Government response
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE PROCEDURE COMMITTEE'S
REPORT ON PROCEDURES FOR DEBATES, PRIVATE MEMBERS' BILLS AND THE
POWERS OF THE SPEAKER
INTRODUCTION
1. The Government notes the findings of the Procedure
Committee's wide-ranging inquiry and makes the following observations
on its recommendations and conclusions.
PROCEDURES FOR DEBATES
Recommendation 1: We do not believe that it is
practicable to lay down, by Standing Order, a fixed limit such
as 20 or 30 minutes for front bench speeches; but we do recommend
that ministers and other front-benchers should aim for no more
than twenty minutes of speech material, to allow for extra time
for interventions. These lengths should be even shorter for half-day
debates. We encourage the Speaker to remind Members of this from
time to time. (Paragraph 11)
2. The Government accepts this recommendation in
principle, though there may be occasions when the subject matter
will require—and the House would expect—the Minister's
prepared speech to take more than twenty minutes. Ministers, like
other Members, should be as concise as possible, but there may
be a large amount of information which the Minister needs to convey
to the House, or a large number of important points to which the
Minister needs to respond in winding up. We agree that a fixed
limit would be inappropriate, and that it would be wrong to discourage
Ministers from allowing, and responding to, interventions, which
contribute to the dynamic of debate.
3. Guidance will be circulated to Ministers and to
Departmental officials suggesting that the material prepared for
Ministers' speeches should not normally exceed twenty minutes
in delivery; and that for half-day debates shorter speeches should
be considered. We confidently expect that the Speaker will remind
Ministers if they appear to have forgotten this guidance. We hope
that this time limit will also be observed by Opposition Front
Bench spokesmen.
Recommendation 2: We believe that lengthy back-bench
speeches are a luxury which the House cannot afford in the face
of the current overall demand for speaking time. (Paragraph 12)
4. The Government agrees with this conclusion.
Recommendation 3: We recommend, for an experimental
period, that there should be an opportunity for short speeches
towards the end of a full or half-day debate, as follows:
- The procedure would apply
to the hour of a full-day debate immediately before the wind-up
speeches (or half an hour for a half-day debate). (This would
entail a definite starting time for the wind-up speeches.)
- Members who had been present for (substantially)
the whole debate, and either had not previously applied to speak
or had applied but not been called, should notify the Chair, during
the debate, that they wished to be called to make a short speech.
At the beginning of the hour (or half-hour), the Chair should
announce, on the basis of the number of applications received,
how many minutes each speaker would have. No extra time would
be allowed for interventions during this period. The shortest
speech limit allowed during this period should be three minutes,
so if more than twenty Members applied (ten, in a half-day debate),
some would not be called.
- The precise details of how this should work
would need to be discussed with the Speaker; however, we recommend
that speeches made during this time should not normally count
against a Member's total for the session. (Paragraphs 13 to 15)
5. The Government supports this recommendation, and
will table a motion for the House to consider, when it debates
the Committee's report, allowing, on an experimental and temporary
basis, for an opportunity for an hour or half-hour of shorter
speeches on occasions where the Speaker thinks it appropriate.
How the procedure would operate would primarily be a matter for
the Speaker and his Deputies.
Recommendation 4: We welcome Mr Speaker's decision
to issue to all Members a revised and expanded version of his
circular on "Conventions and Courtesies of the House".
(Paragraph 16)
6. The Government also welcomes Mr Speaker's circular,
which is a useful reminder to all Members of the conventions and
courtesies expected by the House.
Recommendation 5: We recommend
that Members should help themselves by giving concise details
of relevant experience, etc., in their application letters. (Paragraph
16)
7. This is a matter for individual Members and the
Speaker, though we see the sense of it.
