§ 10.Correction of speeches for Hansard
§ The Sub-Committee have noted that the Editor of Hansard applies a working rule "That nothing material should be added or subtracted after the speech has been delivered". They recommend that an appropriate entry should be made in the revised Companion to ensure that Peers are acquainted with the rule that there can be no alteration of the sense of words spoken by them in debate.
§ 11.Peers purporting to speak on behalf of some outside body or association
§ The Sub-Committee are concerned at the growing practice by some Peers of appearing to speak chiefly on behalf of some outside body or association. Peers should speak for themselves and are responsible for what they say. They should not speak as the representatives of outside interests or persons. On the other hand, the views of some Peers gain added weight from their experience outside the House of matters under debate and it is reasonable for them to inform the House of this connection, when making their contribution, and to associate some outside body with the point of view that they are putting forward. The Sub-Committee suggest that guidance on this matter should be incorporated in the revised Companion in the following terms:—
§ "Peers are reminded that when speaking in the House they speak for themselves and not on behalf of outside interests. While they may indicate that an outside body agrees with the substance of the views that they are expressing, they should avoid creating an impression that they are speaking as a representative of outside interests."
§ 12.Abuse of Question Time
§ The Sub-Committee have considered whether there is currently a widespread abuse of question time and in particular whether there is evidence of:—
- (a) "hogging" the Order Paper; or
- (b) using Questions and Supplementary Questions as a means of expressing views rather than of eliciting information.
§ They do not recommend any change for the time being in the present rules of the House.
§ They note with concern however that the practice of using Questions and Supplementary Questions as a means of expressing views rather than of eliciting information is increasing and recommend that the House should be reminded of the terms of the 1966 Report of the Procedure Committee which was agreed to on 9th August, 1966 (L.J. 199, pp. 189–90). This report, which was comprehensive, will be included in the next edition of the Companion. Meanwhile for convenience it is attached as Annex B to this report.
§ 13.Unstarred Questions: continuing the debate after the Government has replied
§ The Sub-Committee note that in recent years a certain number of attempts have been made to continue the debate on unstarred questions after the Government have replied. There have also been instances of such attempts on motions for papers. The view of the Sub-Committee is: 506
- (a) that in future procedure on unstarred questions should be regulated by a decision of the House that it is undesirable for Lords to continue the debate after the Government reply has been given, save for questions to the Minister before he sits down;
- (b) that Standing Order No. 28 ("no Lord to speak twice to one matter") should be amended so as to apply explicitly to un-starred questions as well as to motions;
- (c) that the procedure on motions should similarly be regulated by a decision of the House that it is undesirable for Lords to continue the debate after the Government reply has been given, except for the mover who has a right of reply.
§ The Sub-Committee recognise, however, that such a regulation of procedure, if adopted by the House, would give the Government the last word and would represent a certain restriction on the right to speak on a matter still before the House. The Sub-Committee consider that this restriction is justified in the interests of orderly debate. The view was, however, expressed in the Sub-Committee that by itself this was an unacceptable restriction, which should be entertained only as part of a general revision of the present practice of unstarred questions and motions for papers.
§ The Sub-Committee, however, consider that this is a matter of too great importance to be included in a Report upon "Observances" and recommend that the whole question should be further discussed in the Procedure Committee itself.
§ ANNEX A