example, Procedure Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2008–09, Tabling of amendments by select committees, HC 1104; Procedure Committee, Third Report of Session 2009–10, Accountability to the House of Commons of Secretaries of State in the House of Lords, HC 496; Procedure Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2016–17, Use of the Welsh language in the Welsh Grand Committee at Westminster, HC 816. 4. Procedure Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2012–13, Monitoring written Parliamentary Questions, HC 1095.

Backbench Business Committee 38.74The Backbench Business Committee1 was established on 15 June 2010, following a recommendation of the Select Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons.2 It has eight members of whom a quorum is four. The Chair is elected by the House by secret ballot to serve for a session; the members of the Committee are also appointed on a sessional basis. Ministers, parliamentary private secretaries and principal Opposition frontbench spokespersons are not eligible for membership of the Committee and the Chair must be from an Opposition party. The Committee determines the backbench business to be taken in the House and in Westminster Hall on days, or parts of days, allotted for backbench business (see para 18.14 ). It regularly uses its power under paragraph (6) of the Standing Order to hear representations from Members of the House and also has the power to invite Government officials to attend all or part of any of its meetings.

Footnotes 1. See SO Nos 152J and 122D for current provision. 2. HC (2010–12) 33.

Petitions Committee 38.75The Petitions Committee was first appointed in July 2015, following recommendations from the Procedure Committee for changes to the petitions process, intended to enhance the relationship between petitioners and the House. A major proposal was the establishment of a collaborative e-petitions website, jointly owned by the Government and the House of Commons.1 The Committee's role is to consider e-petitions started on the e-petitions website and public (paper) petitions presented to the House by Members.2 It has a particular responsibility for selecting particular petitions or e-petitions for debate in a Monday sitting in Westminster Hall. It has the usual powers of select committees to take evidence and can therefore also conduct an inquiry into a topic raised by a petition.3 For more information about the Petitions Committee and the petitions process, see Chapter 24.

Footnotes 1. Procedure Committee, Third Report of Session 2014–15, E–petitions: a collaborative system, HC 235. 2. SO No 145A(1). 3. For example, Petitions Committee, First Special Report of Session 2017–19, Online abuse and the experience of disabled people, HC 149.

Committees on Standards and of Privileges Contents Committee of Privileges Committee on Standards 38.76The Committee of Privileges and the Committee on Standards have for historic reasons had close links. From the seventeenth century it was the practice of the House to appoint a Committee of Privileges to consider specific matters relating to privilege referred to it by the House. In 1995, that committee was replaced with a Committee on Standards and Privileges, with a remit expanded to include consideration of matters relating to the conduct of Members.1 This change was made in conjunction with the House's creation of the post of Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, whose work the Committee was given the responsibility of overseeing, and in anticipation of the House's approval in 1996 of, a Code of Conduct.2 In 2010, the House accepted the principle that non-Members of the House should be added to this Committee to provide an element of independence in the standards system.3 In 2011, the Procedure Committee recommended that the participation of lay members should extend only to standards and not to privilege issues and that therefore the Standards and Privileges Committee should be split, with lay members being included only in the Committee responsible for standards.4 In 2012, separate Committees of Privileges and on Standards were created, and in 2013 the first lay members were appointed to the latter: initially three (with 11 elected members), but since 2015 seven (with seven elected members).5 Both committees have a quorum of three elected members; in addition, the Committee on Standards has a quorum of three lay members. The elected members are nominated for the duration of a Parliament; the lay members are appointed (following recruitment through open and fair competition) for fixed non-renewable terms not exceeding six years. The lay members have the same rights as elected members to vote or move motions or amendments to motions or draft reports.6 Any lay member has the right to append a paper to a report by the Committee. It has been the practice of the House to nominate the same elected members to both committees; and the Chair of the Committee on Standards, who is one of the Chairs directly elected by the House, has by practice been elected by the Committee of Privileges as its Chair. In 2003, the Government agreed that no single party should have a majority on the Standards and Privileges Committee and that parliamentary private secretaries should not be members of the Committee.7 These conventions continue to apply. Standing Order No 122B(8)(f) provides that no Member may be a candidate for the Chair of the Committee on Standards unless their party is that of the official Opposition. The committees are empowered to appoint sub-committees, with a quorum of three (which in the case of a Committee on Standards sub-committee must comprise at least one elected and one lay member). Both the committees and any sub-committee have powers to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding the adjournment of the House and to appoint specialist advisers. The committees also have the power to order the attendance of any Member before them or any sub-committee and to require that specific documents or records in the possession of a Member relating to the inquiries of the committees, any sub-committee or (in the case of the Committee on Standards) the Commissioner, be laid before it or any subcommittee. The committees may also exclude the broadcasters from their public sittings. Under the standing order, the law officers of the Crown who are Members of the House may attend.8

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7. 8.

CJ (1994–95) 554. CJ (1994–95) 555; ibid (1995–96) 527–28. CJ (2010–12) 312–13. Procedure Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2010–12, Lay membership of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (HC 1606). CJ (1994–95) 554; ibid (2012–13) 417; Votes and Proceedings, 18 May 2016. Votes and Proceedings, 7 January 2019; previously, SO No 149 provided that ‘lay members may not move any motion or any amendment to any motion or draft report, and may not vote’, though a procedure to provide for lay members to participate in an ‘indicative vote’ was introduced in July 2018 (see Votes and Proceedings, 19 July 2018 and Fifth Report from the Standards Committee of Session 2017–19, HC 1726). See also the fuller account in Chapter 5. HC Deb (2002–03), 407, c 1240. SO Nos 148A(9), 149(12).

Committee of Privileges 38.77The Committee of Privileges is appointed under Standing Order No 148A. The Committee is charged with the consideration of matters relating to privileges referred to it by the House (see para 15.32 ). The scope of any inquiry comprises all matters relevant to the matter referred.1

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1994–95) 248, c 444.

Committee on Standards 38.78The Committee on Standards (see also para 5.4 ) is appointed under Standing Order No 149. The Committee is charged with the consideration of any matter relating to the conduct of Members. In particular, the Committee has responsibility for overseeing the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards whose duties (see paras 5.5, 5.21 ff) are described in Standing Order No 150. The Committee examines the arrangements proposed by the Commissioner for the compilation, maintenance and accessibility of the Register of Members' Financial Interests and also of any other registers of interests established by the House (see paras 5.8–5.9 ). The Committee also authorises the publication of the Register at the beginning of a Parliament. However, the Committee has made it clear that it respects the Commissioner's independence and does not seek to direct the Commissioner's operational work.1 On 24 July 1996, the House adopted the predecessor committee's proposals for a Code of Conduct for Members (see para 5.3 ); the House has also authorised the Committee to update the Guide in the light of experience and subsequent decisions of the House.2 An important function of the Committee is to consider any specific complaints against Members which have been referred to it by the Commissioner, either in respect of allegations that a Member has failed to comply with the rules of the House relating to the registration or declaration of interests, or which allege that a Member has otherwise breached the Code of Conduct. The procedure for the consideration of complaints is set out in the Guide to the Rules and is described at para 5.21 ff. In July 2018, the House approved an Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy and made consequential changes to the Code of Conduct. The House also amended Standing Order No 149 to increase the rights of lay members, by instructing that before dividing on any motion, the Committee on Standards should hold an indicative vote of lay and elected members to ascertain the views on the motion of the committee as a whole and of each member present; and that such a vote should be conducted as if it were a formal division and the result recorded in the committee's formal minutes.3 In December 2018, the Committee on Standards recommended that the House should further increase the elements of independence in its standards system, including by conferring full voting rights on lay members.4

Footnotes 1. Committee on Standards, Sixth Report of Session 2014–15, The Standards System in the House of Commons, HC 383, para 100. 2. A revised version of the Code and Guide was adopted by the House on 9 February 2009 and published as HC 735 (2008–09); further revisions to the Code and Guide were made on 12 March 2012 and 17 March 2015, published as HC 1076 (2014–15); further revisions to the Code were made on 19 July 2018, published as HC 1474 (2017–19), and to the Guide on 7 January 2019 (see HC 1882 (2017–19)). 3. Votes and Proceedings, 19 July 2018. 4. Committee on Standards, Fifth Report of Session 2017–19, Implications of the Dame Laura Cox report for the House's standards system: Initial proposals, HC 1726.

Finance Committee and Administration Committees 38.79Two committees, the Finance Committee and the Administration Committee, are appointed to lead on matters relating to the internal finance and administration of the House service.1 The Finance Committee is appointed under Standing Order No 144 to consider expenditure on, and the administration of, services for the House of Commons. With the assistance of the Commons Executive Board, it prepares the Estimates for the House of Commons Administration for submission to the House of Commons Commission; monitors the financial performance of the House administration; and reports to the Commission or the Speaker on the financial and administrative implications of recommendations made to them by the other House committees. It also has an advisory role in relation to the Estimate for House of Commons: Members. The Administration Committee, appointed under Standing Order No 139, represents the views of Members on services provided by the House Service and provides advice to the Speaker and the House of Commons Commission on matters delegated to it by the Commission. Any recommendation of the Committee which would incur additional expenditure charged to the House of Commons Administration Estimate is considered also by the Finance Committee. The Committee may make rules and give directions to Officers in respect only of such administrative matters as have been determined by the Speaker or the Commission. Both committees have a membership of 11. Generally, over the period of their existence, including as predecessor committees, this has included Whips from the two major parties and a representative of the minor parties and members (sometimes the Chair) of the other committee. Following a recommendation of the Tebbit review of the governance of the Commons, the Finance Committee also has the Chairman of Ways and Means as a member. The committees have the usual powers of select committees, although they generally proceed informally rather than by taking formal evidence, and they have the power to communicate their evidence to the Commission. Both committees are assisted by Officers of the House.

Footnotes 1. See also paras 6.3 and 6.4. The Finance Committee succeeded the Finance and Services Committee in 2013, the predecessor committee having been first appointed in 1991. The Administration Committee was first appointed in 2005 and replaced the Accommodation and Works Committee, the former Administration Committee (concerned with general services), the Broadcasting Committee, the Catering Committee and the Information Committee (concerned with the Library and information technology), CJ (2005–06) 122. For a description of the preceding arrangements, see Erskine May (23rd edn, 2004), p 789.

Committees relating to the Estimate for House of Commons: Members 38.80The members of the House of Commons Commission, appointed under the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, have been constituted since 2004 as the Members' Estimate Committee,1 the principal purpose of which is to keep under review, and modify as necessary, resolutions of the House relating to expenditure charged to the House of Commons: Members' Estimate.2 The Committee is not empowered to create a new form of charge on that Estimate nor to increase any rate of charge or payment determined by a resolution of the House. It does not have the usual powers of a select committee but is able to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House and to report from time to time, and in any case at least annually, codified and up-to-date provisions of resolutions relating to the Estimate. Provision was made in 2009 under Standing Order No 152G for a Select Committee on Members' Expenses to consider such matters relating to expenses as may be referred to it by the House.3

Footnotes 1. The House of Commons Commission and the Members' Estimates Committee usually meet at the same time and place. 2. SO No 152D; see, for example, First Report, Consolidated list of provisions of the Resolutions of the House relating to expenditure charged to the Estimate for House of Commons: Members as at 16 July 2018, HC 1442. 3. SO No 156G; HC Deb (2008–09) 486, cc 914–70 and ibid 488, c 818.

Selection Committee 38.81Though much of the work of the Selection Committee is related to the consideration of nominations to committees on public bills and other business committed or referred to a general committee, the Committee itself operates subject to the standing orders relating to private business.1 The Committee consists of nine members of whom three are a quorum. Members who are Whips of their political parties have usually been among those nominated. For the functions of the Committee so far as they relate to public bills and other business committed to a general committee, see para 39.3; so far as they relate to select committees,2 see para 38.5; so far as they relate to hybrid bills and private business, see paras 30.66 and 43.11.

Footnotes 1. Until 2017, the role of the Selection Committee was performed by the Committee of Selection, appointed under Standing Orders 109–118 relating to private business. In that year, the House passed a temporary standing order which recreated the Committee of Selection as the Selection Committee, to be regarded as if it were appointed under the private business standing order, with the same basic powers and structure, though accompanied by certain additional provisions as to how it was to discharge its functions in relation to nomination of general committees, Votes and Proceedings, 12 September 2017. 2. The provision in SO No 152E for a procedure involving the Selection Committee in the appointment of members of the statutory Intelligence and Security Committee is no longer applicable following the changes made to that committee (including its renaming) in the Justice and Security Act 2013 (see para 41.14 for more on that committee).

Liaison Committee 38.82The Liaison Committee, first appointed in 1979,1 comprises the Chairs of all the principal select committees.2 The Committee's role, as set out in Standing Order No 145, is to consider general matters relating to the work of select committees, to give such advice on their work as is sought by the House of Commons Commission, to allocate subjects for debate at Thursday sittings in Westminster Hall under para (7) of Standing Order No 10 and to choose which Estimates will be debated on Estimates Days under Standing Order No 54 (see para 34.26 ff).3 It has power to appoint two sub-committees, one of which deals exclusively with the allocation of national policy statements for scrutiny under the Planning Act 2008 (see above); the other may be given any remit, though in practice the Committee has not used the power to appoint such a subcommittee, preferring to work instead through informal working or steering groups. While the committee has the normal power to take evidence, it does not have power to meet away from Westminster, nor the power to appoint specialist advisers. Since 2002, on the initiative of the then Prime Minister, the practice has been established that the serving Prime Minister regularly gives oral evidence to the Liaison Committee. In light of the previous convention that a Prime Minister did not give evidence to select committees, this procedure was incorporated in para (2) of the Committee's Standing Order.4 In recent Parliaments, the practice has been agreed that these hearings should be held three times a year.5 In its role of advising the House of Commons Commission, the Committee manages the allocation of funds set aside for overseas travel by select committees (see para 38.29 ). It also advises the Commission on the overall level of funding for support of the House's scrutiny functions. The Committee enables the joint views of committee Chairs and their committees to be expressed. Periodically it has made reports to the House on the work of the select committee system in the form of an annual or end-of-Parliament report on the work of committees.6 It has also from time to time produced reports reviewing the role of select committees in the wider parliamentary and constitutional context.7 It works as a co-ordinating body in looking at best practice by select committees in respect of specific or novel matters such as the process for pre-appointment hearings,8 and in taking steps to reduce the possibility of two or more committees inquiring into the same issues. It has reported on the role of select committees in the House's arrangements for financial scrutiny.9 The Committee has been allocated specific functions under various standing orders or otherwise, including responsibilities for allocation of national policy statements under the Planning Act 2008 (under Standing Order No 152H(1)) and of draft orders under s 11 of the Public Bodies Act 2011 (under Standing Order No 152K(2)), and determining whether the premature disclosure of a draft report constitutes a substantial interference in the work of the select committee system of the House (see para 38.56 ). It is also charged by the House with reviewing the list of ‘core tasks’ for committees (see above, para 38.64 ).

Footnotes 1. An unofficial Chairmen's liaison committee had existed in the period 1967–1979. For a description of its activities, see First Report from the Procedure Committee of Session 1977–78, HC 588-I, para 6.54 ff. 2. For example, CJ (2010–12) 104. Since 2001, this has been by means of an order made at the start of a Parliament naming the committees whose Chairs are to be on the Committee, so that the membership of the Committee changes automatically if the Chair of one of the listed committees changes. In the 1992, 1997, 2001 and 2005 Parliaments (see for example CJ (2004–05) 120), a Member who has was not Chair of another committee was named in the order, that Member then being elected its Chair. In the 1983, 1987 and 1992 Parliaments, a representative of the third largest party was added. 3. In 2018, under a process endorsed by the Procedure Committee (Third Report of Session 2017–19, Debates on Estimates days: piloting new arrangements, HC 739), the Committee agreed with the Backbench Business Committee informally to allow the latter committee to select the Estimates for debate on Estimates Days, in exchange for the Liaison Committee having days from the Backbench Business Committee's allocation put at its disposal to schedule debates on select committee business in the Chamber (see for example HC Deb (26 April 2018) 639, c 1053). 4. For example, Session 2009–10, HC 346-i; Session 2017–19, HC 1393 (18 July 2018). It has also heard evidence from the Deputy Prime Minister (Liaison Committee, Oral Evidence: Evidence From the Deputy Prime Minister, Session 2012–13, 18 July 2013, HC 958-i and -ii), and on cross-cutting issues from Sir John Chilcott, former Chair of the Inquiry into the decision to go to war in Iraq (Liaison Committee, Session 2016–17, Oral Evidence: Follow up to the Chilcot Report, 2 November 2016, HC 689), and from the Minister for the Cabinet Office and others on the cross-government response to collapse of Carillion (Liaison Committee, Session 2017–19, Oral Evidence: The Collapse of Carillion, 7 February 2018, HC 770), on the basis that these were matters relating to the work of select committees. 5. For example, Liaison Committee, Formal Minutes, Session 2010–12, 17 May 2011, 6 September 2011, and 8 November 2011; Formal Minutes, Session 2017–19, 27 March 2018, 18 July 2018, and 29 November 2018. 6. For example, Liaison Committee, Second Report of Session 2014–15, The work of committees in session 2008–09, HC 426 (2009–10); Liaison Committee, First Report of Session 2014–15, Legacy Report, HC 954 (2014–15). 7. For example, Liaison Committee, First Report of Session 1999–2000, Shifting the Balance: Select Committees and the Executive, HC 300; Liaison Committee, Second Report of the Session 1999–2000, Independence or Control?: The Government's Reply to the Committee's First Report of Session 1999–2000, HC 841; Liaison Committee, Second Report of Session 2001–02, Select Committees: Modernisation Proposals, HC 692; Liaison Committee, First Report of Session 2009–10, Rebuilding the House: Select committee issues, HC 272; Liaison Committee, Second Report of Session 2012–13, Select committee effectiveness, resources and powers, HC 697. 8. For example, First Report of Session 2010–12, Select Committees and Public Appointments, HC 830; Second Report of Session 2017–19, Witness gender diversity, HC 1033. 9. For example, Second Report of Session 2007–08, HC 426 and Second Report of Session 2008–09, HC 804.

Committees on reform of the House of Commons 38.83In addition to the Procedure Committee, the House has occasionally decided to appoint a separate committee to look at broader overall reform, or to guide it in respect of a single major issue. For example, a Committee on Sittings of the House was appointed in 1991, which was followed by significant alteration to the pattern of sitting times.1 A committee was appointed in 2014 to make recommendations for the arrangements for overseeing the administration of the House.2 A Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons sat between 1997 and 2008, chaired by successive Leaders of the House (and including the Chair of the Procedure Committee in its membership). It produced proposals in a wide range of areas, notably the establishment of the Westminster Hall chamber,3 the introduction of programming of bills,4 changes to the sitting hours of the House,5 the timing of votes6 and regional select and grand committees.7 A Select Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons was appointed in 2009 with its reports leading to major changes in the processes for nomination of members and Chairs of select committees, the appointment of the Chairman and Deputy Chairmen of Ways and Means, scheduling business in the House and enabling the public to initiate debates and proceedings in the House.8

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

CJ (1990–91) 522–23. Votes and Proceedings, 10 September 2014. Second Report of Session 2001–02, HC 1168-I; see Chapter 23. Second Report of Session 1999–2000, HC 589; First Report of Session 2000-01, HC 382; First Report, of Session 2002–03 HC 1222. See Chapter 28. Third Report of Session 1998–99, HC 719; Third Report of Session 1999–2000, HC 954; Second Report of Session 2001–02, HC 1168. See para 17.2. Second Report of Session 1999–2000, HC 589. See para 20.95. Third Report of Session 2007–08, HC 282. CJ (2008–09) 571; First Report of Session 2008–09, HC 1117, and First Report of Session 2009–10, HC 273.

Regional select committees 38.84Following a report by the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House,1 select committees were established in 2009 under Standing Order No 152F, for the remainder of the 2005 Parliament, with responsibilities relating to each of the English regions.2 The committees examined regional strategies and the work of regional bodies in their region. They could travel only within the United Kingdom and could invite Members of the House who were not members of the committee but represented constituencies within the relevant region to attend and participate in their proceedings at specified meetings (but not to move motions or amendments, vote or be counted in the quorum).3 Standing Order No 152F lapsed when Parliament was dissolved in 2010 and was not renewed.

Footnotes 1. Third Report, HC 282 (2007–08); and see the Government's reply, Cm 7376. 2. CJ (2007–08) 679–82; ibid (2008–09) 466–67. Regional Grand Committees were established at the same time. 3. A proposal that regional committees could also invite specified elected councillors from their region to participate in meetings was negatived, CJ (2007–08) 682.

Speaker's conferences on electoral matters 38.85Since 1900, the Speaker has presided over six conferences on electoral matters, following an invitation from the Prime Minister of the day to do so. Unlike its predecessors, the last of which was in 1977–78,1 the most recent Speaker's conference, which sat from 2008 to 2010, was set up as a select committee of the House. In addition to the Speaker, that conference consisted of 17 Members, appointed by the Speaker, one of whom was designated as vice-chair. The quorum was five. The conference was given power to report from time to time and was also permitted to conduct its proceedings in such manner, and to have such of those powers which the House may delegate to select committees, as the Speaker determined.2 By convention, Speaker's conferences are served by a joint secretariat drawn from the House Service and the Civil Service. For the Speaker's Committees on the Electoral Commission and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, see paras 2.26 and 6.47 respectively.

Footnotes 1. See para 4.30. 2. CJ (2007–08) 686.

Consideration by the House of select committee work 38.86There is no automatic process for select committee reports to be debated in the House (and indeed the number of such reports would make this almost impossible). But, particularly since the establishment of the departmental select committees in 1979, a number of changes have progressively allocated more time to the debate of select committee reports in recognition of the increasing salience of their work. Where they consider it appropriate, committees can seek to bring a report either to the attention of the House or formally onto its agenda, in three ways: by means of a select committee statement under Standing Order No 22D; by having a report scheduled for debate on a Thursday in Westminster Hall, or through use of, for example, days available for Backbench Business, Opposition Days or Estimates Days in the Chamber; or by having a report (or evidence) ‘tagged’ on the Order Paper as being relevant to other business before the House. Arrangements for select committee statements were introduced in 2013 and are described at paras 19.29 and 23.7. Such statements can be scheduled in Backbench Committee time either in the Chamber or in Westminster Hall, though the former is more frequent. As well as enabling presentation and limited questioning on the publication of a report (within five sitting days of publication of the report), such statements can also be used for the announcement of a new inquiry. The principal opportunities for full debates on select committee reports are in Westminster Hall. Standing Order No 10(7) provides that broadly half the time available on Thursdays in Westminster Hall is for business determined by the Liaison Committee. Debates may in principle take place on substantive (that is, amendable) motions, but in practice are held as general debates in the form of motions ‘That the House has considered the Xth report of the [name of ] Committee on [subject ]’. Most debates on select committee reports are held after the government reply has been published. Additionally, three days each session, known as Estimates Days (one of which may be taken as two half-days), are formally set aside for debate on individual Estimates selected by the Liaison Committee.1 Until recently, the Liaison Committee allocated these days, selecting Estimates which would allow debate on chosen reports from select committees. In 2018, it was agreed between the Liaison Committee, Backbench Business Committee and the Procedure Committee that the Backbench Business Committee would allocate the Estimates Days and that the Liaison Committee could allocate debates on select committee reports on three of the days allotted to the Backbench Business Committee in the main Chamber.2 Reports may also be considered on substantive motions in government time. This will most frequently be in respect of motions approving appropriate reports from some of the internally focused select committees, in particular reports from the Committees on Standards or of Privileges, and many reports from the Procedure Committee.3 The ‘tagging’ of documents relevant to a debate—that is, inclusion, with the agreement of the Member in charge of the debate, of their details as a note on the Order Paper and the ensuring of their availability for Members in the Vote Office—has been in place since 1979. Select committee reports, or oral or written evidence to a committee, are frequently tagged using this process.

Footnotes 1. SO No 54. 2. See Procedure Committee, Third Report of Session 2017–19, Debates on Estimates days: piloting new arrangements, HC 739; the objective was both to encourage a greater emphasis on Estimates Days on debates on the selected Estimates themselves (rather than related select committee reports) and to give a better opportunity for debate on select committee reports to take place on substantive motions. 3. Until 29 June 2004, it was also the practice for a one or half-day debate to take place in government time each year on the reports from the Committee of Public Accounts.

Select committees' consideration of public bills and draft bills Contents Consideration of public bills by select committees Consideration of draft bills by select committees 38.87The normal process for consideration of public bills,1 including the role of public bill committees,2 is set out in Chapters 26 and 27. It is unusual for the process formally to involve a select committee, whether by committal of the bill (where the committee concerned can amend the bill and the bill is not in the possession of the House until the committee has reported the bill back, sometimes accompanied by a report explaining the committee's decisions) or by referral (where the committee is directed by the House to examine a bill and make recommendations, but where the committee cannot itself amend the bill). It is also common for a draft bill to be examined by an existing or specially appointed select committee.

Footnotes 1. The procedure in select committees on hybrid bills is dealt with at para 30.57 ff. 2. The procedure in public bill committees is described in Chapter 39.

Complaints reported by committees Contents Previous practice 15.33In both Houses, complaints from committees are normally made in the form of special reports, although they have also been contained in substantive reports on wider matters.1 Matters complained of in such special reports have included disorderly conduct in the committee; or some contempt of the committee's authority, for example a person summoned as a witness refusing to attend or to answer questions, or prevaricating or giving false evidence; as well as presumptions on the part of the committee that a breach of privilege or other contempt of the House has been committed, such as a libel upon the Chairman of the committee, or interference in or failure to co-operate with the committee's inquiry.

Footnotes 1. When a joint committee made a report of a possible contempt, the Speaker accorded precedence to a motion to refer the matter to the Committee on Standards and Privileges on receipt of a letter from the Chairman of the joint committee, HC Deb (2009–10) 506, c 21. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee raised complaints of misleading the Committee in its Eleventh Report of Session 2010–12, News International and Phone Hacking, HC 903-I.

Consideration of draft bills by select committees 38.89Public bills have frequently been referred to or considered by select committees in draft form. On a number of occasions a committee, or joint committee, has been specifically appointed for this purpose.1 This process, known as pre-legislative scrutiny, was encouraged by a series of reports from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and endorsed by the House.2 When a draft bill is referred to a select committee, the committee does not formally go through the bill clause by clause, but inquires into the merits of the bill, or takes the proposals contained in the bill into consideration in the same manner as proposals embodied in any other document.3 No report or recommendation of the committee with regard to the bill can have any direct effect by way of advancing the bill a stage in the House.4

Footnotes 1. For example, Food Standards Committee, CJ (1998–99) 114; Joint Committee on Draft Corruption Bill, CJ (2002–03) 231, LJ (2002–03) 213; Joint Committee on Draft Communications Bill, CJ (2012–13) 84, LJ (2012–13) 65; Joint Committee on the Draft Health Service Safety Investigations Bill, Votes and Proceedings, 17 April 2018, House of Lords Minutes of Proceedings, 29 March 2018. 2. CJ (2001–02) 778. 3. For example, Twenty-first Report of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee of Session 1998–99, Railways Bill, HC 827. 4. Parl Deb (1899) 70, cc 406–7. On occasion, individual committee members have introduced Private Members' Bills related to committee inquiries. See HC Deb (1990–91) 189, cc 732–36, following the Second Report of the Home Affairs Committee of Session 1990–91, HC 1; also HC Deb (1994–95) 257, cc 600–46, related to the Second Report of the Education Committee of Session 1994–95, HC 178; and HC Deb (2008–09) 495, cc 650–64, related to the Ninth Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights of Session 2006–07, HC 410, HL 77.

Select committee returns 38.90Each session, the House calls for the production of a paper giving information and statistics relating to select committees in the previous session.1 The return lists detailed information for each committee on its members and staff, meetings, witnesses, specialist advisers, visits, evidence and reports and divisions, and includes financial information. Certain summary information across the committee system as a whole is also given. The returns have been published as a House of Commons paper,2 for each session since 1848.

Footnotes 1. For example, CJ (2010–12) 31. 2. For example, HC 1 (2008–09).

Introduction to general committees in the House of Commons 39.1This chapter describes public bill committees and other general committees which proceed in the same way as the House by debating and deciding upon questions. Committees of the whole House (which are appointed for the committee stage of certain public bills) are described in Chapter 28. Select committees, which proceed by taking evidence, deliberation and report, are described in Chapter 38. Proceedings in general committees broadly follow the procedures of the House itself (subject to exceptions described below). Members address the Chair, who performs in the committee all the duties of the Speaker in the House. Members must speak standing and uncovered as when the House is sitting. The layout of general committee meeting rooms is normally a miniature version of the Chamber, with the parties facing each other. This layout is varied when a public bill committee takes oral evidence, for which members sit in a horseshoe configuration akin to a select committee. An official report (Hansard) is made of general committee debates and published in separate parts for each meeting. Formal minutes of general committees are no longer kept. In addition to public bill committees and certain other committees dealing with bills, the House of Commons also appoints committees of the same character to consider delegated legislation, European Union documents, and a variety of business relating to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Under Standing Order No 84 all these committees are classed as ‘general’ committees.1

Footnotes 1. For a summary of the history of the nomenclature of standing and general committees, see Fifth Report from the Select Committee on Procedure, HC 595 (1995–96). See also First Report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, The Legislative Process, HC 1097 (2005–06) paras 63–66.

Membership, sittings, procedure, etc of general committees Contents Membership of general committees The Chair in general committees Sittings of general committees Procedure in general committees Records of proceedings of general committees 39.2Practice and procedure relating to general committees have developed largely in relation to committees on bills, which have been appointed for more than a century. For this reason the following description relates chiefly to procedure in public bill committees and in the standing committees which preceded them. Other classes of general committee may be taken to conform to the procedure and practice of public bill committees except where otherwise noted.

Membership of general committees Contents Participation of other Members, etc Discharge of Members 39.3With some exceptions, public bill committees and delegated legislation committees consist of a Chair appointed by the Speaker from the Panel of Chairs (para 39.6 ) and between 16 and 50 members, nominated by the Selection Committee1 to serve on the committee during the consideration of each bill or instrument allocated to it. In nominating Members, the Selection Committee is directed to have regard to their qualifications and to the composition of the House. Thus, the Selection Committee will always ensure that committees reflect the party political composition of the House;2 in the case of bills which divide the House on cross-party lines, that the strength of opinion as expressed in any division at second reading is properly reflected;3 and, in the case of an uncontroversial Private Member's Bill, that the views of the Member in charge are sought on likely committee members. In the case of Private Members' Bills, the Selection Committee in the 2017 Parliament has required the Member in charge to obtain written confirmation from each Member that they wish to be appointed to the committee. The Speaker has deprecated criticism in the House of appointments made by the Committee of Selection4 and has ruled that he cannot interfere with that committee and it would be inappropriate for the House to do so.5 Similarly, the Chair of a committee will not permit criticism, directly or indirectly, of the Selection Committee's choice of Members.6 Particular arrangements are laid down for the composition of public bill committees on bills relating exclusively to Scotland, Wales, or England. Standing Order No 86(2) specifies that a Scottish public bill committee shall include not fewer than 16 Members representing Scottish constituencies7 and that for the consideration of a bill relating exclusively to Wales, the public bill committee shall be so constituted as to include all the Members sitting for constituencies in Wales. This latter arrangement is usually suspended or varied, for example to make provision for not fewer than 19 Members sitting for constituencies in Wales to be appointed to the committee considering a bill concerning the Welsh language.8 Standing Order No 86(2)(iv) provides that any bill that the Speaker has certified as relating exclusively to England and being within devolved legislative competence, as defined in Standing Order No 83J, shall be nominated by the Selection Committee having regard to the composition of that part of the House consisting of Members representing constituencies in England, and no Member who does not represent a constituency in England shall be nominated to such a committee.9 Each European Committee consists of 13 members nominated by the Selection Committee in respect of any European Union document which stands referred to it. In appointing members of European Committees, the Selection Committee is required, where it is practicable, to appoint two members of the European Scrutiny Committee and two members of the select committee whose responsibilities most closely relate to the subjectmatter of the document or documents (Standing Order No 119, and see para 39.39 ). The Scottish Grand Committee consists of all Members representing Scottish constituencies (Standing Order No 93). The Welsh Grand Committee consists of all Members representing Welsh constituencies, together with not more than five other Members nominated by the Selection Committee (Standing Order No 102). The Northern Ireland Grand Committee consists of all Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland, together with not more than 25 other Members nominated by the Selection Committee (Standing Order No 109).10

Footnotes 1. In 2017, the House agreed to a temporary standing order establishing the Selection Committee which discharges the functions of the Committee of Selection, which was not established in the 2017 Parliament: Votes and Proceedings, 12 September 2017. Where this chapter refers to present practice, reference is made to the Selection Committee. Where this chapter refers to past events, the name of the committee that existed at the time is used. 2. In 1995, the House agreed to a temporary standing order providing for the Committee of Selection to interpret this in such a way that the party which achieved an overall majority at the preceding general election should have a majority on any standing committee unless that party lost its overall majority either as a result of by-elections or through the secession of Members to another party, CJ (1994–95) 93–94. In January 1997, however, the Committee of Selection agreed arrangements by which the Government retained its majority in most standing committees, but held only half the seats in the standing committee on the Finance Bill, CJ (1996–97) 172. Under the resolutions establishing the Selection Committee in September 2017, that Committee is directed to interpret this requirement so that the Government has a majority in any general committee with an odd number of members; and in any general committee with an even number of members, the number of members from the government and opposition parties are equal: Votes and Proceedings, 12 September 2017. 3. But a government bill which fails to attract the support on second reading of a number of the Government's usual supporters is generally treated in the same way as any other government bill, HC Deb (2003–04) 417, cc 925–6; ibid (2003–04) 426, c 467. 4. HC Deb (1924) 171, c 451; ibid (1961–62) 655, cc 201–25. 5. HC Deb (1972–73) 849, cc 45–46; ibid (1974–75) 886, cc 1743–44; ibid (2003–04) 426, c 467; ibid (2008–09) 492, c 317; ibid (10 May 2018) 640, c 925. 6. Stg Co Deb (1994–95) Co B (Jobseekers Bill) c 1; ibid (2003–04) Co G (Higher Education Bill) cc 5, 43; ibid (2005–06) Co A (National Lottery Bill) c 132. 7. No such committee has been appointed since 1999. 8. CJ (1974–75) 511 (Welsh Development Agency Bill [Lords]); ibid (1992–93) 656 (Welsh Language Bill [Lords]); ibid (1993–94) 246 (Local Government (Wales) Bill). 9. For example, Votes and Proceedings, 22 March 2018. In this case, the fact that the membership was appointed according to the provisions of the standing order relating to bills related solely to England was noted in the Votes and Proceedings entry.

10. For the membership of the former Regional Affairs Committee and the Grand Committees for the English regions, see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 890. For the membership of the former Standing Committee on the Inter-Governmental Conference on the Future of Europe, see Erskine May (23rd edn, 2004), p 826.

Participation of other Members, etc 39.4As a general rule, only those Members nominated to a general committee may take part in the deliberations of the committee, make any motion or move any amendment, be counted in the quorum of the committee, or vote. Although all Members have a right of access to the room in which a general committee sits, they are nonetheless not normally permitted to sit with the committee or to address it. In the case of public bill committees and other general committees on bills, this means that Members not nominated to a committee may not enter the body of the committee room, and may attend only in the area reserved for members of the public. There are, however, certain exceptions to these rules. Those law officers who are Members of the House may take part in the deliberations of any general committee, but unless they are also members of the committee concerned they may not vote, move any motion or amendment, or be counted in the quorum (Standing Order No 87(1)). A committee has no power to compel the attendance of a law officer. Any Minister (including a law officer) who is a Member of the House may take part in the deliberations of the Scottish Grand Committee, the Welsh Grand Committee and the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, or one of the European Committees, and may move motions (Standing Orders Nos 93(3), 102(4), 109(4) and 119(5)); and a Minister, even if not a Member of the House, may, after notice to the Chair, make a statement and answer questions on it in any of the Grand Committees (Standing Order Nos 96(1), 105(1) and 112(1)). In addition, any Minister who is a Member of the House may take part in the deliberations of a general committee on a bill brought in upon a Ways and Means resolution (Standing Order No 87(2)). In delegated legislation committees, any Member of the House who is not a member of the committee may attend and speak, but may not make any motion, vote or be counted in the quorum. In the European Committees, any Member of the House who is not a member of the committee may attend and speak but may not vote or be counted in the quorum; amendments (but not motions) may be moved by any Member, whether or not a member of the committee, and motions relating to European Union documents may be moved by any Minister.1

Footnotes 1. For the participation of other Members in the former Standing Committee on the Inter-Governmental Conference on the Future of Europe, see Erskine May (23rd edn, 2004), p 826. For participation in the Regional Affairs Committee, see Erskine May (23rd edn, 2004), p 862.

Discharge of Members 39.5The Selection Committee is also empowered to discharge Members appointed to serve on general committees from time to time,1 and to appoint other Members in substitution for them (Standing Order Nos 86(2), 102(1), 109(1) and 117(2)). In doing so, the Selection Committee does not alter the party composition of committees. In accordance with a resolution of the Selection Committee regularly renewed at the commencement of each session, no application for a change in the composition of a public bill committee will be entertained by the Committee of Selection once the bill is under consideration unless a Member is incapacitated from attendance by illness or has been appointed, or ceased to be, a member of the Government, or has changed their office for another or has acquired other duties or ceased to hold or changed such duties.2 The resolution has been interpreted as including the replacement of a Member appointed to a public bill committee who was no longer able attend due to pregnancy.3

Footnotes 1. In the case of the Welsh Grand Committee and the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, this applies only to the Members nominated by the Committee of Selection. 2. For example, CJ (2005–06) 57; Votes and Proceedings, 23 June 2010. The reference to ‘other duties' is interpreted to cover Members who speak officially on particular subjects on behalf of opposition parties. For this purpose a bill is not ‘under consideration in a public bill committee’ if the committee has met to take oral evidence but has not yet begun to consider the clauses of the bill, CJ (2008–09) 427 (Equality Bill Committee). 3. Votes and Proceedings, 24 May 2018.

The Chair in general committees 39.6The Chair or Chairs of each general committee are appointed by the Speaker from the Panel of Chairs. This consists of not fewer than ten Members nominated by the Speaker at or soon after the commencement of every Session to act as Chairs of general committees, temporary Chairs of Committees of the whole House, when so requested by the Chairman of Ways and Means, together with the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Deputy Chairmen (Standing Orders Nos 4 and 85(1)). Members of the Panel of Chairs also chair sittings in Westminster Hall. In recent years the nominated members of the Panel of Chairs have numbered more than 40 Members. The Panel of Chairs considers points of procedure and practice affecting general committees, and is empowered to report to the House from time to time its opinion on matters of procedure relating to general committees (Standing Order No 85(4)). The Panel, whose quorum is three, usually meets twice each year. The Speaker normally appoints two members of the Panel to take the Chair in respect of each government bill allocated to a public bill committee. In the case of other items of business only one Chair is usually appointed. The Speaker is given power to change the Chairs so appointed from time to time (Standing Order No 85(2)). Any member of a general committee may act as temporary Chair, at the request of a Chair of the committee, for not more than a quarter of an hour on any one occasion, but without the powers granted by Standing Order No 89(3) (Standing Order No 85(5)). The Chairs of general committees are by convention required not to take part in any future deliberations in the House on the instrument, bill or document considered by the committee that they chaired. Where two Chairs are appointed to a public bill committee, those Chairs will generally be drawn from a Government party and the Official Opposition, to ensure the least disruption to the party balance in the House if there is a division in which the Chairs should refrain from participating.

Examination of complaints: current practice Contents Hearing of counsel Consideration of reports of committees on complaints 15.35In recent times, most complaints relating to privilege cases in the Commons have been referred to a committee, either the Committee of Privileges, or a specially constituted committee.1 Those committees have investigated, or referred matters to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for investigation,2 and reported back to the House. The Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 1999 recommended minimum standards for procedural fairness which are discussed in detail at para 11.22 above. In 2012, a complaint that witnesses had misled the Culture, Media and Sport Committee was referred to the then Committee on Standards and Privileges. That Committee set out the process it would follow in a resolution sent to all parties. The Committee decided at the outset that it would not recommend that the House order committal to prison, and prescribed a process for the investigation designed to meet the criteria for fairness: The committee would write to inquiry subjects inviting them to make submissions in response to the report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Such submissions could include additional questions which the inquiry subjects considered should be explored key witnesses or other material Written evidence would be gathered and shared with inquiry participants (but not at that stage published); Inquiry subjects would be given the opportunity to give oral evidence, if they so wished, and the committee might decide to take evidence from other witnesses; If oral evidence was taken, the presumption was that it would be in public, but not broadcast; Witnesses giving oral evidence could be supported by a legal or other adviser, but would answer in person; oral evidence would be shared with interested parties; There would be an opportunity to make final written submissions after any oral evidence taking was complete; If the committee intended to criticise an inquiry subject the committee would first send a warning letter, setting out the criticism, the facts which the committee considered substantiated the criticism and the evidence which supported those facts; Any response to such a warning letter would be considered before the committee reported to the house; The committee would suspend its inquiry if requested to do so by the director of public prosecutions to avoid prejudicing any pending legal proceedings or criminal investigations.3 The Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 2013 recommended provisions to ensure the fairness of committee proceedings. These differed according to the seriousness of the behaviour complained of, and the likelihood of significant punishment, and drew on the work of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. Although the Joint Committee's proposals have not been endorsed by either House, despite urging from the Committee of Privileges, in 2013 the Liaison Committee resolved: ‘That the Committee adopt the draft standing order provisions relating to fair procedures for witnesses as guidelines for select committees to test how they worked in practice’.4 Interference with a Lords Member of a joint committee is a contempt against the Lords, whereas interference with a Commons Member is a contempt against that House. When a joint committee complained of contempt by a witness, who had improperly approached committee members from each House, the Committee on Standards and Privileges in the Commons investigated, and published its memoranda, but did not make a substantive report. The Lords Committee for Privileges and Conduct subsequently reported on the matter. It was considered unfair for both committees to investigate the matter concurrently, but the Committee for Privileges and Conduct drew heavily on the evidence collected by the Commons investigation.5

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Committee on an Issue of Privilege, CJ (13 July 2009), p 536. HC Deb (20 February 2018) 636, c 70. Committee on Standards and Privileges, Formal Minutes 2012–13, 3 July 2012. Liaison Committee, Formal Minutes 2013–14, 27 November 2013. Committee of Standards and Privileges, Formal Minutes (2009–10) 9, 16, 23, and 30 March; First report from the Committee for Privileges and Conduct, HL 15 (2010–12).

be completed even if that requires the committee to sit beyond the prescribed hour, eg Stg Co Deb (2002–03) Co F (Hunting (recommitted ) Bill) cc 35–44. 5. On 18 February 1988 a sitting of Standing Committee F was extended to complete consideration of a specific clause, rather than the whole bill. The resultant division was declared invalid at the next sitting and the decision was taken again, Stg Co Deb (1987–88) Co F (Firearms (Amendment) Bill) cc 170–73. 6. A standing committee has been given power to meet at any hour, CJ (1998–99) 282.

Adjournment 39.8The Chair of a general committee has no power under the standing orders1 to adjourn the committee except at the end of a morning's sitting pursuant to Standing Order No 88 or when a quorum is not present (see para 39.17 ). Any member, if called by the Chair, may at any time during the consideration of a bill (except while another member is speaking), move the adjournment of the debate, or of further consideration of the bill, as the case may require. In certain circumstances, Chairs of general committees have accepted motions in the form, ‘That the committee do now adjourn’.2 If the motion is accepted by the Chair (see para 20.24 ) and agreed to by the committee, the debate, further consideration of the bill, or the committee, as the case may be, is adjourned to the day, if any, previously appointed for the next sitting of the committee; or, if the committee has previously decided to sit in the afternoon (see para 39.10 ) of the same day, until the hour decided upon. If, however, no day has been so appointed, or it is desired to alter the date or time of the next meeting, the committee must appoint a day and hour (or either as the case may be) for resuming the debate or taking the bill into further consideration. After a day and hour have, if necessary, been fixed for resuming further proceedings on the bill, and any motions which may be made respecting the dates or times of future sittings have been disposed of, the Chair adjourns the committee to the day and hour appointed for the next meeting, or for resuming further proceedings on the bill, as the case may be. If a dilatory motion is under discussion at the time when the Chair is directed to adjourn the committee without putting any question (see above), such motion lapses.3 A motion in the form ‘That the Committee do now adjourn’ was negatived in a public bill committee that was unable to proceed with consideration of any clause of a bill due to the lack of the required money resolution.4 The member in charge was permitted to move the motion a second time, at which point it was agreed to.5 When it was desired further to adjourn a general committee to a day later than that appointed for its next sitting, the House has, on the motion of the Chair, made the necessary order.6 A general committee ought to be adjourned to a specified day.7 A committee has, however, sometimes adjourned, with the general concurrence of the members, to a day to be subsequently fixed by the Chair.8 For a committee to endeavour to dispose of a bill which has been committed to it by adjourning sine die, or to some distant day, would be inconsistent with the duty imposed on the committee by the order of the House committing the bill to the committee.9

Footnotes 1. The Chair has adjourned a standing committee without question put when a Member who had not been nominated to serve on the committee persistently intervened and refused to withdraw (eg Stg Co Deb (1987–88) First Sc Stg Co (Housing (Scotland) Bill) cc 3–7; ibid (2000–01) Co F (Criminal Justice and Police Bill) cc 674–76); see also HC Deb (1993–94), 236, c 743. 2. The reasons for such adjournments have included marks of respect for deceased Members (Stg Co on Trade, Proceedings (Locomotives on Highways Bill) HC 233 (1898) p 7; Stg Co Deb (1993–94), Co E (Education Bill) c 36); absence of shorthand writers (Stg Co B, Proceedings (Race Relations Bill) HC 262 (1964–65) p 8); Member in charge not ready or unwilling to proceed (Stg Co Deb (1959–60) Co C (Road Traffic (Driving of Motorcycles and Mopeds) Bill) c 5; ibid (1963–64) Co C (Representation of the People Act 1949 (Amendment) Bill) cc 3–8; ibid (1968–69) Co C (Insurance (Employers' Liability) Bill) cc 3–20; Stg Co Proceedings (1993–94) Co D (Coal Industry Bill), HC 283); questions having arisen concerning the availability or circulation of relevant papers (Stg Co Deb (1963–64) Co C (Protection of Birds Act 1954 (Amendment) Bill) cc 3–10; ibid (1988–89) First EC Docs (Health and Safety) cc 3–14); to facilitate the progress of the bill under consideration (Stg Co Deb (1950–51) Co B (New Streets Bill) c 683); a drafting defect in the statutory instrument before the committee (Stg Co Deb (1998–99), Second Stg Co on DL, cc 3–4; CJ (1998–99) 462). On account of doubts expressed about the vires of a statutory instrument a committee has resolved to adjourn proceedings to a specified future day, when they were completed, Stg Co Deb (2001–02), First Stg Co on DL, 16 and 23 October 2001. In the case of an instrument which was the subject of an adverse report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, a dilatory motion has been accepted and negatived, Stg Co Deb (1995–96), Third Stg Co on DL, 19 December 1995, c 3. Where a public bill committee has considered a bill all the provisions of which required the House to agree a money resolution, which the House had not agreed, the committee met repeatedly, debating and agreeing a motion in these terms at each sitting, PBC Deb (2017–19) Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill, cc 6, 7, 11, etc. 3. Stg Co E, Proceedings (Companies Bill) HC 519 (1966–67) p 31; Stg Co A, Proceedings (Countryside Bill) HC 150 (1967–68) p 41. 4. See para 35.1 ff. 5. PBC Deb (2017–19) Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill, c 60. 6. For example, CJ (1937–38) 323; ibid (1967–68) 69. 7. A standing committee has adjourned to ‘the first Tuesday or Thursday’ on which the House should sit after an adjournment. Stg Co A, Proceedings (Countryside Bill) HC 150 (1967–68) p 11; Stg Co B, Proceedings (Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill) HC 118 (1967–68) p 12. 8. Stg Co D, Proceedings, Betting and Lotteries Bill [Lords], HC 125 (1933–34) p 16; Stg Co A, Proceedings, Marriage Bill, HC 40 (1936–37) p 9; Welsh Grd Co, Proceedings, HC 167 (1960–61) p 3; Northern Ireland Committee, Proceedings, HC 357 (1981–82) p 3; Stg Co F, Proceedings, Civil Aviation Bill HC 384 (1984–85) p 3; Stg Co Deb (2002–03) Co C (Sustainable Energy Bill) cc 27–30. 9. But see Stg Co F, Proceedings, Civil Aviation Bill, HC 384 (1984–85) p 3.

Suspension of sitting 39.9The sitting of a general committee may at any time be suspended informally by the Chair, in which case they will announce to the committee that the sitting is suspended and that they will resume the Chair at a certain hour.1 This usually occurs when an afternoon sitting of a committee has continued for more than about two-and-a-half hours, in order to provide a break. It should be noted, however, that when a division is called in the House or in a Committee of the whole House, the Chair must suspend the proceedings for such time as will, in the Chair's opinion, enable Members to vote in the division and return to the committee.2 This is generally held to be 15 minutes for a single division. In accordance with Standing Order No 124 as applied to general committees by Standing Order No 89, if at any time during the sitting a quorum is not present the Chair must suspend the proceedings until a quorum is present, or adjourn the committee until some future day (see para 39.17 ).

Footnotes 1. For example, PBC Deb (2015–16), Housing and Planning Bill, 24 November 2015, c 273. 2. SO No 89(4).

Afternoon sittings 39.10In the case of unprogrammed bills, if it is desired that a committee should sit in the afternoon (or evening) as well as in the morning a motion to that effect must be agreed to by the committee.1 Such a motion cannot be moved on the same day as it is proposed that there should be an afternoon (or evening) sitting unless oral notice of the intention to move such a motion has been given on a previous day.2 Other courses are for the House to give the committee the leave it requires, for example if it wishes to meet twice on the day on which it first sits,3 or for the committee to move and agree to the requisite motion on a previous day. It is desirable, though not essential, that notice should be given to the committee that a motion to sit in the afternoon will be moved. Afternoon or evening sittings are treated and recorded as separate sittings. Under Standing Order No 88 afternoon sittings cannot begin until 3.30 pm on a Monday, 1.30 pm on a Tuesday or Wednesday, or 11.30 am on a Thursday, but can continue thereafter till 1.00 pm (or 11.25 am or 9.00 am, as the case may be) the following day, and have sometimes done so.4 To conclude proceedings before that hour the committee must agree to a motion either ‘That the debate be now adjourned’ (if there is a question before the committee) or ‘That further consideration of the bill be now adjourned’ (if there is no question before the committee).

