Consultation on sitting times: House of Lords Procedure and Privileges Committee

Approximate read time: 15 minutes

The House of Lords is scheduled to debate the following motion in grand committee on 22 October 2026:

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (non-affiliated) to move that grand committee take note of the consultation relating to the sitting times of the House.

1. Key points

• Currently, the House of Lords begins sitting on Tuesdays and Wednesday at 2:30pm and 3pm respectively. It generally rises around 10pm.
• The House of Lords Procedure and Privileges Committee is currently seeking members’ views on four options which would see the House sitting from 1pm on either Tuesdays or Wednesdays or both, or making no changes to current arrangements. The consultation is open until 13 November 2026, and the House is scheduled to debate the options on 22 October 2026 as part of the process.
• In recent years, the House of Lords has considered making similar changes to sitting times as the options currently proposed; however, the House has voted against making such changes.

2. Consultation on sitting times

On 2 September 2026, the House of Lords Procedure and Privileges Committee launched a consultation for members on the sitting times of the House of Lords.

The committee explained that it wanted members’ views on the following four options:

• no change to current sitting times
• sitting at 1pm on Tuesday (and normally rising by 8:30pm)
• sitting at 1pm on Wednesday (and normally rising by 8:30pm)
• sitting at 1pm on Tuesday and Wednesday (and normally rising by 8:30pm on both days)

The committee has said that following the end of the consultation period, it expects to meet in January 2027 to discuss the outcomes and publish a report. The House is then expected to debate the report and decide what, if any, changes should be made to sitting times.

3. Current sitting times

The 2025 edition of the ‘Companion to the standing orders and guide to the proceedings of the House of Lords’ sets out the current conventions on sitting times. It states that the time the House of Lords usually begins sitting changes depending on the day:

• Mondays and Tuesdays: From 2:30pm
• Wednesdays: From 3pm
• Thursdays: From 11am
• Fridays: From 10am

The companion also states that “it is a firm convention” that the House normally rises by about 10pm from Monday to Wednesday, by about 7pm on Thursday and by about 3pm on Fridays.^[1] However, the time of meeting “can be varied to meet the convenience of the House”. In exceptional circumstances, the House of Lords can also meet at the weekend.

4. Previous consideration of sitting times

In recent years, the House of Lords has considered making changes to its sitting times on several occasions. However, no changes have been agreed.

4.1 Debate in 2021

In July 2021, the House of Lords held a debate on a House of Lords Procedure and Privileges Committee report which contained a series of proposals to “return from hybrid proceedings to something close to the House’s normal procedures while retaining a few changes for the benefit of the House”.^[2] As part of the debate, an amendment was tabled by Lord Adonis (Labour) which proposed that the House should “sit from 1pm on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays”.^[3] On division, this motion was defeated by 296 votes to 234.

Speaking to his amendment, Lord Adonis said that there were two reasons behind his proposal, relating to both “when we do our business but also how we do it”.^[4] First, he argued that current sitting times were due to custom and practice, with “almost every other parliamentary assembly in the world” meeting earlier in the day. He added that the arguments for meeting later had been superseded, with many members having family and caring responsibilities in the evenings.^[5] Lord Adonis acknowledged that no set of arrangements would suit everyone; however, he argued that from discussions he had had with members, meeting earlier would be an improvement.

Second, Lord Adonis argued that in terms of how the House does business, “it seems absolutely imperative that we look at meeting earlier”.^[6] He said that the practical effect of beginning proceedings in the middle of the afternoon is that there are essentially two sittings:

We have a sitting where there is a full House, which is roughly from 2pm or 3pm to about 7pm, then we have a residual House from 7pm, made up of only those die-hard members actually conducting the business in the chamber, and it goes through to the end at 10pm.^[7]

He argued that the lack of members present after the dinner break benefits the government as it “limits the opportunities for debate and intervention and, in particular, it removes the potential for votes”.^[8] Lord Adonis said that if the House were to meet earlier, more members would participate and it would be possible to conduct votes throughout the sitting.^[9]

