THIRD REPORT OF SESSION
2003-04 FROM THE PROCEDURE COMMITTEE
INTRODUCTION
1. In July 2002[1]
the House agreed to a package of procedural changes, to be implemented
for a period of two sessions. That experimental period will end
with the current session, so the House needs to decide how to
proceed thereafter.
2. The experiment has been reviewed by a Leader's
Group, which reported in September.[2]
We have now considered that report, and make our present recommendations
to the House on the basis of it.
3. In this report we set out each of the conclusions
and recommendations of the Leader's Group in turn (printed in
italics) followed by our own comments and recommendations (printed
in bold). Broadly speaking we recommend that the experimental
package should be adopted permanently, with the exception of arrangements
for starred questions where we recommend a variation.
Pre-legislative scrutiny
Leader's
Group paragraph 7: We welcome the growth in pre-legislative
scrutiny, which is a significant innovation and has notably altered
the way in which the legislative programme is structured. We recommend
that this approach should continue. However, we conclude that
the aspiration that "virtually all major Government bills"
should receive such scrutiny is unrealistic. A variety of constraints
- business management requirements, political considerations,
resource implications - lead us not to stipulate a target for
continued growth in pre-legislative scrutiny, though we expect
that it will become an increasingly useful part of the parliamentary
cycle. We support the continued consideration on a case-by-case
basis of the appropriate forum for pre-legislative scrutiny, but
would favour greater use of joint committees and of Lords' committees
where appropriate.
4. We endorse these conclusions and recommendations.
Carry-over
Leader's
Group paragraph 9: We recommend that the existing arrangements
for carry-over, as described above, should be continued. Eligibility
of individual bills is settled by discussion through the usual
channels, and a bill is then carried over by an ad hoc motion
in the House. We also note the example of the Constitutional Reform
Bill [HL], as demonstrating the flexibility which exists where
there is general agreement about the desirability of a bill being
carried over.
5. We endorse this recommendation.
Scrutiny of the Finance Bill
Leader's Group paragraph 11: We endorse the
recommendations previously agreed to by the House. We recommend
that the Sub-Committee should continue to conduct its activities
with full regard to the sensitivities involved and in particular
to the traditional boundary between the two Houses on fiscal policy.
6. We endorse this recommendation.
Starred questions
Leader's Group paragraph 13: We therefore
recommend that the House should return to 4 starred questions
each day, with a limit of 30 minutes. We recommend that the number
of topical questions be reduced to 3, one each on Tuesday, Wednesday
and Thursday. This would allow 2 of each week's topical questions
to be tabled in the week that they would be asked, which might
encourage greater topicality. We recommend that the clerks should
discourage members from tabling questions which are clearly not
topical and should indicate to members which questions have already
been submitted for ballot. We endorse the existing limit of 4
topical questions per member per session.
7. We endorse these conclusions and recommendations.
We recommend that the clerks should not accept more than one question
on a subject for inclusion in the ballot for topical questions,
and that priority should be given to the first which is tabled.
We also take this opportunity to remind the House of the following
guidance on questions: "supplementary questions may be asked
but they should be short and confined to not more than two points
… The essential purpose of supplementaries is to elicit information,
and they should not incorporate statements of opinion. They should
not be read".[3]
Ministerial "free days"
Leader's Group paragraph 15: We do not recommend
that that issue should be re-opened, but the House must then accept
that ministers cannot always be present to answer questions. We
draw to the attention of the House the recommendation of the Procedure
Committee that "It should be left to ministers to decide
whether to answer questions themselves or leave them to be answered
by a Whip if, for example, they are absent from the House on official
duties".
8. We endorse this conclusion.
Grand Committees
Leader's Group paragraph 19: We concluded
that arrangements for bills going to Grand Committees are broadly
acceptable and we recommend that the present arrangements, whereby
decisions about commitment of a bill are made after discussion
in the usual channels and a motion is moved after second reading
of each bill, should be continued.
Leader's Group paragraph 20: We recommend
that Grand Committees should continue to sit for the times agreed
in advance, irrespective of the rising of the House.
Leader's Group paragraph 21: We recommend
that consideration should be given to altering the layout to make
it more accessible to members who might wish to attend a Grand
Committee briefly or intermittently.
Leader's Group paragraph 22: We considered
the potential for televising Grand Committees from the Moses Room,
but concluded that the costs would be very high and hard to justify.
The Director of Parliamentary Broadcasting advised that a more
cost-effective way forward would be to link the Moses Room microphone
system to the broadcasting network so that automated sound coverage
of Grand Committees could be carried on the internet as part of
Parliament's own webcasting service. We recommend that this course
should be further pursued.