Footnotes 1. Stg Co Deb (1936) Co B, c 732. 2. Stg Co Deb (1919) Scot, cc 868, 906; ibid (1969–70) Sc Grd Co (Report of Royal Commission on Local Government) c 59. 3. For example, CJ (1996–97) 244; ibid (2007–08) 23. Such leave is regularly given in programme orders, eg CJ (2000–01) 26; ibid (2007–08) 29; Votes and Proceedings, 4 June 2018. 4. For example, Stg Co E, Housing Finance Bill, 8 February 1972 (the limit at that time being 1.00 pm the following day).

Procedure in general committees Contents Powers of the Chair Reference to general committees of notices of amendments Rules of debate Disorder Admission of the public Quorum Divisions 39.11As noted above, the following description relates largely to procedure in public bill committees, which is followed in other classes of general committees except where otherwise noted. A general committee has no power to determine its own procedure.1

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1883) 276, c 413.

Powers of the Chair 39.12By Standing Order No 89(3) the powers of the Chair of a general committee are assimilated to those exercised by a chair in a Committee of the whole House in relation to dilatory motions in abuse of the rules of the House (Standing Order No 35), irrelevance or repetition (Standing Order No 42) and debate on clause or schedule standing part (Standing Order No 68); and to those reserved to the Chairman of Ways and Means or a Deputy Chairman in relation to the powers of the Chair to propose the question (Standing Order No 29), the selection of amendments (Standing Order No 32) and the closure of debate (Standing Order No 36). Where appropriate, the Chair has such powers as the Speaker has under Standing Order No 32 in the selection of amendments to any bill under consideration on report. Standing Order No 89(3)(d) provides that certain standing orders relating to quorum, which govern the procedure in a select committee (Standing Orders No 124, No 128 and No 129) shall apply to a general committee. In Standing Order No 37, as applied by Standing Order No 89(3)(b) to proceedings in a general committee, the number necessary to make the majority effective for the closure is the quorum of the committee (see para 39.17 ).1 In other respects procedure in a general committee has, in practice, been assimilated as closely as possible to procedure in a Committee of the whole House. The Chair of a general committee does not have the Speaker's powers to deal with disorder (see below, para 39.15 ). Following the principle which governs procedure in Committees of the whole House, no appeal can be made to the Speaker regarding the decisions and rulings of a Chair of a general committee.2 Equally, reference to the proceedings of a committee before it has reported, which might prejudice the proceedings of the committee, is not allowed, but a limited reference, germane to a question before the House, has been permitted. The Speaker has stated that this should not regarded as a complete prohibition on referring to proceedings on a bill in committee.3 The House has discussed the progress of a bill in public bill committee on a motion during an Opposition Day debate.4

Footnotes 1. When a closure was mistakenly declared carried although an insufficient number had voted with the majority and the bill was reported without rectifying the error, the bill was re-committed to the same committee in respect of the amendment, CJ (1945–46) 206, 213; HC Deb (1945–46) 421, cc 41, 42. 2. Parl Deb (1889) 339, c 1222 ff; HC Deb (1920) 128, c 579; ibid (1928) 219, c 851 ff; ibid (1987–88) 119, cc 1142–44; ibid (30 March 2009) 490, c 671. 3. HC Deb (1946–47) 434, cc 1145–46; Speaker's Ruling, HC Deb (16 April 1975) 890, cc 442–46. 4. HC Deb (2017–19) 643, cc 252–302.

Reference to general committees of notices of amendments 39.13Notices of amendments to a bill committed to a public bill committee may be tabled on any sitting day until the rising of the House and (under Standing Order No 12(4)) on a non-sitting Friday between 11.00 am and 3.00 pm. Under Standing Order No 64, amendments may also be tabled during a longer (holiday) adjournment up to 4.30 pm on the last working day of that adjournment. For further details, see para 28.28.

Rules of debate 39.14The rules observed by the House regarding order in debate are followed in a general committee, as also are the rules relating to the preservation of order and standards of behaviour of Members. Accordingly, members of a general committee address the Chair standing, should not simply read their speeches1 and may not refer to other members by name or in the second person singular,2 should not smoke3 or read newspapers, books, etc, unless relevant to the bill before the committee4 or attempt the solution of crossword puzzles5 or listen to radios6 or make calls on mobile telephones7 or distribute propaganda literature8 or bring refreshment into the room other than water;9 nor should they use visual aids.10 Witnesses giving oral evidence to a public bill committee have been allowed to display exhibits provided that the exhibit is described in full so that the official report remains intelligible, and have been instructed by the Chair to describe an exhibit for the purposes of the official report.11 The rules which apply to Members' use of handheld electronic devices in the Chamber (see para 21.36 ) apply also in general committees, except that laptops are allowed in general committees. Members carrying electronic devices of any kind must ensure that the audio function of the device is turned off before entering the committee room.12 The rule prohibiting the citing by Ministers of documents not before the House (see para 21.26 ) applies in general committees.13 Male members of general committees should not remove their jackets unless given permission by the Chair, though such permission is generally given at the start of meetings held in warm conditions.

Footnotes 1. Stg Co Deb (1995–96) Co D (Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill [Lords]) c 112; ibid (1997–98) Co A (Finance Bill) c 162; ibid, Co C (Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs Bill [Lords]) c 113. See also para 21.4. 2. Stg Co Deb (1919) Co A (Restoration of Pre-war Practices (No 3) Bill) c 20; HC Deb (1919) 118, c 1823; Stg Co Deb (1997–98) Co A (Finance Bill) c 14. This rule is not enforced when a public bill committee is hearing oral evidence (see paras 39.24 –39.25 ). 3. Stg Co Deb (1919) Supply, c 1; ibid (1935–36), Co A (Unemployment Insurance (Agriculture) Bill), cc 351, 352; ibid (1955–56) Co A (Agriculture (Safety) Bill) c 1. 4. Stg Co Deb (1955–56) Co E (Pensions (Increase) Bill) c 99; ibid (1995–96) Sc Grd Co, 22 April 1996, c 19; ibid (1996–97) Co E (Social Security Administration (Fraud) Bill), c 161; ibid (1998–99) Euro Stg Co B, 19 May 1999, c 11. 5. Stg Co Deb (1979–80) Co H (Transport Bill) c 1154. 6. Stg Co Deb (1980–81) Co E (Finance Bill) c 46. 7. Stg Co Deb (1995–96) Co F (Nursery Education and Grant Maintained Schools Bill), c 330; ibid, Sc Grd Co, 13 May 1996, c 8. 8. Stg Co Deb (1955–56) Co D (Criminal Justice Administration Bill [Lords]) c 50. 9. Stg Co Deb (1955–56) Sc Stg Co (Food and Drugs (Scotland) Bill) c 578; and Stg Co Deb (1967–68) Co C (Divorce Reform Bill) cc 305–6. In recent practice, Chairs have specifically highlighted the prohibition on tea and coffee during sittings at the start of a public bill committee's deliberation, see for example PBC Deb (2015–16) Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [Lords], c 1. 10. Stg Co Deb (1996–97) Co B (Finance Bill) c 40; ibid (2002–03) Co A (Planning and Compulsory Purchase (re-committed ) Bill) c 162; PBC Deb (2012–13) Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords], c 93. 11. PBC Deb (2017–19) Ivory Bill, c 54. The Chair described the displaying of artefacts by witnesses as irregular but permitted this due to the circumstances of the committee. 12. Procedure Committee, First Report of Session 2010–12, Use of hand-held electronic devices in the Chamber and committees, HC 889; CJ (2010–12) 905. 13. See Stg Co Deb (1966–67) Co D (Iron and Steel Bill) cc 547–49; ibid (1969–70) Co D (Ports Bill) c 1115.

Disorder 39.15A general committee has no power to punish one of its members for disorderly words, contemptuous conduct, or any other offence committed against it, but can only report the offence to the House.1 The provisions of Standing Order No 43 (disorderly conduct) and No 44 (order in debate) do not extend to general committees, and the Chair therefore does not have the power with which the Speaker and the Chair of a Committee of the whole House are invested to order a Member who is guilty of grossly disorderly conduct to withdraw, or to name a Member for disregarding the authority of the Chair or abusing the rules of the House by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of the House or otherwise. The House has made orders empowering the Chair of a general committee to direct that any Member who disregards the authority of the Chair or persistently and wilfully obstructs the business of the committee do withdraw immediately and directing the Serjeant at Arms to act on any consequent orders they may receive from the Chair.2 When Members who were not nominated to a general committee have insisted on sitting in the part of the room reserved for nominated members, they have on occasion been reported to the House,3 and the committee has on occasion adjourned.4 On several occasions the House made an order empowering the Chair of the committee to order any Member not a member of the committee to withdraw, and directing the Serjeant at Arms to act on any consequent orders received from the Chair.5

Footnotes 1. Stg Co D, Proceedings (Unemployment Insurance Bill) HC 149 (1924–25) p 16; Stg Co Deb (1924–25) Co D (Unemployment Insurance Bill) c 634; CJ (1924–25) 337; HC Deb (1924–25) 186, c 2012. 2. CJ (1993–94) 143; ibid (1995–96) 436. See also ibid (1989–90) 94. 3. Stg Co Deb (1972–73) First Sc Stg Co (Local Government (Scotland) Bill) cc 25–68; ibid (1987–88) Co E (Local Government Finance Bill) cc 6–7; CJ (1987–88) 263; HC Deb (2000–01) 364, c 526. 4. Stg Co Deb (1987–88) First Sc Stg Co (Housing (Scotland) Bill) cc 3–7; ibid (2000–01) Co F (Criminal Justice and Police Bill) cc 674–76. 5. CJ (1972–73) 109; HC Deb (1972–73) 849, cc 666–78; CJ (1988–89) 225; HC Deb (1993–94) 236, cc 743–64; ibid (1995–96) 280, cc 341–52.

Admission of the public 39.16Members of the public are admitted, except when the committee orders them to withdraw (Standing Order No 89(2)). Under Standing Order No 161 the Serjeant at Arms (in practice, the doorkeepers acting under direction of the Serjeant at Arms) may take into custody members of the public misconducting themselves at a sitting of a general committee if the Chair so directs.1 Members of the public may not communicate with Members across the Bar of the committee room;2 government officials advising Ministers are admitted to the dais, but are expected to conduct themselves in such a way as will not disrupt the committee's work; for example, they should not engage in discussions when the question is being put.3 Prior to the committee sitting, entry into the room is at the discretion of the Chair, and neither members of the public nor officials may enter until the Chair has given permission to the doorkeeper for them to be admitted.

Footnotes 1. For example, Welsh Grd Co, Proceedings (Effect of Government Legislation) HC 615 (1987–88) p 3. 2. Stg Co Deb (1995–96) Stg Co E, Family Law Bill [Lords], c 349. 3. Stg Co Deb (1995–96), First Sc Stg Co, Education (Scotland) Bill [Lords], cc 152, 172.

Quorum 39.17The quorum of general committees on bills and on delegated legislation is 17 or one-third of the number of its members, excluding the Chair, whichever is the fewer (Standing Order No 89(1)). Until a quorum is present the committee cannot proceed to business, nor can any business be proceeded with when the members present are reduced below the quorum.1 It is the duty of the Clerk attending the committee, as in a select committee (see Standing Order No 124), to call the attention of the Chair to the fact when the number of members present falls below a quorum, whereupon the Chair must suspend the proceedings until a quorum is present or adjourn the committee2 (see also para 39.18 ). The Chair is included when ascertaining the presence of the quorum,3 but is not taken into account when calculating the quorum under Standing Order No 89. No time limit within which a quorum must be present is prescribed by standing order, but if a quorum is not present within 20 minutes from the time at which a general committee is appointed to meet, it is customary, following a decision of the Chairmen's Panel in 1929, for the Chair to adjourn the committee to a future day unless there are any special circumstances which, in their opinion, make it advisable to allow a longer grace period.4 Similarly, in cases where in the course of a sitting the members present become fewer than a quorum it is not usual for Chairs to allow more than 20 minutes for the re-assembling of a quorum. If a committee has to be adjourned for want of a quorum, and a day has already been appointed for the next meeting of the committee, the Chair adjourns the committee to that day; and if the failure of a quorum to assemble or to continue in attendance occurs on a day on which, pursuant to a previous resolution of the committee, there is to be an afternoon sitting (see para 39.10 ), the Chair suspends the sitting until the hour appointed for the beginning of that sitting.5

Footnotes 1. Stg Co Deb (1919) Supply, c 4. See also Parl Deb (1907) 177, cc 715–20; CJ (1907) 356. 2. For example, Stg Co Deb (1995–96) Euro Stg Co A, 3 July 1996, cc 22–23; ibid (1996–97) Euro Stg Co B, 12 February 1997, c 1. 3. The Chair is, however, excluded from this calculation in European Committees (see para 39.41 ). 4. Stg Co Deb (1996–97), Euro Stg Co B, 11 December 1996, cc 1–2. For the case of a Chair waiting 30 minutes for a standing committee to assemble, see Stg Co Deb (1968–69) Co B (Divorce Reform Bill) cc 471–73. 5. Stg Co Deb (1920) Co B (Ministry of Mines Bill) c 455; Stg Co C, Proceedings (Cinematograph Films Bill) HC 92 (1927) p 108; Stg Co B, Proceedings (Divorce Reform Bill) HC 212 (1968–69) p 20.

Divisions 39.18The question is put only once, and if the Chair's opinion as to the decision of a question is challenged, the committee must proceed to a division.1 It is the practice to allow a short interval to elapse in order to give members, who were not in the room when the question was put, time to come in.2 The length of the interval has been varied by Chairs to meet the circumstances of particular cases. In general, the Chair asks the Whips in the committee if they are content that all members who intend to take part in the division are present, in order to determine when this interval will finish, but it is not normally longer than two minutes.3 The Chair then directs the doors of the committee room to be locked. The names of the members are called over in alphabetical order by the Clerk, and each member, as his or her name is called, answers ‘Aye’, ‘No’, or ‘No vote’. When a single member sought to divide a committee in order to abstain from voting, no division was recorded.4 In another case, where a division occurred but no member declared themselves for the `noes', the division was still recorded.5 A member may vote although they did not hear the question put, and is not compelled to vote if they are present when the question is put.6 A member who voted when outside that part of the committee room reserved for members has had their vote disallowed.7 When the numbers voting in a division are less than the number required (in addition to the Chair) to constitute a quorum, the fact that other members were present who completed the quorum, but did not vote, is recorded in the minutes.8 If, however, through inadvertence a division is called while fewer than a quorum is present and this fact is established when the numbers are announced after the division, the Chair should either suspend the proceedings until a quorum is present or adjourn the committee to a future day or, if there is to be an afternoon sitting, to the hour appointed for that sitting (see Standing Order No 124 and paras 39.8 –39.10 ). When a quorum is again present the question must be put again. A member who has voted under a misapprehension will be allowed to alter their vote provided that they make their request before the numbers have been declared by the Chair, but cannot alter their vote after the numbers have been so declared.9 A member's vote in a general committee must agree with their voice,10 and if the Chair is satisfied that a member has deliberately voted in a sense contrary to their voice, or has failed to vote after declaring themselves with the ‘ayes' or the ‘noes', the Chair can direct that the vote be recorded in accordance with the voice.11 A general committee has the power of deciding the question of a personal interest in a vote (see also para 5.16 ).12 The Chair in a general committee, as in a select committee, can vote only when there is an equality of votes. In giving a casting vote the Chair is guided by the same principles as the Speaker in the House or the Chair in a Committee of the whole House (see paras 20.89 –20.94 ). The Chair need not state their reasons for the vote but when they do, usually referring to any precedent,13 these are entered in the formal minutes.14

Footnotes 1. Stg Co Deb (1921) Co A (Railways Bill) c 1539; Stg Co Deb (1946–47) Sc Stg Co (National Health Service (Scotland) Bill) cc 952–53. 2. Stg Co Deb (1921) Co B (Railways Bill) c 1009; ibid (1929–30) Co B (Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Bill) cc 1762, 1855. 3. Stg Co Deb (1966–67) Co A (Prices and Incomes (No 2) Bill) cc 150–51, 197–200; ibid (1968–69) Co B (Divorce Reform Bill) cc 190–91; ibid (1987–88) Co A (Finance (No 2) Bill) c 4. 4. PBC Deb (2006–07) 15th DLC, 17 July 2007, c 12. 5. PBC Deb (2017–19) 1st DLC, 16 October 2017, c 10. 6. Stg Co on Law, Proceedings, Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister Bill, HC 87 (1907) p 10. 7. Stg Co D, Proceedings, New Towns Bill, HC 212 (1958–59) p 4; Stg Co Deb (1966–67) Co B (Prices and Incomes Bill) c 751. 8. Stg Co B, Proceedings, Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, HC 168 (1952–53) p 10; see also ibid Companies Bill, HC 84 (1928) p 30. 9. Stg Co Deb (1919) Co A (Ministry of Ways & Communications Bill) c 918; ibid (1987–88) Co B (Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Bill) c 26; ibid (1995–96) First Sc Stg Co (Education (Scotland) Bill [Lords] c 172; ibid (1999–2000) Co A (Government Resources and Accounts Bill) c 252. 10. Stg Co Deb (1945–46) Co A (National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill) c 121; ibid (1959–60) Co B (Cinematograph Films Bill) cc 176–77; ibid (1967–68) Co F (Transport Bill) c 852; ibid (1993–94) Sc Grd Co, 14 December 1993, c 40; ibid (1999–2000) Co B (Postal Services Bill) c 236. 11. Stg Co B, Proceedings (Local Authority Social Services Bill) HC 250 (1969–70) p 6; Stg Co Deb (1979–80) Co A (Companies Bill [Lords]) c 653; ibid (2004–05) Co B (Identity Cards Bill) c 247. 12. Stg Co B, Proceedings, Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Bill, HC 72 (1929–30) p 9; Stg Co Deb (1929–30) Co B (Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Bill) cc 1828 ff; ibid (1933–34) Co D (Betting and Lotteries Bill) cc 386, 425; ibid (1951–52) Co C (Licensed Premises in New Towns Bill) c 2215; ibid (1961–62) Co A (South Africa Bill) cc 197–98; ibid (1979–80) Co A (Companies Bill [Lords]) c 653; ibid (1981–82) Co A (Finance Bill) c 393. 13. For example, Stg Co Deb (1995–96) Euro Stg Co A, 8 May 1996, c 10; ibid (1996–97) Stg Co B (Finance Bill) cc 51, 247, 457; ibid (2002–03) Stg Co B (European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill) c 12. 14. See, for example, First Sc Stg Co, Proceedings, HC 273 (1972–73) p 43.

Formal records of proceedings 39.19All general committees have leave to print and circulate their proceedings with the Vote (Standing Order No 89(5)). The decisions taken at individual sittings of public bill committees are circulated from day to day in the form of a reprinted amendment paper, headed ‘Public Bill Committee Proceedings’ (see para 7.13 ), showing how each amendment, and each clause or schedule, was disposed of at the sitting concerned, together with any procedural resolutions considered. These records, and the official report of committee sittings (see below), have superseded the formal minutes of general committee proceedings, which were equivalent to the Votes and Proceedings of the House and which are no longer maintained. The results of meetings of other general committees are communicated to the House immediately by means of a formal report by the Chair of the committee concerned, which is entered in the Votes and Proceedings of the day, including (as in the case of the European Committees) the text of any resolution come to by the committee.

Official Reports of debates 39.20A recording of all debates in general committees is taken by staff of the Official Report (Hansard) (see para 6.10 ), and the reports of the debates are published on the Parliament website, normally on the day following each meeting.1 Committees have on occasion decided to proceed with the consideration of business in the absence of shorthand writers, when these were not available,2 but the Chair has also accepted a motion for the adjournment in such circumstances, and such a motion has been agreed to.3 A Chair has also suspended proceedings in a committee when the recording equipment has broken down.4

Footnotes 1. Since 1997 the reports of debates in general committees have also been available on the Internet. 2. For example, Stg Co Deb (1947–48) Co D (Gas Bill) cc 1590–94; Stg Co B, Proceedings, Race Relations Bill, HC 262 (1964–65) p 8; Stg Co Deb (1967–68) Co C (Divorce Reform Bill) cc 233–38; ibid (1967–68) Co E (Administration of Justice Bill) c 6. 3. Stg Co B, Proceedings, Race Relations Bill, p 8 (1964–65); Sc Stg Co, Proceedings, Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Bill [Lords], p 3 (1964–65). 4. For example, Stg Co Deb (1967–68), Co E, Administration of Justice Bill, c 6; ibid (1989–90), Co F, Broadcasting Bill, c 241; ibid (2002–03) Co D, Licensing Bill [Lords], c 308.

Public bill committees Contents Operation of programme orders Evidence Selection of amendments Re-committal of bills to public bill committees Power of public bill committees with regard to provisions imposing charges Instructions to public bill committees Reporting of bills before consideration has been completed Other general committees dealing with bills 39.21Standing Order No 84A, made on 1 November 2006,1 provides that a public bill committee shall be appointed for the consideration of each bill committed to such a committee. (Before 2006 bills were committed to a standing committee, and then allocated to specific committees by the Speaker. Many of the examples given in this section are accordingly drawn from the former standing committees.) Each committee is known by the name of the bill committed to it, for example, ‘the Finance Bill Committee’ or ‘the Perpetuities and Accumulations Bill [Lords] Committee’. A committee on a programmed bill may take evidence under Standing Order No 84A(2). A committee on an unprogrammed bill has also been empowered to take evidence.2

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (2005–06) 451, cc 380–407; CJ (2005–06) 864. 2. Votes and Proceedings, 3 July 2018.

Operation of programme orders Contents Allocation of time orders 39.22As explained at paras 28.58–28.63, a programme order may be made by the House in relation to a particular bill immediately after its second reading.1 The part of this procedure which governs public bill committees is prescribed by Standing Order No 83C.2 The programme order provides for the committal of the bill to a public bill committee, usually gives the committee leave to meet twice on the day on which it first sits, and fixes a date (the ‘out date’) on or before which the bill must be reported. A programming sub-committee, consisting of the Chair (or one of the Chairs) and seven other members of the public bill committee, is nominated by the Speaker, four being the quorum.3 The Chair calls a meeting of the programming sub-committee before the first meeting of the public bill committee. Proceedings in the programming sub-committee are prescribed by Standing Order No 83C. The programming sub-committee proceeds as a select committee; it meets in private and no transcript is made of its deliberations.4 Other members of the public bill committee may attend but may not speak or vote. A programming sub-committee is not subject to the requirements under Standing Order No 88 relating to sittings of general committees. A draft resolution, usually circulated and discussed informally in advance of the meeting, is submitted to the sub-committee by the Member in charge of the bill. This resolution provides for the dates and times of the second and subsequent sittings of the public bill committee; the sittings at which oral evidence is to be taken, together with the identity of the witnesses to be heard, and the time until which each witness or group of witnesses may be heard; any changes in the order in which the bill is to be considered; and the hour at which proceedings must be concluded. The resolution may also make provision for specified business to be disposed of by certain times.5 It is considered in the programming subcommittee and may be amended. Proceedings in the programming sub-committee are required to be brought to a conclusion not later than two hours after their commencement. In order to bring the proceedings to a conclusion, the Chair must first put forthwith any question which has been proposed and not yet been decided, then put forthwith successively questions on any motions made by a Minister. In order to assist with the marshalling of the amendment paper prior to the first meeting of the public bill committee, and to provide an indication of the expected order of consideration, the Member in charge of a bill will usually table a motion indicating the expected order of consideration of the parts of a bill. The amendment paper is marshalled in accordance with this proposal. This is printed on the amendment paper to the bill. After the programming sub-committee has agreed the resolution, the initial proposal is withdrawn. The agreed resolution is printed on the amendment paper for the bill with an indication that the Member in charge of the bill has given notice of their intention to make a motion in the same terms when the public bill committee meets. That motion is taken as the public bill committee's first business and any question necessary to dispose of it must be put not later than half an hour after the commencement of proceedings. If the motion is agreed to, it operates as if it had formed part of the programme order made by the House.6 Further meetings of the programming sub-committee may be called at the discretion of the Chair, to amend the original resolution if it is found that a change in the programme is desired, or to make some supplementary provision. Notice is given to the members of the public bill committee of any further resolution of the programming sub-committee if time permits. A meeting of a public bill committee has been suspended informally to enable the programming sub-committee to meet; a motion in the same terms as the resolution of the programming sub-committee has then been made in the public bill committee without notice by the Member in charge of the bill.7 The limit of half an hour applies to proceedings on any such motion. Standing Order No 83C(10) allows a Minister to make a motion in a public bill committee which could have been the subject of a resolution of the programming sub-committee. Such a motion is treated as if it were in the terms of a programming sub-committee resolution, but proceedings on it lapse if any member of the committee objects. In addition to regulating the consideration of the bill by the public bill committee, a resolution of the programming sub-committee may also propose an alteration to the out date8 or make a recommendation about the programming of consideration or third reading.9 Such a resolution, when agreed to by the public bill committee, is reported to the House. A supplemental programme motion must then be set down (if in respect of the out date, for not later than the fifth sitting day after the resolution was reported; if in respect of consideration and third reading, before the consideration stage) which may either give effect to the proposed change,10 or make some other change to the programme, or confirm the original programme for the bill.11 When the time specified in a programme order for bringing to a conclusion any proceedings falls during the suspension of a committee, the Chair puts any question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded by that time as soon as the committee is resumed.12

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

For example, CJ (2009–10) 141; Votes and Proceedings, 18 April 2018. CJ (2001–02) 33–34. For example, CJ (2009–10) 155; Votes and Proceedings, 30 April 2018. HC Deb (2000–01) 360, cc 891–92. For example, Stg Co E, Proceedings, Communications Bill, HC 408 (2002–03) pp 3–5. A motion has been negatived on the Chair's casting vote, Stg Co Deb (2002–03) Co B (European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill) c 12; ibid (2005–06) Co D (Company Law Reform Bill [Lords]) c 9. 7. For example, Stg Co Deb (2002–03) Co D (Licensing Bill [Lords]) c 107.

8. 9. 10. 11.

For example, Stg Co F, Proceedings, Hunting Bill, HC 483 (2002–03) p 45. For example, Stg Co E, Proceedings, Communications Bill, HC 408 (2002–03) pp 69–70. For example, CJ (2002–03) 186 (Hunting Bill); ibid (2003–04) 352 and 366 (Age-Related Payments Bill). For example, CJ (2002–03) 138 (Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill). A supplemental programme motion which does not give effect to a proposed alteration to the out date is debatable by virtue of SO No 83A(8), and one which makes further provision for proceedings on consideration and third reading which is not in accordance with the resolution is debatable by virtue of SO No 83A(9). 12. Stg Co Deb (2002–03) Co D (Courts Bill [Lords]) c 132.

Allocation of time orders 39.23As explained at para 28.26, an allocation of time order may be made by the House, on the motion of the Government, in relation to a particular bill or bills.1

Footnotes 1. For example, CJ (1985–86) 181, 300; ibid (1992–93) 321; ibid (1993–94) 144; ibid (1997–98) 112.

Evidence Contents Oral evidence Written evidence 39.24A public bill committee on a programmed bill has power to send for persons, papers and records (under Standing Order No 84A(2)). A committee on a bill which is not programmed may be given that power under Standing Order No 63(2)(b). Any such motion is taken forthwith and is exempted business.1

Footnotes 1. A motion has been made that gave a committee on a bill that was not programmed that power, but the motion also contained a provision to grant leave to the committee to sit twice on the day on which it first met. Because the motion was not solely granting the committee the power to send for persons, papers and records, it did not attract the protection of Standing Order No 63(2)(b). See Votes and Proceedings, 3 July 2018.

Oral evidence 39.25The programme order usually provides for a public bill committee to take oral evidence as its first business once the programme has been agreed to, and before embarking on its consideration of the clauses of the bill, but a committee has amended its programme and interrupted its consideration of the clauses of the bill in order to hold a further evidence session.1 Having agreed its programme the committee generally resolves that, at any meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, it shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted. The room is then cleared until the committee is ready to admit the witnesses. During the examination of witnesses the committee proceeds like a select committee: the room is laid out as if for a select committee, and members sit when speaking and may refer to one another by name. The time allotted to each witness or group of witnesses is determined by the programme order. The proviso to Standing Order No 83C(11) gives the Chair discretion to allow a sitting at which oral evidence is heard to continue for up to a quarter of an hour beyond the time provided for in the programme order. Because the proviso overrides neither Standing Order No 88 nor the provisions of the programme order relating to the allotting of time to the examination of earlier witnesses, its effect is to make it possible to extend the examination of the last witness or group of witnesses at an afternoon sitting only. The Minister in charge of a bill has given evidence to the public bill committee of which they are a member.2 Public bill committees on bills originating in the House of Lords have not been given the power to take oral evidence. The committee may hear oral evidence, which is printed in the Official Report, and may report written evidence to the House as if it were a select committee.

Footnotes 1. PBC Deb (2006–07) UK Borders Bill, cc 236, 269–85. 2. PBC Deb (2007–08) Planning Bill, cc 109–56.

Written evidence 39.26A public bill committee which has the power to send for persons, papers and records may receive written evidence whether or not it intends to take oral evidence. At its first meeting the committee usually resolves that, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by it shall be reported to the House for publication. Written evidence is reported to the House as the committee goes through the bill, rather than when the bill itself is reported. The House makes an order for the publication of the written evidence reported to it when the evidence is reported. Thus, several orders to publish written evidence may be made during a bill's committee stage.

Selection of amendments 39.27The rules which govern the admissibility of amendments in a Committee of the whole House apply to proceedings in a public bill committee,1 and the Chair of a public bill committee regularly makes known their provisional list of selected amendments and proposed groupings in the same way as the Chairman of Ways and Means does for a Committee of the whole House (see para 28.98 ). A list of the Chair's provisional selection of amendments is made available on the Parliament website and in the committee room for members of the committee and for members of the public attending the committee. A Chair may, however, change their selection of amendments in the light of the debate or of arguments proposed by members.2 A Chair may also withdraw an amendment from the consideration of the committee if in their opinion the discussion shows it to be out of order.3

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1889) 339, c 1226. 2. Stg Co Deb (1995–96) Co D (Broadcasting Bill [Lords]) cc 20–21; ibid (1996–97) Co E (Firearms (Amendment) Bill) cc 3, 17; ibid (2002–03) Co B (Finance Bill) c 573. 3. For example, Stg Co Proceedings (1959–60), Co A (Seafish Industry Bill) p 3; Stg Co Deb (1974), Co C (Abortion (Amendment) Bill) cc 17–22.

Re-committal of bills to public bill committees 39.28Bills have been re-committed to the former committee in respect of certain amendments made by a committee to a bill1 or in respect of a part of the bill.2 A bill has been re-committed to the committee to which it previously stood committed for the purpose of making such amendments as the committee considered to be necessary or expedient in consequence of a new clause added on consideration.3 The House has also re-committed to a committee a bill so far as amended by the committee, at the same time giving a permissive instruction to the committee to the effect that it had power to insert in the bill provisions with a like effect to a clause to which it had disagreed.4 In such cases, the Chairs and members of the committee are the same as before.

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

CJ (1948–49) 400. CJ (1950–51) 245; see also CJ (2010–12) 720. CJ (2002–03) 492; see also CJ (2002–03) 493. CJ (1969–70) 281; see also HC Deb (1969–70) 800, cc 424–98.

Power of public bill committees with regard to provisions imposing charges 39.29As explained at para 28.113, a public bill committee cannot proceed to the consideration of provisions imposing a charge on the public or on public funds unless a resolution of the House authorising such a charge has been agreed to (see also para 35.26 ).1 It is, however, the duty of a public bill committee to proceed with the consideration of a bill containing such provisions (if necessary by postponing the clause which imposes a charge), although the necessary resolution has not been agreed to by the House, in the hope that a resolution will have been passed by the time the committee reaches those provisions, or that the bill will have been so amended as to avoid the imposition of such a charge.2 When a clause was reached in a bill that was not covered by the terms of a Money resolution agreed to by the House, the Chair did not propose the question that the clause stand part of the bill and the clause was omitted from the bill accordingly.3 In another case, a Money resolution had been deemed not to be necessary for a bill that contained an italicised `sink clause’. The question that the clause stand part of the bill was proposed by the Chair, and was negatived by the committee.4 A committee has met repeatedly, debating only a motion to adjourn at each meeting, where no provisions of a bill could be debated without the coverage of a Money resolution that the House had not agreed.5 When the first and only effective clause of a bill created a charge not covered by a Money resolution, a committee adjourned awaiting a resolution from the House.6 When a committee considered such provisions before the necessary resolution was agreed to, the Speaker drew the attention of the House to the fact on consideration of the bill, and it was re-committed to the committee in respect of the clause improperly considered by it.7

Footnotes 1. Stg Co E, Proceedings, Analgesia in Childbirth Bill, HC 198 (1948–49) p 6; Stg Co Deb (1963–64) Co C (Trading Stamps Bill) c 3; ibid Co C (Representation of the People Act 1949 (Amendment) Bill), cc 3–8; ibid (1969–70) Co C (Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill) cc 178–79; ibid (1979–80) Co C (Affiliation Orders and Aliments (Annual Up-dating) Bill) cc 3, 33. Stg Co Proceedings (1995–96) Co C (Wildlife Bill) p 5. 2. Stg Co Deb (1950–51) Co B (New Streets Bill) c 589; ibid (1969–70) Co C (Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill) cc 178–79; Stg Co C, Proceedings, Official Information Bill, HC 238 (1978–79) p 4. A private Member in charge of a bill for which no Money resolution was to be provided has also been permitted to move at the beginning of the proceedings on the bill that the committee do not proceed with the consideration of the bill (Stg Co A, Proceedings (Housing of the Working Classes Bill) HC 108 (1913) p 6; ibid HC 268 (1914) p 6). 3. PBC Deb (2017–19) Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill, c 9. 4. PBC Deb (2017–19) Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill, c 4. 5. PBC Deb (2017–19) Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill. 6. Stg Co Deb (1963–64) Co C (Representation of the People Act 1949 (Amendment) Bill) cc 3–8. 7. CJ (1907) 196; Parl Deb (1907) 174, c 1068; ibid 177, c 716. CJ (1927) 105; ibid (1929–30) 387; ibid (1950–51) 245.

Instructions to public bill committees 39.30If appropriate instructions are given to them by the House (see paras 28.69 –28.79 ), public bill committees may make amendments which would not otherwise fall within the terms of Standing Order No 65 (Amendments in committee). Instructions may also permit a committee to extend the provisions of a bill to other parts of the United Kingdom1 or to other classes of persons,2 divide a bill into two bills (see paras 28.71 –28.72 ) or consider a clause similar to one they have previously rejected.3

Footnotes 1. CJ (1903) 120; ibid (1976–77) 150. 2. CJ (1959–60) 143. 3. CJ (1969–70) 281.

Reporting of bills before consideration has been completed 39.31It is the duty of a public bill committee, as of all committees, to give the matters referred to it due and sufficient consideration. The Chair of a public bill committee will not therefore normally accept motions the effect of which would be that the committee would conclude its deliberations before it had gone through the bill committed to it. On the other hand, circumstances have arisen which, in the opinion of the Member in charge of the bill, have rendered it inexpedient to proceed further with consideration of the bill, and on these occasions that Member has been permitted to move, ‘That the committee do not proceed (or proceed further) with the bill’.1 It has been ruled by the Speaker that such a motion can normally be made only by the Member in charge of the bill; but when a committee had disagreed to the sole effective clause of a bill and the Member in charge declined to move not to proceed, that motion was accepted from a Minister.2 A motion, ‘That the committee do not proceed (or proceed further) with the bill’, is debatable, but may not be amended. If the motion is agreed to, the Chair is then ordered to report the bill to the House without amendment or with such amendments as the committee has made. Before adjourning, the committee should then agree to a special report setting out the facts of the case. Such a motion has been agreed to, and a special report made, in a committee on a bill where the Member in charge had concluded that it was no longer possible in the time remaining before an expected prorogation of Parliament for the bill to proceed sufficiently.3 A committee has agreed such a motion and special report when a dissolution of Parliament was expected imminently.4 Committees have also, on the motion of the Member in charge of a bill, been discharged by the House from its further consideration (see para 28.66 ).

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

For a more detailed description of these procedures, and relevant precedents, see Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), pp 607–9. Stg Co Deb (1929–30) Co B, Playing Fields (Exemption from Rating) Bill, c 2259. PBC Deb (2014–15) National Health Service (Amended Powers and Duties) Bill, c 244. Votes and Proceedings, 20 April 2017 (Prisons and Courts Bill (2016–17)).

Second reading committees 39.32Under Standing Order No 90, second reading committees are declared to be general committees, and the method of appointment relating to the latter applies (see para 39.3 ). Committees consider the bills referred to them (see para 28.53 ) and report to the House whether or not they recommend that the bill ought to be read a second time. If a committee recommends that a bill ought not to be read a second time, it may state its reasons for so recommending. (No second reading committee has exercised this power.) The rules governing a second reading debate in the House apply in second reading committees, so that, in particular, no Member may speak more than once except by leave of the committee.1

Footnotes 1. Stg Co Deb (1965–66) Second Reading Co, Misrepresentation Bill, c 3; 2RC Deb (2017–19) Voyeurism (Offences) (No. 2) Bill, c 3.

Committees for consideration of bills on report 39.33Standing Order No 92 provides for the appointment of committees for the consideration of bills on report. Such a committee was last appointed in 1968.1

Footnotes 1. CJ (1967–68) 225 (Water Resources Bill). See Erskine May (23rd edn, 2004), pp 820–21.

Delegated legislation committees Contents Reference of instruments to committees Constitution of delegated legislation committees Procedure in delegated legislation committees Subsequent proceedings 39.34Chapter 31 describes the different types of delegated legislation and the various procedures for their technical scrutiny and debate by both Houses. Under current procedures, described in that chapter, the great majority of statutory instruments requiring the approval of the House of Commons (affirmative instruments), and a limited number of instruments which Members may seek to reject (negative instruments), are considered by a delegated legislation committee.

Reference of instruments to committees 39.35Standing Order No 118 provides for the appointment of one or more delegated legislation committees to consider such instruments (whether or not in draft) as may be referred to them. These include both statutory instruments and Church of England Measures and instruments made under them. Under Standing Order No 118(3) an instrument subject to the affirmative procedure, in respect of which a Minister has given notice of a motion to the effect that the instrument be approved, stands referred to a delegated legislation committee unless a Minister has also given notice that the instrument shall not so stand referred (in which case it would be considered in the House), or the House has agreed a motion moved by a Minister to the effect that the instrument be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee (under Standing Order No 98(1)) or to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee (under Standing Order No 115(1)). Standing Order No 118(4) provides, in respect of statutory instruments subject to the negative procedure, that where notice has been given by any Member of a ‘prayer’ that the instrument be annulled (or a motion of a similar character), a motion may be made by a Minister, at the commencement of public business, that the instrument be referred to a delegated legislation committee; the question on such a motion shall be put forthwith. If 20 or more Members rise in their places to object, the question is negatived.1 A similar procedure applies in the House in respect of any motion made by a Member for the presentation to Her Majesty of a Measure under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 or in respect of any instrument made under such a Measure. Although the Standing Order makes provision for these procedures, the practice of moving such motions at the commencement of public business has been superseded in recent times by the motion being moved at the conclusion of the day's main business, usually after the moment of interruption. When taken in this way, the motion does not attract the provisions of Standing Order No 118(4) and cannot be proceeded with if opposed after the moment of interruption.2 The House has ordered that certain other documents (including notices of motion) should be treated as if they were instruments (or affirmative instruments) subject to the provisions of Standing Order No 118,3 and those documents and notices have accordingly been referred to a delegated legislation committee.

Footnotes 1. For example, CJ (1977–78) 35; (1987–88) 45; (1988–89) 144. 2. For example, Order Paper and Votes and Proceedings, 19 June 2018. 3. For example, CJ (1998–99) 450; ibid (1999–2000) 43, 371, 490, 514; ibid (2007–08) 12; Votes and Proceedings, 20 March 2018. For older forms see eg CJ (1984–85) 218. Statutory instruments not falling within the provisions of what is now SO No 118(4)(a) have also been referred to a committee, eg CJ (1981–82) 67.

Constitution of delegated legislation committees 39.36Like public bill committees, delegated legislation committees are appointed on an ad hoc basis. Once instruments stand referred, or have been referred, to a committee under the provisions described above, they are allocated by the Speaker, either singly or in groups, to committees designated the ‘First’, ‘Second’, ‘Third’ etc Delegated Legislation Committee. Each numbered delegated legislation committee can only exist in respect of a single instrument or group of instruments at a time. For example, if the Selection Committee is to appoint three delegated legislation committees at its meeting, but at the time of its meeting the Third Delegated Legislation Committee previously appointed had not yet reported (and therefore still existed), the committee would appoint the First, Second and Fourth committees. In a session of normal length, 12 or more such committees may be appointed at the same time, according to the volume of business in any one week.1 The members of each committee are nominated by the Selection Committee to serve on the committee in respect of each instrument or group of instruments allocated to it, and a Chair is appointed by the Speaker from the Panel of Chairs in respect of that specific business. Once the instrument or group of instruments has been considered by the committee concerned, the members and Chair are effectively discharged, and new members and Chairs may be appointed in respect of further instruments allocated to the committee. In addition to the Members nominated to a delegated legislation committee by the Selection Committee, any Member of the House may attend and participate in the proceedings of the committee, but may not make any motion and may not vote.

Footnotes 1. 12 such committees were appointed in Session 2015–16, and ten in Session 2016–17.

Procedure in delegated legislation committees 39.37The committee to which an instrument is referred is required to consider it on a motion ‘That the committee has considered the instrument [or draft instrument or Measure]’. The motion is customarily moved, in the case of affirmative instruments, by the Minister in charge of the instrument, or in the case of negative instruments or Measures by one of the Members who has given notice of a motion relating to the instrument or Measure. If the proceedings have not been previously concluded, the Chair is required to put any question necessary to dispose of them when the committee has sat for one and a half hours after their commencement (excluding any period when the committee has been suspended for a division in the House), except that when instruments (normally draft Orders) relating exclusively to Northern Ireland are being considered proceedings must be concluded after two and a half hours. If no Member moves the relevant motion in respect of an instrument which has been referred to a committee, the Chair is still required to put the question. More than one instrument may be considered at the same sitting of a delegated legislation committee, if they are so allocated by the Speaker. Normally, a joint debate is held, and the questions necessary to dispose of all the instruments are put at the end of one and a half hours (or, in the case of Northern Ireland draft Orders, two-and-a-half hours) without further debate. However, joint debates take place only with the unanimous consent of the committee, normally sought by the Chair at the commencement of the proceedings. Any Member present, whether or not appointed to the committee, may object.1 If consent is withheld, each instrument may be debated for sequential periods of one-and-a-half (or two-and-ahalf) hours. In such a case, the normal rules about the total length of the sitting apply; accordingly, if proceedings have not been completed at a morning sitting of a committee by the prescribed hour (see para 39.7 ), and if no motion relating to the future sittings of the committee has been agreed, the Chair names the day for the next meeting, or adjourns the committee to a day subsequently to be fixed. A delegated legislation committee may divide on the question ‘That the committee has considered the instrument [or draft instrument]’, but may not amend it. However, the result of any such division has no effect on subsequent proceedings, since whether or not the question is agreed the Chair is required to report the instrument to the House without putting any further question.2 A Member of the House who was not a member of the Committee attempted to vote when the Chair put the question in a delegated legislation committee. The Chair deemed their vote to be invalid when collecting the voices, and therefore no division was called.3

Footnotes 1. Stg Co Deb (1995–96) Third Stg Co on DL, 1 May 1996, c 1; PBC Deb (2009–10) 5th DLC, 23 March 2010, c 1; PBC Deb (2017–19) 3rd DLC, 16 May 2018, c 1. Where three or more instruments have been referred to a committee and objection has been taken to their being debated together, once the first instrument has been disposed of, the committee may give leave for the remaining instruments to be debated together. 2. Stg Co Deb (1995–96) Second Stg Co on DL, 30 April 1996, c 20; CJ (1995–96) 328. 3. PBC Deb (2017–19) 3rd DLC, 16 May 2018, c 48.

Subsequent proceedings 39.38Motions made in the House under either the affirmative or negative procedure, or to take note, in respect of any instrument or Measure reported from a delegated legislation committee, are exempted business (see para 17.12 ) and the question is put forthwith. See also para 31.21.

European Committees Contents Reference of European Union documents to committees Constitution of European Committees Procedure in European Committees Subsequent proceedings 39.39Chapter 32 describes the arrangements made by the House of Commons for the parliamentary oversight of draft European Union legislation, including technical scrutiny by the European Scrutiny Committee.

Reference of European Union documents to committees 39.40Standing Order No 119 provides for the appointment of three general committees, known as European Committees, to which stand referred such European Union documents as are recommended by the European Scrutiny Committee for further consideration, unless the House orders otherwise, under the procedure prescribed below. In making recommendations for further consideration, the European Scrutiny Committee is required (under Standing Order No 119(7)) to specify to which European Committee, in its opinion, a document ought to be referred; and documents are referred accordingly to that committee unless a motion is made by a Minister that they should not stand so referred. If a motion in respect of the referred instrument is tabled by a Minister for consideration on the floor of the House, the instrument is deemed not to stand so referred.

Constitution of European Committees 39.41Each European Committee consists of 13 Members nominated by the Selection Committee in respect of any European Union document which stands referred to it, and a Chair is appointed by the Speaker from the Panel of Chairs in respect of that specific business. The same members and Chair may be nominated in respect of several documents. Once the document or group of documents has been considered by the committee concerned, the members and Chair are effectively discharged, and new members and Chairs may be appointed in respect of further documents allocated to the committee. The three committees are designated as European Committees A, B and C. Under the Standing Order, each European Committee considers matters within the responsibilities of a group of government departments.1 Under Standing Order No 119(4) the Selection Committee is required where practicable to nominate to each European Committee at least two members of the European Scrutiny Committee and at least two members of the departmental select committee whose responsibilities most closely relate to the subject matter of the document or documents.2 The quorum of each committee is specified under the Standing Order as three, but the Chair is not taken into account either in calculating the quorum or in determining the presence of a quorum. In addition to Members nominated by the Selection Committee, any Member of the House may take part in the proceedings of a European Committee, but such Members may not make any motion, vote or be counted in the quorum. Nonetheless, in accordance with the proviso in Standing Order No 119(6), a Minister may (and usually does) move the principal motion in a European Standing Committee, and other Members, not being members of the committee, may move amendments to that motion. In practice this provision allows the responsible Minister to move the appropriate motion, and it is most often the spokesman for the official Opposition who moves any amendments to it.

Footnotes 1. There are referred to European Committee A matters within the responsibility of the Departments for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Transport, Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Forestry Commission, and analogous responsibilities of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland Offices; to European Committee B matters within the responsibility of HM Treasury (including HM Revenue & Customs), the Department for Work and Pensions, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development, the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice (excluding those responsibilities of the Scotland and Wales Offices which fall to European Committee A), International Trade, and the Department for Exiting the European Union, together with any matters not otherwise allocated by the Standing Order; and to European Committee C matters within the responsibility of the Departments for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Education, Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and Health and Social Care. 2. See also Votes and Proceedings, 23 June 2010.

Procedure in European Committees 39.42Proceedings in a European Committee differ from those in most other general committees in that debate on the document or documents referred to the committee is preceded by a brief statement of no more than five minutes by a member of the European Scrutiny Committee nominated to serve on the committee, explaining the Scrutiny Committee's decision to refer the document or documents to the European Committee, and then by a ministerial statement and a period of questions to and answers from the responsible Minister. The Chair may permit a Member to ask a series of related questions of the Minister, as in a select committee. Standing Order No 119(9) provides that a Minister may make a statement in respect of each motion relating to a European Union document or documents of which a Minister shall have given notice, and may answer questions on the statement put by Members. The whole process is limited to not more than one hour after the commencement of the Minister's statement, at the end of which period the Chair invites the Minister to move the appropriate motion. The Chair has discretion to extend the question period by not more than half an hour (under Standing Order No 119(9)). This has always been a general power for the Chair to use as they see fit, but was previously generally only used in cases where more than one Minister wished to make a statement.1 Motions in a European Committee are normally substantive expressions of view in support of the Government's policy in respect of the European Union document or documents concerned. A motion has also been made in respect of the non-compliance of a document with the principle of subsidiarity.2 Notice of motions is required and is normally given several days in advance of the meeting concerned, and is published in the House's business papers; notice is usually given of any amendments, which are for the most part tabled in the name of a member of the official Opposition. The Chair of a European Committee has the same power as the Speaker in the House (under Standing Order No 32) in respect of the selection of motions and any amendments thereto (Standing Order No 89(3)(a)). Following the conclusion of the statement from the European Scrutiny Committee and the ministerial statement and questions referred to above, the appropriate motion may be made, and, subject to the Chair's power of selection, an amendment moved. If proceedings have not been previously concluded, the Chair interrupts the proceedings when the committee has sat for a period of two-and-a-half hours (excluding any period when the committee has been suspended for a division in the House), and thereupon puts the question on any amendment already proposed from the Chair, and on the main question. The Chair reports to the House any resolution to which the committee has come, or, if the main question is negatived, that it has come to no resolution.

Footnotes 1. Two Ministers have answered questions though only one had made a statement, Stg Co Deb (1999–2000) Euro Stg Co C, 1 November 2000, cc 1–16. 2. Treaty of Lisbon, Protocol (No 2) on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality, Article 6; PBC Deb (2010–12) Euro Co B, 21 October 2010, cc 3–17; Votes and Proceedings, 21 October 2010; Third Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, HC 428–iii (2010–12), ch 7 and Annex; PBC Deb (2017–19) Euro Co A, 26 March 2018, c 8.

Subsequent proceedings 39.43If a motion is made in the House in relation to any European Union document in respect of which a report has been made to the House from a European Committee (which motion need not be in the same terms as those agreed by the Committee), the question is put forthwith on any amendment selected by the Speaker and on the main question, and such proceedings are exempted business (see para 17.12 ).

Scottish Grand Committee 39.44The Scottish Grand Committee consists of all Members representing Scottish constituencies; the quorum of the Committee is ten (Standing Order No 93(1)), except during any half-hour adjournment debate at the end of a sitting, when the quorum is three (Standing Order No 100(6)). Any Minister, being a Member of the House, may take part in the proceedings of the Committee and may make a motion, but may not vote or be counted in the quorum (Standing Order No 93(3)). The sittings of the Committee (which may be held either at Westminster or in Scotland) are laid down by an order of the House (which may subsequently be amended) setting out the dates, times and locations of sittings and the business to be transacted at each of them: such a motion may be decided after the time for opposed business and the question on it is put forthwith (Standing Order No 100(1)).1 Separate Orders of Business are produced for the Committee. The Committee has not met since 2003.2

Footnotes 1. For example, CJ (1994–95) 113; ibid 260, 371. 2. For further details of the committee, see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), pp 883–85.

