The Report of the Leader’s Group on the Working Practices of the House was published today. You can see the announcement and link to the report here.
Working practices
by Lord Norton • • 15 Comments
The Report of the Leader’s Group on the Working Practices of the House was published today. You can see the announcement and link to the report here.
I notice under the heading “Saving time” the report recommends Members no longer seek leave to ask the questions “standing in their name on the Order Paper”, but instead read out the question. I’m not sure how this saves time, as at present the question is not read, but it would certainly be a welcome improvement. It can be frustrating to watch questions online as viewers hear the answer without knowing the question, unless they can be bothered to search for the corresponding Hansard or archived order paper.
Jonathan: I agree that the advantage is unrelated to time but has everything to do with making the proceedings intelligible to anyone watching.
It’s an interesting read – most of its conclusions are eminently sensible. But, it seems, nothing about a permanent committee to look at working practices? If I recall correctly, that was an objection of one of the original reports (or at least, it was brought up when they were mentioned in debate). That is disappointing.
Len: If the recommendations are implemented, it may be that a permanent committee of this sort is not required; though there well be a case for a regular review, perhaps every Parliament.
After reading through a majority of the report I can agree with it in it’s general approach. It appears the group have taken up a lot of things spoken of here.
I feel this blog to have been an asset not only to the public but to the House, with that in mind and the concept of the Backbench Business Committee taking forward ideas for debate and public evidence can we be assured of a view from a member of said committee here ? Can we also look at putting forward for debate things that may not necessarily draw a huge amount of public support but be socially necessary. Recent items the noble Lord has shown interest in such as drugs and seperately prostitution are bought to mind. Both are of significant financial and social importance but appear not to be material enough to warrant outstanding petition support, nor does it appear the Commons brave enough to take on perhaps issues of moral value.
I applaud the group for it’s attempt at getting plain English to be used in the Chamber, though feel it could go further than the report. I welcome the idea of losing the often archaic formalities with humble politeness specially in addressing other members, which some members appear pedantic about.
Pre-legislative scrutiny, draft bills, are I feel a necessity and this should be pushed hard. The more done beforehand, the better the bill and I hope the Commons will agree with the group on this matter.
Carl.H: Many thanks. I think it is a very good report. I think ensuring greater input is vital and the recommendations are extremely helpful: a backbench business committee (akin to that in the Commons) will be able to take into account the case for ensuring that certain matters deserve to be aired, even if they may not be popular. I think we have both the expertise and the self-confidence to ensure that such issues are selected for debate.
I hope we have an opportunity very soon to debate the report. I am keen we make progress on the recommendations.
I can not quite see when a previous such Review took place. Looking at the headings the working practices discussed really are fairly obvious, and without looking further I presume the Leader’s group did not sit for more than a couple of meetings.
Gareth Howell: The group met 19 times. See paragraph 14 of the report.
“The group met 19 times. See paragraph 14 of the report”.
19 times and all of it old hats.
I agree with the report on giving the Lords Speaker more power over QT. However the bit about reading out the question will not save time, there is nothing wrong with “My Lords I beg leave to ask the questions standing in my name on the Order Paper.”
tory boy, I agree it won’t save time, but it will be much more useful for members of the public watching the debate. “I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name” is a real waste of time. If they are going to stand up and say something, they may as well say the question.
Not to be facetious but just wondering, in terms of working practices: would an honorable Lord get away with calling a Baroness ‘dear’….
Vincenzo Rampulla: Not just a Baroness. I did a post some time ago, on Lords of the Blog, about a peer who opened his speech with ‘My dears’ rather than ‘My Lords’!
What about, “Calm down, dear” ??
The Leader’s Group report is excellent as far as it goes, but for me it doesn’t quite go far enough in terms of improving the governance arrangements of the House although it does suggest that the workings of the Usual Channels should be more transparent. I wonder how invisible is going to become transparent. But I do like the suggested business committee, the changes to the Speaker’s role at Questions and the simplification of titles. (I was once taken to task by a Scottish countess for referring to a major-general as ‘Noble and Gallant’ “because he wasn’t an important enough general to be called gallant.”) Needless to say Hansard corrected me anyway.
The question is will the House accept this report and implement it? I hope so.