Recommendation 6: We believe that the considerations
which the Speaker takes into account in the choice of Members
in debates should remain just that, and should not, as a result
of their wider dissemination, be elevated to the status of de
facto rules. The Speaker needs, in the end, to retain
absolute discretion. (Paragraph 17)
8. This is a matter for the House.
Recommendation 7: We recommend that there should
be experiments with issuing of lists of speakers for selected
debates, perhaps those where there is greatest demand to speak,
with the following arrangements:
- the Speaker would choose
the debates concerned;
- a list of those who had applied in writing
to speak by a certain time would be posted in the No division
lobby;
- the Members would not be listed in the order
in which the Speaker proposed to call them, and it would need
to be made clear that the list was provisional, being subject
to later additions and removals of names and to the discretion
of the Chair in deciding whom to call;
- as now, Members would be called only if they
had attended the opening speeches and on the understanding that
they remained in the Chamber for at least the two speeches following
their own and returned for the wind-up speeches;
- to protect spontaneity in debate, if our recommendation
in paragraph 13 is in operation, those on the list should not
have priority to speak during the period allotted for short speeches.
(Paragraph 23)
9. This is a matter for the House and for the Speaker.
Recommendation 8: We will wish to evaluate the
two experiments which we have described (above and in paragraph
13) after an appropriate period. (Paragraph 24)
10. The Government notes the Committee's wish to
evaluate the experiments it proposes on shorter speeches and lists
of speakers.
Recommendation 9: We would hope that the occupants
of the Chair would continue their current good practice and use
their experience to give Members, on request, an estimate of whether
there is likely to be enough time available for them to be called.
When no list is issued, we suggest that, when announcing speech
limits, the Chair should also announce how many Members have applied
to speak. (Paragraph 25)
11. These are matters for the Speaker and his Deputies.
Recommendation 10: We believe that the Chair should
continue, in general, to maintain the convention of calling Members
from alternate sides of the House; but priority should be given
to the convention that Members who are called should have attended
a substantial part of the debate. The Chair should be under no
obligation to call Members who have been absent for most of the
debate merely because there is nobody else on their side of the
House. (Paragraph 28)
12. These are matters for the House. The Government
welcomes the Committee's recommendation that, while the convention
of calling Members from alternative sides of the House should,
in general, be maintained, the Chair should be under no obligation
to call Members who have not attended a substantial part of the
debate.
Recommendation 11: We do not recommend the printing
of undelivered speeches in the Official Report. (Paragraph 29)
13. The Government fully supports this recommendation.
Recommendation 12: We recommend no change in the
way of referring to other Members. (Paragraph 30)
14. The Government notes this recommendation, which
is a matter for the House. It may be helpful to remind Members
that it is no longer a requirement to use some of the more complex
forms of address ("honourable and learned", "honourable
and gallant"), or to refer to the House of Lords as "the
other place".
Recommendation 13: We urge Members to depart from
their notes freely and react to what has previously been said
in a debate. (Paragraph 31)
15. While this is a matter for individual Members,
the Government agrees that the flow and interest of debate is
greatly enhanced if Members to respond to points raised in earlier
speeches.
Recommendation 14: We believe that some of the
1½-hour debates in Westminster Hall should be chosen by reference
to Early Day Motions with a certain number of signatures (say
200) including some (say at least three) from each of three parties.
A reference to the motion (or its full text) would then appear
on the Order Paper, but the actual debate would still be on an
adjournment motion. Alternatively, the Leader of the House could
be asked to arrange for some debates on topics raised by EDMs
in Government time. (Paragraph 36)
16. It is already open to Members to apply for a
longer Westminster Hall debate on the subject of a particular
EDM. If they did so, and subject to the views of the Speaker,
the EDM could perhaps be tagged on the Order Paper as relevant
to the debate.
Recommendation 15: If the new sitting hours on
Tuesdays and Wednesdays were to become permanent, it would be
possible to consider debating business of a non-contentious business
on a Tuesday or a Wednesday evening, but if this is to receive
further consideration, it should be introduced only after appropriate
staffing arrangements can be made, not before. One possibility
would be to hold such evening sittings in Westminster Hall, an
operation involving far fewer staff than the Chamber. (Paragraph
39)
17. The Leader of the House has indicated that the
Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons
will conduct a review of the sitting hours of the House of Commons.
