Sitting Hours and the Parliamentary Calendar

Sitting hours and the Parliamentary calendar

First Report of Session 2012–13

Volume II Additional written evidence

Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 13 June 2012

Published on 20 June 2012 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00

Procedure Committee

The Procedure Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to consider the practice and procedure of the House in the conduct of public business, and to make recommendations.

Membership during the Session Rt Hon Greg Knight MP (Conservative, Yorkshire East) (Chair) Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands) Jenny Chapman (Labour, Darlington) Nic Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe) Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife) Sir Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet) Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland) Mr James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire) Tom Greatrex (Lab/Co-op, Rutherglen and Hamilton West) John Hemming (Liberal Democrat, Birmingham Yardley) Mr David Nuttall (Conservative, Bury North) Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

The following Members were also members of the Committee during the Parliament: Andrew Percy (Conservative, Brigg and Goole) Bridget Phillipson (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South) Angela Smith (Labour, Penistone and Stocksbridge) Sir Peter Soulsby (Labour, Leicester South) Mike Wood (Labour, Batley and Spen)

Powers The powers of the Committee are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 147. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk.

Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at http://www.parliament.uk/proccom.

Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Huw Yardley and Anne-Marie Griffiths (Clerks) and Rowena Macdonald and Carolyn Bowes (Committee Assistants).

Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Procedure Committee, Journal Office, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 3318; the Committee’s email address is [email protected]

List of additional written evidence

(published in Volume II on the Committee’s website www.parliament.uk/proccom)

1 Rt Sir Alan Haselhurst MP, Chair of the Administration Committee (P 76, 2010–12) Ev w1 2 Derek Wyatt, formerly MP for Sittingbourne & Sheppey (P 102, 2010–12) Ev w1 3 Rt Hon David Blunkett MP (P 105, 2010–12) Ev w3 4 Sarah Childs, Professor of Politics and Gender, University of Bristol (P 111, 2010–12) Ev w6 5 Zac Goldsmith MP (P 113, 2010–12) Ev w9 6 Vivienne Windle, former employee of former MPs (P 115, 2010–12) Ev w9 7 Mr David Hamilton MP (P 118, 2010–12) Ev w10 8 Hansard Society (P 119, 2010–12) Ev w13 9 House of Commons Trade Union Side (P 120 & P 216, 2010–12) Ev w18: Ev w51 10 Caroline Lucas MP (P 121, 2010–12) Ev w19 11 Dr Philip Giddings and Professor Michael Rush (P 122, 2010–12) Ev w25 12 R A Hayward OBE (MP 1983–92) (P 123, 2010–12) Ev w26 13 Brian Donohoe MP (P 127, 2010–12) Ev w29 14 Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch (P 135, 2010–12) Ev w29 15 Dame Anne Begg MP (P 137, 2010–12) Ev w31 16 John Mann MP (P 139, 2010–12) Ev w33 17 Linda Rostron, Written Answers Unit, Hansard (P 140, 2010–12) Ev w33 18 Canadian House of Commons (P 150, 2010–12) Ev w34 19 Australian Senate (P 151, 2010–12) Ev w36 20 Senate of Canada (P 154, 2010–12) Ev w37 21 Australian House of Representatives (P 159, 2010–12) Ev w38 22 Lok Sabha (India) (P 160, 2010–12) Ev w39 23 Northern Ireland Assembly (P 161, 2010–12) Ev w39 24 National Assembly for Wales (P 162, 2010–12) Ev w41 25 Scottish Parliament (P 171, 2010–12) Ev w42 26 Joan Walley MP (P 174, 2010–12) Ev w43 27 The Labour Party (P 175 & P 215, 2010–12) Ev w43: Ev w50 28 Rt Hon Joan Ruddock MP (P 179, P 183 & P 203, 2010–12) Ev w44: Ev w48: Ev w50 29 Liaison Committee, House of Commons (P 214, 2010–12) Ev w50 30 Democratic Unionist Party (P 219, 2010–12) Ev w53 31 Clerk of the House of Commons and Chief Executive of the House Service (P 220, 2010–12) Ev w53: Ev w96 32 Leader of the House of Commons (P 223, 2010–12) Ev w57: Ev w93: Ev w97 33 Liberal Democrat Federal Conference Committee (P 224, 2010–12) Ev w59 34 Responses to November 2011 Consultation document (P 198, 2010–12) Ev w60 35 Lord Feldman of Elstree, Co-Chairman of the Conservative Party and Chairman of the Party Board (P 249, 2010–12) Ev w95 36 The Speaker of the House of Commons (P 251, 2010–12) Ev w95 37 Results from the survey of Members Ev w97

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/019792/019792_w043_michelle_Results from the survey of Members.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w1

Written evidence

Written evidence submitted by Rt Hon Sir Alan Haselhurst MP, Chair of the Administration Committee (P 76, 2010–12) Thank you for inviting me to participate in your Committee’s seminar last week on the sitting hours of the House. My own Committee discussed this matter yesterday. I fully appreciate that you intend to invite individual views from Members, and Members of the Committee may make points of their own in that regard. The Committee asked me, however, to pass on a few points in relation to our own remit, which is to consider the services provided to and for Members. First, the Committee suggested that consideration of the hours during which the House sits might best be framed through the question of how the House and its Members might most effectively conduct their business. From that perspective, the points made below should not be taken as any bar to change, but are made to highlight areas in which unforeseen consequences may arise. Several Members pointed out that any significant change to the current arrangements on Monday and Tuesday mornings might have a substantial effect on both the tours provided to members of the public and the House’s education work, particularly in relation to school visits. In the context of our current inquiry into catering, it has become clear that the sitting patterns of the House are one of the key determinants in whether the facilities provided by the House are busy or empty, profitable or loss-making, on any given evening. A change which moved the sitting day to earlier for most or all of the week would require substantial change in the way in which facilities including the dining rooms, cafeterias and bars are presently operated. Changes in the sitting arrangements of the House affect not only Members but our own staff and the staff of the House. That in turn will have effects not always foreseeable on the ability to offer Members the service they currently enjoy in such areas as catering, research facilities, and office accommodation services. Finally, the Palace of Westminster in particular requires substantial routine maintenance. Changes in the pattern of sittings across the year may have impacts on how easy it is to plan and conduct such work, which will in turn have an impact on the costs of such work. There will also, inevitably, be some impact on Members if works have to be done during periods when the House is sitting. A few points were also made that, though not strictly within the Committee’s remit, may be of interest. First, any change in the hours of sitting will have an impact on ministers. Our system being as it is, they are Members of the House and required to attend it routinely. A closer alignment between the hours of the House and “normal” business hours might affect their ability, for example, to hold meetings with Members during the day. Secondly, any change in the hours will have differing effects for different groups of Members. Obviously, the interests of those—the majority—whose constituencies are far from London need to be taken into account. A new problem has also arisen from IPSA’s current rules on overnight allowances, however, for those 128 Members who live in or relatively close to London, and for whom late-night sittings or late-evening meetings now present difficulties hitherto unknown. It would be a matter of some regret if the sitting hours of the House and its work were to any extent determined by the application of administrative rules which are intended to assist, not obstruct, Members in undertaking their duties. February 2011

Written evidence submitted by Derek Wyatt, formerly MP for Sittingbourne & Sheppey 1997–2010 (P 102, 2010–12) I have regularly written in over the past 14 years to Parliamentary committees looking at the changing nature of the role of MPs et al but I note but for small incremental changes here and there not much changes and these reports though in the main sensible are neatly ﬁled in the waste paper basket until the next one. Notwithstanding, and in the hope that one day Parliament will agree it has fallen too behind the views of the people it serves, I offer my thoughts on your new inquiry:

How the role of an MP has changed in recent years My ofﬁce handled just over 19,000 cases over 13 years. Most of these had nothing to do with my work as an MP but were instrumental in providing us with a snapshot of what was going wrong, largely, in my constituency. Rarely, were these issues to do with national policy. I began to think I was actually the local CEO of social work. This was because some county and borough councils and councillors (which my experience in Kent) do not have an outward facing philosophy nor an understanding of service. As a for instance, the housing ofﬁce would close at 3.30 pm on a Friday, bad landlords would make their tenants homeless at 4 pm on the same day. These desperate families would come to my Friday surgery desperate cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/019792/019792_w043_michelle_Results from the survey of Members.xml

Ev w2 Procedure Committee: Evidence

for help. Sometimes they couldn’t read or write or fully understand quite how they had become homeless (though not all were saints). I was left to pay their accommodation in a B&B and once in a hotel, to stop them sleeping in their car with their children (not much fun in winter) sometimes for three nights until the housing office opened on Monday morning. You might ask why they didn’t go to their county or borough councillors instead. Or why there wasn’t an emergency telephone number (there was but it was an answer-phone message service). Or why the councillors didn’t answer our letters when we raised these issues with them or why they took the view that it was nothing to do with the MP and he/she should keep his/her snout out of local issues. My view is that our citizens do not readily understand the subtle differences between a borough councillor and a county councillor or for that matter a borough councillor and an MP. It will become worse, if some MPs now think there only job is to be a grand councillor in their constituency rather than an MP in Westminster. This would be a dangerous trend. In America, I was fortunate to witness, at the John Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, the four day training and education scheme newly elected representatives attended before taking up their positions in Washington, DC. Whilst it is true, that newly elected MPs have an induction course it does not include an analysis of the main policy issues which will face them over the next four or five years. I would have thought that a discussion with LSE, UCL, SOAS and the Bank of England would enable courses to be arranged for both newly elected MPs and newly elected ministers and shadow ministers not dissimilar to those at Harvard. These could happen in the first week for ministers and the second week for shadow ministers (if appropriate) and MPs following the General Election. So long as MPs have local offices and take such a high profile in their constituencies I cannot see an end to the “social-work” creep. For this to change then county and borough councillors must also have a designated professionally staffed office (why not in a library or at a CAB office?). Until, this happens MPs will always be the dumping ground for local issues. Indeed, I would contend that with email and text, it is now much easier for constituents to reach an MP and I suspect that this had also led to an increase in work-load. Of course, in some ways an MP welcomes the contact because it gives him/her the chance to collect valuable data ready for his/her next General Election campaign.

What the role of an MP should be and how this is reflected in time spent at Westminster and in the constituency If you are not in the Government or the shadow government your role as an MP in Westminster is largely that of a minion used frankly as voting fodder to ensure your own party’s pledges or policies are successfully negotiated. This leads MPs to seek an alternative career structure inside or outside Westminster or spend more time working on constituency matters. This is not healthy for the democratic process. The whole parliamentary year needs to be overhauled. It has slavishly copied the Oxbridge and law court calendars for too long. There is no need to start parliamentary business at 14.30 Monday–Wednesday and 10.30 on Thursday and 09.30 on Friday. The days of MPs having a City job in the morning, coming to their clubs in Pall Mall for lunch and then taking a carriage to the House for 14.30 ended 60 years ago. The mid September–early October Conference season would sit more naturally, if indeed it is still a necessity, at Easter. If this was moved, then MPs could come back in September and run through without a break till Christmas. It would be much more efficient for Government if departmental question times were moved to 09.30 from Monday–Thursday. It’s an absurdity that we ask them to break up their day. I can hear the cries from MPs who live in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales or the distant parts of England shrieking at the thought that they would have to come down on a Sunday evening. But that’s their job; that’s what they signed up for—to represent their constituents in Parliament and not the other way around. If, Parliament started at 09.30 every day it would only need to go on to 17.30 (an eight hour day). It could fit the business of the House into three semesters of 12 weeks. The Parliamentary week should be 32 hours in Westminster and 8 hours in the Constituency (there would be no Friday sittings). This would not only be family friendly and encourage yet more women into Parliament but it would also be family friendly for men too. It is not sensible to be working from 09.30 to 22.00 three days a week; this is senseless and not helpful to the health either of the MP or the nation: — What are the defects and the strengths of the current patterns? (See above) — What are the constraints on reform of the sitting patterns? (See above) cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/019792/019792_w043_michelle_Results from the survey of Members.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w3

— What pattern of sittings over the course of a month or the year would best enable MPs to perform their role? (See above) — What pattern of timings for sittings on days spent in Westminster would be most effective? (See above) — How should the way business is conducted in the Commons be altered to accommodate any new pattern of sitting hours, days or weeks? (See above) — What changes should be made to the process for considering private Members’ bills in particular (the only business currently considered on Fridays)? We should do all we can to enhance the role of an MP; select committees should be able to bring forward their own bills based on their reports; at the moment £millions of public money is spent on select committees and yet very few reports lead to any significant Government changes of heart. What a sham it all is then. As for MPs very few private Members’ make it through. So again what is their point? Allow all private Members’ bills to be taken in the Chamber just after PMQs on a Wednesday morning so they are not relegated to a more difficult time. We need to make sure MPs are given the chance to properly engage in the democratic process and not be bought off by the scheduling of Whips Office. — Should greater use be made of Westminster Hall? What is its purpose? Few MPs attend debates; again, has anything been changed by a debate there? Well, of course, the MP calling the debate makes headlines locally but frankly we are talking to ourselves. Rename it the Second Chamber, re-design it, make it a more integral part of the scheduling, allow it to run from 10.30–17.30 four days a week; make it compulsory for all bills to go through pre-legislative scrutiny there, allow much more space for the public and for MPs—so upgrade so it looks like a second chamber. Allow all bills to start in either Chamber. — How can select and public bill committee meetings be accommodated within any new arrangement? Re-design the rooms in which these are held in, especially public bill committees which are hostile to the public (and so few can attend). — What other factors should be considered in proposing changes to sitting hours (eg impact on staff of the House and Members staff, services to Members, cost, work of Government departments, public access to debates, the media)? All debates, bill committees and select committee meetings should be available live on-line. March 2011

Written evidence submitted by Rt Hon David Blunkett MP (P 105, 2010–12) I’m responding in broader terms than the individual questions that have been asked, and hope this is acceptable in the collation of evidence and presentation to the Committee. The major and radical change in the role of an MP (in my experience over quarter of a century) has been the impact of 24-hour, seven-days-a-week news, the advent of the internet and mobile phone, and the consequent total change in the volume of communication between constituents and Members of Parliament. In addition to the enormous jump in the number of individual, constituency and broader issue-based matters communicated (often by email) to Members of Parliament, there has also been a parallel change in an understanding of the rights of constituents, the demands that they can and do make, and the range and breadth of concerns springing, at least in part, from greater awareness and the globalisation (including of media reporting) of issues which would otherwise have been available to only a few. In parallel with these changes, we have also seen alterations in the role and standing of Parliament in the life of the nation, the diminution in attention given to parliamentary affairs through both print and broadcast media, and the changed relationship with European institutions, devolved parliaments and assemblies and next steps and outsourced agencies. Whilst scrutiny of (as opposed to scrutiny by) Parliament has increased dramatically, coverage of parliamentary activity has diminished substantially. There may be a presumption throughout this inquiry that MPs are parliamentarians. In the historic way in which this is described, they are not. Rather, they are ﬁrst and foremost politicians; secondly, representatives of their constituency; thirdly, a voice for those constituents and the wider area; and, as a consequence, parliamentarians in the sense we understand it—namely that they are engaged in the activities internal to Parliament. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/019792/019792_w043_michelle_Results from the survey of Members.xml

Ev w4 Procedure Committee: Evidence

However, those activities are only a small part of the role of any full-time politician, speaking in a whole range of influential settings, on behalf of their constituents. Any parliamentarian who did not understand the way in which influence can be exercised both through the media (old as well as new media), through influencing debate both domestically and internationally, appreciating the role of interest and pressure groups (as well as the power of finance and business), would be living and working in a vacuum. It is also crucial to realise that different approaches by Members of Parliament reflect these various and complex roles—which may change with circumstance and will vary in terms of the degree or proportion of time spent in each of the various roles which Members of Parliament have to fulfil. Some Members of Parliament will, by choice, spend more time on internal parliamentary procedure; others will spend time both in the Chamber of the House and on the public platform, airing the views of their constituents and reflecting their own policy interests; some, in print and broadcast media and beyond, will seek to reflect back into Parliament through the mobilisation of public opinion, their particular views on major issues of the day. In addition, facilitating campaigning activity, locally, nationally and globally, has become an increasing part of the job. All of these activities fall within the remit of an active, effective and perceptive Member of Parliament. However, all of this needs to be understood within the particular constitutional arrangement present in the United Kingdom. Our parliament is not an assembly such as can be found in France or the Congress of the United States, made up of individuals who see themselves primarily as legislators. In other words, the Executive in Britain is rooted in the House of Commons and, whilst ministers can be drawn from the House of Lords, it is primarily the Commons that both provides access to ministerial office and holds ministers to account inside, rather than external to, the House of Commons. To fail to understand this substantial difference (and the difference in the UK to federal structures elsewhere), would lead to a misunderstanding of the nature of Parliament and the role of politicians and parliamentarians within it. So, on the immediate issues relating to time spent in the constituency, in public and political activity, and in Parliament, it has to be borne in mind that not only will this vary from time to time, but it will vary between different Members of Parliament according not only to their predilections, but to their particular interests, abilities and temperament. What is right for one Member would be seen as a diversion or an irrelevance to another. Neither one approach nor the other would be bad or good, just different. Holding the Executive to account can be achieved in the Chamber, in public bill and select committees, by written question (as well as oral intervention), and by challenges made outside through the Commons— including through the media. Campaigning outside Parliament can be as effective as more formalised interventions inside the Palace of Westminster, and for some politicians would be a better use of their time and talent. The reason for mentioning this is because sittings of the House and the time spent inside the Palace of Westminster is so often seen as a benchmark for the work-rate or effectiveness of an MP (by websites such as theyworkforyou.com). This, as indicated above, is a gross misunderstanding of how such MPs can make a difference, without in any way undermining the very different role of others who may not be so visible but are doing an essential job of scrutiny and process. Therefore, these varying and diffuse roles should be reflected in any debate or inquiry into how Members do their multifaceted job, and the flexibility, responsiveness and diversity of the job itself. The conclusion to be drawn, contrary to what is sometimes presented by branches of the media, is that sittings of Parliament, the length of time of the parliamentary day, week or year, is an ineffective way of judging how MPs are representing their constituents and the wider public, and the use of their time and talent. What would help, in a purely practical and common sense way, would be certainty of sittings, proper notice, the ability to manage time effectively, and the avoidance of complete disruption to a range of activities inside and outside the House which are directly related to the role of a Member of Parliament and their political duties. For example, certainty as to when votes are taking place. This can be achieved by the deferral of votes to be taken at the end of the sitting day, or deferred to a set time (as with deferred votes at present). Waiting for a vote, multiple votes with major downtime in-between, trooping through badly organised and historically anachronistic voting lobbies, has absolutely nothing to do with a modern parliament and everything to do with a nostalgia for a bygone era which was already out of date before the Second World War. There are of course reasons why these matters have not been resolved effectively in the past—over and above the natural conservatism of Members of Parliament and the way in which the institution sucks people into its patterns of working and its self-presumed prestige. Parliament itself exudes the atmosphere of a museum, a club, a debating/lobbying forum, and a functional working environment for research, responsiveness and representation. What suits Members of Parliament representing constituents in or near London (or in some cases with easy access to airports around the UK) is totally different to those who spend the best part of one day a week (sometimes more than an average working day) travelling to and from the constituency. Speaking, meeting, holding discussions and debates with the public, is hardly ever mentioned as a key function of a modern MP. Taken together with work with and through the media, it certainly is. Therefore, cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/019792/019792_w043_michelle_Results from the survey of Members.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w5

even when Parliament is sitting, it is crucial to have some opportunity to be able to undertake activities which require a knowledge in advance of when debates are to take place; an Order Paper that is intelligible to a reasonably intelligent human being; an appreciation of when votes are to be taken and on what; and sufficient notice of changes to the activities of the House (including Westminster Hall) to be able to contribute meaningfully. Once it is clear what a Member of Parliament is expected to achieve and how best to facilitate their successful carrying out of those duties, it is then possible to determine whether (for instance) it would be better to sit earlier and finish earlier on a Tuesday; or, at report stage or committee stages of bills taken on the floor of the House, where proper timetabling (by agreement) could facilitate votes being taken at the end of the debate or by deferral. It would then be possible to look (other than the Queen’s Speech and budget debates) to a modern form of sensible electronic voting—if required, on rather than off the premises. Existing paper-based “deferred divisions” have already indicated a willingness by Parliament to move towards this, but without the speed or efficiency of modern electronic communication. It is a simple fact that since the modest changes to curtail most debates at 10 pm, the number of fatalities amongst Members of Parliament has dropped dramatically. In the 1970s and 1980s, there were on average around four by-elections per year. Anyone plotting the graph can see the difference as more modern and sensible hours were adopted—and without diminishing the work-load at all. Acceptable hours changed the nature of the lifestyle of Members of Parliament for the better. It is therefore time to recognise both the potential role of Parliament and its current limitations in the political scene. Understanding that Parliament itself is only one of a variety of influences and sources of power within global economic and political activity, would be a crucial step in getting this right. There is of course (referring back to the nature of our Parliament and the question raised of pressure on ministers) the issue of just how often and in what form members of the Executive should and can be held to account within the various elements of our parliamentary scrutiny. Difficult as this is for backbenchers, there has to be a recognition of the limited amount of time that junior ministers can spend, including in Westminster Hall debates, if they are to be able to do the job within their departmental brief for which they are paid. This is particularly true of those ministers taking through legislation. Some progress has been made in facilitating parallel activity, not least by more sensible timetabling within the work of committees scrutinising legislation and avoiding filibusters. And last, but by no means least, there is the small matter of Members of Parliament retaining some semblance of normal life. This includes a rational family life, caring duties, the necessity to eat at a reasonable time and in a digestible form, the ability to maintain both personal and wider political relationships, and (in relation to carrying out perfectly legitimate duties outside the House) some semblance of reliability. We should therefore see both the timetable within which Parliament operates, the nature of the working day, the method and rationale in relation to voting, the parallel activities which go on within Parliament, and the work of staff (both of the House and of MPs), in the context of the fact that Parliament is part of a much broader political dialogue within which decisions are reached, power is exercised and influence brought to bear. In this way, we might just bring ourselves into the 21st Century—which is where, of course, everyone else is currently living.

Recommendations 1. We provide certainty in relation to voting either directly by timetabled agreement (including combining votes at the conclusion of debates), or by deferred votes. This change would particularly apply to report stage of bills, committee stage when taken on the floor of the House etc. 2. Disagreements around times of sitting (and particularly in relation to conclusion on Tuesday) can be dealt with by differentiating business in such a way that, as in 1 above, votes are timetabled (or deferred) in a way that gives absolute certainty and could, for instance, allow Private Members’ Bills to be taken between 7 and 10 pm on a Tuesday, whilst freeing the late evening for other essential political (and where appropriate, parliamentary) activity. 3. With some exceptions, electronic voting should be introduced which would build on the paper-based deferred voting already in practise. 4. The Order Paper and other procedures and processes of the House, which bear no resemblance to any meaningful method of communication or information in the 21st Century, should be drastically reviewed. Facilitating the public as well as new Members must surely take precedence over sheer obscurantist gobbledygook? 5. That there is a recognition of the changed role of Parliament in a global economic and political environment in circumstances of devolution (and a changed relationship with Europe), and that those elected to Parliament are, first and foremost, politicians fulfilling a wider role. March 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/019792/019792_w043_michelle_Results from the survey of Members.xml

Ev w6 Procedure Committee: Evidence

Written evidence submitted by Sarah Childs, Professor of Politics and Gender, University of Bristol (P 111, 2010–12)

1. How the role of the MP has changed in recent years

Despite a lack of recent academic research into the role of the MP within their constituencies, it is apparent from MPs ((auto)biographies, surveys and interviews) that the balance between constituency representation, legislative work, and scrutiny of the Executive, has shifted towards the former. There was, for example, already evidence of the rise of MP-constituent correspondence prior to the onset of email. More recently, New Labour’s “constituency weeks” provided for MPs to return to their patch whilst parliament was sitting. There is, moreover, much talk of MPs as “gloried social workers”. Few MPs appear to be around Westminster on Fridays, as concerns around private Members’ bills attest. Finally, MPs are often criticized for having too little time to devote to legislative work and for offering less than adequate scrutiny of government. The latest Hansard Society audit should reveal the percent of an MP’s time that will be spent on constituency representation, of one form or another.

MPs’ “turn to the constituency” has multiple likely causes, not least, but not limited to: declining deference on behalf of voters, changes to local government, reduced partisanship and a greater focus by political parties on local campaigning, as well as new forms of technology, such as email, and, lastly, some MPs’ choice to focus on constituency representation for personal fulﬁlment.

2. What the role of an MP should be and how this is reﬂected in time spent at Westminster and the Constituency

Notwithstanding concerns over the rise of constituency representation in the modern era, the goals of good legislation, holding the executive to account and representing one’s constituents should not be thought of as oppositional or a zero sum game, but rather as symbiotic. The “good MP” in Westminster (and the good minister for that matter) would be one who draws on their constituency representation to make better laws, better hold government to account (and be an effective minister, for that matter). A re-balancing of this relationship, one that preserves constituency representation at the same time as delivering a more efﬁcient and effective legislative process and scrutiny of the Executive, should be undertaken. The means by which to put this into practice might begin by establishing how much time parliamentarians need to be in Parliament over a session to consider legislation and formally hold government to account. (This calculation would include the average number of bills per session; the number of days devoted to each of the various legislative stages per bill, including pre-/post-legislative scrutiny; parliamentary debates; and time spent on select committee and other parliamentary activities, including Westminster Hall, private Members’ bills, and all-party parliamentary groups).

It might also consider whether it is time to try to create a constituency convention, in which MPs, just as they will not act for another MP’s constituent, will not act in respect of the responsibilities of another political actor’s remit or role. In other words, constituent issues relating to local government should become the responsibility of local councillors and/or a local govt ombudsperson, and not the MP. Whilst this would require attitudinal and behavioural change on behalf of constituents and MPs, it might, over time, have beneﬁts in revitalizing local government/local accountability, even if it would need to be sold as part of the means by which MPs are working harder for them in parliament (so as to avoid the charge that MPs are trying to do less). I acknowledge that MPs might have electoral reasons to engage in such constituency representation, and that any reform would require collective acceptance of any new convention.

3. What are the defects and the strengths of the current patterns?

Defects: The current work load of MPs is too high and the parliamentary week is too pressurized. Based on my recent interviews with Labour MPs ﬁrst elected in 1997 it is clear that the MPs consider their workload overwhelming and that there is little work/life balance. One rushes to and from Parliament; has competing demands when one is in Westminster; and a lack of “family” time at the weekends, because of constituency and party obligations.

Strengths: the Monday start time. This permits MPs to return to Parliament in the morning rather than returning on Sunday evenings, which would negatively impact family life.

4. What are the constraints on the reform of the sitting patterns?

Institutional resistance, from both those MPs and the House authorities who favour tradition; the working conditions of others who work in House to support MPs in their work, including catering, cleaning and administrative staff; and the popular and media perception of MPs as over-paid and underworked. In the case of public perceptions, a new parliamentary year and parliamentary timetable could be introduced as a reforming measure taken in the context of the expenses scandal to ensure that MPs are more effective parliamentarians and better representatives of their constituents. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/019792/019792_w043_michelle_Results from the survey of Members.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w7

5. What pattern of sittings over the course of a month or the year would best enable MPs to perform their role?

The process of re-balancing constituency representation and parliamentary scrutiny and other parliamentary activities might be as follows: (a) Agree the total number of days that an MP has to work with. This would establish the total working days of an MP over a parliamentary year. Such a change should enable a clear distinction between the time when an MP is working and when they are on holiday. It should also remove the unfortunate term “recess” which the public and the media too often interpret as MPs’ “holiday”, as in the charge that MPs are not working during the summer recess. (b) In conjunction with parliamentary clerks, and drawing on evidence based on recent parliamentary sessions, the number of days needed for the formal scrutiny of legislation, and other parliamentary business should be established. Added into the discussion should be reflections on the existing number of Fridays, and no doubt Saturdays on which MPs engage in constituency representation (I purposefully exclude party constituency activity, which should fall outside these considerations). Whether this is too much or about right would, no doubt involve much debate, but should ultimately produce a total number of days to be spent by the MP formally in their constituency and in Parliament. (c) The next stage is to consider how best these days might be distributed over the parliamentary year. I would suggest that these are grouped into weeks. The total number of weeks per year to be spent in Parliament and in the constituency should be, as stated above, evidenced based and driven by the demands of parliamentary scrutiny but recognizing the importance of constituency representation. Constituency weeks might be grouped into one or two week blocks to be distributed throughout the year. I do not wish to be prescriptive here: it is for MPs and the House to consider whether one week in five, or two in ten or some combination thereof might be most effective for both parliamentary scrutiny and constituency representation. Note, that in the weeks the MP is in Parliament (Mon-Fri), their constituency workers would still engage in constituency case work, and the MP might still be present in the constituency at the weekends. There is no reason to assume that these reforms would lead to less time overall in the constituency. It might well, however, permit MPs to claim back more of their weekends for family life. NB: constituency weeks might well be timetabled to fit with, at least as far as possible, school holidays.

These reforms beg questions of MPs who are ministers. Would, as one of my students put it when we discussed reform in class, ministers return to their constituencies during “constituency weeks”? If so, how would Government function? I see no reason why there could not be a slightly different arrangement for backbench MPs and ministers. Perhaps, if there were two week constituency blocks, ministers might return for a slightly shorter period—so that at any one time a ministry may have fewer ministers present during that particular week. Such an answer will not be completely satisfactory to all, but I imagine, this to not be so different from present practice when Parliament is in recess. In other words, the change may be less real than initially imagined.

6. How should the way business is conducted in the Commons be altered to accommodate any new pattern of sitting hours, days or weeks?

I leave for those more experienced in the workings of the House to devise how fewer, but fuller, weeks in Parliament would play out in terms of structuring the House on a day to day basis. Whether PMQs should shift back to Thursdays or when select committees might meet should not be considered in a piecemeal fashion. It is my view that tinkering with the parliamentary timetable is in insufﬁcient to the task of delivering good legislation and enhancing parliamentary scrutiny. I would, however, suggest a Monday lunchtime start and a Friday early afternoon end to the parliamentary week, to continue to permit MPs to travel to Westminster on Mondays and enable MPs to return to their constituencies by Friday evening, if they so wish. By working on a ﬁve day parliamentary week when the House is in session, it however would be possible to radically reform the hours of the House. Committed to more professional and family friendly House of Commons, core legislative and scrutiny business should end at 6 pm Monday to Thursday. Evenings would still then be available for other parliamentary activities. Tuesdays to Fridays they might start at 10 am to allow necessary House administration. Debates regarding the hours of the House are often met with differences of opinion between London and non-London MPs but the reforms suggested here negate these arguments because when the House is sitting MPs would be present for the “normal” working day, without creating the tension of desiring to complete parliamentary work to return to the constituency.

7. What changes should be made to process of considering PMBs?

Changes to the above mean that PMBs would no longer be affected by many of the issues of them being debated on Fridays, as is current practice. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/019792/019792_w043_michelle_Results from the survey of Members.xml

Ev w8 Procedure Committee: Evidence

8. Should greater use be made of Westminster Hall?

I have much sympathy with those advocating both core hours and plenary sessions of the Chamber, around which other parliamentary activities should be scheduled.

9. How can select and public bill committee meetings be accommodated within any new arrangement?

Given my answer to question 5, these would be formally considered in the process of reviewing the parliamentary timetable. They should take place in the core hours of the House.

10. What other factors should be considered in proposing changes to sitting hours?

Taking as the most important driver of reform effective scrutiny of the Executive and good legislation, other key factors are: (1) modern, professional, and family friendly hours; and (2) enhanced legitimacy and public engagement.

Modern, professional and family friendly hours. There is no reason why, today, the House’s parliamentary timetable should reﬂect the historic hours of professional men, who wished to work outside the House in the mornings and spend the evenings in their “old boy’s club”. A modern House of Commons, like the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales, should have professional, family friendly hours. This goal is perfectly compatible with a more effective House, if the way in which the House overall sits is revised in ways I suggest. Importantly, advocating family friendly hours is not about MPs working less when they are in Westminster, but rationalizing their work in ways that rebalance work/family life, so as to both improve the conditions of current MPs, and to signal that the House is open to a diverse group of Members, not just those who either do not have caring responsibilities or who have that care undertaken by others.

Public perceptions. The subject of the public’s evaluations of Parliament is mostly beyond the scope of this enquiry. We know, however, that the electorate often rate their own local MP highly even whilst they are critical of MPs as a collective. Nevertheless, it is clear that in the aftermath of the expenses scandal, Parliament should act to improve its standing with the electorate. One means to do this might be to reform the House in ways that demystify what MPs do and change dominant perceptions of the House (I fully accept that these perceptions may be misplaced, but they remain powerful): that MPs fail to hold Government to account—the Chamber is nearly empty, except for PMQs; MPs are neither sufﬁciently in the House nor in the constituency; have long holidays and spend too much time wining and dining at Westminster. Reforms such as those advocated here should be easy to sell in this context: they clearly set out when an MP would be in Parliament and in the constituency. When in Westminster, the MP would clearly be seen to be working full-time, Monday–Friday.

The State of Play — What MPs do in Parliament is largely unknown to much of the public. — The 2009 expenses scandal has engendered a “crisis of conﬁdence” in our MPs and in parliament. — MPs often argue that there are too many demands on their time during the parliamentary week. — MPs’ “long hours” are neither producing better legislation, nor greater executive scrutiny. — MPs are facing apparently increasing constituency demands that limit their time to engage in parliamentary scrutiny and the passage of good legislation. Their time in the constituency is also constrained, causing poor work/life balance. — Parliament is not family friendly and remains under-representative in terms of women’s representation. Reform to the sittings of the House and the parliamentary calendar should make parliament more attractive to those, male and female, with family and caring responsibilities.

Recommendations — Major reform to the annual parliamentary timetable and to daily parliamentary hours. — Parliament should sit for fewer but fuller weeks. — Parliamentary hours should be Monday 2–6 pm, Tuesday–Thursday 10–6 pm and Friday 10–3 pm (or thereabouts). These are modern, business and family friendly hours that also take into consideration the fact that MPs work in two places. This is in line with practices in other comparable countries, not least Scotland and Wales. — Constituency weeks (or blocks of weeks) should also be introduced to ensure that MPs are able to better represent their constituents March 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/019792/019792_w043_michelle_Results from the survey of Members.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w9

Written evidence submitted by Zac Goldsmith MP (P 113, 2010–12) I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the Committee’s inquiry into the sitting of the House and the Parliamentary calendar. I wish to restrict my comments to the consideration of the question:

What changes should be made to the process for considering private Members’ bills in particular (the only business currently considered on Fridays)? I would welcome the Committee’s support for new measures to give a fair chance for the passage of private Members’ bills. I think that it is right that private Members’ bills continue to be debated on Fridays. I recognise the pressure for debates in Government and Opposition time, and the necessity for governments to secure their legislative programme. However, I would strongly support the introduction of deferred divisions on private Members’ bills to relieve the need for 100 Members to be present in the House on a Friday to support a bill. The “holding over” of a sitting Friday’s divisions on one of more private Members’ bills to the following Wednesday would ensure that most Members don’t have to make the difﬁcult choice between their constituency engagements (and returning to their families on a Thursday evening) and staying on a Friday to vote on a bill. Those Members with a particularly keen interest in a bill, and keen desire to speak in the Chamber, would then also be more likely to enjoy a serious Friday debate without the risk of shameless ﬁlibustering. If the government of the day does not support a private Members’ bill it can defeat it at a deferred division by the usual voting whip, or on the merits of their argument, but not by procedural means. The introduction of deferred divisions would not necessarily result in more private Members’ bills making it on to the statute book, but it would at least give Members sponsoring a bill a fair chance of securing 100 colleagues to support their bill. March 2011

Written evidence submitted by Vivienne Windle former employee of former MPs Tony Banks, Kerry Pollard, Margaret Moran and Liz Blackman (P 115, 2010–12) I have worked for several MPs in recent years, either in Home County constituencies or further afield. I thought that my experiences of the working practices and demands on an MP and their staff might be helpful. The Home Counties MPs who could commute daily to Westminster benefited from the later starting time for sittings, as they were able to work in the constituency office and deal with constituents’ issues before travelling into Parliament. The Midlands MP had to live in London during the week, so Monday mornings and Fridays, together with Saturday and Sunday, were the only days she could work with constituency office staff and meet constituents. IT made it easier for documents to be shared between constituency and Westminster staff so that the MP was aware of everything being sent out, while the constituencies where the MP could commute were able to save documents for when they were in the office, or staff could travel between the constituency and parliament for work purposes. The problem with the commuting MPs arose when they were put on a select committee, because that meant that they had to work in parliament in the mornings at least two days a week, losing time in the office, and making Mondays and Fridays more important as constituency time. I should imagine ministers or shadow ministers would find it much harder to spend time in their constituency offices, and would rely on their staff communicating and travelling much more. I mainly worked for backbench MPs, and would point out that the norm for a Member of Parliament is approximately 80 hours per week, however you divide the timetable. Family friendly hours in Parliament mean more time for constituents, it is still very difficult for MPs to spend time with their families, unless they block out time in the long recess. Friday private Members’ bills are therefore difficult for MPs. If they arrange meetings or advice surgeries on a Friday, they can re-arrange them if they are lucky in the ballot, but if they merely support another Member’s bill, it is difficult to decide to disappoint constituents so that they can remain in Parliament on a Friday. Westminster Hall debates are extremely useful, when constituents want something raised by their MP, they do not always understand how hard it is for a backbench Member to get something answered by a Minister. Westminster Hall gives the opportunity for local issues to be raised. Constituents’ expectations of the service they get from MPs has increased rapidly since I started working for MPs. The use of email means that they expect an immediate response, and charities and lobbying organizations put buttons on their websites generating emails to MPs on various issues. Thus the sending of emails is extremely easy for constituents, but responding is time-consuming for MPs and their staff. Faxes also get sent automatically, using up paper and ink, and all of these need to be processed. Letters to MPs have increased, and tear-off slips and postcards as part of campaigns can be overwhelming and need interns or volunteers to deal with the huge numbers. This did not happen so much 10 or 15 years ago. Constituents also expect their MP to be in the constituency and in Parliament simultaneously. It is possible for London and Home Counties MPs to travel backwards and forwards to meet these expectations but Midlands and Northern MPs do have to stay in one place for at least one day at a time. If they spend a lot of time with cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/019792/019792_w043_michelle_Results from the survey of Members.xml

Ev w10 Procedure Committee: Evidence

constituents, the website theyworkforyou.com will point out that they have hardly spoken in Parliament. If they spend a lot of time in the Chamber, then the local papers will point out that they are hardly ever seen in the constituency. The way to deal with the high expectations of constituents is to have a good team in the constituency and in Westminster. It is vital that the MP is not prevented from doing a good job in Parliament by the need to spend hours dealing with casual callers in the office or on the telephone. Staff have to work closely with the MP to know what they would wish to be done under different circumstances, so they can get on with the job of being an MP while their staff keep the constituents happy. When sittings started and finished later, many MPs employed their staff to start work later and finish later, for example a working day of 11 am to 7 pm. This suited a lot of people who were on low salaries and could commute at off peak prices. Later sittings would not disadvantage most staff, who tend to work longer hours than contracted in any case. I do not think that changing the sittings to normal office days would help reduce the workload of MPs, or make them more available to constituents. Select committees would still have to take place sometime as well as standing committees on bills, and MPs would still have to spend time in their constituencies meeting and consulting with constituents. Contrary to popular belief, all the MPs I have worked for have spent all their recesses in their constituencies, working in the constituency offices and visiting local organizations. When they take a holiday, it is for a number of weeks, and they then return to the office to continue their work. Several MPs I have worked for take a computer and headed notepaper on holiday with them, and even have correspondence re-directed so that they can deal with it. The workload is far too heavy for MPs or their staff to take long breaks in the summer, as members of the public commonly believe. March 2011

Written evidence submitted by Mr David Hamilton MP (P 118, 2010–12) Introduction The sitting hours and calendar of the House of Commons are not directly related to many of the rules, procedures and standing orders that reduce the power of the legislative in comparison to the executive. However we are curtailed in our ability to work by the current timetable. Much of the discussion on this subject will focus of the issue of “family-friendly hours” and the holidays which are perceived to give MPs the summer off. Whilst the Committee will receive numerous representations about how the system could be reformed for the benefit of individual members I hope they will consider the bigger picture. For me the big question is how can the hours and calendar be reformed to make Parliament and the Commons more effective bodies. I will explain a number of ideas which I would like the Committee to consider, in summary they are: — End the annual sessions of Parliament. — Introduce an annual speech similar to the American “State of the Union”. — Protected time for select committees. — End votes for private Members’ bills business on a Friday. — Allow additional time for private Members’ bills to be debated on a Wednesday evening. I believe that the Committee needs to consider that MPs from different parts of the country have different needs from the parliamentary timetable. As a Scottish MP I am effectively stranded in Westminster from Monday to Thursday (and the occasional Friday), therefore I would support a more compact and focused Parliamentary week. However, I accept that MPs for seats in commutable reach of Parliament (or those who base their family in London), would be more likely to prefer time to utilise in their constituency in the week. Whilst I accept that the Committee will need to find proposals which balance these needs I hope that they will reflect that it is those MPs with the biggest burdens that need the most assistance.

