Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons First Report


Sittings of the House and their impact on other business

33. One area where there has been dissatisfaction with the new sitting hours is the effect of the sittings of the House on other business, especially committee meetings and the clash between the two.[41] This applies both to select committees and to standing committees, although the problems are to some extent different for the two types of committee. For standing committees, the change has meant a much earlier start in the morning, often at 8.55 a.m. as opposed to 10.30 a.m., although more recently starting times of 9.10 a.m., 9.25 a.m. and 9.30 a.m. have become more common. This means that there is little or no time for preparatory work (or general office work) before the morning meeting. For select committees, the timing of business in the Chamber means that it is difficult to find a meeting time which does not clash with the Chamber. Afternoon meetings are more vulnerable to interruption by divisions in the House.[42]

Select committees

34. The introduction of new hours may have resulted in some bunching of select committee meetings on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, the days on which the business in the Chamber during the daytime is usually heaviest and on which, consequently, afternoon committee meetings are more likely to be interrupted by divisions in the House. But there was never a time when afternoon committee meetings were not interrupted by divisions. Under the old arrangements they were vulnerable to such interruptions from 3.30 p.m. onwards; under the new arrangements from 12.30 p.m. till about 7 p.m. If the new sitting hours have exacerbated the problem for afternoon meetings of select committees, it is largely a consequence of the desire on the part of committees to fit their work into Tuesdays and Wednesdays as fewer Members wish to commit themselves to being present in Westminster regularly on a Thursday. We believe that lengthening Thursday sittings to allow more major business to be taken on that day will improve attendance on Thursdays and so help to relieve the problems caused by the bunching of select committee meetings into only two days a week.

Standing committees

35. The new sitting hours have not had the same bunching effect on standing committees that they have on select committees, largely because the pattern of standing committees has not changed radically in response to the new hours. Standing committees on Government bills continue to meet for two or two and a half hours in the morning, before question time, and then adjourn for a three-hour break before the afternoon sitting. This is much the same pattern as before, with the meetings being brought forward an hour and a half in the morning and two hours in the afternoon.[43] European Standing Committees and Delegated Legislation Committees meet at various times on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, with occasional Monday meetings. The Chairman of Ways and Means and two of his colleagues from the Chairmen's Panel identified a few problems that have troubled standing committees since the new hours were introduced:

a)  A much earlier start in the morning can be difficult for both Members and staff. Staff often have to be in as early as 7.30 a.m. in order to prepare the papers for the meeting and Members have no time for preparation or other office work beforehand.[44]

b)  In response to these problems, some committees changed their start times from 8.55 a.m. (which was the norm in early 2003 after the sitting hours first changed) to 9.25 a.m. or 9.30 a.m. This entailed loss of debating time, unless it was added on at the end of the afternoon sitting, and created some uncertainty about meeting times, with different committees starting and finishing at different times.

c)  Committees are reluctant to sit after the rise of the House, or even after the last whipped vote, which may be some time before the rise of the House even on a Thursday, so more evening debating time can be lost.

d)  Partly as a consequence of the later start in the morning and the earlier finish in the evening, there has been an overall loss of time in standing committee.

e)  The new sitting hours impose a greater burden on members of the Chairmen's Panel, the senior MPs who chair standing committees. The early start, coupled with the need to be in the committee room throughout each meeting, make it very difficult indeed for them to attend business in the Chamber or attend to their constituency work on days when they have a standing committee meeting.[45]

36. One suggestion for alleviating these problems is the removal of the restriction on committees meeting during question time in the House. Allowing committees to sit beyond 11.25 a.m. would permit them to start the morning sitting later, to sit for longer in the morning, or both. However, we are aware that such a move would be controversial. Members attach a great deal of importance to question time and allowing standing committees to meet during it would be likely to exacerbate, rather than relieve, conflicts between standing committees and other business of the House. It would place a particular burden on standing committee chairmen, who are unable to leave a committee meeting while it is in progress. It might also make it nearly impossible to organise a reasonable Order of Questions. It is not unusual for six or seven bills, involving Ministers from different departments, to be in committee at the same time.[46] Under these circumstances, it would be very difficult to avoid Ministers having to be in the House for questions at a time when their bill committee would normally be meeting. This would lead to missed sittings of standing committees, to committees proceeding without the relevant Minister present, or to an unnecessarily convoluted and perhaps unbalanced Order of Questions. On this basis, we are not able to recommend any changes to the current prohibition on standing committees meeting during question time.

37. In the post-war period, there has never been a time when standing committee sittings did not sometimes clash with the business of the House. The current pattern of meetings of standing committees on bills has changed only slightly in relation to the sittings of the House since the new hours were introduced: some committees now sit for two, rather than two and a half hours, in the morning; and afternoon sittings usually start two hours after the end of question time, rather than one. We accept that the new sitting hours might in some areas have exacerbated tension between standing committees and other business, but nothing short of a very radical departure from current practices—dedicated committee days on which the House did not sit, for example—could avoid this problem.