The Modernisation Committee will undoubtedly take account of the
points raised in this recommendation in their deliberations on
the broader issues.
Recommendation 16: We do not believe that oral
statements in the Chamber should be replaced by questioning on
a written statement distributed in advance, but recommend that
the Government should respond favourably to requests for extra
time on Opposition days when a lengthy statement is expected.
(Paragraph 40)
18. The Government agrees that some Ministerial Statements
require oral delivery in the House. On occasions it is necessary
for these to be made on an Opposition Day. The Government has
shown that it is willing to provide additional time—"injury
time", as the Committee describes it—when the circumstances
merit it, but only on an exceptional basis.
Recommendation 17: We will return to the subject
of a business committee in the future. (Paragraph 41)
19. The Government notes the Committee's intention.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BILLS
Recommendation 18: The Government should be ready
to provide drafting help for a private Member's bill as soon as
it receives a second reading. In addition, to assist Members who
wish to employ outside drafting assistance, the £200 grant
introduced in 1971 for the top ten Members in the ballot should
be updated and become index-linked. (Paragraph 50)
20. The Government has undertaken to make available
the resources of Parliamentary Counsel whenever it appears that
a bill is likely to pass, for the purpose of ensuring that its
terms give effect to its supporters' intentions. This is irrespective
of whether the bill has the support of the Government. In the
Government's view, it would be wasteful of resources for Parliamentary
Counsel to work on all Private Members' Bills as soon as they
receive a second reading, whether or not they have any likely
prospect of progressing further.
21. Whether to increase the grant available to the
Members who are highest in the ballot is a matter for the House.
The Government is not convinced that this expenditure would be
worthwhile, or would significantly reduce the need for amendment
in Committee.
Recommendation 19: Members who wish the Government
to support their bills should bear in mind the need to get them
printed in good time before second reading. (Paragraph 51)
22. The Government welcomes this statement by the
Committee and hopes that Members will, wherever possible, publish
their bills well in advance of second reading.
Recommendation 20: We do not recommend the use
of carry-over motions for private Members' bills. (Paragraph 52)
23. The Government agrees that it would be inappropriate
to carry over private Members' bills.
RECALL OF THE HOUSE
Recommendation 21: We believe that the decision
to recall the House should rest with the Speaker. We would expect
the Speaker to bear in mind the number and source of representations
made to him requesting a recall, but we do not think details should
be specified in a standing order. As at present, the Deputy Speakers
should have the same powers as the Speaker when the latter is
unable to act. (Paragraphs 58 and 59)
24. The Government sees no need for a change to Standing
Order No. 13. The Government has recalled Parliament when major
developments have required it: six times since 1997. When considering
the need for a recall, the Government will always take the views
of the Speaker into account. It believes that the change proposed
by the Committee is unnecessary, would risk increasing the pressure
on the Speaker and politicising his role, and would serve to encourage
more frequent and opportunistic demands for a recall when circumstances
do not merit it.
Recommendation 22: We do not believe that the
Speaker should be empowered to specify the business of the House
during an emergency recall, as it could draw him into matters
of party controversy. However, we do believe that the Government's
sittings motion specifying the number of days on which the House
sits after the recall has taken place should be debatable unless
it is tabled with the approval of the Speaker. (Paragraph 62)
25. The Government agrees with the Committee that
the Government should determine the subject for debate during
a recall, just as it does at other times. Before deciding what
length of sitting to propose, the Government will always take
into account the view of the Speaker; to put the onus on the Speaker
to approve, or not, the Government's motion would risk placing
him in an invidious and politically exposed position. The Government
is not persuaded that the sittings motion (strictly, a motion
for a periodic adjournment) should be debatable. If there has
been an emergency recall, there will be a matter of considerable
importance which the House will wish to get on and debate; and
it would be frustrating to the majority of Members if a few were
to seek to delay proceedings by debate on the sittings motion.
It is, of course, open to the House to divide on the sittings
motion, and, if a majority of the House feel that a longer recall
is necessary than has been provided for by the Government, the
motion could be defeated.
11 May 2004
| 
