The September sitting, recesses
and school holidays
42. For the last two years, the House has met for
two weeks in September.[49]
This September sitting was introduced in response to a recommendation
from this Committee, which was intended to address concerns about
the long period over the summer with no Parliamentary sitting.[50]
We also believed that the introduction of September sittings
would have the added bonus of aligning the sitting year more closely
with the school year. It is fair to say that the September sittings
have not been an unqualified success. With only a very small
number of exceptions, the Members who expressed a view on the
subject were opposed to the September sittings. The principal
reason given was that they did not present an opportunity for
the House to transact any substantial business. Several Members
remarked that mid-September is the wrong time in the annual legislative
cycle to transact much legislative business. The main business
taken at the 15 sitting days in September 2003 and 2004 has consisted
of five Opposition days, four second readings, two sets of Lords
Amendments (one of which was followed by an adjournment debate),
two days on which bills were taken through all their stages,[51]
one adjournment debate on its own and one day of miscellaneous
domestic business, preceded by an adjournment debate.[52]
This is not the light schedule that some have suggested but nor
does it represent a packed programme of urgent business.
43. It has already been recognised that, because
of necessary works to improve the security of the Chamber, it
will not be possible to use it in September 2005. The House
will sit until the end of July in order to compensate for the
loss of the September sitting. The possibility of changes being
made to school term times also means that the House might wish
to consider the parliamentary calendar again within the next year
or two.
44. For Members with school-age children, ensuring
the maximum possible congruence between Parliamentary recesses
and school holidays is a high priority. The current arrangements
do not always provide this, especially with regard to schools
in Scotland.[53] We
are concerned that the current recess arrangements might make
it very difficult for Members and staff living in certain areas
to take family holidays or to arrange childcare for school holiday
periods. The structure of the academic year is currently under
review. The Local Government Association has proposed a Standard
School Year of six terms, which it is urging local authorities
to adopt.[54] It
might be necessary to revisit the relationship between the Parliamentary
and academic years in a year or two, as the Standard School Year
is more widely adopted. We hope that it will be possible to ensure
that the recesses correspond as closely as possible to the Standard
Year, without disadvantaging unduly those Members who live in
LEA areas which have not adopted the new arrangements.
45. Our intention in proposing a September sitting
was not to increase or decrease the number of days on which the
House sat; it was to create a more balanced sitting year. A long
period of 11 weeks or more each year of continuous recess does
not contribute to the effective working of Parliament or good
scrutiny of Government. But nor do very long periods without
a recess. Our wish is to secure a Parliamentary year which spreads
sitting weeks and recess weeks as evenly as possible throughout
the year, subject to the numerous external constraints on the
calendar such as religious festivals, national and school holidays,
party conferences, and non-Parliamentary elections. We have always
maintained that the September sitting should be balanced either
by rising for the summer recess no later than mid-July or by an
extra week of recess at Easter or Whit. We recognise that
the September sitting is unpopular with many Members, but so is
the prospect of a later sitting in July to compensate for its
loss. The September sitting needs to be seen as part of a package
which includes extra recess weeks at other times of the year and,
in our view, can provide for a smoother and more efficient flow
of Parliamentary business throughout the year. There is no easy
option of simply abolishing the September sitting without reducing
commensurately the length of one or more of the other recesses.
46. In its response to the Procedure Committee's
2002 Report on Parliamentary Questions, the Government
resisted a recommendation that there should be a period during
the latter part of the summer recess during which questions for
written answer could be tabled and answered, partly on the grounds
that it would not be necessary once the September sitting was
introduced.[55] We note
that, if the September sitting were to be abandoned, the question
of the tabling and answering of questions for written answer during
the summer recess might need to be reconsidered. Since there
will be no September sitting in 2005, we propose that there should
instead be a two-week period during which questions for written
answer may be tabled and answered and we urge the Leader of the
House to bring forward a Motion to give effect to this proposal.
Conclusion
47. The changes made to sitting hours with effect
from January 2003 not surprisingly had some unforeseen effects:
notably the greater compression of the parliamentary week and
the impact on Thursdays which have ceased to be seen as a normal
full parliamentary day. We recognise that there is no consensus
for returning to the House's previous sitting pattern. Instead
this report proposes a balanced programme of change suitable for
a modern Parliament which commands the support of both Members
and the public.
41 
