My Lords, there are two proposals in this report. The first relates to the leave of absence scheme. The second is a minor amendment to the private business Standing Orders. The origin of the first proposal was a letter from the Convenor of the Cross Benches, asking that the committee review the leave of absence scheme to address a feeling that the spirit of the scheme has not always been observed.
The committee recognised that leave of absence is a valuable option that gives noble Lords flexibility where temporary circumstances mean that it is difficult for them to participate in the House. The committee agreed that strengthening Member oversight through increasing the role of the Sub-Committee on Leave of Absence would help to ensure that the scheme operates effectively. I chair the Sub-Committee on Leave of Absence; the other Members are the three Chief Whips and the convenor.
The report sets out three changes. The first is that the Clerk of the Parliaments will inform the sub-committee of requests for leave of absence and leave a window of five working days before granting it. The second change is that the sub-committee will meet once a Session has run for six months to consider Members on leave of absence and write to those whom we feel should be encouraged either to return to active participation or to retire. These two changes are matters of committee practice; we report them to the House for information.
The third change would give the sub-committee the power to grant or withhold leave of absence to Members who have been on leave of absence for an extended period. This is a substantive change requiring amendment of the Standing Orders. This proposal aims to uphold the spirit of the scheme, reinforcing the principle that leave of absence is a response to temporary circumstances. Only Members who have been on leave for an extended period—which in practice would normally be for more than two consecutive Sessions—would be subject to this new procedure.
Of the 21 Members currently on leave of absence, 15 have been on leave for more than two consecutive Sessions. If the House agrees, the sub-committee will meet to consider whether to grant leave of absence to those Members should they reapply at the start of the next Session. We anticipate that most Members will be pre-cleared at this meeting. In a small number of cases where we consider that further extension of a Member’s leave of absence may be contrary to the spirit of the scheme, we will engage further with the Member concerned. Any formal decision to withdraw leave of absence would be taken only at the start of the next Session, once the Member had reapplied, and only with the unanimous agreement of the sub-committee.
The second proposal in the report is a technical amendment to the private business Standing Orders to disapply the date requirements to hybrid Bills. As hybrid Bills are introduced as public Bills, until they have been declared hybrid by the examiners, promoters are highly unlikely to be able to comply with the specific dates set out in certain private business Standing Orders. The proposed change to the private business Standing Orders will disapply these specific dates in relation to hybrid Bills, thereby removing the need for a purely formal meeting of the Standing Orders committee in effect to disapply them on each occasion. The House of Commons will be invited to make the same change in the near future so that the Houses are aligned.