38. Standing committees on bills are free to meet as often as they like, whenever they like, whether or not the House is adjourned, subject only to two conditions: they may not sit between 11.25 a.m. and 2 p.m. on a day when the House sits,[47] and they must report the bill by the out-date specified in any programme order relating to it. This leaves committees with a great deal of scope to vary their sitting arrangements to suit their members which, in our view, has not yet been fully explored. There is nothing in theory to stop standing committees on bills meeting on a Wednesday rather than (or as well as) a Tuesday or a Thursday, or from sitting beyond the rise of the House. We would urge standing committees to consider these options as a way of mitigating the current clashes between business in committee and on the floor of the House.

39. Our recommendation for an earlier start on a Thursday, if agreed to by the House, will clearly have implications for standing committee meetings on Thursday mornings. Even with an 8.55 a.m. start (and we do not believe that it would be practicable to start any earlier) only one and a half hours will be available before 10.25 a.m., when the Standing Order requires the sitting to be adjourned for question time. It may be that the options recommended above could be used to deal with the consequent loss of time but, in case they are not and further to extend the choice of meeting times available to standing committees, we recommend that the earliest time at which an afternoon standing committee meeting may begin be brought forward to 12.30 p.m. on a Thursday and 1.30 p.m. on a Tuesday and Wednesday, leaving a minimum of 2 hours between the morning and afternoon meetings.

Westminster Hall

40. The House sits in Westminster Hall from 9.30 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. and 2 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. on Tuesdays and Wednesdays; and from 2.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. on Thursdays. 'Injury time' is allowed in the afternoon sittings to make up for any suspensions due to a division in the House. In general terms, there is little clash between Westminster Hall, whose business consists largely of adjournment debates, and the Chamber. However, the Chairman of Ways and Means, who is the principal Presiding Officer for Westminster Hall, pointed out to us that there was a problem with cross-cutting questions, which take place on Thursdays. The structure and rhythm of questions, unlike an adjournment debate, is such that interruptions for a division in the House can be extremely disruptive.[48] We recommend that cross-cutting questions should be taken in Westminster Hall on a Tuesday or Wednesday morning in order to avoid their disruption by divisions in the House.

Recess dates

41. The main focus of this inquiry has been the pattern of sitting hours, but at the same time as the hours were changed the House adopted a new calendar of sittings, including an experimental two-week sitting in September. Recess dates are not covered by the Standing Orders of the House. The projected dates of recesses for the year ahead are announced by the Leader of the House towards the end of each Session, and the House agrees to the dates for each recess a few days beforehand. It is not therefore necessary for the House to take a decision on recess dates at this stage, but we have considered it in the course of this inquiry as the question of the daily and weekly pattern of sittings cannot be easily disentangled from the question of the timing of recesses.

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   Q 178 (Chairman of Ways and Means). Back

42   See, for example, the submissions from Mr Lindsay Hoyle (Ev 53), Lembit Öpik (Ev 56), Mr Graham Brady (Ev 61), the Reverend Martin Smyth (Ev 64), Rt Hon John Gummer (Ev 78) and Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody (Ev 84). For a contrary view, see the submission from Mr Mark Lazarowicz (Ev 56). Back

43   Under the old arrangements, committees usually met from 10.30 a.m. to 1 p.m. and again at 4.30 p.m. Under the new arrangements they usually meet from some time between 8.55 a.m. and 9.30 a.m. till 11.25 a.m. and again at 2.30 p.m. See Standing Order No. 88 and the Orders of 29 October 2002 relating to sitting hours. Back

44   Members may give notice of amendments, etc., until the rise of the House the night before a committee meeting. The printed amendment papers are thus not available until 7.30 a.m. on the morning on which the committee meets. A certain amount of preparatory work, such as checking selection lists against the marshalled amendment paper and 'marking up' the paper for use by the clerk and chairman in committee therefore has to be done on the day itself. Back

45   Q 178 (Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr Eric Illsley MP and Derek Conway MP). For figures on total amount of standing committee time, see paragraph 5. Back

46   In 2002-03, the last Session for which Sessional Returns were available at the time of writing, there were six Government bills in standing committee for much of January, February, April and May. Back

47   Except Monday, when they may not sit between 1 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. Standing Order No. 88(1), as modified by paragraph (1)(b) of the Orders of 29 October 2002 relating to Tuesday to Friday sittings. Back

48   Q 212. Back

49   8-18 September 2003 and 7-16 September 2004. Back

50   Second Report from the Committee, Session 2001-02, HC 1168-I, Modernisation of the House of Commons: a Reform Programme, paragraph 77. Back

51   The Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission etc.) Bill [Lords] in 2003 and the Hunting Bill in 2004. Back

52   11 September 2003: Motions on Standards and Privileges and Machinery of Government Changes: Amendment of Standing Orders. Back

53   Ev 88 (Malcolm Bruce). Back

54   The Rhythms of Schooling, Report of the Independent Commission on the Organisation of the School Year (Local Government Association, September 2002). Back

55   Third Report of Session 2001-02, HC 622, paragraphs 97-103, and the Government's response (Cm 5628), paragraphs 40 and 41. Back


 
previous page contents next page

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

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 11 January 2005