Welsh Grand Committee Contents Business of the Committee 39.45The Welsh Grand Committee consists of all Members representing Welsh constituencies, together with not more than five other Members nominated by the Selection Committee. The quorum of the Committee is seven. Any Minister, being a Member of the House, may take part in the deliberations of the Committee and may make a motion, but may not vote or be counted in the quorum (Standing Order No 102). Each sitting of the Committee (which may be held either at Westminster or in Wales) is fixed by an order of the House setting out the date, time and location of the sitting and the business to be transacted at it.1 Such a motion may be decided after the time for opposed business and the question on it is put forthwith (Standing Order No 108(1)). It is now the practice for a single motion to refer a matter to the Committee and make arrangements for the sitting at which the matter is to be considered. Such a motion is usually made after the moment of interruption, rather than at the commencement of public business, in which case it is not exempted business. Unlike other general committees, but in common with the Northern Ireland and Scottish Grand Committees, relevant documents can be ‘tagged’ to debates of the Welsh Grand Committee. Hard copies of such documents are made available in the room where the Grand Committee sits.2

Footnotes 1. The most recent sitting of the Committee was on 7 February 2018. 2. See for example PBC Deb (2015–16) Welsh Grd Co, 3 February 2016.

Questions 39.46Standing Order No 103 provides that oral questions to Wales Office Ministers who are Members of the House may be taken in the Committee in the same manner as in the House. Questions to other Ministers have also been taken in pursuance of an order of the House.1 Questions are tabled in the Table Office not more than ten sitting days in advance of the meeting at which they are to be answered, and no member of the Committee may table more than one such question for a particular question time, which lasts for not more than half an hour. Answers to oral questions which are not reached are printed in the Official Report of the Committee.

Footnotes 1. Votes and Proceedings, 1 February 2011.

Ministerial statements 39.47Standing Order No 105 allows the Chair of the Committee to permit a Minister, whether or not a Member of the House, to make a statement to the Committee and to answer questions on it.1 Proceedings on such a statement are concluded at the Chair's discretion.

Footnotes 1. Such notice is usually given privately, but orders of the House providing for a meeting of the committee have made express provision for the committee to consider a ministerial statement, Votes and Proceedings, 25 November 2010 and 8 March 2011.

Matters relating exclusively to Wales 39.48Under Standing Order No 107, a motion may be made by a Minister that a specified matter or matters relating exclusively to Wales be referred to the Committee for its consideration. If the motion is made at the commencement of public business the question on it is put forthwith. If the matter is so referred, the Committee is empowered to report only that it has considered the said matter or matters. The time available for the debate is determined by the order of the House which makes the arrangements for the sitting at which the matter is to be considered.1

Footnotes 1. The Chair has refused to allow the closure, PBC Deb (2010–12), Welsh Grd Co, 30 June 2010, cc 74–75.

Other business of the committee 39.49Standing Order No 104 provides for short debates, and Standing Order No 106 for the consideration of bills, in the Welsh Grand Committee.1

Footnotes 1. See Erskine May (23rd edn, 2004), pp 830–31.

Half-hour adjournment 39.50As in the House, sittings of the Committee may conclude with a half-hour adjournment debate pursuant to Standing Order No 108(5) (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)). The wording of the Standing Order is permissive rather than mandatory. As with notices for such debates in the House, a ballot is conducted by the Speaker's Office. The quorum during such a debate is three (Standing Order No 108(5)).

Speeches in Welsh 39.51Following recommendations of the Procedure Committee,1 the House has given authority for Members to address the Committee in Welsh, and to change from English to Welsh or vice versa in the course of the same speech, at any meeting of the Committee, and ordered that the Official Report shall record contributions in Welsh together with their English translation,2 subject to the qualification that the Chair should have power to insist, if necessary, that points of order should be raised only in English.3

Footnotes 1. Third Report of Session 1995–96 (HC 387); First Report of Session 1997–98 (HC 461); Fourth Report of Session 2016–17 (HC 816). 2. Stg Co Deb (1997–98), Welsh Grd Co, 30 June 1997, c 27 ff; Votes and Proceedings, 1 March 2017; General Committee debates, 7 February 2018. 3. CJ (1995–96) 390; ibid (1997–98) 459. The permission also applies to other parliamentary proceedings in Wales, such as meetings of the Welsh Affairs Committee.

Sittings outside Westminster 39.52Standing Order No 108(1)(a) enables the House to make provision for sittings of the Committee in Wales.1

Footnotes 1. The first such meeting took place in Mold on 30 June 1997. The Committee last met in Wales on 12 March 2001, in Cwmbran.

Northern Ireland Grand Committee Contents Business of the Committee Sittings outside Westminster 39.53The Northern Ireland Grand Committee consists of all Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland, together with not more than 25 other Members nominated by the Committee of Selection. The quorum of the Committee is ten. Any Minister, being a Member of the House, may take part in the deliberations of the Committee and may make a motion, but may not vote or be counted in the quorum (Standing Order No 109). Each sitting of the Committee (which may be held either at Westminster or in Northern Ireland) is fixed by an order of the House setting out the date, time and location of the sitting and the business to be transacted at it. Such a motion may be decided after the time for opposed business and the question on it is put forthwith (Standing Order No 116(1)). It is now the practice to make a single motion referring a legislative proposal, other matter or instrument to the Committee and making arrangements for the sitting at which that business is to be considered. Such a motion is usually made after the moment of interruption, rather than at the commencement of public business, in which case it is exempted business only if it provides for the referral of an instrument or draft instrument (see para 39.57 ).1

Footnotes 1. The Committee most recently met in Belfast in 2013 (PBC Deb (2013–14), Northern Ireland Grd C, 9 September 2013).

Questions 39.54Standing Order No 110 provides that oral questions to Northern Ireland Office Ministers who are Members of the House may be taken in the Committee in the same manner as in the House. Questions are tabled in the Table Office not more than 10 sitting days in advance of the meeting at which they are to be answered, and no member of the Committee may table more than one such question for a particular question time—which lasts for not more than half an hour. Answers to oral questions which are not reached are printed in the Official Report of the Committee.

Ministerial statements 39.55Standing Order No 112 allows the Chair of the Committee to permit a Minister, whether or not a Member of the House, to make a statement to the Committee and to answer questions on it. Proceedings on such a statement are concluded at the Chair's discretion.

Legislative proposals and other matters relating exclusively to Northern Ireland 39.56Under Standing Order No 114, a motion may be made by a Minister that a legislative proposal (that is, a proposal for a draft Order in Council) or other specified matter or matters relating exclusively to Northern Ireland be referred to the Committee for its consideration. If the motion is made at the commencement of public business the question on it is put forthwith. If the matter is referred, the Committee is empowered to report only that it has considered the said legislative proposal or matter. The order of the House which makes the arrangements for the sitting at which the matter is to be considered provides for the proceedings to be interrupted at a specified hour or after a specified period.

Delegated legislation 39.57Standing Order No 115 provides that the Committee may consider instruments (whether or not in draft) in much the same way as a delegated legislation committee under Standing Order No 118 (see paras 39.34 –39.38 ). A motion to refer an instrument may be decided after the time for opposed business (see also para 39.35 ) and the question on it is put forthwith. It should be noted, however, that the provision in Standing Order No 118(2) that any Member, not being nominated to the Committee, may take part in its proceedings does not apply in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee except in respect of Ministers. The question before the Committee is ‘That the Committee has considered the instrument’. The question must be put not later than two and a half hours after the commencement of the proceedings on it (excluding any period when the Committee has been suspended for a division in the House); but a member of the Government may move a motion without notice immediately before the beginning of proceedings on the instrument to extend this time limit to three hours.

Other business of the Committee 39.58Standing Order No 111 provides for short debates, and Standing Order No 113 for the consideration of bills in relation to their principle, in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee.1

Footnotes 1. See Erskine May (23rd edn, 2004), pp 832–33.

Half-hour adjournment 39.59As in the House, sittings of the Committee normally conclude with a half-hour adjournment debate, pursuant to Standing Order No 116(5), though the wording of the Standing Order is permissive rather than mandatory. As with notices for such debates in the House, a ballot is conducted by the Speaker's Office. The quorum during such a debate is three. Unlike the procedure in the Scottish and Welsh Grand Committees (where the half-hour adjournment is simply moved pursuant to standing order), in the case of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee the days on which such a motion may be made are specified in advance in the order of the House setting out the Committee's programme of business.

Sittings outside Westminster 39.60Standing Order No 116(1)(a) enables the House to make provision for sittings of the Committee in Northern Ireland on not more than two occasions in each session at places to be appointed by the Chair of the Committee.1

Footnotes 1. The Committee met in Belfast on 12 December 2006 and 9 September 2013.

Regional Affairs Committee 39.61Standing Order No 1171 provides for the appointment of a committee, to be known as the Regional Affairs Committee, to consider any matter or matters relating to regional affairs in England which may be referred to it. The Committee’s composition and procedures are modelled on those of the European Committees. The Committee has not met since 2004. The standing order was suspended from 1 January 2009 until the end of the Parliament in 2010, while the temporary standing orders relating to Regional Grand Committees were in force.2 For details of the Committee, see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 890.

Footnotes 1. Made on 11 April 2000, replacing a standing order first made on 2 December 1975 and last used on 26 July 1978. See HC Deb (1999–2000) 348, cc 289–338. 2. For details about the Committee, see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 889.

General matters concerning select committees Contents Sessional committees Appointment of select committees Orders of reference Membership of select committees Powers of select committees 40.1The House of Lords may1 appoint committees to investigate and report back to it on any matter which it considers appropriate. Apart from Committees of the whole House and Grand Committees,2 almost all committees in the House of Lords are select committees, composed of named Members.3

Footnotes 1. The following committees must be appointed each session pursuant to standing orders: Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills (SO No 51); Committee of Selection (SO No 63); Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (SO No 73); and the Committee for Privileges and Conduct (SO No 77). 2. The powers and procedures of Committees of the whole House and other committees on bills are described at paras 29.35 –29.44. 3. Unopposed bill committees (see para 46.12 ) and committees to prepare reasons (see para 30.36 ) are not select committees.

Sessional committees 40.2Under Standing Order No 64 certain1 committees are appointed on a ‘sessional’ basis: that is, their orders of appointment remain in force from one session to the next throughout a Parliament until the House orders otherwise. Sessional committees are for most practical purposes thus in permanent existence. In addition, the Committee of Selection, though not formally a sessional committee, is reappointed each session. Further committees may be appointed for a fixed period,2 or on an ad hoc basis for specific purposes, and cease to exist when they have performed their appointed task (see below).3

Footnotes 1. There are currently 18 sessional committees: Communications Committee, Consolidation Bills Committee, Constitution Committee, Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, Economic Affairs Committee, European Union Committee, Finance Committee, Human Rights Committee, Hybrid Instruments Committee, International Relations Committee, National Security Strategy Committee, Committee for Privileges and Conduct, Procedure of the House Committee, Refreshment Committee, Science and Technology Committee, Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Services Committee, Standing Orders (Private Bills) Committee and Statutory Instruments Committee. 2. Committees appointed to consider draft bills are frequently required to report by a certain date: eg the Joint Committee on the draft Investigatory Powers Bill, LJ (2015–16) 484. 3. See Liaison Committee, Third Report of Session 2005–06, HL 251, LJ (2006–07) 54; and First Report of Session 2010–12, HL 6, LJ (2010–12) 84.

Appointment of select committees Contents Duration of appointment 40.3Notice is required of all motions relating to the appointment of select committees. A new select committee may be appointed by two separate motions, the first setting out the committee's orders of reference (see below) and the second nominating the members, and giving the committee any necessary powers.1 Alternatively, a single motion may be moved combining the orders of reference and nomination of members.2 The reappointment in a new session of a sessional committee or of an ad hoc committee previously appointed is invariably effected by a single motion. A motion setting out the orders of reference of a new committee is normally moved by the Senior Deputy Speaker or the Leader of the House following the House's approval of a recommendation by the Liaison Committee or Procedure Committee.3 A motion setting out the orders of reference of a new Lords select committee has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition;4 and a motion setting out the orders of reference of a new joint committee has been moved by a backbench Lords Member.5 Any motion to reappoint committees is moved by the Senior Deputy Speaker. All such motions may be debated6 and amended, though opposition is in practice rare.7

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

LJ (1983–84) 705, 745; HL Deb (30 November 1998) 595, cc 240, 719. LJ (1994–95) 646; HL Deb (19 November 2002) 641, c 267; ibid (24 November 2009) 715, c 256. For example, HL Deb (29 May 2002) 635, c 1367; LJ (2016–17) 14. LJ (2015–16) 636. LJ (2015–16) 247. LJ (1993–94) 217; HL Deb (13 March 2001) 623, c 707; ibid (24 November 2009) 715, c 256. LJ (1992–93) 466; LJ (2005–06) 760; and a slightly different case where the House overturned the Liaison Committee's recommendation against setting up a committee, LJ (2000–01) 184, 294, 343.

Duration of appointment 40.4Sessional committees and their sub-committees continue to exist over a prorogation until reappointed in the new session. Other committees cease to exist at the end of a session. All committees cease to exist at the dissolution of Parliament. An ad hoc committee, appointed to undertake a particular inquiry and to report thereon to the House, ceases to exist when it makes its final report to the House.

Orders of reference Contents Amendment of orders of reference and instructions Reference of papers to select committees 40.5A select committee's remit is set by the House in the order appointing the committee, known as its orders of reference. The committee must confine its deliberations within those limits. The orders of reference of new ad hoc committees are normally proposed in outline by the Liaison Committee;1 those of new sessional committees are normally proposed by the Liaison Committee, and occasionally by the Procedure Committee.2 The orders of reference of a sub-committee are the responsibility of the parent committee, subject to any direction given by the House on the recommendation of the Liaison Committee.3 Interpretation of the orders of reference is a matter for the committee or subcommittee.

Footnotes 1. For example, Liaison Committee, Third Report of Session 2015–16, HL 113; LJ (2016–17) 14. 2. Thus, the orders of reference of what was originally called the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee were proposed by the Procedure Committee and, on the recommendation of that committee, were amended on several occasions to reflect changes relating to Deregulation Orders and Regulatory Reform Orders LJ (1992–93) 281; ibid (1994–95) 41; HL Deb (4 July 2002) 637, c 353. The orders of reference of the European Union Committee were amended in 2010 to take into account new powers for national parliaments deriving from the Treaty of Lisbon (see Procedure Committee, Third Report of Session 2009–10, HL 82; LJ (2009–10) 419–20). 3. For example, Sub-Committees of the Procedure Committee on Deregulation Orders (1994), and on Lords' Interests (1995); and SubCommittee of the Economic Affairs Committee on the Finance Bill (direction found in the Procedure Committee, Fifth Report, HL 148 (2001–02)).

Amendment of orders of reference and instructions 40.6If it is thought desirable that a committee should extend its inquiry beyond the limits laid down by its orders of reference, the House may amend the orders,1 or reappoint the committee with new orders,2 in the same way as the original orders were agreed to, or may give the committee authority for the same purpose by an instruction. This instruction may be mandatory3 or permissive.4 An instruction may also be given at any time to restrict the scope of an inquiry, to limit a committee's powers, to report by a certain date5 or to comply with whatever procedural requirement is contained in the instruction.6

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

LJ (1888) 367; ibid (1907) 105. LJ (1994–95) 41. LJ (1884) 200. LJ (1906) 208. LJ (2001–02) 737; HL Deb (21 May 2002) 635, c 642; LJ (2010–12) 1855. LJ (1987–88) 49.

The Strauss case and the reference to the Judicial Committee 16.5In the first of the important cases in the later twentieth century the House of Commons came to a significant conclusion about the limits of the phrase (and the protection afforded by) ‘proceedings in Parliament’. The Committee of Privileges in 1957 ‘adopted and followed’ their predecessor's arguments and reasoning in considering whether a Member was protected by privilege against an action for defamation arising from a letter written to a Minister, relating to a prospective parliamentary question.1 The Committee noted that the Attorney General's opinion which the 1938–39 select committee on the Official Secrets Act cited (see above) was given in the context of the possible consideration by the courts of: ‘cases … of communications between one Member and another or between a Member and a Minister, so closely related to some matter pending in or expected to be brought before the House that, though they do not take place in the Chamber or a committeeroom, they form part of the business of the House.’ The House had agreed with that committee's report,2 and so the 1957 Committee concluded that the letter in question was a proceeding. The House, however, rejected these conclusions.3 A further novelty arising from this case was the action of the Commons (on the advice of the Privileges Committee) in voluntarily referring to a court—the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—the question of law ‘whether the House of Commons would be acting contrary to the Parliamentary Privilege Act 1770 if it treated the issue of a writ against a Member of Parliament in respect of a speech or proceeding by him in Parliament as a breach of its privileges’.4 The Judicial Committee replied to the question posed with a clear negative, concluding that the Act (and a number of preceding statutes (see para 12.5, fn 22)) apparently barring a plea of privilege of Parliament applied to proceedings against Members only in respect of their debts and acts as individuals and not in respect of their conduct in Parliament.5

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Committee of Privileges, Fifth Report, HC 305 (1956–57). CJ (1938–39) 480. CJ (1957–58) 260. CJ (1957–58) 42. Cmnd 431, 1958. A dissenting judgment, which would have permitted writs for defamation in respect of speeches in Parliament to be issued, but then struck out as soon as it appeared to the court that the action was in respect of a proceeding in Parliament is set out in (1985) Public Law 83–92. The dissenting judge averred: ‘The Bill of Rights is directed to the courts of law. It directs them not to question proceedings in Parliament. The Parliamentary Privilege Act 1770 is directed to the two Houses … It directs them not to seek to impeach or delay actions in the courts. If each of these two … obey these mandates, there will be no conflict. The right of every Englishman to seek redress in the courts of law is preserved inviolate without interference by the House of Commons. The right of Members of Parliament to freedom of speech is preserved intact because the courts will refuse to entertain an action which questions it.’

Membership of select committees Contents Composition of committees Rotation rule Participation by non-members Chairman 40.8The names of the members of select committees are in general proposed to the House by the Committee of Selection.1 The Senior Deputy Speaker has discretion to propose the names of Lords Members to fill casual vacancies in select committees without reference to the Committee of Selection.

Footnotes 1. SO No 63. For the exceptions to this rule, see para 40.62.

Composition of committees 40.9There is in general no limit to the number of members who may be named of a committee.1 Committees may be enlarged by the addition of members appointed in the same way as those originally nominated. Other than in exceptional circumstances, the maximum number of Lords Members on a sub-committee is 12.2 There is no firm rule as to the political composition of most committees.3 However, the Government have a majority over the other political parties on public bill committees and special public bill committees, the balance being held by the Crossbenchers.4 It is considered desirable for a Lords Member to serve on only one sessional investigative select committee at any one time.5 External members who are not Lords Members are appointed to the House of Lords Commission and, when hearing peerage claims, the Committee for Privileges and Conduct.

Footnotes 1. The membership of the Committee for Privileges and Conduct is fixed at 16 by SO No 77; the Lords membership of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments is fixed at 7 by SO No 73, and of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills is fixed at 12 by SO No 51. The size of committees on opposed private bills and provisional order confirmation bills is fixed by Private Business Standing Orders 104 and 185 respectively. 2. LJ (1992–93) 165; ibid (2007–08) 725. 3. Following the 2010 election, the Committee of Selection agreed that the coalition Government in the 2010–15 Parliament should not have a majority on any committee or body appointed by the Committee of Selection (see Committee of Selection, First Report of Session 2010–12, Introductions, HL 4; LJ (2010–12) 33). 4. Following a recommendation of the Select Committee on the Committee Work of the House (LJ (1992–93) 164). 5. Procedure Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2013–14, Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee; Written Answers and Statements; Select Committee Membership; Maiden Speeches in Hansard, HL 167; LJ (2013–14) 1814.

Rotation rule 40.10In order to secure a regular turnover of membership, a ‘rotation rule’1 operates in the case of most committees, whereby Lords Members who have been appointed (or co-opted) for a given number of successive sessions (or parts of sessions) may not be reappointed in the following two sessions. Save for the exceptions below, all committees of the House are subject to a three-session rotation rule; the three sessions may be extended to allow a Lords Member appointed as Chairman a three-session term as Chairman. The following committees, which meet only rarely, are exempt from any rotation rule: the Joint Committee on Consolidation etc Bills, the Joint Committee on Tax Law Rewrite Bills, the Committee for Privileges and Conduct, the Standing Orders (Private Bills) Committee and the Hybrid Instruments Committee.2 The Lord Speaker, Leaders, Chief Whips, Deputy Chief Whips3, Convenor of the Crossbench Peers, Senior Deputy Speaker and chairman of the European Union Committee are exempt from the rotation rule. Lords who leave a committee under the rotation rule are eligible for reappointment after the lapse of two full sessions. Select committees apply the rotation rule to their sub-committees. The rotation rule applies to the European Union Committee and its sub-committees as a whole. The rotation rule is based on the duration of a session being approximately 12 months. If a session lasts for a significantly longer or shorter period, the Committee of Selection may consider making ad hoc adjustments to the rotation rule.4

Footnotes 1. Procedure Committee, First Report of Session 2005–06, HL 26; LJ (2005–06) 187; Procedure Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2013–14, HL 167 (2013–14); LJ (2013–14) 1814. 2. Procedure Committee, First Report of Session 2005–06, HL 26; LJ (2005–06) 187. 3. Procedure Committee, First Report of Session 2008–09, HL 39; LJ (2008–09) 285. 4. Procedure Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2013–14, HL 167; LJ (2013–14) 1814.

Participation by non-members 40.11Under Standing Order No 65, any Lords Member, although not a member of a committee, may attend a meeting of the committee and speak, but must not attend a meeting while the committee deliberates unless invited by the committee to do so, and must not vote.

Chairman 40.12The Chairman of a committee may be appointed by the House on the proposal of the Committee of Selection.1 Alternatively, a committee may be given power to appoint its own Chairman as part of the order appointing the members of the committee. In the absence of the duly appointed Chairman a committee may appoint its own substitute Chairman.2 Certain domestic committees are chaired ex officio by the Senior Deputy Speaker, without the need for a formal proposal by the Committee of Selection.3

Footnotes 1. SO No 63(3). 2. SO No 63(4). 3. SO No 61.

Powers possessed by all committees Contents Power to adjourn and meet Power to confer with committees of the House of Commons 40.13All select committees have the following powers without special order of the House.

Power to adjourn and meet 40.14A committee may adjourn from one sitting to another, or it may be reconvened at the discretion of the Chairman. A committee can sit at any time during a recess without seeking the leave of the House to do so, but no committee may sit during prorogation or dissolution.

Power to confer with committees of the House of Commons 40.15Select committees have the power to confer and meet concurrently with any committee or sub-committee of the Commons appointed to consider a similar matter, and to communicate their evidence or documents to a Commons committee. Such meetings may be held to deliberate or to take evidence. Select committees may also give this power to sub-committees.1

Footnotes 1. SO No 67.

Powers conferred by order of the House Contents Power to send for papers or persons Power to appoint sub-committees Power of co-option Power to report Power to adjourn from place to place Power to hear counsel Power to appoint specialist advisers 40.16The following powers may be conferred on select committees in their orders of reference or by subsequent order of the House.

Power to send for papers or persons 40.17Historically, committees of the House of Lords have been able to send for persons and papers without being given special powers by the House.1 In the Lords, this power has been considered to derive necessarily from the House's power to summon witnesses by order.2 However, formal use of that power to summon witnesses or order the production of documents previously always required an order of the House itself, following a report by the committee concerned. Use of this power has been very rare.3 In 2009, the House followed the example of the House of Commons by formally delegating to all select committees the power to ‘send for persons, papers and records'.4 The same power is conferred upon sub-committees. Thus a committee may, by majority decision, itself issue a formal summons to a witness or make an order for the production of documents. If a witness refused to attend in response to a summons, or to produce the documents required, the committee could report the refusal to the House as a contempt. The use of such a power is considered as a last resort: only where a witness has refused repeated invitations, and his or her evidence is vital to an inquiry in progress, is a formal summons contemplated. A committee may invite but cannot compel members and officers of the House of Commons, foreign diplomats and individuals from overseas to give evidence to select committees.5 Where evidence is taken from a Government department, it remains the usual practice for a committee to invite witnesses from the department generally, rather than to name specific individuals.

Footnotes 1. A committee has no power to send for papers which, if required by the House itself, would be sought by Address or to require a public department to produce a paper which the House would not usually order to be laid before it: see para 7.33. 2. The House (or any Committee of the whole House) has the power to summon witnesses by means of an order, signed by the Clerk of the Parliaments and served on the witness. No witness has been summoned before the House (or a Committee of the whole House) for many years. See Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), pp 675–78. 3. LJ (1883) 114. 4. Procedure Committee, First Report, HL 39 (2008–09); LJ (2008–09) 285. The House had previously conferred such an explicit power upon committees only in exceptional circumstances: see LJ (1919) 315. 5. Members of the Commons are given leave to attend Lords committees or sub-committees, if they think fit, under Commons' SO No 138. If a committee wishes to examine an officer of the Commons, a message is sent to the Commons requesting the officer's attendance and the officer can attend only if the Commons give leave to do so.

Power to appoint sub-committees 40.18A committee cannot appoint sub-committees or delegate its powers to sub-committees unless so authorised by an order of the House. The powers and procedures of a sub-committee follow those of its parent committee, unless otherwise ordered.1

Footnotes 1. In particular, under SO No 64 the orders of appointment of sub-committees of sessional committees remain in force from one session to the next until further order is made by the House or parent committee.

Power of co-option 40.19A committee may be given power to co-opt additional Lords Members to serve on the committee or one of its sub-committees.

Power to report 40.20Committees report to the House. Where committees are appointed with power to report ‘from time to time’ they may make more than one report. An order ‘that the evidence taken by the committee be published, if the committee so wishes' gives the committee power to make the evidence available in advance of its report. Sub-committees report to the committee by which they were appointed and not to the House. However, the Chairman of the European Union Committee may, in a case of urgency, present the report of a sub-committee directly to the House on behalf of the main committee.1

Footnotes 1. LJ (1973–74) 172; for example, Seventh Report, HL 121 (1986–87); Thirteenth Report, HL 73 (1996–97); First Report of Session 2009–10, HL 6; Eleventh Report of Session 2010–12, HL 113.

Power to adjourn from place to place 40.21A select committee normally meets in Westminster. It may, however, be given the power to adjourn from place to place, enabling it to sit and hear evidence outside the precincts of the House, both in the United Kingdom and overseas.

Power to hear counsel 40.22A committee may not hear witnesses by counsel unless so authorised by order of the House.1

Footnotes 1. SO No 66.

Power to appoint specialist advisers 40.23Committees are frequently given powers to secure the assistance of paid specialist or technical advisers (see para 40.30 ).

British Railways Board v Pickin 16.10The 1973–74 case of Pickin (see para 11.16 )1 demonstrated that, though the courts continued to be careful not to act so as to cause conflict with Parliament, there were two views in the judiciary about where the boundary between the concerns of each should be drawn. The Court of Appeal held that the question whether a court was competent to go behind a private (but not a public) Act to investigate whether it had been properly obtained was a triable issue. If on investigation an abuse was shown to have occurred, the court might be under a duty to report the matter to Parliament. Lord Denning MR stated that: ‘it is the function of the court to see that the procedure of Parliament itself is not abused, and that undue advantage is not taken of it. In so doing the court is not trespassing on the jurisdiction of Parliament itself. It is acting in aid of Parliament and, I might add, in aid of justice.’ The House of Lords in its judicial capacity took an entirely opposite view.2 The function of the court was to consider and apply the enactments of Parliament. Accordingly it was not lawful to impugn the validity of the statute by seeking to establish that Parliament, in passing it, was misled by fraud or otherwise. Any investigation into the manner in which Parliament had exercised its function would or might result in a conflict. The Lords upheld clear authorities from the nineteenth century onwards that (for example): ‘all that a court of justice can look to is the parliamentary roll. They see that an Act has passed both Houses of Parliament and that it has received the Royal Assent, and no court of justice can inquire into the manner in which it was introduced into Parliament, what was done previously to its being introduced, or what passed in Parliament during the various stages of its progress.’3 Lord Reid concluded that, for a century or more, both Parliament and the courts had been careful not to act so as to cause conflict between them. He would support the action moved for by the respondent only if compelled to do so by clear authority: ‘but it appears … that the whole trend of authority for over a century is clearly against permitting any such investigation’. One of the reasons given by Lord Simon of Glaisdale for concurring in the judgment was that any other conclusion would impeach proceedings in Parliament, contrary to the Bill of Rights,4 and he instanced the sub judice rule as a parliamentary means of avoiding conflict, just as the courts had been careful to exclude evidence which might amount to infringement of parliamentary privilege.5

Footnotes 1. British Railways Board v Pickin [1974] 1 All ER 609. For proceedings in the Court of Appeal, see Pickin v British Railways Board [1973] 1 QB 219 at 230. 2. It was said that the case on which the Court of Appeal had in large part founded its decision (Mackenzie v Stewart (1752) 9 Morison 7443 and 18 ibid 15459, and (1754) 1 Pat App 578 HL (Sc)) was not sufficient to support its conclusion, being most probably a decision on the construction of an Act. Lord Wilberforce expressed the further view that even if Mackenzie v Stewart had contained a clear ratio decidendi, it would be difficult to sustain it against the chain of explicit later decisions ([1974] 1 All ER 609 at 622–23). 3. [1974] AC 765 at 786–87, a quotation from Edinburgh & Dalkeith Railway Co v Wauchope (1842) 8 ER 279 at 285. Other cases reinforcing this line of argument are Earl of Shrewsbury v Scott (1859) 141 ER 350; Waterford, Wexford, Wicklow and Dublin Railway Co v Logan (1850) 14 QB 672; Lee v Bude and Torrington Junction Railway Co (1871) LR 6 CP 576; and two Privy Council cases, Labrador Co v The Queen [1893] AC 104 and Hoanie Te Heuheu Tukino v Aotea District Maori Land Board [1941] AC 308, [1941] 2 All ER 93, PC. More recently see also Martin v O'Sullivan [1982] STC 416 and a Commonwealth case, Narroi Shire Council v Attorney-General of New South Wales [1980] 2 NSWLR 639. 4. [1974] AC 765 at 799–800. Cf the reaffirmation of the authority of article IX of the Bill of Rights in the Commons resolution giving leave for reference to the Official Report to be made in court proceedings, without a preliminary petition in individual cases (para 13.15 ). In the context of the desire of the courts to avoid conflict with Parliament, the observations of Pearson J in Dingle v Associated Newspapers Ltd [1960] 2 QB 410 may be noticed: ‘The courts desire to co-operate as far as possible with the parliamentary authorities in matters where there may be some debateable ground on which a conflict might arise’; and see para 16.17, fn 3. 5. See for example, Dingle v Associated Newspapers Ltd [1960] 2 QB 405. See also an Australian case, Comalco Ltd v ABC (1983) 50 ACTR 1 at 5 and (1985) 64 ACTR 1 at 58, where it was held that a court complied with the Bill of Rights by ensuring that the substance of what was said in Parliament was not the subject of any submission or inference. The court upheld the privileges of Parliament not by a rule as to the admissibility of evidence, but by its control over the pleadings and proceedings in court. In Fairfold Properties Ltd v Exmouth Docks Co Ltd (1990) TLR 660 it was held that an order from a court causing the promoters of a private bill to write to the authorities of the Commons seeking to withdraw the bill which they had presented was not interference with the proceedings of Parliament. It could not deprive Parliament (which might or might not accede to the request) of the opportunity to consider the matter.

Quorum 40.25The quorum of a committee or sub-committee, unless otherwise ordered by the House, is three.1 The names of the members present at each meeting are recorded in the committee's minutes.2

Footnotes 1. For sub-committees of the European Union Committee the quorum is two. The joint committees on Statutory Instruments and Human Rights have a quorum of two Lords members and two Commons members. 2. Pursuant to a Resolution of 25 June 1852, LJ (1852) 344. Attendance at a select committee at Westminster entitles a Lords Member to claim the daily allowance on the same basis as attendance at a sitting of the House (see para 4.46 ). This entitlement extends to Lords Members who give oral evidence to a select committee of which they are not a member (minutes of House of Lords Commission, 12 July 2017). Attendance at a committee meeting away from Westminster entitles a Lords Member to claim the reduced daily allowance.

Admission of the public 40.26Meetings at which evidence is being taken are usually held in public. A committee may at any time, however, order that a meeting or part of a meeting be held in private, and the public is then required to withdraw. Meetings at which committees deliberate are invariably held in private.

Divisions 40.27When a division is taken the names of the members are called in alphabetical order by the clerk and each member replies ‘Content’ or ‘Not content’, or indicates an abstention. The Chairman has a vote but not a casting vote. If the votes are equal, the question is decided as in the whole House (see para 25.88 ). The question proposed, the name of the proposer and the votes of each member are recorded in formal minutes of proceedings of the committee (see para 40.34 ).1

Footnotes 1. Pursuant to a Resolution of 7 December 1852, LJ (1852–53) 44.

Evidence Contents Publication of evidence 40.28The examination of witnesses giving oral evidence and the methods of obtaining their attendance before committees in the Lords are similar to those in the Commons.1 Lords committees may not take evidence on oath unless enabled to do so by order of the House.2 False evidence before a committee may be punishable as a contempt3 or, if evidence is given on oath, as perjury.4 In practice, however, evidence-taking before committees is conducted with a degree of informality and the wide powers of the House to require a witness to co-operate are now seldom employed. Proceedings are generally conducted in English. Committees may, however, take oral evidence in another language or in British Sign Language through interpretation, or accept written evidence in another language if accompanied by a translation. Such an approach is adopted only when the alternative would be to lose the opportunity to hear key evidence.5 The use of the Welsh language is permitted for the purpose of committee proceedings held in Wales.6 Witnesses are eligible to receive travel and certain other expenses necessarily incurred in giving oral evidence before select committees.

Footnotes 1. See paras 38.31 –38.41. For the privilege and protection of witnesses, see para 14.14, and for the punishment of contempt by witnesses, see para 15.5. 2. LJ (1857) 60; Report of the Committee on Administration of Oaths and Witnesses, ibid (1857) 39. The House has so ordered only in the case of inquiries of a special character: ibid (1889) 19; ibid (1919) 382; ibid (1934–35) 32. For the practice in committees on private bills, see para 46.13. 3. LJ (1810–12) 371, etc. 4. Perjury Act 1911, s 1. 5. Procedure Committee, First Report, HL 62 (2015–16); LJ (2015–16) 574. 6. Procedure Committee, Second Report of Session 2008–09, HL 165; LJ (2009–10) 93.

Anderson Strathclyde 16.11In the case of R v Secretary of State for Trade, ex p Anderson Strathclyde plc in 1983,1 it was held by the Divisional Court that a report in the Official Report of the House of Commons of what had been said and done in Parliament could not be used to support a ground for relief in proceedings for judicial review in respect of something which occurred out of Parliament. Dunn LJ concluded that, were it otherwise, ‘the court would have to do more than take note of the fact that a certain statement was made in the House on a certain date. It would have to consider the statement … with a view to determining what was [its] true meaning … and what were the proper inferences to be drawn from [it]. This … would be contrary to article IX of the Bill of Rights. It would be doing what Blackstone2 said was not to be done … Moreover, it would be an invasion by the court of the right of every Member of Parliament to free speech in the House’. The Appellate Committee of the House of Lords would come to reconsider this decision in Pepper v Hart3 (see below).

Footnotes 1. [1983] 2 All ER 233, esp at 239b. 2. Sir W Blackstone Commentaries (17th edn, 1830) i, p 63: ‘whatever matter arises concerning either House of Parliament ought to be examined, discussed and adjudged in that House to which it relates, and not elsewhere’. 3. Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593, [1993] 1 All ER 43.

Specialist advisers and expert assistance 40.30Specialist advisers may attend both public and private sessions of a committee. They do not speak in public meetings of committees, examine witnesses or vote. On occasion committees may invite expert individuals to assist them in their deliberations. Such individuals, who are not paid advisers, take part in private meetings for informal discussion, with or without a verbatim record.

Reports of select committees Contents Preparation of draft report Consideration of draft report Minority reports Procedure where a committee is unable to agree on a report Consideration by select committee of reports from sub-committees Presentation of report to the House Special reports Unfinished inquiries Publication of report Government responses to reports 40.31The report of a select committee on a public matter usually takes the form of a document presented to the House, giving an account of what the committee has done, reviewing the evidence which it has received, and offering the committee's conclusions and recommendations.

Preparation of draft report 40.32When the examination of witnesses has concluded, the Chairman authorises the preparation and circulation to the committee of a draft report. Preparation of the draft is often preceded by one or more meetings of the committee to discuss the general approach to be adopted. Alternatively, the committee may come to formal or informal resolutions on the subject under inquiry, on the basis of which a draft report is prepared. Other members of a committee are also entitled to submit a draft report for consideration by the committee. If, after the Chairman has submitted the Chairman's draft report, any member who has not already submitted an alternative draft report wishes to do so, the committee may adjourn to give them time to prepare it. No alternative draft report may be submitted once a draft report has been ordered to be considered, unless the final question for agreeing to the draft report (as amended) is negatived (see para 40.33 ).

Zircon 16.12When, in 1987, the Attorney General sought an injunction against a number of Members of the House of Commons with the intention of preventing them from showing a film in the House until the House had an opportunity of deciding whether or not the showing of the film should be allowed, the court refused the application, apparently on the ground (which was not set out in writing) that the matter could and should be under the control of the House authorities, even in advance of a formal decision by the House.1

Footnotes 1. Report of the Committee of Privileges, HC 365 (1986–87). Among the conclusions of the Committee, which considered the issue partly in the context of the connection of the film with matters of national security, was that any restrictions which might be imposed on the disclosure in the House of such information should be imposed by the House and not by the courts (paras 47–48). In the event, however, the Committee found it unnecessary to recommend any changes in the privileges or procedures of the House relating to national security (para 59).

Minority reports 40.34A report from a committee embodies the conclusions agreed to by the majority of its members, and members who dissent from the report1 may not make minority reports to be appended to it. Nor can members enter protests against a report. If a member disagrees to certain paragraphs in the report, or to the entire report, they can record their dissent by dividing the committee against those paragraphs, or against the entire report, as appropriate. Members may also put on record their observations and conclusions, as opposed to those of the majority, by proposing an alternative draft report or moving amendments to the draft. Any alternative draft or amendment on which a division takes place is recorded in full in the minutes of proceedings of the committee, published with the committee's report.2

Footnotes 1. HL Deb (16 June 1982) 431, c 632; ibid (17 June 1982) 431, cc 709–12. 2. HL Deb (29 July 1982) 434, c 362; ibid (16 February 1983) 439, c 222. See for example Fourteenth Report of the European Union Committee, HL 106 (2008–09), Appendix 2.

Procedure where a committee is unable to agree on a report 40.35Where a committee is unable to agree on a report, it may make a special report to that effect.1

Footnotes 1. The Select Committee on a Bill of Rights, being unable to agree whether such a bill was desirable, summarised the arguments of witnesses for and against without reaching any conclusion on the arguments, LJ (1977–78) 576–88. The Procedure Committee came to no view on the question whether the House should sit in September, instead saying ‘We believe that the House will wish to express an opinion on this possibility’ (Fifth Report, HL 148 (2001–02) para 27).

Consideration by select committee of reports from sub-committees 40.36A sub-committee reports to its parent committee, which will usually report the sub-committee's report with or without amendment as its own report to the House. The committee may, however, refer a report back to the sub-committee in whole or in part or adopt a further report on the basis of that submitted by the sub-committee. Reports of the Committee for Privileges and Conduct on allegations of breaches of the Code of Conduct include, as annexes, the unamended reports of the House of Lords Commissioner for Standards and the Sub-Committee on Lords' Conduct (see para 5.44 ).

Presentation of report to the House 40.37When a select committee has agreed its report, under Standing Order No 68 the report is laid on the Table and ordered to be printed.

Special reports 40.38Besides the report on the subject matter referred to the committee, committees may make a ‘special report’ on some incidental matter relating to the powers, functions or proceedings of the committee. Ad hoc committees sometimes make special reports at the beginning of their inquiries, setting out their interpretation of their orders of reference, the matters on which they invite evidence and their proposed course of proceeding.1 The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has made special reports on its work during a session,2 and on general matters to do with its remit.3

Footnotes 1. For example, Joint Committee on Conventions, First Special Report of Session 2005–06, HL 189. 2. For example, Twenty-sixth Report, HL 83 (2000–02). 3. For example, Special Report on Henry VIII powers to make incidental, consequential and similar provision, Third Report, HL 21 (2002–03).

Unfinished inquiries 40.39When a committee lacks sufficient time to conclude an inquiry before the end of a session which brings its existence to an end, it may report the fact to the House with its proceedings and evidence1 and recommend the appointment of a committee in the next session to continue the inquiry.2 If a committee is reappointed the evidence taken in the previous session may be referred to the new committee.3

Footnotes 1. LJ (1991–92) 360. 2. For example, the Special Report of the Select Committee on the Public Service, HL 68 (1996–97). 3. LJ (1997–98) 62.

Publication of report 40.40A report of a select committee may not be made publicly available until it is available to members of the House. By practice, select committees often supply advance copies of their reports to such government departments, witnesses, lobby journalists and other media representatives as the committee thinks fit. Such copies are supplied under embargo until a specified time and date.

Government responses to reports 40.41The Government has undertaken to respond in writing to the reports of select committees, if possible within two months of publication.1 The response may be given in the form of a Written Ministerial Statement in Hansard, in a memorandum or letter to the committee, or as a command paper.2 If the response to a sessional committee is not published by the Government, the committee will normally then publish it online. Following a response, committees sometimes invite a Minister to give evidence on the progress made in implementing recommendations, or take further evidence and make a further report. The Chairman of the Liaison Committee has written to Ministers seeking details on progress made in implementing recommendations of ad hoc committees which have ceased to exist.

Footnotes 1. LJ (1992–93) 165. 2. LJ (1982–83) 21; Fourth Report of the European Union Committee, Government and Commission Responses, HL Paper 72 (2010–12); Government Response to the Constitution Committee Report on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, Cm 8016 (11 February 2011). Government responses to committees no longer in existence should be given in the form of a command paper; for example, Government Response to the Report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Digital Skills, Cm 9099 (July 2015).

Debates on reports 40.42It is the practice of the House to debate all reports of investigative committees unless the committee makes the report ‘for information’ or otherwise indicates that it does not seek a debate. Debate on a committee report should not take place before the Government response has been published unless the committee approves:1 reports which are ready for debate are listed in House of Lords Business under `Select Committee Reports' until a day for their debate is appointed. Reports of committees on bills and instruments may be considered when the bill or instrument in question is debated in the House, but no separate motion for consideration of the report is tabled except where a Lords Member wishes to debate the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on a legislative reform proposal or a draft legislative reform order. Notice must be given of the day when it is proposed to debate a report of a select committee.2 The usual form of the motion is ‘to take note’ of the report (see para 25.39 ); such motions are agreed to without amendment. The House has debated a joint committee report on a motion to ‘take note with approval’.3 Sometimes the debate on a report takes the form of a question for short debate (see para 25.43 ).4 Select committee reports have been debated jointly with other motions, including a motion relating to the stage of a bill, where the subject matter is closely connected.5 Reports of the European Union Committee made in accordance with Articles 6 or 8 of the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality of the Lisbon Treaty, are debated on a ‘take note’ motion, in the name of the Chairman or a member of either the Select Committee or the relevant sub-committee. This ‘take note’ motion is debated jointly with a substantive and divisible motion for resolution.6 European Union Committee reports on decisions by the Government whether or not to ‘opt in’ to proposals in the field of justice and home affairs are debated on a motion inviting the House to agree the committee's recommendation.7 These procedures are described in more detail in Chapter 32. Reports of domestic committees (other than the Committee of Selection) which contain substantive recommendations, being of no effect unless approved by the House, are always considered by the House on a motion that the report ‘be agreed to’. Motions have been moved to express the disagreement8 of the House with a report as a whole or with certain paragraphs,9 to refer a part of the report back to the committee,10 or to agree to the recommendations contained in the report generally or with certain exceptions.11 The House has resolved itself into a committee to consider a report12 and has referred back a report to the committee which made it for further consideration, the committee being enlarged by the appointment of additional members.13

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

LJ (1992–93) 161. SO No 68. LJ (2006–07) 150. HL Deb (14 October 2002) 639, c 672 ff. See para 29.20. For example, Minutes of Proceedings, 10 October 2017. LJ (2010–12) 418–19 and 460. LJ (2009–10) 119–20; ibid (2014–15) 384. LJ (1904–05) 348. LJ (1904–05) 347, 348; LJ (2000–01) 75. LJ (1994–95) 534; LJ (1996–97) 164. For an amendment to refer a report back to a committee with an instruction, see LJ (2012–13) 656. 11. LJ (1875) 318. 12. LJ (1889) 47; HL Deb (2001–02) 638, c 373. 13. LJ (1889) 47.

Particular functions of select committees Contents Legislative Investigative Domestic and other Principles underlying new select committee activity Legislative select committees Investigative select committees Domestic committees 40.43Select committees may broadly be divided into three categories.

Legislative 40.44Legislative select committees consider bills, draft bills and certain categories of delegated legislation. Such committees may be appointed on an ad hoc basis to consider specific bills or draft bills,1 or to undertake post-legislative scrutiny of an Act or group of Acts. They may also be appointed on a sessional basis.2

Footnotes 1. For example, special public bill committees, select committees on bills and pre-legislative scrutiny committees. 2. These are the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Constitution Committee, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the Hybrid Instruments Committee and the Joint Committees on Statutory Instruments, Consolidation Bills and Human Rights.

Investigative 40.45Investigative select committees examine issues of public importance within their orders of reference and make reports on the basis of the evidence received. The main investigative committees are the European Union Committee, the Science and Technology Committee, the Economic Affairs Committee, the Communications Committee, the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, and the International Relations Committee. The Constitution Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights undertake both legislative and investigative work. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee may also conduct broad inquiries from time to time. From 1993 it became usual for at least one additional ad hoc committee to be appointed each session on a subject of general interest. Since 2014 four ad hoc committees have been appointed each session, including at least one appointed to conduct post-legislative scrutiny.1

Footnotes 1. Liaison Committee, First Report of Session 2013–14, HL 145; LJ (2013–14) 1654. In Session 2012–13, three ad hoc committees were appointed. In Session 2013–14, three ad hoc committees were appointed for the full session, and two short ad hoc committees were appointed on a trial basis, one lasting around six months, followed by another lasting around five months. The trial was not repeated. In Session 2017–19, four ad hoc committees were appointed with orders to report by 31 March 2018 (Minutes of Proceedings, 29 June 2017) and a second tranche of four ad hoc committees were appointed for the remainder of that session (Minutes of Proceedings, 9 May 2018).

Domestic and other 40.46Domestic committees monitor and make recommendations about the procedures and internal administration of the House. These committees are the House of Lords Commission, the Finance Committee, the Services Committee, the Committee of Selection, the Committee for Privileges and Conduct (and its Sub-Committee on Lords' Conduct), the Procedure Committee and the Liaison Committee. In addition, committees are appointed to conduct private business. There are also various analogous bodies, including the Audit Committee, the Ecclesiastical Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. The Lord Speaker's Advisory Panel on Works of Art is appointed by the Lord Speaker to advise the Lord Speaker on matters relating to works of art in the House of Lords. Leader's Groups have been appointed to consider matters internal to the House of Lords, such as its procedure, working practices or Code of Conduct. They are established by the Leader of the House and report to the Leader. A Lord Speaker's committee on the size of the House was appointed by the Lord Speaker (rather than the House) on 20 December 2016 to explore methods by which the size of the House of Lords could be reduced; it reported on 31 October 2017.

Principles underlying new select committee activity 40.47The Liaison Committee considers proposals for new select committees against the following criteria: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Whether the proposed committee would make best use of the knowledge and experience of Members of the House. Whether the proposed committee would complement the work of House of Commons departmental select committees. Whether the proposed committee would address areas of policy which cross departmental boundaries. In the case of proposed new ad hoc committees, whether the activity is capable of being confined to one session.1

Footnotes 1. Liaison Committee, Second Report of Session 2016–17, HL 144.

Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee 40.48This committee was originally established in 1992 in order to scrutinise the delegated powers proposed to be taken in bills.1 In 1994 its orders of reference were expanded to enable it to discharge on behalf of the House of Lords the functions of parliamentary oversight of deregulation orders made under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. Its orders of reference were revised in 2001 following the passing of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 (which replaced the 1994 Act), in 2007 following the passing of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, and again following delegated powers created by further Acts. It now has the following orders of reference: i. To report whether the provisions of any bill inappropriately delegate legislative power, or whether they subject the exercise of legislative power to an inappropriate degree of parliamentary scrutiny; ii. To report on documents and draft orders laid before Parliament under or by virtue of: a. sections 14 and 18 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, b. section 7(2) or section 19 of the Localism Act 2011, or c. section 5E(2) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004; and to perform, in respect of such draft orders, and in respect of subordinate provisions orders made or proposed to be made under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, the functions performed in respect of other instruments and draft instruments by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments; and iii. To report on documents and draft orders laid before Parliament under or by virtue of: a. section 85 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, b. section 17 of the Local Government Act 1999, c. section 9 of the Local Government Act 2000, d. section 98 of the Local Government Act 2003, or e. section 102 of the Local Transport Act 2008.’ In order to fulfil the part of its remit which relates to delegated powers, the committee considers all public bills after their first reading2 (other than consolidation and, save in exceptional circumstances, Supply bills3 ). In the case of government bills, the department concerned submits a memorandum to the committee setting out the nature of and reasons for the delegated powers in the bill. Departments may also submit memoranda on Private Members' Bills. The committee may take oral evidence from Ministers or officials in the department. The committee then reports its conclusions to the House. The committee aims to report on bills before the committee stage begins. The House is under no obligation to delay proceedings if the committee has not reported, but where the committee has reported, an italic note referencing the committee's report may be appended to the committee stage motion on the Order Paper. Such a report on a bill may be considered in debates on relevant amendments, or more generally on the motion to resolve into a committee on the bill.4 If time allows, the committee reports on government amendments to bills if the amendments involve delegated powers.5 The committee has also reported on delegated powers in draft bills.6 The committee's functions in respect of legislative reform orders are analogous to those of the Commons Regulatory Reform Committee.

Footnotes 1. See HL 35 (1991–92), paras 59 ff and 133. The general issues relating to the establishment of a committee were debated by the House: HL Deb (1989–90) 515, cc 1407–37. 2. The committee has reported in advance of the first reading of bills requiring expedition: Eighteenth Report, HL 65 (2000–01) and Twenty-fifth report, HL 82 (2000–01). In view of the significance of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill 2017–19, the committee reported on the bill in advance of its committee stage in the House of Commons: Third Report, HL 22 (2017–19). 3. The committee reported on the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill 2017–19, a Supply bill, in advance of committee stage in the House of Commons: Eleventh Report, HL 65 (2017–19). 4. For example, the Railways Bill 1993: HL Deb (1 July 1993) 547, cc 944–49. 5. For example, Sixteenth Report, HL 85 (2002–03); Tenth Report, HL 58 (2004–05); Second Report, HL 21 (2008–09). This practice began in Session 1997–98. See Special Report, HL 158 (1997–98) paras 14–15. 6. See the report of the Joint Committee on the Draft Communications Bill, HL 169–I, HC 876–I (2001–02) Annex 6; report of the Joint Committee on the Draft Deregulation Bill, HL 101, HC 925 (2013–14), Appendix 5; report of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee on the Draft Spaceflight Bill, HC 1070 (2016–17).