Parliamentary Calendar—Annual Sessions The annual session of Parliament is an arbitrary and pointless mechanism which splits the parliamentary calendar for no meaningful reason. Whilst the House of Lords may appreciate the power that the ping-pong period in the days before dissolution gives them, this is not a reason to maintain a mechanism which squeezes the parliamentary timetable. Abolishing the annual session will allow the legislative process to be extended, allowing more time and ensuring that even if debates are split up through the sitting hours there is no reason why they should be guillotined in the brutal way that they currently are. The changes being introduced by the Fixed Term Parliaments Bill offer an opportunity to reform the system of annual sessions of Parliament. Parliament should move into a single session which runs from one election to another. This would have a number of advantages. It would allow Parliament and the Commons in particular to move into a modern cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/019792/019792_w043_michelle_Results from the survey of Members.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w11

professional model of working. However, I believe that the real benefit would come with a number of knock- on reforms. This would include the use of pre-legislative scrutiny, allowing a bill to go from draft form to an act in a single seamless liner process. It could also increase the power of select committees. I will expand my ideas about how committees fit into the parliamentary timetable below. But by removing the annual deadline committees could be given the opportunity to hold witness sessions on the terms of a bill. Bringing increased knowledge into the debate and therefore narrowing the information gap between the legislative and the executive (and the Civil Service). I would like to see this combined with the abolition of standing committees, with select committees taking over the committee stage of the legislative process. This is something which Parliament would struggle to encompass under the current annual sessions. I believe that Governments of all parties have avoided scrutiny by curtailing debate. In the previous session of Parliament this was done on a number of occasions, the issue is particularly worrying at report and committee stage of the legislative process. Whilst I am not advocating the end of programme motions which will see the House sitting till all hours in a battle of wills between the whips’ offices, I do believe that ending the need to move legislation along will allow Parliament to end the presumption for report and third reading to be completed within a matter of hours. If we remove the false deadline on the annual sessions then the Government will be able to extend the days given to each bill and still manage its legislative and business program. One knock-on implication from this would be the removal of the annual state opening of Parliament. At the moment the Queen’s Speech is a useful mechanism, which in an informative yet restricted way allows for the Government to take stock and set out an agenda for the year. I believe that, although useful, the Queen’s Speech is a wasted opportunity. The protocol of using the monarch to deliver the Government’s agenda means that the general stock-taking is limited to a shopping list of bills. I believe that the comparison with the American State of the Union speech is striking. A speech by the Prime Minister could look beyond the legislative agenda and allow the Prime Minister to give an overall view of Government policy, and the situation, threats, opportunities that the Government faces in non-legislative areas such as foreign policy. I also believe that there are good political reasons for doing this. At the moment the biggest set-piece speech that a Prime Minister gives is to their party’s annual conference. I believe that the introduction of an event similar to the State of the Union would help to highlight the primacy of Parliament, and give the Prime Minister the opportunity to express Government policy in the appropriate manner—as head of Government, held to account by the legislative, and not leader of their party. The Queen’s Speech would be retained for the opening of Parliament every five years.

Time Available for Select Committees Select committees are probably the best arena which MPs from all sides of the House have to scrutinise the Government and provide themselves with expertise in policy areas. Yet, since their introduction 30 years ago, nothing has been done to integrate them with the central work of Parliament. They remain annexed onto parliamentary business as an extra with poor links to other parts of the Commons. Changes to the calendar offer an opportunity to rectify this. Parliament can and should do more to accommodate select committees. My suggestion is that the Procedure Committee gives the House the option of a setting time aside each week for select committee meetings, with no debates taking place in the chamber or other standing committees sitting. I believe that ring-fenced time for select committees will give them the potential to enhance both the breadth and depth of the work that they do. My suggestion would be for this to take place on a Tuesday morning into the early afternoon. The extra time will allow MPs to do more in-depth work on their inquiries including planning, hearing evidence and discussing recommendations. I think that the Committee should look at the possibility of moving to a committee day, similar to the system used in the Scottish Parliament. More importantly it should be married to reforms which bring select committees into the legislative process—fully integrating them into Parliaments must fundamental business. As outlined brieﬂy above I would like to see select committees given the job of holding committee stage of Government legislation. This would allow their expertise to feed into the debate, rather than the pointless and shambolic nature of standing committees—which most backbench MPs use as a opportunity to catch-up on paperwork, whilst the front benches read speeches into the ofﬁcial record. I believe that giving select committees the power to hold evidence session as a matter of routine will improve the quality of legislative output. To do this they need two things, time in the working week to spend on these issues, hence the committee days, and time in the parliamentary session to allow a Bill to spend a matter of weeks, rather than hours, in committee stage. I believe that there is a strong consensus that the timetable in the Scottish Parliament works well, especially in relation to the effective running of meaningful select committees. Having time put aside for committees gives them the ability to do their work in more detail and prepare adequately for their meetings. I believe that the Procedure Committee should look at the integration of select committees into the timetable in the course of this inquiry.

Private Members’ Bills and Friday Sittings There are two separate issues which need to be raised under the subject of private Members’ bills (PMBs). These broadly ﬁt into the questions of how and when. The Procedure Committee is ideally suited to instigation the debate on the reform of how PMBs are discussed. The current system is a farce. The ability for an individual cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/019792/019792_w043_michelle_Results from the survey of Members.xml

Ev w12 Procedure Committee: Evidence

member or a handful of members to “talk-out” a bill is a disgrace to the House. It undermines the House of Commons. Members should have the right to a full and frank debate, but this should not be used as a fig-leaf for members to kill legislation through a technicality. I believe that the rules governing PMBs, although not directly relevant, do have an impact on the issue of sitting hours and the calendar. As a Scottish MP who has to write off an entire day to attend a Friday sitting I am put off from attending the Commons on a Friday by the fact that on any given day an individual member can choose on a whim to kill the business being discussed. It makes attending the Commons on a Friday a risky option which more often than not the majority of MPs are not willing to take. I believe that the Procedure Committee should conduct an inquiry, as a matter of urgency, on the rules for PMBs. This would look at how they are debated. The question for this inquiry is when they are debated. Firstly, I think there is a consensus that 13 sitting Fridays a year is not enough time, as well as sitting on more Fridays I believe that the House should consider utilising Wednesday evenings for this purpose. When the House finishes early evening on a Wednesday there is the potential for around three hours debate with the House then finishing at the same time that it would on a Monday and Tuesday. In my opinion this could transfer the time for PMBs from a Friday, when the opportunity cost for MPs is valuable constituency time, to Wednesday evenings which is wasted time for many MPs. There is a separate question of when they are voted on. I believe that we should end the practice of voting on PMBs on a Friday. Votes should be moved either to deferred ballots when the House of sitting on another day or to Wednesday nights, so that the business taken can include votes from a Friday sitting if the House continue to hold PMB debates on both Friday and Wednesday evenings. The Committee must recognise in all of its deliberations on Friday sittings and PMBs that there are a number of MPs who have become highly skilled in talking out bills. This is something which is deemed unfair by the majority of MPs and I believe that as a practice it reflects badly on the House. I therefore ask that the Committee makes every effort to publish proposals for reform, not to scupper reform because of the opinions on the Committee. I believe that the Committee has an obligation to the House to establish workable proposals for meaningful reform, which can then be put in front on the House for them to decide. The Committee should not veto these reforms by failing to make relevant proposals. It is for the whole House to decide.

Sitting Hours I am broadly happy with the hours we currently use. As suggested above I believe that there is a strong case for creating more room for committee sessions on a Tuesday. On that basis I am opposed to any suggestion that the House should move to using the current Wednesday timings on a Tuesday. The late sittings allow the House to work in committee on a Tuesday morning; I do not believe that the House would utilise the spare time if we were to ﬁnish early on a Tuesday. There are a number of reasons for this; but the best evidence I have is that committee’s do not meet on a Wednesday at the moment. I believe that it would put undue pressure on committees if we sit early on a Tuesday. As mentioned above I believe that we should consider using Wednesday nights for private Members’ bills.

The Calendar I believe that the House of Commons as an institution needs to be less apologetic for the amount of time we are not sitting. We have allowed the press to create a narrative whereby MPs are on holiday when the House is not sitting; this is false and needs to be challenged. There is a legitimate debate about the balance between our roles as legislators and local duties; but we must not allow the press to continue this story. Returning for three weeks between the summer holidays and conference season is an important change. It allows the House to maintain its scrutiny of the Executive. Therefore I hope that we at least retain those three sitting weeks. However I believe that there is a need to look at moving the summer recess forward; Scottish school holidays start a month earlier and this should be considered in the deliberation on the scheduling of the calendar. If we moved the calendar forward by a fortnight then the House would be able to return for a full month between the summer and conference. I believe that this would have an economy of scales which would allow for more detailed and meaningful work in this period. By starting recess in the middle of July and returning at the start of September we can cover the entire English summer holiday. This would allow Scottish MPs to beneﬁt from the fact that Scottish school holidays are on a different basis from English Schools, given the extra pressure placed on Scottish MPs this would be helpful, especially for those with young families. Finally, can I draw the committee’s attention to 2012 when the Olympic Games will be held. Transport will be beyond capacity with millions more people coming into the city, and the added pressure this will have on the police to protect London. I believe that the parliamentary authorities need to consider what impact changing the recess dates, perhaps as a one off, could ease the burden on the police and security services. March 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/019792/019792_w043_michelle_Results from the survey of Members.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w13

Written evidence submitted by the Hansard Society (P 119, 2010–12) MPs are not a homogenous group of like-minded parliamentarians: each deﬁnes their role, function and interests differently and the relationship each has with his/her party varies. They do not represent an en bloc vote for an agreed programme of parliamentary reform and their views on sitting hours and the parliamentary calendar will vary considerably dependent on their particular constituency location (ie their distance from Westminster) and their family circumstances. We recognise that it will therefore be very difﬁcult for the Committee to secure consensus among Members on any package of reform. However, as issues of priority we would recommend that the Committee consider the following.

Improved Use of Existing Time: Electronic and Deferred Voting There is very little if any scope for providing “new” or “extra” time within the parliamentary sitting week. The focus should therefore be placed on improved use of existing time. Greater use of deferred voting where appropriate could be utilised, either through the existing mechanism of deferred divisions where votes are registered on paper, or by grouping all divisions until the end of the day’s business when motions are non- contingent. More revolutionary however, would be the introduction of electronic voting. At present up to 15 minutes can be spent on each division—calculated across each sitting week and each session the amount of time spent by Members moving through the lobbies and waiting for the results is therefore considerable. This could be dramatically reduced through the introduction of a system of electronic voting in the lobbies/in the vicinity of the Chamber (such that Members would still have to be present at the House to vote but less time would be spent on the mechanics of the process).

Balancing Chamber and Committee Time Many MPs have found that they can have timetable clashes between public bill committee and select committee responsibilities. As the former are whipped these take priority, downgrading attendance at select committee sessions. We believe that the Chamber should remain the ultimate forum for holding ministers to account. However, to improve its effectiveness Parliament should become a more committee-based institution. In order to provide for greater focus on select committee work one half or perhaps even one full day per week should be ring-fenced in the parliamentary week for committee work during which time the main Chamber should not sit.1 This would enhance the status of committees and, by rationing time in the Chamber, would mean that it acts as a plenary session for issues of greatest importance. However, we recognise that rearranging the timing of business in the Chamber relies heavily on how legislation is dealt with which is beyond the immediate scope of the Committee’s inquiry. We have recently recommended a wide range of reforms to the legislative process many of which would impact on how time is used in the Chamber, in Westminster Hall and in committee.2 We recommend, for example, greater use of split committal of bills and a move towards a legislative rather than a sessional cycle for consideration of bills. In addition to reviewing sitting hours we therefore urge that the Procedure Committee considers reform of the legislative process and undertakes a review of the core tasks of the Chamber. In addition, we recommend that the Liaison Committee undertake a linked review of the core tasks of select committees, as recommended by its predecessor Committee in its 2009–10 annual report.3 The Hansard Society has recently set out what we believe a review of select committee core tasks should cover.4

Regularising Sitting Hours As the data below shows, the House has often sat in this session beyond the usual timetable and the times of adjournment on Wednesdays have been particularly erratic. An earlier start, on Tuesdays for example, would facilitate greater time for debate subject to any decisions that might be taken about the ring-fencing of committee time. Wherever possible greater notice about whipping arrangements on any given day needs to be provided to Members to enable them to better arrange their working day and priorities.

September Sittings We recognise that Members’ views on the value of September sittings are mixed. However, in terms of Parliament’s reputation with the public, the long summer recess is indefensible, despite the public’s desire for MPs to be working in their constituencies (see below). And Parliament not sitting for around 10 consecutive weeks, as has been the case in the recent past, is unacceptable in terms of accountability. 1 See Hansard Society (2001), The Challenge for Parliament; Making Government Accountable, Report of the Hansard Society Commission on Parliamentary Scrutiny (London: Vacher Dod), p 54. 2 See R Fox & M Korris (2010), Making Better Law: Reform of the Legislative Process from Policy to Act (London: Hansard Society). 3 See Liaison Committee (2009–10), The Work of Committees in 2008–09, HC 426, para 157. 4 A Brazier & R Fox, “Reviewing Select Committee Tasks and Modes of Operation”, Parliamentary Affairs, Vol 64. No 2, 2011 (forthcoming). cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/019792/019792_w043_michelle_Results from the survey of Members.xml

Ev w14 Procedure Committee: Evidence

At present, effective scrutiny of legislation by the Commons is heavily constrained by programming and the availability of time in the parliamentary calendar; it is unacceptable that many clauses continue to go unscrutinised by the House on the grounds of lack of time when the House chooses not to sit for extended periods particularly over the summer. Last year’s September sittings were utilised effectively, particularly by select committees, and they should continue.

Private Members’ Bills Private Members’ bills (PMBs) should provide an important opportunity for backbench MPs to initiate legislative proposals, as well as policy debate, to check the executive, and to respond to issues of public interest and concern. In recent decades, however, the number of PMBs receiving Royal Assent has steeply declined. The success of the PMB process is inhibited by three key factors: (a) excessive control of time by the executive, (b) the lack of resources available to MPs to individually support legislative initiation, and (c) the existence of procedural thresholds which enable even limited opposition to thwart popular bills, much to the bewilderment of outside observers.

Many of the procedural devices that can be deployed to destroy a PMB derive their potency from the fact that PMBs are not timetabled. It is possible to devise mechanisms to allow certain bills to enjoy the advantages of timetabling and therefore the likelihood of passing all stages, if both Houses consent—for example, through the use of a PMB select committee or, looking to the medium-term, through the proposed Business Committee.5 At present PMB business is normally confined to Fridays which is a difficult day for MPs in terms of attendance because of the clash with constituency engagements. Time could be set aside on Tuesday or Wednesday evenings, for timetabled bills. Extra time could also be granted where a specific bill was felt to need more consideration or the extra time could be granted to prevent logjams at the end of a session. The existing Friday arrangements could remain operational for uncontroversial bills and Westminster Hall could also be used as a forum for PMBs in order to add more capacity to the timetable. However, changing the timetable alone will not be enough to address the weaknesses in the PMB process. Reform of the procedures governing PMBs will also be needed if the parliamentary function of MPs as legislators is to be rejuvenated.

Parliamentary Calendar

As long as different school holiday dates apply in different parts of the country it will be impossible to deliver a parliamentary calendar which balances sitting and recess dates that suit all Members. However, the introduction of a ﬁxed term parliament should facilitate better planning of parliamentary sessions and the provision of greater advance notice to Members about sitting dates.

At the start of each new Parliament the transition period of up to two weeks following a general election should be retained to provide a proper period for the orientation and induction of new Members. We would also recommend that the House consider setting aside up to a week each year for Members to take advantage of opportunities for professional development. In almost every other profession (eg doctors, lawyers, accountants) considerable emphasis is placed on individuals refreshing and augmenting their skills. However, little if any provision is made for MPs to acquire professional development training and support. Whilst some provision is offered within the existing timetable it will be impossible for most Members to take advantage of it due to competing obligations and priorities. The issue needs to be prioritised within the parliamentary timetable.

Role and Function of MPs

“A Year in the Life—From Member of the Public to Member of Parliament”

The Hansard Society is currently engaged in a research study—A Year in the Life: From Member of the Public to Member of Parliament—exploring the life and work of new MPs elected for the ﬁrst time in May 2010. One survey of new Members is complete and the second survey is currently underway. The data below is therefore only provisional but may be helpful to the committee when considering the role and workload of Members in the context of this inquiry.

Before being elected, new MPs expected to work on average 60 hours plus eight hours travel time. After several months in office 47% of respondents to the first survey (completed July/August 2010) felt their assessment had been too low, while 46% felt it was about right. More recently new MPs have been surveyed about the hours they are currently committing to their responsibilities (March/April 2011–ongoing). The average number of hours per week is 69 plus eight hours travel time with the range of hours worked varying from 40–100 hours per week plus travel hours ranging from three to 15 hours in total. 34% of respondents report working 60–69 hours per week (minus travel); 26% report working 70–79 hours per week; and 24% report working 80 hours per week or more. 44% of respondents report travelling for at least 10 hours per week with 42% travelling between five to nine hours each week. 5 For more information about Hansard Society proposals for reform of the procedures governing private Members’ bills see A Brazier & R Fox, “Enhancing The Backbench MP’s Role As A Legislator: The Case For Urgent Reform Of Private Members’ Bills”, Parliamentary Affairs, Vol 63, No 1, 2010, pp 201–211. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/019792/019792_w043_michelle_Results from the survey of Members.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w15

When asked how their hours had changed since they started their role, 67% said their hours had increased and 29% that their hours had largely stayed the same. Only 4% report that their hours have reduced since the start of their parliamentary careers. The working week of new MPs is, on average, divided 64% at Westminster and 36% in the constituency (according to our ﬁrst survey). MPs perceive their time is divided between their different responsibilities accordingly: Responsibility First survey Second survey Constituency casework 26% 28% Commons Chamber 24% 20% Constituency meetings/events 19% 20% Commons committees 14% 15% Local campaigning 12% 10% National campaigning 5% 7% Mean average values

New Members were asked how satisfied they were with the operation of the sitting hours and parliamentary calendar. The results were as follows: Sitting hours of the House of Commons Very satisfied 8% Fairly satisfied 37% Not very satisfied 47% Not at all satisfied 8% Very/fairly satisfied 45%

Parliamentary calendar/recess dates Very satisfied 4% Fairly satisfied 82% Not very satisfied 12% Not at all satisfied 2% Very/fairly satisfied 86%

The above data suggests that sitting times rather than the parliamentary calendar is the most pressing area for reform as far as new Members are concerned. The data below records the number of times the House of Commons has adjourned within a speciﬁc hourly period on the 129 occasions the House has sat Monday to Thursday between 25 May 2010 and 31 March 2011. Before 2 am 6 pm 6–7 pm 7–8 pm 8–9 pm 9–10 pm 10–11 pm 11–12 pm 12–1 am 1–2 am or later Monday 3 1 19 9 Tuesday 4 2 18 7 1 1 Wednesday 1 14 7 5 2 1 2 Thursday 5 26 1

Given that the Chamber sits from 2.30 pm on Mondays and Tuesdays, the adjournment hours indicate that MPs are regularly required in and around the Chamber for debates and votes for eight to nine hours or more each day. However, whilst the work of the Chamber may not begin until 2.30 pm in reality the MPs day begins much earlier. On Mondays MPs are often travelling to Westminster from early in the morning, with some fitting in constituency engagements as well, dependent on the travel demands determined by the distance of their constituency from Westminster. And on Tuesday mornings MPs are regularly engaged in committee work with sittings beginning as early as 9 am. On Wednesdays, the House sits from 11.30 am but as the data above indicates the end of the parliamentary day in the chamber is somewhat unpredictable. A working day of at least 12 hours and often more is therefore largely the norm not the exception for MPs at present. Add to this the hours spent travelling to and from their constituency, plus local engagements in their constituency on Fridays and at weekends and MPs are working significantly more hours than is the norm for many of their constituents. Regular sitting hours of 8 pm and beyond undoubtedly make it very difficult for Members with families to balance their work and family responsibilities. When asked what impact, if any, being an MP has had on their personal/family life, responses were universally negative. The following remarks are indicative of the overall tone of responses received: “Destroyed it!”, “overwhelming”, “very difficult to maintain a family life with this job”, “massively damaging”, “personal life? It’s devastating”. Whilst many respondents said they had some idea what they were letting themselves in for, and many still regard their role as a great honour, such negative responses from MPs who have served less than a year in office is worrying. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/019792/019792_w043_michelle_Results from the survey of Members.xml

Ev w16 Procedure Committee: Evidence

The free-text responses to our survey of new Members indicates some common areas for reform. Some Members complained that whipping arrangements are changed and communicated too late in the day making it difﬁcult for Members to plan their work and their family responsibilities. A number of Members conﬁrmed that they would like to see sitting hours changed to a 10 am–6 pm pattern Monday to Thursday. Some suggested that government business should cease at 7 pm but the House might continue to sit beyond this for other, non- whipped business and it would then be for Members individually to attend according to their interests and priorities. There was considerable support from respondents for reform of the sitting arrangements in relation to private members bills, and many respondents urged that electronic voting should be introduced in order to reduce the time spent in divisions. A feature of many of the responses was frustration with what Members saw as archaic and time-wasting tactics in debate (eg exaggerated courtesies and repetitive speeches) which unnecessarily contribute to a prolonged day and ineffective working practices.

Public Attitudes: MPs and Parliament Public attitudes to politics, MPs and Parliament are complex, contradictory and rarely uniform. They do not offer a ready guide to reform. In the Hansard Society’s latest annual Audit of Political Engagement6 (published March 2011) perceived knowledge of Parliament has increased this year with a seven point rise (to 44%) in the proportion of the public claiming to know at least “a fair amount” about it, bringing it to its highest level ever recorded in the Audit’s eight year lifecycle. A third more of the population now claim to know at least “a fair amount” about Parliament than did so in the first Audit study in 2004. However, despite an increased in perceived knowledge, fewer people are now satisfied with Parliament (27%) than at any time in previous audits. Only 38% of the public believe that Parliament “holds government to account” and just one in three people (30%) agree that Parliament is “working for you and me”, a significant decline of just eight points in one year. One in three (30%) perceive Parliament to be one of the two or three institutions that have the most impact on their everyday lives, behind the media (42%) and local councils (40%). The 2010 audit 77 report had a particular focus on MPs and Parliament. It found a significant “perceptions gap” between what the public wants MPs to do and what the public thinks they actually do. The most commonly held belief (held by 50% of the public) was that MPs spend their time “furthering personal and career interests”. The next most common activities that people assumed MPs do was “represent the views of their political party” (37%) and “present their views through the media” (32%). Both of these, however, were low priorities in terms of what the public would like MPs to spend their time on, with around one in 10 people considering these to be important activities for an MP. Few people believed that MPs get involved in the type of activities the public considers most important for MPs to do. Just under half the public (46%) believe most MPs should “represent the views of local people in the House of Commons”, but only one in 10 people (10%) believe most MPs do this—a perceptions gap of 36 points. Similarly, two in five people (41%) said MPs should be spending their time “representing the UK’s national interests” but only one in 11 (9%) believed MPs do this—a perceptions gap of 32 points.8

6 Hansard Society (2011), Audit of Political Engagement 8: The 2011 Report (London: Hansard Society). 7 Hansard Society (2010), Audit of Political Engagement 7: The 2010 Report (London: Hansard Society). 8 Ibid., p 93. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/019792/019792_w043_michelle_Results from the survey of Members.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w17

Ways MPs should and do spend time

Q. Which two or three, if any do you feel are the most important ways that MPs should spend their time?

Q. Which two or three, if any, do you feel that most MPs spend their time doing?

% Actually do % Should do Gap between ‘should’ and ‘do’ Furthering personal and career interests 50 3 -47 Representing the views of their political party 37 11 -26 Presenting their views through the media 32 9 -23 Making laws 14 14 0 Participating in local public meetings and events 11 20 9 Communicating with constituents on the doorstep or by telephone 3 14 11 Dealing with the problems of individual constituents 13 26 13 Debating important issues in the House of Commons 22 37 15 Holding the government to account 8 31 23 Representing the UK’s national interests 9 41 32 Representing the views of local people in the House of Commons 10 46 36

Base: 1,156 GB adults 18+. Fieldwork dates: 13-19 November 2009.

In the four qualitative discussion groups conducted for the Audit 7 study most participants acknowledged that they had little understanding of what MPs typically spend most of their time doing. Similarly the groups laid bare the lack of public knowledge about Parliament and how the institution ﬁts into our constitutional system of governance: most used the terms Parliament and Government interchangeably. Irrespective of how much participants felt they understood the working lives of their MP, however, there was almost universal agreement that MPs should spend more time in their constituency than in Parliament. They wanted their MP to focus on listening to and helping local people, to be a “community champion” for the local area. The latest Audit 8 also explored public perceptions of the MPs role through qualitative discussion groups.9 Participants were asked to describe what they thought the role of Parliament to be. Representing citizens’ views, improving and making laws and protecting citizens emerged as the prime functions perceived by participants to be Parliament’s responsibility. They clearly saw Parliament as a place where “the voice of the people” is represented. There was widespread acceptance that being an MP is a difﬁcult job and one that many nonetheless do well. But views on whether or not participants felt represented by their MP very much relied on knowledge of who their MP was. Many participants did not know the name of their MP, from which they extrapolated that the MP must not be doing a good job of representing them because, if they did not even know who she or he was, how could they be doing so? Those participants who could identify their MP generally felt that they were doing a good job, even if they did not necessarily vote for them, in large part because they felt they were representing their constituents well. Such positivity largely stemmed from the fact that the MP for a lot of the participants was very visible locally, and in a small number of cases from good experiences when the participants had had cause to contact them. In most of these instances what mattered most to the constituent was receiving a response, even if it did not resolve their problem. Simply by responding they felt that the MP had at least taken the time to consider their problem. March 2011

9 See Hansard Society (2011), Audit of Political Engagement 8: The 2011 Report (London: Hansard Society), pp 29–36. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/019792/019792_w043_michelle_Results from the survey of Members.xml

Ev w18 Procedure Committee: Evidence

Written evidence submitted by the House of Commons Trade Union Side (P 120, 2010–12) In our evidence to the Administration Committee inquiry into catering, the Trade Union Side said that “when decisions are made about the House—specifically about the House and its business—the staff can be just outside the peripheral vision of those who are actually making those decisions… the interests of staff don’t seem to be very high up the scale of priorities of people making those decisions, and there is an expectation that staff will simply adapt”. The “expectation that staff will adapt” to the introduction (and, in some cases, subsequent removal) of early September sittings, regional select committees, Westminster Hall and other recent parliamentary developments has greatly assisted MPs in their attempts to innovate as they attempt to keep Parliament at the centre of the nation’s public life. A great deal of work—much of it unseen and unacknowledged—has ensured that the daily Hansard, documents from the Vote Office, information from the Library and refreshments from the bars, cafes and restaurants are available at all hours, depending on the sitting times of Parliament. It is not an exaggeration to say that without the ability and willingness of staff to adapt to the singular sitting patterns of the House, MPs’ ability to represent their constituents and to scrutinise the Executive would be severely compromised. But in the light of the various pressures affecting the relationship between staff of the House and their employer, how that expectation of staff flexibility is maintained must take a more prominent role in considering the way in which Parliament works. The pay, terms and conditions of House of Commons staff are facing more scrutiny than at any point in recent times. The “psychological contract” under which staff provided the flexibility necessary to allow the House to get its business, in return for perceived security of tenure, favourable leave arrangements and good pension benefits is in danger of being eroded. The terms of reference for your inquiry invite evidence on several themes. We would wish to comment principally on those most relevant to the interests of the members of the four recognised unions.

What are the defects and the strengths of the current patterns? As in other areas of life, unpredictability of demand leads to uncertainty in supply. As a hypothetical example, a vote is scheduled for 10 pm on a Monday night. Catering and other departments arrange stafﬁng rotas, menus and so on on that basis. The whips of each party reach agreement at 7 pm and the vote is cancelled. Do the House authorities see that as an unavoidable consequence of the political arrangements that can be made in the legislature? Or as a waste of limited resources at a time of tight ﬁnancial settlements?

What are the constraints on reform of the sitting patterns? The principal constraint on reform is likely to be the same as it has been for many decades; the differing opinions of more than 600 Members of Parliament. But, as we state above, a potential future constraint on reform may be a change to the “expectation that staff will adapt”. The House believes that it cannot be immune from the massive changes taking place across the Civil Service. Staff may begin to ask whether—in principle, if not practice—changes to sitting times and the parliamentary calendar should proceed without the staff consultation and negotiation that accompany proposed changes to working patterns in other areas? In addition, recent reductions in allowances payable to staff have already had the effect of reducing the number willing to take on duties outside of their normal working hours where they are not obliged to do this work as part of their contract of employment. MPs may ﬁnd it hard not to notice some diminution of services if this continues, or increases.

What changes should be made to the process for considering private Members’ bills in particular (the only business currently considered on Fridays)? One of our major concerns in this area can be expressed in quite simple terms; there are currently five hours of business on each sitting Friday devoted to private Members’ bills. Any attempt to shoehorn those five hours of business into the remainder of the parliamentary week is likely to lead to serious concerns from staff and their representatives, not least in terms of the cumulative effect of late sittings and long working days on the health and wellbeing of staff. Again, the level of allowances payable, which for many staff do not reflect their ordinary rate of pay, are not attractive enough to encourage staff to work unsocial hours. It is not unreasonable to expect that if staff are required to work extended hours they should receive an appropriate level of pay for this work. Will the House approve increased levels of allowances for staff in the current economic climate? An idea being floated, we believe, is that several hours could be added on to the end of business every Wednesday evening for this purpose. The trade unions would strongly oppose such a proposal. Staff are already reporting health and wellbeing concerns about the effects of late-night Tuesday finishes followed by what appears to be a developing pattern of extended Wednesday sittings. The convenience for MPs of having the bulk of parliamentary business taking place on Monday to Wednesday is an important factor in running the cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/019792/019792_w043_michelle_Results from the survey of Members.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w19

legislature. We would argue that the health of the staff enabling that business to take place is as important a consideration. The unions believe that the sitting patterns of the House result in regular breaches of the working time regulations—this must be a key consideration in developing any changes to these patterns. In addition, any decision by the House to end Friday sittings except in exceptional circumstances is likely to have serious consequences for many staff across the House and the trade unions would require early and detailed consultation on any such proposal.

What other factors should be considered in proposing changes to sitting hours (eg impact on staff of the House and Members staff, services to Members, cost, work of Government departments, public access to debates, the media)? A related, but, in our view, still legitimate, question is, “Can radical changes be made to sitting hours without the agreement of the staff of the House?” Many staff of the House have arranged their domestic lives in such a way as to permit the House to manage the peaks and troughs of parliamentary demand. For eight or nine months of each year, personal, family and caring responsibilities of staff are governed by the unpredictable nature of sitting times. In addition, proponents of the “9 to 5” working day for the House of Commons need to be reminded that the working day for many House staff does not simply begin at the commencement of the day’s business. Many staff can be at the House for two to three hours before start of business; as an example, staff can be required to attend well in advance of the start of business to ensure that the Vote ofﬁce has the appropriate documents available for that day, whether in the Chamber, Westminster Hall or Committee. Catering and cleaning are two other obvious examples. Needless to say, staff and unions here would need much persuasion and negotiation before beginning to countenance approving a scheme under which the working day for a fair proportion of staff might have to begin at approximately 6 am, ﬁve days a week. In conclusion, we would say that change is, of course, possible, but the agreement of the staff concerned cannot be an afterthought in the development of such change. The expectation that House of Commons staff will simply adapt to changing sitting patterns and times cannot remain unaffected by the changing expectations that House staff themselves now face in terms of their pay, pensions and job security. March 2011

Written evidence submitted by Caroline Lucas MP (P 121, 2010–12) Introduction I very much welcome the Committee’s inquiry: Sittings of the House and the Parliamentary Calendar. The sitting hours for MPs have a profound effect on the procedures and processes of the House of Commons, which in my view are in urgent need of reform. The Procedure Committee inquiry offers a valuable opportunity to consider some of the many ways that reform of sitting hours could make the House more efficient and how this could reduce the cost to the taxpayer of some of the time-wasting processes which are currently part of how we operate. I will explain in my submission why I want to see the end of late night sittings (with the exception of Mondays) to make MPs’ hours and those of parliamentary staff fit better with family life. I have also included a number of related reforms to parliamentary procedure that were included in a report that I circulated to all MPs in November 2010, entitled The Case for Parliamentary Reform.10 At a time when the political process is struggling to regain its legitimacy and credibility in the eyes of the public, it is more vital than ever that Parliament can demonstrate that its work is efficient, transparent, and accountable. Now is the time to shake off the image (and in some cases, the reality) of the “old boys’ club”, and to move Westminster into the 21st century. The reforms I suggest relating to sitting hours are a small part of that process. They are by no means exhaustive.

Note to the Reader I have attempted to write this submission with a spirit of openness and accessibility so that it is understandable for members of the public following the Committee’s work. I have used footnotes to help explain commonly used but not self-explanatory parliamentary terms.

Recommendations: I have concentrated in particular to three of the Committee’s questions: — “What pattern of timings for sittings on days spent in Westminster would be most effective”? 10 http://bit.ly/hCib9s cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/019792/019792_w043_michelle_Results from the survey of Members.xml

Ev w20 Procedure Committee: Evidence

— “What changes should be made to the process for considering private Members’ bills in particular (the only business currently considered on Fridays)”? — “How should the way business is conducted in the Commons be altered to accommodate any new pattern of sitting hours, days or weeks”? My submission to the Committee inquiry includes the following proposals: 1. More efficient working hours, with an end to late night sittings (with the exception of Mondays) to make MPs hours and those of parliamentary staff fit better with family life. 2. Measures to prevent the “talking out” of private members’ legislation. 3. A change to the timing of private Members’ legislation with a midweek slot for private Members’ bills. 4. The introduction of electronic voting in the Chamber (and in the voting lobbies) using hand held electronic devices and the introduction of an option to record an abstention. 5. The “holding over” of votes so that there is a specified time for voting at the end of each Parliamentary day. 6. Recording of abstentions and an opportunity for MPs to explain how they have voted. 7. For debates in the Commons Chamber, the list of those selected to speak should be made available to MPs in advance and the Commons should consider new rules on who is selected to speak and speaking time limits.

1. More efficient working hours Costs could be saved by starting proceedings in the House earlier in the day on Tuesdays and Wednesdays (Mondays and Thursdays are discussed separately below) so that the House does not have to pay the additional staff and resource costs of late sittings. This change would also be family friendly and open up Parliament to people with young families. It is reasonable for proceedings on a Monday to start later in the day to allow Members time to travel down from their constituencies. This time is needed so that an MP can spend Sunday as a family or constituency day. On a Monday, therefore, it makes sense for proceedings to continue as at present, starting at 2.30 pm and finishing at 10 pm. To save the additional staff costs, on Tuesdays and Wednesdays MPs should have standard Chamber sitting hours of 9 am–6 pm (these times would also apply to Thursdays but this is less of a change from current hours, as discussed below). With the exception of Mondays, this measure would have the effect of doing away with late night sittings. At present the late starting time for sittings of the Chamber allows MPs to hold meetings without having to miss Parliamentary business. If this reform to Chamber hours were made alongside reform of how MPs vote, with the “holding over” of the majority of votes (see the sections below on electronic voting and associated changes), this would give MPs the opportunity to organise better and plan meetings so that they don’t clash with voting times. Given that the morning is a key part of the working day, this proposal would also give greater priority to business in the Chamber rather than to that outside of it. MPs would still be free to organise meetings during the evenings when the Chamber was not sitting. The key aim of this proposal is to change the hours so that the main part of an MP’s typical working week is one that is more accessible to people currently under-represented in the House of Commons. For example, starting earlier and finishing at 6 pm would mean that those with young children might be able to put them to bed without missing Parliamentary debates or votes. On Thursday, the House of Commons already does rise at 6.30 pm, so we already have an example of how a more standard day works perfectly well. The hours for Thursday should be 9 am–6 pm as for Tuesday and Wednesday. This represents only a minor change from the current practice of sitting from 10.30 am to 6.30 pm. This, combined with the time and money saved by using electronic voting, would give Members more time to scrutinise legislation at lower cost to the taxpayer.

2. Preventing the “talking out” of private Members’ bills Private Members’ bills11 (PMBs) are bills introduced by MPs who aren’t government ministers. They are held on Fridays, the day when most MPs go back for meetings in their constituencies. For an opposed private Members’ bill to go through on second reading, 100 Members must be in the House to support it. Given the constituency commitments of MPs, there are rarely 100 MPs in Westminster on a Friday (please see the next section for a proposal to move PMBs to a mid-week slot). 11 http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/Bills/private-members/ cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/019792/019792_w043_michelle_Results from the survey of Members.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w21

MPs that have stayed for a PMB on a Friday often start to head back to their constituencies for meetings later in the day, so the longer the debate goes on, the slimmer the chances of enough MPs remaining to vote it through. The current system allows backbenchers to deliberately waste the time allotted for debate on a private Members’ bill in order to delay it, so that the vote takes place when there are likely to be fewer Members to support it. A recent example was on 12 November, when Tory backbenchers tried to “ﬁlibuster” or talk out the Sustainable Livestock Bill. Between them they sought to hamper the bill by talking for long as possible, using process not argument—one stood and read out poetry, for example. This meant that the vote on the bill happened much later than would have been the case if only real debate had occurred, and as a result MPs who supported the bill had by that time left for meetings in their constituencies. Reform of the timing of PMBs is needed, with consideration given to timetabling them earlier in the week, but the act of talking out a bill must also be addressed. It is an insult to other Members who want to seriously debate the bill, to the Speaker and most importantly to the electorate, who do not want to pay to run a debating Chamber that is being mocked by its participants. There should be explicit rules which prevent the practice of talking out a bill. The Wright Committee12 stated that “merely procedural devices” should not be able to obstruct private Members’ bills and referred to the popular proposition that a maximum of three hours should be given for any private Members’ bill second reading debate. This should be cumulative in successive sittings, after which the question would be put to the Chamber on whether the bill should receive a second reading. This would render pointless the act of “ﬁlibustering”.

3. Timing of private Members’ legislation—a midweek slot for PMBs I hope that consideration will be given to moving private Members’ bills13 (PMBs) back to a midweek slot so that they are better attended, making Fridays a formal constituency day. If three hours rather than ﬁve were allotted for debate on private Members’ bills, and this were combined with the proposal for the Chamber to sit earlier on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, there would be adequate time for PMBs earlier in the week without displacing other legislation. The beneﬁts of moving PMBs to a midweek slot, principally higher attendance from Members, would outweigh the cost of the shorter time allocated for debate. Making Fridays a formal constituency day would mean that Members could regularly plan to see their families at the end of the week.

4. Electronic voting in the Chamber Many aspects of the way that the House of Commons runs are archaic and wasteful of both time and finances. We need to modernise Parliament and make it more efficient. For example, the process of casting each vote takes at least 12–15 minutes. If there are several votes during the day/evening, this can mean that the act of simply voting takes well over an hour, and sometimes nearer two, with Members running backwards and forwards whenever the bell rings indicating a vote. Compare this to the European Parliament where all the votes are done at once at a specified time, known in advance, at the click of a button. For some, there is an understandable desire to hold on to traditional ways, but an appeal to custom cannot justify the waste of time involved with the Commons archaic voting process. The time votes will be held is often totally unpredictable. On most sitting days there is at least one vote and there can be four, five or more votes in a day. On the days with multiple votes, all the time spent slowly filing through the “aye” and the “no” lobbies, could be spent actually scrutinising legislation, meeting constituents or dealing with some of the hundreds of communications that MPs receive each day. Making the process of casting votes less time-consuming would make it possible for MPs to vote on more aspects of a bill. This means the public would have a clearer record upon which to hold MPs to account. A system which inherently discourages voting on the specifics of the bill requires less thought from those who are charged with passing the legislation. Speeding up voting should help to address this problem. The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons issued a consultation paper to MPs on voting methods in 1998. The results of the consultation showed that just over half of the 64% of MPs who responded “preferred” the traditional voting method and 70% of respondents considered it “acceptable”. In 1998, one of the reasons that some Members supported the current system was concern over losing the opportunity to speak informally with ministers in the lobbies. Others objected in principle to any system using fingerprint recognition which was one of the systems put forward in the consultation. 36% of Members did not 12 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmrefhoc/1117/111702.htm paras 193–4 13 Private Members’ bills are bills introduced by MPs and Lords who aren’t government ministers, for more see: http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/Bills/private-members/ cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/019792/019792_w043_michelle_Results from the survey of Members.xml

Ev w22 Procedure Committee: Evidence

express a view when they were asked in 1998. We now have a new intake, and many Members with whom I have spoken would like to see reform. A technically feasible electronic alternative for voting in Parliament exists. The important beneﬁts of backbenchers meeting members of the Government in the voting lobbies does not have to be lost if an e-voting system were adopted. E-voting is used in both the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish National Parliament; the European Parliament has voted electronically for decades; the French legislate with a show of hands, checked if necessary with an electronic ballot;14 and the US Congress can cast their votes electronically.15 The House of Commons should catch up. More information on which countries do and which do not utilise e-voting systems is contained in the chart in Appendix 1 at the end of this submission. After discussion with industry experts16 who have supplied e-voting systems, it is clear that a workable system could be made secure for the Commons. A hand-held electronic voting device could be kept near each seat in the Commons, with access to additional devices for Members who did not have a seat, as there are more Members than seats. Members without a seat could use their device in the voting lobbies. To identify the MP who is voting, Members’ current security passes could be modiﬁed to allow them to be inserted into the handheld device. TV monitors would have details of the vote and Members could simply press 1 to indicate for, 2 to indicate against or 3 to abstain. After a short period a speaker in the Chamber and in each voting lobby would announce each amendment to be voted on and the results in turn.

