Conclusions and recommendations
The role of the Member
1. We
recommend that the House authorities identify ways of publicising
the work of the Chamber. (Paragraph 17)
Learning the ropes
2. The
political parties and the House authorities should work together
to ensure that the needs of new Members are identified and addressed
by any induction programme. (Paragraph 30)
3. An approach that
seeks to manage how information is routinely given to new Members
seems to be a sensible way forward. (Paragraph 32)
4. Members must be
involved in delivering part of the induction, either on a party
basis or supporting what is delivered corporately. We believe
that Members should also be involved in determining the content
of the programme and that staff planning the induction process
should test out their ideas with Members. The whips' offices and
executives of political parties should take steps to facilitate
this. (Paragraph 33)
5. The practical difficulties
faced by new Members must be addressed in order to ensure that
improvements to the induction process have the greatest chance
of success. We acknowledge the important work that the Administration
Committee is doing in this regard and welcome both their Report
on post election services and the response to it. (Paragraph 34)
6. The House authorities
should provide an overall framework for the induction programme
within which the parties have dedicated time. The parties and
the House authorities should work together in planning the next
induction programme. (Paragraph 35)
Using the gap between the election and the Queen's
speech
7. There
should be a longer gap than usually occurred in the past between
the election and the day the House first meets to permit some
of the practicalities that prevent Members from focusing on their
new job to be addressed and to make time for an induction programme
before the House starts its work. We recommend that the gap should
be about twelve days. (Paragraph 39)
Making induction relevant to the business
8. More
effort should be made to ensure that, beyond the initial induction
programme, briefings are timed so that they mirror the business
of the House as far as possible. (Paragraph 40)
9. Once the initial
new Members' briefings have been completed consideration should
be given to opening up some briefings to Members' staff and others,
such as those in political offices or staff of the House. (Paragraph
40)
Supporting Continuous Development
10. We
recommend that the House authorities make continuous development
opportunities available to all those who want them. (Paragraph
42)
11. We recommend that
the parliamentary parties review the arrangements they put in
place for mentoring the new in-take in 2005 with a view to planning
an improved process after the next election. (Paragraph 43)
12. We recommend that
the House authorities and parties work together to decide what
sort of extra development activities might be useful and how they
might best be resourced and provided. (Paragraph 45)
Information and advice for Members
13. We
encourage all Members to ask for advice (Paragraph 46)
14. We believe that
the current short guide to procedure should be expanded. (Paragraph
46)
In the Chamber
Topical Questions
15. We
recommend that oral Question Time should be divided into two periods:
an initial period for oral questions under the current arrangements
followed by a period of 'open' questions. (Paragraph 53)
Topical Debates
16. The
topicality of debates in the Chamber should be improved. We believe
that the House will attract greater attention from Members, the
public and the media if it finds a means of debating topical issues.
(Paragraph 57)
17. We recommend that
provision should be made in Standing Orders for topical debates
on issues of regional, national or international importance to
be held on one day each week. Topical debates would last for an
hour and a half and be taken immediately after questions and statements
but before the main business of the day. (Paragraph 59)
Business Questions
18. We
believe there is a case for formalising business questions in
Standing Orders. (Paragraph 64)
Urgent Questions and Urgent Debates
19. We
recommend that guidelines be drawn up to help Members understand
what sorts of issues and events might meet the criteria set out
in Standing Order No. 21(2). We see a case for extending this
advice to cover urgent debates under Standing Order No. 24 and
the other opportunities for back bench Members to raise urgent
or topical issues. The guidance could usefully include some examples
of the types of issues that could be brought up under the different
opportunities available to Members. (Paragraph 66)
20. We believe the
Speaker should have greater discretion to vary when a debate,
initiated through a successful Standing Order No. 24 application,
is held and to decide its length. The Speaker would need to exercise
this discretion in consultation with the business managers to
mitigate the impact on planned business. (Paragraph 71)
General debates
21. For
the majority of regular debates we recommend rebalancing the current
allocation of days and mix of subjects. (Paragraph 82)
22. We recognise that