Ex parte Rees-Mogg 16.17In 1994, an application came before Queen's Bench Division in which the applicant sought review of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary's decision to ratify the Treaty of European Union signed at Maastricht in February 1992.1 There had been much debate in both Houses on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill 1992, which made amendments to United Kingdom law consequent on the Treaty, and the Speaker had publicly indicated that the Commons ‘was entitled to expect … that the Bill of Rights [would] be required to be fully respected by all those appearing before the court’.2 In the event, both the court and the parties were conscious of ‘the need to confine judicial review within its proper sphere … the legality of government actions and intentions … The issues in the present case are as clearly within the proper sphere of judicial review, as questions of policy are within the sphere of Parliament’.3

Footnotes 1. R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex p Rees-Mogg [1994] 2 QB 552. 2. HC Deb (1992–93) 229, cc 351–52. 3. R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex p Rees-Mogg [1994] QB 552 at 561. See also the comments of Sir John Donaldson MR in R v Her Majesty's Treasury, ex p Smedley [1985] QB 657 at 666: ‘It … behoves the courts to be ever sensitive to the paramount need to refrain from trespassing on the province of Parliament or, so far as this can be avoided, even appearing to do so … I would hope and expect that Parliament would be similarly sensitive to the need to refrain from trespassing on the province of the courts' and R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex p World Development Movement Ltd [1995] 1 All ER 611. See further para 16.10, fn 4.

Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee 40.50The committee, which was established in 2003, examines the merits of instruments subject to parliamentary proceedings.1 With certain specified exceptions, the committee scrutinises any instrument laid before both Houses of Parliament. It is required to draw to the special attention of the House those instruments which are politically or legally important or give rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House; those which may be inappropriate in view of changed circumstances since the enactment of the parent Act; those which may inappropriately implement European Union legislation; those which may imperfectly achieve their policy objectives; those for which the explanatory material laid in support provides insufficient information to gain a clear understanding about the instrument's policy objective and intended implementation; and where there appear to be inadequacies in the consultation process which relates to the instrument. The committee may conduct broader inquiries from time to time.

Footnotes 1. For the committee's first orders of reference and the motion of appointment, see LJ (2003–04) 66. The committee's terms of reference were amended in 2005 (see LJ (2005–06) 187), with the result that the committee scrutinises ‘every instrument (whether or not a statutory instrument), or draft of an instrument … upon which proceedings may be, or might have been, taken in either House of Parliament under an Act of Parliament’; in 2011, to charge it with reporting on draft orders laid under the Public Bodies Act 2011 (Procedure Committee, Seventh Report, HL 206 (2010–12); LJ (2010–12) 1687); and again in 2014 to add two grounds for reporting an instrument to the House (Procedure Committee, Fifth Report, HL 167 (2013–14); LJ (2013–14) 1814). The name of the committee was changed from the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee in 2012 (Procedure Committee, Twelfth Report, HL 283 (2010–12); LJ (2010–12) 2333).

European Union Committee 40.51The committee was first appointed in 1974.1 The Chairman is formally appointed at the start of each session as Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (see para 4.51 ). The orders of reference of the committee include ‘to consider European Union documents deposited in the House by a Minister, and other matters relating to the European Union’. Its work is described in more detail at para 40.51. The committee has power to appoint sub-committees and to refer to them any of the matters within its orders of reference. The quorum of a subcommittee is two. At present there are six sub-committees covering defined policy areas. The committee has also appointed ad hoc subcommittees.2 The committee may co-opt any Lords Member to serve on a sub-committee.

Footnotes 1. LJ (1973–74) 184; HL 194 (1972–73); HL 62 and 139 (1974). The committee was known as the European Communities Committee until 1999. 2. For example, on Staffing of the Community Institutions, 1985, and the Intergovernmental Conferences, 1996.

Science and Technology Committee 40.52The committee was first appointed in 1979. Its orders of reference are ‘to consider science and technology’. The committee has power to appoint sub-committees to conduct inquiries, and to co-opt Lords Members either to itself or to its sub-committees.1

Footnotes 1. The Science and Technology Committee has not exercised its power to appoint a sub-committee since 2012: see Liaison Committee, Third Report of Session 2010–12, HL 279; LJ (2010–12) 2250.

Prebble v TV New Zealand 16.18Two cases in the 1990s raised the hitherto unexplored situation where Members wished to demonstrate in actions in the courts that what they were alleged to have said or done in the House was true and honourable. The first such case, Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd (see also paras 12.1, 13.10, 13.11 fn 5), arose in New Zealand, where, as in the United Kingdom, article IX of the Bill of Rights is part of domestic law. Among the allegations in the case were that statements had been made in the New Zealand House of Representatives which were misleading, and that Members had procured the passing of a bill through that House as part of the implementation of a conspiracy. The lower court in New Zealand struck out these allegations, because they could not be judicially inquired into without infringing the Bill of Rights. The New Zealand Court of Appeal agreed, but ordered a stay unless and until the privilege involved was waived by the House of Representatives. That House then denied any power to effect such a waiver (see para 12.1 ). When the matter came before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,1 their Lordships rebutted arguments that article IX operated to protect statements made in proceedings in Parliament only where they might have legal consequences for the Member who made them.2 They also repelled the contention that rules excluding parliamentary material did not apply when the action in question was brought by a Member of Parliament.3 It seemed to the Judicial Committee that the privilege protected by article IX was that of Parliament itself, which could not be determined by an individual Member. The Committee therefore concluded that: ‘parties to litigation, by whomsoever commenced, cannot bring into question anything said or done in the House by suggesting (whether by direct evidence, cross-examination, inference or submission) that the actions or words were inspired by improper motives or were untrue or misleading. Such matters lie entirely within the jurisdiction of the House, subject to any statutory exception ….’4 However, the Committee also asserted that this principle did not exclude all references in court proceedings to what had taken place in Parliament, and concluded that ‘if the defendant wishes … to allege the occurrence of events or the saying of certain words in Parliament without any accompanying allegation of impropriety or any other questioning there is no objection to that course’.5

Footnotes 1. [1995] 1 AC 321, [1994] 3 All ER 407. 2. This was one of the arguments which the court found persuasive in the Australian case R v Murphy [1986] 5 NSWLR 18. The Judicial Committee were of the opinion that, whatever might be true of Australian law at the time, the judge in that case ‘was not correct so far as the rest of the Commonwealth was concerned’, because the judgment was in conflict with a long line of judicial dicta, was based on too narrow a construction of article IX, and could lead to exactly the conflict between Parliament and the courts which both had long been at pains to avoid ([1994] 3 All ER 414–15). 3. Such a conclusion was reached by the South Australian Supreme Court in Wright and Advertiser Newspapers Ltd v Lewis (1989–90) 53 SASR 416, esp at 426. It was held in that case that those who published an allegedly defamatory statement should not be at risk of damages for imputations which they claimed were true but which they could not prove to be so by reason of parliamentary privilege. Such privilege should not therefore inhibit a defendant in an action which had been instituted by a Member. The rule that a Member cannot be compelled to answer questions about proceedings did not—the court averred—extend to an action brought by the Member. The Privy Council in Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd [1995] 1 AC 321 at 335, [1994] 3 All ER 407 at 415–16 could not, however, accept that the fact that the Member who made an allegedly defamatory statement was the initiator of court proceedings could affect the question whether article IX was infringed. For an example of a further Commonwealth case in which the courts ruled on an attempt to use the Official Report to prove more than what was said in Parliament, see Australian Broadcasting Commission v Chatterton, Chapman and Chatterton (1987) 46 SASR 1 esp at 18, 30 ff and 38. 4. [1995] 1 AC 321 at 337, [1994] 3 All ER 407 at 417–18. 5. AC 321 at 337.

Communications Committee 40.54The committee was first appointed in 2006, with the expectation that it would be reappointed for the remainder of the 2005–10 Parliament.1 It was further reappointed in the first two sessions of the 2010–15 Parliament, becoming a sessional committee in 2013.2 Its orders of reference are ‘to consider the media and the creative industries'.

Footnotes 1. Liaison Committee, Third Report of Session 2005–06, HL 251; LJ (2006–07) 54. 2. Liaison Committee, First Report of Session 2012–13, HL 135; LJ (2012–13) 971.

National Security Strategy 40.55The committee was first appointed in 2010, to join with the Commons committee as the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. It is described at para 41.13.

International Relations Committee 40.56The committee was first appointed in 2016.1 Its order of reference is ‘to consider the United Kingdom's international relations'. Its appointment as a sessional committee is subject to the Liaison Committee's review of all select committees in Session 2017–19.2

Footnotes 1. Liaison Committee, Second Report of Session 2015–16, HL 47; LJ (2015–16) 437. 2. Ibid.

Pre-legislative scrutiny committees 40.57In recent years it has become common for the two Houses to appoint ad hoc joint committees to scrutinise government bills published in draft. Such committees function as investigative committees, taking oral and written evidence and then making an evidence-based report. It is a regular practice for the committees to invite the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to submit observations about the draft bill, and other committees have been consulted from time to time, or have made their own reports on the draft bill.1

Footnotes 1. Each House appointed a committee to scrutinise the draft Freedom of Information Bill, HL 97 (1998–99); since then the tendency has been for any Lords scrutiny of draft bills to be conducted jointly with the House of Commons: for example, draft Investigatory Powers Bill (HL 93, HC 651 (2015–16)). For examples of consultation of other committees see the Joint Committee on the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill (HL 166 and HC 551 (2007–08)).

House of Lords Commission 40.58The House of Lords Commission was first appointed in 2016, when it replaced the House Committee (which had previously overseen the administration of the House). This was part of a wider restructuring of domestic committees.1 The Commission's terms of reference are ‘to provide high-level strategic and political direction for the House of Lords Administration on behalf of the House’. The commission agrees the annual Estimate; supervises the arrangements relating to financial support for Members; and works with the Management Board to develop, set and approve the strategic business plan, the annual business and financial plans for the administration and monitors the performance of the administration against agreed targets. The Commission is chaired by the Lord Speaker. The Senior Deputy Speaker, the Leaders of the major parties and the Convenor of the Crossbench Peers are ex officio members. Four backbenchers serve on the Commission, including the Chairmen of the Finance Committee and the Services Committee. Two external members who are not Lords Members are appointed by the House, on the expectation that they will serve for six years. The external members take part in proceedings of the Commission and may ask questions; however, they may not move any motion nor any amendment to any motion or draft report, and may not vote. An external member present at a Commission meeting at which a report is agreed may submit a paper setting out that external member's opinion on the report. Before the Commission makes a report to the House, the Chairman will ascertain whether any external member present wishes to submit such a paper; and any such paper shall be appended to the report in question before it is made to the House. External members do not count towards the Commission's quorum.2 The Commission is supported by two other domestic committees: the Finance Committee and the Services Committee. The Finance Committee considers expenditure on services provided from the Estimate for the House of Lords; prepares the forecast outturn with the assistance of the Management Board; monitors the financial performance of the House administration; and reports to the Commission on the financial implications of significant proposals. The Services Committee agrees day-to-day policy on member-facing services; provides advice on strategic policy decisions when sought by the Commission; and oversees the delivery and implementation of both. In addition, the Commission appoints two bodies which are not select committees. The Audit Committee comprises Members of the House plus two external members; its membership and terms of reference are the responsibility of the Commission. The Chairman of the Audit Committee is one of its external members, who is also an external member of the Commission. The Commission also appoints the Lords Members of the Joint Committee on Security, which advises the Speaker and Lord Speaker on security within the parliamentary estate (see para 40.14 ).

Footnotes 1. See Leader's Group on Governance, HL 81 (2015–16); HL Deb (9 May 2016) 609, c 1573. 2. House Committee, First Report, HL 19 (2016–17); LJ (2016–17) 175.

Committee for Privileges and Conduct 40.59The Committee for Privileges and Conduct, formerly the Committee for Privileges, is appointed under Standing Order No 77.1 It consists of 16 named Lords Members, of whom two must be former holders of high judicial office, such as former Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. It is chaired by the Senior Deputy Speaker, and the Leaders and Chief Whips of the main parties, along with the Convenor of the Crossbench Peers, are ex officio members. The committee has three main areas of responsibility. First, it considers questions of privilege. Normally these have been referred to it by the House,2 though they may arise by other means. Second, the committee, along with its Sub-Committee on Lords' Conduct, considers matters relating to the Code of Conduct; any sanction which is recommended to be imposed on a Member of the House in respect of misconduct requires the agreement of the House to a report of the committee. The powers of the House and the procedure for investigating misconduct are described in Chapter 5. Finally, the committee may sit judicially to consider claims of peerage and precedence (Standing Order Nos 78, 80(3) and 81). Peerage claims are described in more detail in Erskine May (22nd edn, 1997), pp 13–14. In any claim of peerage the committee sits with three holders of high judicial office (in effect, senior serving judges). These cannot be members of the House (members who hold high judicial office being disqualified from sitting or voting in the House or its committees by s 137(3) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005), but enjoy the same speaking and voting rights as members of the committee for the purposes of the peerage claim.3 The committee has power to appoint sub-committees without special order of the House.

Footnotes 1. On 30 April 2019, the House of Lords agreed to establish a separate Conduct Committee with lay members, HL Deb (30 April 2019) 797, cc 862–87, and see para 5.2. 2. For example, LJ (1983–84) 600 (the privilege of peerage, freedom from arrest and detention of persons suffering from mental disorder); ibid (1998–99) 666, 825 (the effect of the 1999 House of Lords Bill); ibid (2009–10) 250 (allegation of contempt against Mr Trevor Phillips). 3. The most recent claims of peerage to be considered by the committee were in relation to the earldom of Annandale and Hartfell (LJ (1984–85) 522), the barony of Strange (ibid (1985–86) 388), the barony of Grey of Codnor (ibid (1988–89) 457), the barony of Farnham (ibid (1994–95) 293) and the barony of Moynihan (HL Deb (1996–97) 579, cc 1052–53). The committee has reported on matters relating to peers of Scotland (LJ (1963–64) 66, 80), on the petition of the Irish peers (ibid (1966–67) 31, 118) and on peerages in abeyance (ibid (1986–87) 64).

Procedure of the House Committee 40.60The Committee on Procedure of the House considers proposals for changes in the procedure of the House and whether the standing orders require to be altered to give effect to such changes. It also keeps the Companion to Standing Orders under review. It is chaired by the Senior Deputy Speaker, and has 19 members, including ex officio the Lord Speaker, the Leaders and Chief Whips of the main parties, and the Convenor of the Crossbench Peers. Its backbench Members and the Convenor have alternates.1 The committee has power to appoint subcommittees without special order of the House.2

Footnotes 1. LJ (2005–06) 426, 504. 2. For example, the Sub-Committee on Deregulation Orders, LJ (1993–94) 250.

Liaison Committee 40.61The Liaison Committee was established in 1993. It is chaired by the Senior Deputy Speaker and has the following orders of reference: ‘to advise the House on the resources required for select committee work and to allocate resources between select committees; to review the select committee work of the House; to consider requests for ad hoc committees and report to the House with recommendations; to ensure effective co-ordination between the two Houses; and to consider the availability of Lords to serve on committees.’ It includes ex officio the Leaders of the parties and the Convenor of the Crossbench Peers, or their representatives, together with six backbenchers.

10. HC Deb (14 May 2014) 580, c 796.

Introduction to joint committees of the Lords and Commons 41.1Joint committees1 are formally composed of separate select committees appointed by each House to work together. Although defined in procedural terms as two committees, they operate as if a single committee, with a single Chair2 and with all decisions made jointly. With the exception of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, whose Commons members sit also as the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments3 for certain purposes (see para 38.70 ), the two constituent parts of a joint committee do not meet separately in their own House.

Footnotes 1. For other joint bodies and committees between the two Houses, which are not select committees, see para 41.14. 2. Exceptionally, the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster had two co-chairs (Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster, Formal Minutes, Session 2015–16, 11 September 2015). 3. SO No 151(10) [HC].

Mandate and powers 41.2Joint committees may be appointed to report on a specific matter (for example, parliamentary privilege, House of Lords reform or the conventions between the two Houses)1 or on a particular bill2 or draft bill.3 The date by which such committees must report is usually set out in the order when they are appointed, although this date can be extended.4 A committee has been instructed to report on a specific matter by a specified date, but otherwise given the freedom to report from time to time on other matters within its order of reference in the normal way.5 Joint committees may also be appointed with a permanent existence to undertake a continuing task. Most joint committees in the last category are established under standing orders in both Houses.6 A joint committee has only such authority, and can exercise only those powers, which have been given it by both Houses. A purpose given or a power delegated to it by one House would be ineffective until the other House conferred the same. A power may, however, be explicitly conferred only on the committee of one House where it is already by practice possessed by the committee of the other House.7 By the same token, a mandatory instruction could be given to a joint committee only with the concurrence of both Houses.8 The two Houses may each agree to give a particular joint committee unusual powers, specific to its task, in the same way as either House may choose to do for one of its own committees. A particularly clear illustration of this, to achieve a specific purpose, was the establishment of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards in 2012.9 In order to address a current issue of major political importance, the joint committee was set up with a range of unusual features intended to give it additional political weight, to provide for expert contribution from both Houses (but with Commons leadership) and externally, and to provide increased procedural flexibility. The unusual provisions included: titling the committee as a ‘Commission’, providing for Commons procedure generally to apply and for the Lords to agree with Commons' appointment of the Chair, low quorums (as low as one for evidence-taking sub-committees), powers for the committee to examine witnesses on oath (a power already possessed by Commons committees but not by Lords committees unless formally delegated), powers to allow specialist advisers (including counsel) to examine witnesses, and simplified reporting mechanisms in some circumstances. Provision was also made, unusually, for the costs of the Commission to be reimbursed to the two Houses by the Government. Reports of, or evidence taken before, former committees10 and other papers11 may be referred by either House to a joint committee.12 A proposal for the appointment of a joint committee may originate in either House, except where the proposal is for the committal of a particular bill or bills to a joint committee, for which the proposal can originate only in the House in which the bill is pending. A bill may be committed to a joint committee on another bill,13 or to a joint committee considering other matters.14

Footnotes 1. For example, CJ (1997–98) 105, 128, LJ (1997–98) 156, 171, CJ (1998–99) 10, 250, LJ (1998–99) 15, 297 (Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege); CJ (2000–01) 587, 619, 660, 661, 669 (Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform); LJ (2005–06) 760, 847 etc, CJ (2005–06) 582, 612 etc (Joint Committee on Conventions); CJ (2010–12) 812–13, LJ (2010–12) 1359 (Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions); Votes and Proceedings, 16 July 2015, LJ (2015–16) 236 (Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster). 2. The most recent occasion on which a joint committee was set up to consider a specific bill pending in either House was for the Highways Bill [Lords] of Session 1958–59. See LJ (1958–59) 82, 97, 103, 105, 110, 113 and 120; CJ (1958–59) 77, 82, 88, 93, 96, 98 and 108. 3. Draft bills have commonly been considered in this way. For details, and other ways of considering draft legislation, see para 26.17. 4. For example, CJ (2010–12) 498, LJ (2010–12) 1152 (Joint Committee on the Draft Detention of Terrorist Suspects (Temporary Extension) Bills). 5. For example, the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards CJ (2012–13) 180–81 and LJ (2012–13) 233. 6. For more on permanent joint committees, see para 41.9 ff below. 7. As for instance power to agree with the committee of the other House in the appointment of a Chair, or to sit notwithstanding the adjournment of the House. 8. For example, CJ (1998–99) 284, LJ (1998–99) 352, 357 (Joint Committee on Financial Services and Markets instructed to report on questions relating to the European Convention on Human Rights). 9. CJ (2012–13) 180–81 and LJ (2012–13) 233. 10. LJ (1906) 117; CJ (1873) 178; ibid (1903) 232; Minutes of Evidence, CJ (1944–45) 20; ibid (1954–55) 47. 11. CJ (1872) 375; ibid (1883) 116; Memoranda, CJ (1962–63) 18; ibid (1969–70) 43. 12. In rare cases, petitions relating to the subject of inquiry have been referred to a joint committee: two petitions were referred to a joint committee considering the principle of a number of different private bills for railway construction, LJ (1864) 44, CJ (1864) 77; a joint committee was established specifically to consider a petition for a bill to give effect to the withdrawal of Western Australia from the Commonwealth of Australia, LJ (1934–35) 56, 94, CJ (1934–35) 103; the Commons ordered that if any petitions were deposited against a hybrid bill (Roosevelt Memorial Bill) they be referred to the joint committee on the bill, CJ (1945–46) 386. 13. CJ (1924–25) 209–10; ibid (1928) 67. 14. CJ (1924–25) 193, 203; ibid (1928) 62, 65. Where one House has proposed that a bill should be committed to a joint committee, the second House has made a counter-proposition that it should be committed to a joint committee already appointed to consider another bill or bills, see CJ (1894) 66, 77; ibid (1928–29), 182, 195; LJ (1928–29) 189, 202, 208.

Appointment 41.3When one House agrees a resolution that it would be expedient to establish a joint committee for a particular purpose, it communicates its decision to the other House in a message. If the other House concurs, it replies to that effect, further messages then being exchanged as necessary.1 It is now common practice2 for the first House to communicate its resolution on expediency to the second House and to invite the second House to concur; the second House then concurs, establishes its committee and nominates the membership; in response, the first House then establishes its committee and nominates its membership.3 Once the agreement to establish a joint committee has been reached, there is however no reason why the two Houses cannot proceed to appoint their committees separately without either waiting for a message from the other. The Lords have disagreed with the Commons in the establishment of a joint committee.4 The Commons have negatived a proposal to concur with the Lords in the appointment of a joint committee.5 Resolutions of the Lords proposing the establishment of a joint committee have also received no response from the Commons.6 Resolutions communicated by one House or the other, proposing that a certain bill, or that certain bills, should be committed to a joint committee, have been disagreed to by the second House,7 or no action has been taken on them.8 A reasoned amendment has been proposed in the Commons to a motion for taking into consideration a Lords message proposing the establishment of a joint committee.9 A resolution communicated by the Lords as to the expediency of appointing a joint committee has been concurred in by the Commons without further action being taken by either House.10 A message from one House proposing the appointment of a joint committee in one session has been responded to by the other House in a later session.11

Footnotes 1. See para 9.17 for a description of formal communications between the Houses. 2. LJ (2010–12) 1175 and CJ (2010–12) 732 (Joint Committee on the House of Lords Reform Bill); Votes and Proceedings, 5 November 2015 and LJ (2015–16) 431, 484 (Joint Committee on the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill); Votes and Proceedings, 16 July 2015 and LJ (2015–16) 175, 236 (Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster). In the case of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, the Commons made the initial proposal, and the nomination of the Commons Members was included in the initial motion, CJ (2012–13) 180 (paras (2) and (3)). 3. The names of the Members nominated are not included in the messages, reflecting the principle that the selection of members is entirely a matter for the House concerned. 4. LJ (1978–79) 199. 5. HC Deb (22 October 2015) 600, c 1240: proposed Joint Committee on Constitutional implications of English Votes for English Laws. 6. Votes and Proceedings, 18 April 2017: proposed Joint Committee on Terms and options for any votes in Parliament on the outcome of the negotiations on the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union. 7. LJ (1928–29) 161; ibid (1930–31) 260; CJ (1908) 79, 102; ibid (1928–29) 150, 168; ibid (1930–31) 285, 294. 8. For example, Town Improvements (Betterment) 1893; Declaration against Transubstantiation 1901; Professional Accountants Bill and Rights of Way Bill 1911. 9. CJ (1918) 165. See also Notices of Motions (1966–67) p 11977. 10. Motor Omnibuses and Trolley Vehicles Traffic, CJ (1914) 394, 403; Indian Affairs, CJ (1929–30) 117, 143; Publication of Proceedings in Parliament, CJ (1967–68) 361, 367. 11. LJ (1999–2000) 573, CJ (1999–2000) 500, 697; CJ (2000–01) 61, 70 (Joint Committee on Human Rights).

Nomination of Members 41.4Generally, each House appoints the same number of Members to a joint committee, but on occasions the membership has been unequal.1 The House responding to the initiative of the other House has appointed a larger committee than that appointed by the first House, and has asked the first House to increase the size of its committee in response.2 One House has added Members to its committee, and asked the other House to make a corresponding increase in its membership.3 Each House determines its own procedure for appointing Members to a joint committee and discharging them from it.4 The names of the Members nominated or discharged are not communicated to the other House. Where a Lords committee member ceased temporarily to be a Member of that House, a committee chose to appoint him as a specialist adviser to the committee until such time as the Lords might reappoint him to the committee.5

Footnotes 1. House of Lords Reform, when the Lords appointed a committee of 12 members and the Commons 11, CJ (1961–62) 209, 212; ibid (1962–63) 17, 18; Parliamentary Privilege, when the Commons appointed a committee of seven Members and the Lords six, LJ (1997–98) 221–22 and CJ (1997–98) 157; National Security Strategy of 2010, 2015 and 2017, where the Commons have appointed 12 members and the Lords 10: CJ (2009–10) 133, LJ (2009–10) 178; Votes and Proceedings, 30 November 2015, LJ (2015–16) 525–26; Votes and Proceedings, 30 October 2017, House of Lords Minutes of Proceedings, 6 November 2017. The proposal put forward by the Commons to appoint a joint committee entitled the Special Commission on Oil Sanctions provided for five Members of the Commons and a motion to appoint a committee of four Members of the Lords was negatived, CJ (1978–79) 138; LJ (1978–79) 199. 2. CJ (1893–94) 581, 593, 597; ibid (1908) 261, 280, 293; ibid (1918) 169, 179, 197; ibid (1922) 246, 265, 271; ibid (1928) 203, 208, 231. 3. For example, LJ (1964–65) 324, CJ (1964–65) 314. 4. Each House provided for the attendance and participation of the Law Officers in the proceedings of the 1997–98 Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, though without the right to vote, make motions or move amendments, or be counted in the quorum, and communicated the decision to the other House, HL Deb (1997–98) 582, c 313 and CJ (1997–98) 105, 128; LJ (1997–98) 156, 171. 5. Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, Formal Minutes, Session 2012–13, 28 January 2013 (the Bishop of Durham, a member of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, ceased to be a Member of the House of Lords on his election as Archbishop of Canterbury on 4 February; he was reappointed by the Lords to the committee on 26 February, LJ (2012–13) 797). In his appointment as a specialist adviser he was also given the power to question witnesses, which the Banking Commission uniquely was empowered to do.

Quorum of a joint committee 41.5A joint committee cannot transact business unless a quorum from each House is present.1 Unless otherwise specified in the order of appointment, the quorum of the Lords Members of a joint committee is three.2 The quorum of Commons Members is usually fixed either by standing order, in the case of those committees regularly appointed, or by order of the House in respect of other committees.3 Otherwise, Standing Order No 124 would apply, fixing the quorum at three or a quarter of the Commons membership, whichever was the greater. The quorum of the Joint Committee on Human Rights is two Members from each House.4 The quorum from each House may be unequal, and has been reduced by order of one or the other or both Houses.5

Footnotes 1. Proceedings of Joint Committees on the Law of Libel Amendment Bills, Session 1927, HC 125, p vii; the Suspension of Bills, Session 1928–29, HC 105, p xix; and the Publication of Proceedings in Parliament, Session 1969–70, HC 48, pp 14, 15. 2. For example, the Lords have appointed a committee of 12 Members and fixed the quorum at five, and a committee of three Members and fixed the quorum at two, LJ (1961–62) 215–16; ibid (1968–69) 39. 3. For example, SO Nos 151, 152B, 152C and 152I of the Commons; CJ (1892) 111, ibid (1898) 102; ibid (1969–70) 36; ibid (1979–80) 82. 4. A quorum of two Members from each House was also set for the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards (CJ (2012–13) 181 para (10), LJ (2012–13) 234 para (10); for that committee unusually a quorum of one was set for sub-committees (CJ (2012–13) 181 para (8), LJ (2012–13) 234 para (11)). 5. The quorum of the Commons Members of a joint committee has been reduced, CJ (1919) 303.

Time and place of meeting 41.6After a joint committee has been appointed, or (for a permanently-established committee) at the beginning of each Parliament, the first meeting is fixed by agreement among the Members.1 Subsequent meetings are fixed by the committee itself in the usual way.

Footnotes 1. For the former procedure of exchanging messages about the time and place of first meeting, see Erskine May (23rd edn, 2004), p 918. In the case of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, the Commons made provision for the Commission to meet ‘at any time after the Lords has agreed to appoint a committee’ (CJ (2012–13) 180 para (5)).

Procedure 41.7The Chair is elected from among the Members1 appointed to serve on the committee by either House. In accordance with the principle indicated above that an instruction may be given to a joint committee only with the concurrence of both Houses, Commons Standing Order No 122A providing for term limits for Chairs of Commons select committees does not apply. Generally, unless otherwise agreed, the procedure of a joint committee follows the procedure of select committees of the Lords, regardless of to which House the Chair belongs. For example, the practice of the House of Lords on the use of the Chair's vote, and the Lords method of deciding the question if the votes are equal (see paras 25.88, 40.27 ), are followed by a joint committee.2 However, in the case of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards3 and the Joint Committee on Tax Law Rewrite Bills, the Standing Order of the House of Commons and the order of reference of the House of Lords have provided for Commons procedure to be followed.4

Footnotes 1. It is the practice in the Lords to include in their order of reference a specific power to agree with the Commons committee on the appointment of a Chair – see for example Joint Committee on Palace of Westminster (LJ (2015–16) 236). In the case of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, a Chair was appointed directly by the Commons in its order of establishment, and the order in the Lords provided that ‘they concur with the Commons that the Chairman of the Commission be appointed by the House of Commons’, CJ (2012–13) 180, LJ (2012–13) 233. 2. Joint Committees on Channel Tunnel, Proceedings, Session 1883, HC 248, p xliv; on Railway Rates, etc, Provisional Order Bill, Proceedings, Session 1890–91, HC 394, p xxv; Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions, Session 2010–12, HC 1443, HL 273. 3. CJ (2012–13) 180 (para (6)), LJ (2012–13) 233 (para (4)). 4. SO No 152C(5) [HC]; for a fuller discussion of the procedures of this committee, see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 918.

Reports of joint committees 41.8A report from a joint committee is made to each House.1 However, when the consideration of a bill by a joint committee has been concluded, the bill itself is reported to the House into which it has been introduced.2 Both Houses order a report from a joint committee to be printed, and it is published with both a House of Lords and a House of Commons paper number.

Footnotes 1. By its Chair to the House to which they belong, and to the other House by a Member of that House. 2. Where no report on the bill is made, the committee directs one of the Members of the other House to report ‘accordingly’ to that House: London Passenger Transport Bill, HL 90 (1930–31) p xlix; Consolidation Bills, HC 38 (1934–35) p xiv (Unemployment Insurance Bill [Lords]).

Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c, Bills 41.9The Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c, Bills is appointed pursuant to a standing order of each House.1 There are 12 Members from each House. Consolidation bills bring together into one Act a number of existing pieces of legislation on the same subject. They are invariably introduced in the House of Lords. After second reading, the following classes of bills2 are referred3 without motion to the committee as set out in the standing orders:4 1. consolidation bills, whether public or private; 2. statute law revision bills; 3. bills prepared pursuant to the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949, together with any memoranda laid pursuant to that Act and any representations made with respect thereto; 4. bills to consolidate any enactments with amendments to give effect to recommendations made by one or both of the Law Commissions together with any report containing such recommendations; 5. bills prepared by one or both of the Law Commissions to promote the reform of the statute law by the repeal, in accordance with Law Commission recommendations, of certain enactments which (except insofar as their effect is preserved) are no longer of practical utility, whether or not they make other provision in connection with the repeal of those enactments, together with any Law Commission report on any such bill.5 The committee usually considers a bill in a single sitting in which it takes evidence from the drafter responsible for the bill and from any departmental or other witnesses. The bill is then reported to the House of Lords with or without amendment, and a report is made to each House on the bill. The proceedings before the committee are also reported.6 The bill is then re-committed to a Committee of the whole House. In the Commons, further proceedings are governed by Standing Order No 58 (see para 28.52 ). The function of the joint committee is to assure itself that all the provisions of a bill fall properly within one of the categories previously indicated, and to report accordingly to each House. It is not therefore concerned with the merits of the policies which are being consolidated or with changing existing law beyond the Law Commission recommendations. The Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949 allows minor amendments to be made in Acts to be consolidated, without departure from the consolidation procedure (see para 28.110 for a further description of the effects of the 1949 Act on proceedings in Parliament).7 Following the introduction of the Law Commissions Act 1965, s 3(1)(d), a comprehensive programme of consolidation and statute law revision was undertaken giving effect to Law Commission recommendations. In considering such recommendations, the Committee has expressed the view that amendments to the law in a consolidation bill: ‘should be for the following purposes: to tidy up errors of the past, to remove ambiguities, and generally to introduce common sense on points where the form of drafting in the past appeared to lead to a result which departed from common sense; though not to introduce any substantial change in the law or one that might be controversial—indeed, nothing that Parliament as a whole would wish to reserve for its consideration.’8 A further test was enunciated by the committee in 1983: that amendments arising from Law Commission recommendations should be necessary in order to produce a satisfactory consolidation.9

Footnotes 1. SO No 140 [HC], SO No 51 [HL]. A joint committee was first appointed in 1894 to consider consolidation bills. In 1893–94, only Statute Law Revision Bills were so referred, CJ (1893–94) 92, 111. See also Report of the Joint Committee on Statute Law Revision, Session 1892, HC 258; Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c, Bills, Sixth Report of Session 1966–67, HC 341-I, pp 12–29. 2. From October 1980 to 1998 the joint committee also considered Orders in Council subject to affirmative resolution which, but for the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1974, would have been enacted by a consolidation bill, whether public or private, or a statute law revision bill, CJ (1979–80) 821. The Northern Ireland Act 1974 was repealed by the Northern Ireland Act 1998, but the provision to make legislation for Northern Ireland by Order in Council when the devolved institutions are suspended was provided for in the Northern Ireland Act 2000; the 2000 Act has also been repealed, but the Commons standing order establishing the committee still makes provision for this. 3. Bills in the same form as bills which fell after being reported from the Joint Committee in the previous session have not been referred, LJ (1992–93) 58, CJ (1992–93) 54. 4. For reference on motion of other bills linked to the consolidation process, see para 28.110; for example, LJ (1987–88) 645; ibid (1989–90) 164; ibid (1996–97) 107. 5. In 1947, 1959 and 1973, the joint committee was empowered to consider ‘Bills for re-enacting, in the form in which they apply to Scotland, the provisions of an existing statute’, LJ (1946–47) 200; CJ (1958–59) 265, 267; LJ (1972–73) 383. 6. Where amendments are made by the committee, the bill is usually reprinted as amended. 7. The joint committee is precluded from approving any corrections or minor improvements under the 1949 Act if they effect changes in the existing law of such importance that they ought, in the opinion of the committee, to be separately enacted by Parliament (s 1(5)). Corrections and minor improvements are defined in the 1949 Act as those amendments the effect of which is confined to resolving ambiguities, removing doubts, bringing obsolete provisions into conformity with modern practice, removing unnecessary provisions or anomalies not of substantial importance, or facilitating improvement in the form or manner in which the law is stated. Necessarily,

consequential transitional provisions are included (s 2). 8. LJ (1976–77) 514. However, Law Commission recommendations may give rise to additional expenditure, and in such cases a privilege amendment in the Lords and a financial resolution in the Commons may be necessary: see Rent Bill 1977; Justices of the Peace Bill 1979; Town and Country Planning Bill 1990; Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Bill 1990; Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill 1997; Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Bill 1997. 9. Sixth Report of Session 1982–83, HL 155-I, HC 345-I (Medical Bill), pp 4–7; for an example of a provision considered to be beyond these criteria, see ibid pp 11–13; and for an example of a provision in a Statute Law Repeals Bill, see Third Report of Session 1992–93, HL 88-II, HC 669-II, pp 2–7. The committee has approved a procedure for dealing with amendments which do not fall within these guidelines but are desirable to achieve a satisfactory consolidation, which was set out in its First Report of Session 1981–82, HL 46-I, HC 103-I. Proposed amendments of this kind are to be examined by the committee together with Law Commission recommendations but the committee, instead of being asked to make the amendments, is to be invited to report to both Houses that the amendments change the law no more than is necessary to achieve a satisfactory consolidation. The amendments, supported by such a report, would then be moved on the floor of the House of Lords on re-commitment. The procedure has not been used to date.

Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments 41.10The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments conducts technical scrutiny of all general statutory instruments. The criteria used for this scrutiny are set out in standing orders.1 If the committee considers that any instrument requires the special attention of Parliament, it draws that instrument to the attention of each House. A detailed description of the committee's work is at para 31.32. Uniquely, the Commons Members appointed to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments sit separately from the Lords Members when considering statutory instruments, etc which are required by the Act under which they are made to be laid only before the House of Commons. When sitting separately, the Commons committee is known as the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments (see para 38.70 ).

Footnotes 1. Set out in SO No 151 [HC] and SO No 73 [HL].

Joint Committee on Human Rights 41.11The Joint Committee on Human Rights was first appointed in January 2001.1 The committee has a maximum of six members appointed by each House: the quorum is two members from each House.2 It has power to appoint specialist advisers and to adjourn from place to place.3 Its terms of reference are to consider: a. matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom (but excluding consideration of individual cases); and b. proposals for remedial orders, draft remedial orders and remedial orders made and laid under the Human Rights Act 1998, s 10 and sch 2; and in respect of draft remedial orders and remedial orders, whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to them on any of the grounds specified in Standing Order No 151 of the House of Commons and Standing Order No 73 of the House of Lords.4 Remedial orders, and the role of the Joint Committee on Human Rights in their consideration by Parliament, are described at paras 31.39–31.41. Under part (a) of its terms of reference, the committee assesses the extent to which bills raise human rights issues, and conducts detailed scrutiny of those it considers raise significant ones. It reports whether, in its opinion, any provisions of a bill are likely to raise questions of compatibility with ‘Convention rights’ within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998, s 1. It also considers questions of compatibility with international human rights instruments to which the United Kingdom is a signatory, and draws the attention of each House to any concerns it has in regular reports. On occasion, items of subordinate legislation which are primary legislation within the meaning of the 1998 Act (for example, commencement orders and statutory instruments that repeal primary legislation) are also considered by the committee. In undertaking this legislative scrutiny, the committee is assisted by permanent legal advisers. Within the broad terms of its orders of reference, the committee also undertakes inquiries similar to those of other select committees of either House on general matters of public policy. It has reported, for example, on the case for establishing a human rights commission in Great Britain, human rights and business, and the human rights implications of EU exit, as well as on the United Kingdom's compliance with judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and with international human rights obligations. In this respect, it is different from other joint committees established permanently, which have narrow terms of reference, or the ad hoc joint committees which report only on the specific matter referred to them by the two Houses.

Footnotes 1. See CJ (2000–01) 61, 70. 2. The original quorum for taking evidence was reduced in November 2001 to two from each House (HL Deb (2001–02) 628, cc 1135–36; HC Deb (2001–02) 374, cc 1021–30); the quorum was reduced to two from each House for all purposes in October 2003 (HC Deb (2002–03) 411, c 230; HL Deb (2002–03) 653, c 1725). 3. The committee was originally empowered only ‘to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom, and to institutions of the Council of Europe outside the United Kingdom no more than four times in any calendar year’. This was changed to a general power to adjourn from place to place in January 2002 (HL Deb (2001–02) 630, c 1575; HC Deb (2001–02) 377, c 515). 4. See SO No 152B [HC].

Joint Committee on Tax Law Rewrite Bills 41.12Commons Standing Order No 152C, providing for a Joint Committee accompanying a special procedure for tax simplification (later ‘tax law rewrite’) bills, was first made in 2001 and still subsists. However, the associated tax law rewrite project in Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs came to an end in 20101 and no committee has been appointed since then.2

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (4 February 2010) 505, c 500. 2. For further details, see Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), p 918.

Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy 41.13The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy was first appointed in 2010 by Commons Standing Order No 152I and an order of the House of Lords to consider the National Security Strategy; 12 Members and 10 Lords Members have been nominated to it.1 The quorum is three Members from each House. Commons membership by convention includes the Chairs of relevant House of Commons select committees (such as the Defence, Foreign Affairs and Home Affairs Committees) and of the statutory Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. The committee's terms of reference are to consider the National Security Strategy.2 The sensitive subject nature necessitated the granting of access to some Cabinet Office papers by the Prime Minister in 2013. The committee typically takes oral evidence from the Minister responsible for the implementation of the Strategic Defence and Security Review once a year, along with the National Security Adviser and other senior members of the National Security Secretariat. In 2014, it took evidence from the Prime Minister, who does not usually give evidence to select committees other than the Liaison Committee. Since 2016, the committee has also scrutinised cross-government expenditure and policy in the context of the National Security Strategy.3

Footnotes 1. CJ (2009–10) 133, LJ (2009–10) 113, 178; and see para 41.4, fn 1 above. 2. See SO No 152I [HC]. 3. See Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, Second Report of Session 2016–17, Conflict, Stability and Security Fund, HC 208, HL 105.

Joint committees which are not select committees 41.14There are also joint committees established by statute. Such committees are not parliamentary committees in the sense of being established by Parliament and with the normal powers of a select committee, albeit they may have a close link with the business of Parliament and are comprised exclusively of Members of either House. The Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament has nine members, drawn from the Members of both Houses. It was first established under s 10 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 to examine the policy, administration and expenditure of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Headquarters. The words ‘of Parliament’ were added to its title by the Justice and Security Act 20131 in order, according to the objectives of the Government at the time, to signify its relationship to Parliament, and to reflect the intention that it should act as similarly to a select committee as possible. The 2013 Act also developed its powers and remit.2 For the Ecclesiastical Committee, see para 31.48. Other committees, without the powers of select committees or of those powers conferred by statute, may be established informally: for example, a Consultative Panel on Parliamentary Security is appointed by the Speaker and the House of Lords Commission to support the Speaker and the Lord Speaker in the discharge of their responsibilities for the security of the Parliamentary Estate.

Footnotes 1. Justice and Security Act 2013, s 1(1). 2. Justice and Security Act 2013, ss 2–3.

Introduction, history and principles 42.1Private legislation is legislation of a special kind for conferring particular powers or benefits on any person or body of persons—including individuals, local authorities, companies, or corporations—in addition to or in conflict with the general law. As such, it is to be distinguished from public general legislation, which applies to the community at large, and is treated differently in Parliament. Private business in each House is governed by a separate set of standing orders, in addition to the standing orders relating to public business.1 The essential difference in procedure between a public bill and a private bill is that a public bill is either presented direct to one or other House or introduced on a motion by a Member of either House, while a private bill is sought by the parties who are interested in promoting it and is founded upon a petition which must be deposited in accordance with standing orders. Another significant difference is that the payment of fees by the promoters of a private bill is an indispensable condition of its progress (see para 43.18 ). Until the nineteenth century, most private bills were concerned with the affairs of individuals. In the absence of any ordinary procedure for divorce or naturalisation, many of them were bills for these purposes, and most of the others were concerned with the alteration of settlements and entails, which restricted the sale or inheritance of landed estates. From about 1750, however, a growing number of private bills were concerned with the construction of toll roads, canals, railways, reservoirs and other works, and with the local government of boroughs and other areas, such as vestries. More recently, the majority of private bills have been those promoted by local authorities and statutory undertakers for the better fulfilment of their functions by the conferring of powers which the ordinary law does not give them.2 The range of activities requiring private bills further narrowed during the course of the last century as an increasing number of functions came to be governed by public general Acts.3 The 1980s saw a resurgence of private legislation to authorise railway, underground and tramway schemes, as well as harbour installations and river barrages. As a consequence, a Joint Committee was established in January 1987 to examine the processes of enacting private legislation and to consider, in particular, whether there were matters effected by private bills which could be more appropriately dealt with in some other way. The Report of the Joint Committee,4 published in October 1988, recommended, in addition to a number of procedural changes, that construction projects of the kind described above should be implemented not by private legislation but through public local inquiries and ministerial orders. Its recommendation was carried into effect by the Transport and Works Act 1992 (c 42) (see para 42.17 for more detail about the Act). The result of the passing of that Act was that the number of petitions deposited for private bills declined markedly: indeed, no petitions were deposited in 2017 and 2018.5 The section of Erskine May which deals with private business was abbreviated in the 24th edition to reflect this trend. While the detailed body of precedent set out in previous editions (particularly in the 21st edn, 1989, pp 789–975) should not be regarded as superseded, the primary purpose of the chapters which follow is to describe current practice. Before agreeing to exemption from, or amendment of, the general law in particular local circumstances, Parliament has always required proof, first of the need for the exemption or amendment, and second of the fact that the need is, at any rate in part, that of the promoters of the bill.6 The interest of the promoters in the bill is a matter on which the Speaker may rule at the time when the order for second reading of the bill is read,7 and ‘proof of need’ is, as regards the detailed clauses of a private bill, normally assessed by committees of each House. In passing public general bills, Parliament acts strictly in its legislative capacity: it originates such measures of public policy as it considers appropriate, it conducts inquiries, when necessary, for its own information, and enacts laws in accordance with its own judgment. In passing private bills Parliament still exercises its legislative functions, but its proceedings are also of a judicial character. The persons who are applying for powers or benefits appear as petitioners for the bill, while those parties who fear that their interests may be adversely affected by its provisions have the opportunity to oppose it. Many of the formalities of a court of justice are maintained; various conditions are required to be observed and their observance to be strictly proved; and if the parties do not meet such requirements, the bill will not be permitted to make further progress. This union of the judicial and legislative functions is not confined to the forms of procedure, but is an important principle in the inquiries and decisions of Parliament on the merits of private bills. As a court, it inquires into and adjudicates on the interests of private parties; as a legislature, it is concerned to safeguard the interests of the public. The promoters of a bill may prove beyond a doubt that their own interests will be advanced by its success and no one may complain of injury or urge any specific objection, but if Parliament considers that it may be damaging to the community as a whole, it will reject the bill or impose conditions or restrictions which were not sought by the parties. The Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons and the Senior Deputy Speaker (formerly known as the Chairman of Committees) in the House of Lords are entrusted with the general supervision of private business (see paras 43.12, 45.14 ), while government departments are also required to scrutinise all private bills (see para 45.15 ). Although private bills are examined by officers of each House, contested by the parties before committees and are subject to notices, forms and intervals unusual in other bills, when they come before either House they are treated at each stage in a broadly similar way to public bills. They are read the same number of times and similar questions are put,8 except when any proceeding is especially required by the standing orders, and in general the same rules of debate and procedure in the House are maintained throughout. The Court of Chancery could, in theory, grant an injunction preventing persons from petitioning for or against private bills.9 The jurisdiction of the Court was frequently invoked in the nineteenth century, and was reaffirmed in 1942.10 However, the courts have expressed their great reluctance to interfere, and have emphasised that the strongest possible arguments must be adduced to obtain relief, and there appears to be no case on record where an injunction has been upheld. For instance, in British Railways Board v Pickin, the House of Lords (in its judicial capacity) ruled that the courts had no power to disregard an Act of Parliament, whether public or private, nor had they any power to examine proceedings in Parliament in order to determine whether the passing of an Act had been obtained by means of any irregularity or fraud (see para 16.10 ).11

Footnotes 1. House of Commons Private Business Standing Orders, HC 1573. These are distinguished from the public business standing orders by being referred to as SO XX, rather than SO No XX. 2. Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, a statutory undertaker means a person authorised by any enactment to carry on any railway, light railway, tramway, road transport, water transport, canal, inland navigation, dock, harbour, pier or lighthouse undertaking or any undertaking for the supply of hydraulic power and a relevant airport operator. 3. For example, the Naturalization Act; the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Acts; the Education Acts; the Municipal Corporation Acts; the Public Health Acts; the Local Government Acts for England and Wales and Scotland; the Water Act 1945; the Town and Country Planning Act 1947; the Trustee Investments Act 1961; the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976; and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. 4. HC 625, HL 97 (1987–88). 5. For the history of private bills since the passing of the Act, see Frank Cranmer ‘Private Business in the House of Commons: Managing the Challenges of Decline’ The Table (2002), pp 37–42. 6. See Report of the Joint Committee on the Promotion of Private Bills, HL 176, HC 262 (1959). 7. See para 45.5. 8. For the difference in practice on consideration of public and private bills and on consideration of Lords amendments, see paras 45.26 –45.30, 45.36. 9. Heathcote v North Staffordshire Rly Co (1850) 42 ER 39; Stevens v South Devon Rly (1851) 51 ER 18; Lancaster and Carlisle Rly v London and North Western Rly (1856) 69 ER 792; London, Chatham and Dover Railway Arrangement Act, Re, ex p Hartridge and Allender (1869) 5 Ch App 671. 10. Bilston Corpn v Wolverhampton Corpn [1942] 2 All ER 447. Its validity has, however, been questioned; see Holdsworth History of English Law, xi, p 361, cf also 59 (1943) Law Quarterly Review 2, 71 (1955) ibid 336; and Hanbury and Martin Modern Equity (16th edn), p 831. 11. [1974] 1 All ER 609. But see Fairfold Properties Ltd. v Exmouth Docks Co (1990) TLR 661, where the court held that an order to the promoter of a private bill to withdraw it did not constitute an interference with the proceedings of Parliament (see para 16.10, fn 5).