5. Security, cost and access to Ministers This system would be secure as the technology can allow the readers to work in very accurately defined spaces, like the Chamber and voting lobbies and not beyond, so the effectiveness of the current security that sees only Members allowed in the Chamber/voting lobbies would continue. If an MP lost their pass/smart card the clerks would hold a secure spare which could be made available to the Member at short notice. To prevent any Member passing their cards to a whip or other MP, either biometric identifiers could be considered or, if MPs reject biometrics, a clear penalty for any such fraud which would make it not worth the risk. For example defrauding an MP’s electronic vote could potentially trigger a by- election. If the Commons chose a pre-existing electronic voting keypad system, the keypads and related software and hardware would cost in the region of £400k,17 less than 0.1% of the £434 million cost of running the Commons in the last financial year.18 However, the value for money that such a system would bring would quickly justify a one-off cost on this scale. If, through a more efficient voting method, MPs are saved even half an hour a day, over a week this would free up hours for more effective scrutiny of legislation and so provide the taxpayer with considerably better value for the money paid for MPs salaries. For example if a voting process takes 15 minutes using the current snail’s pace division system, it costs the taxpayer £5,13619 for MPs salaries for each vote under the current system. The proposal would also be likely to reduce staffing and other associated costs. Since e-voting would still require MPs to come to the Chamber, the opportunity to catch up informally with Government Ministers would not be lost.

6. The holding of votes at one efficient time To deliver the time-saving that would make Parliament a more streamlined working environment, an e- voting system would need to be combined with the “holding over” of a day’s votes to the end of the day. In 1998, the Modernisation Select Committee provided an explanation of what this means20 when it noted that “Members seemed interested in the possibility of holding divisions over, so that all votes could be taken one after another at a convenient time, instead of holding divisions immediately at the end of each debate”. Despite this finding, little has changed, and taxpayers’ money is still being wasted by votes being held at separate, unspecified times. 14 http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/connaissance/fiches_synthese/fiche_45.asp 15 http://thomas.loc.gov/home/lawsmade.bysec/consideration.html#voting 16 http://www.iml.co.uk/ 17 Based on an estimate from industry experts, IML, ibid. 18 From the Office of the Chief Executive of the House of Commons: the running costs of Parliament in financial year 2009/10 are £434 million for the Commons and £112 for the Lords. With effect from 7 May the “running costs” would also cover IPSA, which is responsible for paying MPs’ salaries and pensions. 19 Workings for over £30,000 figure: MPs Salary = £65,738 / 52 = £1,264 Weekly wage. Hourly wage on a 40 hour wk (most MPs work well in excess of 40 hours—I am using 40 hours as this is the average length of a working week as laid out in standard Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority contracts) 1,264/40 = £31.60, so an MP’s salary is 53p a minute. If each vote takes 15 minutes, 15 x 53p = £7.90. Multiply this by the number of MPs £7.90 x 650 = £5,136. If there are 10 divisions a week this costs = £51,360 in MPs’ salaries. Presuming votes on four days with Friday as a constituency day, and that voting electronically still took 15 minutes a day, this would save 1.5 hours in MPs’ salaries = £30,816. 20 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmmodern/779/77903.htm cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/019792/019792_w043_michelle_Results from the survey of Members.xml

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w23

Although 2004 saw the introduction of “deferred divisions”, where some votes which would otherwise take place after the end of the days’ sitting are held over to be conducted in writing over Wednesday morning and early afternoon, this option is not used frequently in practice. It is also important to acknowledge that, for some, votes where there is a high degree of public interest; for example the recent vote on military action in Libya, the vote on the Iraq War in 2003 or the decision to bring in tuition fees in 2004, MPs would want to vote immediately after a debate is over. This could be at the discretion of the Speaker, and announced to MPs and the public as far in advance as possible.

7. Recording of abstentions and an opportunity for MPs to explain how they have voted Whilst not strictly related to sitting hours, the question of allowing Members to record an abstention is closely linked to the proposal for electronic voting, which is linked to the sitting hours question, hence my inclusion of the following paragraphs. There is no formal opportunity for MPs to record an abstention or to explain how they have voted. The names of MPs who are present in the Chamber for the debate but who do not vote are unrecorded, just as if they had been absent from the House. The only option that Members currently have if they want to show that they were present but choose to abstain on is to vote both for and against. This is something that Richard Taylor, former independent MP for Wyre Forest and the independent-minded late David Taylor MP for North West Leicestershire were both known for doing. However, their admirable attempts to record their abstentions were often misunderstood, with the press unfairly ridiculing them for not being able to make up their minds. In 1998 a majority of MPs “indicated strong or general support” for an option to record an abstention,21 yet nearly 13 years later nothing has been done. The Commons could also replicate the European Parliament’s “Explanations of votes” website (please see the footnote below for a link to an example page).22 MEPs can (but do not have to) post a short paragraph on why they voted as they did for constituents to read. This is an effective way to provide the public with an explanation of why a Member voted the way they did.

8. Clearer rules on speaking time in debates and the rules for who is selected to speak in a Commons debate I would like to see reform of sitting hours go hand in hand with reform on the rules on speaking time in debates to allow more members to contribute and to increase the opportunity for MPs to plan and to organise their time in the most efﬁcient way. On occasion more Members want to speak in a debate than is possible in the time available. The way the system works now, MPs have to send a letter to the Speaker23 to indicate their wish to speak. The Speaker and his deputies then draw up a list for their own reference, of who is to speak and in what order. However, most MPs are not privy to this list, and can spend four to ﬁve hours in the Chamber, unsure of whether they will be called to speak or not. The list of prospective speakers should be published as soon as it is drawn up to enable Members to both contribute to debates in the Chamber and attend other parliamentary meetings. Reform on the speaking time limits could start with a rethink of Standing Order 47 (Standing Orders are written rules under which Parliament conducts its business) which sets out the current rules on time limits on speeches for both front and backbench Members. The Chamber should be asked to debate and approve written guidelines, including criteria for the Speaker’s decisions on which Members have been selected to contribute to the debate and in what order (for example, MPs with a particular interest or responsibility on the issue being debated rather than, for example, length of service) and on whether to set a limit on backbench speeches. Under the current system, there are too many debates where MPs who wish to speak are not able to. New rules could include an open, published, mechanism for giving notice of the wish to speak rather than an informal behind the scenes note to the Speaker. The purpose of this would be to help MPs see how the selection and time-limit process is working. Revised rules should work to ensure that where a Member has given notice by a reasonable time, they should wherever possible be given the opportunity to speak. Most Members would rather have the certainty of three minutes of speaking time as opposed to a possibility of either six minutes or no time at all. April 2011

21 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmmodern/779/77903.htm Paragraph 3 22 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=CRE&reference=20101111&secondRef=ITEM-009&language=EN&ring= A7–2010–0171#4–192 23 “Speaker” means the person in charge of the Commons Chamber, not the MP speaking. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w24 Procedure Committee: Evidence e d th n a

) ) 3; e 0 nt e nc 20

n i ide

pres

s nf if res e

t e o t igu f co v f

e ls l s o vo h a t e t c

e t o l l m v v

o d in r

eg 5 de (

r lu ers re o f b

nc i nic syste

d t o e r em l o e we t l r n c a

e (M c e h

r ele e er

b b

g a de n i m in s a a t c h

u nd d s C a r

t a e d o s

bie c h

t ) d b

s D t n o I l

a orme esk e h e of rf g d s s 0);

i e electronic votes t d in r ug 1 y i r s h tt o 0 n t i e a r

2 s h c h o

t t

at a ay b

ing t t M ing ion g in t u it ible o o in d

em v ( ) t

d d vo ss , risin s d ad

e e o i

y 10 e r p s n r r r m

ver i

nt 20 e e a a e ; ret ballot voting pe ic e c M w c

gin

n ap ap er y o e e a n o ion lo p p i on r em s s b h

( m ) it i t l

t t t ; o

e i - c p t e ) o o d n h n r ll ll c t o s 3 um m o

o i i v a n 0 ele rove

l t og t - i ba ba w o p

nd c t ecogn e n

s m s er t 20 y y s a

y on s g s

t r b b n t r e

o s i bu f nd

o k c ( pa e ”) ”) e n

t es p rs locate themselves on either disapp n a e ns t (

t r ha

ng t

i (45 be t rprint re erprin nu i of o d ID s us e bu s vo

ing ing r

erred erred v e t f f ge m e and

em tt t m a ing

i o f ou n c o o i

ow s m 5 g butto v M

led f de de

l v

s , y

“ “ n

- -

d i o a ; b t na t t e nim

s r s s by w w s ing

a d a 3 d t e m

n ie ie n e i D s ) n - o d password ased by

I b b

u s s by sh a fe a fe

at s b ,

; ( (

l n e

n n vo t ”; & k n lob lob ove e f ha lid t an

e e & & r ck ck o s e

o a n e e v ns p i r e e

y e ml s s s s v

l r r r t no no c

; o p reen or vo h h m wa D o w i

D c c PIN h ie ie ie ie s t t t

c c c a e / . s s

on l I t ( y s

a u u

N s

l erp h h h t s a I l D D rd bb bb bb bb h h d ID d ID b b I I c c s d ID d ID d ID d ID d ID s d ID y

ic r r u a

c c a

o o o o r r r r r , , t r l l l l r s u u

r r a a s ing c ing

o o u u a i a a a a a

is o o otes e e & , t h h h h n n o t c v o C t c C c c c c t t

ic APPENDIX ing ne

nd n f n t a g g g g , , , , , , , , , , , ,

s s , p y by l v t e i ies l a l o u u u u d d t s g h v a / ee ee

o o o o ed ed e ed ed ed ed e ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed in s “ r r r r r r bb

c s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s

C min min f s e a - c c

, t t y r h h h h l on a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a d a lo t t t t l i s s ectron l b m a

l D D D i

b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b p b

o s I I I es es . ------s - g g g g g e

r a h h s s s s

k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k n n n n n l c c d d d e e e i i i i i W D W e te n s s s s s s s r s s s s s s r r s s s t t t t t t t t

a u u s r o e e e e e e e a e e e e e e a a e e e A 010 o o o o o o o o o o

ld px 2 N D D V * D V D D D O As As V D V C D D D D V T V D D C As V C T D V D D / s _ 0 a e . 1 n s 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 u e 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 3 3 3 9 9 j 0 1 / / / / / / / / / / / / r / _ 0 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 9 9 3 9 2 9 8 9 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 a r 9 t 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 n 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ld e 0 / e _ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 t Y 2 a r m p o s / la er p k r te e 2 5 5 0 7 6 9 8 1 8 9 9 1 9 4 3 5 2 u r . o 0 6 97 7 97 43 8 97 45 1 3 3 1 t Pa _ mb v 79 2 5 4 6 4 88 6 1 3 12 20 23 24 99 3 15 12 24 n

s , h u f e e c 7 5, t o N d m a f a a i d w d l i r p e v . t g i a t 9 o p n c . i v 0 / t s A 0 9 / o n 2 s 0 / v o o /

i a s * t t 9 c r /N i a in 0 es es es es es es es es es es es es es es es es es es es es es es es es es o s c No No No No No No No No No n g 0 i Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y l Y p e o 2 b / e Y Pa r tr s u / / r c d p n . o e a t l io es o n t l E s i e p s is www u b m / t e a :// l n r p mm w t

e a t o t t t c h n n P s s /

e o e s e n s t s c d c g e o m - i i n t e a t p v e a D s se s d i lia i i

t n w l r t d m mm / v r a i e a a t u t o g o s n S aba Pa n c c o s

C L St l n l

o io A a l & b o / a s re d s / t d a / t n e

ss s u u m p n r e t . n s o i e e of e of p t e i . p . m o t e e io s s e S n la t t s e h

o u u t g e s n R o a m c s ss i R

t es o o a C a t t e

i f e

r t V n e f t m g r h t f

a o s s lia ee t o m c o u

a e o S a l o r

w D; Na e e s

a a e p l p n b a l m H m H s te e e d d o e r s R s r e e e e t e te o o s d t a P s n n m s d L a mm u a ir

r P o es D S a d d u a n m u i u u e g e e

e o P v p o i l o t l R r r n P C j n t i g g o

. . . n e s o v er p p B B

u H l u g

o e e a a n n s e n ia w w w H S

i i e e t H f Co f L E p

y y o n k o

n d a a

A g y a r i ic w w w K K : o o R R

e n n n b i o v al e n mb

lia y e

m m nd d e n a n ff e a e y tr d D d S k e a a i w w w e g D e d d i a a e e C S h h p s a c / / / m n la

a c c iu iu nd S nd S r r l

e a d n n h / / / n O m ada u s s e e c c r t t t er e m m e o el : : : e y w e

t M t t n k l v s la A A e r r n r m i i n r r u u s lg lg la la r s e e u la la o r x lt e h a p p p I A a a a n t t t e e r r t z e z o o n n S S a

ou I o o u i r e e u u a U t t t r r t s Au C Be D Be C F F G G G I I I L N Po Po Po R E Slo Sw T U U O I U U C Au Sc UK D W N C So W h h N H H h E cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w25

Written evidence submitted by Dr Philip Giddings and Professor Michael Rush (P 122, 2010–12) THE ROLE OF THE MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT Introduction 1. This memorandum draws on research material in our forthcoming book, Parliamentary Socialisation: Learning the Ropes or Determining Behaviour (published by Palgrave Macmillan in August 2011), which is a long-term study of the socialisation of Members of Parliament covering the 1992–97 and 1997–2001 Parliaments,24 with additional data drawn from the 2001–05 Parliament gathered by the Hansard Society. We have focused on two aspects of our research. First, using survey material from three studies, including our own,25 we examine MPs’ views on the role of the Member of Parliament. Second, drawing on our own surveys and on surveys of newly-elected MPs conducted by the Hansard Society in 2005 and 2006,26 we set out of Members’ views of different aspects of the role and job of the MP. The appendix to the memorandum consists of edited extracts from our book.

The Role of the Member of Parliament 2. Our analysis of the survey data led us to conclude that, within the their overall function of providing democratic legitimacy to government, backbench MPs fulﬁl three major roles, which we have termed the partisan, constituency and scrutiny roles.

THE THREE ROLES OF THE MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT Role Description The partisan role Supporting the party in debates, the asking of parliamentary questions and signing of motions, committee work and, above all, in the division lobbies. The constituency role Helping constituents with individual problems, eg access to welfare, housing and other local council issues, and immigration cases. Dealing with the collective interests of the constituency, eg promoting local business, seeking funds for the constituency, environmental issues. The scrutiny role Assessing government policy proposals; examining primary and secondary legislation; evaluating expenditure and taxation; checking on the implementation and administration of government policy.

3. We, of course, accept that the House of Commons is the major recruitment pool for ministerial posts and that MPs belonging to opposition parties fulﬁl roles as frontbench spokespersons, but our focus is essentially on backbenchers. We also accept that Members perform other roles but argue that these are subsumed under the three major roles we have delineated. 4. We argue that, although the role of the Member of Parliament is multi-faceted, all MPs perform the partisan, constituency and scrutiny roles and that these roles are not mutually exclusive. However, we also argue that the balance between these roles varies between Members and over time, especially during the course of a Member’s parliamentary career.

The Job of the Member of Parliament 5. In the 1992–97 and 1997–2001 Parliaments questionnaires were sent to newly-elected MPs and to a control group of longer-serving backbench Members. We asked Members four questions relevant to their role: ﬁrst, whether they thought MPs should be full-time or part-time; second, who they saw themselves as representing; third, what were the most important parts of their job as an MP; and, fourth, who inﬂuenced them in their work in Parliament. These questions were replicated in the 2005–06 Hansard Society surveys.

Full-time v part-time 7. All Labour and Liberal Democrat respondents thought the job of being an MP should be full-time, in contrast to 28% of Conservatives in 1994 and 40% in 1999. However, most Conservatives who thought it should be part-time acknowledged that the demands of the job rendered it full-time in terms of the number of hours per week needed to meet those demands. This reﬂected the view, widely expressed in comments made in responses to the questionnaires, that they needed to keep in touch with “the real world” and that occupations outside politics were the most effective way of achieving this. 24 This research was supported by an award from the Nufﬁeld Foundation Small Grant Scheme during the 1992–97 Parliament and an ESRC grant (R000222470) during the 1997–2001 Parliament. 25 The other two studies are Donald D. Searing, Westminster’s World: Understanding Political Roles, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1994 and Hansard Society, Report of the Hansard Society Commission on Parliamentary Scrutiny: The Challenge for Parliament—Making Government Accountable, Vacher Dod Publishing, London, 2001. 26 Gemma Rosenblatt, A Year in the Life: From Member of Public to Member of Parliament, Hansard Society, London. 2006. Subsequently cited as “Hansard dataset”. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w26 Procedure Committee: Evidence

The Member of Parliament as a representative

8. Members were asked to place in rank order representing their constituents, the nation as a whole, and their party. First and foremost, our respondent MPs clearly saw themselves as representing their constituents (64% in 1994 and 68% in 1999), then the nation (22% in 1994 and 16% in 1999), and, a long way behind, their parties (8% in 1994 and 10% in 1999). There were, however, signiﬁcant differences between members of different parties, with Conservatives more likely to place the nation second and Labour MPs their party second.

The most important parts of the job

9. MPs were asked to place in rank order different aspects of their job—scrutinising the government and civil service, supporting their party, influencing party policy, and helping constituents. Again constituents came first overall, though more strongly among Labour than Conservative MPs. The most significant finding was the difference made by whether a party was in government or opposition. When in government, in 1994, Conservatives ranked scrutiny fourth, but in opposition, in 1999, they ranked it first. This emerged more starkly if the proportion of MPs ranking scrutiny first or second in the two Parliaments is compared. In 1994, 38% of Conservatives did so; in 1997 the proportion had jumped to 82%. Conversely, in 1994, 46% of Labour MPs ranked scrutiny first, compared with 35% in 1999. There were also differences in attitude towards supporting their party: as with the representative role, Labour MPs were stronger on party in both Parliaments.

Inﬂuencing MPs

10. MPs were asked who strongly influenced them in their parliamentary activity—the party leadership, their personal opinions, constituency opinion, and representations from pressure groups. The latter were by far the least influential. In contrast to the emphasis on constituents in whom they represent and in the most important part of the job, when it came to sources of influence constituency opinion came some way behind their personal opinions and the party. In short, the party leadership was the most important. In short, the partly leadership was the most important.

The role of the Member of Parliament—an overview

11. MPs regard themselves primarily as representing their constituents. This is reﬂected in other data we collected showing that most MPs spend more time on constituency work than any other part of their job. However, they say that party, not constituency is the most important inﬂuence on their parliamentary behaviour. That is not very surprising since their parliamentary activitytabling Questions and motions and participating in debates and committee worktakes place within the context of party. “Party” here means not the narrow context of the party whips, but the wider context of MPs being members of parties with which more often than not they agree. Michael Rush University of Exeter Philip Giddings University of Reading April 2011

Written evidence submitted by R A Hayward OBE (MP 1983–92) (P 123, 2010–12)

I am pleased that the Procedure Committee is reviewing a series of issues which are important both for the operation of the House of Commons and also the work of its MPs.

The Committee’s press release identiﬁes a number of matters which are to be covered. I intend to comment on only a few of them although I regard them as key to: the future good working of the House, the good Government of the country and the ability of MPs to perform their roles while at Westminster.

(If I may comment in passing, I am concerned about the phraseology of one small aspect of the press release issued at the time of the announcement of the inquiry. In a bullet point (7) the release asks “How should the way business is conducted in the Commons be altered to accommodate any new pattern of sitting hours, days or weeks?” It seems to me that the pattern of sittings should accommodate the business, not the other way round. What I would regard as the correct order is given in the opening paragraph of the release.)

My submission concentrates on the passage of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 and in particular the implications of the Act arising from the reduction in the number of MPs. I will only comment to a limited extent on any committees or sittings, more the overall impact of the Act. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w27

The table below shows the number of MPs after certain General Elections since 1832. 1832 658 1872 654 1892 670 1918 707 1945 640 1970 630 1987 650 2005 646 2015? 600 Therefore at no point since the Great Reform Act of 1832 will there have been fewer MPs than post the next General Election. This will have substantial implications for the operation of the House and for the MPs who sit in that Parliament.

Role of MPs I do not believe the role of MPs should change markedly as a result of the Act. As I perceive it the role of the MP should be to: — provide ministers for Government; — hold the Government to account; — represent the views of the electorate and in particular an MP’s constituency; and — help develop future policy. This, as I see it, is no different from the current role of an MP. There is however one element of an MP’s role which has diminished markedly over the last 50 years, ie the development of future policy and a second has been greatly diminished ie holding government to account (see below).

Workload of MPs For many MPs the representational workload will not increase since they already represent as many voters (if not more) than will be required under the Act. However, it is clear that most MPs will not be able to serve on more committees than they do currently. This will therefore result either in the number of committees being reduced or acceptance that each committee has fewer members (see below). If there is a way in which the development of policy by MPs can be encouraged, the House and the nation would beneﬁt. This could probably be achieved by providing more broad-ranging debates with fewer restrictions on the duration of speeches. This is of course in contradiction to what has been happening over recent decades. Alternatively MPs could work more closely with think tanks etc within a variation of the select committee structure. On a small matter, MPs may have to move away from being super-councillors which they have often become in recent years. This will however have to be a decision taken by the MPs themselves in relation to their own workload unless a view is taken that more time needs to be spent at Westminster.

Structures of Government and the House To cope with the reduction I would recommend: — a reduction in the number of Government ministers (and PPSs); — a comprehensive review/reduction of the committees in Westminster; and — probably a substantial reduction in/if not cessation of Westminster Hall debates. — Despite the above we should somehow see a reduction in the guillotining of bill committee stage debates.

Fewer Ministers When the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill was being debated Richard Shepherd MP and others made a very strong case that the power of the Executive would be strengthened unless the number of ministers was reduced. Without such a change, Richard Shepherd’s view, and I share it, is that the House and its members could not perform one of the key roles of an MP at Westminster ie bringing Government to account. If by dint of this reduction in MPs the power of the Executive increased, Westminster would be failing to serve the country. Fewer members of an Opposition and fewer Government backbenchers would make life even more comfortable for Government. Many (mostly with a vested interest) will argue that this reduction in Government is not possible. However, the German cabinet of the CDU/SDP coalition had 14 members, the current Australian administration has cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w28 Procedure Committee: Evidence

41 ministers, of whom 20 are in the Cabinet. It can be argued (although I do not accept this) that these are Federal systems and are therefore somehow different. This doesn’t disprove the need to reduce the numbers of British ministers. An alternative comparison is France which has a cabinet of 15. These variations are stark against a British Cabinet of (at minimum) 23, a number which, unfortunately, tends to rise over the period of a Parliament. Although the ﬁgures may appear small Britain has over 50% more Cabinet ministers than France and Germany.

Every extra minister (and PPS) reduces the numbers of MPs to hold a government to account and I am not aware that there has been any work published which reviews the Act discussing how Government and Westminster will cater/cope with this imminent change. It is crucial that any such review ensures that the power of Westminster to hold the Executive to account is in no way diminished and if possible enhanced. It will, in part, be the structure of sittings, hours and committees which will perform that role. — I would therefore suggest this committee asks for a submission from Government (probably the Cabinet Ofﬁce) on how it intends to cater with the implications of the Act.

It seems to me that a sensible measurement of this committee’s review is that it provides a structure which can effectively hold Government to account post 2015.

Committee Structure

The structure of committees in the House is already overstretched with regular poor attendance, often with MPs popping in for a few minutes then leaving.

Once the number of MPs is reduced, the position will be even worse unless there is a reduction in the size of Government. I have presumed that Government will have come down in size. Even with a reduction in the overall size of Government there will need to be a reduction/restructuring in the number of committees.

Most select committees would have to lose at least one member which may then have implications in relation to party/governing party representation. Reducing Government is likely to result in a reduction in number of departments. The select committee structure could therefore be cut and therefore the burden on MPs. If this were to happen it may well be possible to maintain the current numbers on each select committee. This would also enable a continuation of the select committee process of urgent reviews. These reviews seem to be a welcome development and should continue since they serve the House well.

Other committees will also have to review the implications of a 10% reduction in membership. Some committees may have to be merged and others have their role changed. It might even be worthwhile considering whether certain roles can be undertaken with the House of Lords, eg Lords ministers sitting on Commons standing committees. — This review should assess whether its recommendations would work with 50 fewer MPs. There is no beneﬁt in recommending changes that will not be effective in less than four years time

Westminster Hall

Debates in Westminster Hall are a relatively recent introduction. With fewer ministers and MPs I do not believe it will be tenable to continue to serve this extra “chamber” in future. I know that many MPs have found it a useful way or raising a subject that would not be found time on the ﬂoor of the House. I would therefore recommend that a decision is taken that Westminster Hall debates will not continue post-2015 but that a way is found for some of the subjects covered be included in the timetable on the ﬂoor of the House.

Guillotining of Debate

Governments of different persuasions have taken to guillotining of debate in committee to an extent which would have been considered unacceptable 30 years ago. While changes to allow sensible consideration of bills were necessary (I served on the Telecommunications Bill Committee where one speech in 1982 lasted over 11 hours—just before I arrived in the House) the position now regularly produces acts of Parliament where large numbers of clauses have been given no consideration whatsoever. The result is bad legislation. Standing committee sittings may have to be extended. It cannot be for the House of Lords to try to put right what the Commons has not reviewed. April 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w29

Written evidence submitted by Brian Donohoe MP (P 127, 2010–12) I wish to register my view that there should be status quo in respect of the Commons sitting hours. I have not been swayed by the argument that sitting hours should relate more closely to working practices in the outside world. Indeed, some will argue that this may allow Members of Parliament to better fulﬁl their duties to constituents and their families. However, the core objective of the present sitting hours is not to make an MP’s life more convenient but to make the time they spend in Parliament more effective. I believe this is especially important given the current climate of radical reforms being proposed by the Government. It would be somewhat irresponsible to take time away from the scrutiny of legislation in favour of increasing constituency appointments. This, combined with the constant reassessment of IPSA’s responsibilities and capabilities, would create a tentative atmosphere in Parliament. March 2011

Written evidence submitted by Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch (P 134, 2010–12) We are the Unite Parliamentary staff trade union branch representing staff of MPs, both in Parliament and in constituency ofﬁces. We have over 500 members from all political parties, and work on a cross-party basis to represent the view and concerns of our members and the wider staff who work for MPs. We would like to thank the Procedure Committee for the opportunity to make a submission to this inquiry into the sittings of the House and the parliamentary calendar. We have restricted our submission to the questions that either impact MPs’ staff or to issues branch members have asked us to raise with the Committee.

How the role of an MP has changed in recent years MPs’ staff are well-placed to comment on how the role of an MP has changed in recent years. One of the most common complaints the union branch executive receives from its members and other MPs staff is that the staffing budget level determined by IPSA is inadequate for dealing with the increase in correspondence in recent years. The increased use of email campaigns by charities and pressure groups means that at a click of a button constituents can send a model email to their MP. Many constituents are signed up to multiple campaign email lists and can generate large amounts of work for MPs and their staff. Many Members’ offices are currently under-staffed and are struggling with the amount of policy casework generated by the internet and campaign cards. Many constituents have an expectation that their model email will generate a response from the MP in a matter of days and weeks at the most. Traditional notions of the “role of an MP” and working patterns have had to change to respond to these new campaigning techniques. The last time MPs’ offices and their workload was thoroughly audited was in the Review of Parliamentary Pay, Pensions and Allowances 2007 conducted by the Review Body on Senior Salaries. This report made numerous comparisons with the previous report by the Review Body on Senior Salaries in 2004 and demonstrated that the assumptions made about the way to calculate staffing needs in 2004 no longer applied. It was this that led the 2007 report to recommend that the staffing budget should be increased to provide support from 3.5 members of staff from the previous three staff members. The report found that the number of MPs employing three or more staff had increased from 14% in 2004 to 87% in 2007—over a six fold increase. This was due to increasing volumes of work handled by MPs and their staff, including the growing popularity of emails. By undertaking this research the 2007 review was able to determine that MPs’ staffing needs had changed in the intervening three years since their previous review. The review also suggested that, “there is every reason to suppose this trend [of increasing workloads] will increase”. The report also based its conclusions on the assumption that they would be valid for four years, at which time a new report should be commissioned, saying, in recommendation 4: “…future reviews of parliamentary pay, pensions and expenditure should henceforth normally take place at four-yearly intervals…” (Review Body on Senior Salaries: Review of parliamentary pay, pensions and allowances 2007, report No 64, Vol 1. P viii.) It is therefore reasonable to assume that MPs’ workload has increased even more significantly since this review was undertaken and the Branch would like to see another similar review take place as soon as possible and staffing budgets raised accordingly. The additional demands of IPSA are also forcing staff to spend longer each week processing expenses. According to our recent staff survey, virtually 70% of staff who processed claims under the old system spent less than an hour a week doing this, with much smaller proportions spending longer. Under the new system, only 8% spend so little time; 58% spend three hours or more a week, and 26% spend more than five hours each week processing claims. The recession, and the ongoing effect of budget cuts at the central government and local government level, has also generated large amounts of work for caseworkers. It is likely that the workloads of Members and their staff will come under increasing strain due to budget cuts in the legal aid and debt advice sector in particular. With funding to these areas being reduced, constituents may go to the MP as the only resort for assistance, rather than the last resort as has traditionally been the case. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w30 Procedure Committee: Evidence

What the role of an MP should be and how this is reﬂected in time spent at Westminster and in the constituency

There are different opinions as to what the role of an MP should be, and particularly the proportion of time that should be given to parliamentary work compared to constituency casework and vice versa. We think is a question for individual Members themselves. Their decision about what sort of MP they will be will be based on many factors including career plans, majorities, the make-up of the constituency they represent and local issues. We think it is important that Parliament makes it possible for Members to choose their own path. We were disappointed, for instance, with the Speaker’s response to the recent IPSA annual review in which it was suggested that some staff should be relocated out of Westminster to save money. For many staff and researchers in particular, working on the parliamentary estate and having access to facilities like the Library, or being able to attend all-party staff meetings are a key part of the job they do for their MP. MPs should be able to arrange and staff their ofﬁces based primarily on their idea of what their role should be and not theoretical savings to the House budget.

What are the defects and strengths of the current patterns?

The strength of the current patterns is that MPs from constituencies far from London have enough time to travel to Westminster on the Monday, thereby preserving Sunday as a personal day. There are some branch members who make this trip frequently themselves and this means they do not have to give up their personal time to travel to London. We think the 2 pm starts on Mondays should remain. Another strength of the current parliamentary sessions is that the summer recess gives MPs and their staff time to focus on work in their constituencies and to plan for the year ahead. The media portray this period as a long holiday, but we think it is a necessary break from intensive parliamentary work. Other parliaments, such as the Australian Parliament, have even more regular breaks between parliamentary sittings: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/info/sittings/2011/11sitpa.pdf Whilst we are not advocating a switch to the Australian model, we include this example because it shows that other parliaments recognise that being an MP is not just about what happens in the Chamber and allow sufﬁcient time for MPs and staff to focus on other areas. Just because MPs are not in Parliament making speeches does not mean they or their staff are on holiday. Parliamentary sittings should not be expanded if the only rationale is to show the media and the public that MPs are “working”. It is important that constituency work is valued too and perhaps the Procedure Committee could look at how constituency-based work can be better explained and demonstrated to the public. One of the defects of the current patterns is late night sittings, which although rare, can have a detrimental impact on Members’ staff. This was commented on mainly by parliamentary researchers, who sometimes have to work beyond their contract hours when their MP is planning to speak in a later debate and additional research or last-minute changes to a speech are required. This can place a great deal of pressure on Members’ staff with caring responsibilities who need to leave work at set times. It can also be expensive because Members may have to pay their own staff overtime, as will the House authorities for House staff. We recommend action be taken to prevent late-night sittings and to make sitting times more family-friendly for all who work in Parliament.

What pattern of timings for sittings on days would be most effective?

Some of our members have commented that the current timings for some sittings mean that MPs are not travelling to and from work like their constituents. They suggested it would be beneﬁcial if more Members had to travel at peak times and experience the same problems that the general public does. It would also mean Members would experience the same issues with childcare that affect their staff and the rest of the working population. We recommend sittings on Tuesday-Thursday are changed to reﬂect the more common working hours of the rest of the population. In particular, we see little rationale for the 2.30 pm start on Tuesdays when MPs are already in Westminster and don’t need the travelling time like they do on Mondays.

What other factors should be considered in proposing changes to sitting hours?

Any change in the sitting hours will have an impact on MPs’ staff who work in Parliament. We recommend that any proposals emerging from the Procedure Committee’s inquiry are discussed with MPs’ staff groups. The two cross-party groups, the UNITE Parliamentary staff branch and the Members and Peers Staff Association (MAPSA), have a joint memorandum of understanding with the House authorities and should be consulted ahead of any changes. These two groups can help disseminate information about any changes to sitting hours to MPs’ staff and collect and feedback any information on their effect. April 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w31

Written evidence submitted by Dame Anne Begg MP (P 137, 2010–12)

I am writing in my personal capacity as the former Vice-Chair of the Speaker’s Conference (on Parliamentary Representation). The committee was established in 2008, by order of the House, to “consider and make recommendations for rectifying the disparity between the representation of women, ethnic minorities and disabled people in the House of Commons and their representation in the UK population at large and [where appropriate ...] associated matters.” The Speaker’s Conference ceased to exist at the end of the 2005 Parliament.

In the course of our inquiry we spent some time debating what the role of a Member of Parliament is and also how the customs and procedures of the House may encourage or deter individual candidacies. Some of this work is pertinent to your inquiry, and I summarise the relevant conclusions below.

What the role of an MP should be

There have been various attempts to deﬁne the range of tasks an MP carries out: we looked, for example, at the description produced by the Review Body on Senior Salaries in 1996.27 In our report we stated that:

“An MP has a number of responsibilities. The main ones are: — As a legislator, debating, making and reviewing laws and government policy within Parliament; and — As an advocate for the constituency he or she represents. The MP can speak for the interests and concerns of constituents in Parliamentary debates and, if appropriate, intercede with Ministers on their behalf. The MP can speak either on behalf of the constituency as a whole, or to help individual constituents who are in difﬁculty (an MP represents all their constituents, whether or not the individual voted for them). Within the constituency an MP and his or her staff will seek to support individual constituents by getting information for them or working to resolve a problem.

In addition some MPs will: — Take on an additional role as a Government minister; — Take on a formal role within Parliament, supporting the Speaker by chairing committees or debates; or — Have a formal role to play within their political party, for example, being a spokesperson, coordinating a campaign or advising the party leadership on a particular area of policy”.28

The following points arise from this description: (a) The MP’s role as a legislator remains crucial. Much of a Member’s work can be supported by his or her ofﬁce but a Member’s vote cannot be transferred.29 (b) Notwithstanding the central importance of the legislative role, constituency work is increasingly important; we recorded a “strong public expectation that when not required at Westminster, Members will actively participate in the life of the constituency, including at weekends”. We thought it important to acknowledge that an MP works actively in both places.

We thought that there should be a description of the main functions of a Member of Parliament, in order to increase transparency and public understanding of Parliament. Nonetheless, recognising that each constituency will have different needs and expectations of its MP, we recommended that the description “should not remove the scope for MPs to approach the job … in various ways; it should contain general principles and main objectives and tasks, rather than highly detailed prescriptions”.30 We recommended that any description drawn up should have cross-party agreement and should be published in the interests of transparency.

What are the constraints on reform of the sitting patterns?

Reform of the House’s sitting patterns has been considered relatively recently. We chose to use the Modernisation Committee’s description of the constraints on reform (from 2004–05) which we considered was still relevant. While the Modernisation Committee had identified a widespread feeling that sitting late enhanced neither the quality of debate nor the reputation of the House it identified three principal constraints as follows: — How the hours could be made to fit in with constituency work; — How the hours could be made to fit with family life; and — How the hours could be made to fit with patterns of travel between home, constituency and Westminster. 27 Appendix 1 of Report No. 38, Cm 3330-II (HMSO, 1996) 28 Speaker’s Conference (on Parliamentary Representation) HC239-I (2009–10), paragraphs 81–82. 29 While nodding through may be used as a form of proxy voting, its use is restricted: (a) by the requirement for the parties to agree to its use on a case by case basis; and (b) by the requirement that the Member be present within the precincts when the vote is cast. The vote therefore remains closely tied to the Member as an individual. 30 HC239-I (2009–10), paragraph 87. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w32 Procedure Committee: Evidence

The importance of reforms for quality of representation The Modernisation Committee identified a perception that late sittings did not contribute to respect for the House. Our work on the Speaker’s Conference identified a further argument for reform of the sitting patterns: that the inflexibility of Parliament’s working practices (which are partly institutional and partly the result of the way that the political parties work), together with the increasingly heavy workload of constituency demands, combine to create a lifestyle which is detrimental to Members with caring responsibilities, both for children and other dependants. The impact is not part of the job but it is a direct consequence of the job, and has led some Members to choose not to seek re-election.31 In the current Parliament a survey by Mumsnet has raised similar concerns. Of the 101 MPs who responded to the survey — 91% considered that Parliament was either not very (33%) or not at all family friendly (58%); — 62% said that the impact upon their family life of going into or being in Parliament was either somewhat (37%) or largely negative (25%); and — 28% had considered quitting as a consequence of the stresses the role placed upon family life.32 Some commentators will still argue that the special nature of the tasks carried out by the House means that certain sacrifices may have to be made. Yet we considered it important to recognise how widespread and significant the deterrent effect of the sitting hours may be, in its impact upon the quality of representation in the House. We heard, informally, that those whose decisions about parliamentary candidacy were influenced by the House’s sitting patterns included not simply mothers but fathers, single parents, carers for any vulnerable family member and the wider community of individuals in their 20s or 30s who were hoping or planning to start a family. The working practices of the House have a real bearing upon the diversity of representation within the House. The Conference concluded that they impact upon our effectiveness and the extent to which our work receives public support. If sitting late at night does not enhance the quality of our debates, neither does it help if the voices of significant groups in society are not heard. To cite an example raised during our inquiry, our effectiveness in scrutiny and debate, and our legitimacy as decision-makers, is compromised if those with current experience of frontline services such as health, education and/or welfare services are absent. Any parent with small children will have such experience:33 it should be heard more clearly in the House. The leadership of all the main political parties has accepted that there should be a place within the House of Commons for individuals from all sections of society: this is a matter of justice.34 In our view it was essential to the House’s credibility that the participation of Members who have young families and/or other caring responsibilities is maintained and supported; we asked that this be kept in mind by all engaged in the process of Commons reform.35

The most effective pattern of sittings We were challenged to consider the House’s sitting hours by the evidence we received from Kitty Ussher MP. Kitty Ussher, who stood down at the 2010 general election, wrote to us advocating that “the House’s core working hours should be changed to 9 am to 4.30 pm on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday”. She argued that this change would, other than in exceptional circumstances, provide “a reasonable working assumption that whipped activity would usually ﬁnish at around 5 pm” and would enable MP parents with children nearby to spend time with them in the evenings while maintaining their commitment to spend time in the main Chamber.36 We concluded that, ideally, sitting time for the main Chamber should be brought into line with what are considered to be normal business hours. We recognised, however, that this might be difﬁcult to achieve. An alternative proposal, also put forward by Kitty Ussher, was for a greater use of deferred divisions in relation to business taken in the late afternoon and early evening on certain days. Deferring divisions at these times would enable the suspension of the running whip for an agreed period, for example, between 4 pm and 8 pm. This would enable Members to go home to spend time with their families at teatime or bedtime—or, indeed, to spend uninterrupted time on committee or constituency business according to their pattern of work— before returning to the lobbies to vote. The latter proposal presented some problems. In particular, it would be impractical to defer divisions on occasions when detailed amendments to Government bills are being considered. We considered, however, that it merited examination. We looked at the business which was conducted at Monday and Tuesday sittings of the House in sessions 2007–08 and 2008–09 and found that votes were called between 4 pm and 8 pm on only half of those sitting days. 31 HC239-I (2009–10), paragraph 252. 32 http://m.mumsnet.com/family-friendly/is-parliament-family-friendly 33 HC239-I (2009–10), paragraph 14. 34 HC239-I (2009–10), paragraph 5. 35 HC 239-I (2009–10), pararaph 253. 36 References in this section are to HC239-I (2009–10), paragraphs 278–286. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w33

The business on a significant number of these days was the initial consideration (second reading) of bills. Since second reading debates normally last for an entire parliamentary day an agreement to defer afternoon divisions on these days would have had no impact on the progress of business. Such an agreement could, however, have given those Members not directly involved in the debate greater flexibility either to spend time with their families or to work with constituents, according to their chosen pattern of work. Even on those days when votes were called between 4 pm and 8 pm, there were decisions taken (for example, on opposition motions or, less frequently, motions to approve European Union documents) which could have been deferred at least until the close of business that same evening. Clearly, the demands of particular stages of bill consideration mean that it would not be possible to defer afternoon divisions as a matter of course. Deferring afternoon divisions and suspending the whip only on certain days would not be a full answer to the difficulties faced by Members with young families but we considered that it would, nonetheless, be a step in the right direction. We also believed that the certainty of time uninterrupted by divisions might be perceived to be advantageous, both for committee work and for Members’ constituency work. We recommended that the House should have the opportunity to vote again upon its sitting hours early in the 2010 Parliament. In view of the difficulty in securing a move to normal business hours we also recommended a substantial further development of deferred voting in order to facilitate a more family friendly approach to sitting arrangements and unscheduled (unprogrammed) votes. We recommended that further consideration should be given to modern methods of voting to facilitate a more efficient and practical use of time. May 2011

Written evidence submitted by John Mann MP (P 139, 2010–12) The modern MP, living in constituency, requires Fridays for surgeries and constituency business. I therefore propose the following changes: — No Friday sittings; — Private members business to be 9.30 am–2.30 pm on Tuesdays; and — In addition Parliament should begin at 11.30 am on Monday and at 9.30 am on Wednesdays and Thursdays. This creates an extra six hours. March 2011

Written evidence submitted by Linda Rostron, Written Answers Unit, Hansard (P 140, 2010–12) Whatever your plans, whatever your decisions, please don’t forget that public sector cuts are affecting House staff. I am doing even more for less. March 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w34 Procedure Committee: Evidence

Written evidence submitted by the Canadian House of Commons (P 150, 2010–12) 1. What are the standard sitting hours of the (Canadian HOC) Chamber on each day of the week? The standard sitting hours of the Chamber are as follows: Hours Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Hours 10-00 - 11:00 ROUTINE ROUTINE 10-00 - 11:00 PROCEEDINGS PROCEEDINGS Government ------Orders Statements 11:00 - 11:15 Private by Members 11:00 - 11:15 Members’ 11:15 - 12:00 Business Oral Questions 11:15 - 12:00

ROUTINE 12:00 - 1:00 PROCEEDINGS 12:00 - 1:00 Government Government----- Government Review of Government 1:00 - 1:30 Orders Orders 1:00 - 1:30 Orders Delegated Orders 1:30 - 2:00 Legislation* 1:30 - 2:00 Private Statements Statements Statements Statements Members’ 2:00 - 2:15 by Members by Members by Members by Members 2:00 - 2:15 Business 2:15 - 2:30 2:15 - 2:30 Oral Questions Oral Questions Oral Questions Oral Questions 2:30 - 3:00 2:30 - 3:00 ROUTINE ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PROCEEDINGS ------Notices of Motions 3:00 - 5:30 for the 3:00 - 5:30 Production----- of Papers Government Government Government Government Orders Orders Orders Orders Private Private Private 5:30 -6:30 Members’ Members’ Members’ 5:30 -6:30 Business Business Business

6:30 -7:00 Adjournment Adjournment Adjournment Adjournment 6:30 -7:00 Proceedings Proceedings Proceedings Proceedings

* If required, House to sit at 1.00 pm for the review of Delegated Legislation pursuant to Standing Order 128(1). Please note that certain proceedings (notably Private Members’ Business and Adjournment Proceedings) may be suspended, delayed or rescheduled in accordance with the Standing Orders as a result of events such as recorded divisions, “Statements by Ministers” and “introduction of Government Bills”.

