House of Commons - Procedure

Select Committee on Procedure Fourth Report

3 Programming: detailed issues

28. The House's programme order for each bill specifies a date by which the standing committee stage must end (the "out-date"), and it is for the programming sub-committee to put forward a timetable which may simply provide for proceedings to be brought to a conclusion on the date specified, or may also specify intermediate dates and times ("internal knives") and specify which parts of the bill are to be concluded then. There are differences of opinion on how many internal knives are desirable.

29. The Chairman of Ways and Means thought that the provision of too many knives led to lack of flexibility, and suggested that we should consider recommending much more sparing use of them.[51] Mr Peter Pike suggested that the Government would in general be in favour of the use of more knives than the Opposition.[52] Mr Heald said that internal knives were "usually unhelpful" and that "Members are capable of budgeting their time as they go, so that if one clause takes longer than expected, it usually proves possible to catch up".[53] Mr Hain said that the number of internal knives proposed was decreasing, with almost half of bills so far this session having none at all.[54] However, he believed in some cases internal knives helped to ensure that the back bench and Opposition Members had time for matters which they considered important and for outside bodies to know when measures in which they had an interest would be discussed.[55]

30. We believe that, for most bills, it is best to have as few internal knives as possible.

DELAYING KNIVES

31. When circumstances appear to require it, a programming sub-committee can produce revised proposals for the programming of a committee stage: often this is done at a meeting just before a sitting of the committee, but it can if necessary take place in the course of a sitting, with the main committee being suspended while the sub-committee meets. However, this procedure cannot cope with all contingencies, and Mr Pike told us of an occasion when such a meeting was about to take place when the committee had to be suspended for a series of divisions in the House, and when the committee resumed the knife had fallen and the chairman was obliged to put the questions.[56] It has therefore been suggested that chairmen should have some discretion to allow "injury time" and extend the time available, either when there have been one or more divisions in the House, or when for some other reason a little extra time would be helpful, e.g. to allow a Minister to reply. This discretion was in fact envisaged in the Modernisation Committee's 1997 Report:

32. In response to this, the Chairmen's Panel said:

33. The provision did not appear in the sessional orders, and as with other suggestions for increasing the discretion of chairmen, it is important that their impartiality is not jeopardised. One could imagine chairman coming under pressure from committee members asking for extra time as each knife approached.

34. In his memorandum, the Clerk of the House suggested that we should consider a power to delay the falling of a knife by 15 minutes;[59] Mr Pike suggested 15 minutes for each division which has occurred in the House.[60] Other Members were in general in favour of such discretion, particularly where there had been divisions,[61] although Mr Hain pointed out that this might lead to uncertainty in the timetable and possible increased pressure on chairmen.[62]

35. We believe that the Chairman should have discretion to delay the falling of a knife by up to 15 minutes where this is judged to be for the general convenience of the committee (during which time amendments to a programming order could be considered if necessary). To avoid committee sittings overlapping with Question Time in the House, a knife due to fall at the end of a morning sitting would be moved to early in the afternoon sitting (rather than delay the end of the morning sitting).

36. In addition, when a committee has been suspended because of divisions in the House, any knife due to fall later in the same sitting should be delayed by a time equal to the length of the suspension.

LATER SITTINGS

37. Morning sittings of standing committees are required to conclude at 11.25 am, but afternoon sittings continue until the Committee decides to adjourn, on a motion moved by the Government; afternoon sittings regularly conclude at around 5.30 p.m. The Chairman of Ways and Means pointed out to us that, if Members consider that time in standing committee is inadequate, there is always the option of longer afternoon sittings.[63] Mr Roger Gale suggested that the chairman could propose longer sittings, with adequate notice to those concerned.[64] Sir George Young expressed a willingness to sit beyond 5.30 p.m. if it was the only way to get through the bill.[65] Mr Heald said that "another hour here and there can be most useful", but pointed out the need for the opposition front bench to prepare, and to allow time for briefing from interested bodies.[66] Mr Hain pointed out that the standard finishing time was usually for the convenience of Members who had other work to do, but that the Government would not frustrate proper scrutiny by insisting on it.[67]

38. If the time available for considering a bill is considered inadequate, longer afternoon sittings may sometimes be a reasonable option as an alternative to a later out-date.

INTERVALS BETWEEN STAGES

39. Our predecessors in 1978 and 1985 recommended minimum intervals between stages of bills:

a) Two weekends between first reading and second reading;

b) Ten days between second reading and the start of the committee stage; and

c) Ten days between the end of the committee stage and the report stage.[68]

40. Mr Richard Shepherd pointed out that the usual interval before the start of the committee stage gives little time to consult outside bodies,[69] and this is particularly true now that committees subject to programmes begin with four sittings per week (rather than the previous two).[70]

41. By contrast, the interval between committee stage and report stage is sometimes so long that it can be justifiably claimed that the committee stage could have been longer.[71] The Modernisation Committee pointed this out and recommended that the Government should inform the programming sub-committee if the report stage is likely to be delayed, so that it might propose a later out-date.[72] We agree.

