Letter from the Chairman of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons to the Chairman of Ways and Means, 29 July 1997

  The Modernisation Committee is today publishing its First Report, on the Legislative Process. We have been much assisted by your letter, following a meeting of the Panel; as you will see, it is printed as one of the Appendices to the Report.

  A number of our recommendations and conclusions will clearly have a significant effect on the work and role of Standing Committee chairmen, and it would I am sure be very helpful to the House if the Panel could consider how best to give effect to this in what will in essence be an experimental year.

  In paragraph 89 (vi) to (xii) we outline a proposed procedure for the appointment, for bills subject to an agreed programme, of a programming sub-committee of a Standing Committee, to be chaired by the Standing Committee Chairman. Although similar in many ways to an "old-fashioned" Business Sub-Committee, it is plainly intended that the Chairman should play a rather more pro-active role than hitherto, particularly in respect of ensuring that due attention is being paid to the considerations set out in paragraphs (ix) and (x). You will also see the proposal in paragraph (xii) that the Chairman should have discretion to extend by up to one hour the time for debate on a Question, subject to the Bill being reported on time. The Panel's considered views as to how these proposals might best be implemented in practice would be very helpful.

  In paragraph 97 you will see several proposed changes to procedures and practices in Standing Committees. No doubt you will wish to comment on -

    (a)  how you feel the proposed power to limit the length (but not the frequency) of speeches could best be operated in practice:


    (b)  the practical effects of removing some of the time constraints on Committees, and in particular the traditional start and end times, the current prohibition on sitting between 1 and 3.30, the possibility where the committee so wished of sitting during a recess and the lifting of the prohibition of sitting twice on the first day, presumably subject to some form of notice: and


    (c)  the proposal that, in respect of some clauses in some Bills, and probably subject to the discretion of the Chair, a general debate on a Clause, on some Question such as "That the principle of Clause No. XY be now (re-)considered", should precede consideration of proposed Amendments thereto, with the corollaries as set out in paragraph 48(ii) of our Report. How amendments would be provisionally selected in such cases, and how and when the Chairman would decide in the light of the general debate on the scope of subsequent consideration of selected amendments - and indeed the likely attitude of the Chair to manuscript amendments submitted in the light of the general debates - would be among the issues on which we would welcome the Panel's input.

  One other matter of immediate significance for the Panel is referred to in the last sentence of paragraph 44, reflecting a passage in your Memorandum. Given that there may very well be a Special Standing Committee this session, it would be helpful if the Panel could indeed reconsider whether Chairmen might be willing to preside at deliberative and evidence-taking sessions, subject of course to the conditions you set out in your letter to the Committee.

  You may also wish to note the Committee's recommendation at paragraph 48(v) that the constraints applied to advisers to backbenchers before and during Standing Committee debates should be lifted. I enclose a copy of Mr Lynes' memorandum. It would be helpful if the Panel could consider how best to give effect to this.

  It would obviously be convenient for the House to have the Panel's views before it when debating the Report. I hope that the Report may be debated, and the necessary sessional Orders agreed, in the autumn. I would therefore be grateful if the Panel could reach some conclusions by or very shortly after the House's resumption in October.