2. What pattern of sittings and recesses is adopted over a typical year and how many days a year do you typically sit? The Standing Orders of the House of Commons (S.O. 28(2)(a)) set out the pattern of adjournments (and therefore sittings) for the calendar year as follows: “When the House meets on a day, or sits after the normal meeting hour on a day, set out in column A, and then adjourns, it shall stand adjourned to the day set out in Column B”. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w35

A B

The Friday preceding Thanksgiving Day. The second Monday following that Friday.

The Friday preceding Remembrance Day. The second Monday following that Friday.

The second Friday preceding Christmas The last Monday in January. Day.

The Friday preceding the week marking The second Monday following that the mid-way point between the Monday Friday or, if that Monday is the day fixed following Easter Monday and June 23. for the celebration of the birthday of the Sovereign, on the Tuesday following that Monday.

June-23 or the Friday preceding if June-23 The second Monday following Labour falls on a Saturday, a Sunday or a Day. Monday.

In addition to these periods of adjournment, Standing Order 28(2)(b) speciﬁes that: “The speaker of the House shall, by September 30, after consultation with the House Leaders, table in the House a calendar for the following year setting out the sitting and non-sitting weeks between the last Monday in January and the Monday following Easter Monday.” Thus, in addition to the above-mentioned periods of adjournment, the calendar generally provides for at least one week per month, and occasionally two weeks, during which the House does not sit and Members can return to their constituencies. The Standing Orders (28(1)) also provide for nine days during the calendar year when the House does not sit: New Year’s Day, Good Friday, Victoria Day, St. John the Baptist Day, Dominion Day (known today as Canada Day), Labour Day, Thanksgiving Day, Remembrance Day and Christmas Day. All, except St. John the Baptist Day, are statutory holidays. The Standing Orders further provide that when St. John the Baptist Day and Canada Day fall on Tuesday, the House does not sit on the preceding day; similarly, when they fall on Thursday, the House does not sit on the following day. Since these non-sitting days typically fall within periods of long adjournments, this provision rarely comes into play. It would, of course, come into play if the House were to meet outside the House calendar. Assuming that the House is in continuous session for the full calendar year, then, the calendar provides for about 135 sitting days, with two prolonged adjournment periods: one following the June adjournment and the other following the Christmas adjournment.

3. Do you have designated constituency weeks or days when the Chamber does no sit? As indicated above, the calendar generally provides for at least one week per month, and occasionally two weeks, during which the House does not sit in order primarily to afford Members the opportunity to spend time in their constituencies.

4. Do you have designated committee weeks or days when the Chamber does not sit? No. Generally speaking, committees meet when the House is sitting, although they do occasionally meet during periods of adjournment. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w36 Procedure Committee: Evidence

5. Have the hours of sitting patterns changed recently or are there plans for major changes in the near future?

There has been no change to the hours of sitting pattern in recent years, nor has there been any indication that such a change is forthcoming. June 2011

Written evidence submitted by the Australian Senate (P 151, 2010–12)

1. The standard sitting hours on each day are provided by standing order 55 as follows: — Monday: 12.30 pm–6.30 pm, 7.30 pm–10.30 pm. — Tuesday: 12.30 pm–adjournment. — Wednesday: 9.30 am–8 pm. — Thursday: 9.30 am–8.40 pm.

At present, there is also a temporary order in operation (till the end of the year, at this stage) which provides for the Senate to meet at 10 am on Mondays. The additional time is allocated to government business to compensate for a similar period of time on Thursday mornings being allocated to the consideration of private senators’ bills under the temporary order. The times of meeting operate in conjunction with Standing Order 57 which sets out the routine of business for each day. The hours of meeting and routine of business are regularly varied by motion on the last sitting days preceding winter and summer recesses, to deal with urgent legislation that needs to be ﬁnalised before the Senate adjourns for several weeks.

2. The pattern of sitting in any year typically falls into three groups of sittings. The first period begins after the summer break (late January or early February) and may continue until Easter. A break then occurs until the Budget sittings commence, usually in the second week of May. The appropriation bills are dealt with before the end of the financial year on 30 June and a winter recess follows. This year, for local political reasons, the Senate will met in the first week of July but this is highly unusual. The winter recess ends in August and sittings recommence till late November or early December. The typical pattern of sittings during those periods involves two sitting weeks (Monday to Thursday), followed by two non-sitting weeks, but this pattern is subject to variation depending on external events (such as the timing of Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings, for example, or major international events being hosted in Australia, not excluding sporting events such as Olympic or Commonwealth Games). Within each period of sittings, the Senate also conducts one or two weeks of estimates hearings when the Senate itself does not meet. The number of sitting days is at historic lows, having fallen from a long term average of around 80 days each year to an average of around 50 days. Estimates days are not included in the latter average. Data on sitting days from 1901 to the present are available on the Senate website at the following location: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/work/statsnet/general/ sittingdays_year.htm. Also see information on sitting patterns since 2000: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/work/ statsnet/index.htm#sitting.

Although the Senate sets its own sitting days by resolution, in practice the sitting pattern for both Houses is now determined by the Prime Minister’s ofﬁce and adopted by the Senate, almost as a formality. The Senate retains the ability, however, to meet pursuant to a request made by an absolute majority of the whole number of senators, an ability exercised from time to time.

3. There are no designated constituency days. Senators are representatives of states as a whole and while they have ofﬁces in their home states and they undertake constituency-style duties on behalf of electors, there are probably signiﬁcant differences in the assumptions made about constituency roles in our respective countries. One of the reasons for the disposition of sitting days is the large size of Australia which, combined with a relatively short electoral cycle for the House of Representatives, has led to an expectation that members will spend as much time in their electorates as possible (and as little as possible in Canberra).

4. There are designated weeks for Senate estimates hearings: one week for additional estimates in February, two weeks for budget estimates hearings in May–June and one week for supplementary budget estimates hearings in October (see sitting patters via the link above). Otherwise, Senate committees are meeting somewhere in Australia on most non-sitting days throughout the year. They also meet frequently on sitting days in Canberra, including for the purpose of taking evidence, although this is only possible if the Senate so authorises them. Authorisation is commonly sought and given. All committee rooms are within reach of the chamber should divisions or quorums be called while committees are meeting. Fridays of sitting weeks are also very heavily used for committee meetings, particularly committees undertaking inquiries into bills (such inquiries having relatively short reporting timeframes).

5. The hours of sitting and routine of business underwent a major review in 1994, driven by the desire of senators to ﬁnd alternatives to “legislating by exhaustion”. There have been minor modiﬁcations since but no return to the pattern of very late nights and unpredictable adjournment times. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w37

The background to and evolution of current practices may be found in Annotated Standing Orders of the Australian Senate (2009), published on our website as “Commentaries on the Standing Orders”. In particular, see the following commentaries: — Standing Order 55 http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/aso/so_055.htm. — Standing Order 57 http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/aso/so_057.htm. — Standing Order 33 (for meetings of committees while the Senate is sitting) http://www.aph.gov.au/ Senate/pubs/aso/so_033.htm. May 2011

Written evidence submitted by the Senate of Canada (P 154, Session 2010–12) 1. What are the standard sitting hours of the Chamber on each day of the week? The Rules of the Senate stipulate that the Senate sit at 2 pm from Monday to Thursday, and at 9 am on Fridays. The Rules provide for the adjournment at midnight from Monday to Thursday and at 4 pm on Fridays, although the chamber often adjourns signiﬁcantly earlier. Between 6 pm and 8 pm, there is a break in the sitting, which is also often set aside. In practice, the Senate rarely sits on Mondays and Fridays. When it does sit on a Monday, the sitting will usually begin at 6 pm or 8 pm. In addition, the Senate usually adopts a sessional order to allow the chamber to sit at 1.30pm on Wednesdays and Thursdays, and to adjourn the Senate at 4 pm on Wednesdays. The purpose of the early adjournment on Wednesdays is to allow committees the time to sit after the Senate has adjourned (committees are not allowed to sit when the Senate is sitting, unless special permission is given.)

2. What pattern of sittings and recesses is adopted over a typical year and how many days a year do you typically sit? The Rules do not set a calendar for sittings. In practice, the Senate broadly follows the calendar of the House of Commons, but with frequent variations. The Senate generally sits from the end of January or the beginning of February until the last week of June, though this can be extended as long as necessary. Last year, for example, the Senate sat until 12 July 2010. After the summer break, the Senate generally returns around mid-September and sits until the last week before Christmas (for eg, our 2011 calendar foresees the Senate sitting until as late as 23 December. Although the Senate functions on the assumption that we will sit until that date, it will often adjourn the week before if required key bills are adopted by then.) During these long blocks of sittings there are occasional break weeks. In practice, the Senate’s role as a revising chamber means that the schedule of the Senate’s sittings depends to some extent on the timing of bills arriving from the House of Commons. The Senate’s sitting calendar, which is established by the leadership in consultation with the caucuses and reﬂects expectations only, indicates this assumption in the scheduling of Senate sittings one week past the House of Commons’ last expected sitting week before the longer adjournments at the end of June and before Christmas. See the Senate’s sitting calendars here: www.parl.gc.ca/ParlBusiness/senate/calendar/cal2011¬e.htm See the House of Common’s sitting calendars here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HouseChamberBusiness/ChamberCalendar.aspx?Language=E

3. Do you have designated constituency weeks or days when the Chamber does not sit? The Senate does not have days or weeks that are speciﬁcally designated as constituency periods. It does however have certain holidays (days and weeks) that are reﬂected in the sitting calendars. These are: — Good Friday and Easter Monday (the Senate does not sit the week before and the week after these days). — Victoria Day (24 May) (the Senate does not sit during the whole week). — St. John the Baptist Day (24 June). — Canada Day (1 July). — Thanksgiving Day (Second Monday of October) (the Senate does not sit during the whole week). — Remembrance Day (11 November) (the Senate does not sit during the whole week). Senators often take advantage of these adjournments of the Senate to visit the provinces they represent and attend to duties outside the Senate Chamber. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w38 Procedure Committee: Evidence

4. Do you have designated committee weeks or days when the Chamber does not sit? The Senate does not normally have designated committee weeks or days when the Chamber does not sit. When they do occur, and this is infrequently, it is through a negotiated agreement between the government and the opposition.

5. Have the hours of sitting patterns changed recently or are there plans for major changes in the near future? There have been no recent signiﬁcant changes to the pattern of sitting hours, nor are there any plans to change it. Any changes in sitting hours are the result of the volume and urgency of the work before the Senate. Longer sitting hours are the norm prior to the longer summer and winter breaks, as well as before the end of the ﬁscal year (31 March), when certain bills are needed in order for the government to have the funds to function. June 2011

Written evidence submitted by the Australian House of Representatives (P 159, 2010–12) 1. Standard Sittings The standard sitting hours of the House are as follows: House Main Committee Monday 10.00 am–10.30 pm 10.30 am–1.30 pm and 4.00 pm–10.00 pm Tuesday 2.00 pm–10.30 pm 4.00 pm–10.00 pm (if required) Wednesday 9.00 am–8.00 pm 9.30 am–1.00 pm and 4.00 pm–7.30 pm (if required) Thursday 9.00 am–5.00 pm 9.30 am–1.00 pm

There are 56 hours in the standard sitting week here but it is not unusual for some variation—for example, this week the House met later on Monday because of a visit by Prime Minister Key of New Zealand, and then sat earlier on Tuesday to compensate. I have provided details for the Main Committee because it operates as a second chamber. In some ways it is similar to Westminster Hall, in that it has an open membership, and meets simultaneously with the House. A signiﬁcant difference is that, while all government bills are initiated in the House and must be returned to the House for their ﬁnal consideration, by agreement many non-controversial bills are referred for consideration in the Main Committee. Typically more than 30% of government bills are referred to the Main Committee each year.

2. Pattern of Sittings The sitting year is divided into three periods: — the Autumn sittings, usually from early February to late March; — the Budget sittings, usually from early May to late June or early July; and — the Spring sittings, usually from mid August until late November or early December. The standard pattern is for the House to sit for two weeks on/two weeks off, but this pattern is not followed fully—see the attached sitting schedule for this year: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/info/sittings/index.htm Normally the House sits for between 65 and 70 sitting days each year.

3. Designated Constituency Weeks or Days There are no designated constituency weeks or days. The weekly program provides opportunities for members to raise constituency matters during periods for members’ statements in the Main Committee or the House, as well as the daily adjournment debates and the weekly grievance debate.

4. Designated Committee Weeks or Days The House does not have designated committee weeks or days when the chamber does not sit, but signiﬁcant amounts of time are provided each Monday for the presentation and consideration of reports from parliamentary departments. In addition, sometimes committee reports are presented and discussed on other days but when this happens there is no guaranteed time period: while a report can always be presented the allocation of time for discussion on a day other than a Monday is a matter for negotiation with government. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w39

5. Changes in the Sitting Pattern During the last Parliament the routine weekly sitting hours consisted of 36 hours in the House and 12.5 hours in the main Committee, giving a total of 48.5 hours. The August 2010 election resulted in a hung parliament and, during the negotiations leading to the formation of a minority government, commitments were made to introduce many changes to House procedures and arrangements. An additional 7.5 hours was added to the standard sitting weeks, bringing the total to 56 hours. All of the additional hours were for non-government business. The Procedure Committee has been charged with monitoring and reviewing the changes implemented at the commencement of the current Parliament. The committee’s ﬁrst report was presented in April. It recorded some of the concerns in respect of additional sitting hours and recommended that the House consider measures to manage the workload of members during sitting weeks (having regard to the health and well-being of members, their staff and parliamentary staff)—see Interim Report pp 45–53 available at: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/proc/Proceduralchanges/report.htm. Any change to the sitting hours will be a sensitive matter in a political sense. June 2011

Written evidence submitted by the Lok Sabha (India) (P 160, 2010–12) 1. What are the standard sitting hours of the Chamber on each day of the week? Standard sitting hours of the Chamber, ie Lok Sabha on each day is governed by Rule 12 of Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha which states as under: Unless the Speaker otherwise directs, sitting of the House on any day shall ordinarily commence at 11.00 hours and conclude at 18.00 hours with a lunch break for one hour which may ordinarily be from 13.00 hours to 14.00 hours.

2. What pattern of sittings and recesses is adopted over a typical year and how many days a year do you typically sit? As per provisions of article 85(1) of the constitution, the President shall from time to time summon each House of Parliament to meet at such time and place as he thinks ﬁt, but six months shall not intervene between its last sitting in one session and the date appointed for its ﬁrst sitting in the next session. Normally, three sessions of the House of about 23 to 24 weeks’ duration are held during a year and the House on an average sits for about 120 days. However, since 1993 after the constitution of the Departmentally Related Parliamentary Standing Committees, the actual average sittings of Lok Sabha have been below 100 days.

3. Do you have designated constituency weeks or days when the Chamber does not sit? There is no such provision under the Constitution or Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha.

4. Do you have designated committee weeks or days when the Chamber does not sit? Since 1993, after the constitution of the Departmentally Related Parliamentary Standing Committees, the House adjourns for about three to four weeks during Budget Session to enable Standing Committees to consider Demands for Grants of Ministries/Depts and prepare their reports.

5. Have the hours of sitting patterns changed recently or are there plans for major changes in the future? There has been no recent change in the sitting patterns of the House nor are there any plans for major changes in future. June 2011

Written evidence submitted by the Northern Ireland Assembly (P 161, 2010–12) Q1. What are the standard sitting hours of the Chamber on each day of the week? A1. Standard sitting hours: Monday and Tuesday. Standing Order 10 refers (see Appendix 1 below). Monday 12 noon–6.00 pm Tuesday 10.30 am–6.00 pm cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w40 Procedure Committee: Evidence

While Standing Orders specify that business cannot go past 6.00 pm on Monday without special arrangements, the same doesn’t apply to Tuesday so in practice often the sitting will go past 6.00 pm on Tuesday.

Q2. What pattern of sittings and recesses is adopted over a typical year and how many days a year to you typically sit? A2. The Business Committee agrees dates for recess at the start of each session. Usually the session runs from the ﬁrst week in September through to the end of June, with recess at Christmas of two weeks, Easter of two weeks and Halloween one week. 2008–09—there were 69 sittings. 2009–10—there were 70 sittings. 2010–11—there were 49 sittings (but an election in April).

Q3. Do you have designated constituency weeks or days when the Chamber does not sit? A3. The generally accepted pattern of work is: Monday and Tuesday—Plenary Wednesday and Thursday—Committees Friday—Constituency

Q4. Do you have designated committee weeks or days when the Chamber does not sit? A4. No.

Q5. Have the hours of sitting patterns changed recently or are there plans for major changes in the near future? A5. We had longer sittings towards the end of the last mandate which were necessary to progress the rush of legislation that needed to complete its stage before dissolution at midnight on 24 March 2011. There are no plans at present to review sitting times. June 2011

APPENDIX 1 STANDING ORDER 10: SITTINGS AND ADJOURNMENTS OF THE HOUSE (1) The categories of business to be conducted in the Assembly shall consist of the following: (a) Assembly Business; (b) Executive Committee Business; (c) Committee Business; (d) Questions; (e) Private Members & apos; Business; (f) Private Business; (g) Adjournment Debates; (h) Party Business; and (i) Matters of the day. (2) Subject to the authority of the Business Committee to determine the time for commencement of business in plenary session, the sittings of the Assembly shall be arranged as follows: Monday 12.00 midday–6.00 pm Tuesday 10.30 am–6.00 pm. The allocation of time for business within these sittings shall be determined by the Business Committee, except that: (a) there shall be a period for questions as set out in Standing Orders 20 and 20A; (b) at the end of each sitting up to one hour may be set aside for an adjournment debate; and (c) Deleted 02/06/09. (3) Where business on the Order Paper has not been disposed of by 6.00 pm on Monday, the Speaker may allow business to continue until 7.00 pm or until the outstanding business is completed, whichever is earlier. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w41

(3A) Where it appears that Monday’s business may not be completed by 7.00 pm, a motion to extend the sitting into the evening may be moved by: (a) a member of the Executive Committee (in respect of outstanding Executive Committee Business); or (b) a member of the Business Committee (in respect of any other outstanding business). (3B) A motion under paragraph (3A) may only be moved if: (a) notice of the motion has been given to the Speaker by: (i) 11.00 am on the Monday in question; or (ii) such later time as the Speaker may allow; and (b) the motion specifies the latest time at which the Assembly is to adjourn and the Speaker considers that time to be reasonable. (3C) Consideration of business on the Order Paper not concluded by the time the Assembly adjourns on a Monday shall be postponed until such time as the Business Committee determines. (4) If at the time the Assembly is to adjourn a division is in progress, or a question is being put and a division or a vote in the chamber results, adjournment of the Assembly shall be deferred until after the declaration of the result of the division or vote in the chamber. (5) If Tuesday’s business cannot be completed in the allocated time, the sitting may be extended into the evening, into Wednesday, or both. (6) Additional sittings may be arranged by the Business Committee according to the exigencies of the Assembly. (7) Where an oral Ministerial statement made under Standing Order 18A impinges upon the time bands specified in this order, the Speaker shall act in accordance with Standing Order 18A(6). (8) An adjournment of the Assembly shall mean an adjournment until the next sitting day unless the Assembly, on a motion moved by a member of the Executive Committee after notice, has ordered an adjournment to some other definite date. (9) A session of the Assembly shall be that period from the commencement of business following the summer recess until the end of the subsequent summer recess. The Business Committee shall determine the dates for recess.

Written evidence submitted by the National Assembly for Wales (P 162, 2010–12) Introduction As the National Assembly for Wales has just entered its Fourth Assembly, the pattern of sitting days is yet to become clear. Therefore, our response is based on the conventions adopted in the Third Assembly.

1. What are the standard sitting hours of the Chamber on each day of the week? Day Plenary meetings—sitting hours Monday 0 Tuesday (Commencing at 1.30 pm) 4.5 Wednesday (Commencing at 1.30 pm) 5 Thursday 0 Friday Designated Constituency Day

2. What pattern of sittings and recesses is adopted over a typical year and how many days a year do you typically sit? On average, the typical number of sitting days per year is 66.37 The typical pattern of sittings and recesses is shown below: Period Number of weeks Christmas Recess 4 weeks Sitting weeks 5 weeks Spring Half Term 1 week Sitting weeks 5 weeks Easter Recess 3 weeks Sitting weeks 6 weeks Whitsun Half Term 1 week 37 The number of days Plenary meets, not the number of days on which business takes place. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w42 Procedure Committee: Evidence

Period Number of weeks Sitting weeks 6 weeks Summer Recess 9 weeks Sitting weeks 5 weeks Autumn Half Term 1 week Sitting weeks 6 weeks TOTAL 52 weeks

3. Do you have designated constituency weeks or days when the Chamber does not sit? The designated constituency day during sitting weeks is Friday. Generally, the chamber only sits on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.

4. Do you have designated committee weeks or days when the Chamber does not sit? Committee business takes place in the pattern described below, Generally, committees do not meet concurrently with plenary meetings of the Assembly. Day Committee Meetings Monday Occasional meetings in the afternoon Tuesday Morning Wednesday Morning Thursday All day Friday Designated Constituency Day

5. Have the hours of sitting patterns changed recently or are there plans for major changes in the near future? In the Third Assembly, the National Assembly’s Standing Orders were fairly prescriptive in terms of specifying when the chamber must sit. The Standing Orders required Plenary meetings to usually start at 1.30 pm and finish no later than 6 pm. However, business routinely finished later than 6 pm on Wednesdays. Towards the end of the Third Assembly the Business Committee conducted a review of Standing Orders in preparation for the Fourth Assembly. The new Standing Orders now provide greater flexibility in relation to the timings and structure of plenary meetings in order to respond to the demands of business. There is now no usual end time for plenary meetings in the Standing Orders. However, the Business Committee is still required by Standing Orders “to have regard to the family and constituency or electoral responsibilities of Members” and to avoid timetabling business before 9.00 am or after 6.00 pm on any working day. Nonetheless, the sitting patterns are not expected to change substantially. June 2011

Written evidence submitted by the Scottish Parliament (P 171, 2010–12) 1. The standard sitting hours of the Scottish Parliament are currently 2.30 pm to around 6 pm on Wednesday and 9.15 am to around 6 pm on Thursdays. Under Standing Orders, the Parliament can meet in plenary session from 2.30 pm to 5.30 pm on Monday, 9.15 am to 5.30 pm on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays and 9.30 am to 12.30 pm on Fridays. The current sitting pattern was largely adopted in 1999 and has, with a few ad hoc changes allowed under the Rules, remained pretty constant since. Sittings go beyond the 5.30 pm time referred to above to allow for Members’ Business debates (similar to adjournment debates), also allowed for in the Rules. Such debates normally last up to 45 minutes, but may be extended by up to a further 30 minutes on a motion without notice. In addition, Rule 2.2.4 allows the Parliament to continue to meet until 7 pm on Wednesdays if it so decides. 2. The Parliament sets the dates of recesses under Rule 2.3.1. In doing so, it has regard to the school holiday dates. A typical year would therefore start in early January, break for one week in February (normally the second week), two weeks at Easter; nine weeks in summer (normally starting the ﬁrst week in July and resuming the ﬁrst week in September); two weeks in October (normally the second and third week) and two weeks for Christmas and New Year. There are therefore normally 36 sitting weeks and 16 recess weeks in a calendar year. 3. and 4. The Parliament does not designate constituency or committee weeks or days. Under Standing Orders, committees cannot, with a few exceptions, meet at the same time as the Parliament is in plenary session. The convention that has been followed for some time is that committees normally meet on Tuesdays and Wednesday mornings, with Mondays and Fridays left for constituency work. When committees meet outwith the parliamentary complex, they usually do so on Mondays or Fridays in order to avoid disruption to cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w43

Members’ other duties which require them to be in Edinburgh, but this is entirely a matter for the relevant committee to decide. 5. There have been no recent changes to the sitting patterns set out above. However, a number of commentators including current and former Members have raised concerns in public in recent times that the Scottish Parliament, in their view, may not be making the best use of its time and that sitting patterns should either change radically or be extended as a result. No formal action or inquiry is currently underway, but the issue having been raised publicly, it is likely that some consideration, whether formal or informal, will be given to the Parliament’s sitting patterns in the near future. July 2011

Written evidence submitted by Joan Walley MP (P 174, 2010–12) In short I believe that the current procedures for private Members’ bills are deeply flawed and in urgent need of reform. I further believe that the current procedures alienate the public from the political process and create the impression that parliament is not fit for purpose. At a time when trust in Parliament is at an all time low, we ignore such perceptions at our peril. At the heart of the system should be the principle that the merits of a private Members’ bill should at the very least be considered by parliament and a decision reached one way or the other. Currently only a very small proportion of such bills are debated on the floor of the House, much to the frustration of backbench MPs and the general public who contact their MP in support of the bill. I would like the Committee to consider how this can be improved by, for example, allowing time on Tuesdays or Wednesdays for private Members’ bills, allowing deferred divisions so MPs can remain in their constituencies on Fridays, or taking measures to prevent a small number of MPs filibustering Bills. Such reforms would enable private Members’ bills to receive fair consideration, ensure backbench MPs have some power to introduce legislation and legitimise the role of parliament in the eyes of the public. January 2011

Written evidence submitted by The Labour Party (P 175, 2010–12) You asked for information on the timing of the Labour Party Conference and for guidance on what flexibility there might be in terms of shortening the conference or moving its place in the annual calendar. I am grateful to the Committee for consulting us on this matter, as there are significant constraints on the timing of the Labour Conference which I am sure are common to the other parties. As you know, at present the three main parties hold their conferences in September and October; the Liberal Democrats first, followed by Labour and then by the Conservatives. It is also important to bear in mind that the Trades Union Congress traditionally takes place early in September ahead of the party gatherings. As the Committee will appreciate, these events require considerable planning and resources, not just from the parties themselves but also in terms of external organisations—notably the media and the police—which play an important role. These organisations may also have views about the practicalities of altering the current pattern of organisation. You asked whether it would be possible to reduce the Labour Conference to a weekend. In fact, our conference already covers part of a weekend, beginning on a Sunday and concluding on a Thursday. The Labour Conference is the supreme decision-making body of the party and with over 11,000 delegates the conference is one of the largest and most high profile political events in Europe. I am afraid that it would be impossible to squeeze the whole conference into a much reduced time period, let alone a weekend. Furthermore, the Committee should note that annual conferences are an important source of fundraising for all the parties, who would be concerned about the loss of income that could result from a significantly shortened timeframe. It would also be difficult to move the conference to a different time in the calendar. One of the central reasons for holding the conference season in autumn is that it avoids the main election cycle, which occurs in the spring and culminates with polling day in May. It would be impractical to stage the main party conferences in that spring period as it would disrupt the ability of the party workers and local units to engage in political campaigning. Likewise it would be impractical to hold conferences during the Christmas, Easter or summer holidays, when many people are away. The parties have also wanted to avoid clashing with the sitting times of Parliament, which was one of the reasons why September/October emerged as the chosen period for conferences in the first place. Finally, in addition to these general constraints and considerations, it is very important for the Committee to be aware that Labour, like the other parties, plans its conferences long in advance. The party has a contractual cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w44 Procedure Committee: Evidence

agreement for future conferences which stretches beyond this year and commits us to commercial agreements in different cities up to 2014. It would be impossible, before that date, for the party to move its annual conference to a different time without incurring signiﬁcant ﬁnancial liabilities. Ray Collins General Secretary June 2011

Written evidence submitted by Rt Hon Joan Ruddock MP (P 179, 2010–12) I was elected in 1987. I had some knowledge of the House before I arrived and had always worked long hours under pressure. However, I quickly discovered that the House was the least efficient working environment I had ever encountered. I also found working in the Commons divorced from everyday experience, unhealthy and inimicable to the maintenance of a private life. I was determined to do what I could to help modernise the institution. In 2001 I joined the Modernisation Committee, which was taken over by Robin Cook later that year. Ann Coffey, MP for Stockport, was also a member of the Committee. Together we pushed for a radical set of proposals, many of which were adopted by the House in 2002 and took effect in January 2003. A few important proposals did not get the backing of the Cabinet and were not put to the House. One of the reforms adopted—namely the earlier Tuesday sitting—was reversed in 2005. Both Ann Coffey and I remained determined to revisit the modernisation programme if the opportunity ever arose again. We saw that opportunity last year with the large turnover of MPs in the 2010 election and the great loss of public confidence following the expenses scandal. Through our experience on the Modernisation Committee we knew that the complexity of running the House meant the scope for change was limited. We also had no wish to reduce the number of hours worked, nor to impose unworkable demands on the vast numbers of staff and officers who serve us and share our unique workplace. We decided it would be appropriate to test opinion once new members had settled in. We then heard of the Procedure Committee’s enquiry. As a result, we sent out a questionnaire in January. We drafted three limited proposals based on opinions already canvassed. These were: 1. 11.30 am to 7.00 pm sittings on Tuesdays; 2. 10.30 am to 6.00 pm sittings on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays; and 3. An earlier start of Thursdays. We did not propose moving PMBs (although we had both always supported such proposals) because we were looking to find the simplest consensus. Our aim was not to survey all MPs but to find the level of support for change. Consequently we did not send to members of the Government (who might make a collective decision) or (initially) to those members still sitting who had voted against the Tuesday reform in 2005. We did, of course, send to all new backbenchers. Subsequently we added those who had voted against in 2005. After the initial paper returns, a number of people from all parties volunteered to canvass colleagues to complete the questionnaire. The results are presented in the following table (Table 1). cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w45 of 50% 25% Thurs 53.9% 30.4% 42.4% Tues & /or % of those Tues, Weds & 11.30 am–7.00 pm surveyed in favour 10.30 am–6.00 pm 235 Thurs No. of (60.6%) favour of 7 (87.5%) Tues & /or 70 (56.9%) 20 (66.6%) 138 (60.8%) Tues, Weds & respondents in 11.30 am–7.00 pm 10.30 am–6.00 pm 157 Thurs No. of (40.5%) favour of 6 (75.0%) 94 (41.4%) 41 (33.3%) 16 (53.3%) Tues, Weds & respondents in 10.30 am–6.00 pm 181 Tues No. of (46.6%) favour of 3 (37.5%) 51 (41.5%) 18 (60.0%) 109 (48.0%) respondents in 11.30 am–7.00 pm 6 1 59 48 114 No. of (29.3%) status quo supporting respondents Table 1 - - - 23 23 No. of (5.9%) undecided respondents 8 30 RESULTS OF SITTING HOURS CANVASS 2011 227 123 388 No. of responses 40 28 256 230 554 surveyed No. of MPs 57 28 256 305 646 Deputies ) Total No. MPs (+Speaker & 3 Party Labour Conservative Liberal Democrats Other Total cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w46 Procedure Committee: Evidence

Comments Many MPs made comments in writing or via canvassers. There were a few who wanted very radical change, including early Mondays, 9.30 am starts all week—even a three day week to allow Thursday and Friday in the constituency. All wanted more control over their time, as well as more predictability of debates and voting times. All those wanting change supported a rearrangement of the hours/days. There was support for a slightly earlier Thursday from those who find it difficult to get home that evening with a 6.00 pm finish. There was concern about how the earlier starts would work, particularly in accommodating select committees. There was a lot of support for making Fridays a fixed constituency day and moving PMBs.

Pattern of Sitting Hours When I came to the Commons in 1987, over 40% of sittings went to midnight or beyond, including all-night sittings where the next day’s business was lost. Over the next decade these late sittings were reduced to around 5%, but the House still met 2.30 pm to 10.30 pm Monday to Thursday. As Table 2 demonstrates, the pattern radically changed with the Cook reforms and in the half session before last year’s general election the pattern was the same:

2002–03 (The Cook reforms were introduced in January 2003, part way through the Session): No. of sitting days 162 Sittings to/beyond midnight 6 Total hours sat during session 1,287.15

2003–04: No. of sitting days 157 Sittings to/beyond midnight 0 Total hours sat during session 1,215.19

2009–10: No. of sitting days 69 Sittings to/beyond midnight 0 Total hours sat during session 540.12 Table 2: Breakdown of Sitting Days & Number of Sessions Sitting to or Beyond Midnight

Figures are not yet conﬁrmed for 2010–11, but suggest that the pattern has already changed: Before 11 pm– 2 am or 6 pm 6–7 pm 7–8 pm 8–9 pm 9–10 pm 10–11 pm 12 am 12–1 am 1–2 am later Monday — — — 3 1 19 9 — — — Tuesday — — 4 2 — 18 7 — 1 1 Wednesday — 1 14 7 5 2 1 2 — — Thursday 5 26 1 — — — — — — —

Table 3: Number of Times the House has Adjourned Within Each Hourly Period on 129 Occasions between 25 May 2010 and 31 March 2011 (Hansard Society written evidence).

Personal Statement Role of the MP The role of an MP has changed radically during the 24 years I have been in Parliament. The advent of a second debating chamber, increased work in Select Committees, the increased pressure of 24 hour media, e-campaigns and particularly the demands of constituents have all made our roles more complex and demanding. These changes are irreversible and will get worse when the number of MPs is reduced to 600. Time management is at a premium and that is why so many MPs seek more control of their time, as well as more predictability in the parliamentary day.

Changes to Hours Surveys indicate that MPs admit to being exhausted much of the time and stressed by their jobs, with personal lives suffering as a consequence.38 Starting and ﬁnishing formal business earlier would give MPs 38 Sources: The Hansard Society and Mumsnet. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w47

more control over the remaining hours of the day. Most would continue to work, but in their own way; those who can would chose to go home.

Making it Work When Tuesdays started at 11.30 am in 2003–05, the rest of Parliament’s work was adjusted accordingly and it worked. Furthermore, Thursday’s arrangements illustrate that it would be possible to run Tuesday and Wednesday from 10.30 am. Wednesday’s Prime Minister’s Questions might be seen as a special concern, but departmental question times could be rearranged so that there was an hour-long session preceding PMQs on Wednesdays and a half hour on Thursdays. Starting Thursdays at 10.00 am would enable those few MPs with especially difﬁcult journeys to reach home that night. If Tuesdays started at 10.30 am or 11.30 am PMBs could be taken that evening. Bills would be timetabled, normally voting at 10.00 pm (a Bill could be held over until the following week in exceptional cases by agreement). Friday sittings should be ended, enabling every MP to be in his or her constituency, demonstrating that attending to constituency matters is a key part of the job.

Stafﬁng I believe these are modest proposals that would be manageable. I accept that anything more radical would have dire implications for staff. Even these proposals would have to be carefully negotiated, but I do not believe the House can continue to resist change.

Further Considerations I believe the modest changes above would enable us to do our jobs better and hopefully encourage a wider range of people to contemplate becoming MPs. But there is much more that could be done to make Parliament more effective. Others have presented papers setting out a range of ideas. Personally I support an earlier start to the summer recess and an earlier return; electronic voting; ﬁxed voting times and recording of abstentions.

