Memorandum from the Clerk of the House
of Commons (M39)
MAKING BETTER
USE OF
NON-LEGISLATIVE
TIME
1. The current inquiry of the Modernisation
Committee is being undertaken together with an inquiry into strengthening
the role of the backbencher. I have already responded to that
inquiry and this Memorandum should be read in conjunction with
my earlier Memorandum on that subject. The Committee has also
received a paper on the use of non-legislative time prepared by
the staff of the Committee to which I will refer in this paper.
[7]
BACKGROUND
2. The present distribution of sitting time
broadly reflects the arrangements made in 1994-95 which in turn
stemmed from the Jopling Report on Sittings of the House published
in February 1992. [8]
That Report was based on three principles:
— the Government must be able
to get its business through and, within that principle, ultimately
control the time of the House;
— the Opposition must have enough
opportunity to scrutinise the actions of Government and to improve
or oppose its legislation as it thinks fit; and
— backbench Members on both sides
of the Chamber should have reasonable opportunities to raise matters
of concern to their constituents. [9]
3. After more than two and a half years
of discussion behind the scenes, a comprehensive package of changes
was introduced in 1994, at first on an experimental basis. [10]When
the Procedure Committee reviewed the experiment in 1995 in its
Report on Sitting Hours Reform, [11]it
recommended that the changes be incorporated in Standing Orders
and this was done on 2 November 1995. [12]
SET PIECE
DEBATES
4. In its Report, the Procedure Committee
published the following list of annual set piece debates which
took place in the Chamber. [13]
| Queen's Speech Debate |
6 days |
| Opposition Days | 20 days
|
| Estimates Days | 3 days
|
| Budget Debate | 5 days
|
| Summer economic Debate | 1 day
|
| Armed Services | 3 days
|
| Defence White Paper | 2 days
|
| EU matters | 1 or 2 days
|
| Reports of the Public Accounts Committee |
1 day |
| Welsh Affairs | 1 day |
| Foreign Affairs (usually) | 1 day
|
5. It is quite striking that, in respect of the debates
held in prime time, the allocation of time in 2006 has changed
very little since the early 1990s. Only the Summer economic debate
has fallen regularly from this schedule. Although time spent on
defence has been given a different focus, the number of days has
remained broadly the same. [14]If
it is accepted that the amount of time devoted to legislative
business is unlikely to be reduced, and there continues to be
a requirement to allocate time to these regular annual debates,
the scope for creating additional opportunities for different
types of business is necessarily limited.
CHANGES SINCE
1994
6. Despite this apparent continuity, the analysis of
business taken each year[15]
illustrates a number of changes in sitting patterns since 1995,
including the removal from the floor of debates on statutory instruments
and a reduction in hours of sitting which have taken place in
addition to the main daily business in the Chamber. [16]These
developments have been accompanied by an expansion of opportunities
for back bench and select committee adjournment debates, originally
(in line with Jopling) on Wednesday mornings in the House and,
since session 1999-2000, in Westminster Hall. The intention of
the Jopling reforms was to reduce the amount of time that the
House sat after the moment of interruption and in that it has
broadly succeeded, as the Committee's own Memorandum demonstrates.
[17]
INCREASING SITTING
HOURS
7. For the purpose of this memorandum, I have assumed
that the House will not wish to sit on more days each year than
at present. This is not surprising as the House of Commons sits
on more days and for more hours that almost all legislatures in
the developed world. [18]I
have also assumed that the House would not wish to revisit the
issue of sitting on Fridays, except for private Members' Bills.
Constituency Fridays have become indispensable to Members' constituency
work.
8. There is also little enthusiasm for the House to go
back to regular sittings beyond the moment of interruption. The
hours and arrangement of sitting were reconsidered in January
2005 at the end of the last Parliament and the House decided that
the hours of sitting on Tuesdays should revert to the traditional
afternoon pattern. [19]At
that time there was no great pressure to extend sittings for other
types of business. Among the options canvassed at that time were
sitting after seven o'clock on Wednesdays or increasing the time
available in Westminster Hall.
WHAT TIME
IS AVAILABLE?
9. I have noted above the limited scope to extend the
hours of sitting of the House. How the Jopling Committee and the
Procedure and Modernisation Committees in the past have approached
this task was to move certain business off the floor or to create
new types of sitting. The Modernisation Committee is considering
not only opportunities to rebalance current sitting hours but
also the possibilities of introducing new types of proceeding.
There are a number of ways which could be used to make time
for new types of business. These include:
— extending the number of hours of sitting
of the House;
— reallocating time currently devoted on a
regular basis to the existing business;
— extending further the use of the parallel
Chamber in Westminster Hall.
