4 The annual programme and carry-over
56. Earlier proposals for a systematic allocation
of time to bills usually involved, in addition, some mechanism
to discuss the allocation of the time available in a session to
the Government's legislative programme as a whole—indeed,
this is what the term "programming" was originally used
to mean.[86] The Modernisation
Committee in 2000 recommended:
There should be discussions at the earliest possible
stage of the Government's legislative programme as a whole. We
propose therefore that the Government should begin informal talks
with all parties just after the Queen's Speech.[87]
Mr Paul Tyler told us that such a meeting was held
in 2002 but had not been held since.[88]
57. Previous proposals—notably our predecessors'
recommendation in 1985[89]
and the Hansard Society report Making the Law of 1992—had
been for a more formal arrangement involving a Legislative Business
Committee (or Legislative Steering Committee). This concept was
also supported by Sir Alan Haselhurst, Mr Mark Fisher and Mr Graham
Allen.[90]
58. However, Mr Heald, while asking for earlier information
about draft bills,[91]
was otherwise content with the current system of informal discussions
during the course of the session, doubting that a Legislative
Business Committee would "be responsive enough to the fast
moving demands of Members".[92]
The Leader of the House also expressed lack of support for a formal
committee, saying that "it would in reality and practice
rubberstamp the decisions made elsewhere"[93]
and that he was not "in the market for sub-contracting"
the governing party's control of the management of business.[94]
He also thought that producing an annual programme, with timings,
would be "a formidable exercise".[95]
This attitude may result from a House which has usually been controlled
by a Government of a single party with an overall majority (unlike,
for example, the Scottish Parliament), and also bears in mind
that timings envisaged at the beginning of the session may need
to change (this has particularly happened with draft bills).
59. The system of sessions lasting for one year,
from November to November (except where a General Election disrupts
the pattern), with all proceedings ceasing at prorogation, means
that major bills need to be introduced early in the session. Following
an experiment with the Financial Services and Markets Bill in
1998-99 and 1999-2000, the House has made a temporary Standing
Order providing for the carry-over of bills from one session to
the next. This matches a procedure which has been used for private
bills (and, less frequently, hybrid bills) for over a century,
except that it is currently limited to Commons bills still in
the Commons. Two bills were carried over from 2002-03 to 2003-04,
each on a division.[96]
The Lords have similarly agreed in principle to the carry-over
of Lords bills still in the Lords, although by ad hoc motion
rather than by standing order.[97]
Procedures for carrying over in one House a bill originally introduced
in the other would require ad hoc motions and agreement
between the Houses.
60. Opinions as to the importance of this procedure
differed: Mr Forth thought that the removal of the discipline
of the annual cut-off would mean that legislation would be delayed;[98]
Mr Heald thought that in most cases the discipline of an annual
cut-off was good for the Government.[99]
Sir George Young suggested that the legislative programme could
become a rolling programme and that there was therefore no need
for an annual consideration of the programme which had been advocated
in 2000.[100]
61. Mr Hain's views were that it was right to seek
to manage the Government's business within a session, but that
"having an artificial cut-off point at the end of the first,
second or third sessions" seemed to be the wrong way to go
about it.[101] He expected
Bills to be introduced towards the end of the current session
with a view to being carried over, and that the Constitutional
Reform Bill would be carried over in the Lords.[102]
62. We believe that carry-over increases flexibility
and has the potential to lessen bottlenecks in the legislative
process, but believe that the Government is right to introduce
carry-over gradually; however, we also believe that this should
proceed with cross-party agreement.
86 For example, the Hansard Society Report Making
the Law, chapter 7, distinguishes "programming"
from "timetabling". Back
87
HC 589 (1999-2000), para 18 Back
88
Q 156 Back
89
Procedure Committee, Second Report, Session 1984-85, Public
Bill Procedure, HC 49-I Back
90
Ev 21, para 15; Qq 145, 156 Back
91
Mr Graham Allen said out that the Government felt obliged to refrain
from announcing bills or draft bills until they had been mentioned
in the Queen's speech (Q 157). Mr Hain pointed out that he had
been able to give the Liaison Committee advance notice of the
expected timing of draft bills (Q 287). Back
92
Ev 62, Q 219. See also Qq 222-3. Back
93
Q 233 Back
94
Q 294 Back
95
Q 292 Back
96
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill (10 June 2003); European
Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill (21 October 2003). Back
97
House of Lords, Select Committee on Procedure of the House, Fifth
Report, Session 2001-02, HL Paper 148, para 7 Back
98
Q 132 Back
99
Q 220 Back
100
Q 156 Back
101
Q 295 Back
102
Q 302 Back
| 