Procedure Committee The Committee is faced with an array of papers offering many different views and my experience of these matters is that caution prevails. If this is the case, then I hope the Committee will take note of the signiﬁcant consensus around moving the hours forward in the day (with the exception of Mondays) and ending Friday sittings. Moving PMBs to Tuesday would ﬁt with the demands for better time management. Moving PMBs to Wednesday would only exacerbate the long hours culture that is causing so much concern. September 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w48 Procedure Committee: Evidence

Supplementary written evidence submitted by Rt Hon Joan Ruddock MP (P 183, 2010–12) You asked for possible supplementary information and it occurred to me that we had more data that might be of interest. Throughout your evidence sessions frequent reference was made to differences between out of London and London Members. This did not chime with my conversations with Members, so I decided to look at the questionnaire returns again. As I suspected, there is substantial support from those who live outside the (IPSA deﬁnition of) London. I attach a new table as an addendum to the evidence already sent. In the bottom two rows I have provided a breakdown of results divided between those expected to live at home (ie the 96 London area MPs) and those entitled to claim for a second home. As you will see, the differences are not nearly as great as people have assumed. 22 September 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w49 50% 25% & /or 53.9% 30.4% 42.4% 55.4% 40.4% favour of 11.30 am– 10.30 am– % of those surveyed in 7.00 pm Tues 6.00 pm Tues, Weds & Thurs No. of favour of 7 (87.5%) 11.30 am– 70 (56.9%) 20 (66.6%) 41 (68.3%) 138 (60.8%) 235 (60.6%) 194 (59.1%) 7.00 pm Tues 6.00 pm Tues, Weds & Thurs respondents in & /or 10.30 am– No. of favour of 6 (75.0%) 10.30 am– 94 (41.4%) 41 (33.3%) 16 (53.3%) 23 (38.3%) 157 (40.5%) 134 (40.9%) 6.00 pm Tues, Weds & Thurs respondents in No. of favour of 3 (37.5%) 11.30 am– 51 (41.5%) 34 (57.6%) 18 (60.0%) 109 (48.0%) 181 (46.6%) 147 (44.7%) 7.00 pm Tues respondents in 1 6 59 48 19 95 No. of status quo supporting respondents 114 (29.3%) − − − − − 23 No. of 23 (5.9%) undecided respondents 8 SUMMARY OF SITTING HOURS SURVEY RESULTS 60 30 227 123 388 328 No. of responses 28 74 40 256 230 554 480 surveyed No. of MPs 28 96 57 256 305 550 & 3 MPs Total No. Deputies) 646 (+Speaker 1 As deﬁned in the IPSA Expenses Scheme (Third Edition). Party Labour Conservative Democrats Other London Area Liberal Total MPs Non-London Area MPs 1 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w50 Procedure Committee: Evidence

Supplementary written evidence submitted by Rt Hon Joan Ruddock MP (P 203, 2010–12) Further to my presenting evidence to the Procedure Committee regarding the sitting hours of the House, I thought it might be helpful to comment on select committees. On returning to the back benches following the last election, I decided not to seek a Select Committee position. However, I have previously been a member of the Select Committees on televising the House, Modernisation, EFRA and International Development. In my experience, the Chair and Clerks of all of these committees proposed the meeting times to the members of the Committee at the start of a new session. Over the years, despite different patterns of sitting hours in the main chamber, there was no ﬁxed pattern of sitting times for select committees. Frequently the times chosen coincided with sittings of the main chamber. Furthermore visits undertaken by select committees, whether at home or abroad, have always meant absences from the House and have generally been agreed by a pairing arrangement. This continues to be the case today, and bringing the parliamentary day forward by three or four hours would not radically change that position. November 2011

Written evidence submitted by the Liaison Committee, House of Commons (P 214, 2010–12) The Committee considered your consultation and agreed that individual Chairs would send any general views to you on the sitting patterns of the House and the Parliamentary calendar. However, the Committee agreed that I should highlight a difﬁculty that would arise should the sitting hours of the Chamber be brought forward on Tuesdays. Currently up to 15 select committees meet on Tuesday mornings, principally because this is when the Chamber is not sitting. As your consultation points out the House trialled earlier sittings on Tuesday in the 2001 parliament but decided not to make this sitting permanent in early 2005. The Liaison Committee thinks it is important that there is time during the week when all Members are able to devote their time to select committee work without losing an opportunity to participate in business in the Chamber. Rt Hon Sir Alan Beith MP Chair December 2011

Supplementary written evidence submitted by The Labour Party (P 215, 2010–12) Thank you for your letter of 14 November 2011, which Lord Collins has forwarded to me, in which you seek the Labour Party’s opinion on proposals to move conference season either to early September or to late October/early November. You sought the Labour Party’s views on the scheduling of conference earlier in your committee’s inquiry into the parliamentary calendar, and I am very grateful for this further opportunity to feed into your deliberations. In your last letter you said that the committee was interested in exploring what flexibility there might be in terms of shortening the Labour Party conference or changing its position in the calendar. As Lord Collins explained in response, there is limited scope either for significantly shortening the timeframe of the Labour conference or for holding it at a different time of the year. Although your latest letter does not propose moving conference season out of autumn, both of the timetabling options it presents would pose serious practical difficulties for party staff and members. This first option is to move party conferences to early September, immediately following the school summer holiday. Two central problems arise from this. The first is that moving party conferences into early September would require the TUC (Trades Union Congress) conference to take place in late August. Clearly, that would be unsatisfactory. What would compound the problem for the TUC, and is of direct concern to the Labour Party, is that moving the conference season earlier in September would require parties to undertake the most intense period of preparatory work in August. As you are well aware, for individuals working in the political world—which obviously extends beyond Westminster and Whitehall—August is often the only period in the year apart from Christmas when it is possible to take an extended holiday. Easter, for instance, often coincides with elections, and other possible holiday periods in the year are frequently disrupted by sudden events or political decisions such as the recent decision to hold Police and Crime Commissioner elections in November 2012. Although politics never stops, August is generally regarded as the period when the political world is at its quietest and when people in politics—MPs, peers, party staff and so on—plan their breaks. Scheduling party conferences in a way that would require so much of the preparatory work to be conducted in August would therefore disrupt the one real break in the political calendar, and the Labour Party does not favour this option. The second option your committee is exploring is whether party conference could be moved to late October/ early November, across the school half-term break. According to your proposal, it would seem that the Liberal cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w51

Democrat conference would take place the week before half-term, the Conservative conference would take place the week after, and the Labour conference would take place during the half-term week. Again, there are serious practical difficulties with this proposal. The Labour conference is attended by over 11,000 delegates, many of whom have children. Scheduling the conference in the middle of a half-term break would pose major difficulties for parents and would inevitably undermine attendance. We would be very concerned about changes that would prevent our delegates from taking part. Furthermore, it seems problematic and open to accusations of political bias to schedule one of the party conferences during a half-term holiday. Party conferences are key events in the political calendar and the only significant opportunity that political parties have to project their message directly to the public. Each party receives significant media coverage during its respective conference week and television news broadcasters are careful to ensure there is an even spread of coverage across the season. To schedule one party’s conference in half-term, when many people will be abroad or outside their normal routine, risks distorting the political playing field, which the committee would obviously wish to avoid. In summary, although I understand that there are some practical problems with the short September sitting of Parliament, requiring party conferences to be moved from their traditional position in response would only create bigger problems elsewhere. Iain McNicol General Secretary December 2011

Supplementary written evidence submitted by the House of Commons Trade Union Side (P 216, 2010–12) In our oral evidence to the Administration Committee during its inquiry into Catering and Retail Services, the TUS said that: When decisions are made about the House—specifically about the House and its business—the staff can be just outside the peripheral vision of those who are actually making those decisions. Sitting times are moved earlier, then they’re moved later; we have September sittings, we don’t have September sittings. The interests of staff don’t seem to be very high up the scale of priorities of people making those decisions, and there is an expectation that staff will simply adapt. First, we should state that we are pleased to have the opportunity to put the interests of staff to the Committee at an early stage of its inquiry. The issues alluded to above remain at the core of our concerns about possible changes to sitting hours and patterns, but with an important caveat; that potential changes in the industrial relations climate between the recognised trade unions and the House’s management mean that there is less of a guarantee that staff will simply adapt (as stated above) to any changes proposed by the Committee and agreed by the House. Lying behind the caveat mentioned above is the House of Commons Management Board’s Policies, Procedures and Practices (PPP) programme, which has as its stated objective a desire “to establish a complete framework of terms and conditions of service” for House of Commons staff. Few could argue with such a laudable intention; alas, a possible consequence of the programme is the replacement of the current settlement here—which has allowed the House to propose, amend and re-propose changes to its working patterns—with a less flexible and more bureaucratic arrangement that may make instant responsiveness by staff to changes in sitting hours a thing of the past. It is important to stress that the process by which an MP attends a sitting of the Chamber, a Westminster Hall debate or a sitting of a select or public bill committee requires a great deal of unseen work by staff here. As an example, the decision some years ago to allow some committees to sit at 8.55 am did not mean that staff facilitating those committees began their working day at 8.55 am; rather, they were required immediately to change whatever domestic and caring arrangements they might have created to enable themselves to be in Westminster well before 8.00 am. The two main areas on which we would wish to comment within the consultation paper are the proposal to move some private business from Fridays to Wednesday evenings, and the related proposal to designate all Fridays as constituency days on which Parliament will not sit. On the first, our initial concern is straightforward; the consequences of moving consideration of private bills to a Wednesday evening between 7.00 pm and 10.00 pm (or 6.00 pm and 9.00/10.00 pm if changes are agreed to Wednesday sitting hours) could be detrimental for staff contractually obliged to work to the rise of the House and beyond. Such a proposal, allowing for a full day of business and an Adjournment debate, would lead to a scheduled 11-hour day in the Chamber. Many staff, principally—but certainly not exclusively—in the Official Report, would be extremely wary of any proposal that resulted in them facing 11 hours in front of a computer terminal in an environment where they have no rostered breaks. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w52 Procedure Committee: Evidence

In general terms, the House is aware of and responsive to health and safety concerns raised by unions on behalf of staff. But any proposal to include an 11-hour day of scheduled business in each of the putative 34 weeks in which Parliament sits business is likely to lead to increased health risks for staff and, as such, is unlikely to be accepted by the trade unions without significant assurances and clarification being provided. The option to make Fridays constituency days, with no sittings of Parliament, is potentially problematic for catering and retail services in the House, and other areas. The introduction to the Administration Committee’s report on Catering and Retail Services in the House of Commons makes clear that the more sitting hours “are moved in what is loosely called a family friendly direction, the greater the loss of revenue to the Catering and Retail Service”. It is hard at this juncture to see how ending Friday sittings will do anything other than inflict further losses on Catering and Retail at a time when the service is under intense scrutiny in terms of the subsidy, footfall, income and cost. It should go without saying that catering services are provided to help Parliament do its job, and not the other way round. But the serious point here is that the loss of revenue alluded to in the Administration Committee’s report will almost certainly influence forthcoming discussions on business improvements, market testing and possible outsourcing of services to private contractors. In a culture of mutual respect and a shared understanding of the values involved with serving Parliament, staff and management have found little difficulty in adapting to the demands of the House, and of MPs individually, in terms of sitting patterns. Pay freezes, pension changes and the current industrial relations climate in the House, civil service and public sector more generally have undoubtedly had an effect on that culture. Some cognisance of this changing culture will be essential in any consideration of change—radical or otherwise—to existing sitting patterns and hours.

EarlierStartTimes There is reference to the possibility of starting at 8.00 am. This would mean that the (relatively small) group of staff whose work is directly connected with the Chamber would have to be in very early (by 6.30 am if the intention is to operate the way we presently do on other days). The problem here would also be that this is normally the same group of staff who are staying late on night duty. So if later sitting on Wednesday is preferred AND an early start on Thursday, staff may be asked to ﬁnish at midnight and then be in by 6.30 am, which is obviously not reasonable and represents a breach of the Working Time Regulations.

Later/EarlierFinishes on Wednesdays and Tuesdays In addition to the issues mentioned above, a later finish on Wednesday will result in a rise in night duty costs to pay people staffing offices during that time. There may also be a working time issue for some procedural offices, which generally have a staff of four working in pairs and alternating nights (team A does Mondays and Wednesdays and team B does Tuesdays and Thursdays). At the moment this works out with each pair doing a “late” and an “early” night and still usually doing way above their contracted hours as a result. If another late night is thrown into the mix, this may push the overall hours in the week above what the team could manage. On the other hand, the suggestion that Tuesdays could become an earlier night would reduce night duty hours and have the opposite effect. An issue to be aware of is that, as the paper says, it would reduce the amount of time available for committees to meet when the Chamber is not sitting. There are possible unintended consequences here—first, Committees could start meeting very early (say starting at 8.30 am—some of them do this on a Wednesday already). Or they could decide to meet in the evenings, say after 6.00 pm. That would have significant repercussions for staff in the Committee Office in terms of family friendly working or work/ life balance. There would also be an issue of paying these staff to cover unsocial working hours.

StaffLeaveArrangements The addition of more, shorter breaks (ie half terms) may be welcome to provide some respite from the pressure of sitting times, however, it is not likely to provide much extra opportunity for staff to take their contractual leave entitlement because of the need to be in to tidy up after the end of the sitting and then again to prepare before Members come back.

For example, few staff whose work is tied directly to the business of the House were able to take leave during the short November 2011 recess. This is particularly true in the Committee Ofﬁce. The new patterns may therefore restrict further the times available to have “proper” time off (for example, a two week holiday abroad) while perhaps providing more opportunity for the odd day off here and there.

In terms of the overall sitting pattern, there is likely to be the same split among staff with family commitments and those without as there is among Members. Many staff with children may welcome the cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w53

alignment of the parliamentary calendar with school holidays. Others without children may be very sorry to lose the option of taking holiday outside the school holidays when it is cheaper and less busy. December 2011

Written evidence submitted by the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) Parliamentary Group (P 219, 2010–12)

The Rt Hon Nigel Dodds MP, Parliamentary Leader of the DUP, thanks you for your letter of 14 November regarding the consultation on the sitting hours and the Parliamentary calendar.

He has asked that I respond to you on his and his colleagues behalf. The DUP Parliamentary Group met and discussed the issues raised. From their point of view they are happy that Monday and Tuesday remain as they are; they would be content for business on a Wednesday to ﬁnish earlier, eg 6.00 pm, and they also feel that we should keep Thursday and Friday as they are at present. Margaret McKee Whips Assistant and Administrator 4th Party Whips Ofﬁce House of Commons December 2011

Written evidence submitted by the Clerk of the House of Commons and Chief Executive of the House Service (P 220, 2010–12)

Introduction

1. The Chair of the Committee has written to request my views, as Chief Executive, on the merits and practical effects of the possible changes to sitting times and the calendar canvassed in the Committee’s consultation document, and in particular to provide “as detailed as possible an estimate of the likely effect on costs of the options; and insofar as they are not covered by the cost implications, an indication of the likely effects, especially of proposals to bring sitting times forward, on other aspects of the administration of the House which you consider relevant”.

2. The Committee also seeks my views as Clerk of the House on the likely effect of these options on the effectiveness of the House in its various tasks, especially scrutinising legislation and holding Government to account. It is not clear to me that any of the proposed changes, in themselves, would have any particular effect on these aspects of the House’s work. One exception might be the reduced ability of Members to question Ministers during a long Summer recess; but this has been mitigated in the past by making it possible for Members to table, and receive answers to, written questions over the Summer. I would of course be happy to discuss this issue further when I meet the Committee.

3. I am grateful for the chance to comment on the financial and other administrative implications of the ideas canvassed in the Committee’s consultation document. In summary, the message of this paper is that: — overall, the kinds of change to the annual calendar suggested in the consultation document would have only marginal financial consequences, but — changes to sitting hours will have a more significant impact on staffing arrangements, mainly for staff supporting the work of the Chamber. The House Service will of course support the work of the Chamber on whatever days and times it wishes to sit, but there may be additional cost, which will need to be accommodated within an austere financial climate and a reducing budget. From the perspective of the House Service, the key issues are as much certainty and stability as possible, regardless of the particular sitting patterns that the House may decide to adopt.

4. As the Committee will appreciate, one of the difficulties in giving a more detailed estimate of the financial and other impacts of particular scenarios is that they cannot be disaggregated from the impact of other decisions by the House and the House administration. These include changes arising from the Commission’s savings programme, including proposals for income generation which the Commission has asked the Management Board to explore, and long-term decisions on the refurbishment of the Estate. It is also, of course, difficult to provide a more definitive statement on financial and other estimates before the Committee brings forward detailed proposals for change.

5. I will of course be happy to enlarge on the points in this paper when I give oral evidence to the Committee. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w54 Procedure Committee: Evidence

Changes toDailySittingHours Costs: background 6. There are three costs to consider: the fixed cost of running the House; the cost of a daily sitting; and the additional cost of the House sitting beyond a certain point in the evening. 7. Most of the House’s operating costs are fixed: staff salaries, ICT, security, accommodation and other facilities. These do not vary greatly with changes in the length or number of sitting days, or the pattern of the annual calendar. The average fixed cost borne by the House of Commons of running Parliament in the financial year 2010–11 was £3.77 million per week—that is, £195.9 million divided by 52.39 This cost is based on the House potentially being open for business throughout the year. In practice, the House sits for about 145 days per year.40 8. The average marginal daily operating cost of a sitting, calculated as the sum that might on average be saved if there was not a sitting on an expected sitting day or which might be incurred if there were an additional unplanned sitting, is estimated at about £20,000. 9. The marginal costs associated with different daily sitting and rising times primarily comprise Hansard printing costs, which reflect the overall length of a sitting, and additional costs of staff required to work until the House rises. Staff support for the Chamber includes Hansard, Doorkeepers, the Table, Journal and Public Bill Offices; other services involve security, Library and catering staff. Further additional costs include staff late night transport (a cost which is mostly incurred only if the House sits after 11.00 pm), overtime payments, and occasionally overnight accommodation costs when there is insufficient accommodation on the Estate for staff. 10. When the House rises between after 6.00 pm but before 11.00 pm, as is currently standard on Wednesdays and Thursdays, average estimated additional marginal costs of £3,300 are incurred compared with those of a sitting which ends before 6.00 pm. When the House sits beyond 11.00 pm, as is currently common on Mondays and Tuesdays, there are average additional marginal costs of around £9,300 compared with those of a sitting which ends before 6.00 pm. Because Fridays are shorter sitting days, the average marginal cost of a Friday sitting is about £1,250 less than a sitting on another day which ends before 6.00 pm. These figures relate only to the budget of the Department of Chamber and Committee Services (DCCS), but that covers the great majority of such costs. There are some other small additional costs arising from late night sittings, for example some late night travel costs for non-DCCS staff. 11. The other principal marginal cost we have identified of the House sitting in the evenings is staffing the Members’ Library. This is staffed on Tuesdays and Wednesdays from 6.00 pm until 10.00 pm or until the rising of the House if later. Nine staff are normally on duty; this figure reduces to seven after 10.30 pm. The overall marginal cost of staffing the Members’ Library after 6.00 pm is around £120 per hour.41

Impact of proposed changes to sitting hours: staff supporting the Chamber 12. The biggest impact of any of the proposed changes on staff would arise from making either Tuesday or Wednesday a longer sitting day than at present, by moving consideration of private Members’ bills forward from Fridays. Under this model, the House would either (a) meet at 11.30 (or earlier) on Tuesday and sit until 10.00 pm, taking private Members’ bills at 7.00 pm; or (b) have an earlier start and finish on Tuesdays and extend the Wednesday sitting until 10.00 pm, with private Members’ bills being taken between 7.00 pm and 10.00 pm. 13. Under either of these scenarios the gap in hours between the actual time at which staff finish work—in the case of Hansard staff and some Table Office staff this can be up to 90 minutes after the rising of the House—and the time they have to report for work the next day would become intolerably and indeed illegally short. It would allow for a break of less than 11 hours between working days. For instance, Hansard’s reporting of the Chamber relies on a single shift arrangement, which can be an occasional “long” shift. This would not be sustainable if on a regular basis there were two successive days with only a short break between rising and meeting times. It might prove necessary for the Editor of Hansard to seek to use other reporting staff to report the House, with adverse consequences for the production of general committee reports. The alternative would be a more fundamental review of staffing patterns (see paragraph 15 below).The latter approach would generate additional cost. Staff in the Legislation Service who support General Committees already have to start very early on Thursdays to prepare for Committee meetings. Many of them also undertake night duty in addition to clerking General Committees in the evenings. It is not clear from the Committee’s consultation document what changes are proposed (if any) to the timing of general committee meetings, for instance allowing them to meet 39 These figures exclude one-off technical accounting adjustments in 2010–11 (notably the credit for the pension change from RPI to CPI indexation of pensions and valuation adjustments) and historic pension interest costs. The House of Lords is charged around £31 million each year for services delivered by the Commons (weekly average £0.6 million). These include services associated with the estate, accommodation, security and ICT. In addition, the Lords are charged separately by the Metropolitan Police Service for security services delivered through the bicameral MPS contract. 40 Average based on the 2005–10 Parliament. 41 Were the House to adopt a significantly earlier finishing time on Thursdays, the Library could adopt an earlier standard closing time on Thursdays, with a knock-on effect on staff hours and marginal costs. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w55

during Question Time, but clearly the options canvassed in the Committee’s paper could have an additional impact on staff supporting such committees. 14. Some staff attending the Chamber also have other primary roles. For instance, staff on division duty may start the day, often early, working for their select committee (their main job) and then take divisions in the evening. Hansard sub-editors can be required to work late in the Chamber one day and then attend a Committee debate early the following morning. Doorkeepers start early and are required to stay until the end of the sitting, and sometimes beyond. The length of a parliamentary day for staff—as for Members—is therefore not tied to the sitting times of the Chamber, but is affected by business in the broadest sense. 15. Without changes in our staffing patterns, there would be increased potential for the House to be unable to comply with working time regulations. If we maintained the present single shift/long day approach to delivering support to the Chamber, we would be likely to change the work/life balance of all the staff concerned, and thus potentially the chances of increase staff fatigue, or indeed exhaustion and work-related injuries, as well as running counter to the House Service’s efforts to be a good employer attracting and retaining staff with a wide range of personal circumstances including, of course, family responsibilities. Overall there would be an incalculable but inevitable effect on the working rhythms of Chamber-related staff if the same number of total annual sitting hours were to be squeezed into fewer sitting days. 16. If the House decided to make such a change permanently we would need to consider changing the staffing models for staff supporting the Chamber. The current reward structure provides for some additional hours allowance to be paid for hours beyond the usual daytime hours; it is under review. This is causing understandable concern among staff and inevitably shapes reaction to the prospect of changes to sitting times. The review includes an exercise in time recording by staff, currently under way. In due course, we should have sufficient data to establish the likely impact on costs of any changes in hours and any new staffing arrangements that would be required. 17. I can of course assure the Committee that the Chamber can be supported on whatever days and times it wishes to sit. This is absolutely central to our task as a House Service but, as I have explained, may involve additional costs, for example for additional staff in the Official Report, the Table, Journal and Public Bill Offices and the Serjeant at Arms Directorate (Doorkeepers). The principal desire of Chamber staff and those who manage them is for a degree of certainty, and for confidence that once decisions are taken by the House on sitting times they are adhered to for a reasonable period.

Impact on other areas of the House service Estates 18. Earlier sitting times on Tuesdays could mean some increased costs of standby services linked to the Chamber such as lifts and annunciators, and there would also be less time for noisy and disruptive work. More non-sitting Fridays would, however, mean reduced Chamber-related costs. Such Fridays could also provide more time for disruptive work, including that displaced from Tuesdays, but this would be affected by any decision to increase the number of visitors’ tours (see paragraph 20 below). Subject to this point, the net impact of changed sitting hours on the work of the Parliamentary Estates Department would be broadly neutral.

Tours 19. Bringing forward the sitting times on a Tuesday from 2.30 pm to 11.30 am would mean about 750 fewer people would be able to go on tours each day (based on approximately 38 tours a day). Each tour can contain the groups of several Members. For Members’ tours, the overarching issue therefore is maintaining the number of hours on weekdays when the House service can offer tours—for example, if some time were lost on Tuesday mornings, we would need to be able to make it up on, say, Thursday afternoons or Fridays. 20. If the House gave up all Friday sittings, it should be possible to run more tours overall. (At present, if either House is sitting on a Friday, Members’ tours can only be run between 3.00 pm and 5.00 pm.) These extra Fridays could be used for additional Members’ tours, for commercial tours (on the same basis as the current Saturday tours), or a combination of both. The ﬁnancial impact would of course depend on the model adopted. A decision would also be needed on whether to use any additional Fridays for tours, or for Estates work displaced from other times in the week (see paragraph 18 above), or a balance of the two. Commercial tours are not currently available on Fridays because tickets are offered for sale six months in advance and it is not possible at present to identify with certainty all the Fridays on which neither House will be sitting. Certainty that the House of Commons would not usually sit on any Friday would therefore be helpful in this respect. But as full tours of the Palace can only be run when neither House is sitting, the maximum beneﬁt would be derived from greater certainty about sitting and non-sitting Fridays in the Lords as well as the Commons. It would be possible to run Commons-only tours, but these would be shorter and fewer could be run each day. (See paragraphs 30–32 for the impact on tours of changes in the annual calendar.)

Catering and Retail Services (CRS) 21. An earlier start on Tuesdays could generate higher lunchtime sales and thus some reduction in the subsidy. There would be no change to staff costs, despite the change to an earlier start in the Chamber, as staff cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w56 Procedure Committee: Evidence

are already in post. A later sitting on Wednesday might increase turnover in catering outlets. It has been agreed that the Churchill Room should be turned over to banqueting events on Wednesday evenings,42 if the changed sitting time led to it reverting to a dining room there could be an increase in the catering subsidy due to the difference in gross profit (assuming staff costs are the same). 22. One marginal cost associated with evening sittings is the use of late night transport by some catering staff. Analysis of its use does not show any particular variation from day to day, so at this stage it is not possible to estimate what the impact of a later sitting on Wednesday might be. 23. Were the House to rise earlier on Thursdays, some places which open in the evening or for dinner, such as the Members’ Tea Room, Adjournment, Churchill Room and Debate might close earlier. The financial impact would depend on whether or not the staff could be redeployed elsewhere. 24. We would expect to close the Members’ Tea Room and the Strangers Dining Room on all Fridays (they currently open only on sitting Fridays). There would be a reduction in the subsidy if staff costs could be saved as a result. Turnover in cafeterias might fall due were fewer staff and Members’ staff to be present on the Estate on Fridays. If this became an established pattern, we would have to consider closing one of the cafeterias on Fridays. Experience suggests there is unlikely to be any increase in income from private functions as Members are generally unlikely to be present to sponsor events on non-sitting Fridays. 25. The financial impact on Catering and Retail Services of any of these changes would be affected were it decided, as part of the Savings Programme, to make the outlets concerned available for income generation purposes. 26. It follows from this that there would be some marginal savings if the House no longer sat on the current 13 Fridays per year, and further marginal savings if the House sat less frequently after 6.00 pm or 11.00 pm. There might also be some additional income were it decided to run commercial tours on non-sitting Fridays and these tours generated an overall profit. Overall it is difficult to calculate how big any savings would be, but it is unlikely that they would be especially significant as a proportion of the total cost of running the House of Commons.

Changes to theParliamentaryCalendar The works programme 27. Much of the Estates work takes place throughout the year irrespective of the length of the summer recess, as experience has shown that concentrating activity in the summer recess—even a nine-week recess— can lead to increased risk and cost, and possibly lower quality, as work is rushed to meet the end-of-recess deadline. Furthermore, relying solely on the summer recess to carry out works would increase the time required to deliver the programme, and hence lead to increased cost. 28. There are advantages associated with the model of regular four/five week sittings followed by a week’s recess, as this would provide greater flexibility to plan noisy investigations and intrusive building work during the year. 29. On the other hand, some earlier 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. In that respect either option canvassed by the Committee would be manageable.

Tours 30. In general, longer recesses allow Visitor Services to manage the commercial summer opening more efficiently. While staffing costs are not affected by sitting patterns, several shorter separate sitting periods (the four/five week sitting followed by a week’s recess) would affect marketing and awareness in the travel trade, and consequently reduce ticket income (which is maximised when recesses coincide with school holidays). The maximum degree of certainty over sitting days and times (for both Houses, as noted above) would help Visitor Services with their planning and marketing for school groups and other visitors. 31. Bringing the party conferences forward in the year, with the House returning in late September, would be beneficial for commercial tours. Demand for tours is likely to be higher in early, compared to late, September and the nine-week recess model would also allow for a single run of summer opening. 32. The Education Service’s “Discover Parliament” programme (a concentrated programme for A-level politics students) takes place during September when schools are back but the Houses are not sitting. This allows a large number of student visitors during this period, with Member involvement varying by party around party conferences. If the party conferences were brought forward to the first three weeks of September the 42 Ref to Admin Committee report and response. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w57

programme could still run, but take-up would be reduced in the ﬁrst week. If the conferences were moved back to October/November, the Discover Parliament programme could be run at the same time and demand would be likely to increase.

General 33. Both the options for changing the calendar assume that the House would continue to sit for roughly 34 weeks a year. We therefore do not believe that either would have a significant or unmanageable impact on staffing arrangements or costs. Staff in some departments are more affected by the sitting calendar of the House than others, of course. Staff in the Department of Chamber and Committee Services (DCCS), for instance, are generally not permitted to take leave when the House is sitting. These staff may have to work, for example in preparing for Committee meetings, in the regular one-week recesses proposed under one of the models, so the model of a shorter summer recess might cause managers problems in allowing staff to take their annual leave entitlement. Managers in other departments have also noted that a longer (nine-week) recess gives more opportunity to manage staff leave and training. In Catering and Retail Services, managing staff leave and training under the shorter recess option could lead to more use of agency staff and casuals, and thus generate additional cost, to be offset against the benefit from increased turnover in catering outlets and banqueting during the earlier return in September. 34. I look forward to discussing matters further with the Committee. Robert Rogers Clerk of the House of Commons and Chief Executive of the House Service January 2012

Written evidence submitted by the Leader of the House of Commons (P 223, 2010–12) Introduction 1. Thank you for your letter of 14 November seeking the Government’s views on the Procedure Committee’s consultation on Sittings of the House and the Parliamentary Calendar. In view of the wide range of options canvassed in your paper and your timetable, I do not propose to set out a Government position on these matters at this stage. 2. I nevertheless thought it would be helpful to write to you to set out my own views on some of the matters you are considering, in advance of oral evidence. 3. When your Report on this matter is published, the Government will aim to provide a response setting out its position in advance of any debate on the Report.

OverallApproach 4. You acknowledge in the Introduction to your paper that there are an “almost inﬁnite number of options for reform”. Although you identify a number of separate options in the paper, I believe it will be important to explore further the interaction between the various options (and in some cases their incompatibility). I believe that these matters should be identiﬁed so that the House is presented with a manageable number of coherent and internally consistent proposals. In short, it would be more helpful for the House to be presented with set menu, rather than a buffet from which to pick and choose.

OverallSittingPatterns (The ParliamentaryCalendar) 5. I note that the evidence you have taken so far “suggests that the current balance between the number of sitting days and the number of non-sitting days across the year is broadly correct”. This is also my own personal view. 6. In terms of the distribution of those days, although the House of Commons has on occasions expressed views on September sittings, most notably on 15 June 2010 when the House supported meeting in September 2010, the general arrangement of the calendar of the House has been seen as a matter for successive Governments. The Government has to take into account a range of factors in setting out a parliamentary calendar and bringing forward speciﬁc motions for a decision by the House on individual recesses. One factor that needs to be borne in mind in Government proposals on the calendar is the sitting patterns of the House of Lords and the roles of each House in relation to the legislative programme. Although you refer in the second bullet to paragraph seven to “Parliament” returning at a certain time, I have assumed that all your options in fact relates to the House of Commons alone. 7. Even though your suggestions for changes to the party conferences are only intended to come into effect in 2015, I wonder whether the options are realistic, even over that timetable. A party conference starting in the week of the August bank holiday would pose very considerable problems for all participants, not the least of which would relate to accommodation availability and costs. It also has profound implications for the timing cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w58 Procedure Committee: Evidence

of other events which take place close to the time of party conferences, such as the annual meeting of the Trades Union Congress. I have no doubt that you will wish to consult each political party and other affected organisations on your proposals. 8. I note that your Committee is minded to propose that the House should be invited to decide whether it wishes to continue to sit in September. I trust that you will wish to present the House all relevant evidence on the implications of such a change for the timings of other recesses: as the Modernisation Committee observed in its Report on Sitting Hours in 2005, “There is no easy option of simply abolishing the September sitting without reducing commensurately the length of one or more of the other recesses”. The House will presumably also wish to consider the effects of the length of the summer recess on public perceptions, on the ability of the House to hold the executive to account and on the likelihood of the House being recalled.

SittingPatterns in aWeek 9. You state that “there are complaints about the consequences of the programming of bills for the time available for debate but very little appetite for a return to regular late night sittings” and you refer later to an intention to examine “ways to ameliorate the dissatisfaction with the number of amendments which fail ever to be discussed as a consequence of programming”. While I would agree with the latter part of the first sentence cited from my own conversations with colleagues, I would urge the Committee not to treat complaints about programming and the problems which underlie them as being consistent through time. Programming has operated with much less contention during the current Session than in Sessions that preceded it. To take two pieces of supporting evidence from among many: the proportion of Programme Motions immediately following Second Reading that has been the subject of divisions has fallen to 44% in the current Session (from 89% in 2001–02) and the number of Public Bill Committees that have finished their work ahead of the deadline has increased to 81% in the current Session (compared with 19% in 2001–02). It remains the Government’s intention to allow adequate time for the House to consider the legislative programme. 10. I note that you have detected little appetite for changes to Monday sitting hours. I hope that you will not rule out consideration of options for at least rearranging the business on that day, so that, for example, the moment of interruption might be 9.00 pm, with questions taken thereafter. 11. I note your intention to re-examine the case for sitting at 11.30 am on Tuesdays, which I personally favour. In doing so, I am sure you will bear in mind that a change would have significant consequences for Public Bill Committees and select committees. With respect to the former, if the House decided to revert to an 11.30 am start, Public Bill Committees would start earlier in the morning (after a late night on Monday), as they did when the House sat at 11.30 am between January 2003 and May 2005.

ProvidingCertainty about when Members areRequired to bePresent in the House 12. I note your intention to examine the means and consequences of providing Members with greater certainty about when they would be required in the House. I am happy to be asked about these issues when I give oral evidence, although I believe there are very substantial difﬁculties with all of the options canvassed. Some of the possibilities to which you refer would be incompatible what the House of Commons Reform Committee referred to as “the Government’s right to have the opportunity to put its legislative and other propositions to the House, at a day of its choosing”. The issues raised by these options also go far wider than issues relating to the sittings of the House.

Private Members’ Bills 13. In the light of your stated intention to consider further the merits and consequences of moving debate on private Members’ bills to a Tuesday or Wednesday evening, it might be worth recalling what your own predecessors and the Modernisation Committee said on the subject. 14. In November 2003, the then Procedure Committee, like its own predecessors in 1995, did not recommend any procedural changes. It pointed out that “changing the rules would not necessarily result in a higher success rate—it might simply result in opposition manifesting itself at different stages”. 15. In its Report on Sitting Hours published in January 2005, the Modernisation Committee concluded: “It seems certain to us that private Members’ bills, if they were taken on a weekday evening, would often become whipped business. Not only would this lead to a day with 11 hours or more of whipped business, it would fundamentally change the character of the proceedings, with the intrusion of whipping into time which has so far been at the free disposal of backbenchers; there might also be other, less predictable changes. It could result in legislative business being settled very late in the evening on those occasions when Government business continued much beyond 7 pm [ . . . ] Our judgement is that it would not be right for such a major overhaul of private Members’ bills procedure to happen as a by-product of changes to the sitting hours of the House. We recommend that private Members’ bills should retain their place on 13 Fridays each year for the time being, until we have had an opportunity to carry out a comprehensive review of the purpose of private Members’ bills and of PMB procedure, consulting with the Procedure Committee which has investigated this matter.” cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w59

16. The position adopted by the Modernisation Committee that it would not be right for “a major overhaul of private Members’ bills procedure to happen as a by-product of changes to the sitting hours of the House” seems a very sensible one.

InjuryTime 17. I understand the concerns about the effects on the time available for subsequent business of Ministerial Statements and urgent questions. The Government have so far made 173 oral statements this session, an average of 0.7 statements per sitting day. This compares with an average of 0.4 statements per sitting day during the 2009–10 session. Additionally, of course, the number of urgent questions has increased dramatically under the current Speaker. These trends are, of course, a function of the House’s wish to hold Ministers fully to account in relation to new policy and current events, and I would argue that any adverse consequences for consideration of subsequent legislative business have been significantly reduced by the Government’s flexible approach to programming of report stage in the current Parliament. 18. The Committee refers to its intention to examine further the use of “injury time”, notably in the context of Ministerial Statements. In 2007, the Modernisation Committee concluded that “injury time would run counter to the objective of some recent reforms and we are not persuaded that the benefits of injury time would outweigh the loss of predictability”. During your recent inquiry on Ministerial Statements, I said that I thought “the House puts a premium on the certainty of knowing when business will end”. This remains my view. 19. I made proposals for time limits on certain statements to alleviate the effects of an extended time for statements, which your Committee did not support. I refer to another option in the next section of this letter, and I am very happy to give evidence on other possible solutions, including the idea that the House might sit earlier for statements either in Westminster Hall or the Chamber and then be suspended until question time.

Westminster Hall 20. When the Modernisation Committee ﬁrst proposed the establishment of the parallel Chamber in Westminster Hall, that Committee’s express intention was that Westminster Hall should “offer fresh opportunities for backbench Members and enable the House to hold the Government to account on a wider range of issues” (my emphasis). The Modernisation Committee stated that it was not the purpose of Westminster Hall to enable the Government to expand its legislative programme, but envisaged Westminster Hall being used for novel kinds of business or new approaches to existing business, including second readings of non-controversial bills and “prayers” against statutory instruments which might not otherwise be debated at all. 21. More recently, in evidence to your Committee, Hilary Benn said that he favoured “looking at the possibility of using Westminster Hall for some oral statements”. In my evidence I described that an “interesting proposition”, although I raised the issue of whether that would be while the House was sitting or earlier. In your Report, you said that you were “not yet persuaded” about this idea, but went on to say: “We may, however, revisit this questions in the future once we have assessed the effectiveness of the other changes recommended in this report”. 22. In your consultation paper, you state that you intend to examine “further use of Westminster Hall for some backbench business”. It would appear from this that you do not intend to explore options for the more imaginative use of Westminster Hall to hold Ministers to account, including its use for certain Ministerial statements in some circumstances, during the current inquiry. I would regard as a great pity if the opportunity were not taken, in this inquiry or a separate inquiry, to look again at the range of possible uses of time in Westminster Hall. Rt Hon Sir George Young Bt MP January 2012

Written evidence submitted by the Liberal Democrat Federal Conference Committee (P 224, 2010–12) Thank you for your letter attaching the consultation on the possibility of moving the autumn party conferences. This has been considered by our Federal Conference Committee which is charged by our constitution to organise the two Federal conferences we have each year. As you recognise any changes needs to be programmed well in advance given the need to book venues and liaise with various stakeholders and the other political parties. We are very mindful of the issues raised in the consultation and are keen to assist wherever possible. There are a number of issues to consider when looking at the length of and at the date we hold our conference. Although you only refer to our autumn conference, as a party we hold two conferences each year and each holds the same status as the other. The only difference is that the spring conference is over a weekend whereas cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w60 Procedure Committee: Evidence

the autumn conference lasts five days. Given the gap between the two conferences this means that if our autumn conferences moves substantially there will be a knock on effect on our spring conference. Moving our spring conference approximately six weeks later would cause considerable difficulty including potential clashes with Easter and the May local elections. We also believe it would be harder to secure suitable venues for a conference in November as proposed. There are a limited number of venues in the country able to host the political conferences and many of these have repeat bookings in the final months of the year. Given the impact on our spring conference and problems over venues we would be unlikely to support a move to a November conference. We would be willing to look at moving our conference forward by a week. This would need the agreement of all the other political parties and TUC with all conference moving forward by a week. There would be concerns at moving our conference forward by more than a week as we would find ourselves clashing with a bank holiday weekend which would cause a problem with booking hotels and impact on school holidays. We have looked at whether our conference could be made shorter. Given the nature of our conference and the business we have to get through we would not be in a position to reduce the length of our conference. December 2011

Responses to November 2011 Consultation document on Sittings of the House and the Parliamentary Calendar (P 198, 2010–12) John Mann MP (Labour, Bassetlaw) Any move to switch private Members’ bills away from Fridays would be welcome and would allow more non-London and Home Counties participation. 15 November 2011

Justin Tomlinson MP (Conservative, North Swindon) Overall Sitting Patterns I agree that the number of sitting days should remain broadly consistent with current levels as it reﬂects the time we need to carry out traditional parliamentary and constituency duties. I would welcome both the proposed alternative calendars over the current system, though the six week x six sitting proposal would be better as it allows greater time to complete work during sitting blocks. I would support the parties moving party conference to allow these proposed changes.

Sitting Patterns in the Week I agree that the present number of hours the House sits a week is appropriate. If we had earlier sittings on Mondays this would make it very difﬁcult for some MPs to travel down in time. It is also useful to have “clear time” on Monday mornings to clear casework/prepare for the week. I would welcome moving Private Members Bills from Friday’s to traditional sitting days, either after the House has sat or through additional time in Westminster Hall.

Providing certainty about when Members are required to be present in the House I agree that the lack of notice causing real problems. Too often we “gain” constituency time, but we don’t have time to ﬁll them effectively. I would welcome no Friday sittings as the Friday constituency days are essential to be effective representatives of our local communities.