Extending the hours of sitting
10. The Committee may wish to consider whether there
is scope to add to the number of hours during which the House
sits. If the House sticks to the broad consensus that business
should not regularly be taken after the moment of interruption
(especially after 10 o'clock) and sitting hours remain the same,
the only option available to increase sitting time at a reasonable
hour would be to extend Wednesday evenings by three hours up to
10 o'clock. The Opposition parties would doubtless resist more
time being available for Government business. On previous occasions
no consensus has emerged on whether that time should be used and
if so what business might be taken.
Reallocation of time currently used for existing business
11. Although there may be limited scope for changing
the regular pattern of set piece debates or for changing the amount
of time available on the floor of the House for the various stages
of legislation, there remains a variety of other regular business
taken each session. For example, there are annual debates on matters
such as social security and pensions uprating and local government
and police financial support which must be accommodated. Time
is also provided each year for debates on current issues. Since
the last election there have been debates on important White Papers
or Reports such as on the Conventions of the UK Parliament or
Pensions reform. The Government is continually pressed to find
time for debates on particular subjects as can be seen every Thursday
at Business Questions. At times of the year when legislation is
not pressing, the Government holds debates on the adjournment
to enable topics to come before the House. Such debates frequently
take place on a Monday or on a Thursday when they can take place
without the need for whipping and they may not be heavily attended.
Because the debates do not arise on a regular basis, it might
be difficult to translate these occasions to provide predictable
opportunities for other types of business. In any case, Members
might not welcome removal of such occasional opportunities to
debate subjects which are of topical interest and for which the
Government is pressed to find time.
Westminster Hall
12. Debates in Westminster Hall have been a significant
success and have, to some extent, reversed the historical erosion
of private members' time over a long period. 12 hours of debate
occur each week, nine of which provide opportunities for backbench
Members. The regular Thursday debates also provide select committees
with ready opportunities to follow up their reports. The scale
of the opportunities for backbenchers has enabled many topical
debates to held, in recent times on Farepak, on rail services,
on air passenger duty and on the future of cottage hospitals,
which otherwise would have been confined to Question Time.
13. The debates in Westminster Hall have settled to a
regular pattern on Tuesday morning, on Wednesday morning and afternoon
and on Thursday afternoon. During some of these sessions, the
House is sitting. It would be possible to increase the number
or length of sittings in Westminster Hall, adding time at the
end of current sittings or holding additional meetings on Monday
or Tuesday afternoons for example. That might not suit Members
and would have resource implications both for the House and for
Government. Unless Monday mornings were used, any further sitting
time would need to be also at a time when the House is sitting,
a practice which already leads to conflicts of interest and complaints
from Members who cannot be present at two debates at the same
time.
14. As I have noted in my other Memorandum, the success
of Westminster Hall has been related to the fact that the business
taken has been unopposed. It is unlikely to be possible to take
business other than adjournment Motions there without a consensus
for such a change or without an amendment to the Standing Orders
since, under SO No 10 (10), only six Members are able to block
proceedings and they would be likely to do so if it was felt that
the matter to be debated should properly have been discussed in
the House itself.
TOPICALITY OF
DEBATES
15. Since 1997, the House has addressed the issue of
making its business more topical and a number of procedural changes
have been made. The notice period for oral questions was reduced
from two weeks to (in most cases) three sitting days; the creation
of additional opportunities for adjournment debates in Westminster
Hall has increased the likelihood of early success in the ballot.
16. If the House wished to add a further opportunity
for topical debates, time from the regular business would have
to be found. A difficulty here is that Members do not welcome
the truncation of the main business on a particular day, for example
when there are programmed proceedings on bills or there is an
Opposition Day. There are frequent complaints when statements
eat into the time for that business. Were the Committee minded
to propose that on one or more days a week a limited period be
set aside for "topical" business, it would be helpful
if this was done on a regular basis so that the business managers
could take account of that fact when scheduling business and heavily
oversubscribed debates or legislative business were not affected.
DEBATES ON
SUBSTANTIVE MOTIONS
17. Debates regularly take place on substantive Motions
in Government and Opposition time. All Opposition parties benefit
to some extent from the twenty days provided each year pursuant
to Standing Order No 14. As part of the Jopling package, the procedure
for private Members' motions was discontinued and I have commented
on this matter in my memorandum on Strengthening the role of the
backbencher.
18. Statistics provided to the Committee show that more
than twenty debates are held in the Chamber each session in Government
time on motions for the adjournment of the House. [20]It
has sometimes been suggested that many of these debates could
be held on the basis of a substantive motion. That would facilitate
the moving of amendments and provide the occasion for votes in
the House, neither of which can occur readily in an adjournment
debate. On the other hand, it could be argued that debates on
the adjournment are more flexible and the rules of debate less
strict so that they can be arranged more quickly, for varying
lengths of time and will enable Members to contribute without
constant reference to a motion which might limit what can be discussed.