Classification of bills as public, private or hybrid Contents Bills brought in by the Government for local purposes, etc Bills relating to London Bills relating to other localities, etc Bills promoted by a county council or metropolitan district council jointly with, or on behalf of, district councils Bills relating to the administration of justice in particular areas Bills concerning property owned by religious communities, colleges, etc Repeal of public Acts by private bills Certain subjects considered unsuitable for private legislation Private bills objected to on the ground that they should have been public bills Public bills introduced in place of private bills withdrawn 42.2Considerable difficulties often arise in determining whether a bill is public, private or hybrid (see para 30.57 ).1 One preliminary point should be made. The petition on which a private bill is founded is a petition to the House of Commons, or in a few cases to the House of Lords; but the bill itself is in the form of a petition to the Crown. In practice, no private bill is ever introduced by the Government. The Crown cannot petition itself; and a bill introduced by a government department for the direct or indirect benefit of that department is assumed to be founded on State policy and accordingly is more properly introduced as a public bill, despite the fact that in all other respects it may display all the characteristic features of a private bill. But where the petition does not originate with the Crown, a bill exclusively related to the interests of the Crown may be proceeded with as a private bill.2 In general there are three principles which have been followed in determining that a private bill should not be allowed to proceed as such, but should be introduced as a public bill. These are as follows: 1. the magnitude of the area and the multiplicity of the interests involved;3 2. that the bill proposes to amend or repeal public Acts. In these cases, the nature and degree of the proposed repeal or amendment have to be considered4 (see para 42.9 ); 3. that public policy is affected.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1938–39) 343, c 954 and cc 1091–92; ibid (1958–59) 600, c 787; ibid (1959–60) 617, c 199; ibid (1978–79) 961, c 1211; ibid (1979–80) 977, c 1100; ibid (1983–84) 53, c 120; ibid (1985–86) 90, c 1075. 2. The Land at Palace Avenue, Kensington (Acquisition of Freehold) Act 2002 (which set aside the inhibition under the Crown Lands Act 1702 preventing the Secretary of State from transferring a freehold interest in the land in question) was introduced as a private bill by the party wishing to acquire the freehold, rather than as a public bill. 3. HC Deb (1938–39) 343, cc 950–54; ibid (1979–80) 977, c 1100. 4. Parl Deb (1895) 30, c 708; ibid 38, c 335.

Bills brought in by the Government for local purposes, etc 42.3A bill brought in by the Government (dealing with Crown property, or with national and other works in different localities, etc) that affects private interests is introduced as a public bill. It is subsequently treated as a hybrid bill.1 A hybrid bill has been defined by the Speaker as ‘a public bill which affects a particular private interest in a manner different from the private interest of other persons of the same category or class’.2 No bill introduced by the Government and proceeded with as a hybrid bill can be cited as a precedent to show that a subsequent bill is of such a character that it ought to be treated as a public and not as a private bill.

Footnotes 1. For example, Festival of Britain (Supplementary Provisions) Bill 1948–49; Park Lane Improvement Bill 1957–58, Covent Garden Market Bill 1960–61; British Museum Bill 1962–63; Maplin Development Bill 1972–73; Channel Tunnel Bills 1973–74, 1974, 1974–75, and 1985–86, 1986–87, 1987–88; Chevening Estate Bill 1986–87; Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Bill 1986–87, 1987–88; Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill 1987–88; Severn Bridges Bill 1990–91, 1991–92; Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill 1991–92, 1992–93; Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill 1994–95, 1995–96, 1996–97; Crossrail Bill 2005–07; High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill 2014–17; and High Speed Rail (West Midlands – Crewe) Bill 2017–19. This did not apply to nationalised industries, which frequently promoted private bills. 2. HC Deb (1962–63) 660, c 45.

Bills relating to London 42.4Owing to the large area, the vast population, and the variety of interests concerned, bills which affect the entire metropolis used, as a rule, to be regarded as measures of public policy rather than of local interest, and were usually introduced and proceeded with throughout as public bills or were dealt with as hybrid bills. Bills relating to the Metropolitan Police and to metropolitan magistrates' courts have always been public bills1 and where any of the principles outlined above are involved the rule that bills affecting the metropolis should be introduced as public bills still applies.2 In recent years, however, bills relating to detailed local government and allied matters in London have mostly been promoted as private bills by the former Greater London Council or, now, by the Greater London Authority,3 the City of Westminster on behalf of the other London Boroughs,4 and statutory authorities such as the Port of London Authority, and the former London Development Agency.5 Similarly, provisions relating to London transport have been contained in private bills promoted by Transport for London6 and its predecessors. Thames Conservancy Bills and other bills relating to that river are usually private bills, as was the Thames Barrier and Flood Prevention Bill 1971–72.7 The Port of London Bill 1903 was introduced by the Government and proceeded with as a hybrid bill, but, after being suspended, was withdrawn in the next session. The Port of London Bill 1908, a government bill which constituted the Port of London Authority, was also proceeded with as a hybrid bill, but bills promoted since then by the Authority have regularly been passed as private bills. The Port of London (Financial Assistance) Bill 1980 was introduced by the Government and passed as a public bill.8 Bills concerning only the City of London have generally been private bills promoted by the Corporation itself.9

Footnotes 1. Metropolitan Police Bills 1829 to 1934–35, etc; Metropolitan Police Courts Bills 1839, 1840; Metropolitan Police Act 1839 (Amendment) Bill 1958; Metropolitan Police Borrowing Powers Bill 1952; Metropolitan Magistrates' Court Bill 1959. 2. Public Health (London) Bill 1890; Public Health (London) Bill 1935; London Government Bills 1939 and 1962; and see Mr Speaker's ruling that the Registration of Clubs (London) Bill 1959 should not proceed as a private bill, HC Deb (1959–60) 617, cc 199–200. 3. Pursuant to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c 29), s 77. 4. Local Government Act 1985, s 87; eg London Local Authorities Acts 1990 onwards. 5. Regional Development Agencies Act 1998, s 26A; eg London Development Agency Act 2003 (c i). Standing Order 25A governs notification to each House of whether the consent provisions relating bills promoted by the Greater London Authority, Transport for London, the London Development Agency and any London Borough Council are applicable and whether they have been complied with. 6. Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c 29), s 167; eg Transport for London Act 2016. 7. The Thames Conservancy Bills of 1857, 1894, 1905, 1911, 1921, 1924, 1931–32, and 1958–59 were private bills. 8. HC Deb (1979–80) 982, cc 1214–16. 9. City of London (Various Powers) Bills 1900, 1911, 1912–13, etc, to 2010–13; City of London (Guild Churches) Bill 1951–52; City of London (Approved Premises for Marriage) Bill 1995–96; City of London (Ward Elections) Bill 1998–2002; City of London Corporation (Open Spaces) Bill 2015–17.

Bills relating to other localities, etc 42.5A bill relating to a city or a county other than London is normally held to be a private bill, although some such bills have been treated as public bills on the grounds that they were measures of public policy.1 A bill not affecting public policy may proceed as a private bill although it may apply to many localities, provided that the authorities concerned in the promotion of the bill have a joint interest in obtaining powers exercisable severally by each of them.2 Where, however, the joint interest amounts to nothing more than a common desire to obtain the same additional powers by authorities each of which could properly ask separately for such powers, it is doubtful whether the bill may properly proceed as a private bill.3 For example, the Home Counties (Music and Dancing) (Licensing) Bill 1926, which concerned the counties of Buckinghamshire, Essex, Hertfordshire and Kent and the county boroughs of Croydon, East Ham and West Ham, was a public bill. On the other hand, the Bournemouth Borough Council, Canterbury City Council, Leeds City Council, Manchester City Council, Nottingham City Council, Reading Borough Council Bills 2007–13, which had almost identical provisions relating to street trading, were proceeded with separately as private bills, though they were debated together for certain stages. In 1959 the Speaker ruled that the National Association of Almshouses (Investment) Bill could not proceed as a private bill, and it was withdrawn.4 For similar reasons, doubts were expressed by the Chairmen in both Houses, in special reports, and by the Lords committee on the Bill, about the propriety of allowing the South-Eastern Gas Corporation Limited (Associated Companies) Bill 1939 to proceed as a private bill. It was subjected to certain conditions which were subsequently incorporated in standing orders designed to ensure that the consents of companies not themselves promoting a bill had been obtained (see para 45.3 ).

Footnotes 1. For example the bills relating to the administration of justice referred to at para 42.7, fn 1 and the bills relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors referred to at para 42.10, fn 2; Caldey Island Bill 1990. 2. For example the London Electric Supply Bill 1908 and the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Bill 1938. 3. See Reports of the Joint Committee on the Promotion of Private Bills, HL 176, HC 262 (1958–59); of the Committee on the British Transport Commission Bill 1959 (Reports on Private Bills 1959, p 59) and of the Chairman of Ways and Means on the Kent County Council Bill 1958 (Reports on Private Bills 1958, p 157). 4. CJ (1958–59) 113.

Bills promoted by a county council or metropolitan district council jointly with, or on behalf of, district councils 42.6A bill to confer powers on a county council and on district councils within the county may be promoted jointly by the county council and those district councils and may proceed as a private bill, since the promoting authorities share a joint interest in the good government of the county.1 In some cases a bill of this kind has been promoted by a county council jointly with some district councils within the county and on behalf of other such district councils.2 Such a bill may also be promoted by the county council alone, and may proceed as a private bill, notwithstanding the general rule that a petitioner for a private bill may petition Parliament only on their own behalf. In such cases the district councils for whose benefit provisions are included in the bill are required by Standing Order 136A (HC) and Standing Order 124A (HL) to advertise those provisions locally and to pass a resolution in favour of their inclusion in the county council's bill.3 Similarly, the Local Government Act 1985 (c 51), s 87 allows one metropolitan district council to promote a bill on behalf of other district councils within the county. The Local Government Act 1972 (c 70), s 70 prohibits local authorities from promoting bills to form or abolish any local government area or to alter the status of any such area.4

Footnotes 1. See Report of the Joint Committee on the Promotion of Private Bills, HL 176, HC 262 (1958–59). 2. Greater Manchester Bill [Lords] 1978–81; Merseyside Local Authorities (Prohibition of Smoking in Places of Work) Bill [Lords] 2006. 3. In 1961 the operation of certain clauses in the Devon County Council Bill was excluded from those districts in the county which had not passed resolutions in favour of them. 4. A bill for such a purpose, if introduced as a public bill, is referred to the Examiners (West Midlands County Council (Abolition) Bill, CJ (1981–82) 263).

Bills relating to the administration of justice in particular areas 42.7Bills relating to the administration of justice and various public jurisdictions have often been treated as public or hybrid bills,1 but they have also been promoted as private bills.2

Footnotes 1. For example, Mayor's and City of London Court Bill [Lords] 1920, and Chatham and Sheerness Stipendiary Magistrate Bill 1928–29. In 1959 objection was taken to the Criminal Justice Administration (Amendment) Bill, a public bill, on the ground that being purely local in character it should have been brought in as a private bill, but the objection was overruled (HC Deb (1958–59) 600, cc 1497–1500). 2. Pontypridd Stipendiary Magistrates Bill 1920; Lancashire Quarter Sessions Bill 1960–61.

Bills concerning property owned by religious communities, colleges, etc 42.8Bills concerning detailed matters related to the property or powers of religious communities, colleges, etc, have usually been private.1 Such bills have been promoted principally so as to avoid possible disputes about the use of trust funds. Church bills of wider application have been public bills. For example, in 1905 a public bill—the Churches (Scotland) Bill—was introduced by the Government primarily to provide for the allocation of properties between the Free Church and the United Free Church. It was a measure of general interest and of general application, but as it affected the property of individuals it was referred to the Examiners. They held, however, that the standing orders relating to private bills were not applicable to it, and it proceeded, and was passed, as a public bill.

Footnotes 1. For example, Methodist Church Bill 1938–39; City of London (Guild Churches) Bill 1951–52; Calvinistic Methodist or Presbyterian Church of Wales (Amendment) Bill 1958–59; and United Reformed Church Bills 1971–72, 1980–81 and 1999–2000. Such bills have been promoted principally so as avoid possible disputes about the use of trust funds in the light of the judgment in General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland v Lord Overtoun [1904] AC 515, HL. For a discussion of the issues involved, see Frank Cranmer ‘Christian Doctrine and Judicial Review: The Free Church Case Revisited’ 6 (2002) Ecc LJ 318–31.

Repeal of public Acts by private bills 42.9It has been argued that public Acts may not properly be repealed or amended by a private bill, citing in support of this view the inconvenience of their repeal or amendment by an Act which, being passed as a private bill and being of a local character, is not printed among the public general Acts. No rule, however, has been established which precludes the promoters of a private bill from seeking the repeal or amendment of public Acts. A private bill either seeks an exception, in some degree, from the general law, or some powers which the general law does not afford; the fact that it provides for a repeal or an amendment of public Acts is far from always being a fatal objection to its being introduced as a private bill.1

Footnotes 1. In 1894, two consolidation bills, the London Streets and Buildings Bill 1894 and the Thames Conservancy Bill 1894, were both passed as private bills, although in each case various public Acts were repealed. The Liverpool Corporation Act 1921, Pt XIV (a private consolidation Act) repealed and re-enacted the provisions of the Liverpool Court of Passage Acts 1893 and 1896 (public general Acts). For a more recent example of a private Act the sole provision of which amended a recent public Act, see the London Development Agency Act 2003.

Certain subjects considered unsuitable for private legislation 42.10A private bill has sometimes been rejected, although properly introduced as such, because the House has decided on the merits of the bill in question that the subject matter was unsuitable for private legislation.1 For example, bills relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sunday in particular counties have been introduced and treated as public bills,2 as have bills relating solely to the sale of liquor at airports.3 There have also been cases where a committee on a private bill has reported that the subject matter was unsuitable for private legislation.4 In July 1960, the Select Committee on the Esso Petroleum Company Bill (which later received Royal Assent) recommended that no further private bills for the construction of pipelines should be passed by the House. In the following session the Trunk Pipelines Bill was introduced on petition and the Chairman of Ways and Means reported on it under Standing Order 85, drawing attention to the Select Committee's recommendation. The bill was withdrawn after debate on second reading.5

Footnotes 1. For example, Liverpool Licensing Bill 1865, Parl Deb (1865) 177, c 655, CJ (1865) 92; Keble College Bill 1888, CJ (1888) 165–6; Parl Deb (1888) 324, c 1687 ff. See also HC Deb (1959–60) 617, c 199, where similar objections were given as one reason for the Registration of Clubs (London) Bill not being allowed to proceed as a private bill. 2. Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Cornwall) Bills 1882 and 1883; Durham, Yorkshire, Isle of Wight, Northumberland Bills 1883, etc. 3. For example, Licensing (Airports) Bill 1953, CJ (1953–54) 24. 4. In 1959 the Committee on the St Neots Urban District Council (Commons) Bill reported that, pending public legislation and having regard to the recent report of the Royal Commission on Crown Land, private bills seeking to alienate common lands should not be introduced; it therefore found the preamble not proved, Reports of Committees on Private Bills (1958–59) p 19. The Chairman of Ways and Means subsequently reported under Standing Order 85 (Power of Chairman of Ways and Means to report special circumstances, etc to the House) on the Plymouth Corporation (Harrowbeer Aerodrome) Bill [Lords] in 1961 and the City of London (Various Powers) Bill in 1962 that some of the provisions of the bills impinged on the Royal Commission's report, CJ (1960–61) 87; ibid (1961–62) 137. 5. CJ (1960–61) 87, 208; HC Deb (1960–61) 639, cc 699–746.

Private bills objected to on the ground that they should have been public bills Contents Private bills withdrawn or not proceeded with Bills concerning public funds Private bills allowed to proceed 42.11Private bills have frequently been objected to on the ground that they should have been brought in as public bills. Many of these objections have been sustained by the Speaker and the bills have been withdrawn, or not proceeded with, but other bills have been allowed to proceed. Conversely, there have been no recent instances of public bills being successfully objected to on the ground that they should have been brought in upon petition.1

Footnotes 1. For a case where such an objection was overruled, see HC Deb (1958–59) 600, cc 1497–1500.

Private bills withdrawn or not proceeded with 42.12The London Rating (Site Values) Bill, which was presented in 1939, proposed to levy a rate which was ultimately to be met by the landlord, notwithstanding any existing or future contract to the contrary. It was objected that the Bill ought to have been introduced as a public bill. The Speaker, after referring to the precedent of the London Valuation and Assessment Bill 1895, ruled that since the bill raised questions of public policy of great importance and affected interests of vast magnitude, it ought to have been introduced as a public bill, and could not proceed as a private bill.1 In 1959, on the second reading of the National Association of Almshouses (Investment) Bill, the Speaker called the attention of the House to the provisions of the bill, which in his opinion raised such questions of public policy and were of such general application that the Bill should not be allowed to proceed, and in 1960 on the second reading of the Registration of Clubs (London) Bill, the Speaker drew attention to these considerations and also to the fact that the bill proposed to amend and repeal provisions in public Acts recently passed. Both bills were accordingly withdrawn.2 In 1980, on the second reading of the Portsmouth City Council Bill, which proposed to prohibit the export of live animals through Portsmouth, the Speaker ruled that since the Bill affected ports other than Portsmouth and raised the question of public policy with regard to the export of live animals, it could proceed only as a public bill. The bill was accordingly withdrawn.3 In 1984, the Speaker declined to propose the question on the second reading of the Piece Hall, Halifax Bill because the provisions of the bill conflicted with the general law on Sunday trading.4 Similarly, in 1986, the Speaker refused to allow the Lloyd's Bank (Merger) (Amendment) Bill to proceed because its terms were in conflict with recent industrial relations legislation.5

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

HC Deb (1938–39) 343, cc 952 and 1091; CJ (1938–39) 78. CJ (1958–59) 113; HC Deb (1958–59) 600, cc 787–88; CJ (1959–60) 102; HC Deb (1959–60) 617, cc 199–200. CJ (1979–80) 343; HC Deb (1979–80) 977, c 1100. CJ (1983–84) 323; HC Deb (1983–84) 53, c 120. CJ (1985–86) 148; HC Deb (1985–86) 90, c 1075.

Bills concerning public funds 42.13A bill the sole object of which was the creation of a charge on public funds has not been allowed to proceed as a private bill. In 1979, on the second reading of the Aberfan Disaster Fund Bill, the Speaker drew attention to the fact that the sole object of the bill was the creation of a charge on public funds, and ruled that such a bill could proceed only as a public bill. The Bill was accordingly withdrawn.1 A bill concerning a government guarantee, even though it amended a private Act, has been a public bill.2

Footnotes 1. CJ (1978–79) 128; HC Deb (1978–79) 961, c 1211. 2. Red Sea and India Telegraph Bill 1861, CJ (1861) 36, etc; Denison 78. See also Western Highlands and Islands (Transport Services) Act 1928; Cunard (Insurance) Agreement Act 1930; North Atlantic Shipping Act 1961; and Port of London (Financial Assistance) Act 1980, for examples of public Acts entailing government support for private undertakings.

Private bills allowed to proceed 42.14In 1919, objection was taken on its second reading to the British and Continental Bank Bill [Lords] proceeding as a private bill, on the ground that it appropriated the London assets of a Russian bank for the benefit of creditors through the London branch to the detriment of creditors through its Russian headquarters and branches, and in this way raised issues affecting international relations. The Speaker ruled that the bill affected private interests and was properly introduced as a private bill although the bearing of its proposals on public interests could be discussed.1 In 1990, it was contended that the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill ought to have been introduced as a public bill as it formed part of government policy for privatisation of the ports. It was ruled that it could properly be proceeded with as a private bill, since it concerned the regulation of an authority which had been established by private Act.2

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1919) 122, c 1281. See also the London County Council (Co-ordination of Passenger Traffic) Bill 1929, HC Deb (1928–29) 225, cc 1032–52. 2. HC Deb (1989–90) 169, c 732. See also ibid (1993–94) 239, cc 625–26, where the Speaker ruled that the inclusion of a particular clause giving wide powers to the Secretary of State was not a sufficient reason to prohibit a private bill from proceeding as such.

Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice 16.27The applicant, a hereditary baron in the peerage of the United Kingdom, sought to challenge a decision of the Crown Office not to issue him a writ of summons to the House of Lords upon succeeding to the peerage, claiming his right on the grounds that the letters patent creating his peerage entitled him to ‘A Seat, Place and Voice in Parliament's Public Assembly and Councils'. The Crown Office withheld the writ on the basis that the House of Lords Act 1999 had altered the rights of hereditary peers to sit in the House, and that if the applicant wished to dispute the decision the proper means to do so was through the Lords Committee for Privileges. The applicant declined to do so and sought declarations from the High Court that the courts have jurisdiction to determine the matter and that he was entitled to demand a writ be issued. Citing Chaytor, the High Court held on the issue of jurisdiction that matters relating to the membership of either House were within the area of Parliament's exclusive cognizance and the court should not interfere except where legislation provided to the contrary. Apart from special cases (such as an Election Court), it was a matter for Parliament whether a person was entitled to sit and vote in either House.1

Footnotes 1. Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice [2011] EWHC 1589 (Ch), [2012] Ch 325, [2012] 2 WLR 192.

Alternatives to proceeding by private bill Contents Orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992 and Planning Act 2008 Special procedure orders Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act Private legislation affecting ‘Scotland and elsewhere’ 42.16Several Acts of Parliament have provided alternatives to proceeding by private bill; and parties may make use of the provisions of these Acts for a variety of purposes instead of having to apply for special powers by means of a private bill. They are described briefly below, though some of them are very rarely used.

Orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992 and Planning Act 2008 42.17Schemes in England and Wales for the construction, operation and use of railways, tramways, trolley vehicle and other guided transport systems, together with inland waterways and works interfering with navigation, are no longer authorised by private legislation in Parliament. Under the Transport and Works Act 1992, the promoter of such a project must apply to the Secretary of State for the making of an order which, if objections are received, then becomes the subject of a public hearing or local inquiry. As noted earlier, the passing of the Act resulted in a marked reduction in the number of petitions deposited for private bills. Under the 1992 Act, only schemes adjudged by the Secretary of State to be of national significance needed to be approved by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament.1 The process for approving such projects was further reformed by the Planning Act 2008. Under the Act, the Government produces national policy statements to guide decision-making on nationally-significant infrastructure projects. These are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and approval by resolution of the House of Commons. The Planning Inspectorate examines applications and makes a recommendation to the relevant Secretary of State, who makes a decision on whether to grant or to refuse a development consent order.

Footnotes 1. For procedure under the Act, see the Transport and Works (Applications and Objections Procedure) (England and Wales) Rules 2006 (SI 2006/1466). There have been two instances of parliamentary consideration: Central Railways Order (HC Deb (1995–96) 282, cc 408–31) and Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Stratford Station and Subsidiary Works) Order (HC Deb (1997–98) 295, cc 1299–1320; HL Deb (1997–98) 580, cc 1540–55).

Special procedure orders 42.18The provisional order system introduced in the latter half of the nineteenth century (and which is now virtually redundant)1 was gradually superseded by a system of special procedure orders under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Acts 1945 and 1965. The scope of these Acts has in turn been eroded by subsequent legislation, and special procedure orders are now usually required only in cases where certain protected categories of land are subject to compulsory acquisition. After a special procedure order is laid by a Minister before Parliament, along with a certificate stating that various preliminary proceedings have been complied with,2 objectors have 21 days to deposit petitions against the order or in favour of amendments. The Chairman of Ways and Means and the Senior Deputy Speaker in the House of Lords determine any questions on the right of petitioners to be heard before reporting to both Houses whether any petitions remain against the order.3 Within 21 days of their report, any Member of either House may move that the order be annulled or that petitions against the order be not referred to a joint committee. If the order is annulled there can be no further proceedings upon it, although a fresh order may later be introduced. If no further petitions remain against, or seeking amendments to, the order, it comes into force.4 Otherwise the remaining petitions are referred to a joint committee, where it is for the petitioners to prove the facts of their case. The committee may approve the order, with or without amendments, or decline to approve it.5 If the order is reported from the committee without amendment, or with amendments which are accepted by the Minister, it comes into force. Even if, however, the order is reported with amendments which are not accepted, or the order is not approved by the committee, a Minister may nevertheless introduce a public bill to confirm the order. Such bills, after presentation in both Houses, proceed directly to report stage and then to third reading: although bills introduced to confirm orders which have not been approved by a joint committee, and where a petition for amendment has not been dealt with, are committed after second reading to the original joint committee for consideration of the petition, and after being reported from the committee are considered on report and read the third time and in the second House proceed directly from presentation to report stage.6

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

See Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), pp 953–56. No bills to confirm provisional orders have been introduced since 1980. Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), p 952. Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), pp 969, 961. Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), pp 956–60. Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), pp 960–62. Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), pp 962–63.

Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 42.19The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1899 provided a new and compulsory procedure for obtaining parliamentary powers in regard to almost every matter affecting public or private interests in Scotland for which they were entitled to apply by means of a private bill. The special machinery, which thus virtually took the place of procedure by private bill, centres on the powers conferred by the Act upon the Secretary for Scotland (now Secretary of State for Scotland) of issuing orders which are subsequently confirmed by Parliament in a bill. The Act of 1899 and an amending Act of 1933 were consolidated by the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936. However, the Scotland Act 1998 has changed the situation by giving the Scottish Parliament a specific power to enact private bills.1 As a result, it seems likely that the procedure under the 1936 Act will be used rarely in the future. No bill has been presented since 2000, although a draft provisional order was deposited in 2007. Details of the procedure are set out in Erskine May (22nd edn, 1997), Chapter 41.

Footnotes 1. Scotland Act 1998, s 36(3)(c).

Private legislation affecting ‘Scotland and elsewhere’ 42.20Under s 1(4) of the 1936 Act, promoters may make a representation to the Secretary of State that they: ‘desire to obtain parliamentary powers to be operative in Scotland and elsewhere, and that it is expedient that such powers should be conferred by one enactment by reason of the fact that it is necessary to provide for the uniform regulation of the affairs of an undertaking or institution carried on or operating in Scotland and elsewhere.’ The Secretary of State and the Chairmen then consider the representation and, if of the opinion that the powers (or some of them) would more properly be obtained by promoting a private bill than by duplicate English and Scottish private legislation procedures, they cause their decision to be published in the London and Edinburgh Gazettes, and they report it to Parliament. Standing orders ensure that the representation under s 1(4) is submitted to the Secretary of State in good time before the deposit of the bill.1 This provision is unaffected by the Transport and Works Act 1992.

Footnotes 1. Standing Order 231 (HC), Standing Order 193 (HL). For cases when this provision has been set aside as to time, see CJ (1968–69) 33; ibid (1971–72) 101. In the case of the United Reformed Church Bill 1980, no such representation having been submitted before the deposit of the Bill, the promoters subsequently made their representation in respect of a petition for additional provision.

Deposit of petitions for bills 43.1For every private bill—in whichever House it is eventually presented—a petition, signed by the parties (or some of them) who are promoters for the bill, must be deposited in the Private Bill Office of the House of Commons on or before 27 November, with a printed copy of the proposed bill annexed. A printed copy of every such bill must also be deposited, on or before the same date, in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments, House of Lords.1 Attached to each bill must be a memorandum describing the bill generally and the effect of its clauses. Standing Order 39 provides for bills to be deposited by 4 December in certain government departments.2 For circumstances in which the deposit of a petition for a late bill may be authorised, see para 43.14.

Footnotes 1. Standing Orders 2, 2A (HC); Standing Orders 2 and 38 (HL). Under Standing Order 194A (HC) every petition for a private bill, together with the copy of the proposed bill annexed thereto, is open to inspection by all parties. This requirement is normally met by the publication of petitions and bills on the Parliament website. 2. To avoid frequent amendments to the standing orders when government departments are reorganised, the departments concerned are specified in a separate list maintained under powers granted in Standing Order 1A of each House, made in 2005.

Standing Orders (private business) 43.2Standing Orders 4–59 of both Houses set out the requirements which are to be complied with by the promoters of private bills before a bill is presented. They include: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Notices by advertisement. Notices to owners, lessees, and occupiers. Documents required to be deposited and the times and places of deposit.1 Plans,2 books of reference, sections, and cross-sections.

Compliance with these standing orders, so far as applicable, must be proved in respect of every private bill, except a personal bill. The requirements of the two Houses relating to notices and deposit of documents, plans, etc are now practically identical. In addition to the standing orders already referred to , there are others (Standing Orders 60–68 of both Houses) with which compliance is proved after the bills have been presented to Parliament (see para 45.3 ). Compliance with the standing orders must be proved before the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills. Two Examiners are appointed by the House of Lords and the Speaker, each of whom may sit separately and may act on behalf of either House. Since 2010, it has been the practice to appoint two additional Examiners (Counsel in each House).3 The Examiners conduct, for both Houses, the preliminary investigations required for all petitions for private bills deposited before Parliament, and adjudicate upon all facts relating to the compliance or non-compliance with the standing orders. Where they find that standing orders have not been complied with, the Standing Orders Committee in each House determines, upon the facts as reported by the Examiners, whether these orders should be dispensed with (see paras 43.9 –43.10, 46.6 ).

Footnotes 1. As to the custody, and as to facilities for the inspection of, documents directed to be locally deposited under the standing orders, cf the Local Government Act 1972 (c 70) (ss 225, 228) and Standing Orders 27 and 27A. 2. The Allhallows Staining Church Bill [Lords] 2009–10 referred to a plan which was deposited, though not required by standing order. A revised plan was deposited after the committee stage in the Lords. 3. Local Government Bill [Lords] (CJ (2010–12) 33; LJ (2010–12) 75).

Personal bills 43.3The standing orders of the two Houses relating to personal bills take account of the practice that such bills originate in the House of Lords (see para 46.41 ). Under Standing Order 3 (HL), when an application is made for leave to bring in a bill relating to ‘the estate, property, status or style, or otherwise relating to the personal affairs, of an individual’, the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons and the Senior Deputy Speaker in the House of Lords may, on an application being made, certify that the proposed bill conforms to this description and that the standing orders relating to notices, dates of deposit, etc should not apply to it.1 If they make such a certification, the subsequent proceedings in the House of Lords are governed by the provisions of the relevant standing orders of that House (see para 46.41 ). When the bill has been passed by the Lords, it is sent to the House of Commons and, in accordance with Standing Order 74 (HC), read the first time in that House and referred to the Examiners. If the Chairman of Ways and Means reports to the House that the bill as brought from the Lords falls within the above definition and that the standing orders relating to notices, dates of deposit, etc, should not apply to it, the order referring the bill to the Examiners is discharged and the bill is ordered to be read a second time. Subject to some special provisions in the standing orders (see paras 43.18, 44.3, 45.10 ), the bill then proceeds as an ordinary private bill.2 Although Parliament dealt with a large number of personal bills in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the number has decreased significantly in modern times. The last such bills received Royal Assent in 1987.

Footnotes 1. For private bills which have not been treated as name, estate, or personal bills, but on which it was reported that no standing orders were applicable, see Ascot Authority Bill [Lords], LJ (1913) 154; Rhodes Estate Bill [Lords], LJ (1916) 137; CJ (1916) 114. 2. In the case of the Valerie Mary Hill and Alan Monk (Marriage Enabling) Bill [Lords] (1984–85), the Speaker directed that the requirement to print the Bill for its progress through the Commons should be dispensed with.

Compatibility with European Convention on Human Rights 43.4Since 2001, the explanatory memorandum with each bill must include a statement of opinion, by or on behalf of the promoters, as to the bill's compatibility with the rights under the European Convention on Human Rights defined in the Human Rights Act 1998. The Government is obliged to produce a report under Standing Orders 169A (HC) and 98A (HL) on the statement. When depositing the bill at the Privy Counsel Office, agents are required to include any background material in support of the human rights statement that they believe may assist Government in preparing the report. This report is required to be deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than the second sitting day after the bill's first reading in the relevant House.1 Agents must also deliver the bill and supporting material to the Commons Clerk of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to assist the committee's consideration of the bill.2

Footnotes 1. For example, Private Business (2016–17) 26 January 2017. 2. For an occasion where the Joint Committee has required further material from the promoters, see HL 34/HC 303 (2003–04) ch 6.

General list of petitions 43.5When all the petitions for private bills have been deposited in the Private Bill Office of the House of Commons, ‘The General List of Petitions for Private Bills' is prepared. The petitions are numbered, and arrangements are made for them to be heard by the Examiners, the convenience of the parties being the primary consideration in arranging the order in which they are heard.

Memorials complaining of non-compliance 43.6Once the time has expired for depositing documents and complying with other preliminary conditions, it is possible for interested parties to judge whether the standing orders of the two Houses have been complied with. If it appears to them that the promoters have neglected to comply with any of these orders, parties may prepare memorials, addressed to the Examiners, complaining of such non-compliance. Memorials in respect of petitions for bills which have been deposited on or before 27 November have to be deposited in the Private Bill Office of the House of Commons on or before 17 December, with two copies of each memorial for the use of the Examiners (Standing Order 75 (HC)). Under Standing Order 107A (HC), where the Examiners report that standing orders have not been complied with, only those parties who have deposited memorials may appear before the Standing Orders Committee to argue that the standing orders concerned should not be dispensed with. For bills deposited after 27 November, Standing Order 75 (HC) also prescribes that memorials are to be deposited not later than the fourth day before the day appointed for the examination of the petition or, if the House is not sitting on that day, on or before the next day on which the House sits. Standing Order 78 (HL) prescribes that such memorials shall be deposited before noon on the day preceding that appointed for the examination. Standing Order 75 (HC) and Standing Order 78 (HL) also deal with memorials in respect of petitions for additional provision. The Commons' order also includes bills referred to the Examiners after second reading, bills brought from the Lords or bills presented by leave of the House in lieu of others withdrawn; while the Lords' order includes bills referred to the Examiners after first or second reading or by direction of the Chairman of Committees. All these memorials are to be deposited before noon on the day preceding that appointed for the examination. Under Standing Order 75 (HC) and Standing Order 76 (HL), the Examiners are at liberty to entertain the memorial, although it is not signed by the party specially affected by the alleged non-compliance with the standing orders. Memorials complaining of non-compliance are prepared in the same form, and are subject to the same general rules as petitions to the two Houses (see paras 24.3 –24.7 ). Standing Order 76A (HC) and Standing Order 79 (HL) provide that a memorialist may withdraw their memorial if they deposit a requisition, signed by themselves or by the agent who deposited the memorial, in the Private Bill Office of the House of Commons or the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments, as the case may be. Where a memorial has been signed by more than one person, any person who has signed may withdraw from the memorial by signing and depositing a similar requisition.

Sittings of the Examiners 43.7The public sittings of the Examiners begin on 18 December, unless that day falls on a Saturday or Sunday, in which case they begin on the Monday following (Standing Orders 71 (HC) and 70 (HL)). The Examiners in each House sit separately and usually deal with half the total number of petitions each. The Examiner is required by Standing Order 72 (HC) and Standing Order 71 (HL) to give at least seven clear days' notice of the day appointed for the examination of each petition, principally by publication in the Private Business Notice Paper. If the promoters do not appear at the time when their petition is to be heard, the Examiner is required to strike the petition off the General List of Petitions. The petition cannot afterwards be reinserted on the list, except by order of the House; and if the promoters desire to proceed with the bill, they must deposit a petition, praying that the petition for the bill may be reinserted, and explaining the circumstances in which it was struck off. This petition will stand referred to the Standing Orders Committee, which will determine whether or not the promoters have forfeited the right to proceed, and will report to the House accordingly.1 When the case is called, the agent for the bill appears before the Examiner with a ‘statement of proofs', showing all the requirements of the standing orders applicable to the bill which have been complied with, and the name of every witness, opposite each proof, who is to prove the matters stated in it. Each witness is examined by the agent, who produces all affidavits and other necessary proofs. In addition to the proofs comprised in the statement, the Examiner may require such other explanations as they may think fit, to be satisfied that all the orders of the House have been complied with. Under the standing orders of both Houses, the Examiner may admit affidavits in proof of compliance with the standing orders or may require further evidence. In an unopposed case the Examiner can at once give a decision whether the standing orders have or have not been complied with and make their report accordingly. If any memorials have been deposited, the usual practice is for the Examiner to adjourn consideration of the case and to appoint a future day on which the parties can be heard either in person or through their agents before both Examiners sitting together. Neither promoters nor memorialists may be represented by counsel.2 Any parties are entitled to be heard upon a memorial, addressed to the Examiner, complaining of non-compliance with the standing orders, provided that the matter complained of is specifically stated in the memorial, that the party (if any) or their agent who may be specially affected by the non-compliance with the standing orders has signed the memorial and has not withdrawn their signature, and that the memorial has been duly deposited. In the case of certain bills which are referred to the Examiners under the ‘Wharncliffe’ Standing Orders of both Houses (para 45.3 ), any proprietor or member of any company, society, association, or partnership, who have themselves, or by any person authorised to act for them in that behalf, dissented at any meeting called in pursuance of these standing orders, is entitled to appear and be heard by the Examiner upon a memorial addressed to the Examiner complaining of non-compliance with the ‘Wharncliffe’ Standing Orders. Members have no right of audience before the Examiners.3 Allegations in a memorial are to be confined to breaches of the standing orders and may not raise questions about the merits of the bill. A memorial may argue, for example, that an estimate is informal, and not such an estimate as is required by the standing orders: but the inadequacy of the amount of the estimate is a question of merits, over which the Examiner has no jurisdiction.

Footnotes 1. CJ (1874) 73. 2. SO 74A, 75 (HC); 76 (HL). 3. HC Deb (2000–01) 387, c 38.

Decisions of the Examiners 43.8The decisions of the Examiners upon petitions for private bills are reported to both Houses. Where the standing orders have not been complied with, the Examiner must also report to the Standing Orders Committee the facts upon which their decision is founded and any special circumstances connected with the case. Recent reports have indicated which standing orders have not been complied with.1 Under standing orders of both Houses, if the Examiner feels doubts as to the true construction of any standing order in its application to a particular case, they can make a special report of the facts, without deciding whether the standing order has or has not been complied with (Standing Order 79 (HC), Standing Order 81 (HL)). This report is referred to the Standing Orders Committee in each House.2

Footnotes 1. For example, Votes and Proceedings, 8 January 2014 and 12 September 2017. 2. Great Grimsby Street Tramways Bill, CJ (1900) 64–5, 95, LJ (1900) 36, 70; Durham County Water Board Bill [Lords], CJ (1933–34) 49; Sunderland Corporation Bill (petition for additional provision), CJ (1934–35) 160, 173, LJ (1934–35) 142, 169; City of London (Tithes) Bill, CJ (1946–47) 56, 116, LJ (1946–47) 50, 106; British Transport Docks (Felixstowe) Bill, CJ (1975–76) 195, 217–18, LJ (1975–76) 221, 241; Avon Light Rail Transit (Bristol City Centre) Bill, CJ (1989–90) 543, LJ (1989–90) 549.

Standing Orders Committee (House of Commons) 43.9The composition of the Standing Orders Committee is prescribed by Standing Order 103 (HC). It consists of the Chairman of Ways and Means, who is ex officio Chair of the committee, the Deputy Chairmen, and eight members nominated by the Selection Committee at the beginning of every Parliament. The quorum of the committee is three, and the committee has the assistance of the Counsel to the Speaker. All the reports of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills in which they report that the standing orders have not been complied with are referred to the Standing Orders Committee, irrespective of whether the bills to which the reports relate are to originate in the Lords or in the Commons. The committee has to determine and to report to the House, in each case, whether the standing orders not complied with ought or ought not to be dispensed with, and whether, in its opinion, the parties should be permitted to proceed with their bill, or any portion of it, and upon what terms and conditions (if any). When the Examiner has found that the standing orders have not been complied with in the case of a petition for a bill, and the Standing Orders Committee of the House in which the bill originates has reported that they should be dispensed with, the Standing Orders Committee of the second House does not defer its decision until the bill reaches its House, but at once considers and pronounces upon the Examiner's report also. By adopting this course it removes the possibility of a promoter proceeding with their bill through the first House and then finding its subsequent progress barred because the Standing Orders Committee in the second House takes a different view from that taken in the first House. In practice, the view taken by both committees in these cases has, as a rule, been the same.1 Where the Examiner has made a special report under Standing Order 79 as to the construction of a standing order, the committee has to determine, according to its construction of the order and on the facts stated in the report, whether the standing orders have or have not been complied with. It reports to the House either that the standing orders have been complied with or, if not complied with, proceeds to consider whether the standing orders ought to be dispensed with and reports to the House accordingly.2

Footnotes 1. For cases in which there were differences in the reports made, see Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Traction, Petition for Bill, CJ (1946–47) 127, LJ (1946–47) 144; Great Northern London Cemetery (Crematorium), Petition for Bill, CJ (1952–53) 96, LJ (1952–53) 58; St John d'el Rey Mining Company, Petition for Bill, CJ (1959–60) 166, LJ (1959–60) 170; Clerical, Medical and General Life Assurance Society, Petition for Bill, CJ (1959–60) 185, LJ (1959–60) 192; Great Yarmouth Borough Council Bill [Lords] (petition for additional provision), CJ (1980–81) 333, LJ (1980–81) 452. 2. CJ (1934–35) 160, 173; ibid (1946–47) 56, 116; ibid (1975–76) 195, 217; ibid (1989–90) 637.

Proceedings of the Standing Orders Committee 43.10According to the usual practice of the committee, written statements are prepared by the agent for the bill, and in opposed cases by the agent for the bill on the one side, and on the other by the agents for memorialists who have been heard by the Examiner. The statements are circulated by the agents to members of the committee and copies are deposited in the Chairman of Ways and Means' office in advance of the meeting. The committee, if it thinks fit, hears the agents or parties before deciding whether the standing orders ought or ought not to be dispensed with, and whether the parties should be permitted to proceed with their bill, and upon what terms and conditions (if any). The parties are called in and acquainted with the decision of the Committee, which is afterwards reported to the House. Under Standing Order 107A the committee is authorised, if it thinks fit, to hear only certain parties. If the Committee is considering an Examiner's report or special report referred to it under Standing Order 104 (see above), it may hear the promoters of the bill and any memorialist who has appeared before the Examiner. If the committee is considering a petition praying that any of the standing orders be dispensed with (see para 44.3 ) or that a petition for a private bill be reinserted in the General List (see para 43.7 ) it may hear the petitioner and any parties who have presented petitions in opposition to the petition. Standing Order 107A allows parties to be heard by themselves or to be represented by their agent, but the resolutions of the committee normally limit the number of speakers to one from each party in support of their statements, if the committee thinks fit.1 In some inquiries of a special character which have been referred to the committee, however, it has also examined witnesses before it has agreed to its report.2 In 1986, in the case of a hybrid bill with regard to which the Examiners had reported a non-compliance, certain parties opposing the bill who had not appeared before the Examiners were allowed to appear before the Standing Orders Committee, their petition against dispensing with the standing orders having been specially referred to the committee by the House.3 In its report to the House the Standing Orders Committee does not give reasons for its decision; but it is guided by certain principles and general rules. The report of the Examiner is conclusive as to the facts, and it is the duty of the committee to consider equitably, with reference to public interests and private rights, whether the bill should be permitted to proceed. Broadly speaking, the committee takes into account three questions: first, whether it is in the public interest, apart from that of the promoters, that the standing orders should be dispensed with; second, whether the promoters have been negligent; and, third, to what extent parties other than the promoters will be adversely affected. The committee will take a general view of the whole of the circumstances, and report either that the standing orders ought not to be dispensed with, or that they ought to be dispensed with and parties be permitted (subject to any conditions) to proceed with their bill. If the Standing Orders Committee reports that the standing orders ought to be dispensed with, the House, by agreeing with the committee's resolution, gives the parties leave to proceed. Where any conditions are specified in the committee's report, the necessary compliance with them is required to be proved, in ordinary cases, before the committee on the bill,4 or, in some special cases, before the Examiners,5 or partly before the committee and partly before the Examiners.6 It is the practice of the House for its agreement to reports that the standing orders ought to be dispensed with to be given formally, without the need for a motion to be made.7 If the Standing Orders Committee reports that the standing orders ought not to be dispensed with, its decision is generally acquiesced to by the promoters, and is fatal to the bill. But in order to leave the question still open for consideration, the House agrees to those resolutions only which are favourable to the progress of bills, and passes no opinion upon the unfavourable reports, which are instead ordered to lie upon the Table.8 In 1986, the Standing Orders Committee declined to make a recommendation on whether the standing orders should be dispensed with, on the grounds that the matter ought to be decided by the House; and the House subsequently agreed to a dispensation.9 The Standing Orders Committee has on occasion made a special report to the House. In 1959, a special report in respect of the Humber Bridge Bill was made by the committee recommending that Standing Order 146, in so far as it related to the height of fences, should be re-examined.10 In the same session, the committee made a special report about a letter which had come to its attention in connection with its consideration of the British Transport Commission Bill.11 In 1976 the Examiners made a special report stating that they felt doubts as to the due construction of certain standing orders in relation to the British Transport Docks (Felixstowe) Bill and to a memorial complaining of non-compliance. In view of the complexity and unusual nature of the problems raised by the Examiners the committee embodied its conclusions in a special report.12

Footnotes 1. The minutes of speeches delivered before the Standing Orders Committee have been reported to the House and ordered to be printed, CJ (1985–86) 371. 2. Edinburgh and Perth Railway Bill, CJ (1847) 226, 293; Edinburgh and Northern Railway Bill, ibid (1849) 37, 48, 70; Great Central Railway (Grimsby Fish Dock) Bill, ibid (1912–13) 134, 155, 162. 3. CJ (1985–86) 345 (Channel Tunnel Bill); cf ibid (1900) 320 (Military Manoeuvres Bill). 4. CJ (1854) 78; ibid (1904) 38, ibid (1945–46) 169; ibid (1980–81) 333. 5. CJ (1849) 70 (as to deposit of amended notices); ibid (1849) 81, 84 (of estimate, etc); ibid (1886) 205 (of amended plans). 6. British Tramways (Extensions) Bill, CJ (1904) 99, 105. 7. Speaker's ruling, HC Deb (1988–89) 148, cc 509–10; for example, Votes and Proceedings, 20 November 2017. 8. Cardiff Bay Barrage (No 2) Bill, CJ (1990–91) 570. 9. CJ (1985–86) 371, 386–87. 10. CJ (1958–59) 205. 11. CJ (1958–59) 208. 12. CJ (1975–76) 195, 217–18.

Selection Committee (House of Commons) 43.11In 2017, the House passed an order appointing a Selection Committee for the duration of the Parliament, giving it the powers of the Committee of Selection in respect of private business.1 The committee consists of nine Members, with a quorum of three. On 21 June 2010 the Committee of Selection was nominated for one session only, but it is usually nominated for the duration of a Parliament. Although originally established as a private business committee, the most significant responsibilities of the Committee of Selection for many years have related to public business: in particular the nomination of members of certain select committees for decision by the House,2 and the nomination of the members of general committees.3 The duties of the Committee in relation to private business are laid down in Standing Orders 103, 109–118, 124, 131, 217, 228, 229 and 243 (HC). The committee is responsible for nominating and filling vacancies on: a. b. c. d. e. f.

The panel from which committees on unopposed private bills are selected. Committees on opposed private bills. The Standing Orders Committee. The parliamentary panel of Members to act as Commissioners under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936. Members to serve on joint committees on Scottish provisional order bills. Members to serve on joint committees on petitions against special procedure orders.

If so ordered by the House, the committee also nominates members of select committees on private and hybrid bills and Members to serve on joint committees on private bills and to fill any vacancy occurring among such members. These functions were all transferred to the Selection Committee. In the exercise of its various duties, the committee is empowered by Standing Order 118 to send for persons, papers and records. Further details of the committee's activities are described at para 39.3.

Footnotes 1. Votes and Proceedings, 12 September 2017. 2. SO No 121. 3. SO Nos 86, 92, 102, 109, 117 and 119.

Supervision of private bills 43.12Under Standing Order 82 of the House of Commons, it is the duty of the Chairman of Ways and Means, with the assistance of the Counsel to the Speaker, to examine all private bills whether opposed or unopposed, and to call the attention of the House, and also of the Chair of the committee on every opposed private bill, to all points which may appear to them to require it (see also paras 45.1, 45.14 ). To facilitate this examination, copies of every bill as originally deposited are required to be laid before the Chairman and the Speaker's Counsel not later than the day after the Examiner has examined the petition for the bill. Copies of every bill, and of amendments made or proposed to be made in it, are also required under Standing Orders 84 and 86–88 to be laid before them, at various later stages in its progress through the House of Commons. The Chairman's duties and powers under these and other Standing Orders, eg 85, 181, 182, are outlined below when these stages are described. The Chairman or a Deputy also moves the stages of private bills in the House, though this does not commit them to any particular view about the bill. The Chairman's duties in respect of a private bill in which they have an interest have been discharged by the Deputy Chairmen.1 As described below (see para 46.2 ), the Senior Deputy Speaker in the Lords, with the assistance of their Counsel, exercises a general power of supervision over private legislation similar to that of the Chairman of Ways and Means in the Commons.

Footnotes 1. HC Deb (1980–81) 995, c 767; CJ (1980–81) 43.

Division of bills between the two Houses before presentation 43.13On or before 8 January in each year, the Chairman of Ways and Means or the Counsel to the Speaker holds a conference with the Senior Deputy Speaker of the House of Lords or their Counsel to determine in which House the respective private bills shall be first considered. Since this power has been delegated to them or their Counsel, their decision as to the House in which a bill originates is final.1 The examination of all private bills begins in practice at an earlier date, as soon as the bills have been deposited in November; and, for convenience, the division of the bills between the two Houses is usually decided each year before Christmas. The private bills proposed to be introduced are divided as equally as possible between the two Houses with a view to general convenience.2 Where a bill has been rejected previously in one House, a subsequent bill with similar objects normally originates in that House. It has been the practice for personal bills and consolidation bills to originate in the Lords.

Footnotes 1. Speaker's ruling, Parl Deb (1900) 78, c 695. 2. In Sessions 2000–01, 2008–09 and 2009–10, when in each case two private bills were presented, both began in the House of Lords because of the number of previous bills pending in the House of Commons.

Departures from usual procedure on private bills 43.14The standing orders which regulate the deposit of private bills have already been described (see paras 43.1 –43.2 ). Certain departures from these rules are, however, authorised in some instances, notably to allow proceedings on bills to continue in subsequent sessions (see para 45.37 ). If parties who have not deposited a petition for the bill before 27 November desire to promote a private bill during the current session, they may apply to the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons and the Senior Deputy Speaker in the House of Lords for leave to deposit a petition for a bill. The application must explain both the circumstances in which the parties have been prevented from complying with the orders of the House as to the deposit of the petition for the bill at the proper time and the desirability in the public interest of the provisions,1 and indicate the reasons of urgency which make it undesirable for them to delay the deposit of a petition until the following session.2 If they approve the application,3 the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Senior Deputy Speaker authorise the promoters to deposit the petition for the bill, and indicate the House in which the bill will originate. Thereafter, the petition for the bill is formally endorsed by the Chairman of Ways and Means or Senior Deputy Speaker4 and duly deposited in the Private Bill Office of the House of Commons or the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments as the case may be. The bill then proceeds in the usual manner. The endorsement of the Chairman of Ways and Means or Senior Deputy Speaker does not, however, excuse the petitioners from the results of their failure to comply with the requirements of the standing orders governing the time for depositing petitions for bills; nor does it in any way prejudge the case before the Examiner or the Standing Orders Committee. The Chairman of Ways and Means and the Senior Deputy Speaker in the House of Lords have indicated their reluctance to endorse a petition for a bill which contained provisions additional to those of an urgent nature. Such petitions should accordingly be confined to matters of urgency and should not be made the occasion for the introduction of a ‘general purposes’ bill.5

Footnotes 1. In 1955, the Chairman refused the application of the Huddersfield Corporation for a late bill on the ground that the provisions sought had already been rejected by a committee on another private bill. 2. In 1947, the National Union of Journalists was refused permission for a late bill on the ground of lack of urgency. A similar decision was taken in the case of the proposed University of Buckingham Bill in 1987. See also Cumberland County Council and Middlesex County Council applications, fn 5 below. 3. Supplementary information is sometimes called for, eg the application for a late bill by the Falmouth Docks and Engineering Company in 1958. 4. Standing Order 2A (HC); Standing Order 97 (HL). 5. For example, in the Cumberland County Council (Water, etc) Bill 1947 (which subsequently became the North Cumberland Water Board Act 1947) ‘general purposes’ provisions, not of an urgent nature, were not allowed to proceed. In 1949, also, leave was granted in respect of only one of several provisions for which application was made by Middlesex County Council to introduce a late bill.

