2 Overall sitting patterns (the Parliamentary
calendar)
Total number of sitting days
10. We begin by considering the House's overall sitting
patterns. The evidence which we have taken suggests that the current
balance between the number of sitting days and the number of non-sitting
days across the year is broadly correct. As we have noted above,
the amount of constituency casework Members deal with has increased
enormously. Yet the importance of work at Westminster has not
diminished and there is no room for any reduction in the total
number of sitting days in a year. The Government certainly wishes
to get the same amount of business through the House and the Backbench
Business Committee is seeing great pressure on the time it is
given by the Government and for which it is responsible. We
conclude that the number of sitting days, and sitting weeks, should
remain broadly the same as at present, that is, about 150 days,
spread over about 34 weeks, per year.
Distribution of sitting days
11. We have, however, heard suggestions that the
distribution of those days across the year could be improved to
maximise Members' ability both to scrutinise Government and to
serve their constituents. There is widespread agreement that the
introduction of a "half-term" break from sitting at
Westminster in February, has been welcome; similarly, the short
recess in November, which replaces the time previously spent at
that time in prorogation, has been welcomed by Members. Conversely,
though the two-week September sitting is unwelcome in its current
form, it is accepted that it is undesirable to leave Government
unscrutinised by Parliament for almost three months.
12. We found a general consensus that both very long
periods at Westminster and very long periods away from Westminster
are to be avoided. We therefore put forward in our consultation
document two options for the overall sitting patterns of the House:
- a pattern resembling the current
calendar, with two/three week breaks from Westminster sittings
at Christmas and Easter and one/two week breaks in February and
at Whitsun; and
- a pattern of four/five weeks at Westminster followed
by a week in the constituency.
SEPTEMBER SITTINGS
13. We additionally considered the issue of the summer
recess and September sittings. The evidence we received from Members
concerning September sittings was mixed. There was little—if
any—enthusiasm for them, with many considering that little
of substance was achieved in that two-week period and that any
benefit in presentational terms was outweighed by the financial
costs of setting the House up for Members to be brought back for
just eight or nine sitting days before a further three-week recess.
Many also regretted the loss of opportunities for constituency
work in September, particularly in schools. The view in other
quarters was that any move to return to the long summer recess
would not only be difficult in presentational terms, but would
also create a long period when the House would be unable effectively
to fulfil its task of scrutinising Government and holding Ministers
to account. Additionally, as the Leader of the House pointed out
in his evidence to us, "there is no easy option of simply
abolishing September sittings":[10]
those sitting days would need to be found somewhere, probably
at the end of July. That would be particularly unwelcome for Members
representing Scottish constituencies who had school-age children,
since the Scottish school holidays begin in early July and finish
in mid-August, leaving little overlap with a summer recess which
does not start until late July.
14. We asked the Clerk of the House, in his role
as Chief Executive of the House Service, for an estimate of the
marginal cost of September sittings. He replied
[…] work for the Finance and Services Committee
on estimating the additional cost for the works programme of the
two week September sitting has suggested that an additional cost,
of the order of £1.5 million, mainly on the capital budget,
arises from having to manage some projects within the tighter
timetable caused by breaking up the long Summer recess. We cannot
determine accurately the total financial consequence, or risk
impact, of breaking up the long recess as costs will vary from
project to project, and hence from year to year. The key factor
for the Parliamentary Estates Directorate (PED), however, is certainty
about the Parliamentary calendar to allow for effective planning.[11]
Questioned further in oral evidence, the Clerk of
the House put that figure in context:
[…] the total impact of changes at the margins
of sitting patterns would probably be quite small. There is a
figure in the paper about the impact, for instance, of not having
a September sitting, or having one. We tried to work out a figure
for that—about £1.5 million on the capital budget—that
is out of a total spend in the House of Commons of well in excess
of £200 million, so these are not enormous impacts.[12]
15. The sitting pattern in September is dictated
chiefly by the timing of the party conferences. We considered
various options for dealing with this fixture in the political
calendar: from simply ignoring them and continuing to sit regardless,
to sitting around them (on, say, a Tuesday and Wednesday while
the conferences were held from Thursday to the following Monday),
to inviting the parties to move their conferences either forward
to the first three weeks of September, or back to late October/early
November.
16. Regrettably, all these options have proved either
undesirable or impractical. The political parties (those who responded
to us) were unwilling to move their conferences either forward
or back, citing concerns about the effect on other events (such
as the Trades Union Congress conference, which takes place in
early September) and about the practicalities of holding one conference
during the October half-term break. Nor did they feel able to
move them into even an extended long weekend.[13]
Sitting around the party conferences would be little better than
sitting for two weeks in September and then breaking for three
weeks; and neither the Leader nor the Shadow Leader was prepared
to countenance continuing to sit while the conferences took place.[14]
17. With some regret, therefore, we conclude that
the only viable options for the House's sitting pattern across
the summer recess and into October is either to sit for two weeks
in mid-September, as currently, or to revert to the pattern of
a long summer recess and move those two sitting weeks elsewhere.
Early in this Parliament the House agreed to "[ask] the Government
to put to this House specific proposals for sitting periods in
September 2010".[15]
The House has not, however, had the opportunity since the general
election, when many new Members were returned, to debate the question
of whether September sittings should become the norm. We have
now had two years of sitting in September since the last general
election, time for all Members to judge its desirability. The
House has already agreed to a motion providing for a September
sitting in 2012.[16]
We recommend that the House
should be given the opportunity to vote on whether the House should
continue to sit in September from 2013 onwards.
SITTING PATTERNS IN THE REST OF THE
YEAR
18. The responses we received from Members showed
a clear preference for a sitting pattern across the rest of the
year which resembles the current calendar. Such a pattern provides
an appropriate balance between the length of time spent at a stretch
by Members at Westminster and in the constituency. An additional
benefit of this pattern is that it enables those Members with
school-age children to spend time with their families in school
holiday time, an important factor in ensuring that those with
young children are not discouraged from standing for Parliament.
Subject
to the House's decision on September sittings, we recommend that
the House should continue to follow the current overall sitting
pattern.
10 Ev w58 Back
11
Ev w56 Back
12
Q 211 Back
13
Ev w50, Ev w59, Ev w95. Back
14
Q 240, Q 274 Back
15
Votes and Proceedings, 15 June 2010 Back
16
Votes and Proceedings, 21 February 2012 Back
| 