Private Members’ Bills I would welcome any moves to keep Fridays clear for constituency days which are essential to be effective representatives of our local communities. I would support private Members’ bills moving to either Tuesday or Wednesday evenings, though I think Wednesdays would be best due to the potential issue of earlier Tuesday sitting clashing with committees. I believe we need to keep the 100 threshold to show it is of sufﬁcient interest to merit further consideration. (This would also be easier to achieve as unlike Fridays we are already here in Parliament) I believe there is merit in considering deferred division for the private Members’ bills. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w61

I would set time limits on speeches, and introduce time-limiting to allow private Members’ bills to get a fair crack of the whip. 15 November 2011

Mr Brian H Donohoe MP (Labour, Central Ayrshire) If Tuesdays don’t stay the same I will not be able to maintain outside interests such as being chairman of the charity THRIVE and continue as a special constable in the British Transport Police. 15 November 2011

Mr Bill Esterson MP (Labour, Sefton Central) I agree with for Tuesday to Thursday sittings being 10.30 to 6.00 or 11.30 to 7.00 with private Members’ bills on Tuesday and Wednesday evenings. 15 November 2011

Martin Horwood MP (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham) Can I thank you and the Procedure Committee for such a serious and thoughtful piece of work which makes the first real attempt to do something about our often crazy situation that I have known since I was elected in 2005. The current arrangements can make family life very difficult, are often skewed against private members’ legislation and are vulnerable to attempts either by government or by a very small of private members to stifle debate. I have a few comments: — The proposal to move private members’ legislation to Wednesday evenings is an excellent one. It would be much less disruptive to constituency work than sitting Fridays and much more likely to allow bills with real support to proceed. — The various reforms to protect private Members’ bills from being talked out or attending member’s time being completely wasted are also welcome but the one other way to kibosh private Members’ bills being used at the moment by Christopher Chope and others is the tabling of dozens of their own bills which then occupy all the possible slots for private member’s legislation. My own Tied Public Houses Bill which is being discussed as a potentially serious reform by ministers, the pub industry, campaigning groups like Camra and many honourable members on all sides of the house is probably going to be killed off on 25 November by Mr Chope and a couple of others using this technique. If it is within your remit, I would welcome a suggested reform that limited the number of private member’s bills that any one member can promote at a time. — The suggested reforms to sitting hours would be welcome, especially earlier finishes on Wednesday and Thursdays which would enable those of us with young families to see them just a bit more often. The only one that hardly seems worthwhile is the proposed slightly earlier shift on Tuesdays. This would not be enough to actually let those of us who have to travel any distance get home but it would be enough to make morning tours of the House of Commons awkward for visitors. — I am very strongly against moving breaks in the parliamentary calendar away from school half-terms for obvious reasons. This would rule out one of the proposed calendars. — I am against September sittings in general even if they mean Parliament sits for less time—because this is currently the only time of year when we can easily visit school classes in term-time, because it disrupts maintenance work, because it panders to the myth that time spent working in the constituency is “holiday” and because I think short mini-sittings are proving unsatisfactory—but if they are to be a permanent fixture, I think either the status quo or your “early conference” calendar would be much better than the “late conference” idea which would take conferences into even worse weather, closer to the busy autumn period when Christmas is looming and generally break up the flow of parliamentary business even more. — I would very much welcome the reforms to make parliamentary time more manageable—such as greater advance notice of business and timed voting—but I notice you are also alert to the unacceptable loss of debating time on later strings of amendments. Any reform should not make this very unsatisfactory situation worse and if possible improve it. The House of Lords even have predictable speaking slots but I guess that’s too much to hope for. Some way of avoiding having to spend five hours on the bench and then not be called would be even better. 15 November 2011

Chris Bryant MP (Labour, Rhondda) The present system of private Members’ bills is fundamentally ﬂawed. It is capricious in that it relies on a ballot for the top places on Fridays and is dependent on Friday attendance. It is whimsical as bills can fall simply because they have been talked out on a Friday morning or because the bill before them in the queue was talked out. It leaves too much control in the hands of the government and the whips who decide both whether to allow a committee stage for a bill that has passed through second reading and who gets a 10 minute cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w62 Procedure Committee: Evidence

rule bill slot. It is also nearly always a nugatory exercise as out of the hundred or so bills commenced every year barely a handful make it onto the statute book and the vast majority lapse at the end of the parliamentary session. Hours are wasted and resources are devoted to drafting and printing bills that everyone knows are going nowhere. Yet the principle that any member can initiate legislation is vitally important and some of the most signiﬁcant legislation has been advanced through private members bills. The abolition of the death penalty, the legalisation of homosexuality and abortion and many other changes were brought forward through this route. I would therefore recommend: (a) Instead of a ballot on private members, anyone wishing to advance a private Members’ bill would be invited to submit their name and short and long title and there would be a ﬁrst past the post ballot of all members to determine the order for taking second readings. (b) Ten minute rule bills should be abolished and their place taken by 10 minute debates on EDMs, still allowing for an opposing speech and a division. (c) Second reading debates for private Members’ bills should be moved to Tuesday and Wednesday evenings from 7.00 pm to 10.00 pm. (Clearly this would also require starting Tuesdays like Wednesdays, at 11.30 am). (d) The Tuesday and Wednesday evening slots should be managed by the backbench business committee, who should determine when report stage and third readings shall be taken. (e) A second reading debate should last the same as a secondary legislation debate—1½ hours—at the end of which the House decides whether to send the bill to committee. There should be no means of talking a bill out. (f) Any private member’s bill that completes second reading should be guaranteed a committee stage within six weeks. (g) It should be possible for the Speaker to limit the length of speeches at report stage if necessary (this should also apply in all report stage debates). (h) No new private member’s bill should start in the last two months of a session unless it is granted carry over into the next session. 15 November 2011

Chris GraylingMP (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell) I would just like to register my strong support for changing the hours of Tuesday to the equivalent of the current Wednesday hours. The new rules for expenses and second homes mean that more MPs are now commuting for up to an hour and a half at the end of the working day. If we have two votes at 10.00 pm this means getting home at midnight, and if we have a 9.00 am meeting, leaving again at 7.30 am. This is OK for one night a week, but not two. 15 November 2011

Dominic Raab MP (Conservative, Esher and Walton) I support starting the House business at 9.00 am on every day except Monday (8.00 am is tough for those commuting up to an hour like myself, especially if Monday sits late). More generally, clashes between MPs’ commitments already exist, so that is not a good reason for maintaining the current hours which are especially family-unfriendly. 16 November 2011

Chris Kelly MP (Conservative, Dudley South) Personally I do not wish to see any changes to the start times for Monday (2.30 pm), Tuesday (12.30 am), Wednesday (11.30 am) or Thursday (10.30 am). On sitting hours I am happy with the status quo. If we are kept in the House on Monday and/or Tuesday night until the adjournment debate begins some time after 10.30 pm I do not think it is unreasonable to not be back in the Chamber until 2.30 pm on Tuesday and 11.30 am on Wednesday, especially for those of us who do not have SW1 accommodation. Far fewer of the 2010 intake have SW1 accommodation, and therefore have to travel further to get into the Commons each day, than previously as we are very conscious of our IPSA expenses. I would be happy to see the 13 Fridays each session scrapped (to allow every Friday to be a constituency Friday) and move consideration of private Members’ bills to 24 Wednesday evenings between 7.00 pm and 10.00 pm. On the parliamentary calendar I am open minded but, like most Members, I am not in favour of the current conﬁguration of the long summer recess, coming back for less than two weeks, and then breaking up again for cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w63

the conference season. As you say, a lot depends on the political parties co-operating with moving conference timings around after 2015. 16 November 2011

Stephen Phillips QC MP (Conserative, Sleaford & North Hykeham) May I offer the following (personal) views on some of the matters on which you are consulting. 1. For those of us who continue to work outside the House, the current pattern of sitting during the week is of assistance. I believe, and so do many of my constituents, that having (and having had) outside interests is important to the work of the House and enables better and more informed debate, provided that members place their duties to their constituents and those they must perform in the House ﬁrst. Parliament has become a poorer place, and less able effectively to hold the Government to account, with the rise of the professional politician. 2. I would not therefore favour any alteration to the times of sitting, other (which I imagine would be a minority view) that a 2.30 pm start on Wednesdays, which I also believe would enable the House to attract more members from a wider background and with a broader degree of experience. 3. Set voting times are essential. These would enable members to schedule their days constructively by engaging outside the House without the necessity to be present on three line running whips when a great deal of time is wasted which could be used constructively. All motions debated by the House on a particular day should be voted on at the end of the sitting that day; programming motions appropriately tabled (and if necessary debated) in advance. This would also enable those of us with young families to return to our London homes for dinner, baths and bedtimes, at least on Mondays and Tuesdays. This place is extremely hard on families, particularly those of government back benchers, and a career here is, I imagine, extraordinarily difﬁcult for women upon whom, whatever men would like to think, the largest burdens of family life still fall. We will not encourage more women to become members unless this reform is progressed. 17 November 2011

Rt Hon John F Spellar MP (Labour, Warley) I would argue that the September sitting does not work particularly well which was the reason why the previous experiment was abandoned. In my experience Members of Parliament usually take their holidays in August and focus on constituency work during September or vice versa. This makes it much more difficult for Members to get a decent run at visits and going round the doorsteps of their constituency. Similarly I am unimpressed with the November break which due to the very short days makes it extremely difficult to get out and about onto the doorsteps in constituencies quite apart from questions of the weather. With regard to a shorter length of the summer recess, particularly with the large amount of refurbishing work that is necessary, the Committee need to take account of the considerable extra cost involved in resetting the Commons and interrupting the maintenance work. Moving onto the sitting patterns during the week, I am not sure that with the new IPSA regulations, for Home Counties Members, that bringing forward committee meetings on a Tuesday would be particularly attractive. Furthermore for those with constituencies outside the M25, Tuesday is probably the best day on which school parties and other groups can come down to Parliament to then be able to see much of the Palace as possible. Bringing the times forward would greatly narrow that. With regard to predictability of the times for Members to be required to be in the House. While superficially I think it completely underestimates the extent to which the Business of the House is driven by external events. This has increased rather than diminished as a result of the granting of many extra urgent questions and provision of statements. 21 November 2011

Lindsay Roy MP (Labour, Glenrothes) I am in favour of option 1. 24 November 2011

Paul Farrelly MP (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme) I am in favour of changing Tuesday sittings to 11.30 am to 7.00 pm. I am in favour of changing Tuesday and Wednesday sittings to 10.30 am to 6.00 pm. 24 November 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w64 Procedure Committee: Evidence

Dave Anderson MP (Labour, Blaydon) I support the move to 11.30 am on Tuesdays and 10.30 am on a Wednesday. 24 November 2011

David Tredinnick MP (Conservative, Bosworth) 1. I am in favour of changing Tuesday sittings to 11.30 am to 7.00 pm. 2. I am in favour of changing Tuesday and Wednesday sittings to 10.30 am to 6.00 pm. 3. Private Members’ bills—either of these scenarios would make it possible to move private Members’ bills from Friday to Tuesday evenings. 24 November 2011

Denis MacShane MP (Labour, Rotherham) I do hope we can move forward to a more sensible hours arrangement. The afternoon start times date from when most MPs had other jobs. Now for good or ill we are full-time. No other legislature to my knowledge has the kind of frankly silly hours for sitting that we do. I would support: 1. Changing Tuesday and Wednesday sittings to 10.30 am to 6.00 pm. 2. Looking at Westminster Hall type debates back in the Chamber for two hours up to 8.00 pm on Monday and Tuesday evening. One 90 minute and one 30 minute debate. I think these would be lively and would restore the centrality of the Chamber. 24 November 2011

Chris Leslie MP (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham East) I am in favour of changing Tuesday and Wednesday sittings to 10.30 am to 6.00 pm. 24 November 2011

Rt Hon Tessa Jowell MP (Labour, Dulwich and West Norwood) I am strongly in favour of the option to change Tuesday sittings to 11.30 am to 7.00 pm in response to the consultation on the sitting hours of the House. 25 November 2011

Nicky Morgan MP (Conservative, Loughborough) 1. The time has deﬁnitely come for the party (and TUC?) conferences to be moved to early September and for Parliament to then sit from mid/end September until Christmas with a break in October/November. I think the pattern of four to ﬁve weeks in Westminster and then a constituency week—which would, ideally, coincide with half-term holidays in October, February and May/June—is eminently sensible. 2. I believe private Members’ bills should be considered on Wednesday evenings and Friday sittings should be stopped. 3. I would have thought that, with appropriate scheduling of business ie, business which does not have to be whipped for votes it would be possible to sit earlier on Tuesdays and, possibly Wednesdays, but so that committees and meetings outside the parliamentary estate could still be conducted. 4. Greater certainty of business would be hugely appreciated not only by me but my family—but I do appreciate that this is just not always possible. Having said that late night sittings (especially on Wednesday nights after 7.00 pm) should be avoided if at all possible. 26 November 2011

Katy Clark MP (Labour, North Ayrshire and Arran) I support changing the hours to 10.30 am to 6.00 pm on a Tuesday and Wednesday. 28 November 2011

Harriet Baldwin MP (Conservative, West Worcestershire) 1. I am in favour of moving the sitting hours on Tuesdays to 11.30 am to 7.00 pm. 2. I am not in favour of moving private business to Tuesdays. The reason for this is that Friday sittings are sparsely attended and it would make it very easy for the government to kill off bills it did not like were the votes to be held on Tuesday evenings. 28 November 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w65

Ann McKechin MP (Labour, Glasgow North) I welcome the opportunity to comment on the consultation by the Committee. These are as follows:

(a) Parliamentary Calendar I would very much favour a change in the conference season that would allow us to break in the summer around mid July and return in late September. As a member from a Scottish constituency a move to delay the summer recess until August would adversely impact on my constituency work. The school holiday season in Scotland commences at the end of June and schools return prior to mid-August. For those of my colleagues with school age children it is important that they can enjoy time with their family during the summer recess and I would argue that this should be a minimum clear period of three weeks. I very much value a substantial period of recess in the summer that permits say a two to three week vacation slot with the remainder of the time spent in the constituency taking part in a range of engagements that is simply not possible when we are in session, eg attending mid week meetings of community groups and organisations. The current recess arrangements with broken weeks for the September fortnight and conference make this option of time use very difﬁcult to achieve. I see little value of extending the Christmas recess even further as this is the one time of the year when constituents/organisations rarely wish to meet, the weather is often very poor and vacation options are highly expensive. I do not wish the September fortnight to continue—it adds little value to parliamentary scrutiny.

(b) Sitting Hours I would favour moving the hours on a Tuesday to an 11.30 am start as a reasonable compromise in allowing more family-friendly hours but not impacting substantially on the total number of hours. A ﬁnish at 5.00 pm on a Thursday would be of assistance in securing transport back to my constituency—unfortunately if there is any vote at 6.00 pm it rules out a return by rail to my home and there is now an increasing pressure on the availability of airline ﬂights later in the evening due to capacity constraints on the domestic airline schedules.

(c) Voting I would encourage a move that provides a deﬁned voting time and the use of electronic voting in the lobbies to allow faster voting where there is more than one vote but still provide the face to face opportunities valued by members. 28 November 2011

Robert Halfon MP (Conservative, Harlow) I am writing to say that I am in favour of changing Tuesday sittings to 11.30 am to 7.00 pm. 29 November 2011

Rt Hon Paul Murphy MP (Labour, Torfaen) With regard to the Committee’s consultation on the sitting hours of the House, I am in favour of changing Tuesday sittings to 11.30 am to 7.00 pm. 29 November 2011

Rt Hon Alan Johnson MP (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) In relation to your consultation on the sitting hours of Parliament, I am in favour of changing Tuesday and Wednesday sittings to 10.30 am to 6.00 pm or at least to 11.30 am to 7.00 pm, both of which would allow private Members’ bills to be moved from Friday to Tuesday evenings. 29 November 2011

Michael Dugher MP (Labour, Barnsley East) It is my opinion that sittings of the House should begin in the morning of Tuesdays, preferably becoming 11.30 am to 7.00 pm. This would best balance the business of the House, work of committees, and Members’ wishes. 29 November 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w66 Procedure Committee: Evidence

Hilary Benn MP (Labour, Leeds Central) I support an 11.30 am to 7.00 pm sitting day on a Tuesday and moving private Members’ bills from Fridays to a Tuesday/Wednesday evening so that Fridays can be left clear for constituency work (ie. no sittings on a Friday). 29 November 2011

Kerry McCarthy MP (Labour, Bristol East) I am in favour of changing Tuesday sittings to 11.30 am to 7.00 pm. I also support the suggestion to move private Members’ bills to Tuesday evenings, or Monday mornings if that would allow more time for them. Encouraging the Speaker to set time limits on speeches on private Members’ bills, and time-limiting the debate on a private Members’ bill would both be very welcome reforms to stop Bills being talked-out. 30 November 2011

Graeme Morrice MP (Labour, Livingston) I would support bringing forward the hours of sitting on Tuesdays to either 11.30 am to 7.00 pm or 10.30 am to 6.00 pm—I have no particular preference. 30 November 2011

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking) In relation to the consultation on Sitting Hours of the House I would be grateful if you could record that I am very much in favour bringing the Sitting Hours forward; I would not object to changing Tuesday sittings to 11.30 am to 7.00 pm or changing Tuesday and Wednesday sittings to 11.30 am to 7.00 pm. 1 December 2011

Glenda Jackson MP (Labour, Hampstead and Kilburn) On sitting hours, my preference would be for: 1. Tuesday 11.30 am to 7.00 pm; 2. Tuesday and Wednesday 10.30 am to 6.00 pm. Either change would make it possible to move private Members’ bills from Friday mornings to Tuesday evenings. My overall preference on sitting hours would be two. This would make attendance at constituency events and the organisation of same inﬁnitely easier. 1 December 2011

Mary Macleod MP (Conservative, Brentford & Isleworth) I am writing to you to urge the Committee to change the current sitting hours of the House. I do not want to reduce the hours we work, but instead just change them. My preference would be the following: — I am in favour of changing Tuesday sittings to 11.30 am to 7.00 pm; — I am also in favour of changing Tuesday and Wednesday sittings to 10.30 am to 6.00 pm; — I would prefer private Members’ bills to be moved to a Tuesday evening, so that more MPs could participate in the debates if they wish to. This would mean that there would be no debates in the Chamber on Fridays. My reasons for these changes are two-fold. 1. I want the House of Commons to be as diverse as possible, with people from a wide range of backgrounds and encouraging the best people to become MPs. I therefore feel it is important that we move to more family-friendly hours. For those who do not have family nearby, it still means that their diaries will be more ﬂexible in the evenings and they can plan how to spend their time. They can choose to continue working in their ofﬁces late... but maybe more MPs will go to the gym in the evening and we will all become healthier and happier as a result! 2. I think changing the hours of the House of Commons will make Parliament look much more modern and progressive. We need to keep many traditions that are important and part of our history, but we also need to show that we can change, when change is needed. I think it is helpful that constituents feel that they can relate to us as “relatively” normal human beings who can understand their concerns. These small changes to the hours, makes it look like that we are more in touch with the reality of life today. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w67

I believe this would work perfectly, as select committees now meet on a range of different times throughout the working week and therefore we do not need to keep Tuesday mornings free for them. When I was in business, I often had to work long term on projects elsewhere in the UK or abroad and I always made sure I was there at 9.00 am on Mondays. But given IPSA restrictions and that some MPs need to take connecting ﬂights, then I am persuaded to leave Monday evenings as they are, to allow MPs to get to London from their constituencies. 1 December 2011

Valerie Vaz MP (Labour, Walsall South) I am writing in support of the proposal to move the parliamentary day forward on Tuesday to a 11.30 am start and 7.00 pm ﬁnish and would also support the proposal to move the parliamentary day forward on Tuesday and Wednesdays to a 10.30 am start and 6.00 pm ﬁnish. Either of these proposals make it possible to move private Members’ bills from Friday to Tuesday evenings. 1 December 2011

Robin Walker MP (Conservative, Worcester) I am in favour of changing Tuesday sittings to 11.30 am to 7.00 pm. I am also in favour of changing Tuesday and Wednesday sittings to 10.30 am to 6.00 pm. I would prefer private Members’ bills to be moved to a Tuesday evening, so that more MPs could participate in the debates if they wish to. This would mean that there would be no debates in the Chamber on Fridays. 2 December 2011

Henry Smith MP (Conservative, Crawley) With regard to the above I am opposed to changing Tuesday and Wednesday sittings to 10.30 am to 6.00 pm. I prefer either the current hours or a move to 11.30 am to 7.00 pm. 2 December 2011

Sharon Hodgson MP (Labour, Washington & Sunderland West) I would like to support the proposals to move the parliamentary day forward on Tuesday to an 11.30 am start and 7.00 pm ﬁnish, making it possible to have private Members’ bills on a Tuesday evening. 2 December 2011

Andrew Love MP (Labour and Co-operative, Edmonton) I wish to comment on the following issues in the consultation document: 1. My constituency home is over an hour’s journey from Westminster. This means that on a Monday and Tuesday evenings, assuming the time of interruption is 10.00 pm, I arrive home after voting at around 11.30 pm. Often on Tuesday and Wednesday mornings I will need to be back in Parliament for around 8.30 am, 9.00 am or 9.30 am which means getting up at 6.30 am, 7.00 am or 7.30 am. As well as being exhausting, it leaves little or no time for family life. 2. I accept the need to balance the needs of Members with constituencies far from London with those, like me, much closer. Whilst there is little appetite to change Monday’s hours I would make a plea to start 1 hour earlier and finish at 9.00 pm. This would allow Members to return home in good time whilst maintaining the flexibility for those who have to make a long journey to the House? 3. I would argue in the strongest terms for a return to a Tuesday start at 11.30 am, finishing at 7.00 pm. This would allow Members to return home in good time. I understand that there may be complicated timing issues for standing and select committees? The priority should be to allow Members a better balance between work and family life. 2 December 2011

Claire Perry MP (Conservative, Devizes) I am writing to you to urge the Committee to change the current sitting hours of the House. I do not want to reduce the hours we work, but instead just change them. My preference would be the following: — I am in favour of changing Tuesday sittings to 11.30 am to 7.00 pm. — I am also in favour of changing Tuesday and Wednesday sittings to 10.30 am to 6.00 pm. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w68 Procedure Committee: Evidence

— I would prefer private Members’ bills to be moved to a Tuesday evening, so that more MPs could participate in the debates if they wish to. This would mean that there would be no debates in the Chamber on Fridays. My reasons for these changes are two-fold. 1. I want the House of Commons to be as diverse as possible, with people from a wide range of backgrounds and encouraging the best people to become MPs. I therefore feel it is important that we move to more family- friendly hours. For those who do not have family nearby, it still means that their diaries will be more ﬂexible in the evenings and they can plan how to spend their time. 2. I think changing the hours of the House of Commons will make Parliament look much more modern and progressive. We need to keep many traditions that are important and part of our history, but we also need to show that we can change, when change is needed. I think it is helpful that constituents feel that they can relate to us as “relatively” normal human beings who can understand their concerns. These small changes to the hours, makes it look like that we are more in touch with the reality of life today. 2 December 2011

Rory Stewart OBE MP (Conservative, Penrith and The Border) With regard to changes to sitting hours of the House, I would wish to support for Option 2. 5 December 2011

Rob Wilson MP (Conservative, Reading East) I would like to register my support for a change in sitting times. Changing Tuesday to 11.30 am to 7.30 pm would be much more family-friendly hours. 5 December 2011

Richard Ottaway MP (Conservative, Croydon South) I am in favour of changing Tuesday and Wednesday sittings to 10.30 am to 6.00 pm. I am NOT in favour of moving private Members’ bills from Fridays. 5 December 2011

Rt Hon Frank Field MP DL (Labour, Birkenhead) 1. I am in favour of changing Tuesday sittings to 11.30 am to 7.00 pm. 2. I am in favour of private Members’ bills being taken on Tuesday and Wednesday evening. 6 December 2011

Heidi Alexander MP (Labour, Lewisham East) I am writing in response to your consultation on sitting hours of the House. I am strongly of the opinion that the sitting hours of the Commons must change. I think the number of hours we sit is broadly right and would not want to see that altered, however the start time of 2.30 pm on a Tuesday should be brought forward. Ideally, I think Tuesday and Wednesday sittings should be from 10.30 am to 6.00 pm. I would also be in favour of changing Tuesday sittings to 11.30 am to 7.00 pm, if that was preferable to others. Either of these scenarios would make it possible to move private Members’ bills from Friday to Tuesday evenings. I would support such a move over the current arrangements. 6 December 2011

Nadhim Zahawi MP (Conservative, Stratford-on-Avon) Please note that I am strongly in favour of changing Tuesday and Wednesday sittings to 10.30 am to 6.00 pm as well as moving private Members’ bills from Friday to Tuesday evenings. 6 December 2011

Stephen Gilbert MP (Liberal Democrat, St Austell and Newquay) Further to the consultation on the proposed changes to sitting hours: 1. I am in favour of changing Tuesday and Wednesday sittings to 10.30 am to 6.00 pm; cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w69

2. Private Members’ bills—I would suggest that these could usefully be moved to Tuesday evenings. 6 December 2011

Rt Hon Joan Ruddock MP (Labour, Lewisham, Deptford) I believe the hours of sitting for the main chamber should be brought forward in the day. My preference would be for Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays to begin at 10.30 am, with voting starting at 6.00 pm. If this were not to be supported, I would want to vote for starting Tuesdays at 11.30 am. Private Members’ bills should be taken on Tuesdays following the end of business. A one hour departmental question time should be put on Wednesday mornings prior to PMQs, with a half hour session on Thursdays instead. I am opposed to the annual calendar running until the end of July, as this would prevent Scottish parent MPs from holidaying with their school-age children. I think it would be extremely helpful if the party conferences were moved. I trust MPs will be given an opportunity to vote on these issues early next year, so that any changes would be implemented in the new session. 6 December 2011

Alison Seabeck MP (Labour, Plymouth, Moor View) As someone who has worked at Westminster one and off since 1978 and has been both a staff member and an MP, as well as having a close relative who was an MP when sitting hours were unrestricted, I am writing to say that I do feel there is a need to further reform the hours. Gone, are the days when people were literally worked into the ground and by-elections were a very frequent occurrence. I am in favour of changing Tuesday sittings to 11.30 am to 7.00 pm and for the option of looking at allowing Fridays to be freed up entirely and having time for private Members’ bills on Tuesday evenings after 7.00 pm. As an MP whose constituency is over four and a half hours away the additional time on a Friday to spend in the constituency would be valuable. 6 December 2011

Pat GlassMP (Labour, North West Durham) I am in favour of changing Tuesday and Wednesday sittings to 10.30 am to 6.00 pm. 6 December 2011

Kate Green MP (Labour, Stretford and Urmston) I am writing in response to the consultation document on sittings of the House and the parliamentary calendar. I am in favour of changing Tuesday sittings to 11.30 am to 7.00 pm. However my preference would be to change both Tuesday and Wednesday sittings to 10.30 am to 6.00 pm. I believe these represent more sensible working hours, which would enable Members to work more productively, rather than when tired late in the evening, with improved health and wellbeing implications, and more opportunity for social and family life outside Westminster. Either of the above options would enable discussion of private Members’ bills to be moved to Tuesday evening, something I would strongly support. This would ensure these bills received proper parliamentary scrutiny with more Members likely to participate. 6 December 2011

Jim Fitzpatrick MP (Labour, Poplar and Limehouse) I am writing in response to your consultation on sitting hours of the House. I contend that they must change. Hours should be altered to a much more regular working day. Tuesdays and Wednesdays would see the House sitting from 10.30 am to 6.00 pm, although a start of 11.30 am on Tuesdays is something to which I would not be averse. The above scenario/s would facilitate private Members’ bills on a Tuesday evening. 7 December 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w70 Procedure Committee: Evidence

Karl McCartney JP MP (Conservative, Lincoln) I am happy for late night sittings to take place in the first few nights of each week—possibly Wednesday evenings too? (I would be happy for the House to begin sitting earlier too—but not to finish earlier—to remove Friday/late Thursday sittings possibly?) I do not want Tuesday times to change, nor Wednesday if possible. I do not want a stupid break in November—whatever it is dressed up as—it is pointless—don’t bring us back in September and post conferences we can go from mid October through to (early?) December surely— if not then move November break in-line with schools’ half-term week at the end of October. Retain recess/half-term in February. As long a summer recess as possible is preferable. Make the case publicly re taxpayers’ bearing cost if maintenance is project managed in blocks rather than done all at once in a lengthy summer recess—don’t put MPs up to be shot at on this issue. A robust business case?—then use it . . . maybe if the Houses of Parliament press officers are ineffective the three £95k+ media officers of IPSA could be gainfully employed for a change? If a private Member’s bill is worthy then Members stay around for it—so possibly move private Members’ bills to Thursday evenings—but NOT Tuesday evenings. I do however have some further concerns regarding, specifically, the movement of party conferences to late autumn as I feel this is totally unrealistic. If conferences are to move, then they should move a couple of weeks forward. I agree that early September sitting weeks should be scrapped—better use can be made of this time for the maintenance of the Houses of Parliament. Scrapping early September sitting weeks will also help MPs to organise their time away from Westminster. To this end, I believe we should break in early July too. Also a short break in November is no use to anyone in my opinion. Children or no children, London constituency or elsewhere. Its timing is not helpful to family life. Members of Parliament, like myself, working hard to retain a marginal seat nowhere near London have very little, or no, spare time: on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays and often, if House of Commons requirements allow, Thursday evenings and Monday mornings are constituency event/visit orientated. I feel that if those making recommendations and/or decisions at the top of the parliamentary tree were also MPs with marginal seats, the recommendations and decisions might be a little more realistic for the majority of such MPs— especially ones in my position. Also in the past, some MPs had outside financial interests to support them, but this is now very difficult for a variety of reasons, including perhaps predominantly the lack of “time”. This problem is exacerbated by the intransigence and unhelpfulness of IPSA. However, for many the pursuance of outside interests is sometimes one of necessity, as well as perhaps choice, and I cannot see where your proposals do anything to aid such decisions, either protective, freedom inspiring or otherwise—or even if the Committee have considered this issue? The increased workload of constituency cases is noted and recognised by the Committee, but then not addressed at all. What do you suggest to help MPs? How should they manage their time? Finally, please do be bold and radical in your work and future proposals—your consultation results might then reveal some level of support for changes from those most adversely affected by them. 7 December 2011

Meg Munn MP (Labour/Co-operative, Sheffield Heeley) WEEKLY TIMETABLE Tuesday sittings I strongly support the return to an 11.30 am start and 7.00 pm finish. This better fits with the outside world while allowing for committee sittings in the morning, Late sitting hours are not conducive to good working practice particularly given that many MPs have to start at around 9.00 am for various reasons on a Tuesday leading to working days over 12 hours long. This is both unnecessary and not the best way to conduct the business.

Private Members’ Bills I strongly support the idea of consideration on a Tuesday evening. MPs can then decide whether to remain rather than sacriﬁce a constituency Friday (and time with family on Thursdays and Friday mornings when many MPs living a distance away can take their children to school). I cannot see how this can be anything other than positive. MPs would still choose between staying to support a bill or do something else but it helps MPs who live away from London to be more active on these issues. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w71

I also support looking at the rules that govern debate to prevent the kind of tactics that we no longer allow for other business. It is outdated and inappropriate.

ANNUAL CALENDAR Six week sitting periods It is unclear whether the time off in June will always ﬁt with spring bank holiday which is often last week in May. I believe that the parliamentary timetable should try and ﬁt in with school holidays where possible. I am supportive of the proposal that conferences move to early September which avoids the messy situation we now have with sittings for just two weeks which are then interrupted. I am less convinced about the idea of having them at the end of October/beginning of November.

Five week sitting periods I can see no beneﬁt to this pattern. There is no beneﬁt to an extra week off at the beginning of January. A lot of recesses don’t coincide with school holidays making it hard for MPs with children. Not at all clear where we would have party conferences.

September sittings Pending the introduction of a more sensible calendar from 2015 I would support the abolition of September sittings as they are too short to allow MPs to get into their stride and time can be better used on constituency work.

Constituency weeks I suggest the committee looks at current session where business is now sparse. We could have fewer sitting days than now and allow more ﬂexibility such as naming some as constituency weeks particularly around half- terms that differ across the country. Having two weeks means that all families have the option to be together and the extra week can be used as a constituency week. This would be better than the current situation where we seem to be scratching around for reasons to sit and had a last minute recess foisted on us.

More debate of amendments I think more time should be given to bills at report stage. There is rarely enough time to debate all the issues and this gets diminished further if there are statements. Perhaps the committee could look at the issue of how long report stage lasts for bills and make some broad recommendations around number of days related to size of bill. Government would not have to follow this to the letter but there would be an expectation that Government would explain if they departed from guidelines. This should be considered if the days remain as now as too many days are spent on issues that are of interest to few MPs and whips run round to get speakers. 7 December 2011

Frank Dobson MP (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras) I am in favour of changing Tuesday and Wednesday sittings to 10.30 am to 6.00 pm. YES. Private Members’ bills—either of these scenarios would make it possible to move private Members’ bills from Friday to Tuesday evenings. If you agree with this, please add it to your submission. NO 7 December 2011

Gordon Birtwistle MP (Liberal Democrat, Burnley) In light of recent discussions on House sitting times and your consultation, I would like to let you know that I am very much in favour of changing Tuesday sittings to 11.30 am to 7.00 pm and/or Tuesday and Wednesday sittings to 10.30 am to 6.00 pm. 7 December 2011

Dr Julian Huppert MP (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge) I support moving both Tuesday and Wednesday sittings to run from 10.30 am to 6.00 pm, as on Thursdays. Failing that, I support moving Tuesdays to 11.30 am to 7.00 pm, as on Wednesdays. I would also like to see private Members’ bills moved to take place on Tuesday evenings. 7 December 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w72 Procedure Committee: Evidence

Adrian Sanders MP (Liberal Democrat, Torbay) I am in favour of changing Tuesday and Wednesday sittings to 10.30 am to 6.00 pm. I hope that this would make it possible for private Members’ bills to move from Friday to Tuesday evenings. 7 December 2011

Iain Stewart MP (Conservative, Milton Keynes South) Overall sitting patterns I agree that the number of sitting days and weeks should remain broadly consistent with current levels. I favour retaining a pattern resembling the current calendar. In the weeks when Parliament is not sitting, this allows me to achieve a good balance of constituency appointments, personal holiday and home working time to catch up with reading, correspondence etc. More regular one week breaks would make it more difﬁcult to achieve this balance. I do not believe the current practice of returning for two weeks in September works well. I would rather have an uninterrupted spell away from Westminster with a corresponding later rising date or earlier return date. (I do not have a view on the optimal timing of party conferences). I also believe this would help address the concern expressed about having sufﬁcient time to conduct maintenance work.

Sitting Patterns in a Week Mondays—Agree that there should be no change to current sitting times for the reasons set out in the paper. Tuesdays—I oppose any change to current sitting times. I am on a select committee which meets on a Tuesday morning, and Tuesdays are also my peak days for arranging meetings and doing office work. Bringing forward the sitting times to Wednesday hours would simply mean that my other work is shunted to the end of the day which I would find less productive and more inconvenient. Wednesdays/Thursdays—I would argue that the House should sit later on Wednesdays to allow a shortening of the time the House would sit on a Thursday. Although the House is generally timetabled to finish at 7.30 pm, very often it will, unpredictably, sit later. This uncertainty makes it difficult to plan other activities away from the House and often results in a “lost” evening. I would suggest that it would be better for the House to sit until 10.30 pm on Wednesdays (still starting at 11.30 pm) but have an earlier finishing time on Thursdays which would aid Members returning to their constituencies. I would suggest that Thursdays could operate on Friday sitting hours (9.30 pm to 2.30 pm). This would allow for a greater certainty of planning for a Members work patterns (and family life) both at Westminster and in the constituency. Fridays—As my above suggestions are simply about reallocating existing work patterns, I do not favour any changes to sitting Fridays. These are sufficiently indicated in advance to allow effective diary planning. I would however welcome measures to limit “filibustering” activity on private Members’ bills.

Other I would welcome changes to better timetable consideration of amendments and the use of “injury time”. 7 December 2011

Margot James MP (Conservative, Stourbridge) I favour bringing forward the start time on Tuesdays to 10.30 am so that we can complete votable business by 6.00 pm on Tuesdays. Or at the least I would recommend having the same hours on Tuesdays as currently for Wednesdays so that in the normal course of events we just have one late night, that being Monday. 8 December 2011

Karen Buck (Labour, Westminster North) I am strongly in favour of changing Tuesday sitting hours to 11.30 am to 7.00 pm, and for looking at ways of using Tuesday evenings in other ways, such as for private Members’ business. Whilst the total number of sitting hours should remain unchanged, at any given time many Members are staying in Westminster later in the evenings only for the few minutes required to vote, when we could be making our own decisions as to how to use the time: working on the estate if we so wish, or working elsewhere if preferred. I know some London MPs may argue that an earlier start on Tuesdays cuts into constituency time, but in reality this would be compensated for by being able to attend constituency engagements on Tuesday evenings. In any event, select and standing committee requirements require many of us to be in Parliament on Tuesday mornings regardless. I don’t have a strong feeling about Wednesday sitting times, but can see that an earlier ﬁnish may be valuable to Members who wish to leave London on Wednesdays when business on a Thursday is light. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w73

Like a great many other Members with children or other commitments, I have accepted the fact that being an MP involves long and unsocial hours, and makes a normal family life impossible. Setting aside our personal lives, we all also have to deal with the continual clash between parliamentary, constituency, political, media and other demands on our time. This goes with the role and a change in sitting hours won’t fundamentally alter the fact. What an adjustment such as that proposed for Tuesday sittings will do is increase the degree of ﬂexibility available to us, so we can make decisions on how best to allocate our own time between all the competing priorities. 8 December 2011

Dr Sarah Wollaston MP (Conservative, Totnes) As a woman MP it is often assumed that I will feel that the House should change its sitting hours. I do not for the following reasons: 1. I travel up from Devon and this is a three hour journey so a late start on Monday is essential. If we started at 9.00 am I would spend less time with my family as I would have to travel up on a Sunday evening. 2. On a Tuesday I attend a select committee all morning, so again, starting at 2.30 pm allows me to attend the committee. 3. Even if we started early, I would still be answering emails and catching up with paperwork until 10.00 pm! 4. I do support an earlier start on Wednesdays and Thursdays as it is good to have at least a couple of days to escape the Westminster bubble and catch the train for the constituency on a Thursday in time to arrive home before midnight. 5. Being an MP will never be “family-friendly” in any conventional sense of the word, it is a way of life and it is unrealistic in my view to assume that the huge workload will vanish just by changing the hours. 6. For MPs living away from London, there is no prospect of nipping home to see their family whatever the hours. If we want to attract more women into politics, I don’t think it is just the sitting hours which put women off but the wider issue of making them feel welcome to apply and welcome if or when they arrive. 8 December 2011

Meg HillierMP (Labour/Co-operative, Hackney South and Shoreditch) Sitting hours Monday hours should remain as they are. I would favour the flexibility of a change of hours on a Tuesday and possibly a Wednesday too. I would suggest sitting hours of 10.30 am to 6.00 pm on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. This would allow choice and flexibility for members. Members would still have the option to work in the evenings. Those with family or constituency commitments locally would have the option of attending these. A key benefit of an earlier finish on a Wednesday is that it would allow those with long journeys to return home on Wednesday might if they had no business to attend to on Thursday. Current sitting hours are too late for flights. Overall earlier starts and finishes would allow flexibility and choice about working patterns. It would also support working parents with children in London who can incur high childcare costs after 7.00 pm, allowing working from home as an option. There would be no overall reduction in hours.

Private Members’ Bills Moving these to a Tuesday evening would make sense if sitting hours on Tuesday for main business were brought forward. Fridays are valuable constituency days and difﬁcult or impossible to change at short notice. Tuesday private Members’ bills would allow more members to attend.

Recess I do not believe it would make sense to put recess dates to a vote as there is no simple answer or simple choice. Personally I support sitting in September but this would be better if it was at the end of September— if party conferences could over time move to early September this would make sense. I cannot understand the rationale for the proposed November constituency week. One point I feel strongly about is that Parliament should not rise at the end of July. This would have a disproportionate effect on Scottish MPs with children. As schools return in August MPs would some years have only one week coinciding with school summer holidays. It would not be acceptable for representatives from one of the UK’s four nations to be affected in this way. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w74 Procedure Committee: Evidence

Certainty of Business Greater certainty over business and set timings for votes would make it easier to manage the many competing responsibilities of a modern MP. 8 December 2011

Ben Bradshaw MP (Labour, Exeter) The Sitting Year I strongly favour abolition of the recent two week September sitting, which is a complete waste of time and resources. If the parties can be persuaded to bring forward their conferences to earlier in September with Parliament resuming in late September/early October that would be ﬁne. But, failing that, the recent early September sitting should go. I see no reason why we need an extra “constituency break” in November. Nor do I understand why the Christmas, Easter and Whitsun recesses have grown under this Government. Two weeks at Christmas and Easter and one week in February and at Whitsun are ample.

The Sitting Week I favour private Members’ business being taken on a Tuesday or Wednesday evening, leaving Fridays free for constituency work. I favour a return to earlier sittings on Tuesdays—11.30 am to 7.00 pm. If this is agreed, I would also favour sitting an hour earlier on Wednesdays. If earlier Tuesday sittings are not agreed then I favour leaving Wednesday as it is. I favour leaving Thursday sitting times as they are.

Voting times I support the greater use of deferred divisions and/or a deﬁned voting time. 8 December 2011

Teresa Pearce MP (Labour, Erith and Thamesmead) Since arriving at Westminster in May 2011 I have struggled with the late hours on a Tuesday night. I fully understand why we begin late on a Monday but cannot understand the rationale for the late start on a Tuesday. As a London MP who commutes in and out each day it means that I do not get home on either a Monday or Tuesday until around 11.30 pm, sometimes later. Having worked in the private sector for many years I am used to hard work and long hours but the hours of the house seem neither modern nor effective. And to have hours that fit in with the rest of society would be far better not least because of the hundreds of staff who work at the house who are kept here staffing the canteen, the Post Office and the Vote Office. Many of the staff are not highly paid yet are expected to work these unsocial hours for what appears no real business reason. We are meant to be a modern government but we arrange our affairs in a way that makes little sense and is ineffective. In a world where work life balance is to be encouraged I would hope that we could start our Westminster working day earlier on a Tuesday. 8 December 2011

Tim Yeo MP (Conservative, South Suffolk) With reference to the consultation on the sitting hours of the House, I am in favour of changing Tuesday sittings to 11.30 am to 7.00 pm and moving private Members’ bills from Friday to Tuesday evenings. 8 December 2011

Stella Creasy MP (Labour/Co-operative, Walthamstow) I am writing in response to your consultation on sitting hours of the House. I am strongly of the opinion that the sitting hours of the Commons must change. I think the number of hours we sit is broadly right and would not want to see that altered, however the start time of 2.30 pm on a Tuesday should be brought forward. Ideally, I think Tuesday and Wednesday sittings should be from 10.30 am to 6.00 pm. I would also be in favour of changing Tuesday sittings to 11.30 am to 7.00 pm, if that was preferable to others. Either of these scenarios would make it possible to move private Members’ bills from Friday to Tuesday evenings. I would support such a move over the current arrangements. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w75

I trust my views can be taken into account by the Committee. 8 December 2011

Mike Wood MP (Labour, Batley and Spen) 1. The two week September sitting ought to be discontinued. It was introduced to mitigate tabloid headlines suggesting that MPs have long holidays. It was never a worthy motive and it hasn’t worked. 2. A shorter summer recess would, as your report suggests, mean far more disruption due to maintenance work being carried out while the House is sitting. This is especially disruptive to those of us who have ofﬁces in the Palace itself where the level of regular maintenance is already considerable. 3. I very much support the suggestion that private Members’ bills should be considered on Wednesday evenings. 6 December 2011

George Freeman MP (Conservative, Mid Norfolk) As a newly elected MP with a constituency three hours drive away from London, I would make the following points: — How Members juggle family and domestic responsibilities with parliamentary duties is obviously a matter for individual MPs, but no doubt as for others, I was selected on the basis in part of a commitment to make a family home in Norfolk. With young children and a wife with a career in her own right, this is the predominant prism through which I view the sitting hours debate. It is in all our interests to try as far as possible to minimise the pressures on MPs’ family life. — Coming to London without the family, my overriding concern is to use the time here to maximise effect and then get back to the constituency and my family. To that end I would support: — Maintaining the late start on a Monday which allows a few hours in the constituency and with the family on a Monday morning. — Earlier ﬁnish on a Thursday to allow time to get back to the constituency and family. Even leaving at 5.00 pm rather than 6.00 pm would make a signiﬁcant difference. — Anything that would allow earlier notice of likely recess dates so we can plan ahead. — The introduction of a mini-recess to coincide with the November half-term. 8 December 2011

Paul Maynard MP (Conservative, Blackpool North & Cleveleys) I would like to state my support for both options one and two, as well as three. My preference is two slightly more than one. 10 December 2011

Barbara Keeley MP (Labour, Worsley and Eccles South) I would like to see the sitting hours of the House on Tuesday brought forward—either to 11.30 am (as on Wednesdays) or to 10.30 am (as on Thursdays) I believe that the House would be more effective if we worked during more normal working hours and I so no reason for the afternoon start and 10.30 pm finish on Tuesdays. An earlier start and finish would mean travel would be safer for MPs than late night travel. This would also be safer for staff of the House, who also have to travel home at 11.00 pm or later with the current sitting hours. I would also support an earlier start time on Wednesdays—at 10.30 am allowing a finish time of 6.00 pm as on Wednesdays. Moving to an earlier start time on Tuesdays would also mean that the House could take private Members’ business on Tuesday evenings. This would have the benefit of freeing up all Fridays for constituency business and reducing costs of having staff to cover sitting Fridays. I support the recess weeks meant to coincide with school half-terms but I believe we should give consideration to trying to help Scottish colleagues by more consideration of their different school timetables. In summary I would like to see consideration of the following options: 1. Sitting hours to change to a 10.30 am or 11.30 am start on Tuesdays; 2. Sitting hours to change to a 10.30 am start on Wednesdays with a 6.00 pm finish; cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w76 Procedure Committee: Evidence

3. Private Members’ business to be moved to Tuesday evenings, with no sitting Fridays; 4. In reviewing summer recess dates, consider the issue of the different school holidays in Scotland. This means we should not have plans for any later start to summer recess, as this would affect Scottish MPs with families. If the September return to Parliament is to continue, consideration could be given to an earlier start to the recess; 5. More advance notice of business and more use of deferred divisions/deﬁned voting times to give greater certainty and allow members to plan their working day. 12 December 2011

Elizabeth Truss MP (Conservative, South West Norfolk) With regard to the Committee’s consultation on changes to sitting hours of the House I would like to express my support for the following options: — I am in favour of changing Tuesday sittings to 11.30 am to 7.00 pm. — I am in favour of changing Tuesday and Wednesday sittings to 10.30 am to 6.00 pm. — I would prefer private Members’ bills to be moved to a Tuesday evening, allowing a greater number of MPs to take part if they so wish. There would be no debates in the Chamber on Fridays. I believe that the above changes to the hours of the House of Commons will bring Parliament more closely in line with business. Parliament should be viewed and act as a professional body; its core sitting hours should reﬂect this. 12 December 2011

Anas Sarwar MP (Labour, Glasgow Central) I am in favour of changing Tuesday’s sittings to 11.30 am to 7.00 pm. I believe such a move would make the House more family-friendly as well as making it easier for Members to attend any other engagements they may have outside the House in the evening. 12 December 2011

Mark Williams AS/MP (Liberal Democrat, Ceredigion) I am submitting with regard to my support for the following proposals relating to changes in sitting hours. I am in favour of changing Tuesday sittings to 11.30 am to 7.00 pm, and in favour of changing Wednesday sittings to 10.30 am to 6.00 pm. In the light of these proposals, I agree with the suggestion of moving private Members’ bills to Tuesday evenings. As an MP who travels four and a half hours each way per week to getting to and from Westminster, the ability to deal with private Members’ bills on a Tuesday would be very helpful, as I often have to return to Ceredigion in order that I can undertake my two weekly surgeries on a Friday. Also from a more family-friendly perspective, I support the earlier ﬁnishes that these sitting hours entail, which would give many members who live nearer to Westminster the opportunity to get home at a more reasonable time. 12 December 2011

Emily Thornberry MP (Labour, Islington South & Finsbury) As a mother of three with a husband in a full-time job, I have found the hours that Members are expected to be in the House very difﬁcult. There is a clear reason for the later start on Mondays but this does not apply for the rest of the week. In my view an earlier sitting on Tuesdays with main business concluded by 6.00 pm and private Members’ bills taken after that would be a great improvement. Wednesdays should also ﬁnish earlier at 6.00 pm. 13 December 2011

John Leech MP (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington) Sitting patterns in a week Tuesdays I would favour retaining existing hours. Wednesdays I would wish to see existing hours retained. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w77

Thursdays I would favour retaining existing hours. Fridays I would prefer Fridays to be reserved for constituency business and move private Members’ bills to elsewhere in the timetable. Greater certainty about when members are required to be present in the House I wish to see greater certainty, including: — Greater use of deferred divisions; — A deﬁned voting time; — More advanced notice of business; and — Providing there is no running whipped business or business requiring division in the middle of the sitting day, voting to be taken on one or more speciﬁed days of the week.