Petition for additional provision 43.15If, after the presentation of a private bill in the first House, any additional provision is desired to be made in the bill in respect of matters to which the standing orders are applicable, a petition for that purpose, with a printed copy of the proposed provisions annexed, may be deposited in the Private Bill Office of the House of Commons or the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments. Under Standing Order 166A (HC) and Standing Order 73 (HL) respectively, the deposit of a petition for additional provision is conditional upon the approval by the Chairman of Ways and Means or the Senior Deputy Speaker of an application, similar to that made for a late bill (see above), for leave to deposit the petition. No petition which relates to a bill brought from the first House may be received. Under Standing Order 73 (HC) and Standing Order 73 (HL) the petition is referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, who are required to give at least two clear days' notice of the day on which it will be examined. After hearing the parties, in the same manner as in the case of an original petition for a bill, the Examiner reports to the House whether or not the standing orders have been complied with; and if the Standing Orders Committee reports that those standing orders with which the Examiner reports a non-compliance should be dispensed with, the promoters have leave, upon the resolution of that committee being agreed to by the House, to introduce their additional provision, if the committee on the bill thinks fit1 or subject to any stated conditions.2 The procedure for withdrawing a petition for additional provision depends upon the stage which that petition has reached. In the Commons, if the petition has been endorsed, but has not yet been examined by the Examiner, the promoters may withdraw the petition by informing the Private Bill Office of their intention not to proceed. If the Examiner's report has been referred to the Standing Orders Committee, and the promoters inform the Committee of their intention not to proceed with their petition, the Committee has reported the fact to the House.3 If at a later stage the promoters no longer wish to proceed with the provisions contained in the petition, they inform the committee on the bill accordingly.

Footnotes 1. CJ (1987–88) 203; ibid (1992–93) 629, 704; ibid (1993–94) 385, 515; ibid (2001–02) 633; ibid (2005–06) 466. 2. CJ (1934–35) 173. 3. CJ (1955–56) 32.

Withdrawal of bills in Commons 43.16In the House of Commons, when a bill has been presented and read the first time and any order as to its further stages has been made, if the promoters do not wish to proceed, that order is discharged by the House and a further order to withdraw the bill is made.1 If the promoters decide not to proceed further with a petition for a bill after the Examiner has reported non-compliance with the standing orders and the report has been referred to the Standing Orders Committee, an order is made by the House discharging the reference to the Committee and withdrawing the petition for the bill.2 In another case, the promoters informed the Standing Orders Committee that they did not intend to proceed with their bill, and the Committee reported the fact to the House.3 Where no such reference has been made, the promoters inform the Private Bill Office of their intention not to proceed, and a notice to that effect appears in the Private Business Notice Paper.4 If the bill has originated in the Lords, no order is made by the House for its withdrawal, but the order for the second reading or other stage is discharged;5 and a notice may also appear in the Private Business Notice Paper that the bill will not be further proceeded with.6 For withdrawal of bills in the House of Lords, see para 46.40.

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

CJ (1988–89) 495; ibid (1990–91) 226, 404; ibid (1992–93) 559; ibid (1993–94) 491; ibid (1999–2000) 592. CJ (1928–29) 122. CJ (1905) 38. Private Business (1991–92) 192; ibid (1994–95) 277; (1995–96) 115; (1997–98) 51, 53; (1999–2000) 357; (2004–05) 9; (2007–08) 209, 213. 5. Barmouth Urban District Council Bill [Lords], CJ (1938–39) 327; Mountbatten Estate Bill [Lords], ibid (1948–49) 291. 6. Private Business (1994–95) 277.

Parliamentary agents 43.17Parliamentary agents are responsible for the promotion of private bills and may also be engaged in the conduct of proceedings upon petitions against such bills. They are normally members of existing firms of parliamentary agents, and must apply to the Speaker for inclusion in the permanent register (known as Roll A) of parliamentary agents. The Speaker must first be satisfied that they are persons with practical knowledge of the standing orders and procedure of the House of Commons regulating private business. An individual petitioner against a private bill may choose to conduct their case in person, or engage a parliamentary agent or other representative to act on their behalf. Societies or groups of persons must authorise a parliamentary agent or a representative to act on their behalf in opposition to a specific bill. Until 2017, the representatives of petitioners who were not Roll A parliamentary agents were required to attend the Private Bill Office to sign a sessional register of parliamentary agents entitled to practise in opposing bills only (known as Roll B). Their registration ceased to be valid at the close of the session in which it was effected and, unless they were solicitors or had previously been registered as Roll A parliamentary agents, their application had to be accompanied by a certificate of respectability from a Member of Parliament, justice of the peace, barrister or solicitor. All of the requirements relating to Roll B agency, including the maintenance of the register, were abolished following the publication of revised Speaker's Rules in December 2017. Various duties and responsibilities are imposed by the orders of both Houses upon parliamentary agents and the representatives of petitioners who are not parliamentary agents; and in both Houses rules have been laid down to be observed by the officers of the House, and ‘by all parliamentary agents and solicitors engaged in prosecuting proceedings in the House upon any petition or bill’. The rules currently in force were reissued in 2017.1 In 1949, the Speaker drew the attention of the House to the fact that certain persons who did not possess the necessary qualifications were representing themselves as parliamentary agents. He referred to the rules on the subject, and stated that any person contravening them was liable to be dealt with by the House as guilty of a contempt.2 Besides these regulations, there are certain disqualifications for parliamentary agency. Members may not be agents, though they can deposit petitions on behalf of parties (see para 44.1 ). Members of staff in either House are not allowed to transact private business before the House for their emolument or advantage, either directly or indirectly.3 The name and place of business of the parliamentary agent promoting a bill are entered in the registers in the Private Bill Office, which are open to public inspection and available online. The conduct of a bill may not be transferred from one agent to another during the course of its progress through the House without the approval of the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Footnotes 1. They are also printed with the Private Business Standing Orders, HC 1573 (2017–19). 2. HC Deb (1948–49) 464, c 1665. 3. HC 648 (1833) p 9; HC 606 (1835) pp 17, 19. See also F Clifford History of Private Bill Legislation (1887) Vol II, p 878; Report of Joint Committee on Parliamentary Agency, HC 360 (1876); and D L Rydz The Parliamentary Agents—a History (1979), pp 69–79.

Fees payable on private bills 43.18The fees which are chargeable in either House upon the various stages of private bills and are payable by the several parties promoting or opposing such bills, are specified in the Table of Fees annexed to the private business standing orders of both Houses. It is declared by the Commons in the Table of Fees that the ‘fees shall be charged, paid and received at such times, in such manner and under such regulations as the Speaker shall from time to time direct’. In 1999, each House set the fees for first and third readings at £4,000.1 One-twentieth of the prescribed fees may be charged for proceedings in the two Houses on personal bills, and one quarter for bills relating to charitable, religious, educational, literary or scientific purposes from which no private profit or advantage is derived. Applications for such concessions in the House of Commons are submitted to the Speaker.2 A single fee of £20 is payable on submission of each petition against a private bill. For fees chargeable on hybrid bills, see para 30.67. The Speaker and the Senior Deputy Speaker have power to prohibit, either absolutely or temporarily, an agent who defaults in the payment of the fees of the House, from practising in that capacity.3 Petitioners in person who have defaulted may be prevented from petitioning on a matter of private business on a future occasion until outstanding fees are paid.4

Footnotes 1. CJ (1999–2000) 528. In the case of Special Procedure Orders, a fee of £2,000 is payable by an applicant (other than a Minister) before a joint committee on an order. 2. Fees were remitted in the case of the Red Cross and Order of St John Bill [Lords] in 1918, and for the Richmond Burgage Pastures Bill in 2016. In 1604, counsel was assigned to a party, in a private bill, in forma pauperis, he ‘being a very poor man’, CJ (1547–1628) 241. 3. See Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), p 834, Rules 21 and 22. 4. Speaker's private ruling, 7 December 1977.

Assessment and certification (‘taxation’) of costs 43.19In connection with the passing of private bills, the Parliamentary Costs Act 2006 (replacing previous legislation) provides for the assessment and certification (‘taxation’) of the costs incurred by the promoters, opponents, and other parties. In each House there is a taxing officer, having all the necessary powers of examining the parties and witnesses on oath, and of calling for the production of books or writings in the hands of either party to the taxation. The Parliamentary Costs Act 2006 allows the taxing officers in each House to prepare a list defining the charges which parliamentary agents, solicitors and others will be allowed to charge for the various services usually rendered by them. Such a list was last prepared in 1996. Any person upon whom a demand is made by a parliamentary agent or solicitor for any costs incurred in respect of any proceedings in the House, or in complying with its standing orders, may apply to the taxing officer for the taxation of such costs. Any parliamentary agent or solicitor who may be aggrieved by the non-payment of their costs may apply, in the same manner, to have their costs taxed, preparatory to the enforcement of their claim. The client, however, is required by the Act to make this application within six months after the delivery of the bill. But the Speaker in the Commons, or the Clerk of the Parliaments in the Lords, on receiving a report of special circumstances from the taxing officer, may direct costs to be taxed after six months have expired. The taxing officer of either House is empowered to tax the whole of a bill brought before them for taxation, whether the costs relate to the proceedings of that House only, or to the proceedings of both Houses; and also other general costs incurred in reference to the private bill or petition. Each taxing officer may request the other, or the proper officer of any court, to assist them in taxing any portion of a bill of costs. The proper officers of the courts may, in the same manner, request the assistance of the taxing officer of either House in the taxation of parliamentary costs; such costs when taxed and settled are returned by the taxing officer, with their opinion on them, to the officer who made the request.1 When costs have been awarded by a committee on a private bill to one party against another and the losing party has objected to items in the bill of costs presented to it, the taxing officer has heard both parties before reaching a decision.2 Except when costs have been taxed at the request of the taxing officer of a court outside Parliament, the taxing officer, if requested so to do by the parties, reports their taxation in the Commons to the Speaker, and, in the Lords, to the Clerk of the Parliaments. If no objection is made within 21 days after such report, either party may obtain from the Speaker or from the Clerk of the Parliaments, as the case may be, a certificate of costs allowed. This will be treated as conclusive evidence only of the amount that the claimant may recover from the defendant if his action is successful.3 The 2006 Act extends the powers of the taxing officer to costs in respect of provisional orders and bills promoted by public authorities, and opposition to hybrid bills. The powers of the taxing officers of both Houses were also extended to special procedure orders by the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945 (c 18), s 7. The taxing officer of the House of Commons is required to tax costs incurred in respect of a special procedure order if requested to do so by the Minister responsible for the order.4

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

Parliamentary Costs Act 2006, s 5. Wallasey Corporation's objections to bill of costs of Wallasey Embankment Commissioners, heard on 25 November 1958. Parliamentary Costs Act 2006, s 8. Parliamentary Costs Act 2006, s 15; Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945 (c 18), s 7(2) (as amended by s 17 of the 2006 Act).

Presentation and withdrawal of petitions 44.1All petitions in favour of, against, or otherwise relating to private bills are presented to the House by the petitioner, their agent or representative submitting them to the Private Bill Office. All such petitions are published on the Parliament website. Accordingly, in November 2017, Standing Order 172 which required that a copy of any petition so deposited had to be supplied by the agent for the petition to any interested party who applied and paid for it, not later than the day after that on which the application and payment was received, was repealed. Any petitioner may withdraw their petition by informing the Private Bill Office in writing that they wish to do so; and, where any such petition has been submitted by more than one person, any person named on the petition may withdraw from the petition by similarly informing the Private Bill Office. Standing Order 192A was amended in November 2017 to remove the requirement that petitions require a signature.1 By long-standing practice, government departments do not petition either in favour of or against private bills. A report on a private bill may be made by any interested Minister and, if the committee on the bill thinks fit, a departmental officer may be heard in explanation of it.2 It has not been determined, however, whether or not a government department—more particularly one set up by statute—can petition Parliament.3

Footnotes 1. Votes and Proceedings, 7 November 2017. 2. See paras 45.15, 45.19, 45.22. 3. The Duchy of Cornwall petitioned against the Plymouth and South West Devon Water Bill 1969–70.

Petitions in favour of private bills 44.2Petitions in favour of private bills are not normally referred to the committee as the petitioners are not parties to the bill. On one side are the promoters, and on the other petitioners against the bill. Petitioners in favour of the bill cannot claim a hearing before the committee, except as witnesses called by the promoters. Counsel may allude to the presentation of such petitions in argument, but may not examine witnesses in respect of their contents or signatures. Parties wishing to side with promoters and against petitioners do so by presenting petitions against alterations, though this does not necessarily entitle them to be heard before the committee (see para 45.22 ).

Petitions against private bills 44.3Most petitions against a private bill originating in the House of Commons must be presented on or before 30 January (Standing Order 171A). Petitions against any other private bill, with a few exceptions, must be presented not later than the tenth day after the first reading of the bill.1 The exceptions are petitions against a personal bill and petitions complaining of amendments proposed in the ‘filled-up bill’ (that is, the version of the bill showing the amendments proposed by the promoter at committee stage, see para 45.13 ), of any proposed additional provision, or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the bill before the committee. A petition against an alteration or a petition against an additional provision may be submitted at any time before the committee has reported the bill to the House. The time limit for depositing petitions against personal bills, which normally originate in the Lords, is subject to directions by the Speaker2 as are proceedings in the Commons generally on personal bills.3 Under Standing Order 126, petitions of the following kinds are automatically referred to the committee on the bill,4 if they are compliant with the standing orders: a petition against a private bill which complies with the requirements of Standing Order 171A (see above); a petition in which the petitioners complain of amendments proposed in the filled-up bill, of any proposed additional provision or of any matter which arises during the progress of the bill before the committee. Under Standing Order 127, the promoters of an opposed private bill are entitled to be heard before the committee on the bill in person, or by their counsel or agents in favour of the bill and against any petitions against the bill. Similarly, petitioners against the bill, subject to the rules and orders of the House, and to the scope of their petition, are entitled to be heard upon their petition in person, or by their counsel, agents, or other representative (see para 45.22 ). Since November 2017, Standing Order 127 has empowered the committee on the bill to group petitions that raise similar objections to the bill, with the agreement of the relevant petitioners. If a petition is presented after the time limit, the only way in which the petitioners can obtain a hearing is by presenting a petition, praying that the standing orders be dispensed with in their case, and that they may be heard by the committee. The petition will stand referred to the Standing Orders Committee; and if the petitioners are able to show any special circumstances which entitle them to such consideration and, particularly, that they have not been guilty of negligence, the standing orders may be dispensed with.5 In 1999, the Standing Orders Committee allowed a late petition against the London Local Authorities Bill [Lords], principally on the grounds that, when approached by the petitioners asking how they might be involved in committee discussions on the bill, Westminster City Council, the principal promoters, had not pointed out that they had a right to petition.6 When the Chairman of Ways and Means has ordered an unopposed bill to be treated as opposed (see para 45.14 ), the House has ordered that petitions against the bill presented within a specified period should be referred to the committee on the bill.7 Under Standing Order 128, no petition will be considered which does not distinctly specify the grounds on which the petitioners object to any of the provisions of the bill. The petitioners can be heard only on the grounds so stated. If the grounds are not specified with accuracy, the committee may direct a more specific statement to be given, in writing, but limited to the grounds of objection which had been inaccurately specified; but this power has seldom been exercised.

Footnotes 1. When 30 January falls on a Sunday, the petitions required to be presented on or before that day have to be presented on or before 29 January. If the last day of a period prescribed for presenting any other petition falls on a day on which the House is not sitting, the time is extended by the provisions of SO 171A to the next day on which the House sits. 2. See eg Private Business (1962–63) 225, (1971–72) 133, (1974–75) 201 and (1984–85) 119. 3. SO 191A. For procedure on personal bills see paras 43.3, 46.41. 4. For petitions against bills ‘substituted’ for orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, see para 42.19 and Erskine May (22nd edn, 1997), pp 953–55. 5. For example, Private Business (1993–94) 1, CJ (1993–94) 125. For a petition to dispense with SO 171A, together with a petition for not dispensing with that Standing Order, see Private Business (1982–83) 93, 105, 109; ibid (1992–93) 79, 91. In the first instance the petition to dispense with the Standing Order was withdrawn; in the second, the Standing Orders Committee declined to grant a dispensation after the petitioner had failed to appear. 6. CJ (1998–99) 458. 7. CJ (1901) 240; ibid (1911) 81. See also ibid (1907) 422, for an instruction to a committee to which an unopposed bill had been recommitted to hear witnesses.

The Court of Referees 44.4The Court of Referees1 consists of the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Deputy Chairmen, and the Counsel to the Speaker, with not fewer than seven other Members of the House, who are appointed by the Speaker.2 Three Referees are enough to constitute each court. The duty of the Court of Referees is to determine the rights of petitioners against private bills to be heard (known as locus standi prior to the revision of the Private Business standing orders in November 2017). The Court's decisions are without prejudice to the power of the committee to which the bill is referred to decide any question relating to such rights arising incidentally in the course of its proceedings. Standing Order 90 defines the jurisdiction of the Court of Referees. The decisions of the Court of Referees since its inception have been collected in a published series of ‘Locus Standi Reports’,3 and are described in detail in previous editions of Erskine May.4 In practice, a high percentage of the cases considered by the court, particularly in the late nineteenth century and again in the decade prior to the Transport and Works Act 1992, concerned objections to petitions against railway and other ‘works’ bills. The effect of that Act, and the consequent drastic reduction in the volume of private bills has meant that the court now meets only rarely.5 It should be remembered, however, that decisions of the court are binding upon select committees on hybrid bills when they come to decide questions of the rights of petitioners to have their petition considered (see para 30.67 ).6 The practice and procedure of the Court of Referees, the times of sitting, order of business, and the forms and notices required in its proceedings are prescribed by rules framed by the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order 91 and subject to alteration by them as required. These rules and alterations must be laid on the Table of the House and are published.7 Under Standing Order 91A, a petitioner is entitled to be heard before the court in person or by counsel or agent in support of that right. Similarly, the promoters are entitled to be heard in person or by their counsel or agent in opposition to the petitioner. Only one counsel, however, may appear in support of the petitioner and one in opposition. The promoters of a bill who intend to object to the right of petitioners to be heard against it are to give notice of such intention, and of the grounds of their objection, to the Clerk of the Court of Referees and to the agents for the petitioners, not later than the eighth day after the day on which the petition was deposited in the Private Bill Office.8 The Court may, however, permit such notices to be given under special circumstances after the prescribed time has expired.9 Such notices may also be withdrawn by notice in writing given in the Private Bill Office. A copy of the notice must be served upon the agents for the petitioner on the same day. Where the jurisdiction of the Court of Referees does not apply, as is the case with hybrid bills, and the promoter intends to object to the right of a petitioner to have their petition considered by the committee, notice of the intended objection, stating the grounds, is deposited in the Private Bill Office and served on the petitioner or their agents or representatives at least five clear days before the first sitting day of the committee on the bill (which considers questions of rights of petitioners to be heard by the committee in such cases) (see para 30.67 ). If no one appears in support of the petition before the Court of Referees, the petitioners' right to be heard is disallowed.10 If the petitioners appear, the counsel, agent or representative for the petitioners supports their claim; and the counsel or agent for the promoters is heard in reply—the speeches being limited to one on each side.11 For the purposes of argument on questions of a petitioner's right to be head, the allegations of a petition are ordinarily admitted: but where the right of petitioners to be heard depends upon special facts which are disputed, they may be called upon to give prima facie evidence in support of their case.12 Where documents are to be relied on or witnesses called, the documents or notice of the witnesses are deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than three clear days before the hearing of the case. If the petitioners have called evidence in support of their prima facie case, the promoters are not permitted to call rebutting evidence.13 Recorded divisions are not normally taken; the Chair counts the votes and declares the result by a majority. The Chair has a vote, but no casting vote. The Court of Referees has no power to award costs.14 Some petitioners pray to be heard against the preamble and clauses of the bill, some against certain clauses only; and others pray for the insertion of protective clauses, or for compensation for damage which will arise under the bill. A petitioner's right to be heard is always limited to the points alleged in their petition.15 The Court may limit a petitioner's right to be heard still further to a restricted number of the provisions in the bill to which the petitioner has objected. In giving its decision in such cases, the Court limits the petitioner's right to be heard, not to certain portions of their petition, but to certain portions of the bill.16

Footnotes 1. SO 89, 90. For the distinct procedure in the Lords for determining questions on the right to petition, see para 46.23. 2. Members of the Court of Referees are normally appointed for the duration of a Parliament, see for example Votes and Proceedings, 13 April 2016. 3. For reports of cases of locus standi decided by the Court of Referees in 1865 (the first year of its jurisdiction) and in 1866, cf S. For the years covered by subsequent reports of cases, see the Table of Abbreviations under C & S, C & R, R & M, R & S, S & A, S & B and B. Subsequent volumes have been [1936–60] LSR, [1960–83] LSR, [1983–91] LSR (HC 583 (1990–91)) and [1991–2006] LSR (HC 1707 (2005–06)). The last volume is also available on the parliamentary website (www.parliament.uk ). 4. See eg Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), pp 842–58. 5. The court met once in 2016; prior to that meeting, it had last met in 2002. 6. It therefore follows that, while cases such as those concerning the rights of frontagers against a tramway bill (SO 102) can no longer arise on a private bill, precedents on this subject could be prayed in aid by a select committee on a hybrid bill. 7. The present rules are dated 19 November 2002, HC 88 (2002–03), and are published with the Private Business Standing Orders, HC

1573 (2017–19). 8. Rules for the Practice and Procedure of the Court of Referees, Rules 1 and 2. The time allowed for serving such notices of objection is exclusive of the day on which the petition was submitted, S 6, App 97; 2 C & S 2. 9. Permission granted, R & M 173; not granted, R & S 11, 159. 10. [1983–91] LSR 105; HC 88 (2002–03) Rule 19. A similar provision applies to the promoters. 11. HC 88 (2002–03) Rule 15. 12. S 11, 12, App 93; 1 C & S, App 41; 3 C & R 155, 316, 319; 1 S & A 294. If a witness's attendance can be obtained only by order of the House, the House makes the order (CJ (1866) 116–117). See also HC 88 (2002–03) Rule 16. 13. 1 S & A 197–98. 14. 1 C & S 7. 15. 1 C & S, App 6; Metropolitan District Railway Bill 1868. 16. Cf 2 C & R 130; 2 S & A 191; 1 B 70; [1936–60] LSR 3; and see HC 88 (2002–03) Rule 17.

Entitlement to have petition heard: general principles 44.5The account which follows is confined to issues which have been considered in recent decades or which could reasonably be expected to recur in current circumstances. It does not claim to be a comprehensive review of the case law created by the Court over the years (for which see Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), pp 842–58). Generally speaking, it may be said that petitioners are not entitled to be heard by the committee on the bill unless it is proved that their property or interests are directly and specially affected by the bill. As a corollary, it has been accepted as an established principle that the owners of land proposed to be compulsorily taken—and also the lessees and occupiers on whom, as on owners, the notices required by the standing orders of both Houses are to be served—should always be heard against both the preamble and the clauses of a bill.1

Footnotes 1. London and North Western Railway Bill 1868, 1 C & S, App 62, 63 (known as the ‘post’ case); 3 C & R 481. For detailed case law on this point, see Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), pp 845–47.

Entitlement to have petition heard: particular issues 44.6In accordance with the general principle that, to entitle them to be heard by the committee, petitioners should prove that their property or interests are directly and specially affected by a bill, petitioners whose property was not taken but who contended that they would be adversely affected by the close proximity of a railway, have on several occasions been refused a hearing.1 In some exceptional cases, however, of special danger, disturbance, or injury, petitioners so affected have been allowed a hearing,2 and owners and occupiers of houses who complained that their property, although untouched, would be injured or shaken by a proposed line, have been heard and have obtained protective clauses.3 The owners of property in proximity to a proposed railway, claiming to be heard on the ground of injury from vibration, have in some cases been granted a hearing,4 and in others been refused.5 The right to be heard of bodies representing trades, businesses and interests in a locality is dealt with by Standing Order 95, which confers on the Court of Referees a discretion of granting a right to be heard to such bodies if they allege that the trade, business or interest will be injuriously affected by provisions contained in the bill in question.6 The standing order further provides that bodies representing amenity, educational, travel or recreational interests may be granted a right to be heard if they allege that the interest they represent will be adversely affected to a material extent.7 Under Standing Order 92, petitioners have generally been admitted to be heard against a bill on the grounds of competition. The Court of Referees, in the exercise of its discretion under this standing order, allows or refuses the right to be heard according to its opinion of the extent and directness of the competition in respect of which the petitioners claim to be heard.8 In cases where it was proposed only to improve an existing competition, the right to be heard has not been allowed,9 but where the nature of the competition is changed (eg by becoming aided by public funds),10 or where a tunnel is proposed to take the place of a ferry,11 the right to be heard has been allowed. By an extension of this principle, where the nature of the competition, eg concessionary fares on public service vehicles, may not adversely affect a petitioner in the district covered by the bill, but may create precedents to their ultimate disadvantage, the right to be heard has been allowed.12 Of the six standing orders (Standing Orders 96–101) which deal with the right to be heard of county, municipal and other public authorities, two (Standing Orders 97 and 98) grant a hearing as of right, the others are of a discretionary nature. Standing Order 97 confers the right on the council of any district or London borough alleging that their city, district or borough may be injuriously affected by the provisions of any bill relating to its lighting or water supply or the raising of capital or the borrowing of money for any such purpose.13 Standing Order 98 confers the right on the council of any county (or, in Wales, county borough) alleging that any part of its administrative area may be injuriously affected by the provisions of any bill relating to the water supply of any area, whether within or without the county, or proposing to authorise the construction or reconstruction of a tramway along any road within the county to the maintenance or repair of which the county council contributes.14 But Standing Order 96 is the principal standing order which confers on the Court of Referees a general power of granting the right to be heard to any local authority15 of any area, the whole or any part of which is alleged in the petition to be injuriously affected.16 The same order authorises the right to be heard to any inhabitants of the area of a local authority, and it is this part of the standing order which has been a frequent source of dispute before the court.17 Of the other standing orders dealing with the right to be heard of public authorities, Standing Order 99 relates to water authorities, and Standing Order 100 to land drainage authorities. Standing Order 101 permits the right to be heard for conservators having the control, regulation or management of any forest, common or open space alleged to be injuriously affected by the bill against which the petition is presented. Standing Order 93 provides that any shareholder who has dissented at a Wharncliffe meeting is entitled to be heard on their petition,18 but that if they have not so dissented they are entitled to be heard only if their interest, or the interest of the class of shareholders of which they are a member, is different from that of the general body of shareholders. For an explanation of a Wharncliffe meeting, see para 45.3. Closely akin to the position of shareholders is that of petitioners who—in the capacity in which they petition—may be held to be represented by a local authority or other body. Electors, for example, have not been allowed to be heard, as such, against a bill promoted by a corporation,19 or other local authority,20 to which they pay a charge. It should be noted, however, that this does not necessarily apply to cases where the bill is promoted by another local authority of which the petitioners are not electors but which may affect them as local taxpayers or residents. The right to be heard has not been granted to a petitioner who claimed to be heard as the prospective parliamentary candidate or local councillor for a constituency or ward within the area affected by a bill21 or for local branches of political parties.22 Since November 2017, Standing Order 91B has permitted Members of Parliament whose constituencies are directly affected by the works proposed by a bill to have their petition considered by the committee on the bill. The right to be heard was extended following the promoter's challenging of the right to be heard of Members during the Lords petitioning phase against the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill 2013–17. Four Members exercised this right in respect of the High Speed Rail (West Midlands – Crewe) Bill 2017–19.23

Footnotes 1. S 26–28, App 101, 102, 117; 1 C & S, App 45; 1 C & R 80; 2 ibid 38, 124, 249; 3 ibid 86; R & M 208; 2 S & A 123–24, 157; S & B 2; [1983–91] LSR 10. 2. 1 C & S 40–44; 2 C & R 2, 14, 75. 3. 2 C & S 189; 1 C & R 46; R & S 44–45; 2 S & A 90. 4. 2 S & A 100, 126, 128; [1983–91] LSR 65. 5. 2 S & A 65, 192; [1983–91] LSR 75, 101.

6. [1936–60] LSR 9, 18; [1960–83] LSR 10. For a decision of a select committee on a hybrid bill, see the Special Report from the Select Committee on the Charlwood and Horley Bill, HC 55 (1973–74). 7. Para (2) of the standing order, relating to amenity and other interests, was added on 1 April 1968. For decisions of the Court of Referees, see [1960–83] LSR 15; [1983–91] LSR 6; ibid 36. For decisions of the Lord Chairman of Committees and the Chairman of Ways and Means under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945, see Redcar-Marske-Saltburn Compulsory Purchase Order 1979, CJ (1980–81) 480; Exeter-Launceston-Bodmin Trunk Road (Okehampton By-pass) Compulsory Purchase Orders 1984, [1983–91] LSR 167, CJ (1984–85) 26. For a decision of a select committee on a hybrid bill, see the Special Report from the Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel Bill, HC 195 (1974). 8. For examples, see Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), p 850, fnn 3 and 4. 9. 2 C & R 133; 3 ibid 225, 378; R & M 118, 197; R & S 242; 2 S & A 150. 10. Proceedings of the committee on the Sunderland Corporation Bill 1935, where the committee, acting under SO 97 (now 90), allowed the right to be heard to petitioners against an additional provision. The petition being against an additional provision and not against the bill, the question was determined not by the Court of Referees, but by the committee on the bill. See also Minutes of Evidence of Lords Committee on Coventry Corporation Bill, 19 March 1958. 11. 1 B 44. 12. 1 B 21; Minutes of Evidence of Lords Committee on Coventry Corporation Bill, 19 March 1958. 13. For the interpretation of this Standing Order, see R & S 125–27; 2 S & A 106. The question whether the words ‘relating to’ are to be construed as meaning ‘affecting’ was discussed in 2 S & B 15, 42. The word ‘alleging’ implies allegation of facts, 2 S & B 102. 14. Locus standi allowed: 2 S & A 47; 1 S & B 44; [1936–60] LSR 4 (against waterworks bill); 2 S & A 63; 2 S & B 35, 100 (against tramways bills); locus standi disallowed: 2 S & A 46 and 53. Locus standi limited: 1 S & A 85–90; 2 ibid 164–65. 15. For definition of ‘local authority’ see Standing Order 1. That definition is wide enough to cover all the authorities to which two Standing Orders, 136 and 138 (consolidated during the revision of 1945 into Standing Order 96), applied, and has made obsolete numerous decisions of the Court of Referees as to the scope of those orders. 16. Loss of prospective benefit, arising out of the choice of one site for a railway terminal rather than another, has been held not to constitute injurious affection, [1983–91] LSR 20–23. On this point, see also 1 C & R 2. 17. See, for example [1936–60] LSR 14. For a list of such cases, see Erskine May (22nd edn, 1997), p 887, fn 6. 18. See, for example Private Business (1969–70) 205 (National Trust Bill [Lords]). 19. [1983–91] LSR 18. 20. 2 C & S 97, 265; 1 C & R 196; 2 ibid 9; 1 S & A 129; 2 ibid 41; decision of the Court of Referees, 20 March 2002 (Mersey Tunnels Bill), [1991–2006] LSR 59. 21. [1960–83] LSR 22, [1983–91] LSR 10. 22. [1983–91] LSR 49–55. 23. Private Business Notice Paper, 23 March 2018.

Right to be heard against bills brought from the Lords 44.7A petitioner who has not opposed a bill in the other House is not precluded from being heard upon their petition in the House of Commons;1 and Standing Order 130 expressly provides that: ‘A petitioner against a bill originating in the House of Lords who has discussed clauses in that House shall not on that account be precluded from opposing the preamble of the bill in this House.’

Footnotes 1. S, App 162.

Right to be heard objected to on ground of want of precision or informality 44.8An objection which has sometimes been taken to the right to be heard of a petitioner is that the allegations of their petition are not sufficiently specific;1 but the Court of Referees has rarely refused a hearing for this reason alone,2 and, as already pointed out (see para 44.3 ), Standing Order 128 expressly enables the committee on a bill to require a petitioner to give in a more specific statement of the grounds of their opposition. An analogous objection that has frequently been taken to the right to be heard of petitioners is that their petition is informal, according to the rules and orders of the House applicable to petitions generally (see Chapter 24), or as specially applicable to petitions against private bills.

Footnotes 1. Suppl to Votes, 1847–48, p 322; 1849, p 173; 1851, pp 103, 108, 109, 110; Minutes of Committees, 1857, ii, p 707; 1 C & R 22, 201; 3 ibid 50, 81, 442; R & M 213. 2. 1 S & A 341; and cf 1 C & R 207; 3 ibid 301, 457 (landowners' petition); 2 S & A 106 (petition of local authority under SO 134A (now 97)); 1 S & B 43, 100, 134, 143.

Right to be heard and the ‘filled-up’ bill 44.9The bill before the Court of Referees during its consideration of a case is the bill as deposited, not the ‘filled-up’ bill (see para 45.13 ) as proposed to be amended and submitted to the committee by the promoters; and a petitioner is not refused a right to be heard because the promoters undertake, by amendments in the filled-up bill, to meet their objections to the bill as deposited,1 but has uniformly been allowed to go before the committee to see that this undertaking is carried out.2 The court has thus supported the right of landowners to be heard where their lands were proposed to be taken by the bill as deposited. On the other hand, a person who objected to an amendment proposed in the ‘filled-up’ bill would petition not against the bill but against the alterations of the bill, and the committee on the bill would have to determine their right to be heard.

Footnotes 1. The bill as deposited, however, has been considered by the Court of Referees to include such amendments as the Standing Orders Committee shall have required to be made in it as a condition of its proceeding, Renfrew Burgh etc Bill CJ (1898) 75; 1 S & A 274; Airdrie, etc, Tramways Bill, CJ (1900) 55; 2 S & A 2. 2. 1 C & R 78; R & S 341–42, 352; 1 S & A 19–20.

Objections in the House to decisions of Court of Referees 44.10Where the right to be heard of a petitioner against a private bill has been disallowed by the Court of Referees, motions have occasionally been tabled to refer the case back to the court but have either been withdrawn1 or objected to.2

Footnotes 1. Private Business (1956–57) 225, 234 and 237. 2. Private Business (1988–89) 228, 368.

Introduction to proceedings in the House of Commons on private bills 45.1Notices in relation to private bills given by the parliamentary agents for the promoters must be given in the Private Bill Office at specified times. In accordance with Standing Order 209, notices and deposits must be given or made between 11 am and 5 pm (or, on a Friday, between 9.30 am and 3 pm) on any day on which the House sits, or between 11 am and 1 pm on any day on which the House does not sit, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and bank holidays.1 After any day on which the House has adjourned beyond the following day, no notice may be given for the first day on which it is next to sit.2 If any stage of a bill is proceeded with when the notice has not been duly given, or the proper interval allowed, or if notice is taken of any other informality, the proceeding will be null and void, and the stage must be repeated.3 All notices are open to inspection in the Private Bill Office, and they are also printed with the House's Business Papers and published on the Parliament website. The private business to be taken on a particular day appears in the appropriate place in the Order Paper for that day (see paras 7.3, 7.5, 19.9 –19.11 ). Private business is taken immediately after prayers. In order to be taken at the time of private business, motions must relate to a private bill before the House, or strictly to private business in some other form. Motions for the amendment of the standing orders relating to private business, and matters indirectly connected with the private business of the House, are also taken at the time of private business.4 Under Standing Orders 174 and No 20 (Public), no opposed business may be proceeded with during the time of private business, but must be deferred until such time as the Chairman of Ways and Means may appoint.5 Business not reached by the end of the time for private business stands over to the next sitting, or in the case of business which has been opposed, to the next sitting other than a Friday.6 Opposed business includes any proceedings on a private bill which have been deferred where notice of an amendment stands upon the notice paper in the form of a notice of motion7 on second reading, consideration or third reading of a bill; but no such notice of motion may stand upon the notice paper for more than seven days without being renewed by the Member concerned. The procedure on objection being taken to an item of private business has already been described (see para 19.11 ). Under Standing Order 174(5) and Standing Order No 16(5) (Public), when opposed private business has been set down for debate by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, that direction includes the setting down of any motion directly or otherwise contingent on it, such as instructions moved after second reading, to committees on the bills. When taken at the time of private business, the various stages of private bills and amendments desired by the promoters, etc are moved formally in the House by the Chairman of Ways and Means or one of the Deputy Chairmen. However, when a bill has been set down by the Chairman at the time for opposed private business, once the order of the day has been taken up by the Chairman, its second reading or any later stage is moved by a Member who has agreed to act on the promoters' behalf. Registers of all the proceedings from the deposit of the petition to the passing of the bill are published on the Parliament website. Under Standing Order 188, except in cases of urgent and pressing necessity, no motion may be made to dispense with any sessional or standing order of the House relating to private business, without due notice, and every notice of motion to dispense with any standing order prepared by an agent requires the sanction of the Chairman of Ways and Means. However, standing orders are frequently suspended, if good cause is shown, to permit bills—more especially bills brought from the other House at a late period of the session—to proceed without the usual intervals and notices.8

Footnotes 1. When the time for delivering notices or making deposits expires on a Saturday, Sunday, bank holiday, Christmas Day or Good Friday, it is extended to the next day that is not in any of those categories (SO 209(2)). 2. SO 209(1). 3. CJ (1878) 61; ibid (1884) 57; ibid (1945–46) 360. 4. See, for example, Parl Deb (1895) 33, cc 116–18; CJ (1935–36) 367; ibid (1948–49) 18; ibid (1953–54) 333; ibid (1974–75) 622, etc. See also HC Deb (1979–80) 978, cc 1074–75 and 1268. 5. They may appoint no day. See HC Deb (1961–62) 664, c 2 and ibid (1976–77) 936, c 278. 6. No opposed private business may be taken on a Friday (SO 174(4)). 7. Other than a motion in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means (Standing Order 174(3)). 8. See eg SO 170 (interval between first and second readings), CJ (1950) 133; SO 198 (notice of second reading), ibid (1946–47) 320; SO 86, 179, 180 (consideration), ibid (1944–45) 168; ibid (1955–56) 263; SO 205 (notice of third reading), ibid (1987–88) 148; ibid (1990–91) 479, 606; ibid (1991–92) 281, although SO 204A, which came into effect at the start of Session 1991–92, allows third reading to be taken immediately after the end of debate on consideration.

Presentation and printing of bills 45.2Where, in respect of a petition for a private bill, the Examiner has reported that the standing orders have been complied with, the bill itself must be presented to the House on 21 January, or, if the House is not sitting on that day, on the first sitting day thereafter, or if the Examiner's report is laid on the Table on or after 21 January, on the first sitting day after the report was laid.1 Where the Examiner has reported noncompliance and the House, on considering the report from the Standing Orders Committee that the standing orders ought to be dispensed with, gives leave to the parties to proceed with their bill, the bill must be presented not later than the following day, or, if leave was given before 21 January, on that day, or if the House is not sitting on that day, on the next sitting day. A private bill is presented to the House by being deposited in the Private Bill Office. It must be laid upon the Table of the House by the clerk in that office on the next sitting day.2 Every private bill must be printed, and printed copies3 must be delivered, on or before 27 November, to the Vote Office for the use of Members and in the Private Bill Office for the use of agents and others interested. The Speaker has permitted this requirement to be dispensed with in the case of a personal bill (see para 43.3 ). For purposes of presentation a private bill must be printed on A4-size paper in the same style as public bills4 and enclosed in a cover of parchment, upon which the title is written; the short title of the bill, as first entered in the Votes and Proceedings, must correspond with that at the head of the advertisement. This copy of the bill is called the ‘House Copy’. The House of Lords undertakes the printing of private bills for promoters, for which a charge is levied. The text of all private bills is also published on the Parliament website. Standing Order 38 requires the attachment to every copy of the bill of an explanatory memorandum, describing the bill generally and the effect of every substantive clause, together with a statement of opinion, by or on behalf of the promoters, as to the compatibility of the provisions of the bill with rights under the European Convention as defined in the Human Rights Act 1998 (see para 43.4 ). Standing Order 168 provides that ‘subject to the provisions of Standing Order 156A [see para 45.4 ], all charges in any way affecting the public revenue, which occur in the clauses of any private bill, shall be printed in italics'. (This differs from the arrangement for public bills, see para 28.14.) Every private bill which involves, or in respect of which there has been promised, a grant from any government department must, on presentation, have bound with it a printed statement in the form of a financial memorandum describing the grant and showing the amount.5 No such memorandum is required when the question of a government grant only arises because the bill contains provisions of the types mentioned in Standing Order 156A (see para 45.4 ), nor is one necessarily required merely because the bill involves expenditure from public funds.

Footnotes 1. SO 163. 2. By the Speaker's private ruling of October 1945, private bills are presented by the Clerk of the House, and it is no longer necessary for Members to present such bills or have their names printed on the back of them. 3. These copies must have bound up with them any financial memoranda required by SO 169. 4. Speaker's order of 24 June 1986. 5. SO 169.

First reading and referral to the Examiners 45.3A private bill is deemed to have been read the first time by being ‘laid on the Table of the House’.1 It is then recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and Journal as having have been read the first time and ordered to be read a second time. A private bill brought from the House of Lords is deemed to have been read the first time on the day on which it is received from that House, and it is recorded in the Votes and Proceedings as having been so read. It is then referred to the Examiners for proof of compliance with such standing orders as have not been previously inquired into.2 For the procedure on personal bills, see para 43.3. Whenever any alteration has been made in any work authorised by any bill in respect of which a plan or section is required under Standing Order 27 to be deposited during its progress through the House in which it originates, proof has to be given before the Examiner, when the bill reaches the second House, of compliance with certain conditions which are specified in detail in the Standing Order.3 These conditions correspond to those with which compliance has to be proved, before the presentation of such a bill, under the preliminary standing orders already mentioned, including notices to, and obtaining consents from, owners, lessees and occupiers of land through which the alteration is to be made. Compliance with this order is not necessary when alterations have been made upon a petition for additional provision in the first House. Under what are known as the ‘Wharncliffe’ Standing Orders,4 bills conferring particular powers upon companies constituted by Act of Parliament or otherwise have to be referred, in both Houses, to the Examiners for proof that the bills have been duly approved of by the proprietors or members of the companies concerned, in the manner prescribed in the orders.5 Similarly, under Standing Order 68, where a bill proposes to set up a company, proof must be given to the Examiners that the bill has the agreement of any person named in it as a director, etc. The particular provisions of this Standing Order and of the six ‘Wharncliffe’ Orders are practically identical in both Houses, and are described here in their House of Commons form. The ‘Wharncliffe’ Orders fall into three pairs: Standing Orders 62 and 65, 63 and 66, and 64 and 67, the second order of each pair dealing with the same subject as the first Order of the pair when the bill originates in the second House, or when provisions, of a kind specified in the order, have been inserted in that House. These pairs of standing orders deal, respectively, with the obtaining of the necessary consents of: proprietors of statutory companies promoting bills; members of registered companies, whether they fall within the meaning of the Companies Acts or are otherwise constituted; and members of companies which are not themselves promoters but are controlled by the promoting company. In the first House such bills are referred to the Examiners after second reading for proof of compliance with these standing orders. In the second House, when such a bill is referred to the Examiners after first reading, proof is given (if necessary) that there has been compliance with these standing orders.

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

SO 169. SO 74 and 166. SO 61. SO 62–67. Named after Lord Wharncliffe, who was largely responsible for framing the first order of this nature and for its adoption in 1838 by the House of Lords. See O C Williams Historical Development of Private Bill Procedure (1949) Vol I, pp 162–68. 5. For the right of proprietors, etc dissenting under SO 62–68 to be heard before the Examiners, cf SO 76, and para 44.6.

Provisions in private bills, or petitions for additional provision, imposing charges 45.4As has already been explained (see para 28.14 ), any clauses and provisions incidentally contained in a public bill which create a charge on the Consolidated Fund or on the National Loans Fund or on the public revenues, or which impose a tax on the people, have to be sanctioned by a resolution of the House, the recommendation of the Crown being signified. Except in the case of a bill affecting only grants to local authorities, such a resolution is necessary for any provision of this kind that is contained in the bill or proposed to be inserted in it before the committee on the bill1 can consider the matter. That is the case whether the provision is to be inserted by amendment2 or upon a petition for additional provision. The procedure for private bills follows that for financial resolutions relating to public bills, except that proceedings are taken at the time of private business.3 A bill suspended during its passage through the Commons may not rely on a financial resolution passed in the previous session.4 The Local Government Finance Acts 1988 and 1992 made fundamental alterations in the method of financing exchequer grants to local authorities, as a consequence of which new expenditure by a local authority might lead to increases in the grants which it receives (see para 35.8 ). To avoid the necessity for compliance with the financial procedure of the House in each individual case, two standing orders (Standing Order No 53 (Public) and Standing Order 156A (Private)), cover bills authorising expenditure by a local authority.5 By virtue of Standing Order 156A, it is not necessary for a private bill to comply with the standing orders and practice of the House relating to charges upon the public revenue by reason only that the bill contains provisions which would or might operate to increase the sums payable by way of exchequer grant.6 Bills containing provisions referred to in Standing Order 156A are exempt from the provisions of Standing Order 168 (charges affecting public revenue to be printed in italics), and Standing Order 169 (attachment of financial memoranda to certain bills) (see para 45.2 ), and enjoy the relaxation of the Commons' privileges contained in Standing Order 191 (tolls and charges not in the nature of a tax) (see below). The House of Commons will not allow the Lords to be concerned in the levy of any charge upon the people. Under Standing Order 191, however, the Commons do not insist on their privileges in regard to clauses in a private bill referring to tolls and charges for services performed (not being in the nature of a tax), and to sums payable by way of exchequer grant to local authorities in England and Wales or in Scotland.

Footnotes 1. National Loan Fund Life Assurance Society Bill (stamp duty on memorials), CJ (1854–55) 217, 221, 225, 229; Law Life Assurance Society Bill (stamp duty on memorials), ibid (1863) 312, 316, 327, 330; Land Securities Company Bill (stamp duty on mortgage debentures), ibid (1864) 116, 122, 126, 127. 2. City of Westminster Bill (receipts from fixed penalties payable into Consolidated Fund), CJ (1986–87), 365, HC Deb (1986–87) 115, cc 935–36, 940. 3. See eg CJ (1967–68) 132; ibid (1987–88) 517. 4. Covent Garden Market Bill 1965–66, CJ (1964–65) 255; ibid (1965–66) 14; Yorkshire Water Authority Bill 1985–86, CJ (1984–85) 594; ibid (1985–86) 20. 5. See HC Deb (1948–49) 457, cc 1275–88; CJ (1948–49) 18, 19. The standing orders have been amended from time to time to take account of changes in the law, see eg ibid (1980–81) 278–79; ibid (1989–90) 636. 6. For the effect of these orders upon Scottish provisional order confirmation bills, see Erskine May (22nd edn, 1997), p 952.

Second reading 45.5There must be not fewer than four clear days between the first and second reading of a private bill.1 The agent for the bill is required to give not fewer than three clear days' notice in writing to the Clerk in the Private Bill Office of the day proposed for the second reading; and no such notice may be given until the day after that on which the bill has been ordered to be read a second time.2 Notice of second reading of a bill originating in the House of Commons must be given for a day not later than the eighth day after first reading. If the House resolves to adjourn beyond the eighth day, the notice may be given for the day to which the House has adjourned or the following day.3 In giving any bill a second reading, the House approves the general principle, or expediency, of the measure. There is, however, a distinction between the second reading of a public and of a private bill. A public bill is founded on public policy, and the House, in agreeing to its second reading, accepts and approves that policy; whereas the expediency of a private bill is founded upon allegations of fact which have not yet been proved, so that the House, in agreeing to its second reading, affirms the principle of the bill conditionally, subject to the proof of such allegations before the committee. This is the first occasion on which the bill is brought before the House otherwise than purely formally, or in connection with the standing orders; and if the bill is opposed on principle, that is the proper time to attempt its defeat. If the second reading is deferred for three or six months, or if a reasoned amendment is carried (see para 28.46 ), or if the bill is rejected, no new bill for the same object can be offered until the next session (see para 28.17 ). The scope of debate on second reading of a private bill has been limited so as not to allow general references to the affairs of the promoter other than those directly concerned with the matters contained in the bill.4 However, the scope of debate on general purposes bills may often be broad. For example, the Speaker ruled that the British Transport Commission Bill 1949 (the first private bill promoted by a nationalised industry to be discussed in the House) was a general purposes bill and that the debate could therefore extend beyond the contents of the bill, although it must remain related to its purpose and not traverse the constitution and powers of the Commission, which had already been settled by Parliament.5 In 1969, the Walsall Corporation Bill, West Bromwich Corporation Bill and the Wolverhampton Corporation Bill, which had similar provisions, were debated together. A Business of the House motion was agreed to which permitted debate after the moment of interruption: the first bill was read a second time immediately after the moment of interruption, the second after a debate lasting eight minutes, and the third immediately on the question being put.6 In 2000, the Kent County Council Bill [Lords] and the Medway Council Bill [Lords], which contained identical provisions in respect of adjoining local government areas for the regulation of the market in second-hand goods, were set down for second reading at 7 pm.7 The Kent County Council Bill was taken first, but the Chairman of Ways and Means allowed debate to encompass the provisions of the Medway Council Bill as well, since its provisions were so similar. The first bill was agreed to without division, and the second bill was also agreed to without division and without further debate.8 In 2008, the Deputy Speaker allowed debate on the first of six similar bills relating to street traders to range over the other five, even though they were not expected to be dealt with on the same day; debate on later bills was expected to be specific to the particular bill.9 On 19 April 2000, the second reading of the Mersey Tunnels Bill was set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means for debate at 7 pm. No Member present moved the second reading, the order was dropped, and the House resumed consideration of the preceding business.10

Footnotes 1. SO 170. 2. SO 198. 3. In 1962, the agents for the Runcorn and District Water Bill failed to give notice for second reading of the Bill until after seven days (as was then prescribed) had elapsed. The House agreed to a motion by the Chairman of Ways and Means permitting the agents to rectify the matter, CJ (1961–62) 265; see also ibid (1867–68) 289; ibid (1936–37) 267. 4. For example, regulations put into force by a railway company in common with other companies could not be discussed on a bill promoted by that company, but should be dealt with by a general bill, Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Bill 1913, HC Deb (1913) 52, cc 654–55. On the London County Council (Money) Bill 1927, discussion of the alleged grievances of certain temporary employees who were performing work of a permanent character was not permitted, ibid (1927) 206, c 1974. On a bill to authorise a local authority to raise money by the issue of bills, debate was not permitted on the objects upon which the money might be spent, Luton Corporation Bill 1968, ibid (1968–69) 778, cc 845, 848. 5. HC Deb (1948–49) 461, cc 1765–66. Subsequent rulings have reaffirmed this: ibid (1950) 473, c 655; ibid (1950–51) 485, c 514; ibid 487, c 1760; ibid (1951–52) 497, c 105; ibid (1952–53) 512, c 1362; ibid (1953–54) 524, c 282, etc. 6. HC Deb (1968–69) 782, cc 554–610. 7. Three hours before the moment of interruption. 8. HC Deb (1999–2000) 350, cc 388–481. 9. HC Deb (2007–08) 477, c 519; ibid 481 c 959. 10. CJ (1999–2000) 342; HC Deb (1999–2000) 348, cc 1035–36.

