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. 1. In earlier practice, reports were considered immediately upon presentation (CJ (1874) 182; ibid (1887) 203).
  2. 2. Parl Deb (1892) 3, c 598.
  3. 3. LJ (1798–1800) 639; ibid (1862) 321; CJ (1836) 464; ibid (1842) 131; ibid (1874) 182; ibid (1892) 157; ibid (1946–47) 377.
  4. 4. CJ (1835) 421; ibid (1878–79) 327; ibid (1889) 332.
  5. 5. CJ (1887) 203.
  6. 6. LJ (1870) 77; CJ (1809) 70; ibid (1827) 473; ibid (1848) 258; ibid (1857) 354.
  7. 7. CJ (1851) 147–48.
  8. 8. CJ (1851) 147–48.
  9. 9. 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. 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).