Sitting Calendar Option 2: Decreasing from seven-six sittings with six weeks between recesses and nine weeks summer recess 13 December 2011

Fiona O’Donnell MP (Labour, East Lothian) I am writing to give my views on the consultation on reform of the sitting hours of the House of Commons. I support the following changes: — Earlier start to business on Tuesdays. — Private Members’ bills to be debated on Tuesday evenings. — Changes to recess dates to ﬁt better with Scottish school holidays. — I generally support sitting hours that are closer to “normal” business hours to beneﬁt those with caring responsibilities. I also believe that late sittings are not conducive to good debate and decision making. It would allow Members to plan ahead for constituency work if there was more notice of business and votes. 13 December 2011

Patrick Mercer OBE MP (Conservative, Newark) 1. I am in favour of changing Tuesday sittings to 11.30 am to 7.00 pm. 2. I am also in favour of changing Tuesday and Wednesday sittings to 10.30 am to 6.00 pm; and 3. I would prefer private Members’ bills to be moved to a Tuesday evening, so that more MPs could participate in the debates if they wish to. This would mean that there would be no debates in the Chamber on Fridays. 13 December 2011

Caroline Nokes MP (Conservative, Romsey and Southampton North) I am writing to support the various initiatives put forward with regard to the sitting hours of the House. I believe there is a good case to maintain the number of hours we sit but to change them to make them more compatible with normal family life. My preference would be the following: I am in favour of changing Tuesday sittings to 11.30 am to 7.00 pm. I am also in favour of changing Tuesday and Wednesday sittings to 10.30 am to 6.00 pm. I would prefer private Members’ bills to be moved to a Tuesday evening so that more MPs could participate in the debates if they wish to. This would mean that there would be no debates in the Chamber on Fridays. 13 December 2011

Frank Doran MP (Labour, Aberdeen North) I am responding to the consultation document recently published by the Procedure Committee, and in particular to the section which deals with sittings of the House. I am in favour of changing the hours of sitting on Tuesdays and Wednesdays to 10.30 am to 6.00 pm on each day. As a second option, I am in favour of changing the Tuesday sitting to 11.30 am to 7.00 pm. I believe strongly that, as the House modernises its procedures, processes and many other aspects of its operations, then it should modernise its hours and bring them more in line with the hours of those we represent. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w78 Procedure Committee: Evidence

As a Scottish Member also I ﬁnd it very difﬁcult to meet my constituency commitments and at the same time attend on Fridays for Private Members’ Business where I have an interest. Changing the hours for either of the options above would allow private Members’ bills to be moved to a Tuesday evening, for example, and allow those who wish to, to take part in proceedings. I am also opposed to the proposal to extend the summer term to the end of July. Family life for all of us suffers because of the job we do. For all Scottish Members, school holidays start early in July and any change which limits Members’ time with their families would be unacceptable. 13 December 2011

Rachel Reeves MP (Labour, Leeds West) Further to your consultation on sitting hours of the House, I would like to show my support for changing Tuesday sittings to 11.30 am to 7.00 pm. 14 December 2011

Lorely Burt (Liberal Democrat, Solihull) SITTING PATTERNS IN A WEEK Tuesdays I would favour sitting at 11.30 am to 7.00 pm on Tuesdays. Wednesdays I would favour earlier sitting hours on Wednesdays. Thursdays I would favour earlier finishes on Thursdays. Fridays I would prefer Fridays to be reserved for constituency business and move private Members’ bills to elsewhere in the timetable. GREATER CERTAINTY ABOUT WHEN MEMBERS ARE REQUIRED TO BE PRESENT IN THE HOUSE I wish to see greater certainty, including: — Greater use of deferred divisions. — A defined voting time. — More advanced notice of business. — Providing there is no running whipped business or business requiring division in the middle of the sitting day, voting to be taken on one or more specified days of the week. SITTING CALENDAR Decreasing from seven to six sittings with six weeks between recesses and nine weeks summer recess. 14 December 2011

Paul Blomfield MP (Labour, Sheffield Central) On the basis of my experience over the last 18 months, I would support: — changing Tuesday sittings to 11.30 am to 7.00 pm—to accommodate moving private Members’ bills from Friday to Tuesday evenings, to ensure Fridays are always free for constituency business; — changing Wednesday sittings to 10.30 am to 6.00 pm; — a short constituency break in November; and — bringing party conferences forward to the first three weeks of September, so the summer recess can end in late September rather than mid-October. 14 December 2011

Susan Elan Jones MP (Labour, Clwyd South) I think that whatever happens the most important thing is that we change the Tuesday sitting from until 10.00 pm to an earlier ﬁnish. My personal preference is in favour of changing Tues & Wed sessions to 10.30 am to 6.00 pm. I would also like to see private Members’ bills moved from Fridays to Tuesday evenings so that more Members are able to attend these important debates without neglecting important constituency work on Fridays cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w79

(NB: My constituency is 180 miles away from London, some Members are further away than that—surely, we should be allowed to take part in the discussion on private Members’ bills without it meaning we must neglect important constituency work to do so?) 14 December 2011

Sheila Gilmore MP (Labour, Edinburgh East) I would be supportive of changing sitting hours so that sittings on Tuesday started at either 10.30 am or 11.30 am (with a corresponding ﬁnish at either 6.00 pm or 7.00 pm). This could allow an evening session on some Tuesdays for the consideration of private Members’ bills. This would make it more likely that MPs would be able to attend debates on private Members’ bills and improve the process (although other changes may be necessary as well). An extension of the summer session to the end of July presents a particular problem for Scots MPs because Scottish school holidays start at the end of June and end in mid August. 14 December 2011

Rt Hon Caroline Flint MP (Labour, Don Valley) Support for a change to hours on Tuesday starting earlier and ending at 7.00 pm followed by private Members’ business. I am not really in favour of an earlier ﬁnish on Wednesday or Thursday if Tuesday is changed, because of the need to ensure adequate number of hours to get business done. If it was possible to bring the conference season forward that would be a good idea. For a number of reasons I don’t think the early September sittings work. It often appears that business is concocted for those two weeks as ﬁllers. I have always wanted to modernise arrangements but not undermine MPs who live in or near their constituencies outside of London and who cannot get back to their families on a daily basis. That must be preserved. 14 December 2011

John Woodcock MP (Labour/Co-operative, Barrow and Furness) In response to the consultation on the sitting hours of the House, I am in favour of changing Tuesday and Wednesday sittings to 10.30 am to 6.00 pm. I also think it would be a good idea to move private Members’ bills from Friday to Tuesday or Wednesday evening. 14 December 2011

Fiona Mactaggart MP (Labour, Slough) I approach the issue of hours of the House of Commons with two priorities in mind. The ﬁrst is to improve the quality of decision making in the House, I think that this requires important decisions to be made, as far as possible, at reasonable times of day when MPs are focused and fresh. I also believe that the families of MPs put up with a lot and we can help MPs to be better representatives if their families feel valued and can play a part in the life of the MP. I welcome the approach of the Committee on the current balance between the number of sitting days and the number of non-sitting days across the year. I agree that the distribution of those days across the year could be improved, but while I agree that very long periods away from Westminster are to be avoided I would reject at least one of the proposals regarding the summer recess which would mean that Scottish members with children at school would not share more than one week of their children’s holidays. In view of the fact that there is little ﬂexibility about when MPs can take breaks this is not fair on the families of MPs who already put up with a lot. This is not necessarily an argument for a longer recess, but a proposal that the weeks which are designated should include as many July weeks when Scottish schools are on holiday as August weeks when they are not. I am more concerned about weekly sitting patterns and have been concerned that during the present session there have been occasions when we have drifted towards late-night sittings or later sittings than the standard pattern. I recognise that there is little appetite for proposals that that the House should sit during normal working hours, but believe that on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday we should aim to get as close to this as possible. I would however support continuing the present pattern on Mondays. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w80 Procedure Committee: Evidence

I voted to sit at 11.30 am on a Tuesday in 2002 and in 2005 and I remain of the view that sitting hours on Tuesdays should be brought forward. For some time in the last Parliament I was a member of the Children Schools and Families Select Committee. We met on Wednesday mornings and were able to deal with a substantial amount of business before questions, so I am conﬁdent that an earlier meeting time on Tuesday should not signiﬁcantly impede the ability of the House to hold committee meetings. I think if the pattern was thus it would also be sensible to arranger for private Members’ business to be transacted on Tuesday evenings, thus allowing Fridays to be free for constituency work. I think Tuesday would be a much better day for this than Wednesday, creating a more measured pattern in the week, and establishing a potential opportunity for Wednesday to start an hour or even half an hour earlier than it presently does. The reason for this is that I think it very depressing that MPs whose work brings them to one of the great cultural cities are rarely able to attend the theatre or concerts. In my view, timing one day a week so that it is genuinely possible to reach a performance somewhere further from the House of Commons than the National Theatre would improve the quality of political awareness of Britain’s theatrical and musical life. Moreover, it would allow for a family dinner for those members with young families in London at least once a week.

One of my anxieties about the committee’s paper is the number of issues which it seeks to address. As a veteran of previous debates about the pattern of hours in the House I would urge settling that question ﬁrst, then dealing with the annual timetable and leaving matters such as timed voting, time limits on speeches etc for a later consideration, perhaps at the same time as the house deals with electronic voting. 14 December 2011

Jenny Willott MP (Liberal Democrat, Cardiff Central)

I am writing my contribution from the position of mother of a young child, as I have a 17 month old son. I have been an MP since 2005 so I experienced the current sitting hours for ﬁve years before having a baby.

It is my view that the current sitting hours are hugely disruptive for family life. I appreciate that for many MPs their family stays in their constituency during the week, but for female MPs with young children this is probably not the case, particularly in the ﬁrst year or two as a minimum.

In my case, my baby is wherever I am, so during the week he is in Parliament, in the nursery during the day and then in my office in the evening. Either my husband has to spend the evening with us in my office or I have to take the baby with me every time there is a division. Clearly this is extremely difficult, particularly with late night votes, and very disruptive to the baby’s sleep.

I therefore feel strongly that the sitting hours should be changed so that Parliament ﬁnishes earlier than 10.00 pm. I favour the House sitting until either 7.30 pm or 6.30 pm on Tuesdays and I would like to see the hours brought forward to 10.30 am to 6.30 pm on Wednesdays, but I feel less strongly about that.

I am very supportive of the proposals to reserve Fridays for constituency business and moving private Members’ bills to Tuesday evenings. I completely agree with the position put forward in the Committee’s report, and feel that the current arrangements mean that those of us with constituencies at a distance from London are not able fully to participate in Friday debates, as they are often a waste of time and it means a day away from the constituency for often little beneﬁt.

Another issue that I have found since having a child is that the lack of warning about parliamentary business and hours makes planning very difficult. Childcare is already very difficult to arrange when working and living in two separate places, though this has been made significantly easier with the opening of the House of Commons nursery. With a system of two weeks’ notice and changes to the whipping arrangements common at the last minute, it becomes even harder, and more expensive, to manage.

I support all the measures you suggest in the report, in particular having more advance information about voting times, whether it is at a preset time, or through use of more deferred divisions. It might be worth piloting the different options and seeing how they work in practice and which people prefer.

As for the calendar of parliamentary terms, I don’t like the September sitting and wholeheartedly support getting rid of it. I am happy with most of the options you lay out, however, I do think that the summer recess should be longer than just four to ﬁve weeks. It is when most people take a holiday but it is also the best time of year to do a surgery tour of the constituency and it is difﬁcult to do both within a shorter recess. I would prefer a longer summer recess, so I prefer option 2 as laid out in the calendars in your report.

I really welcome the committee’s work on this area, and the thoughtful and interesting proposals that are being put forward. Thank you for your work on this and I really hope we can see changes to make the Commons more family-friendly and to enable MPs to serve their constituents better. 14 December 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w81

Linda Rostron (Written Answer Unit, Hansard) 1. Hope you are good thinkers and listeners. 2. Hope you will consider the broader influence of these changes on staff as well as MPs. To me there isn’t much to choose between the “two options for reform”. 3. I would like to be able to take some of my holidays out of recess and as I do not have children I do not mind working in August if that would help the House spread its working load. Perhaps a compromise of being able to take four weeks holiday outside of recess would allow this. 4. I work 4.00 pm until midnight (unsocial hours payments or other sorts of allowances = nil). I agreed to work these hours because they were required by the House. Fortunately, I have been able to arrange and rearrange my work-life balance to take into account changes to date. 5. If working hours are changed and staff like me are travelling at peak times there would very likely be an increase in their personal cost burden. Also, child care and other caring arrangements are influenced by the Committee’s decision. Financial pay freezes and increased pension contributions together with changes to sitting times may be too much for some staff. The quality of the House product could very well be diminished. 6. I have worked at the House for over 23 years. In recent times, however, I have found it increasingly depressing to work here. The latest negative influence being the downgrading of facilities for evening workers (saving £10,000). I really don’t want to feel badly towards the House as I understand it has to save money, but we need to remember our interconnection in everything we do here. Whether we like it or not we are in a symbiotic relationship and need to work together to make this the best House in the world. 7. If it all becomes too much, I may well apply for the next round of redundancies if there is one. I would then like to return on a consultancy basis as I have some ideas about making use of House facilities on Fridays and Saturdays. These ideas I hope would provide some income generation for the benefit of my own debts and the House’s financial benefit. Constituency Fridays would be good for me in this instance. 8. A bit more fun would be good. 14 December 2011

Rt Hon Andy Burnham MP (Labour, Leigh) My response is as follows: 1. I am in favour of changing Tuesday sittings to 11.30 am to 7.00 pm; 2. I am in favour of changing Tuesday and Wednesday sittings to 10.30 am to 6.00 pm; 3. Private Members’ bills—either of these scenarios would make it possible to move private Members’ bills from Friday to Tuesday evenings. 14 December 2011

Caroline Lucas MP (Green, Brighton Pavilion) Conference timing On the issue of the summer recess and September sittings, of the two options the committee is considering, I prefer the former of bringing party conferences forward to the ﬁrst three weeks of September. My concern about the second option is that MPs with families might miss out on October half-term if conferences were to take place in late October.

Calendar pattern The pattern of four/ﬁve weeks at Westminster followed by a week in the constituency is appealing. However, I am concerned that, based on the illustrative calendar provided, that this wouldn’t marry well with breaks during school holidays. Therefore, my view is that if it is possible to have a four/ﬁve week pattern, whilst ensuring constituency breaks happen at the time of school holidays, that would be ideal, but school holidays must be the primary consideration.

Tuesday sitting hours I have previously given my views on the sitting hours I think best to allow for more family time for Members. In this consultation, I am responding on the options other members concerned with family-friendly hours have canvassed: — I am in favour of bringing Tuesday sitting hours forward. — I am in favour of changing Tuesday sittings to 10.30 am to 6.00 pm. — As a second preference I am in favour of changing Tuesday sittings to 11.30 am to 7.00 pm. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w82 Procedure Committee: Evidence

Wednesday and Thursday sitting hours I am in favour of bringing Wednesday and Thursday sitting hours forward.

Private Members’ Bills — I am in favour of moving private Members’ bills from Friday to Tuesday or Wednesday evenings, with Tuesday as my ﬁrst preference.

Certainty about voting times I very much share the desire of many Members for certainty about when our presence will be required in the House (specifically, to vote). I entirely agree that diary commitments in the constituency and elsewhere can be badly disrupted by lack of notice of the business to be taken in the House, and short-notice changes to the business. I refer back to my previous submission for my detailed views but in short, I am in favour of all four points the committee is considering: — greater use of deferred divisions; — a defined voting time; — more advance notice of business; and — providing that no running whipped business, or no business requiring a division in the middle of the sitting day, may normally be taken on one or more specified days of the week.

Amendments which fail ever to be discussed before passing into law It is a scandal that the Government repeatedly makes substantial amendments to its own legislation at report stage and that many such amendments go through “on the knife” as a consequence of programming. This means that Government amendments are passing into law without scrutiny. It should be a top priority for this appalling state of affairs to be addressed. If Government does participate fully with the forthcoming pilot bill(s) for explanatory statements for all stages of a bill, providing a statement for all their amendments on the pilot, this will be an important first step in at least shining a light on this unacceptable practice. However, should this light fail to create the necessary pressure to actually stop Government amendments on report going through on the knife, there is a clear case for some form of rule to force the programming of sufficient time for all such amendments to be discussed on the floor of the House.

Injury time and oral statements The idea of “injury time” as a means of protecting the time available for business following a statement or statements is interesting. However, given that it would be likely to mean additional time at the end of the sitting to compensate for time spent on statements, I would be concerned about the impact on family-friendly sitting hours. Furthermore, I feel that “injury time” is perhaps a red herring, when the real question should be “why do we only have a few hours notice of statements, when ministers will have had them in their diaries for days”? With more notice, we could plan better in the ﬁrst place. In the vast majority of cases it should be possible to plan ahead and tell members when statements will be a week before hand. Taking yesterday’s oral statement on Bovine TB, I have no doubt that the Secretary of State for DEFRA knew at least a week in advance that she would be giving that statement. What good reason is there for not telling MPs earlier when the statement would be? There is, in my view, a strong case for ministers to have to announce any non-urgent oral statements to be made for the following week at Thursday’s business statement. Where urgent matters come up and it is impossible for ministers to plan and notify ahead, ministers should have to apply to the Speaker for an urgent statement. The Speaker could then rule on whether to allow the urgent statement—if it were a non-urgent matter, ministers would have to wait and include it in the next business statement. Were this to be introduced, it would permit forward planning and better programming of time around statements so that “injury time” should largely be unnecessary. If there is a way of allowing injury time on a future day, without impinging on family-friendly hours, I would be interested hearing the details of such a proposal. However, I would not want this to be at the expense of better information and planning.

Electronic voting I note that the Committee has decided not to examine the issue of electronic voting in this report, but very much welcome the decision to examine it separately in a later inquiry. 15 December 2011

Greg Mulholland MP (Liberal Democrat, Leeds North West) I am very pleased that the Procedure Committee has recognised the need to ensure that MPs who live in their constituencies, especially those with families, are not disadvantaged and has therefore rejected the calls cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w83

to change the system in favour of London based MPs (many who represent constituencies in other parts of the country but choose to live with their families in London). There is a worrying and utterly misleading campaign to make hours more “family-friendly”. What this means in reality is to make it more family-friendly for London MPs, which would make it much less family-friendly for constituency based MPs. That is not fair and not acceptable. As it is, I am away from my young family (three children aged six, three and one) for four days/three nights a week for much of the year which is a sacriﬁce enough—and a huge extra burden on my wife (N.B. she and other spouses/partners never seem to be asked about such things). (Plus of course many weekends I am also working). My contribution to parenting includes taking my school-aged daughter to school (and from January my second daughter to nursery) on Monday morning, before travelling down to London and on Friday.

Sitting Hours So it is essential that Monday hours remain the same, 2.30 pm to 10.00 pm. I also have long argued that private Members’ bills should not be on a Friday which I believe should be respected as the essential constituency day, barring national emergencies. So I would support a way of making this happen. I also argue against changes to timings on Tuesday and Wednesday. It is important to get business done in these days but Tuesday mornings are also exceptionally useful to get other work done (MP needs several hours a week desk time), select committees, Westminster Hall debates, meetings. Business starting earlier would simply mean MPs spending less time in the Chamber—we have to have some time do other things. Wednesday also does not need changing. Again, select committees can sit on a Wednesday and PMQs is the right time and ﬁnishing at 7.00 pm allows for travel back to constituencies where that is necessary as well as allowing London based members to be home at a reasonable hour. Falling into the trap of having “normal” working hours would simply mean that constituency based MPs would have empty evenings, which is not a time when we can arrange meetings so that becomes for us wasted time, which we simply can’t afford.

Calendar/Recesses Personally I believe that the current calendar is about as sensible as it can be. I do however oppose the ludicrous so called November recess, which is nothing of the sort (as opposed to prorogation, when that process works). Having two days “off” Parliament neither gives any chance to spend time with the family or to spend a full week in the constituency. It is a waste of taxpayers’ money to have MPs all travel for two days then have two days not sitting. This year, with sitting till 10.00 pm on the Tuesday I wasn’t even able to travel back to the constituency till the Wednesday anyway, so one of the so-called days off I was travelling back—so couldn’t even make it a full day in the constituency. The only thing to consider here would be whether it is possible (by bringing the party conferences forward) to instead have the actual school half-term week as a week away from Parliament. However, I think the current September sitting arrangements are adequate if not ideal. I oppose the idea of moving party conferences to late October/early November. That would mean they would be around the half-term and whilst MPs are not off, many of our families choose to spend time at relatives with us joining them at the weekends so having conferences at this time would encroach on that. I would oppose making the summer (August) recess shorter than it is at the moment, except possibly trading one week for the October half-term and having the conferences earlier but I wouldn’t mind either way. The two weeks of the conference recess are an invaluable constituency fortnight for many of us, when we can do more surgeries meetings and visits that we can do at other times of the year.

Conclusion In truth, there are no simply and easy changes that will make the life of an MP easier. Whilst I am sure that London based MPs would like to be home for 6.30 pm to see their families, at least they wake up with them every day, which constituency based MPs do not. The reality is that we all have to make sacriﬁces to be able to be in Parliament representing our constituents. Ours is to be away Monday to Thursday; theirs is to work on Monday and Tuesday evenings. I would say that is a fair trade-off and a reasonable balance. Similarly, there is no simple answer to the annual calendar. The fact is that most of us work six day weeks and spend much of recesses in our constituencies, where we need to be based for some of the year—the challenge is communicating that more effectively to the public and hoping that sections of the media will stop presenting recesses as holidays. 15 December 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w84 Procedure Committee: Evidence

Diana Johnson MP (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North) Please ﬁnd below my submission on the proposals re hours. — I am in favour of changing Tuesday sittings to 11.30 am to 7.00 pm. This is my ﬁrst preference. — I am in favour of changing Tuesday and Wednesday sittings to 10.30 am to 6.00 pm. This is my second preference. — Private Members’ bills—either of these scenarios would make it possible to move private Members’ bills from Friday to Tuesday evenings. I would be happy to move private Members’ bills to Tuesday evening. 15 December 2011

Jonathan Lord MP (Conservative, Woking) My top-line response to the consultation is as follows: 1. I am in favour of changing Tuesday sittings to 11.30 am to 7.00 pm. 2. I am NOT in favour of changing Tuesday and Wednesday sittings to 10.30 am to 6.00 pm. 3. I am in favour of moving private Members’ business from Fridays to Tuesday evenings/nights if my item 1 (as above) is adopted. 4. Even though I do not favour change to the current Wednesday sitting times for main business, I would be in favour of private Members’ business being switched from Fridays to Wednesday nights if my item 3 (as immediately above) is not adopted. 15 December 2011

Duncan Hames MP (Liberal Democrat, Chippenham) I would like to express my support for proposals in the Procedure Committee’s Sittings of the House consultation, to bring forward Tuesday and Wednesday sittings to begin earlier in the day. I am in favour of changing Tuesday sittings to 11.30 am to 7.00 pm, but my preferred option would be to change both Tuesday and Wednesday sittings to 10.30 am to 6.00 pm. Both of these proposals would allow the House to hear private Members’ bills on Tuesday evenings, a move which I would strongly support. Reading and voting on private Members’ bills on a Friday precludes the involvement of the majority of MPs, including myself, since our priority must be to return to our constituencies. I do not feel it is right that MPs should be forced to choose between our vital constituency-based work and voting on these bills, particularly as a signiﬁcant number of our constituents are often concerned about the issues that they cover. On overall sitting patterns, I do not support the four weeks in Westminster, one week away model. I support both options for moving conference recess over the status quo, with a preference for delaying them into October, rather than bringing them earlier into September. I do support more advanced notice of business, and greater shielding of Mondays from business which may require divisions within the course of the business. 15 December 2011

Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP (Liberal Democrat, Bermondsey and Old Southwark) Please see my comments below on the committee’s consultation, Sittings of the House and the parliamentary calendar. I am grateful for the opportunity to comment. I believe we have improved the pattern of sitting in recent years but further improvement is necessary and would be welcome.

Overall sitting patterns The principle which I believe should be followed is that when schools are on holiday across the UK, the House should not be sitting. Although it would be impossible exactly to coordinate this with half-term school holidays, I believe that coordinating sitting times for the House of Commons with the Christmas, Easter and summer school holidays in a way which accommodates the different patterns in different parts of the UK would be possible. In general terms this would mean that the summer holiday of Parliament would be July and August and approximately a fortnights holiday in December, January and around Easter. I believe there is merit in a one week half-term break during each term where MPs could prioritise constituency work. Until there is a change, by agreement with the political parties, in the timing of major annual party conferences I support the retention of the short sitting period from the beginning of September until the end of the week before the beginning of major party conferences. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w85

There would of course be logic in seeing if the parties could be persuaded to have their conferences at the beginning of September or more probably that there could be an extended three week half-term in the autumn term during which the parties could hold their conferences—ie probably from about the 10th to 30th of October.

Sitting patterns in a week Monday’s sitting times are good. Tuesdays and Wednesdays should be the days when in addition to present responsibilities we deal with private Members business. In my view this would best be accommodated on Wednesday evenings from 7.00 pm to 10.00 pm, with no change for the current Tuesday and Wednesday timetables for other business. Consideration should be given to changing Thursday’s business to start an hour earlier to allow colleagues the whole working day before leaving for their constituencies. Obviously this will have an impact on sitting times of committees which would need to be addressed. I do not believe the House should sit on Fridays other than exceptionally.

Private Members’ Business As indicated above I believe that private Members’ bills should be considered on a day when all members here and that this would best be accommodated on Wednesdays.

Other opportunities I believe that when there is government business, injury time should be given so any statements or urgent questions do not reduce the time allocated for government business. This could mean that this house would sit slightly later on Monday, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. This should not be possible in Thursdays. 15 December 2011

Jo Swinson MP (Liberal Democrat, East Dunbartonshire) Overall sitting patterns I strongly oppose the calendar options which has the four/five week blocks at Westminster followed by a week in the constituency, as this would mean very little overlap between the Westminster summer recess and Scottish school holidays. It is already difficult for Members with children to arrange holiday time with the current calendar; this would only exacerbate the difficulty. The current calendar generally works well. The September sitting of just two weeks does feel short, but I think meeting in September is important so that there isn’t an over-long period in the summer without the opportunity to table questions and press the government on current issues in the chamber. Moving the conferences slightly later could help this. Difficult as it may be to arrange, I wonder if this pattern with party conferences in October could be piloted for one year and then assessed for how well it worked. I don’t think each parliamentary block has to be of an equal number of weeks, so the break would not have to be in late October for conferences. There could be a four week sitting in September, a three week break for conferences and then a nine week sitting until Christmas. More radical, but worth exploring, would be scheduling party conferences could for a two week period rather than three weeks. The three main party conferences typically last about five days each and most also make some use of weekend time to make it easier for delegates to attend who work midweek. With a bit of cooperation and innovation this could be done easily within two weeks.

Sitting Patterns in a week I wholeheartedly support moving the sitting hours to allow an earlier start and finish. The exception to this is Mondays, where there is a clear and rational case for a later start to facilitate travel to London. For the same reason, an earlier start on Thursday (eg 9.30 am to 5.00 pm) would assist MPs in travelling home. With business finishing with votes at 6.00 pm there is no train that I can get to my constituency that will arrive that evening, requiring a lift or a taxi from Glasgow station to get me home by 12.30 am. The core hours of the House on Tuesdays of 2.30 pm to 10.30 pm are particularly anachronistic. Starting ideally at 9.30 am or 10.30 am (even 11.30 am would be progress) would be much more civilised. I’m sure that most MPs would work in the evenings in the same way that they currently work in the mornings, but it would give flexibility about where this work was done. This flexibility is more valuable in the evening than in the morning for a variety of reasons, such as easier and safer travel arrangements, and fitting in better with school and childcare provision. I would similarly agree with an earlier start on Wednesdays. If they so choose, select committees could meet in the evenings, though even now many select committees meet during times when the House is sitting and this does not present insurmountable problems. Arguments about far-flung constituencies not finding earlier sitting hours helpful are irrelevant in my opinion. Representing a seat 400 miles away from Westminster, once I am in London, I am there for the duration of the cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w86 Procedure Committee: Evidence

parliamentary week. The factors that affect my time in the constituency are the time I need to be in London by, and the time I can leave. The suggestion that sitting late in the evening somehow is helpful is bizarre. It may not help MPs whose families are far away to change the hours to sit earlier on Tuesdays and Wednesdays (though it would help to do so on Thursdays). It equally would not be in any way unhelpful to these MPs, and it would help another group of MPs whose constituencies are closer. Attending private Members’ bills on Fridays has been one of the most depressing experiences I have had in the House. To go on a Friday to support a bill, this means I will have absolutely no time in the week to speak face-to-face with my constituency staff, or to visit any school, organisation, public service or business that operates solely during office hours Monday—Friday. To do so and then find a bill being talked out is hugely frustrating. While I support wider reform to private Members’ bills, at least if the attendance did not come with such a big constituency sacrifice then it would be a little better. I therefore think that holding private Members’ bills business on Tuesday (and/or Wednesday) evenings would be a big step in the right direction.

Providing certainty I have long argued for more advance notice of business. In any modern workplace meetings and events are planned more than two weeks in advance. MPs do lots of work outside of the Chamber, and the uncertainty over meetings due to changing parliamentary business makes diary management incredibly inefﬁcient, using additional staff resource that could be better deployed serving constituents. No one will mind if an emergency means there is a sudden need for legislation or debating time and business needs to change, that is the nature of politics. However, to set business only a week or two in advance purely for the convenience of government is not sensible when 650 MPs’ working patterns should be considered. As well as more advance notice about the bills or subjects due to be debated (and statements), greater use of deferred divisions and running whip business such as report stage to be limited to particular days would be immensely helpful.

Private Members’ Bills Yes to time limits on speeches in private Members’ bills debates—let’s not have any more reading out detailed passages from lengthy boring documents just to kill time. I have some sympathy with the suggestion that private Members’ bills should be time limited, but I also think they should be able to command signiﬁcant support in the House if they are to succeed. If they were moved to a Tuesday or Wednesday evening then the 100 MP requirement for closure would be easier, so it may be best to move them and then later on assess whether time limits are also necessary.

Other opportunities I am in favour of Westminster Hall being better used—for example on Mondays and Thursday mornings. As regards “injury time” for statements, I would not want this to be automatic, but in some cases it may be justiﬁed. I think to some extent this already happens—there have been examples where two or three government statements have resulted in a full day opposition debate being cut to a half day with the other half day being offered at a later date. I would not be in favour of injury time to happen by extending the time of the moment of interruption, but perhaps there should be some process whereby a request to the Speaker could be made (or some other process—presumably in time to the House Business Committee) to adjudicate on whether additional time is required for a speciﬁc piece of legislation or debate as a result of statements and/or urgent questions. 16 December 2011

Julian Smith MP (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon) I am writing to you to urge the Committee to change the current sitting hours of the House. My preference is for the following—to maintain the hours we work but change them: — I am in favour of changing Tuesday sittings to 11.30 am to 7.00 pm. — I am also in favour of changing Tuesday and Wednesday sittings to 10.30 am to 6.00 pm — I would prefer private Members’ bills to be moved to a Tuesday evening, so that more MPs could participate in the debates if they wish to. This would mean that there would be no debates in the Chamber on Fridays. I believe these changes would encourage diversity of those who wish to become Members of Parliament. We should always aim to have the best people, not those for whom the hours work. Having more family- friendly hours, such as those I support above, would be a positive step forward. Also, as someone who set up and ran a successful small business, I am used to working long hours day and night. The hours I work as an MP are even longer and that would not change if the sitting times were altered. It would simply allow our days in Parliament to be more productive (as they would, for instance, tie in more to the hours worked by our staff and our constituents). 16 December 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w87

Ann Coffey MP (Labour, Stockport) I support an 11.30 am start on a Tuesday ﬁnishing at 7.00 pm and I would like the opportunity to vote for this option. 16 December 2011

Ben Gummer MP (Conservative, Ipswich) I broadly support the report of the committee, which is considered and sensible. The idea of moving private Members’ bills to Wednesday evenings is particularly good, as it would encourage many more members to be involved. Additionally, as one who sits on a busy select committee, I do not ﬁnd any difﬁculty to our work on Thursdays, when Parliament sits earlier—and I do not see why this should not be the case on Tuesdays too were the times to be changed. Monday should remain a late sitting day, so that we have one evening together and retain the very useful free Monday morning. 16 December 2011

David Hamilton MP (Labour, Midlothian) I have already submitted my observations and can I say, I do not agree with the early sitting on a Tuesday. We have already tried this and reverted back to 2.30 pm start as we found it conflicted with Westminster Hall, select committees and a number of other meetings. Also, the suggestion of starting at 10.30 am on a Wednesday is foolish. The way it stands at present starting at 11.30 am, with PMQs at 12.00 pm fits in perfectly maximising viewing audiences, remember this previously was 3.00 pm. As far as the recess is concerned, watch out for the sting in the tail in July, if we accept the proposal to start the recess at the end of July, this would effectively mean that many young Scottish MPs with families, where school holidays start at the beginning of July would only have a few weeks available to them. Also there should be consideration given to a much longer break allowing maintenance to be done (if we don’t allow major works to get done in House of Commons, some of the employees are saying that it is possible that we may have to vacate the Parliament at some future date, which would be at a much higher cost, both in time and money). My final comment, I understand why people want to attempt to normalise the hours of working in Parliament. However when you consider the vast majority of MPs do not live in London and wish to get back to their constituencies for Friday, I believe it is better to maximise the hours that we work in London rather than working nine to five, then twiddling our thumbs the rest of the evening, we do not have the luxury to go home. Surely MPs who enter the House realise it is not a “normal job”. I believed from day one, this is a London agenda to suit London MPs for understandable reasons, but I strongly suggest we should not go down this road. 16 December 2011

Sir Bob Russell MP (Liberal Democrat, Colchester) The bottom line for me is there should be NO CHANGE in the current sitting hours! There is more to the House of Commons than a 9.00 am to 5.00 pm existence—and the House should not alter its working arrangements to satisfy those who feel that this is a “job” which can be done within these hours. I also do not think we should alter the current voting arrangement, nor the away we address each other in the Chamber. 16 December 2011

Sandra Osborne MP (Labour, Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) I am responding to the consultation on sitting hours and would like to indicate my support for the following: 1. Changes to Tuesday hours—either to 10.30 am to 6.00 pm or 11.30 am to 7.00 pm; 2. Possibly an earlier start on Wednesday—10.30 am to 6.00 pm; 3. Moving private Members’ bills to a Tuesday evening slot. 16 December 2011

Mary Macleod MP (Conservative, Brentford and Isleworth) I am part of the latest intake of MPs, having been elected in 2010. I have been involved in politics for many years, having previously stood in 1997 for the Ross, Skye and Inverness West constituency. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w88 Procedure Committee: Evidence

From 1990 to 2010 I worked in business as a management consultant, advising large companies on major business change programmes, so I am well used to the business environment, travel and the long hours typically worked in the City.

My personal experience of the process for getting selected and elected as a female Member and my ongoing concern about the low numbers of women Members, led me to set up the APPG for Women in Parliament. The aim of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Women in Parliament is to increase the numbers of female Members in Parliament and a signiﬁcant factor is to ensure that the working environment does not discourage capable women from becoming a Member. I believe that currently both the uncertainty around working hours and late night voting may be seen as off-putting, particularly for those with caring responsibilities.

I gave oral feedback to the Procedure Committee on 14 September 2011. However, I wanted to provide a further, written submission in response to the recent sittings of the House and the parliamentary calendar consultation paper to convey the opinions that I have gathered during discussions with many female MPs as part of my work on the APPG for Women in Parliament as well as my personal opinions on the options presented.

I have conducted interviews with around 20 female Members from all parties, both in informal discussions and during discussion at meetings of the APPG for Women in Parliament. I have also received email feedback from further female Members.

As is made clear in the recent consultation document, it is impossible to arrive at a perfect solution for all Members as personal requirements vary enormously depending on family circumstances and geographic location of the Member and their family.

However, in the conversations I have had, there are a number of areas where there is a general consensus for change and I have attempted to outline those in this paper (together with my personal views) against each of the main headings from the consultation paper.

Overall sitting patterns (the parliamentary calendar)

There is general agreement with the working assumption outlined in the consultation paper that the number of sitting days and sitting weeks should remain broadly consistent with current levels, at about 150 days and 34 weeks per year. This is not about reducing the hours we work but about restructuring these hours. I agree with this.

In addition, for those with young families in particular, there is a general consensus that recess periods should be kept broadly in line with school holidays. Therefore, putting in place a pattern of four/ﬁve weeks at Westminster followed by a week in the constituency (the second option proposed in the consultation under this heading) would not seem to be a sensible option.

With regard to the conference recess, there was general agreement amongst those I spoke to for changes to be made to this recess period, either to shorten the length of the conference break or to move when it takes place. As noted in the consultation, the two week September sitting this year was almost universally unpopular among Members. Personally, I favour the option to bring forward the party conferences to the ﬁrst three weeks of September, with a short constituency period in November. Of course, there is a risk with this option that the media will portray it as an “extended summer break” for Members. However, I believe we should use this opportunity to explain to the general public what “recess” is for, ie that it is intended to provide concentrated time in the constituency or responding to constituent correspondence and issues and that it is not a time when Members pack up their bags and disappear for an extended summer holiday.

Sitting patterns in a week

The overwhelming requirement from Members that I’ve spoken to is to have greater control over working diaries. As the consultation suggests, there is not a general feeling that Members want to change the number of hours worked, but that there should be greater certainty over when those hours will be.

Many women expressed the view that in other senior professions, such as in the City for example, those with young families can often make the choice to leave work in the early evening to see their children and continue working once their children are in bed. This is not always an option even for those who children live nearby currently given the uncertainty over voting times and when business will ﬁnish for the day.

Some people who live in constituencies a long distance away from London may have expressed their desire to work longer hours but for a shorter week. However, given the commitment to keep to broadly similar sitting days, it is unlikely that we would ever move to a Monday to Wednesday sitting pattern. I believe that we should focus our efforts on managing the sitting hours between Monday to Thursday more effectively. If I had won the seat in 1997 in the north of Scotland, I would still think it was important to have more structured hours for Monday to Thursday as then I could plan my diary more effectively. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w89

Mondays When I worked in the City, I often had to work on long term projects elsewhere in the UK or abroad and had to ensure I was at my place of work by 9.00 am on Mondays. However, given the IPSA restrictions and the need for some MPs to take connecting ﬂights or trains to get to Westminster, I agree with the consultation suggestion to keep the sitting hours on a Monday as they are.

Tuesdays There is a general consensus I believe for changing the sitting hours on Tuesdays. I am personally in favour of changing the sitting hours to either 10.30 am to 6.00 pm or 11.30 am to 7.00 pm. This also represents the view of the majority of female Members I have spoken to. I agree that the work of select committees is extremely and increasingly important within Parliament. However, I believe that Members are well-used to managing competing priorities within their diaries and, given that select committees already meet at different times during the week, it is no longer necessary to keep the sitting diary clear on Tuesdays morning for this purpose.