Members spoke to both support and oppose Lord Adonis’ amendment. For example, Lord Cormack (Conservative) argued against the amendment, stating that Lord Adonis’ argument was “superficial”.^[10] He said that the proposal did not take sufficient account of the significant number of members who do other things before attending at 2pm, which he said adds to the House’s expertise. He also argued that earlier sittings of the House would clash with committees and that being able to have lunch with people before the House sits is valuable. Lord Strathclyde (Conservative) also argued that if the House were to sit earlier, there may not be enough time for ministers to be briefed and understand the questions they are asked.^[11] Some members, including Baroness Smith of Basildon (Labour), expressed concerns that even if the House began sitting earlier, it would continue to sit to the same times and result in longer days.^[12] Lord Blunkett (Labour) raised this concern but also expressed support for the amendment. He noted that the House sits earlier on Thursdays under existing arrangements and questioned why this could not be the case on other days.^[13] However, he expressed concern about an earlier start time on Mondays, stating this could be challenging for members who travel further to attend. Lord Balfe (Conservative) also gave his support for the proposed change, arguing that many members do not have other jobs and that they would be “better employed if the House was sitting”.^[14]

4.2 Debate in 2022

4.2.1 Proposed change

The issue of earlier sitting times was considered again in 2022, with the House of Lords Procedure and Privileges Committee stating that members had “made the case to us that a more considered debate is required”.^[15] The committee followed a similar process to the one currently ongoing and in April 2022 it launched a consultation to seek members’ views on the following proposition:

That the House should sit at 1pm on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, normally rising by 8.30pm on those days. Sitting times on Mondays, Thursdays and Fridays would remain unchanged.^[16]

The then senior deputy speaker, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, wrote to members asking for their views and providing information on the thinking behind the proposed change.^[17]

4.2.2 Committee report

Following its consultation, in June 2022, the House of Lords Procedure and Privileges Committee published its report ‘Sitting times of the House: Information relevant to the House’s decision’. The committee said it had received 49 written submissions to the consultation of which 24 favoured the proposal, 22 opposed and three were neutral or unclear.^[18]

The committee summarised the arguments advanced by those members that favoured the proposals as follows:

• members welcomed the fact that earlier sitting and rising times would allow a more normal working day, and believed that they would facilitate fuller participation by members in the work of the House
• earlier rising times would allow members to get home at a safer and more convenient time
• earlier sitting times would save public money (for instance by reducing expenditure on late-night transport or staff overtime payments)
• they would allow a better work/life balance for both members and staff, particularly those with domestic commitments or caring responsibilities
• some members also argued that the work of the House should not have to fit around the outside interests of members^[19]

The committee also set out the most common arguments opposing the change as follows:

• members argued that the current sitting times suited members with external roles or employment, and were concerned that the proposal would lead to a full-time House; in particular, there would be less time for ministers to conduct government business or undertake visits outside London
• there was concern that the proposals had not been costed, with members highlighting in particular the need for those living outside London to use earlier trains, and the impact upon income generation by catering and retail services
• there was concern over the loss of opportunities for school visits, as well as over the impact on the programme of visits by members to schools
• there was scepticism that sitting days would remain the same length, and some members felt that the proposal that the House should normally rise by 8:30pm would not be followed in practice
• earlier sitting times would disrupt party and group meetings
• it was also suggested that the proposed change would be no more family friendly to those with young children than the current sitting times.^[20]

The committee said that it had made no recommendation on whether sitting times should change as it considered that a matter for the House itself. However, it said it had identified one option, that the House sit from 1pm on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, which the committee said it believed could:

Achieve most of the objectives of those who advocate earlier sitting times, while mitigating potential impacts, including on members living outside London, on select committees, and on school visits.^[21]

4.2.3 House of Lords debate

On 5 July 2022, the House of Lords debated the committee’s proposal and voted against making the changes to sitting times by 158 votes to 124.^[22] This followed a successful amendment to the motion by Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (then a Conservative, now lord speaker) that saw the House continue with its existing sitting arrangements.