Committal 45.6Every private bill, after being read a second time and committed, stands referred under Standing Order 109 to the Selection Committee, whose duties in this connection are described fully at para 45.10. A bill which is referred to the Examiners after second reading is not committed, however, until the Examiners have reported compliance with any standing orders not previously inquired into or, if the standing orders have not been complied with, the Standing Orders Committee has resolved that such standing orders should be dispensed with, and the House has agreed to this resolution.1

Footnotes 1. CJ (1914–16) 73; ibid (1928–29) 140.

Instructions 45.7After a bill has been read a second time, an instruction may be given by the House to the committee on the bill. An instruction may be moved after an opposed bill set down for debate has been read a second time, or may be considered independently of the motion for second reading (see para 19.11 ). The procedure followed in relation to instructions is described at para 28.78. When a bill is referred to the Examiners after its second reading, an instruction is moved not ‘to the committee on the bill’, but ‘to any committee to which the bill may be referred’,1 since compliance with the further standing orders must be proved or the standing orders must be dispensed with, before the bill can be committed. If a bill has been reported, and is subsequently recommitted, an instruction may similarly be given to the committee on the recommitted bill.2 The principles which underlie the proposal of instructions in connection with public bills are described in Chapter 28. In considering how far these principles may relate to instructions in respect of private bills, four important distinctions must be observed. First, Standing Order No 65 (Public), which gives a general power to committees to make such amendments in bills as they think fit provided they are relevant to the subject-matter of the bill, does not apply to committees on private bills. Second, the process of petitioning for an additional provision provides machinery for the incorporation in a private bill of amendments which would otherwise be inadmissible (see below); whereas, in a public bill, it is impossible for a committee to make amendments which go beyond the scope of the bill as contemplated by Standing Order No 65 (Public) unless an express instruction has been given by the House. Third, Standing Order 175 prevents the moving of instructions to authorise amendments which could normally only be made by means of an additional provision. Fourth, an instruction to a private bill committee may be mandatory or permissive. A mandatory instruction defines the course of action which a committee must follow and leaves it no option in the exercise of its functions with regard to the particular matter which is the subject of the instruction.3 A permissive instruction confers on a committee powers to consider matters relevant to the subject-matter of the bill, which would not otherwise be within its competence, or would not come within the ordinary scope of its inquiry. Instructions requiring or empowering a committee to insert provisions which might affect the property and interests of outside parties, although they would not have received the protection to which they are entitled under the standing orders, are specifically prohibited by Standing Order 175. Broadly speaking, therefore, no instruction can be moved to a committee on a private bill that seeks to introduce amendments to enlarge the powers sought by the bill, or which affect private interests.4 This does not apply to a hybrid bill.5 Subject to this overriding Standing Order, the question whether an instruction is or is not in order depends on principles deduced from the rulings of the Chair, which are examined in detail below and which differ according to whether the instruction is mandatory or permissive. Mandatory instructions to committees on private bills may be divided into three categories: 1. Instructions directing the committee to insert definite provisions in a bill or to require safeguards or security before passing certain provisions, or directing the taking of certain evidence.6 2. Instructions directing the committee to omit definite provisions from a bill.7 Standing Order 175 would prevent the moving of an instruction if the provision to be struck out were one limiting the powers of the promoters. 3. Instructions directing the committee to inquire into and, in certain cases, to report upon matters which in the opinion of the House are relevant to the bill, or can be suitably investigated in connection therewith.8 For a discussion of specific instances, see Erskine May (22nd edn, 1997), pp 900–2. Permissive instructions are rare and have been principally confined to those empowering the committee to inquire into matters which are relevant to the subject-matter of the bill, or which can be suitably investigated in connection therewith, or to procedural matters. Such an instruction has been employed, for example, to consolidate a number of bills,9 to divide a single bill into two bills,10 and to hear evidence from parties other than those entitled to be heard.11 In addition to the restriction placed upon the moving of instructions by Standing Order 175, there are several other grounds upon which instructions have been disallowed (see also para 28.75 ). 1. An instruction is out of order if it seeks to traverse the decision of the House in rejecting a reasoned amendment on the second reading of the bill.12 2. A permissive instruction is unnecessary and out of order if it proposes to confer powers which the committee is already able to exercise.13 3. An instruction is out of order if the objects which it proposes are clearly of an impractical kind, or if its terms are too vague to afford definite directions to the committee.14 4. An instruction is out of order if it imposes an unreasonable restriction on the discretion of the committee. An instruction has also been ruled out of order which would prevent a committee leaving out a clause contained in a bill as presented.15 5. An instruction is out of order if it deals with a question of public policy which, regard being had to the object and purposes of a private bill, should more properly be the subject of a public bill.16

Footnotes 1. Private Business (1984–85) 246. 2. CJ (1921) 342. 3. For cases where a committee has been unable fully to carry out a mandatory instruction, see Special Report from the Committee on the

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

British Transport Commission Bill, CJ (1959–60) 207, and Special Report from the Committee on the Esso Petroleum Company Bill, CJ (1959–60) 300; HC 280 (1959–60). HC Deb (1929) 226, c 355. CJ (1957–58) 91; ibid (1985–86) 512. See CJ (1929–30) 201; ibid (1951–52) 176 (motion withdrawn); ibid (1955–56) 224; ibid (1959–60) 160, 265. See CJ (1955–56) 224, 238; ibid (1959–60) 264; ibid (1974) 183 (negatived on division); ibid (1978–79) 148; ibid (1983–84) 609; ibid (1984–85) 459. See CJ (1956–57) 203 (withdrawn); ibid (1958–59) 145 (negatived); ibid (1987–88) 216; ibid (1989–90) 576. CJ (1957–58) 254; ibid (1990–91) 328. CJ (1914–16) 180–81; HC Deb (1915) 73, c 2. Private Business (1959–60) pp 209, 215. Parl Deb (1898) 56, c 1514; cf also ibid (1901) 90, c 1536. Parl Deb (1898) 56, c 1514; cf also ibid (1894) 26, c 116. Private Business (1898) p 306; ibid (1903) p 207; cf also Parl Deb (1902) 111, c 442. Private Business (1948–49) p 59 (Speaker's private ruling). See Parl Deb (1901) 91, c 55; ibid (1901) 97, cc 1312–13; HC Deb (1923) 165, c 811; ibid (1929) 226, c 355.

Power of committee to make amendments Contents Committee on unopposed bills Committees on opposed bills Bills referred to specially constituted committees Notice of first sitting of committee on private bill ‘Filled-up’ bill to be deposited Submission of bills to the Chairman of Ways and Means Scrutiny by government departments 45.8A committee on a private bill is precluded from admitting provisions which are beyond the scope of the bill as delimited by the clauses and schedules annexed to the petition for the bill. It is within its competence, however, to make amendments in the bill which are within those purposes, though such amendments, necessarily, must not enlarge the powers sought by the bill. One of the chief effects of this rule is to prevent the insertion by a committee of provisions affecting the property and interests of persons who would have been entitled to object if such provisions had been included in the bill as originally deposited. Where, after a bill has been presented, it is desired to insert such provisions, the promoters are required to proceed by petition for additional provision (see para 43.15 ), and opponents, therefore, are given an opportunity to voice their objections.

Committee on unopposed bills 45.9Every unopposed bill is referred by the Selection Committee to the Committee on Unopposed Bills, which consists of seven members: the Chairman of Ways and Means (who is ex officio Chair), the Deputy Chairmen, and four members selected from time to time by the Chairman of Ways and Means from a panel appointed by the Selection Committee at the beginning of every session. The Chairman of Ways and Means has power to select from the panel one additional member to act as Chair at every sitting of a committee on an unopposed bill at which neither the Chairman nor either Deputy Chairman is present.1 The committee has the assistance of the Counsel to the Speaker. The quorum of the committee is three. The time and date of the first meeting of the committee on a bill are fixed by the Chairman.2

Footnotes 1. Under this provision, two or more committees on unopposed bills may sit concurrently to expedite the progress of unopposed bills. Up to the present this has not been found necessary. 2. SO 111 and 132.

Committees on opposed bills 45.10The Selection Committee will not treat a bill as an opposed bill unless a petition has been presented against the bill in accordance with Standing Order 171A (see para 44.3 ) and has not been withdrawn, or unless the Chairman of Ways and Means reports to the House, in accordance with Standing Order 85, that the bill, though unopposed, ought to be treated as opposed (see para 45.14 ). If the Chairman so acts, the bill again stands referred to the Selection Committee, in accordance with Standing Order 112.1 The Selection Committee appoints committees to consider opposed bills and fixes the time of the first sitting of committees (subject to the provisions of Standing Order 177). The committee on every opposed private bill consists of four members having no local or other interest in the bill or bills referred to them.2 It is not the practice to appoint Members who have spoken on the second reading of the bill. When appointing the committee, the Selection Committee nominates one of the four Members chair of the committee, for which there is an informal convention that the Chair for successive committees alternates between the Government and the Opposition. Members of a committee on an opposed private bill, before they are entitled to attend and vote, are required to sign a declaration that their constituents have no local interest, and that they has no personal interest, in the bill; that they recognise their obligation to attend every meeting of the committee; and that they will never vote on any question which may arise without having duly heard and attended to the evidence relating thereto.3 If a Member who has signed this declaration should subsequently discover that they have a direct interest in a bill, or in a company who are petitioners against a bill, they will withdraw from the committee, after stating the fact, and may, if necessary, be discharged by the House (or by the Selection Committee) from further attendance.4 Notice of appointment must be given to each member of a committee on any opposed private bill, and at the same time a blank form of the declaration (see above) is sent to them, with a request to sign it and return it to the Private Bill Office.5 If a Member neglects to return the declaration in a reasonable time, or does not send a sufficient excuse, the Selection Committee will report their name to the House. If the Selection Committee is dissatisfied with a Member's excuse, it will require them to serve upon a committee, when their attendance will become obligatory, and if necessary may be enforced by the House. The Selection Committee has the power to discharge any Member or Members from a committee, and substitute an equal number of other Members.6 It is not normal practice, however, to discharge Members from a committee while a bill is under consideration.7 Under Standing Order 177, an interval of not fewer than six clear days is required to elapse between the committal of an opposed private bill and the first sitting of the committee: in the case of an opposed personal bill the required interval is not fewer than three clear days. Subject to this order, the Selection Committee is empowered by Standing Order 113 to fix the time for holding the first sitting of the committee on every opposed private bill.

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

SO 109–114. SO 111. SO 120. CJ (1945–46) 237. SO 115. For example, in case of illness (Minutes of Evidence of Committee on the City of London (Various Powers) Bill, 3 July 1979, pp 13–14. See also Minutes of Evidence of Committee on the Crossrail Bill, 10 February 1994, p 1) and where a Member felt that their impartiality might be in doubt (HC Deb (1984–85) 74, cc 333–34; Minutes of Evidence of the Joint Committee on the Exeter-Launceston-Bodmin Trunk Road (Okehampton Bypass) Compulsory Purchase Order 1984, 5 March 1985, pp 1–2). 7. A member of the committee on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, who had several times been reported to the House (as was formerly required by Standing Order 122) for being absent from its sittings, finally declared that she would take no further part in its proceedings. The Committee of Selection appointed another Member in her place, but he in turn indicated that he was not prepared to attend. The House then gave leave for the committee to sit with a quorum of two for the remainder of its proceedings: HC Deb (1985–86) 91, cc 1011–48.

Bills referred to specially constituted committees 45.11Private bills dealing with subjects which, in the opinion of the House, are of special interest or importance, have sometimes been referred to a select committee nominated partly by the House and partly by the Selection Committee, or otherwise specially constituted.1 In Sessions 1978–79 and 1979–80, notice was given of motions to refer several clauses of three local authority general powers bills to a Committee of the whole House. The Chairman of Ways and Means drew the attention of the House to the inconvenience of agreeing to such a motion, and the motions were not proceeded with.2

Footnotes 1. For example, City of London (Guild Churches) Bill 1951–52; Esso Petroleum Company Bill 1959–60; and Letchworth Garden City Corporation Bill 1961–62. 2. Private Business (1978–79) p 85 ff; ibid (1979–80) p 13 ff; HC Deb (1978–79) 964, cc 345–50; SO No 31 (Public) (now No 32) was subsequently amended to extend the Speaker's power of selection to motions of this kind.

Notice of first sitting of committee on private bill 45.12At least four clear days' notice is given of the day and hour appointed for the first sitting of any committee on an opposed bill; one clear day's notice is given of the first sitting on a recommitted bill and one day's notice of the first sitting on an unopposed bill.1 Where the first sitting of a committee on a bill is deferred, notice is given of the day to which the sitting is deferred.2 All notices are published online in the notices relating to private business as well as being physically displayed in the Private Bill Office.

Footnotes 1. SO 199. 2. For an instance of the suspension of SO 199, see CJ (1948–49) 328.

‘Filled-up’ bill to be deposited 45.13Before the sitting of a committee on a private bill, the agent is required to deposit in the Private Bill Office a ‘filled-up’ bill, showing the amendments proposed to be submitted to the committee, and signed by the agent, two clear days before the meeting of a committee on an opposed bill, and the day before the meeting of a committee on an unopposed bill. A copy of the proposed amendments is also to be provided by the promoters, one clear day before the sitting of the committee, to parties petitioning against the bill who ask for it. Copies of the ‘filled-up bill’ are also to be provided to each Member at the first meeting of the committee. It is also published online. The amendments are not binding on the committee, which has discretion whether or not to accept them; however, where they result from an agreement between promoters and petitioners, or parties who might otherwise have petitioned, it is usual for the committee to accept them.1 Frequently in committees on opposed bills, the promoters, after hearing the evidence, propose substantial amendments to meet points raised by petitioners.2 Where these have been accepted by the committee, they are published as part of its proceedings.

Footnotes 1. Reports of Committees on Private Bills (1957–58) p 67. 2. For example, Middle Level Bill 2017–19, Commons Opposed Bill Committee.

Submission of bills to the Chairman of Ways and Means 45.14The duty of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order 82 to examine all private bills, whether opposed or unopposed, with the assistance of the Counsel to the Speaker, has already been described (see para 43.12 ). Under Standing Order 85 they are at liberty, at any time, to report any special circumstance regarding any private bill,1 or to inform the House that any unopposed bill should be treated as an opposed bill2 (see also para 45.10 ). For this reason, the agent is required to lay copies of the original bill before the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Speaker's Counsel. Standing Order 84 also provides that one clear day before the day appointed for the consideration of the bill by a committee, copies of the bill, as proposed to be submitted to the committee, must be laid before the Chairman and Counsel, signed by the agent, together with copies of any of the estimates and statements deposited in accordance with Standing Orders 45 or 46. Copies of opposed or recommitted bills must be so laid at least two clear days before the day appointed for the consideration of the bill in committee. In the House of Lords, copies of the bill, as proposed to be submitted to the committee on the bill in the Commons, are also laid before the Senior Deputy Speaker and their counsel; and a simultaneous examination of the bill is consequently undertaken in both Houses. Amendments are suggested or required by the authorities in both Houses, which are either agreed to at once by the promoters, or after discussion are insisted upon, modified, or dispensed with.

Footnotes 1. CJ (1935–36) 220, 223; ibid (1939–40) 163; ibid (1960–61) 87; ibid (1961–62) 137; ibid (1975–76) 412; ibid (1976–77) 157; Reports on Private Bills (1957–58) p 157. 2. CJ (1930–31) 267, 299, 336; ibid (1931–32) 164; ibid (1932–33) 67; ibid (1935–36) 309; ibid (1955–56) 295; ibid (1977–78) 168.

Scrutiny by government departments 45.15In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 39, a printed copy of every private bill must be deposited on or before 4 December with various government departments specified in a list maintained in accordance with Standing Order 1A under the authority of the Chairman of Ways and Means. The other departments, with which bills relating to various subjects must be deposited, are also set out in this list; while Standing Orders 60 and 180 prescribe similar deposits which must be made at later stages, and Standing Order 158 requires notice to be given to the Attorney-General of a bill which deals with charities and educational institutions. These provisions enable the various departments to obtain early knowledge of the contents of private bills and to decide whether, in respect of any bill, a report to the House on matters under the jurisdiction of their respective Ministers is called for. Reports are deemed to have been presented to the House if copies are deposited with the Private Bill Office (Standing Order 144). They may deal with either or both the preamble and general policy relating to the bill and questions of administrative detail arising on the clauses.1 They may also include recommendations that clauses should be inserted in the bill to secure the protection of Crown or public interests. (See para 43.4 for reports on human rights compatibility statements, and paras 45.19, 45.22 for the procedure on reports from government departments.) Government departments may sometimes indicate their views on a clause even where they have no recommendation to make in respect of it, and may sometimes specify, where appropriate, the number of precedents for a clause.2

Footnotes 1. For cases where the propriety of reports dealing with questions of policy has been disputed, see Minutes of Evidence, Group B, Coventry Corporation Bill, 22 July 1942, p 36; Minutes of Evidence, Group A, East Grinstead Gas and Water Bill, 29 May 1945, pp 11–12. 2. Reports of Committees on Private Bills (1959–60) p 133. Parliamentary agents sometimes supply a ‘precedent bill’, indicating existing legislative precedents for the drafting of the clauses of the bill for which they are the promoters.

Committee stage Contents Standing orders relating to committees on opposed bills Standing orders relating to the committee on unopposed bills Standing orders relating to committees on bills, whether opposed or unopposed Proceedings in committee: general Report of bill Proceedings on consideration and third reading Lords amendments Suspension or revival of bills 45.16In this section, the main standing orders governing the proceedings of committees on private bills are explained, and the proceedings in committee are described.

Standing orders relating to committees on opposed bills 45.17No committee on an opposed private bill can proceed to business until the required declaration (see para 45.10 ) has been signed by each of the members.1 The committee may not proceed if more than one of the members is absent, unless by special leave of the House; and no member of a committee on an opposed private bill may absent themselves, except in case of illness, or by leave of the House. Suspension from the service of the House does not exempt a Member from serving on a committee on a private bill2 to which they have previously been appointed.3 If the Chair is absent, the next member on the list of members, who is present, acts as Chair. If at any time more than one of the members is absent, the Chair suspends the proceedings, and if, after one hour, more than one member is still absent, the committee is adjourned to the next sitting day, when it meets at the hour at which it sat on the day of the adjournment. If, after a committee has been formed, a quorum of members cannot attend, the Chair reports the circumstances to the House, which may make such orders as are necessary to enable proceedings to continue.4 The parties respectively promoting and opposing a bill are required to indicate to the Private Bill Office in advance of the first sitting of the committee their intention to appear before it and the names of any agent or counsel representing them.5 If no parties appear on the petitions against an opposed bill, or, having appeared, withdraw their opposition before the evidence of the promoters is begun, the committee is required to refer the bill back, with a statement of the facts, to the Selection Committee, which treats it as an unopposed bill.6 Standing Order 126 provides that all petitions presented against a bill, or complaining of amendments in the filled-up bill or of any proposed additional provision, subject to their compliance with the standing orders and the rules of the House, stand referred to the committee on the bill; and copies of all such petitions are to be laid before each member of the committee. Under Standing Order 172 copies of any petition against or otherwise relating to a bill must, on application and payment by any interested party, be supplied to them by the agent for the petition (see para 44.1 ).

Footnotes 1. SO 120. 2. It has been ruled, however, that a suspended Member should not continue to serve on a select committee on a hybrid bill during the period of their suspension (Speaker's private ruling, 18 April 1995). 3. SO 121, 122. and SO No 44(5) (Public). 4. CJ (1890) 402; ibid (1897) 143. See also Parl Deb (1899) 67, c 27; CJ (1964–65) 348, 351; ibid (1985–86) 175; ibid (1989–90) 165. 5. For cases of hybrid bills in respect of which this requirement was modified by order of the House, see CJ (1985–86) 398; ibid (1994–95) 99. 6. See Minutes of Evidence of Committee on Mersey Tunnels Bill, 4 February 2003. In 1985, the petitioners against the Harrogate Stray Bill, in consideration of amendments submitted to the filled-up bill by the promoters, decided not to pursue their objections but did not withdraw their petitions. The lack of opposition was communicated to the committee only after it had convened, and it therefore continued to sit to hear the bill proved, as in unopposed proceedings, and to consider the petitioners' application for costs, Minutes of Evidence of Committee on Harrogate Stray Bill, 23 April 1985.

Disposal of questions pending at moment of interruption 17.10The standing orders which prescribe a limit to the time for the transaction of business are not so strictly interpreted as to prevent the House from completing, when the fixed hour arrives, the proceeding on which a decision is in process of being taken.1 Under this practice, proceedings on such business are extended beyond the hour appointed for the interruption of business. Consequently, whenever a question is under decision, either by collecting the voices or by a division, at an hour appointed by the standing orders for the interruption of business, the decision of the House is announced and acted upon after that fixed hour. Nor does the fact that the moment is passed when business should be interrupted prevent the putting from the Chair—if necessary, after an intervening closure motion—of the main, original or any further questions consequent upon that decision of the House, and any such contingent question may be decided by a division. If, however, a Member objects2 to proceeding on any further question, not being a question inherent in the decision in process of being taken, that action brings into force the provisions of Standing Order No 9(6) and converts the business then under transaction into opposed business. The Speaker, or in committee the Chairman, therefore proceeds to interrupt the business;3 and its consequent disposal under the terms of Standing Order No 9(5) necessarily follows, unless closure is moved pursuant to Standing Order No 9(4) (see para 20.56 ). For example, where, on completion after the moment of interruption of a division on second reading of a new clause, a Member proposed an amendment to the new clause, further proceedings on the bill were adjourned since the proposal of an amendment was not consequential and the business thus became opposed business.4 Procedure in a Committee of the whole House regarding questions pending at the moment of interruption follows the procedure of the House, including the power of moving closure on the interruption of business.

Footnotes 1. CJ (1873) 403; Parl Deb (1873) 217, cc 1230–32; CJ (1877) 111; Parl Deb (1877) 233, c 306. 2. In the case of business commencing after the moment of interruption it is necessary for a Member to say ‘I object,’ or otherwise to indicate their opposition to the business being proceeded with. The Member (or Members) so objecting are not identified. 3. CJ (1887) 249; Parl Deb (1887) 315, c 488. 4. CJ (1890–91) 372; Parl Deb (1891) 354, c 877.

Standing orders relating to committees on bills, whether opposed or unopposed 45.19All questions before committees are decided by a majority of votes; and, whenever the votes are equal, the Chair has a second or casting vote.1 The names of the Members attending each committee are entered by the committee clerk in the minutes of proceedings; and when a division takes place the Clerk takes down the names of the Members, and on which side they have voted. The minutes of proceedings are laid upon the Table of the House with the report of the committee2 and are published on the Parliament website. Unless the House so orders, a committee is precluded from examining compliance with Standing Orders 4–68, which are directed to be proved before the Examiners.3 All reports made by a Minister of the Crown on a private bill (see para 45.15 ) stand referred to the committee on the bill. A committee must not begin to consider a private bill relating to a charity or an educational institution until a report on the bill by the Attorney-General has been presented to the House.4 Ministers' reports should as a rule be made available to all interested parties not fewer than 14 days before the committee of the first House sits on the bill. When, by agreement of the parties, the committee sits fewer than 14 days after the second reading of a bill, the report should be issued as soon as possible after second reading.5 Officials of government departments attend committees considering private bills on which their Ministers have made reports. Committees on private bills are debarred by Standing Order 136 from receiving, without express authority from the House,6 any evidence except that adduced by the parties entitled to be heard (see below); so that departmental officials have no absolute entitlement to speak to the practice and policy of their department. If, however, a ministerial report contains a recommendation, the committee is authorised by Standing Order 144, if it thinks fit, to hear a person nominated by the Minister (who need not necessarily be an official of the department concerned) in explanation of the report. It is, in fact, normal practice for committees to hear officials or, on occasion, Ministers (see para 45.22 ), if they wish to add anything to their reports.7

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

SO 135. SO 138, 145. SO 139. Where this standing order was found not to have been complied with, the proceedings of the committee have subsequently been validated by order of the House, Hastings Borough Council Bill, CJ (1987–88) 286; Birmingham City Council Bill, ibid (1987–88) 734. 5. Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure, 1954–55, HL 14, 58-I (1954–55), HC 139-I (1954–55); HC Deb (1955–56) 557, c 1150. 6. In 1909, a mandatory instruction was given to the Select Committee on the Great Northern, Great Central and Great Eastern Railways Bill to hear the Board of Trade and any other government department by counsel and witnesses, CJ (1909) 103. 7. SO 144, 158.

Proceedings in committee: general Contents Committee on unopposed bills Committees on opposed bills 45.20The proceedings of committees upon private bills are partly regulated by the usage of Parliament, partly by standing orders, and partly by statute. Standing Order 136 provides that a committee is not empowered, without express authority from the House, to hear evidence other than that which may be tendered by the parties entitled to be heard.1 Standing Order 134 specifies the parties entitled to be heard before the committee on an unopposed bill and Standing Order 127 the parties entitled to be heard before the committee on an opposed bill. Furthermore, committees on private bills do not possess the power to send for persons, papers and records. Committees on private bills do not normally have power to adjourn from place to place. However, committees on opposed private bills,2 select committees on hybrid bills3 and joint committees on special procedure orders4 and Scottish provisional order confirmation bills5 have frequently been given power by the House to visit the sites of works proposed in the bills or orders concerned. The committee on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Lords], having been granted the necessary authority by the House, heard part of its evidence in Cardiff.6 In addition, committees on two substituted bills have been given power to adjourn from place to place and one of these committees used this power both to visit Shetland and to hold all its meetings to hear evidence in Edinburgh.7 House of Lords Standing Order 130 provides a procedure whereby the Senior Deputy Speaker may determine differences between the parties concerned with undertakings or arrangements accepted by committees on private bills (see para 46.32 ). There is no equivalent procedure in the Commons.

Footnotes 1. In 1960, a committee sought leave of the House to hear other evidence by means of an instruction but the matter was not pressed. See Private Business (1959–60) pp 209, 215. 2. For example, Committees on Greater Nottingham Light Rapid Transit Bill, CJ (1992–93) 137; Croydon Tramlink Bill, ibid (1993–94) 171; and Crossrail Bill, ibid (1993–94) 315. 3. For example, Select Committees on Channel Tunnel Bill, CJ (1985–86) 398; Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Bill, ibid (1986–87) 222; Severn Bridges Bill, ibid (1990–91) 98; and Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, ibid (1994–95) 99. 4. For example, Joint Committee on Exeter-Launceston-Bodmin Trunk Road (Okehampton By-pass) Compulsory Purchase Orders, CJ (1984–85) 339; and City of Stoke-on-Trent Tunstall Northern By-pass Local Government Act Compulsory Purchase Order, ibid (1999–2000) 31. 5. For example, Joint Committee on Lothian Region (Edinburgh Western Relief Road) Order Confirmation Bill, CJ (1985–86) 170. 6. Committee on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Lords], CJ (1989–90) 171. 7. Committee on the Zetland County Council Bill, CJ (1972–73) 295. The Committee on the Orkney County Council Bill did not use the power to adjourn from place to place, ibid (1974) 70.

Committee on unopposed bills 45.21The constitution of the committee on unopposed bills, which is laid down by Standing Order 132, has already been described (see para 45.9 ). Its proceedings are briefer and less formal than those of a committee on an opposed private bill; but, because there are no opponents of the bill, a special responsibility rests on the committee in its consideration of the preamble and provisions of the bill to ensure that the interests of the public are properly safeguarded and that the bill conforms with the standing orders of the House. This responsibility is imposed chiefly upon the Chairman of Ways and Means, who is ex officio Chair of the committee when present, and who, being an Officer of the House as well as a Member, is entrusted with the special duty of examining, with the assistance of the Speaker's Counsel, every private bill, whether opposed or unopposed. The promoters therefore have to prove the preamble to the satisfaction of the committee by the production of the necessary evidence, which is usually not taken upon oath, and by such explanations as may be required of them. Counsel are not heard, the promoters' case being presented by the agent for the bill. The committee on unopposed bills has on several occasions found the preamble not proved,1 adjourned consideration for further evidence2 or made a special report.3 Standing Order 85 empowers the Chairman of Ways and Means to inform the House that in their opinion any unopposed private bill should be treated as an opposed bill. They can exercise this power, whether or not the committee on unopposed bills has begun to consider the bill.4 Under Standing Order 112, if such a report is made to the House, the bill stands again referred to the Selection Committee, and is then dealt with as an opposed bill.

Footnotes 1. For example, Northam UDC Bill, CJ (1968–69) 187; Yorkshire Derwent Water Bill, ibid (1969–70) 315; Ross and Cromarty County Council Bill, ibid (1974–75) 473; and Bournemouth-Swanage Motor Road and Ferry Bill, ibid (1993–94) 437. 2. Reports of Committees on Private Bills (1960–61) 99; City of Westminster Bill [Lords] (Private Business (1993–94) 239); London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] (ibid (1995–96) 209); Barclay Group Reorganisation Bill [Lords] (ibid (2000–01) 378); and HSBC Investment Banking Bill [Lords] (ibid (2000–01) 391). 3. Reports of Committees on Private Bills (1957–58) p 3. 4. CJ (1935–36) 309; ibid (1955–56) 295; ibid (1983–84) 628, where a petition against alterations had been deposited.

Committees on opposed bills 45.22When counsel are addressing the committee, or while witnesses are under examination, the committee room is an open court;1 but when the committee is about to deliberate, all the counsel, agents, witnesses, and strangers are ordered to withdraw, and the committee sits in private. At the appropriate time, the Chair calls in the parties and acquaints them with the decision of the committee. The first proceeding of a committee on an opposed bill, when duly constituted, is to call in all the parties. The counsel in support of the bill appear before the committee. The petitions against the bill in support of which petitioners intend to appear are read by the committee clerk; and the counsel or agents appear in support of such petitions. If no one indicates an intention to appear in support of any petition, the opposition of the petitioners is held to be abandoned, although indulgence has been granted to parties applying to be heard after proceedings have commenced.2 Where petitions complain of matters arising during the sitting of the committee, or of amendments proposed to be made in the bill, parties may indicate their intention to appear as the occasion arises.3 In 1956, during consideration of the North-East Surrey Crematorium Board Bill [Lords] by the committee on unopposed bills, it was brought to its notice that a petition had been deposited complaining of a matter which had arisen during the progress of the bill before the committee. The committee adjourned further consideration of the bill and made a special report to the House.4 The traditional procedure adopted by a private bill committee, when the principle of the bill was opposed by petitioners, was to consider first the preamble, or general expediency, of the bill and subsequently, if it were decided to approve the preamble, to go through the individual clauses. While it is still occasionally possible for a committee to make this clear distinction between principle and detail, it is more often the case that the two are so closely interconnected as to render it impracticable to deal with a bill in this way. Many recent committees have preferred to follow a more flexible procedure allowing them to deal first with the points contested by the petitioners, which may relate partly to the preamble and partly to individual clauses, and to take the necessary decisions on such matters before passing on to the unopposed clauses.5 If the preamble is opposed, counsel addresses the committee more particularly upon the general expediency of the bill, and then calls witnesses to prove every matter which will establish the truth of the allegations contained in the preamble; alternatively, they may confine themselves and their witnesses to the particular provisions which are opposed by the petitioners. The witnesses may be cross-examined by the counsel or agent who appears in support of the several petitions against the bill. Cross-examination is confined to matters comprised in the petitions, except when it is sought to discredit a witness. After the cross-examination, each witness may be re-examined by the counsel in support of the bill. As already stated (see paras 44.3, 45.17 ), all petitions against a private bill, which have been deposited in accordance with the standing orders, stand referred to the committee; and such petitioners, subject to the rules and orders of the House, must be heard upon their petition. When petitioners appear before the committee, their counsel or agent either opens their case or reserves their speech until after the evidence. Witnesses may be called and examined in support of the petitions, cross-examined by the counsel for the bill, and re-examined by the counsel or agent for the petitioners; but counsel and agents can be heard, and witnesses examined on behalf of petitioners, only in relation to matters referred to in their petitions. It follows therefore that, unless they pray in their petition to be heard against the preamble, petitioners may not argue against the principle of the bill as a whole, but must confine themselves to addressing the provisions which directly affect their interests. Petitions against alterations (see para 44.3 ) are presented by parties who object to alterations which are proposed to be made in the bill in committee, and which might affect them. Such petitions may contain objections to amendments proposed by the promoters and included in the ‘filled-up’ bill (including additional provisions), or to amendments that either have been or, it is anticipated, will be requested by petitioners or made by the committee. The procedure for considering such petitions in a committee depends on the circumstances. If the petitioner is objecting to amendments proposed by the promoters, they have a right to be heard after the case for the promoters on the relevant part of the bill has been closed. If, however, they are objecting to amendments requested by other petitioners against the bill, two courses of procedure are possible. Should the promoters be opposed to the requested amendments, they are held to be fully competent to defend their bill without the intervention of the petitioner against alterations, and it is not usual for the petitioner against alterations to be heard. If the promoters are disposed to leave the decision entirely to the committee or to concede the requested amendments, then the petitioner against alterations assumes the task of defending the bill in this respect in the place of the promoters. In such circumstances petitioners against alterations have been heard to make their case for the bill as originally presented before the petitioners against the bill have argued their case for the amendments they propose. If, however, the committee is disposed to agree to the proposed amendments, it may, before taking a decision, give the petitioner against alterations an opportunity of stating their case (which may not be the same as that of the promoters) and of producing any new and relevant evidence. Under Standing Order 90, the jurisdiction of the Court of Referees extends only to petitions against private bills. The right to be heard of petitioners against alterations is therefore decided by the committee on the bill. In general, the normal rules of evidence apply, though witnesses are allowed to refer to a written proof of evidence. Under the Parliamentary Witnesses Oaths Act 1871, any committee of the House of Commons is empowered to administer an oath to witnesses examined before it;6 and witnesses before opposed private bill committees are examined on oath. Ministers or officials7 may be heard at any convenient part in the proceedings; they are not witnesses and may not be cross-examined, but the Chair may allow questions to be put to an official if addressed through them. When the speeches and evidence in support of the petitions are concluded, counsel for the bill replies on the whole case. If a petitioner has not called witnesses or put in any document, counsel for the bill has no right of reply; but if a petitioner puts in a document (or even, without putting it

in, cross-examines the promoters' witnesses upon it) this generally entitles the promoters to a reply. In some cases this reply is restricted; for example, where the petitioner refers to any Act of Parliament8 or judgment of a court, or to the decision, proceedings, or report of a committee of either House of Parliament or other similar body, the reply must be limited to the particular document quoted. Any documents or minutes of evidence on bills of a previous session which may have been referred to the committee may be commented on by counsel without objection and considered by the committee; but reference to such documents by a petitioner does not entitle the promoters to a reply. The power of a committee to admit clauses or amendments has already been described (see para 45.8 ). If, however, a committee is of the opinion that provisions which would necessitate a petition for additional provision should be inserted in the bill, the further consideration of the bill can be postponed, in order to give the parties time to petition the House for additional provision (see para 43.15 ).9 It should be noted, however, that additional provisions may not be obtained in the second House. Similarly, and as a consequence of this, it is a well-established rule that a clause conferring powers upon the promoters struck out in one House should not be re-inserted in the other, and restrictive amendments imposed by one House on the promoters are not reversed by the other.10 In one instance, a restrictive amendment has been reversed by the other House. A clause in the West Midlands County Council Bill [Lords] 1979, which provided for the control of acupuncturists, was amended in committee in the Commons so as to exempt petitioners from its provisions. The Lords disagreed to the amendment, on which the Commons did not insist.11 There have been a number of occasions when agreements reached between promoters and petitioners have been further explored by the House or have been the subject of comment by the committee itself. The Bolton Corporation Bill 1949, as presented, had contained a clause authorising the Corporation to provide a residential hotel. Subsequently, as a result of negotiations with opponents, the promoters agreed to strike out the clause in the ‘filled-up’ bill, and the committee on the bill made the necessary amendment. On consideration, a motion was made to recommit the bill to a Committee of the whole House in respect of a clause couched in terms similar to the clause already left out in committee (re-committal was necessary since the provisions of the clause involved a charge upon the rates, see para 35.8 ). The Chairman of Ways and Means, in advising the House to reject the motion, drew attention to the serious consequences which might ensue in future negotiations on private legislation if promoters were to be compelled to insert a clause which they had previously agreed to leave out.12 The motion to re-commit the bill was negatived.13 In the case of the Urmston Urban District Council Bill 1949, where a petition had been withdrawn as a result of a similar undertaking given by the promoters, the committee on the bill made a special report stating that although it had felt obliged to accept the position, it nevertheless regretted the omission of the powers contained in the clause and wished to draw the attention of the House to their desirability.14 By contrast, in the London County Council (General Powers) Bill 1961, the promoters, having included a clause on street trading in the bill at the request of certain metropolitan borough councils, proposed, in the ‘filled-up’ bill, to delete it because one borough council objected, and the committee on the bill accepted this amendment. On consideration of the bill, the House agreed to a motion to re-insert a slightly different provision on street trading.15 When the arguments and evidence have been heard, the room is cleared to enable the committee to deliberate. The parties are then called in and the committee announces its decision. If the committee finds the preamble proved, the promoters then invite a witness formally to testify to the truth of the allegations contained therein. If the proof of the preamble is negatived, the committee reports to the House that the preamble has not been proved.16 When a committee has resolved that the preamble of a private bill has not been proved, and ordered the Chair to report, it is not competent for it to reconsider and reverse its decision; instead, the bill should be re-committed for that purpose.17 But to re-commit a bill of which the committee has reported the preamble ‘not proved’ is unusual and done only in very exceptional circumstances.18 In several other instances where compromises have afterwards been effected and the promoters have consented to make amendments, the bills have been re-committed for that purpose.19 Alterations may be made in the preamble, subject to the restriction which applies to any other amendment, that it is not inconsistent with the purposes of the bill (see para 45.8 ), or with the standing orders of the House applicable to the bill. The Chair of the committee is, however, required by Standing Order 142 to report such alterations and to state the reasons for making them. Under the Parliamentary Costs Act 2006 when a committee (in either House of Parliament) on a private bill decides that the preamble is not proved, or inserts any provision, or strikes out or alters any provision already in the bill, for the protection of any petitioner, and further unanimously reports that one or more of the petitioners against the bill have been unreasonably or vexatiously subjected to expense in defending their rights, such petitioner or petitioners are entitled to recover their costs (or such part of them as the committee thinks fit) from the promoters.20 On the other hand, when a committee unanimously reports that the promoters have been vexatiously subjected to expense by the opposition of petitioners, the promoters are entitled to recover costs from those opponents.21 However, no landowner who bona fide, at their own sole risk and charge, opposes a bill which proposes to take any part of their property, shall be liable to any costs in respect of their opposition. It has been held that the Act has been duly complied with if all the members of the committee present at the hearing of the case, provided that they form a quorum, have unanimously reported in the manner prescribed for entitling parties to recover costs.22 When costs are awarded, special mention of the award is made in the report on the bill, which is endorsed with the words ‘Costs awarded’ and is ordered to be printed. The costs awarded by a committee have to be taxed by the Taxing Officer of the House if the parties so apply (see

para 43.19 ). The provisions of the Parliamentary Costs Act 2006 are applied to orders considered by a joint committee under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945, by s 7 of the latter Act.23 Particular duties are imposed by standing order on the Chair of the committee on every private bill (whether opposed or unopposed) to record the proceedings of the committee and report them to the House. Under Standing Order 141, the Chair must sign ‘the committee bill’, which incorporates all the amendments made by the committee, and initial the several clauses added in the committee. Finally, under Standing Order 142, the Chair must report to the House whether the allegations of the bill have been found to be true; and, if the preamble has been amended, why that amendment was necessary and whether the allegations contained in the preamble, as amended, have been found to be true. If the promoters inform the committee that they do not intend to proceed with the bill, the Chair must report accordingly. Under Standing Order 131A, whenever copies of the minutes of the evidence taken before an opposed bill committee are required, they are provided at the expense of the parties, with the costs being divided in proportions specified by the Private Bill Office. In practice, the House charges the promoters an hourly fee which is intended to recover part of the cost of production. The minutes of evidence taken before committees on private bills are also published online. If matters should arise in the committee, apart from the immediate consideration of the bill referred to it, which it desires to report to the House, the committee directs the Chair to make a special report accordingly.24 The House may also instruct the committee on a private bill to make a special report.25 If a committee wishes to record a decision on a matter in respect of which it is unable to amend the bill (because to do so would be to incorporate provisions outside the purposes of the bill (see para 45.8 )), it can do so by making a recommendation which is incorporated in a special report. Parties are informed of such recommendations by the committee.26 It is the duty of a committee on an opposed bill, under Standing Order 125, to report to the House the bill that has been referred to them; and the proceedings of the committee should not be protracted by long adjournments. This Standing Order prescribes that every committee on an opposed private bill shall report specially to the House the cause of any adjournment over any day on which the House sits.27 If any attempt of this nature is made to defeat a bill, the House will intervene to prevent it. Frequent or long adjournments may put the parties to considerable expense and inconvenience, and for this reason also they are avoided as far as possible. In practice, committees sit rarely on Fridays and infrequently on Mondays. If a committee adjourned without naming another day for resuming its sittings, it was formerly held that it had no power of reassembling without an order from the House giving it leave to sit and proceed on a certain day. However, it is now common practice for committees to adjourn ‘beyond the next sitting day’ and to resume proceedings without the need for an order to revive them.

Footnotes 1. But see Minutes of Evidence, Group A on the Kent Electric Power Bill, 21 May 1941, for an occasion when a committee sat in private for reasons of public security, and on the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill (a hybrid bill), 17 November 1987, for reasons of commercial confidence. 2. Minutes of Evidence of Committee on London Docklands Railway (City Extension) Bill, 20 May 1986, p 24. See also para 43.17. 3. See also SO 126 and para 45.17. 4. CJ (1955–56) 289. 5. For example, Middle Level Bill 2017–19, Commons opposed bill committee. 6. See para 38.37. For the power of committees in the Lords to administer oaths, see the Parliamentary Witnesses Act 1858, s 2, and paras 40.28, 46.21. 7. For example, Minutes of Evidence, Committee on London Docklands Railway (Lewisham) Bill, 10 December 1991 and on Crossrail Bill, 16 March 1994. 8. For example, Minutes of Evidence, Committee on South Essex Waterworks Bill, 4 April 1962, p 47. 9. Special Report from the Committee on the Lloyd's Bill, CJ (1980–81) 464; London Docklands Railway (Beckton) Bill, Minutes of Evidence, 15 March 1988; Greater Nottingham Light Rapid Transit Bill, Minutes of Evidence, 5 November 1992. 10. In 1956, the committee on the Gloucestershire County Council Bill deleted an amendment which had previously been made by the House of Lords at the request of the promoters to give effect to an agreement between them and petitioners. Doubts were expressed as to the validity of this and the promoters obtained leave to withdraw the amended clause on consideration, CJ (1955–56) 220, Opposed Private Bills, Minutes of Proceedings (1954–56), Session 1955–56, 21 February 1956, Gloucestershire County Council Bill [Lords]. See also HC Deb (1995–96) 278, cc 164–65. 11. Committee on the West Midlands County Council Bill [Lords], Minutes of Evidence, 13 and 14 March 1979; Lords Minutes (1979–80) 31 January 1980; HL Deb (1979–80) 404, cc 997–1003; CJ (1979–80) 394; HC Deb (1979–80) 979, cc 322–44. 12. HC Deb (1948–49) 464, cc 1104–5. 13. CJ (1948–49) 231. 14. CJ (1948–49) 252. 15. HC Deb (1961–62) 661, cc 1039–80. 16. Hampshire (Lyndhurst By-pass) Bill [Lords], CJ (1987–88) 701; Wentworth Estate Bill, ibid (1988–89) 544; Hythe, Kent, Marina Bill, ibid (1989–90) 558; Crossrail Bill, ibid (1993–94) 340. 17. CJ (1924–25) 179, London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill, where the committee was instructed to reconsider its

decision on the preamble. 18. Cf the proceedings in the House on the Piccadilly, City, and North East London Railway Bill 1902, Parl Deb (1902) 113, c 1154, and on the City of London (Various Powers) Bill 1961, HC Deb (1961–62) 661, cc 1080–1116. A motion seeking the re-committal of the Crossrail Bill to the former committee with an instruction to reconsider its decision on the preamble was objected to and was not thereafter proceeded with (ibid (1993–94) 246, cc 131, 149). The promoters of the South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill, a multi-purpose bill, could not accept the provisions suggested by the committee in one opposed portion, ‘Railway No 1’, of the bill. The committee therefore reported that the preamble of the whole bill, including other and unopposed portions, was not proved. The bill was re-committed with an instruction to the committee to reconsider its decision upon so much of the preamble as did not relate to Railway No 1; the committee subsequently reported the preamble proved except in so far as it related to Railway No 1, CJ (1902) 306, 314, 330, 343; Parl Deb (1902) 110, c 759. 19. CJ (1874) 225; ibid (1877) 177; ibid (1924–25) 179. The Local Legislation Committee decided that so much of the preamble of the East Ham Corporation Bill as related to Part II was not proved, but its Chair stated that the committee would welcome reconsideration of its decision by the House in view of the novelty and importance of the questions raised. On re-committal to the same committee with an instruction to reinsert these provisions either with or without modifications if it thought fit, the committee reinserted the powers asked for, CJ (1913) 189, 283, 293; HC Deb (1913) 55, c 2132; HC 267 (1913) pp iii, xxi, xxvi. 20. Costs granted to petitioners, Wallasey Corporation Bill, CJ (1957–58) 241; British Transport Commission Bill, ibid (1961–62) 189; Portland Deepwater Quays Bill, LJ (1974) 248; Harrogate Stray Bill, CJ (1984–85) 393; King's Cross Railways Bill, Minutes of Evidence, 10 July 1990, p 27. 21. Costs granted to promoters, Skegness etc, Tramways (Abandonment) Bill, CJ (1886) 206; Folkestone, Sandgate etc, Tramways Bill (in which case the petitioners had been offered a protective clause by the committee), ibid (1890–91) 139 and Minutes of Evidence (Group 2), 5 and 6 March 1891; Bank of Bolton Bill, CJ (1895) 231; Buxton Urban District Council Bill, ibid (1902) 275. 22. Minutes of the Police and Sanitary Committee (consisting of nine members, with a quorum of five), Lancaster Corporation Bill 1888. 23. No costs have yet been awarded. 24. For examples of special reports from private bill committees on their treatment of a bill, or on special circumstances, etc see CJ (1992–93) 108, 141, 212, 524; ibid (1998–99) 374; ibid (1999–2000) 655; HC 647 (2005–06); ibid 961 (2006–07). From joint committees on special procedure orders, see ibid (1984–85) 251; ibid (1992–93) 498; ibid (1993–94) 307; ibid (1999–2000) 60. 25. CJ (1987–88) 216. 26. Minutes of Evidence, Kent Water Bill 1954, p 577; also Special Report of the Committee on the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill, HC 534 (1998–99). 27. For example, Private Business (2002–03) 23.

Reprinting of private bill as amended in committee 45.23Once the bill has been reported by the committee, it is required by Standing Order 179 to be printed, as amended, at the expense of the promoters in the same style as the House copy deposited under Standing Order 164 (para 45.2 ).1 When printed, copies of the amended bill must be delivered to the Vote Office, for the use of Members, three clear days at least before the consideration of the bill. The copy of the amended bill, printed and covered in the same manner as the House copy, must be deposited in the Private Bill Office where it is examined by the clerk in that office and endorsed as so examined. It then takes the place of the former House copy.2 It is also published online.

Footnotes 1. In 1959, during a printing strike, SO 179 was suspended on the motion of the Chairman of Ways and Means. Bills which had been amended in committee did not have to be reprinted, but the amendments made had to be indicated on the copies available for Members, CJ (1958–59) 276. 2. SO 203.

Re-committal of private bill 45.24Sometimes private bills reported from a committee have been re-committed.1 The usual practice is for a re-committed bill to be referred specifically ‘to the former committee’;2 and no Member can then sit, unless they had been duly qualified to serve upon the original committee on the bill. Unless the bill is re-committed by the House with express reference to particular provisions,3 the whole bill is open to reconsideration in committee. By Standing Order 199 (see para 45.12 ), one clear day's notice is to be given to the Private Bill Office of the meeting of the committee on a re-committed bill; and a filled-up bill, as proposed to be submitted to the committee, on re-committal, should be deposited by the agent in the same office, two clear days before the meeting of the committee.4

Footnotes 1. See also para 45.31 for re-committal on third reading. 2. See para 45.22 for bills re-committed for further consideration of its decisions by a committee. In 1976, the Committee on the Hampshire County Council (Haslar Bridge) Bill found the preamble not proved without having heard evidence in support of the allegations contained in it. The bill was recommitted to the Committee of Selection with an instruction to refer it to a new committee, CJ (1975–76) 412, 415. 3. Manchester Corporation (General Powers) Bill [Lords] in respect of a clause, with an instruction to strike out the clause, CJ (1921) 342; Nottingham Corporation Bill [Lords] in respect of two clauses, ibid (1924–25) 354. See also West Midlands County Council Bill [Lords], ibid (1979–80) 89, 329; HC Deb (1979–80) 969, cc 691–758; and County of South Glamorgan (Taff Crossing) Bill (1986–87), CJ (1986–87) 245. 4. SO 200.

Proceedings on and after report of private bill 45.25If a bill has not been amended, it is ordered to be read the third time.1 Bills reported from committees with amendments are ordered to lie upon the Table. Where the committee reports that the allegations of the bill have not been proved to its satisfaction, or that the parties promoting the bill have informed the committee that it is not their intention to proceed further, the bill is ordered to lie upon the Table.2 At least three clear days must elapse between the report from the committee and consideration of a bill ordered to lie upon the Table.3 At least three clear days before the consideration of a bill, a copy of the bill, as amended in committee, is to be laid by the agent before the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Counsel to the Speaker, and is also to be deposited with every department and office at which it was deposited under Standing Orders 39 and 40.4 At least one clear day's notice, in writing, is required to be given by the agent for the bill to the Private Bill Office of the day proposed for the consideration of a private bill ordered to lie upon the Table.5

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

SO 178. SO 178. SO 181. SO 86, 180 and 181. SO 201.