there are good arguments both ways here. The Government should
listen carefully to representations from the main Opposition parties
and from back bench Members of all parties about whether a debate
should take place on a substantive motion to which amendments
could be tabled, and a vote held if necessary, or whether it should
take place on a motion that allows a debate without the House
having to come to a resolution in terms. (Paragraph 84)
23. We recommend that
debates held for the purpose of discussing a topic be renamed
'general debates' and that debate should take place on a motion
'That this House has considered [the matter of] [subject]'. (Paragraph
85)
24. There should be
a strong convention that such motions moved for the purpose of
having a general debate would not be amended (Paragraph 85)
25. We recommend that
the Order Paper for Westminster Hall makes clear that the debates
there are general debates, on particular subjects (Paragraph 86)
26. We recommend that
the subject and initiator of each end-of-day adjournment debate
be recorded in the formal minutes of the House as well as on the
Order paper. (Paragraph 87)
Short debates
27. We
believe that opportunities for a number of shorter debates can
be created without any procedural change and that these would
encourage more Members to participate. (Paragraph 89)
28. We are convinced
that greater flexibility in managing the business of the House
is needed. (Paragraph 89)
29. The Government
and opposition parties should agree more flexible use of time,
splitting some of the current all-day non-legislative debates
into two or more shorter, more focused debates where appropriate.
(Paragraph 89)
Debating Committee Reports
30. We
believe there should be a weekly committee half-hour in Westminster
Hall in which a Minister can make a brief response to a committee
report, selected for debate by the Liaison Committee, followed
by the Chairman or other Member of the Committee. The remainder
of the half-hour slot would be available to the opposition front
benches and back bench Members generally. The usefulness of these
weekly slots in Westminster Hall should be kept under review.
We also see no reason why it should not be possible for committee
reports to be debated in Westminster Hall on substantive motions:
this may require a change to Standing Order No. 10 to make clear
that debates on reports of this kind cannot be blocked by six
Members. (Paragraph 91)
Time limits on speeches
31. We
believe that in heavily over-subscribed debates the Speaker should
have the discretion to impose a twenty minute limit on speeches
from the front benches with an additional minute given for each
intervention up to a maximum of fifteen minutes of additional
time. (Paragraph 94)
32. Front bench speeches
in the one and a half hour topical debates we recommended earlier
in the Report should be limited to ten minutes each. However,
front bench spokesmen could receive an additional minute for each
intervention they accepted up to a total of ten minutes with similar
limits set for smaller parties in proportion to the time limits
the Speaker recently announced for statements. The Official Opposition
and second largest opposition party spokesmen should be able to
choose whether to make an opening or a wind-up speech (although
additional time for interventions may not be practicable at the
end of a debate). The minister with responsibility for the topic
would reply to the debate in a speech lasting no more than five
minutes. Back bench speeches in topical debates should be limited
to not less than three minutes, the precise allocation depending
on the number of Members who wished to speak. (Paragraph 95)
33. The Speaker should
have greater flexibility to vary time limits during debates with
the objective of allowing all those who wish to speak to participate.
We recommend that the Standing Orders be amended to give the Speaker
greater discretion in setting and revising time limits on speeches,
including raising or removing limits if appropriate. (Paragraph
97)
List of speakers in debate
34. We
do not see a need for lists of speakers in debates. (Paragraph
99)
Multitasking
35. Removing
barriers to participation is important and the use of handheld
devices to keep up to date with e-mails should be permitted in
the Chamber provided that it causes no disturbance. (Paragraph
100)
Private Members' Motions
36. We
believe there should be more opportunities for back bench Members
to initiate business. (Paragraph 114)
37. We recommend an
experiment with a ballot for opportunities for debating Private
Members' Motions using one of the longer slots each week in Westminster
Hall on a trial basis for a whole Parliamentary Session. We recommend
that this experiment should take place during the 2008-09 Session.
(Paragraph 114)
The impact of programming
38. We
recommend the operation of programming is kept under review. (Paragraph
123)
Resource implications
39. We
recommend that any debate on the proposals contained in this report
should be accompanied by an explanatory memorandum that sets out
the resource implications, as far as these can be known or estimated.
(Paragraph 129)
| 