Wednesdays Personally, I would favour a change in sitting hours on Wednesdays to 10.30 am to 6.00 pm. This would represent a more family-friendly working day and would allow more choice and opportunities for constituency or personal activities in the evenings.

Thursdays My constituency is London-based, therefore the ﬁnish time on Thursdays is less important to me. However, I would support a standard 6.00 pm ﬁnish time on Thursdays as it may allow those travelling back to their constituencies to do so on a Thursday evening, thus providing for a more productive day in their constituency on Fridays.

Fridays There was a general consensus among those I spoke to that they would prefer private Members’ bills to move to another day in the sitting week to allow Fridays to become solely a constituency-based working day. This is particularly important for people in marginal seats. I would like the opportunity to participate in the debates on private Members’ bills but am unable to do so currently as it is critical that I spend all my time in my constituency on Fridays. I would favour private Members’ bills moving to Tuesday evenings. Providing certainty about when Members are required to be present in the House As mentioned previously, gaining greater control and certainty over sitting and voting times is perhaps the most important requirement mentioned by the female Members I’ve spoken to. In general, Members would like greater advance notice about voting times and also about debates in the Chamber, including the topics of opposition day debates and those in Westminster Hall. This would enable Members to plan their time, diaries and preparation for speeches more effectively and with less last minute disruptions.

Other points for consideration Although it is perhaps outside the particular remit of this particular inquiry, I would also like to suggest that a change is made to the way that the Speaker decides on the order of speakers within the Chamber. Currently, after the initial speeches have been made by senior or experience members, priority is then given to those that have spoken least in the Chamber. Personally I feel this is unfair as it penalises those that have contributed most in the Chamber and they will always have to plan for extra time in their diaries to wait in the Chamber for an opportunity to speak. Where else are you penalised for hard work?? I believe priority should be given to those with a known background or specialism in a particular subject, but following that, speeches should be made on a ﬁrst-come, ﬁrst-served basis to be fair to all. Those who are very keen to speak will put in a request early. 16 December 2011

Rt Hon Douglas Alexander MP (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire South) I have long supported reform of sitting hours of the House of Commons to reﬂect more family-friendly hours. I would urge the committee to consider what steps can be taken to allow working parents to better meet their obligations to their families as well as their constituents. In particular I would support: 1. Changes to Tuesday hours with the house beginning at 10.30 am and rising at 6.00 pm. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w90 Procedure Committee: Evidence

2. Earlier start on a Wednesday—hours starting at 10.30 am to 6.00 pm. 3. Moving private Members’ bills to the Tuesday evening slot. I hope consideration will be given to these changes by the committee. 16 December 2011

Stephen Twigg MP (Labour/Co-operative, Liverpool, West Derby) I would like to propose two options for consideration: 1. I am in favour of changing Tuesday sittings to 11.30 am to 7.00 pm. 2. I am in favour of changing Tuesday and Wednesday sittings to 10.30 am to 6.00 pm. 16 December 2011

Bob Blackman MP (Conservative, Harrow East) In response to the issues raised in the consultation: 1. I support the proposal that there is no change to Mondays. 2. I support the proposal to operate 11.30 am to 7.00 pm on Tuesdays. 3. I support the retention of the 11.30 am to 7.00 pm hours for Wednesdays. 4. I do not support changing the hours for Thursdays. 5. I support the concept of moving private Members’ bills to Tuesdays or Wednesdays after 7.00 pm with a clear requirement that a closure motion would apply at 10.00 pm with the potential for a vote if required. 16 December 2011

Dr Thérèse Coffey MP (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal) 1. I think it is useful to match recess with school holidays except two weeks a year should be different at least to allow teachers and other school staff to be able to visit Parliament when it is sitting as well as one week when Parliament is in recess and schools are in session to allow greater opportunities for Members to visit schools. 2. Party conference season used to be timed to avoid seaside resort holiday peak periods. Given the changed nature of conferences, there is scope to reset the conference calendar. 3. Sitting hours—I don’t have a family and so do not feel quite so constrained by the sitting hours as other Members. However, I do note that the proposed change to sitting hours seems to depend on both the age of the children and where the family is located. For very young children, having late votes can often allow Members to leave the House earlier in the day (depending on the whip) and to return at 10.00 pm to vote. This option gets less attractive as children get older. I do value the opportunity for my select committee to meet on Tuesday morning when the House is not sitting. I agree that Monday mornings should be set aside for travel or other work so as to allow Sundays to be set aside for Members (for most Members anyway) but perhaps the sitting could be brought forward to 1.30 pm and ﬁnish at 9.00 pm. Tuesday I would be content to pull forward the sitting to 11.30 am but understand that this was not deemed to work by the previous Parliament. I would leave Wednesday at 11.30 am to allow two days when mornings could be set aside for select committees who wish to meet when the House is not sitting. If Thursday is to be even earlier, could it be brought forward to 9.30 am? I understand that quite a lot of work has to be done to prepare the Chamber and other matters but perhaps it could be investigated, as it is possible on sitting Fridays. 4. Voting—I am not a fan of deferred divisions and would not like to see more. 5. Private Members’ bills—I would like to see these remain on a Friday. It is a special day in the Chamber to have a focused debate. I would be content for time limits to be imposed if there is agreement from the House that say at least three bills should be considered for a debate with the ﬁrst bill having priority—the suggestion in 23 of a time-limited procedure bill could be waived by another standing order on the say-so of the House 6. Other matters: (a) Open up Westminster Hall on Monday for more adjournment debates or to hear statements. Perhaps delegate one Monday a month for e-petitions. (b) Introduce time limits in Westminster Hall at the Chair’s discretion. (c) In Westminster Hall, the Chair could read out who has put in to speak and this could be taken into account by members when deciding to accept interventions. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w91

(d) Restrict each Member to one type of bill in his/her name—eg one private Members’ bill, one presentation bill and one ten minute rule bill. That would prevent “block booking” of bill slots by members and encourage them to be selective. (e) Consider a speaking list in the Chamber. (f) Allow the House to vote on injury time to the day’s schedule if statements or urgent questions have been added. 16 December 2011

Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP (Labour, Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) Working in both Parliament and the constituency inevitably creates real challenges for MPs combining work and family responsibilities. However the odd working patterns of the House (including starting business mid afternoon) make it harder, and have deterred many candidates (particularly women with children) from standing for election or re-election. MPs’ family circumstances vary substantially—some have families in their constituencies, some in London and some travel to and fro together. However, too often these differences in family circumstances have been used as an excuse not to make any changes at all, even though there are clear measures that would make things easier for some families if not for all.

On the calendar year Switching to a new timetable of constituency weeks every four/ﬁve weeks, rather than broadly following the school calendar as at present would make it harder for Members whose families live in their constituency to work and be based back in their constituencies when the children are off school. I am therefore opposed to a more disruptive timetable of different constituency weeks.

Weekly hours Monday hours should remain late so that MPs whose families are in their constituencies do not have to travel down on Sunday instead. (Although this makes it harder for MPs with London constituencies, this is a fair balance to strike). Tuesday hours should start in the morning rather than at 2.30 pm so that business can finish earlier in the evening—with main business finishing no later than 7.00 pm rather than finishing late at night. (This would be an extremely important change which would make it easier for families in or near London, without in anyway making it harder for MPs families who are further away). Tuesday and Wednesday hours would be much better moved to 10.30 am to 6.00 pm, rather than 11.30 pm to 7.00 pm. In practice a 7.00 pm finish means MPs with young children in or near London still can’t get back to put their children to bed. (This would also help families in or near London without disadvantaging families further away). Thursday hours could be moved to 9.30am to 5.00 pm rather than 10.30 am to 6.00 pm. (That would help all families).

Fridays Private Members’ Business I would support moving this to Tuesday nights (it would allow MPs who want to be present for private Members’ bills not to miss a day working in the constituency and would help families further from London.) I would not support moving it to Wednesday as it would be a backward step and make things worse for families in or near London as many MPs would ﬁnd themselves needing to spend a third late night in Parliament. It is also worth the committee looking further at whether more could be done to enable voting to happen at more regular times. 16 December 2011

Anne McIntosh MP (Conservative, Thirsk, Malton and Filey) Hours of the House My preference for Tuesday sittings would be to keep the status quo, as a Member who represents a constituency some considerable length from London. Also it is not conducive to good attendance to have committees and the Chamber sitting at the same time the whole day. It is incredibly difﬁcult for Members to follow what is happening in bill committees and select committees when their sittings overlap throughout the whole day. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w92 Procedure Committee: Evidence

Currently select committees can meet on Tuesday mornings, free from debate and votes in the Chamber. I would be strongly in favour of keeping the sittings like this.

October sittings My preference would be to maintain the current pattern for the House of Commons to sit for two weeks in September before the three weeks of party conferences. This pattern enables me to visit schools in the constituency which I would not otherwise be able to do when the House is sitting and I cannot do when they are on holiday. Currently, the October to Christmas session is the ideal length of time with the longer nights and the beginning of adverse winter weather conditions during which it is quite tiring to commute weekly from Westminster to Yorkshire. To extend that period as the proposal suggests, I believe would not be bearable. 16 December 2011

Rt Hon Ed Balls MP (Labour/Co-operative, Morley and Outwood) The sitting pattern that the House adopts undoubtedly has a significant impact on the family life both of MPs and of MPs’ staff. As a matter of principle, I believe we should go as far as we reasonably can to bring the hours and weeks during which the House sits into line with the patterns that conventionally operate outside this House, particularly by schools. In addition, the more predictability there is to the hours when the House sits the better, since this also helps families to organise the daily routine, without the need for last minute adjustments. I make these points from my dual perspective as a father and as someone who is strongly committed to ensuring that men and women are not put off from standing as Members of Parliament by the fear of being unable to manage the practicalities of coming to this place, undertaking their constituency duties and caring for their family. I am sure we would all agree that there should be no such constraints on the pool from which Members are drawn. Having said this, I also accept that there may be significantly different preference between Members with families who live in and around London, those who live much further away, and those who move the whole family weekly between London and the constituency. I think we have to try and find a fair balance between their respective needs. With these principles in mind, these are my thoughts about the proposals set out in your consultation paper: So far as the weeks when the House sits are concerned, I oppose any proposals which would have the effect of meaning the House would be sitting during school holidays and half-terms. When it comes to the matter of hours, I strongly support the idea that Monday hours should continue to be late, since this allows MPs with families living in a constituency away from London to spend Sunday night at home—precious family time—and travelling to London on Monday morning instead. I think it would be a good idea for the House to sit earlier on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, so that the House can rise by say 6.30 pm. This should just about allow MPs with young families living in London and the surrounding area to get home in time to see their children before they go to bed. If this was to happen it would imply a starting time of 9.30 am on these days. In a similar spirit, I would suggest that the hours on Thursdays could be moved back so they ran from 9.30 am to 5.30 pm. So far as private Members’ business is concerned, I think it would be a good idea to move it from Fridays, where it can interfere with constituency work, but to Tuesday evenings, not Wednesdays, since the latter arrangement would mean a third late working night in the House, which would not be very helpful to families. 16 December 2011

Rt Hon Malcolm Bruce MP (Liberal Democrat, Gordon) I want the committee to consider the possibility of a radical change. The house to rise earlier in July, to sit through the whole of September and have three/four weeks recess in October (covering party conferences and half-term breaks throughout the UK). Many Members I have spoken to have agreed this would pace the year better, avoid the accusation of a long summer “holiday” and be more family-friendly. Does that make it too much to ask? 16 December 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w93

Rt Hon David Blunkett MP (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) I merely wish to reiterate my earlier evidence in relation to points 19 and 20. The importance of “certainty” cannot be over stressed. There is no evidence that there has been any gain whatsoever to opposition parties in either filibustering or parliamentary procedural measures that attempt to ambush the government. Where this has happened governments (and it is very rare) have simply reversed the decision. Having votes at a pre-determined time (including where appropriate deferred voting) and therefore effectively setting aside running votes, would make sense from everybody’s point of view, except those who think that the parliamentary process is some sort of game. I hope therefore that the suggestions in point 20 will be pursued vigorously. One final point. I note that consideration of modernising the way in which normal votes (as opposed to big occasions) is to be reconsidered, has been deferred. I think this is a great mistake. The amount of time that is wasted (and would be even more wasted in one sense by votes being drawn together at a fixed time) in the delusional belief that this gives Members the opportunity to lobby each other, misunderstands both the nature of how influence is genuinely brought to bear and how people communicate in the modern era, and misuses an enormous amount of valuable time. 20 December 2011

Supplementary written evidence submitted by the Leader of the House of Commons (P 241, 2010–12) I am grateful for the opportunity to give oral evidence to your Committee on 1 February 2012 concerning Sittings of the House and the Parliamentary Calendar. I thought it would be helpful to write to clarify three issues that came up in the course of questioning. First, I suggested that consideration might be given to the use of a slot in Westminster Hall for making ministerial statements. I should make it clear that this would provide a “spill-over” opportunity for ministerial statements which would not normally otherwise be made on the floor of the House. I have in mind, for example, certain statements on policy announcements on Opposition days, on other days when it is recognised that the time available for the main business before the House should not be reduced and on days when there is already another oral statement (or are other oral statements) which must take priority. The statements in question are generally made in the form of a written ministerial statement at present. I would envisage that statements in Westminster Hall would certainly not take place at the same time as statements on the floor of the House; the precise time for such statements in Westminster Hall could be a matter for discussion. The Government would, of course, undertake its usual processes of consideration before deciding whether a statement in Westminster Hall was appropriate, probably with a longer notice period given the organisational implications of an extended or additional Westminster Hall sitting. If detailed proposals were to be made, I would expect that they would be introduced on a pilot basis in the first instance. Second, I attach as promised the business of the House during the September sittings in the last two years [see Appendix]. This list I think leaves no room for doubt that September sittings under the present Government have been treated as ordinary sitting weeks, during which the usual range of business is transacted. Third, I want to confirm something I said in the context of the possibility that was mooted that a Standing Order might be introduced providing that the question on second reading of a Private Member’s Bill might be put after a set period of time, such as three hours. My suggestion that this would be novel was greeted with some scepticism, but it is clearly the case that there is no provision in Standing Orders for the question to be put on second reading of a Government bill after debate of a certain length. In very exceptional cases, mostly for emergency legislation, successive Governments have asked the House to agree a separate allocation of time motion for a specific bill limiting debate on second reading and requiring the question to be put after a period of time or at a specified hour. However, in the normal course of events, there is no provision requiring the question to be put at a certain time; practice for second reading of Government bills is governed by conventions about the timing of wind-up speeches, coupled with an awareness that an attempt to “talk out” a Government bill would serve no purpose in view of levels of attendance. A move to set down a limited period for a second reading debate after which the question would be put without regard to the content of a bill or bills would, I believe, be without precedent. I remain willing to provide further assistance to your Committee in the course of this inquiry, or during any separate consideration of the matters mentioned in this letter or other matters. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w94 Procedure Committee: Evidence

APPENDIX

2010 The business for the week commencing 6 September was: Monday 6 September Urgent question on phone tapping (Tom Watson MP)—Home Secretary responding. Second reading of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. Tuesday 7 September Urgent question on audit commission (Clive Betts MP)—Eric Pickles responding. Statement “Pakistan Floods Update” by Andrew Mitchell. Second reading of the Superannuation Bill. Wednesday 8 September Urgent question on PAYE Contributions (Stewart Hosie MP)—David Gauke responding. Opposition Day (4th allotted day). There will be a debate on an opposition motion. Subject to be announced. Thursday 9 September The house will consider a motion relating to UK Armed Forces in Afghanistan. The subject for this debate was nominated by the backbench business committee.

The business for the week commencing 13 September was: Monday 13 September Urgent question on cuts in public expenditure (Bob Russell MP)—Chancellor responding. Urgent question on the date of the Queen’s Speech (Denis MacShane MP)— leader responding. Second reading of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. Tuesday 14 September Statement “Report of the Billy Wright Inquiry” by Owen Paterson Second reading of the Equitable Life (Payments) Bill followed by Motion relating to the House of Commons Commission. Wednesday 15 September Statement “Individual Voter Registration” by Mark Harper. Motion to approve ways and means resolutions on which a Finance Bill will be introduced followed by: Remaining stages of the Identity Documents Bill. Thursday 16 September General debate on the Strategic Defence and Security Review and Future of the UK’s Armed Forces. The subject for this debate was nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

2011 The business for the week commencing 5 September included: Monday 5 September Statement by the Prime Minister on Libya. Remaining stages of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill. Tuesday 6 September Remaining stages of the Health and Social Care Bill (Day 1). Wednesday 7 September Remaining stages of the Health and Social Care Bill (Day 2) followed by Motion to approve European documents relating to victims of crime. Thursday 8 September Statement by Liam Fox on Baha Mousa Inquiry Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Fixed Term Parliaments Bill followed by: Remaining stages of the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Bill. Friday 9 September Private Members’ Bills.

The business for the week commencing 12 September included: Monday 12 September Statement by the Chancellor on Independent Banking Commission Final Report. Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill. Tuesday 13 September Opposition day (20th allotted day). There will be a debate on an opposition motion. Subject to be announced. Wednesday 14 September Remaining stages of the Energy Bill [Lords]. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w95

Thursday 15 September Urgent question on Palestinian State from Sir Gerald Kaufman. Motion relating to food security and famine prevention in Africa followed by: General debate on human rights in the Indian sub-continent. The subjects for these debates were nominated by the backbench business committee. Rt Hon Sir George Young Bt MP 20 February 2012

Written Evidence submitted by the Lord Feldman of Elstree, Co-Chairman of the Conservative Party and Chairman of the Party Board (P 249, 2010–12)

Thank you very much for your letter to Baroness Warsi of 14 November 2011. Sayeeda has asked me to respond on her behalf. I am exceptionally sorry for the delay in my response; in the meantime I have consulted widely amongst our professional staff before coming to a conclusion about this difﬁcult and clearly pressing issue.

I was, of course, interested to read this consultation—clearly a lot of work has gone into it—and I do appreciate and understand the reasons why you are looking to make these changes to the timings of party conferences.

However, it will be difﬁcult if not impossible to make these changes to our own Conference calendar until at least 2016. There are very few conference venues in this country that can accommodate us, and we therefore cannot negotiate with venues on any change of dates for at least the next four years as all political parties have dates and venues booked well in advance. These venues also take numerous other bookings around the current dates of party conferences. Looking at all the various issues surrounding conferences, this really is one of many reasons why it will be impossible to make any such changes for the time being.

I am sorry for the disappointing response, but I do hope you will understand the reasons why I cannot agree to make such a change at this stage. Of course, I would be delighted to discuss this issue in person, if you would like to do so. 20 February 2012

Written evidence submitted by the Speaker of the House of Commons (P 251, 2010–12)

You wrote to me about the conversation we had on the selection and grouping of amendments at Report stage.

It is particularly at Report stage that the tension between the needs of scrutiny and debate, and the time available, can be most acute.

When the Clerk of the House appeared before your Committee recently, he made the point (Q231) that selection on Report is more generous than it used to be up to 20 years ago. In your letter you relate this to subjects fully discussed in Committee, but the picture is more complex than that. Matters fully ventilated in Committee are often not selected on Report; the real issue may be one of raising the bar so that selection concentrates the House’s time on relatively few points rather than a much wider range of sometimes incidental or minor matters.

As Speaker my instinct has perhaps been one of generosity, but I would be happy to explore how selection could make better use of the House’s time.

You are right to say that the number of groups, rather than the total number of amendments, is an important factor. Here there is the tension outlined to your Committee by the Clerk, that one can select in order to have a focused debate on each group, but this will result in more groups, many of which will not be reached. Grouping together a lot of selected amendments in fewer but larger groups means that more can be debated and spoken to by their proponents, and more are likely to become available for Division, because the group containing them has been embarked upon. But the downside of this is a loss of focus, which possibly does not serve the House well.

We have few Report stages left in the present Session, but I would certainly be prepared to see whether revisiting the practices of selection might assist the House. In this I would be fortiﬁed by the support of your Committee, so perhaps you could let me know their views on this letter. Rt Hon John BercowMP March 2012 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w96 Procedure Committee: Evidence

Supplementary written evidence submitted by the Clerk of the House of Commons and Chief Executive of the House Service (P 252, 2010–12) Thank you for your letter of 28 February about possible restrictions on the number of bills a private member could be in charge of at any one time, as a means of preventing a single Member or a small group of Members filling all the available Fridays at the outset of a session. You would be welcome to share this reply with the Committee; I have discussed this response with the Clerk Assistant and the Clerk in charge of private Members’ bills and we would be happy to talk to the Committee informally if that would help. As your letter points out, the circumstances of this long session, where some Members shrewdly anticipated the additional Fridays allotted to private Members’ bills, are unlikely to be repeated. I think that this needs to be borne well in mind, so that any recommended changes are seen as proportionate. But in the new session as in previous sessions it will be open to a Member or Members to give notice of presentation of any number of bills under Standing Order No 57 on the fifth Thursday of the session, meaning presentation, at the earliest, on the subsequent Monday. Ballot bills presented on the fifth Wednesday are normally put down for second reading on one of the first seven appointed Fridays; they could equally well be put down for one of the six “later” Fridays, and would be reached as first item if—unusually—there were no bills in their later stages. In practice it is foreseeable that the first six presentation bills will take up the first slot on the second tranche of Fridays. A bill—normally a ballot bill—which has been through public bill committee and is down for consideration or later stages would be marshalled first, but failing that the presentation bill would have a good chance of a second reading debate. A limitation as suggested would indeed prevent a single Member taking more than one of the first slots on the six later stages Fridays. But it would still be open early on in a session to six Members to take first place on the six later Fridays, subject to there being any bills in later stages. And so it would not address the systemic problem which you identify, that Members bringing in bills later in the session have no realistic chance of their bill reaching the top of the list on any Friday, since the slots are all filled up at the start of the session by presentation bills. 10 minute rule bills and private peers’ bills have very little chance. Introducing a constraint on the hitherto unfettered right of individual legislative initiative would thus be relatively ineffective in addressing the main problem identified, and would deprive Members of a right which has been prized over many years. One plausible solution would be to “open up” the second tranche of six Fridays later in the session, through a second ballot. Ballot bills could also be subject to this regime, so that they could not be put down for a later stages Friday on presentation. Any bill named for second reading on a day later than the sixth Friday would be open for entering in such a ballot, perhaps rationed to one bill per Member; a Member could then present or bring in a number of bills but would have to choose which one to enter into a ballot for a second reading place. It would be open to a Member not to have his or her bill entered in the ballot (where, for example, it had been superseded or the Member felt that, for whatever reason, a second reading debate was not desirable). Ten minute rule, presentation and Lords bills would enjoy parity. It would be for determination as to whether a bill would have to be published for it to be entered. If there was a single second ballot, held a few weeks before the seventh appointed Friday, Members could then select in the order in which their bill was drawn which of the six later stages Fridays to name. A variant of this would be to have a separate ballot some weeks before each of the six Fridays, of all bills put down for that day, to establish the order in which they were to be marshalled. Although this has attractions, as allowing bills appearing late in the session a better chance, there are serious practical difficulties. If a bill were to be capable of being entered for successive ballots its fate on one Friday would have to be known before balloting for the next Friday, and they are often on successive Fridays (for example, 18 and 25 January and 1 February in 2013). We therefore think that at least initially a single second ballot would be simplest. To illustrate, from the dates in the coming session: — The ballot will be held on Thursday 17 May. — Ballot bills will be presented on Wednesday 20 June and any Friday named for Second Reading. Under the system proposed above, only one of the first seven Fridays could be named for second reading of these bills. — Members can give notice on Thursday 21 June of presentation of a bill, which could be presented on Monday 25 June. At present any Friday can be named for second reading, and the six later Fridays will be taken up. Under the system proposed above, only one of the first seven Fridays could be named for second reading of these bills, or they would be put down for the second ballot. — The first “later stages” Friday is 9 November. If there is no bill going through later stages (which would be unusual), it will almost inevitably be devoted to second reading of a presentation bill presented on 25 June. Under the system proposed above, a ballot would be held on, say, 18 October in which all bills not put down for any of the second reading Fridays then remaining would be able to be entered, subject to a limit of one bill per Member and any other limitation (for example, omitting those already successful in the first ballot). Members would then have to choose in the Chamber within, say, a week for which day to put down their bill, in a process parallel to that carried out on 20 June. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w97

If the Committee wishes to pursue this option, a more detailed prospectus can be worked up. Robert Rogers Clerk of the House of Commons and Chief Executive of the House Service March 2012

Supplementary written evidence submitted by the Leader of the House of Commons (P 261, 2010–12) Thank you for your letter of 28 March asking for examples of statements which were not made in the Chamber, but which might have been made in Westminster Hall. I regret that I am unable to give specific examples of statements that were not made in the House that might have been made in Westminster Hall. Discussions within Government and through the usual channels about what oral statements should be made on the floor are necessarily confidential. Selective disclosure of such information risks being misinterpreted, for example as an admission of error in announcing a particular decision by Written Ministerial Statement or as a commentary upon the Speaker’s exercise of his powers to grant urgent questions. However, I am very glad that your Committee is giving further consideration to the implications of statements in Westminster Hall and I would be happy to explore the options further with you, perhaps at an informal meeting, if that would be of assistance. Rt Hon Sir George Young Bt MP April 2012

Results from the survey of Members ANSWERS TO INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS Part1: About you 1. Which party do you represent? PARTY Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Conservative 77 51.0 52.0 52.0 Labour 55 36.4 37.2 89.2 Liberal Democrat 11 7.3 7.4 96.6 National 1 .7 .7 97.3 Other 4 2.6 2.7 100.0 Total 148 98.0 100.0 Missing System 3 2.0 Total 151 100.0

For comparison, the percentage of seats held by each party in the House is: Conservative—47%, Labour— 39%, Lib Dem—9%, national—4% and other—1%. The Conservative party and “others” are therefore slightly overrepresented in the response rate to the survey at the expense of the nationalist parties. The response rate for each party was: Conservative—25%, Labour—22%, Lib Dem—19%, national—4% and other—67%.

2. In which Parliament were you ﬁrst elected? FIRST ELECTED Cumulative Percentage in Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent the House Valid .2010 64 42.4 43.0 43.0 35 .2005–10 19 12.6 12.8 55.7 18 .2001–05 14 9.3 9.4 65.1 11 .1997–2001 21 13.9 14.1 79.2 16 Pre-1997 31 20.5 20.8 100.0 21 Total 149 98.7 100.0 Missing System 2 1.3 Total 151 100.0

The 2010 intake is over-represented in the survey whilst the 2005 intake is slightly underrepresented. Earlier intakes responded proportionately. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w98 Procedure Committee: Evidence

3. Do you hold a front-bench or back-bench position?

POSITION HELD Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Government Minister/whip 17 11.3 17.2 17.2 Government PPS 11 7.3 11.1 28.3 Opposition spokesperson/ 23 15.2 23.2 51.5 whip Opposition PPS 8 5.3 8.1 59.6 Panel of Chairs 8 5.3 8.1 67.7 Select committee chair 12 7.9 12.1 79.8 Other 20 13.2 20.2 100.0 Total 99 65.6 100.0 Missing System 52 34.4 Total 151 100.0

Most of the missing entries will be to the effect that they hold no position, as are at least some of the “other” responses. Of those responding to the survey as a whole, 18.6% held a Government position, 20.5% held an Opposition position and 13.2% held a House position.

4. Are you a member of a select committee?

SELECT COMMITTEE Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Yes 69 45.7 47.3 47.3 No 70 46.4 48.0 95.5 More than one committee 7 4.6 4.8 100.0 Total 146 96.7 100.0 Missing System 5 3.3 Total 151 100.0

The sample was evenly divided between those with select committee positions and those without.

5. What sort of constituency do you represent?

SORT OF CONSTITUENCY Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Inner city 32 21.2 21.6 21.6 Suburban 35 23.2 23.6 45.3 Rural 48 31.8 32.4 77.7 Other 33 21.9 22.3 100.0 Total 148 98.0 100.0 Missing System 3 2.0 Total 151 100.0

All types of constituency are well represented in the survey, which means that the results are unlikely to be biased in any direction by this factor. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w99

6. Where is your constituency?

CONSTITUENCY LOCATION Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Scotland 12 7.9 8.2 8.2 Wales 8 5.3 5.4 13.6 Northern Ireland 2 1.3 1.4 15.0 Inner London 10 6.6 6.8 21.8 Outer London 4 2.6 2.7 24.5 South East England 21 13.9 14.3 38.8 South West England 12 7.9 8.2 46.9 Eastern England 17 11.3 11.6 58.5 East Midlands 13 8.6 8.8 67.3 North East 7 4.6 4.8 72.1 North West 17 11.3 11.6 83.7 Yorkshire and Humberside 11 7.3 7.5 91.2 West Midlands 13 8.6 8.8 100.0 Total 147 97.4 100.0 Missing System 4 2.6 Total 151 100.0

Responses were received from all regions, with perhaps fewer that might be expected from Northern Ireland and the North East.

7. Sex

SEX Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Male 111 73.5 74.0 74.0 Female 39 25.8 26.0 100.0 Total 150 99.3 100.0 Missing System 1 .7 Total 151 100.0

For comparison, the relevant percentages in the House as a whole are 78% male and 22% women so the survey is representative in this regard.

8. How old are you?

AGE Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid .21 to 30 5 3.3 3.3 3.3 .31 to 40 30 19.9 20.0 23.3 .41 to 50 43 28.5 28.7 52.0 .51 to 65 60 39.7 40.0 92.0 Over 65 12 7.9 8.0 100.0 Total 150 99.3 100.0 Missing System 1 .7 Total 151 100.0

The average age of Members in the House is 50 so again the survey is representative of the balance of the House as a whole in terms of age. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w100 Procedure Committee: Evidence

9. How many children, if any, do you have? Valid N Percent Aged 4 or younger— 74 49.0% Aged 5 to 10 79 52.3% Aged 11 to 18 80 53.0% Aged over 18 92 60.9% I have no children 44 29.1%

Some respondents will have children in several age groups. What is interesting is that nearly half had children below school age and even more had children still at school.

10. Where is your main home?

MAIN HOME Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Constituency 121 80.1 83.4 83.4 Westminster/London (but 24 15.9 16.6 100.0 not constituency) Total 145 96.0 100.0 Missing System 6 4.0 Total 151 100.0

Nearly 83% of Members have their main home in the constituency rather than near the House. There were some objections to this question because of the difﬁculties in deﬁning main home.

Part2: Role of Parliament

11. Which of these do you think is the most important role for Parliament? Frequency Percent of responses Scrutinising legislation 76 50.3 Scrutinising government departments 42 27.8 Debating issues of national importance 33 21.9 Representing the views of constituents 40 26.5 Solving the problems of constituents 13 8.6 Other 6 4.0

Some respondents indicated more than one answer or commented that all were equally important but the clear leader is scrutinizing legislation selected by just over half of Members.

12. How effective is Parliament in fulﬁlling its role(s)?

PARLIAMENT EFFECTIVE Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very effective 8 5.3 5.3 5.3 Fairly effective 99 65.6 66.0 71.3 Not very effective 41 27.2 27.3 98.7 Not effective at all 2 1.3 1.3 100.0 Total 150 99.3 100.0 Missing System 1 .7 Total 151 100.0

Just over 70% of respondents consider that Parliament is fairly or very effective but this leaves nearly 30% who consider it ineffective to some degree. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w101

13. Which is the most effective part of Parliament?

MOST EFFECTIVE Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid the Chamber 54 35.8 36.7 36.7 Westminster Hall 6 4.0 4.1 40.8 Select committees 68 45.0 46.3 87.1 General committees (eg 8 5.3 5.4 92.5 public bill committees) Informal activities 10 6.6 6.8 99.3 Other 1 .7 .7 100.0 Total 147 97.4 100.0 Missing System 4 2.6 Total 151 100.0

Select committees were identiﬁed as the most effective part, well ahead of the Chamber even though this was chosen by nearly 37%. There were very low scores for Westminster Hall and for general committees.

14. Which is the least effective part of Parliament?

LEAST EFFECTIVE Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid the Chamber 35 23.2 24.3 24.3 Westminster Hall 31 20.5 21.5 45.8 Select committees 3 2.0 2.1 47.9 General committees (eg 44 29.1 30.6 78.5 public bill committees) Informal activities 29 19.2 20.1 98.6 Other 2 1.3 1.4 100.0 Total 144 95.4 100.0 Missing System 7 4.6 Total 151 100.0

Nearly 30% of respondents considered general committees to be the least effective part. 24% opted for the Chamber, in contrast to the 37% who found it the most effective.

Part3: Role ofIndividual Members

15. In order of priority, from 1 (highest) to 7 (lowest), how do you rank the following roles for yourself as an MP? First Percent of Percent in preferences respondents top 3 Last Holding the Government to account 50 35.9 69.0 1 Scrutinising legislation 23 16.5 59.7 1 Supporting your party 3 2.2 25.9 2 Dealing with individual constituents 27 19.4 53.9 1 Representing the constituency interests 40 28.8 78.4 2 Attending in the Chamber 4 2.9 15.1 2 Other 4 2.9 5.0 24

139 Members answered this question. Several marked options as of equal priority. The results indicate that holding Government to account is the clear ﬁrst preference but that representing the constituency interests is amongst the top three priorities for nearly 80% of Members, more than any other option. Attending in the Chamber was considered a low priority under both measures as was supporting your party. Scrutinising legislation is much lower in priority for the role of an individual Member than for the role of Parliament as a whole. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w102 Procedure Committee: Evidence

16. How many hours a week do you work on average?

(a) When the House is sitting Hours per week Frequency Percentage 40 2 1.4 41 to 45 2 1.4 46 to 50 3 2.1 51 to 55 9 7.6 56 to 60 24 16.6 61 to 65 23 15.9 66 to 70 39 27.0 71 to 75 8 5.5 76 to 80 20 13.8 81 to 85 2 1.4 86 to 90 7 4.8 91 to 95 1 0.7 96 to 100 3 2.1

A bare majority of Members (51%) state that they work 70 hours or above, with the most commonly cited ﬁgure being 70. Nearly 30% work 71 hours or more, while nearly 5% work 50 hours or below and 29% 60 hours or below.

(b) When the House is in recess (not including personal holidays) Hours per week Frequency Percentage 20 or below 7 4.9 21 to 30 17 11.9 31 to 40 35 24.5 41 to 50 40 28.0 51 to 60 27 18.9 61 to 70 11 7.7 71 to 80 5 3.5 Above 80 1 0.7

The most frequent response was either 40 or 50 hours a week, with the majority of Members (65.1%) citing between 40 and 60 hours a week. The lowest ﬁgure was 5 and the highest 98.

17. How many hours a week do you spend travelling on work purposes?

(a) When the House is sitting Hours Frequency Percentage 1 to 5 27 18.8 6 to 10 81 57.1 11 to 15 26 18.1 16 to 20 5 3.5 21 to 25 2 1.4 60 to 75 2 1.4

Results to this question clustered around 7 to 10 hours a week, with over 40% citing 8 to 10.

(b) When the House is in recess Hours Frequency Percentage 0 to 5 86 64.7 6 to 10 34 25.6 11 to 15 8 6.1 16 to 20 2 1.6 40 or above 3 2.4

90% of respondents travel less than 10 hours per week during a recess, with 73% travelling 6 hours or less. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w103

18. How do you divide your time between Westminster and the constituency? Westminster/constituency split Frequency Percentage 37/63 1 0.7 40/60 3 2.0 45/55 1 0.7 47/53 1 0.7 50/50 20 13.6 53/47 5 0.7 55/45 4 3.4 57/43 2 1.4 60/40 40 27.2 65/35 12 8.2 66/34 4 2.7 67/33 1 0.7 70/30 21 14.3 72/25 10 6.8 80/20 20 13.6 85/15 2 1.4 90/10 3 2.0

Just 4% of respondents spent more than half their time in the constituency. Most Members spent between half and two-thirds of their time at Westminster (almost 58%); the most frequent response was a 60/40 split but that leaves over 38% spending more than 70% of their time in Westminster.

19. How many hours on average do you spend at Westminster each week on the following activities? (a) In the Chamber Hours Frequency Percentage 5 or below 60 45.8 6 to 10 53 40.5 11 to 15 14 10.7 16 to 20 4 3.1

86% spend less than 10 hours a week in the Chamber, with the most common answer being 5 hours or below.

(b) In the ofﬁce Hours Frequency Percentage 5 or below 8 7.4 6 to 10 26 21.4 11 to 15 21 17.3 16 to 20 28 23.3 21 to 25 12 9.9 26 to 30 9 7.4 31 to 35 3 2.5 36 to 40 7 5.8 45 to 60 7 5.8

The most common answer was in the range of 16 to 20 hours in the ofﬁce, although some Members included time spent there on constituency work and some did not. This was the highest demand on Members’ time of all the options offered.

Figures on committees are distorted by whether or not the respondent was participating in a public bill committee at the time but in general the average Member spends few hours a week in committee. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w104 Procedure Committee: Evidence

(d) In party meetings Hours Frequency Percentage 5 or below 104 90.5 6 to 10 8 6.9 15 2 1.7 23 1 0.9

Less than 10% of Members spend more than 5 hours a week in party meetings.

(e) With constituents Hours Frequency Percentage 5 or below 70 68.4 6 to 10 21 17.9 11 to 15 9 7.8 16 to 20 4 3.5 25 2 1.7 48 1 0.9

A few Members spend a signiﬁcant amount of time with constituents. This could be cross-tabulated with constituency locations to check whether there is a geographical bias.

(f) In all-party meetings Hours Frequency Percentage 5 or below 92 83.9 6 to 10 11 9.9 11 to 15 3 2.7 16 to 20 3 2.7 45 1 0.9

Few Members spend more than 5 hours a week in all-party meetings, although it is clearly a signiﬁcant commitment for some individuals.

(g) Dealing with constituency correspondence or casework Hours Frequency Percentage 5 or below 25 22.1 6 to 10 46 40.8 11 to 15 20 17.8 16 to 20 12 10.7 25 5 4.4 30 5 4.4

The most common response was in the range of 6 to 10 hours, with nearly 63% being below 10 hours.

(h) Other (please specify) Hours Frequency Percentage 5 or below 15 30.6 6 to 10 19 38.7 11 to 20 9 18.4 30 1 2.0 33 1 2.0 45 or above 4 8.0

The highest recorded was 70 hours a week (for a Minister). Some Members included ofﬁce time in this category. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w105

20. How has the number of hours spent on each activity per week changed in the time since you ﬁrst entered Parliament? Activity Increased (% in brackets) Decreased (% in brackets) In the Chamber 43 (37.7) 71 (62.3) In the ofﬁce 85 (74.6) 29 (25.4) In committees 48 (48.5) 51 (51.5) In party meetings 33 (36.3) 58 (63.7) With constituents 49 (59.0) 34 (41.0) In all-party meetings 41 (46.6) 47 (53.4) Dealing with constituency 83 (75.5) 27 (24.5) correspondence or casework Other 18 (75.0) 6 (25.0)

Percentages are of those reporting a change. The frequency indicates which areas have changed most when compared to a possible response sample of 151.

Signiﬁcantly more Members felt that their time in the Chamber had decreased and that time spent in the ofﬁce, with constituents and dealing with constituency correspondence had increased. Time spent in other meetings was likely to be perceived as having decreased.

21. How has the proportion of time spent on each activity changed in the time since you ﬁrst entered Parliament? Activity Increased (% in brackets) Decreased (% in brackets) In the Chamber 39 (39.0) 61 (61.0) In the ofﬁce 75 (74.3) 26 (25.7) In committees 41 (46.6) 47 (53.4) In party meetings 27 (33.3) 54 (66.7) With constituents 46 (61.3) 29 (38.7) In all-party meetings 38 (47.5) 42 (52.5) Dealing with constituency 76 (79.2) 20 (20.8) correspondence or casework Other 10 (62.5) 6 (37.5)

The change in the proportion of time spent on each activity supports the ﬁndings on the change in the amount of time, with large increases in the ofﬁce, with constituents and dealing with constituency correspondence/casework.

22. What do you consider has brought about this change, if there is one? (Indicate all that apply) Factor Frequency Percentage Expectations of constituents 84 55.6 Expectations of party 18 11.9 Change in perception of role of MP 56 37.1 Email 88 58.3 Media 24 15.9 Personal decision 39 25.8 Other 6 4.0

The percentages are of those participating in the survey and not those responding to this question. Especially high scores were recorded for expectations of constituents and email, but 37% also felt that there had been a change in the perception of the role of an MP. The media and party expectations were less signiﬁcant. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w106 Procedure Committee: Evidence

23. How satisfied are you with the current balance between the time you spend on parliamentary and that you spend on constituency matters? SATISFACTION WITH PARLIAMENTARY/CONSTITUENCY BALANCE Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very satisfied 10 6.6 6.8 6.8 Fairly satisfied 50 33.1 34.2 41.1 Neutral 38 25.2 26.0 67.1 Fairly dissatisfied 32 21.2 21.9 89.0 Not at all satisfied 16 10.6 11.0 100.0 Total 146 96.7 100.0 Missing System 5 3.3 Total 151 100.0

This is one of the key questions in the survey and shows that while 26% are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 41% are satisfied and 33% are dissatisfied. Dissatisfaction appears to be more strongly felt than satisfaction, with 11% choosing the extreme negative option compared to 6.8% the positive extreme.

24. How does your constituency work link into parliamentary work? (indicate all that apply) Activity Frequency Percentage It keeps me in touch with real issues 135 89.4% It informs my participation in debates 106 70.2% It affects how I vote 59 39.1% None of the above 6 4.0% Other 2 1.3%

Percentages are of all participants in the survey. The score for option 1 is particularly striking as is the very low score for “none of the above”.

25. How do you use your constituency work within Parliament? