|
Westminster Hall sittings began in November 1999. Since then those sittings have evolved principally into a forum for backbench business. Westminster Hall is widely held to be a success and provides expanded opportunities for backbench MPs and for oversight of the executive.
This report offers some modest and, we trust, uncontroversial recommendations on how to improve the conduct of business in Westminster Hall. Rather than a complete upheaval, we offer the House a package of reasonable and practical reforms which will enhance Members' experience of debating in the second chamber.
Introduction of one hour debates
We recommend the introduction of a one hour debate slot which would provide additional flexibility alongside the current timing options of half-hour and 90-minute debates.
We recommend that on application for a debate a maximum of two out of the three time slot options should be selectable.
Accommodating the option of an additional time slot
We recommend that the option of an hour-long debate should be accommodated by extending the final debate on Tuesdays and Wednesdays from half an hour to a full hour.
Timing of Thursday sittings
We recommend that the Thursday sitting should be brought forward by one hour, with a starting time of 12.30 pm and finishing time (subject to divisions in the House) of 3.30 pm.
Exchanging Monday and Thursday business
We recommend that Liaison and Backbench Business Committee debates should take place on Monday and e-petitions should be debated on a Thursday. Our successors in the new Parliament may wish to review the change and make a recommendation about whether the change should continue or be reversed.
Trial of 90-minute debate allocation
We recommend that the Backbench Business Committee should continue to allocate one 90-minute slot each week.
Replacing the adjournment motion
The use of 'general debate' motions has been successful in the main Chamber and the time has come to extend the practice to Westminster Hall. We so recommend.
'General debate' motions should remain neutral—that is, merely descriptive and not used to convey any argument or expression of opinion—and the Chairman of Ways and Means should use his power to determine business to ensure that they do so.
Substantive motions
We believe that substantive business should be reserved for the main Chamber and not taken in Westminster Hall. Nonetheless we conclude that—so long as the Chairman of Ways and Means ensures neutrality of expression in such motions—the use of 'general debate' motions could go some way towards achieving the aim of the Liaison Committee to increase the value of debates on reports, for example by drawing attention to only one or a handful of recommendations in its report, or linking together aspects of reports from more than one committee that touched on the same subject.
The Chairman of Ways and Means
To improve the clarity of the arrangements in Westminster Hall, and to remove any uncertainty over responsibility for Thursday sittings, we recommend that the Chairman of Ways and Means should be given overall responsibility for the business at all sittings in Westminster Hall. There would be no change in the arrangements for the week-by-week determination of business. Business on a Thursday would continue to be allocated by the Liaison and Backbench Business Committees as provided for in Standing Order No. 10, which we recommend should also be amended to enable both those committees to allocate business at a single sitting.
Powers of the Chair in Westminster Hall
We recommend that the Chair in Westminster Hall should have the power to order a disorderly Member to withdraw from the sitting. If a disorderly Member refuses to withdraw when ordered by the Chair, the Chair should have the power to suspend the sitting and to report the conduct of the Member to the House.
Rationalising Standing Order No. 10
We recommend that paragraphs (9) and (12), and the second half of paragraph (6), of Standing Order No. 10 should be repealed, as they are not used and therefore serve no purpose.
| 