TIME LIMITS ON SPEECHES

42. In his paper of September 2003 to the Modernisation Committee, the Chairman of Ways and Means said that:

Ministers … often have no regard to programmes, making speeches which are wholly out of proportion to the allocated time available … Equally it has to be said that Opposition members sometimes show no appreciation of time …

and suggested that consideration should be given to time-limits on speeches.[73] However, most of the evidence we received was against imposing limits,[74] and we do not wish to recommend their introduction. However, we expect Ministers opening debates or replying to them to have regard to the time available, and also urge shadow spokesmen and the committee as a whole to use good sense in deciding the length of their speeches.

TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO SESSIONAL ORDERS

43. The Clerk of the House raised, in his memorandum,[75] two minor issues about the provisions in the sessional orders for the putting of questions when a knife has fallen. They are:

a) If the Government has indicated that it wishes to leave out a clause (or schedule) at committee stage, the question that that clause stand part of the bill needs to be put separately rather than as part of a question that several consecutive clauses stand part;

b) Where several categories of questions fall to be put (amendments moved by the Government, other amendments for separate division, and—at committee stage—clauses standing part), the questions should be put in their normal order (the order in which they appear on the amendment paper) rather than in the order in which the categories of question are listed in the sessional orders.[76]

44. The Clerk pointed out that the sessional orders have been interpreted in such a way as to allow both practices, and we agree that they should be redrafted to make this clear.

45. The Clerk also pointed out an ambiguity in paragraphs (8) and (9) of sessional order A as to when motions making further provision for report stage or third reading are debatable. Again, we agree that some redrafting is necessary here, to make clear that the motion is debatable if any of the exceptions apply.

46. We recommend that suitable drafting changes be made to the sessional orders when they are next renewed.

Report stage

47. Sessional order B provides that a programming committee should be appointed to allocate the time available for report stage and third reading. In practice, programme orders nearly always provide that this is not to apply, and programming committees are used only for allocating time for committee of the whole House.

48. There are two reasons for this. The first is that if the parties are agreed on an appropriate division of the time, this can be tabled as a supplementary programme order without any need for a committee to meet (and if no such agreement emerges through discussions through the usual channels, it is unlikely to emerge at a programming committee).[77]

49. The other difficulty is, with or without a programming committee, there is little time to produce a division of the time if it is to take account of the Speaker's selection and grouping of the amendments, which in turn cannot be decided on until the day before the report stage is to take place, as amendments can be tabled until the rising of the House on the day before that.[78]

50. Mr Heald said that the Opposition usually decided what issues they wished to debate at report stage and tabled their new clauses in the appropriate order fairly early in the process, but this could be upset by late Government new clauses: he raised the possibility of requiring amendments to be tabled earlier to enable a selection list to be prepared.[79] We recommend that the Government should table its amendments for report stage in good time.

51. In practice, many recent report stages have been allotted only one day (minus an hour for third reading), and unless there is a desire to ensure a vote on a particular group of amendments,[80] it is usually preferable not to divide up the time available (especially if unexpected statements reduce the time still further).

52. Mr Paul Tyler suggested that there should be a report from the standing committee indicating which parts of the bill had, and had not, been debated, to demonstrate publicly what should be discussed at report stage.[81] Mr Hain and Mr Woolas thought that the report, if it had to be agreed by the programming sub-committee, would become a politicised document; and if it were merely factual it would repeat information already available in the Official Report.[82] We believe that a factual statement should be produced; it would clearly demonstrate to Members who had not been on the Committee, in a convenient form, which parts of the bill had not been debated.

Third reading

53. As already mentioned, programme orders usually allow only an hour for third reading (unless report stage is being allowed substantially more than one day), and this time can be eaten into by one or more divisions at the end of report stage. Mr Heald expressed the view that bills required a minimum of an hour on third reading and that some would require more.[83] Mr Woolas pointed out that one consideration was whether opposition was directed at the bill as a whole or at part of it.[84]

54. Although it would be possible to allow extra time for third reading, this would be likely to be at the expense of debates at report stage, and we observe that the purpose of the third reading is to say "yes" or "no" to the bill in its final form. Debate at this stage tends to be either a restatement of entrenched positions or an opportunity to thank everyone involved for their work on the bill. Our predecessors in 1967 recommended that the question on third reading should be put forthwith unless six Members gave notice to require a debate; unfortunately, when this procedure was implemented such a notice was almost invariably given and the provision was removed in 1986.[85]

55. We believe that the House will usually want to spend most of the time available considering amendments on report, rather than debating third reading at length.

51 Ev 20-1, paras 5, 15; Q 55 Back

52 Q 56 Back

53 Ev 61 Back

54 Qq 231, 252 Back

55 Q 255 Back

56 Q 72 Back

57 HC 190 (1997-98), para 89 (xii) Back

58 HC 296 (1997-98), para 11 Back

59 Ev 4, para 22 (and see Q 28). This corresponds to the power the chairman has under SO No 88(2)(i) to delay the conclusion of a morning sitting by 15 minutes if he believes that consideration of the bill (or other matter before the committee) as a whole could be completed within that time. Back

60 Q 72 Back

61 See Qq 129, 178, 191, 207 Back

62 Qq 271-2 Back