Conclusions and recommendations
1.The Speaker and his deputies have identified a genuine issue which causes irritation in many parts of the House and which merits review. We agree that the present arrangements for adding ‘injury time’ to time limited speeches where interventions are taken can be improved to the overall benefit of the House. (Paragraph 13)
2.The present arrangements for ‘injury time’ for interventions were designed to encourage interventions and spontaneous debate. This is a welcome objective: but in the context of significant time constraints on backbench speeches, not envisaged when the present arrangements were introduced in 1998 and 2002, we find that the arrangements are too generous. It is rare to find Members taking the whole of their one or two additional minutes to respond in full to interventions taken. (Paragraph 15)
3.We recommend that the provisions of Standing Order No. 47 be revised so as to encourage genuinely spontaneous interventions while safeguarding the Chair’s discretion to manage debates which are heavily oversubscribed. (Paragraph 16)
4.We consider that over-regulation of speaking time is counterproductive and does not necessarily lead to spontaneous debate. In debates where speaking time is likely to be limited, Members ought to respect the Chair’s desire to call as many speakers as possible and plan to adjust their remarks accordingly. (Paragraph 21)
5.In our view, the minimum time limit to be imposed by the Chair in a debate in the Chamber should be five minutes. We recommend that interventions on speeches where a time limit of five minutes or lower is imposed by the Chair should not result either in stopping the clock for the intervention or adding of injury time. (Paragraph 22)
6.We recommend that interventions on speeches where a time limit of five minutes or lower is imposed by the Chair should not result either in stopping the clock for the intervention or adding of injury time (Paragraph 22)
7.We recommend that changes to Standing Order No. 47 be brought forward to provide that, for debates in the Chamber where time limits of more than five minutes are imposed:
- the clock be stopped and a minute added to speaking time in respect of the first intervention accepted;
- the clock be stopped for the second intervention accepted, but no time be added, and
- that the clock not be stopped for any further interventions.
Where a time limit of five minutes or lower is imposed by the Chair, the clock should not be stopped for any intervention and no injury time should be added. (Paragraph 23)
8.We consider that over-long frontbench speeches may unnecessarily curtail the ability of individual backbenchers to contribute to important debates in the Chamber. We recognise that it is valuable to the House for Ministers and those speaking for their parties to be able to set out their positions in some detail, and to be encouraged to take interventions. In doing so they must nevertheless have regard to the overall management of the debate and to the number of Members who wish to contribute. (Paragraph 26)
9.We encourage the occupants of the Chair to continue to make known to the front benches those occasions when a debate is known to be heavily subscribed, in the expectation that they will adjust their remarks accordingly. (Paragraph 27)
10.We will analyse the balance between frontbench and backbench speeches in time-limited debates in this Session to date, and will monitor the balance for the remainder of the Session. We encourage Ministers and other frontbenchers to continue to have regard to the rights of backbenchers when preparing and delivering their remarks. Should we identify practices which are operating to the detriment of backbenchers, we will not hesitate to recommend that the Chair use the reserve power in Standing Order No. 47 to limit frontbench speeches. (Paragraph 28)
Published: 18 September 2018