2ND REPORT FROM THE PROCEDURE
COMMITTEE
Repetition of House of Commons
urgent questions
1. The Committee has considered the procedure
for repeating answers given to House of Commons urgent questions
(the equivalent to private notice questions, or PNQs, in the House
of Lords). This procedure is described in paragraph 6.36 of The
Companion to the Standing Orders:
6.36 When the answer to an Urgent Question tabled
in the Commons is, by agreement between the usual channels, to
be repeated in the Lords, it is usually repeated in the form of
a statement, synchronised with the answer in the Commons, and
not taken by way of a PNQ in the Lords.
2. Since the election of the current Speaker
in June 2009 the number of urgent questions granted in the House
of Commons has increased substantially,[1]
as has the number of repeated answers taken as statements in this
House. Earlier House of Commons sitting times now mean that such
statements are normally taken immediately after oral questions
on Tuesday to Thursday each week, and this has led to significant
disruption of the main business before the House.
3. In light of these considerations, we believe
that it would be appropriate to adopt, on a trial basis until
the end of the current session, a new procedure for repeating
answers to urgent questions, combining elements of the existing
PNQ and oral statement procedures.
4. We recommend that the following procedure
for repeating answers to House of Commons urgent questions be
adopted, on a trial basis, until the end of the 2012-13 session:
- The answer given in the Commons
will be repeated in full, as a statement;
- It will then be followed by ten minutes of
question and answer (as for a PNQ);
- The existing rules on the conduct of PNQs,
set out in paragraph 6.35 of the Companion, will apply;
- The first question will normally be asked
by the Opposition front bench, unless the usual channels have
agreed otherwise.
5. If this recommendation is agreed, we will
review the trial in spring 2013, with a view to making a further
recommendation to the House on whether or not the new procedure
should be made permanent.
1 From 2004 to 2008 between 2 and 11 urgent questions
were asked each year; in 2011 40 urgent questions were asked. Back
| 