9. We endorse these conclusions and recommendations.
Leader's Group paragraph 23: Building on
the success of the Grand Committee on Northern Ireland orders,
we recommend that other types of business could be taken in the
Moses Room, including some other delegated legislation and debates
on some select committee reports. The Procedure Committee may
also wish to consider whether unstarred questions could also be
taken in the Moses Room from time to time, given the pressures
on the Floor of the House and the evident demand for additional
opportunities for unstarred questions.
10. In considering this issue we had before
us a letter from Lord Grenfell, chairman of the Select Committee
on the European Union, which is printed as an annex to this report.
Lord Grenfell set out in his letter, and in discussion in our
Committee, his reasons for opposing the proposal that debates
on select committee reports could take place in the Moses Room.
We had some sympathy with his points but concluded that the recommendation
would not curtail members' rights but would instead widen the
range of options open to those seeking business in the House,
in view of the pressure on time in the Chamber. We therefore endorse
this recommendation of the Leader's Group, and further recommend
that unstarred questions may also be taken in the Moses Room.
However, we make these recommendations on the understanding that
additional business in the Moses Room would only be arranged with
the concurrence of those concerned. We note that any delegated
legislation debated in a Grand Committee would have to return
to the floor of the House for a formal decision.
Target rising time
Leader's Group paragraph 25: We conclude
that the increased use of Grand Committees has greatly contributed
to increased success in meeting the target rising time, as has
the greater experience of the usual channels in working to a specific
target.
Leader's Group paragraph 26: … we conclude
that the House would no longer find it acceptable routinely to
sit late into the night. … We recommend that the current
arrangements for the 10pm target rising time should continue,
because they are flexible enough to allow the House to sit later
by agreement in cases where that is desirable. Responsibility
for meeting that target rests not only with the business managers,
but with all members of the House through self-regulation. A target
rising time can only be achieved in practice if, for example,
members refrain from making "second reading" type speeches
at other stages of bills, and from repeating at length arguments
which have already been fully stated.
11. We endorse these conclusions and recommendations.
Time for debates
Leader's Group paragraph 29: We also recommend
that committee chairmen should be rigorous in recommending reports
either for debate or information. We hope that recommendations
for debate could be confined to those subjects which are likely
to attract interest and participation from the wider House, and
those instances where it is desirable that a Government response
should be given in debate rather than in writing. Recommending
more specialised select committee reports for debate has an impact
on the time available to debate matters of more general interest.
12. We endorse these conclusions and recommendation.
We further recommend that, whether select committee reports are
debated on the floor of the House or in Grand Committee, it should
be possible to time limit the debate. This would be subject to
an order of the House in the usual way for Wednesday debates.
Thursday sittings
Leader's Group paragraph 32: We acknowledge
the chequered history of this issue, and the fact that some members
are still strongly averse to the morning sitting on Thursday.
But that body of opinion is not generally representative of feelings
in the House, and we take the view that the present pattern of
Thursday sittings is now fairly widely accepted. This is an issue
on which interests differ, and no solution would meet all the
demands of members' varying personal circumstances. On the whole,
we conclude that the current arrangements for Thursday sittings
are successful. We recommend that the House should continue to
sit at 11am on Thursdays with starred questions as first business,
and aim to rise at around 7 pm.
Leader's Group paragraph 33: … but we
acknowledge that the House may wish to revisit the issue of swapping
Wednesday and Thursday business in future.
Leader's Group paragraph 34: We recommend
that Grand Committees should not normally sit on a Thursday morning,
except by agreement where exceptional circumstances make it desirable.
Leader's Group paragraph 35: … Whilst
publication of the marshalled list on the previous day would be
of little practical advantage if further amendments are tabled
at the last minute, we recommend that earlier publication of the
marshalled list should be explored.
13. We endorse these conclusions and recommendations.
We propose to consider further the issue of swapping Wednesday
and Thursday business in future, and will report to the House
on that matter in due course.
September sittings
Leader's Group paragraph 37: We recognise
the strong feelings in the House on this issue, and also the arguments
on practical and cost grounds. We endorse the original recommendation
that the House should be willing to sit in September, but this
should be reconsidered if the House of Commons discontinues September
sittings in due course.
14. We endorse this conclusion, and note that
it is not proposed that either House should sit in September in
2005.
1 HL Deb, 24 July 2002, col. 371. Back
2
Report of the Leader's Group - Review of Working Practices, (2003-04)
HL Paper 162. Back
3
Companion to the Standing Orders, page 76. Back
| 