Prior to the vote, the House debated a motion to take note of the committee’s report.^[23] Opening the debate, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, then senior deputy speaker, noted that while members had suggested variations to the proposal that had been consulted on, there had been no clear consensus on such changes.^[24] As a result, the committee had decided to put the original option proposed before the House.

During the debate, there were mixed reactions to the proposed changes, with various reasons given both for and against, many of which had previously been raised in the 2021 debate or in response to the consultation. Some of the issues raised included:

• Impact on educational visits: Several members raised concerns that changing the sitting times would reduce the number of school pupils able to visit the chamber. This included Lord Forsyth and Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat).^[25] Members also referred to evidence submitted by the chamber and participation team that earlier sittings would reduce the number of school pupils that are able to visit the House of Lords by 4,620 each year or 116 each sitting week.^[26] However, Baroness Morgan of Cotes (then Conservative, now non-affiliated) did not share these concerns.^[27] She argued that there were already times when pupils are unable to visit the chamber and “those young people still gain a huge amount from visiting the education centre, but also from sitting in the galleries of the House and watching the Houses as they function”.
• Impact on House staff: Members spoke about how the proposed changes would impact on House staff and argued that they had not been consulted. For example, both Lord Grocott (Labour) and Baroness Fox of Buckley (non-affiliated) called for staff to be given a say.^[28] However, at the end of the debate, the senior deputy speaker stated that the committee had received input from across the administration and bicameral services which were fed into its consideration.^[29] In addition, Lord Forsyth raised concerns about the impact of an earlier finish time on the catering department. He argued that people would leave rather than stay to eat and this would cost the department “a huge amount of revenue”.^[30]
• Other commitments: A number of members raised concerns that earlier start times could clash with other commitments, both parliamentary and external. Lord Howell (Conservative) argued that the proposed change could impact on committee work.^[31] Lord Forsyth also raised this issue and added that it would lessen the time available for ministers to run their departments and still be briefed ahead of questions.^[32] Viscount Hailsham (Conservative) also noted that he had external employment which would make it hard for him to attend should the change go ahead while the late Lord Etherton (Crossbench) said it would make fulfilling other public duties, such as chairing independent inquiries, more challenging.^[33] Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party) acknowledged that an earlier start time could prevent those with external employment from attending; however, she argued that others might be able to attend due to the earlier finish.^[34] She added that many women did not like staying late at night for safety reasons regarding their journey home. In addition, Baroness Morgan argued that it is possible to conduct both committee and chamber work with earlier sitting times referring to her experience from the Commons.^[35] She said that being a parliamentarian is a “juggling act”. Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour) also noted that committees already sit at the same times as the House and Lord Stoneham of Droxford (Liberal Democrat) said that those who had external employment do not want to stay late.^[36]
• Low attendance at late sittings: Several members argued that attendance past 8:30pm was already low. These included Lord Stoneham and Lord Grocott.^[37]
• Collegiate nature of the House: Some members argued that early sittings would interfere with the collegiate nature of the House of Lords. For example, Lord Cormack (Conservative) argued that the existing timings encouraged members to dine together and this fostered members getting to know one another.^[38] Viscount Hailsham agreed that later sittings reinforce “the collegiate character of Parliament”.^[39] However, Baroness Jones argued that she did not want to stay for the “social stuff”, with Baroness Morgan stating that “camaraderie comes because we work together, whether on committees and inquiries or in debates; it does not come because we dine together”.^[40]

Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative) tabled an amendment which would have allowed the House to pilot the proposed changes for up to four months before committing to them.^[41] He argued that this had been done previously regarding procedural change and would provide evidence that the House did not have. Several members, including Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Morgan, expressed their support for this idea during the debate, but it was not put to a vote.^[42]

---

Image: Copyright House of Lords 2026.