The parties (and Members) may also benefit from the looser whipping
regime which may accompany them. It is for the Committee to determine
where the balance in this argument lies.
WAYS OF
ALLOCATING TIME
19. Currently the Government controls the time of the
House, subject to the allocation of time by Standing Order in
respect of Opposition Days, Private Members' bill Fridays and
specific timed business such as that for 10 Minute Rule Motions.
A number of methods are currently used to allocate opportunities:
— A ballot administered by the Speaker's Office
is used to select subjects for adjournment debates,
— A shuffle is done electronically to determine
precedence of notices of oral Questions,
— A queuing system is used to allocate 10 minute
rule Motion slots,
— The Speaker decides whether applications
for Urgent Questions or emergency debates under SO No 24 meet
the criteria laid down in Standing Orders and should be granted,
— The Speaker's chooses one adjournment debate
in the House and another in Westminster Hall each week.
20. Among the suggestions previously considered for allocating
time has been the idea of a Business Committee which could determine
the priority and scheduling of business. That idea has ramifications
well beyond the use of non-legislative time and has not previously
found favour with the usual channels who currently determine business.
Other possibilities canvassed for allocating time in the
Chamber include:
— Giving further responsibility to the Speaker
for determining priority of different types of business. This
might well bring the Speaker into political controversy unless
some objective criteria could be established on the basis of which
he could make his selection.
— Providing that Early Day Motions with sufficient
support might be debated. Under this proposal, it would not readily
be possible to discriminate between subjects which were suitable
for debate and those which were popularly supported but would
not generate significant discussion. This form of allocation might
also generate organised party activity to gain a debating opportunity
when each of the main Opposition parties (and the Government)
already have time at their disposal.
INTERPELLATIONS
21. The Committee has indicated that it may wish to consider
the adoption of novel procedures to expand the opportunities for
the House to challenge the Government. One procedure proposed
for consideration is the Interpellation.
22. The procedure has been used in continental European
Parliaments at different times. It generally is based on a Member
introducing a subject for discussion for a limited period after
which other Members might contribute. At the end of the debate
a Minister might reply and in some jurisdictions a vote might
follow.
Points that the Committee should consider are:
— How might the right to initiate an interpellation
be established?
— Would the procedure be intended for backbenchers
or Parties to use?
— How far the worth of the procedure would
be dependent on a Ministerial response or the possibility of a
vote on a Motion at the end?
— In what part in the Parliamentary week should
it be scheduled?
— How far would this procedure differ from Opposition
business?
IS THE
STANDING ORDER
ON SHORT
SPEECHES WORKING?
23. On 1 November 2006, the House incorporated the temporary
order on Shorter Speeches into Standing Order No 47 on Short Speeches.
Now the Speaker can apply a time limit on speeches at the beginning
for the whole or a part of a debate and towards the end of the
time apply a shorter speech limit. The reaction of Members to
these limits varies. Some (and most newer) Members prefer the
imposition of limits to enable a larger number of Members to speak.
Others resent the inhibition which it places on their ability
to make a sophisticated and extended argument.
24. One problem which has emerged is the rigidity of
the limits set—a minimum of eight minutes for short speeches
and three minutes for shorter speeches. The calculations which
the Chair must make are affected by the number of Members who
have written in advance seeking to be called. If Members subsequently
withdraw, the set time limit may bring the debate to an end prematurely.
Similarly if Members seek to catch the Speaker's eye without prior
notification, the chosen time limit may be too generous to enable
all to speak. Clearly it would be wrong to fetter the Speaker's
discretion in setting limits. But the Committee may wish to express
their view on the use of the two elements of the Standing Order
and whether a more flexible approach might be adopted, for example
by the Chair altering the limit mid-way through the debate and
not only towards the end, in the light of progress of the debate.
Malcolm Jack
March 2007
7
NLT M 1 (not printed). Back
8
HC 20 (1991-92). Back
9
Ibid para 7. Back
10
HC Deb. 19 December 1994, cc 1456-1509. Back
11
HC 491 1994-95. Back
12
HC Deb. 2 November 1995, cc 405 et seq. Back
13
HC 491 op cit para 31. Back
14
In 2005-06 on Defence in the UK, Defence in the World, Defence
policy, Defence procurement and Armed Forces Personnel. Back
15
See memorandum from the staff of the Committee NLT M 1. Back
16
This has been achieved by eliminating some debates on Money and
Ways and Means resolutions and the adjournments after the passage
of Consolidated Fund Bills and the debating of statutory instruments
in Committee. Back
17
NLT M 1 op cit. Back
18
See, for example, the comparison of annual number of sitting days
in Commonwealth parliaments in The Table, The Journal of
the Society of Clerks-of-the-Table in Commonwealth Parliaments,
Vol 22, 2004, pp 210-11. Back
19
CJ (2004-05 p 116. Back
20
NLT M1, para 19. Back
| 