Proceedings on consideration and third reading Contents Rules as to amendments proposed to be moved on consideration, etc of bill Consideration at the time of unopposed private business Debate on consideration and third reading Recommittal on third reading Queen's consent Stages taken by mistake Bills brought from the Lords in error Bill examined before being sent to the Lords 45.26The procedure on consideration and third reading of a private bill (and on consideration of Lords amendments, see para 45.36 ) differs according to whether the stages in question are taken formally at the time of unopposed private business or, as a consequence of opposition from Members, they are set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means for debate.

Rules as to amendments proposed to be moved on consideration, etc of bill 45.27When the promoters intend to offer any clause, or to propose any amendment on the consideration of any private bill ordered to lie upon the Table—or any verbal amendment on third reading—notice is required, under Standing Order 204, to be given to the Clerk in the Private Bill Office, not less than one clear day previously. These are published in the Private Business Notice Paper. New clauses or amendments are tabled by Members in the Private Bill Office, and the notice of their tabling also appears in the Private Business Notice Paper. New clauses or amendments may be introduced on the consideration of a private bill, subject to the restrictions imposed by Standing Order 182, which requires certain amendments proposed by the promoters first to be referred to the Standing Orders Committee, and by Standing Order No 75 (Public) and Standing Order 175, which when read together provide that no amendment may be proposed on report which could not have been made in committee except upon petition for additional provision; and by the practice of the House regarding charges upon the people (see para 28.113, 36.2 ). Standing Order 184 stipulates that, on the third reading of a private bill, only verbal amendments may be made.1 If a clause or amendment on consideration is referred to the Standing Orders Committee, there can be no further proceeding until its report has been brought up.2 The report must state whether or not the clause or amendment may properly be adopted by the House, or whether the bill should be re-committed.

Footnotes 1. The last occasion on which a verbal amendment was made on third reading was on 31 October 1995, to the London Local Authorities (No 2) Bill [Lords], CJ (1994–95) 530. 2. SO 182 and 107.

Consideration at the time of unopposed private business Contents Notice of third reading of a private bill 45.28Unlike a public bill, a private bill, if it has been amended, is considered at the time of private business on the putting of the question ‘that the Bill, as amended, be now considered’, followed by consideration of any new clauses or amendments. Amendments on consideration and verbal amendments on third reading proposed by the promoters and Lords amendments are dealt with as follows. When the title of the bill is read, the Chairman of Ways and Means either moves the amendments formally, or, on rising to move, indicates to the House the nature of the amendments, for example, that they are only of a drafting nature, that no objection need be taken to them or that they recommend them to the House. The amendments are then put from the Chair in a single question.

Notice of third reading of a private bill 45.29After a bill has been considered, it is ordered by the House to be read the third time. Not less than one clear day's notice in writing is required to be given by the agent for the bill to the clerk in the Private Bill Office of the day proposed for third reading; and this notice may not be given until the day after the bill has been ordered to be read the third time.1

Footnotes 1. SO 205.

Exemption of specified business by order of the House 17.13It is also provided, by Standing Order No 15(2), that at the interruption of business, a motion may be made and decided forthwith:1 ‘That any specified business2 may be proceeded with at this day's sitting though opposed (a) until any hour; (b) until a specified hour; or (c) until either a specified hour or the end of a specified period after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later, or in any form combining any or all of these effects in respect of different items of business.’ Not more than one such motion may be made at the interruption of business at any one sitting.3 To fall within the terms of the standing order, notice of these motions must stand upon the Order Paper in the name of a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, but the motions themselves stand over until the interruption of business.4 If the terms of a motion are other than those specified in the standing order, it must be moved at the commencement of public business and is debatable—or, as is normal modern practice, it may be taken in the ordinary course of business on a previous sitting day. At the interruption of business, if the business interrupted is neither exempted from interruption by Standing Order No 15(1), nor included in the terms of the motion for the exemption of business from interruption, the normal procedure for unexempted business (see paras 17.9–17.11 ) is followed for that item. The Speaker calls upon a Minister to move the motion for the exemption of the business to be exempted, and, if the motion is carried, the first business covered by the motion is entered upon. If the business interrupted is itself covered by the exemption motion, the Speaker immediately (ie before a day is named for resuming the proceedings) calls upon the Minister to move the motion; and, if the House is in committee, the Chairman leaves the Chair, the House resumes, and the Speaker immediately calls upon the Minister in the same way. If the business in progress at the moment of interruption is itself of the class exempted from interruption under Standing Order No 15(1), and is itself time limited, but is followed on the Order Paper by business on which notice of an exemption motion has been given, the exemption motion is moved when the business under consideration has been decided, at the so-called ‘projected’ moment of interruption. The fact that any proceedings are exempted does not prevent a motion being made for the adjournment of the House in the course of those proceedings.5 If business which has been exempted for a specified period is not concluded by the end of that period, it is then treated in every respect as if it were unexempted business which has reached the normal moment of interruption (Standing Order No 15(5)(a)).6

Footnotes 1. If such a motion should deviate from the prescribed form it would be open to debate, Parl Deb (1905) 148, c 1144. 2. The business to be exempted is specified; though often it is specified in general terms, eg government business; CJ (1919) 110 and often thereafter, eg ibid (1962–63) 97; ibid (1968–69) 243; ibid (1970–71) 378; ibid (1974–75) 613; proceedings on any Lords amendments to a bill, eg ibid (1922) 113, and often thereafter, eg ibid (1974), 310, ibid (1976–77) 63; Lords amendments and any proposals relating to bills, ibid (1996–97) 328; Lords Messages, eg ibid (1976–77) 461, 466; government business other than the business of Supply, eg ibid (1973–74) 41; Her Majesty's Message (Emergency Powers), ibid (1973–74) 109; motions relating to estimates CJ (2002–03) 52. 3. SO No 15(6). 4. SO No 15(2). 5. Speaker's private ruling, 6 October 1931. 6. A motion taken at the moment of interruption enabling certain business to be proceeded with after that hour in the terms of SO No 15(2) is not to be construed as replacing or overriding any limitation placed upon the duration of those proceedings by other standing orders, by an allocation of time order or by any other order of the House. Thus, an order that ‘any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour’ did not affect the limitation of one hour placed upon those proceedings which had already been fixed by para 10 of the allocation of time order agreed to previously, HC Deb (7 April 2010) 508, c 975.

Recommittal on third reading 45.31The order for the third reading of a bill has sometimes been discharged, and the bill has been re-committed1 or the question for the third reading of the bill has been amended by an order to re-commit the bill.2

Footnotes 1. CJ (1986–87) 245. 2. CJ (1921) 342. See also ibid (1924) 343 where the amendment for re-committal was negatived.

Queen's consent 45.32The third reading is the stage at which a Privy Counsellor signifies the Queen's consent to any bill affecting the property or interests of the Crown or Duchy of Lancaster or the consent of the Prince of Wales, as Duke of Cornwall (or, if he is not of age, the consent of the Queen on his behalf).1

Footnotes 1. For Queen's consent see CJ (1994–95) 93, 418; ibid (1996–97) 320; ibid (1997–98) 496; ibid (1998–99) 270. For the consent of the Prince of Wales, see ibid (1974–75) 414. See also para 9.6. On 19 November 1987, where the Queen's consent had been properly obtained in respect of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill but had not been notified to the House, the Bill was allowed to proceed, HC Deb (1987–88) 122, c 1233.

Stages taken by mistake 45.33Where a bill has been read a second time by mistake the order then made ‘That the bill be now read a second time’ has been discharged on a later day, and another day appointed for the second reading,1 or the bill has been referred back to the Examiners.2 An order for committal has also been discharged, and the bill referred to the Examiners.3 In similar circumstances the proceedings on consideration of a bill have been declared null and void, and another day has been appointed for its consideration.4

Footnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

CJ (1872) 135; ibid (1884) 57. CJ (1875) 72; ibid (1878) 61. CJ (1945–46) 192. CJ (1912–13) 186; ibid (1927) 270. On 17 January 1990, proceedings on consideration of the Bromley London Borough Council (Crystal Palace) Bill were declared null and void after the promoters had omitted to give notice of their intention to move an amendment: CJ (1989–90) 113.

Bills brought from the Lords in error 45.34On occasion, a bill has been brought from the Lords in error, before completing all proceedings in that House. In such circumstances, the bill has been returned.1

Footnotes 1. On 8 May 1945, the Commercial Gas Bill and the South Suburban Gas Bill were brought from the Lords, read the first time, and referred to the Examiners. On 10 May a message from the Lords was received explaining that the Bills had been taken to the Commons by mistake, and requesting their return. The House ordered that the Bills should be returned and discharged the order of reference to the Examiners, CJ (1944–45) 123. On 10 April 1974, the Clerical, Medical and General Life Assurance Bill was brought from the Lords, read the first time and referred to the Examiners. On 2 May, a message from the Lords was received, explaining that the Bill had been sent to the Commons before an amendment to avoid questions of privilege had been made, and requesting its return. The Commons ordered that the Bill should be returned and discharged the order of reference to the Examiners, CJ (1974) 84 and 106.

Bill examined before being sent to the Lords 45.35No private bill may be sent up to the House of Lords until the printed bill has been endorsed as examined by the Clerk in the Private Bill Office against the bill as read the third time.1 Private bills, like public bills, are endorsed by the Clerk of the House on being sent to the Lords.

Footnotes 1. SO 207.

Lords amendments 45.36If the bill is subsequently returned from the Lords with amendments, notice is to be given in the Private Bill Office not less than one clear day before they are to be considered. If the promoters intend to propose amendments to them, a copy of such amendments is to be deposited. No notice of their intention may be given by the promoters until the day after that on which the bill has been returned from the Lords. Copies of such amendments are also to be laid before the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Counsel to the Speaker before 2.00 pm on the day before that on which it is proposed to consider the Lords amendments. Before Lords amendments or any amendments to Lords amendments are taken into consideration, the Chairman of Ways and Means may direct that they be printed at the expense of the promoters, if they consider that prints should be made available for the use of Members;1 and where a clause has been amended or a Lords amendment is proposed to be amended, that it should be printed in full, with every addition or substitution in distinctive type, and omissions included in brackets and underlined.2 If Lords amendments are taken at the time of unopposed private business, two questions are put: first, that the Lords amendments be now considered, and second, that the House agrees with the Lords in the said amendments. If, however, Lords amendments are set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means for consideration as opposed business, Standing Order 208A applies, with the consequence that the first of these questions is not put, and the House proceeds to consider the Lords amendments forthwith in the same manner as for public bills. Related Lords amendments to different private bills have been debated together.3 Towards the end of a session the consideration of Lords amendments has been sometimes expedited by the suspension of Standing Order 208 for the remainder of the session,4 or until the summer adjournment.5 Similar orders have also been made for particular bills.6 The same principles apply to private bills as to public bills regarding infringement of the Commons' privileges by the Lords except in so far as they are modified by Standing Order 191 (see also para 45.4 ). If a private bill which contains provisions creating a charge (other than a charge sanctioned by Standing Order 191) or imposing a tax originates in the Lords, the procedure applicable to public bills is followed (see paras 29.67, 30.11 ). When an amendment involving privilege is made by the Lords to a bill originating in the Commons, the Speaker brings it to the attention of the House, and it is for the House to decide whether it is willing to waive its privileges. If it is so willing, the amendment is agreed to with a special entry in the Journal.7

Footnotes 1. See HC Deb (1955–56) 544, c 179. 2. SO 88, 186 and 208. 3. HC Deb (31 January 2013) 557, c 1088, in which Lords amendments to the Canterbury City Council Bill, Leeds City Council Bill, Nottingham City Council Bill and Reading Borough Council Bill were debated together. 4. CJ (1921) 338; ibid (1922) 297; ibid (1928–29) 232; ibid (1929–30) 474; ibid (1944–45) 155; ibid (1955–56) 82. 5. CJ (1937–38) 380; ibid (1946–47) 338; ibid (1952–53) 289. 6. CJ (1914–16) 123; ibid (1947–48) 388; ibid (1951–52) 381; ibid (1954–55) 153; ibid (1972–73) 454. 7. CJ (1929–30) 482; HC Deb (1930) 242, c 235; see also CJ (1974) 84 and 186.

Suspension or revival of bills 45.37If a private bill is not expected to receive Royal Assent before the end of a session, the promoters may apply to the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Lord Chairman of Committees for leave to suspend proceedings on the bill, with a view to continuing them in the following session. Alternatively, if proceedings to suspend a bill are not successful or (in the case of a dissolution) have not been attempted, promoters may apply in the new session for the bill to be revived. Suspension and revival are governed by Standing Orders 188A and 188B respectively (150A and 150B in the Lords). Suspension or revival motions are not always agreed to by the House;1 and the Chairman is generally unwilling to entertain an application for a suspension motion where a bill originating in the Commons has not received a second reading by the end of a normal session.2 Suspension is equally effective for a new session of the same Parliament or for a new Parliament.3 Motions to suspend bills originate in the House in which the bill is at that time, and a message is sent to the other House to acquaint them with the order passed. If the other House has already passed the bill it makes parallel orders, but if it has not yet received the bill it concurs with the orders made by the first House.4 (Revival motions are dealt with similarly.) The making of a suspension order does not preclude further progress by the bill in the same session. Orders have also been made for the suspension or revival of a hybrid bill5 and for the suspension of private business standing orders relating to a hybrid bill.6 The rule that no Member may speak twice to the same question has been relaxed in the case of a suspension motion to permit a Member who has already spoken to move amendments to it.7 In the session following that in which an order for suspension was made (or in the same session as a revival order), the agent for the bill deposits in the Private Bill Office a copy of the bill together with a declaration that the bill is in the form required by the standing order. If the bill has been brought from the Lords in the previous session and amended, the order provides for it to be reintroduced in the form in which it was brought from the Lords and for the same amendments to be made to it as were made by the committee on the bill in the previous session.8 Otherwise the order provides that the deposited bill should be the same in every respect as the bill at the last stage of proceedings in the previous session. In either case the bill is then deemed to have passed through the same stages as in the previous session and no further fees are charged for those stages. The standing orders also make provision for outstanding petitions against the bill to remain valid. A bill may be suspended before being reported from the committee to which it has been referred.9 A bill may be suspended or revived more than once.10 It was formerly the practice, in the case of a dissolution, to suspend (or revive) all private bills in a single motion, and the same procedure has occasionally been adopted after a prorogation.11 It is now more usual for bills to be dealt with individually or in small groups of related bills.

Footnotes 1. See proceedings on Kent River Board (Harbour of Rye) Bill 1962, CJ (1961–62) 313; Ashdown Forest Bill [Lords] 1973, ibid (1972–73) 490; Cromarty Petroleum Order Confirmation Bill 1976, ibid (1975–76) 572; Southampton Rapid Transit Bill [Lords] (revival), CJ (1990–91) 145. 2. Bodmin Moor Commons Bill [Lords] 1998. The Chairman of Ways and Means declined to entertain an application for a suspension. 3. HC Deb (1977–78) 955, cc 340–41. 4. Examples: Commons and Lords Bills pending in Lords (suspension): CJ (2005–06) 857, 874; ibid (2006–07) 16; LJ (2005–06) 1212–13, 1243; ibid (2006–07) 7, 24; two Lords and four Commons Bills pending in Commons (revival): CJ (2008–09) 285, 331, 343; LJ (2008–09) 321, 355, 377. Debate should be related to the merits of the motion: HC Deb (2008–09) 491, cc 177, 179, 200. 5. Suspensions: Channel Tunnel Bill, CJ (1985–86) 600 and ibid (1986–87) 394; Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, ibid (1991–92) 313; Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, ibid (1994–95) 537; Crossrail Bill, CJ (2004–05) 328, ibid (2005–06) 858, ibid (2006–07) 601. Revival: Channel Tunnel Bill, CJ (1974–75) 58. In the cases of the Crossrail Bill and the Channel Tunnel Bill, the order was framed in such a way as to render unnecessary any further Money or Ways and Means resolution. 6. Relating to the Channel Tunnel Bill, CJ (1973–74) 160. 7. HC Deb (1977–78) 955, cc 338–39. 8. This procedure exists to enable the Lords to consider the Commons amendments in due course. Before 2005, suspension orders in such cases required the bill to be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means to make the necessary amendments (eg CJ (1997–98) 71). The amendments would now be made in the Private Bill Office. 9. CJ (1989–90) 628; ibid (1992–93) 767, 826–27. 10. For example, of the ten bills revived at the start of Session 2010–12, eight had been previously suspended or revived at least once, one of which originated in Session 2006–07: the Transport for London (Supplemental Toll Provisions) Bill [Lords]. 11. For example, HC Deb (1974–75) 880, cc 382–83 (dissolution); ibid (1989–90) 163, cc 911–31 (prorogation).

Private bills 46.1As a general rule, private bills are founded on a petition presented in the House of Commons.1 Petitions must be deposited in that House by 27 November, and a copy of each of the bills to which the petitions relate is deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments2 on or before the same day (Standing Order 38).3 On or before 8 January, the Senior Deputy Speaker (formerly known as the Chairman of Committees) or their Counsel confers with the Chairman of Ways and Means or his or her Counsel to apportion the bills between the two Houses (Standing Order 90). Half the bills are allotted to each House unless a different division would achieve a better distribution of private business between the two Houses4 (see para 43.13 ). The subsequent proceedings upon private bills in the two Houses are similar. These have already been described, so far as they relate to the House of Commons, in the previous chapter. So the present chapter describes only those points in which Lords procedure differs from that in the Commons. The standing orders of the two Houses relating to private business are now as nearly as possible the same; and amendments to those standing orders are drafted in concert.

Footnotes 1. Personal bills are an exception to this rule. For all exceptions, see para 44.3. 2. References in standing orders to the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments are interpreted in practice to mean the House of Lords Legislation Office, or the duty clerk in recesses. 3. References in this chapter to standing orders are to those of the House of Lords relating to private business unless stated otherwise. 4. For example, in 2009 both newly deposited bills originated in the House of Lords to counterbalance the number of existing private bills progressing through the House of Commons. In 2015, three of four deposited bills originated in the House of Lords because the High Speed Rail (London–West Midlands) Bill was still in select committee in the House of Commons.

Senior Deputy Speaker 46.2The Senior Deputy Speaker exercises a general supervision and control of private bills in the House of Lords (see para 4.50 ). This includes the responsibility for moving the various stages of the bill in the House. When the Senior Deputy Speaker moves the second or third reading of a bill, that action is an assurance to the House that in their opinion there is no objection to the passing of that particular stage. If they have an objection, or if there is an intention to raise a debate, the stage is moved by another Lords Member, the Chairman stating their objection in the course of debate before the sense of the House is taken. If any Lords Member opposes the second or third reading of a private bill, the stage is moved by another Lords Member and not by the Senior Deputy Speaker, who is thus left free to express an opinion in debate.1 To facilitate the examination of private bills, Counsel to the Senior Deputy Speaker receives a copy of every private bill proposed to be introduced into either House on its first deposit and at every other stage upon which amendments are made or proposed to be made.2 Any amendments proposed to be made or made in either House are marked on this copy by the promoters at each stage. This practice also assists promoters of a bill originating in the Commons as they are able to prepare amendments, during the bill's passage through that House, to give effect to the observations of the Senior Deputy Speaker and their Counsel. In addition, the Senior Deputy Speaker is also given powers by specific Standing Orders (90–93): 1. to confer with the Chairman of Ways and Means for determining the allocation of bills between the two Houses; 2. to report that an unopposed bill should proceed as an opposed bill; and 3. to direct the House's attention to special circumstances relating to a private bill and to any proposed instruction to a committee to make an amendment which could have been proposed (by the promoters) only in a petition for additional provision. The Senior Deputy Speaker is empowered (by Standing Order 95) to select and propose to the House the membership and Chair of committees on opposed private business (see para 46.16 ). They may also decide (under Standing Order 121) whether to sit alone on unopposed bill committees or with two or more Deputy Chairmen.

Footnotes 1. Parl Deb (1906) 153, c 1053; HL Deb (1975–76) 375, c 1664. 2. SO 123.

Petitions for late bills and for additional provision (Standing Orders 2 and 97) 46.3As well as petitions for personal bills, there are two exceptions to the general rule that petitions for private bills are presented in the Commons, namely, petitions for ‘late bills’ and petitions for ‘additional provision’ (see para 46.5 ). In the case of a late bill which is to be introduced in the House of Lords, a petition for the bill, with a copy of the bill annexed, is presented to that House.1 Similarly, a petition for additional provision (which can be presented only in the House in which the bill originated) is presented to the House of Lords if the bill to which it relates was introduced in that House.

Footnotes 1. For the powers of the Senior Deputy Speaker to authorise a late bill, see paras 5.33 –5.36.

Standing Orders 4–68 46.4Compliance with these Standing Orders must be proved before one or more of the Examiners. However, most of them relate only to bills authorising major construction work (works bills) and are now largely redundant,1 although they still apply to hybrid bills involving works. If a private bill is brought from the Commons that has been amended on consideration in that House, or if alterations have been made in works to be authorised by the bill, compliance with the requirements of Standing Orders 60–61 must in particular be proved. In the case of certain bills conferring powers upon companies, compliance with Standing Orders 62–68 is proved before the Examiner after second reading. These are the ‘Wharncliffe’ Orders described at para 45.3, which are identical in substance for the two Houses.

Footnotes 1. As a result of the Transport and Works Act 1992 (see para 42.17 ).

Standing Orders 69–83 46.5Under Standing Order 74, every bill brought from the Commons is referred, after first reading, to the Examiners, before whom compliance with such standing orders as have not been previously inquired into is proved. Proceedings before the Examiners in respect of late bills (Standing Order 78), hybrid bills (Standing Order 83) and petitions for additional provision (Standing Order 73) are similar to those in the Commons (see Chapter 45). After petitions for late bills and for additional provision have been referred to them, the Examiners must, as a matter of course, report non-compliance with standing orders so far as they relate to times for deposit and service and publication of notices. Any parties may appear before the Examiners and be heard, by themselves or their agents, upon a memorial addressed to the Examiner (Standing Order 76); and witnesses may be examined under the same conditions as in the Commons (see para 45.22 ). Memorials in respect of any bill referred to the Examiners after first reading, or by direction of the Senior Deputy Speaker, or in respect of any petition for additional provision (see para 43.15 ), or any petition for leave to bring in a late bill deposited after 27 November, are deposited together with two copies, in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments before noon on the preceding day (Standing Order 78).1 All certificates of the Examiners are to be laid upon the Table of the House not later than the first sitting day after their deposit in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments (Standing Order 82).

Footnotes 1. For a special report from the Examiners, see Avon Light Rail Transit (Bristol City Centre) Bill, LJ (1989–90) 549, or Local Government Bill [Lords] (Special Report, HL 12 (2010–12)).

Adjournment on Saturday and Sunday sittings 17.17The time for the adjournment of the House on Saturdays and Sundays is not prescribed by standing order but the time of adjournment is usually specified in the resolution appointing a Saturday or Sunday sitting. Where the House is recalled in accordance with the provision of Standing Order No 13 on either of these days, it is necessary for a resolution to be moved, preferably at the commencement of the sitting, if it is decided to regulate its hours of sitting.

First reading (Standing Order 98) 46.7Private bills originating in the Lords are read on whichever of the following days is the later: a. the day on which an Examiner's Certificate is laid on the Table certifying compliance with the standing orders; or b. the day on which a report from the Standing Orders Committee that the standing orders have been complied with is presented to the House; or c. the day on which the House, on report from the Standing Orders Committee that the standing orders ought to be dispensed with, has agreed that the bill should be allowed to proceed; or d. 22 January or, if the House is not sitting, the next sitting day. A private bill brought from the Commons is read a first time forthwith. As in the Commons (see para 45.3 ), the proceedings on first reading are ‘formal’, that is to say, by way of an entry in the Minutes of Proceedings. No proceedings take place in the House itself.

Compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998 (Standing Orders 38, 91 and 98A) Contents Joint Committee on Human Rights 46.8Standing Order 38(3) requires the promoters of a bill to include in its Explanatory Memorandum a statement of opinion as to the compatibility of the bill's provisions with the European Convention on Human Rights as defined in the Human Rights Act 1998. Standing Order 98A requires a Minister of the Crown to deposit a report on this statement in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than the second sitting day after the bill was read a first time. The Senior Deputy Speaker directs the House's attention to any report which does not confirm the bill's compatibility (Standing Order 91).1

Footnotes 1. Negative and subsequently favourable reports on the Hereford Markets Bill [Lords] were brought to the attention of the House LJ (2002–03) 158, 314, and favourable reports on the Canterbury City Council Bill and Nottingham City Council Bill were drawn to the attention of the House under Standing Order 91, LJ (2009–10) 146. Reports on the New Southgate Cemetery Bill [Lords] and the Faversham Oyster Fishery Company Bill [Lords] were drawn to the attention of the House under SO 91 (HL Minutes of Proceedings, 27 January 2016).

Joint Committee on Human Rights 46.9The Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) (see para 41.11 ) may write to the promoters to deal with any deficiency in their statement of compatibility. Similarly, the Chair of the JCHR may write to the Chairman of a committee on a private bill to draw attention to human rights issues which the committee on the bill may wish to address. The JCHR itself does not report on private bills unless they raise significant human rights issues. The committee has not recently reported on a private bill.

Petitions against private bills (Standing Orders 101–103) 46.10Opponents of a private bill may present petitions to Parliament objecting to all or part of the bill. Petitions stand referred to the select committee which will consider the bill after second reading (see para 46.11 ). The final date for presenting petitions against private bills introduced in the Lords is 6 February (Standing Order 101). In the case of bills brought from the Commons and late bills and in certain other circumstances, petitions must be submitted not later than the tenth day after that on which the bill was read a first time. In the case of hybrid bills, the petitioning period is a minimum of 25 calendar days from the day after the bill was read a second time, where the bill originated in the House of Lords, or from the day after the bill was read a first time, where the bill originated in the House of Commons (Standing Order 101A). The actual length of the petitioning period is decided by the Senior Deputy Speaker, after consultation with the relevant Minister.1 It is a matter for the Standing Orders Committee to decide whether late petitions against a hybrid bill should be accepted.2 Except in the case of petitions which must be deposited by 6 February, petitioning time which expires during a recess is extended to the first sitting day after the recess (Standing Order 201A). Petitions must specify distinctly the grounds of the petitioner's objection. The committee on the bill may hear a petitioner only on the grounds stated in the petition (Standing Order 111). Any petitioner can withdraw their petition or can withdraw from a petition to which they are a party together with other persons (Standing Order 103) by informing the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments in writing.

Footnotes 1. See House of Lords Procedure Committee, Second Report, Revisions of Private Business Standing Orders, HL 34 (2017–19). 2. Ibid.

Second reading 46.11The second reading of a private bill is usually taken before public business and is usually brief. It does not, as in the case of public bills, affirm the principle of the bill, which may therefore be called in question before a committee, or at a later stage. It is rare for a private bill to be rejected at second reading.1 The second reading is normally moved by the Senior Deputy Speaker, and provides an opportunity for them to direct the attention of the House to any special circumstances connected with the bill. A Member of the Lords who intends to debate the second reading of a bill is expected to notify the Senior Deputy Speaker, the Legislation Office or the Government Whips' Office; a Member who intends to oppose it should always do so. The Senior Deputy Speaker then usually asks the promoters to arrange for someone other than themselves to move the second reading, and they may enter it at a lower place on the Order Paper.

Footnotes 1. The last private bills rejected at second reading were the North Devon Water Bill and the North Devon Electric Power Bill in 1937, HL Deb (1936–37) 104, cc 894–929. For more recent debates on the second reading of a bill see Hailsham Cattle Market Bill [Lords], ibid (1997–98) 581, cc 1616–46, when a motion to reject the Bill was withdrawn; and the City of Westminster Bill [Lords], HL Deb (13 March 2009) 708, cc 1443–58.

Instructions 46.12Any Lords Member may move an instruction to the committee considering a bill. Instructions may be given to a select committee on a bill or, on occasion, to an unopposed bill committee.1 Instructions are moved after second reading, often but not necessarily on the same day. They should not fetter the discretion of the committee in dealing with the bill; hence instructions of a mandatory nature, for example ordering the committee to amend the bill in a particular way, are not generally made by the House,2 though instances of this type of instruction have occurred.3 Instructions to direct the committee to have regard to matters which would in any event be considered by it (either under standing orders or because they are raised in a petition against the bill) have been refused by the House.4 The Senior Deputy Speaker is required by Standing Order 93 to call the House's attention to any instruction to authorise or require a committee to make an amendment to the bill which in their opinion could not have been proposed by the promoters except on a petition for additional provision (see para 44.3 ). Nowadays, the more usual type of instruction may be said to have been of a cautionary nature. For example, the committee on a bill has been instructed not to grant certain powers unless satisfied that certain matters of public policy (eg food production) have been adequately safeguarded, or that certain objections of a public nature have been considered.5

Footnotes 1. London Transport Bill, LJ (1979–80) 1103; Severn-Trent Water Authority Bill, ibid (1982–83) 283 (this Bill was subsequently committed to a select committee). See also Leeds City Council Bill, Reading Borough Council Bill, Canterbury City Council Bill and Nottingham City Council Bill and a motion, agreed after a debate, for an instruction to the select committee to which the bills were committed, HL Minutes of Proceedings, 19 October 2010. 2. St Mildred's Churchyard Bill, HL Deb (1925) 60, c 501. 3. Manchester Corporation Bill, LJ (1961–62) 103. For further examples see Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), p 935. 4. Esso Petroleum Company Bill, LJ (1960–61) 33; Clywedog Reservoir Joint Authority Bill, ibid (1962–63) 163. 5. Hailsham Cattle Market Bill, HL Deb (1997–98) 581, c 1646. For earlier examples see Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), p 935.

Commitment 46.13After second reading, private bills are committed, if opposed, to a select committee; if unopposed, normally to an unopposed bill committee.1 Standing Order 100 prohibits commitment in the case of bills referred to the Examiners after second reading, until the Examiners or the Standing Orders Committee have made a favourable report, to which the House has agreed.

Footnotes 1. For the commitment of private bills to joint committees, see Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), pp 887–89.

Unopposed bills referred by the Senior Deputy Speaker to a select committee 46.14Under Standing Order 92 the Senior Deputy Speaker may refer an unopposed bill to a select committee.1 This standing order has been interpreted as giving power to the Senior Deputy Speaker to refer parts of a bill to a select committee, including unopposed parts of opposed bills.2 Where a select committee is considering an unopposed bill thus remitted to it by the Senior Deputy Speaker, the promoters are frequently represented only by their agents, though in other respects, so far as applicable, the procedure appropriate to an opposed bill is followed.

Footnotes 1. Severn-Trent Water Authority Bill, LJ (1982–83) 298. 2. London County Council (General Powers) Bill, LJ (1955–56) 74; London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No 2) Bill (HL Minutes of Proceedings, 23 February 2009); City of Westminster [Lords] Bill (HL Minutes of Proceedings, 19 July 2010).

Membership (Standing Order 104) 46.15Each select committee to which a private bill is committed consists of five members. In two instances, however, the committee has been increased to seven.1

Footnotes 1. Tees Valley and Cleveland Water Bill, LJ (1966–67) 243; Calderdale Water Bill, ibid (1968–69) 253.

Appointment of members (Standing Order 95) 46.16The Senior Deputy Speaker usually selects and proposes to the House the members of the select committee and names the Chairman; but the Committee of Selection performs this function if the Senior Deputy Speaker believes that it should do so or if two or more members of the Committee of Selection request it.1

Footnotes 1. The Committee of Selection selected the members of the committee on the Lloyd's Bill, LJ (1981–82) 232.

Interests (Standing Order 96) 46.17Lords Members are exempted from serving on a committee on any bill in which they have an interest, though if their interest is a remote or minor one it is the practice for them to declare it at the beginning of the committee's proceedings and, if the parties have no objection, to continue to sit.1

Footnotes 1. For rules on interests in the Lords, see paras 5.33 –5.36.

Attendance of members (Standing Orders 105 and 106) 46.18Every member is required to attend the entire proceedings of the committee (Standing Order 105). But if any member is unable to attend, the committee may, with the consent of all the parties, sit in their absence, provided that the number of the committee is not reduced to fewer than four and that the committee reports the fact to the House when the House next sits (Standing Order 106).1 No Lords Member who is not a member of the committee may take part in its proceedings.

Footnotes 1. Brighton Marina Bill, LJ (1967–68) 144. The select committee on the Swanage City Council Bill adjourned sine die because not all the parties consented to the committee's sitting as four members in the absence of the fifth member, ibid (1984–85) 356. For an example of a Committee continuing to sit in the absence of a member, see the Broads Authority Bill (HL Minutes of Proceedings, 28 January 2009).

Equality of votes on a division in a committee 46.19If for any reason, such as the unavoidable absence of a member of the committee, opinions are equally divided on a division, the practice is governed by Public Business Standing Order No 56.1 The Lords Member in the Chair has no casting vote.

Footnotes 1. HL Deb (1962–63) 252, c 449.

Withdrawal of opposition (Standing Order 113) 46.20If no parties appear on their petitions against a bill or on petitions against alterations, or, having appeared, withdraw their opposition before the promoter's evidence has been opened, or if their right to have their petition considered (locus standi )1 is disallowed, the committee is required to report accordingly to the House. The bill is then dealt with as if originally unopposed and, unless there is an outstanding application for costs before the select committee, is committed to an unopposed bill committee. But nothing in this standing order prevents the committee from requiring the preamble of a bill to be proved (see below) in any case in which an application for costs has been made.

Footnotes 1. The term `locus standi ’ was replaced in private business standing orders with `the right to have petition considered’ as part of a revision of Standing Orders in 2017. See House of Lords Procedure Committee, Second Report, Revisions of Private Business Standing Orders, HL 34 (2017–19). A similar amendment was made to the House of Commons private business standing orders.

Hearing and evidence (Standing Orders 109 and 110) 46.21Petitions against bills are automatically referred to committees, and the parties may be heard by themselves, their counsel, representatives or parliamentary agents. The proceedings of a Lords committee on a private bill are essentially the same as those of a committee in the Commons (see para 45.7 ), except that the committee itself deals with questions relating to the rights of petitioners to have their petition considered (see para 46.20 ). Witnesses in opposed proceedings always give evidence on oath, but witnesses in an unopposed bill committee do not, except the witness who formally proves the preamble (see below). Witnesses may be examined upon the preamble; against particular clauses; or in support of new clauses or amendments. Parties may be similarly heard upon their petitions against alteration in the bill. Witnesses are examined, cross-examined and re-examined. The promoter of the bill must always prove the preamble, that is to say, satisfy the committee about the general expediency of the bill. The usual practice today is for the committee to hear the promoter and petitioners on all the aspects of the bill, including all the clauses which are in contention, and then to decide whether the bill should proceed and what amendments, if any, should be made to it. If the committee decides that the bill should proceed, the preamble is proved formally at the conclusion of proceedings. This is done by a witness for the promoter stating on oath that they have read the preamble to the bill and that it is true. Unless the Senior Deputy Speaker otherwise directs, every opposed bill on which a select committee has reported that the bill should proceed is re-committed to an unopposed bill committee (see para 46.28 ) for consideration of the unopposed provisions; but no decision made by a select committee may be varied by an unopposed bill committee.

Visits to sites 46.22Committees on private bills do not normally have power to adjourn from place to place,1 but a select committee may, if it thinks fit, visit the site affected by a private bill.2

Footnotes 1. More recently, exceptions have been the select committees on three hybrid bills: Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, 1992–93, to enable the committee to sit and hear evidence in Cardiff: LJ (1992–93) 412; Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, 1995–96, to enable the committee to hear evidence if necessary in France and Belgium, 21 May 1996, and the Crossrail Bill, LJ (2007–08) 186, to enable the Committee to hear evidence at various sites on the proposed Crossrail route. The select committee on the High Speed Rail (London–West Midlands) Bill undertook site visits, not to hear evidence, but for `basic route familiarisation’ (Special Report, HL 83 (2016–17), para 28). A select committee has by motion in the House been authorised to visit Nantes in France in connection with the Croydon Tramlink Bill 1992: ibid (1992–93) 368. 2. For example, Croydon Tramlink Bill 1992.

Right of petitioners to have their petitions considered (Standing Order 114) 46.23Whereas in the House of Commons questions on the right of petitioners to have their petitions against a bill considered are heard by the Court of Referees (see para 45.22 ), in the House of Lords they are heard by the committee to which the bill is referred.1 Standing Orders 115–120, some of which are mandatory and some permissive, regulate the right of petitioners to have their petitions considered in certain cases. Under Standing Order 117A, any Members of Parliament whose constituencies are directly affected by the works proposed by a bill are permitted to have their petitions against a bill considered by the committee.2 The House may give directions, either by suspending certain of the standing orders relating to the right to have a petition considered, or by giving an instruction to the select committee, which may in particular cases modify the rules relating to that right.3

Footnotes 1. The promoters of the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill did not challenge the right of the petitioners to have their petitions considered but asked the select committee on the Bill for a ruling as to the relevancy of certain paragraphs within the petitions. The committee ruled that certain paragraphs were irrelevant and would not entertain evidence led upon those particular matters (Minutes of Evidence, House of Lords Select Committee on the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill, 7 October 2002). In the case of the City of Westminster Bill [Lords] the opposed bill committee in the Lords sat to hear a challenge to the right of certain petitioners to have their petitions considered—the Committee found that the petitioners in question did not have the right to be heard against the bill—and then adjourned its further proceedings to a later date (HL Minutes of Proceedings, 15 July 2009). 2. This right was introduced as part of the 2017 revisions mentioned in para 46.20, fn 1. 3. On the Greater London Council (Money) Bill 1976 the select committee disallowed the right of all the petitioners to have their petitions considered, but nevertheless met to consider an instruction; and, having obtained power to hear evidence other than that tendered by the parties, took evidence from some of the unsuccessful petitioners: LJ (1975–76) 623.

Costs 46.24Committees of the House of Lords have the same powers as those of the House of Commons to award costs (see para 45.22 ); but these powers are now rarely used. Committees on hybrid bills have no powers to award costs to any party.

Special reports 46.25In certain circumstances, when it is thought that the House should be informed of the findings of a committee on a private bill and its reasons for reaching them, the committee makes a ‘special report’ to the House, which is printed. An unopposed bill committee shall in respect of the bill committed to it make a special report on any matter to which the committee considers that the attention of the House should be drawn (Standing Order 121). Likewise, in practice an opposed bill committee makes a special report if any point arises during its consideration of the bill which in the committee's opinion merits a special report.1 An opposed bill committee would usually make a special report if the bill, though unopposed, had been referred to the committee by the Senior Deputy Speaker pursuant to Standing Order 92. It is usual for a committee on a bill, whether opposed or unopposed, to make a special report if: a. the committee rejects the bill;2 or b. the House has given the committee an instruction. Furthermore, if a committee on a private bill has referred to it a report on the bill from a minister of the Crown that makes a recommendation, the committee shall, in its report to the House, note the recommendation and, if it does not agree to the recommendation, state its reasons for dissenting (Standing Order 127). In practice any such reasons are stated by means of a special report.

Footnotes 1. For a special report on an opposed bill, see London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] LJ (2007–08) 785 (HL 160 (2007–08)). For a special report on costs, see London Docklands Railway Bill, HL 151 (1983–84). For a special report from a select committee on unopposed provisions, see Greater Manchester Bill, LJ (1979–80) 953. For a special report made by an unopposed bill committee, see London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] (HL Minutes of Proceedings 2 November 2009; HL 174 (2008–09)). For earlier examples see Erskine May (22nd edn, 1997), p 936. 2. See eg the special report on the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill, HL 29 (1990–91).

Bill as amended in committee 46.26When the select committee has finished considering the bill, it reports the bill to the House, with or without amendments. All amendments made by the committee are inserted into a copy of the bill known as the ‘Committee bill’, which is then signed by the Chairman of the committee. Amendments made by a select committee on a hybrid bill are ordered to be printed.

Rejection of bill by select committee 46.27A select committee rejects a private bill by reporting to the House ‘That it is not expedient to proceed further with the bill’. This report is ordered to lie on the Table, and the bill is thereupon removed from the list of bills in progress.1

Footnotes 1. For Commons bills rejected by Lords select committees, see Birmingham Corporation Bill, Walsall Corporation Bill and West Bromwich Corporation Bill, LJ (1955–56) 74, 321; Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill, ibid (1990–91) 198; for Lords bills so rejected, see Darlington Borough Council Bill, ibid (1990–91) 447.

Unopposed bills committed to unopposed bill committees (Standing Order 121) 46.28Every private bill which has not been petitioned against is committed to an unopposed bill committee. Bills against which petitions were presented but later withdrawn are also so committed. Bills which have become unopposed by reason of the provisions of Standing Order 113 (see para 46.20 ), except bills which the Senior Deputy Speaker has under Standing Order 92 reported to the House should proceed as opposed bills, are also committed to an unopposed bill committee. An unopposed bill committee consists of the Senior Deputy Speaker assisted by Counsel and, if the Senior Deputy Speaker sees fit, other Lords Members selected from the panel of Deputy Chairmen.1 No other Lords Member may take part. In the absence of the Senior Deputy Speaker, one of the Deputy Chairmen acts in their place.2 The promoters of an unopposed private bill are entitled to be heard before the committee by themselves or their agents or, in cases where the unopposed bill committee consists of the Senior Deputy Speaker and any Deputy Chairmen, by counsel (Standing Order 122). Representatives of those Ministers who have sent in reports on the bill, and witnesses of the promoters who can answer any points that have been raised by such reports or by the Senior Deputy Speaker or their Counsel, also attend.

Footnotes 1. See, for example, the London Local Authorities Bill (Special Report, HL 174 (2001–02)) where two Deputy Chairmen also sat. 2. For example, the unopposed bill committee on the London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] (HL Minutes of Proceedings, 8 July 2009).

Copies of filled-up bill to be laid before the Senior Deputy Speaker (Standing Order 123) 46.29Copies of filled-up bills, containing all the amendments proposed to be made by the promoters, and of estimates and statements deposited under Standing Orders 45 or 46 must be submitted to the Senior Deputy Speaker before the day appointed for the consideration of the bill in committee. In the case of an opposed or re-committed bill such copies must be laid not fewer than two clear days before the day so appointed: this enables the Senior Deputy Speaker to draw the attention of the select committee Chairman to any necessary point. At the first sitting of a select committee on an opposed bill, copies of the filled-up bill must be supplied by the promoters to each committee member.

Powers of committees, and their limitations 46.30A committee is not empowered, without express authority from the House, to hear evidence other than that tendered by any parties entitled to be heard (Standing Order 124)1; a committee is prohibited from examining compliance with such standing orders as are directed to be proved before the Examiners (Standing Order 125); and a committee may admit affidavits in proof of any allegation, deed or document mentioned or set forth in a bill or its schedule (Standing Order 126).

Footnotes 1. For cases where authority to hear evidence other than that tendered by parties entitled to be heard has been given, see Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), p 940.

Reports of public departments (Standing Order 127) 46.31All reports on a private bill made under the authority of a Minister of the Crown and presented to the House stand referred to the committee on the bill and if the report contains a recommendation the committee may, if it thinks fit, hear a representative of the Minister in explanation of it. Such officers are not sworn and may not be cross-examined before a select committee by the promoters, though the effect of this latter prohibition is circumvented in practice by the Chairman of the committee putting questions to them on behalf of the promoters. Since the representatives of departments are not on oath, they should not comment on or question evidence as to fact given by sworn witnesses.

Arrangements between parties and undertakings given in committee (Standing Order 130) 46.32It is a condition of acceptance by any committee of: a. any arrangement between the promoters of a private bill and any other party appearing; or b. any undertaking given to the committee by or on behalf of the promoters or any such other party, that any difference arising between the parties concerned shall, after the discharge of the committee, be determined by the Senior Deputy Speaker.1 There is no equivalent Commons procedure.

Footnotes 1. See special report on Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996 (Land at Temple Mills), HL 183 (2002–03).

Re-commitment to Committee of the whole House (Standing Order 94) 46.33In order to ensure attention to bills affecting public interests, the Senior Deputy Speaker may propose that any private bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House.1 Such re-commitment of a private bill does not of itself mean that the bill proceeds as a public bill.

Footnotes 1. Nottingham Corporation Bill, LJ (1882) 170.

Deposit of amended bills (Standing Order 147) 46.34All private bills which have been amended in committee are reprinted as amended before the third reading, unless the Senior Deputy Speaker considers that reprinting the bill is unnecessary. A copy of every bill as amended in committee must be deposited not less than three clear days before the third reading at every office at which it was deposited under Standing Orders 39 and 194, or would be required to be deposited under those Orders if it had been originally introduced in the form in which it emerged as amended in committee. Proof of compliance with this standing order is given by depositing a certificate in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments. Hybrid bills are ordered to be reprinted as amended by the select committee.

Report stage 46.35No report stage is held in the House on a private bill, whether or not the bill has been amended in committee. Bills are in practice reported to the House from a select committee or an unopposed bill committee merely by means of an entry in the Minutes of Proceedings, and the next stage is third reading. When a special report (see para 46.25 ) is made, a motion to take note of it may be moved.1

Footnotes 1. A motion to take note of the special report on the County of South Glamorgan Bill was amended so that certain provisions rejected by the select committee were re-committed, LJ (1975–76) 48–49. A motion to take note of the special report of the select committee on the West Midlands County Council Bill was amended to the effect that certain proposed amendments rejected by the committee should be made on third reading, ibid (1977–78) 814.

Third reading 46.36Amendments may be moved to the bill on third reading provided that notice has been submitted to the Senior Deputy Speaker, and copies deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments, one clear day before the third reading (Standing Order 148).1 The Senior Deputy Speaker is not normally prepared to move amendments on third reading unless they are satisfied that the consent of all parties has been given. Copies of all amendments to be moved are deposited in the Printed Paper Office. Private bills are occasionally debated on third reading and may, less frequently, be opposed.2 As is the case at second reading, the Senior Deputy Speaker may judge it necessary to ask the promoters to arrange for another Lords Member to move the motion (see para 46.11 ).

Footnotes 1. See eg British Waterways Bill [Lords], LJ (1991–92) 201, 328, and more recently the London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] LJ (2006–07) 447. 2. For a bill rejected on third reading see Swanage Yacht Haven Bill [Lords] 1987, LJ (1987–88) 234. For a bill opposed on third reading see Kent County Council Bill [Lords], LJ (1999–2000) 107. The British Railways Bill 1992 was the subject of an amendment to the motion for third reading regretting that the Bill had been amended at the request of the promoters so that they would not have to honour undertakings given to the Commons select committee on the bill, LJ (1992–93) 521. For earlier examples see Erskine May (22nd edn, 1997), p 940.

Queen's consent 46.37When the Queen's or Prince's consent is required it is usually signified on third reading by a Minister who is a Privy Counsellor; and the consent is recorded in the Minutes of Proceedings.1

Footnotes 1. Imperial College Bill, LJ (1997–98) 152. See also Transport for London (Supplemental Toll Provisions) Bill [Lords] where Queen's consent was signified on third reading (HL Minutes of Proceedings, 29 June 2011).

Proceedings after third reading 46.38When a bill has been read a third time and passed, it is sent to the Commons; or, if it is a bill brought from that House, it is either returned with amendments, or a message is sent to acquaint the Commons that it has been agreed to without amendment. The ordinary proceedings in the Commons on amendments made by the Lords to private bills originating in the Commons are described in the previous chapter. In the event of disagreement between the Houses the same forms are observed as for public bills (see paras 30.5 –30.25 ). In the case of private bills, however, the second House will not make a bill more onerous (except on the promoters) than it was when it left the first House.

Commons amendments 46.39It is extremely rare for Commons amendments to a private bill originating in the Lords to be considered on the floor of the House. The usual practice is that Counsel to the Chairman of Committees scrutinises the Commons amendments which are then shown as considered and agreed to by the House simply by an entry in the Minutes of Proceedings of the House. The bill is then ready to receive the Royal Assent.

Withdrawal of bills 46.40Private bills may be withdrawn at any stage during their passage through the House.1

Footnotes 1. LJ (1990–91) 411. Bodmin Moor Commons Bill LJ (1997–98) 231 (withdrawn 9 November 1998). See also Whitstable Oyster Fishery Company Bill (withdrawn 24 January 2005) and University of Wales: Trinity Saint David (withdrawn 19 December 2011): these withdrawals were not recorded in HL Minutes.

Personal bills 46.41Personal bills are private bills that relate to the ‘estate, property, status or style, or otherwise to the personal affairs of an individual’ (Standing Order 3). Such bills are now rare: none has been enacted since 1987.1 Petitions for leave to bring in a personal bill are presented to the House of Lords rather than the House of Commons. The promoters may deposit a petition, signed by one or more of the parties principally concerned in the consequences of the bill, together with a copy of the proposed bill, in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments at any time during the session.2 The petition and draft bill are considered by the Senior Deputy Speaker and the Chairman of Ways and Means, who may certify that the proposed bill conforms to the description of a personal bill and that the standing orders relating to notices, dates of deposit, etc (Standing Orders 4–68) should not be applicable to it. The subsequent procedures in the Lords for personal bills are similar to those for other private bills except that personal bills are subject to Standing Orders 151–153, 157–170 and 173–174. For a fuller description of past practice see Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), pp 942–46.

Footnotes 1. The number of personal bills was greatly reduced by the passing of the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Act 1986, which relaxed the prohibitions on many previously prohibited marriages. 2. SO 153.

Royal Assent 46.42Proceedings on Royal Assent1 to private Acts are identical with those for public and general Acts, described at paras 30.36 –30.40, save that personal bills receive the Royal Assent in the form ‘Soit fait comme il est désiré’.2

Footnotes 1. In this and the following section the words ‘private Act’ are used in their ordinary colloquial sense to mean ‘a private (or personal) bill which has received the Royal Assent’. 2. Under the Interpretation Act 1978 (c 30), private Acts are deemed to be public Acts unless the contrary is expressly stated. See Erskine May (21st edn, 1989), pp 946–47.

Classification of private Acts 46.43All private Acts are printed after Royal Assent by the Queen's Printer. They are classified as follows: 1. In one series, which is given chapter numbers in lower case Roman figures, there are listed: a. private Acts other than personal Acts; and b. ‘public Acts of a local character’, which include Provisional Order Confirmation Acts, Scottish Order Confirmation Acts passed under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936 and Pier and Harbour Order Confirmation Acts. Such Acts are numbered in the order in which they receive Royal Assent. 2. Personal Acts are given a chapter number in italic Arabic figures.