Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons Minutes of Evidence


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.





 
previous page contents

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 18 October 2004