Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100-108)
15 SEPTEMBER 2004
MR ROGER
SANDS AND
MR ANDREW
WALKER
Q100 Mr Tyler: If I could come to the
other point, Chairman, I wonder if you could differentiate—if
there is any differentiation—between unwhipped Private Members'
business being taken on Tuesday evening and whipped business being
taken after the present moment of interruption at seven on Tuesday?
Is there a different degree of procedural and administrative implication
between whipped and unwhipped?
Mr Sands: None at all. There being
whipped business or not is (1) not something that we know officially,
and (2) is not something that we could guide ourselves by, because—let
us take division clerks—we have division clerks standing
by and we have to have them standing by whether the business is
whipped or not, there could be a division at any time.
Q101 Mr Tyler: Finally, what would be
the impact of reverting to the Monday pattern on a Tuesday, but
only on a Tuesday?
Mr Sands: That would be very easy
to accommodate, we could do that almost straightaway.
Q102 Sir Nicholas Winterton: I would
like to get this absolutely clear, what you are saying is that
if we return on a Tuesday night to the pattern of a Monday, there
are no staff implications.
Mr Walker: Provided, Sir Nicholas,
that committee behaviour changed in parallel.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Thank you very
much. David Kidney.
Q103 Mr Kidney: Could you give us the
top line costs and benefits of the September sittings that have
been carried out in the last two years?
Mr Sands: The benefits are benefits
for Government business managers, I would not like to claim that
there are any benefits for us. As I recall it, the September sitting
was put in partly out of a perception that it was wrong to have
such a long break when the House was not sitting and the Government
not subject to scrutiny, and partly also to recompense the Government
for the loss of the two school-related weeks which are now provided
and were not before. So if one got rid of the September sitting
one would have to consider whether the Government had adequate
time; governments have been used for years and years to having
35 or 36 weeks a year, and they still do because the September
sitting has compensated for the half term break and the earlier
rise in July.
Q104 Mr Pike: I take it the staff do
find it an advantage to have the calendar that goes with it. Part
of the deal was the calendar.
Mr Sands: Absolutely, that is
a huge boon and it has been very popular with us as well as with
Members. The other point about costs, I am afraid we are in the
area where we pluck figures off the ceiling, although I probably
should not say this. A figure was given in a written question
published yesterday, I think, of £88,000 identified extra
costs on works attributable to this September's recall. It is
not an easy calculation to make because the contracts this year
were drawn up knowing that the September sitting was going to
happen and the contracts had to be structured around that and
what they would have cost if there had not been that break is
not easy to determine. So the direct costs are not great, but
this time I regret that there has been a considerable inconvenience
and loss of amenity for Members when we have come back because
there were long term works associated with the upgrading of the
network which just could not be interrupted.
Q105 Mr Kidney: Just looking ahead, to
continue September sittings means what in terms of managing future
contracts that are carried out during the long summer recess and
so on, and scrapping them means what?
Mr Sands: I think the Works Department
would find life much easier if they knew there was not going to
be a September sitting; but the most important thing, and it is
the point Mr Pike made about the calendar, is advance knowledge.
If we know in advance that the House is going to be sitting in
September we can work around that: the most difficult thing to
manage one's way around is an emergency recall.
Q106 Mr Kidney: On the question about
notice generally, you answered the question about moving Fridays
to a Tuesday and said you would like a lot of notice. When Patrick
McLoughlin asked how much you said "more than two months".
You said that is the biggest problem and therefore would need
the longest lead time, so what kind of time are we talking about,
and then for any other changes that are less than that one is
there a lesser notice period that would be something we should
take account of? What is your advice about good notice periods?
Mr Sands: For the change to Monday
sitting hours on a Tuesday, we could do that with the same notice
that we were given last time, I cannot see that that would be
a serious issue. The introduction of effectively an eleven or
twelve hour day as routine—I do not know what consequences
Andrew thinks that would have for negotiations with staff, but
I think I would probably quite like six months notice of that.
Q107 Sir Nicholas Winterton: Not seeking
in any way to be provocative from the Chair in the absence of
the Leader of the House, can I ask Mr Sands what is going to happen
next September, bearing in mind I am advised down the grapevine
of the House, which is generally extremely reliable, that there
will not be a September sitting because of the installation of
the glass screen in the House of Commons which is going to take
at least ten weeks to install. How will that, do you think, Mr
Sands, affect things?
Mr Sands: That is correct, Sir
Nicholas, the Leader of the House has been warned that there cannot
be a sitting in September next year.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: But you are not
in a position to indicate how the same debating time might well
be found because, quite clearly, Members of Parliament are going
to be interested.
Q108 Mr Pike: Business questions tomorrow.
Mr Sands: Yes, I think I would
like to pass on that. The timing of a general election could be
relevant.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Again, we are
discovering lots of things in this Committee. I think we have
covered the ground that we set out to cover extremely well. Can
I thank Roger Sands and Andrew Walker for their precise, concise
and very useful evidence which they have given to the Committee.
Thank you very much indeed.
| 
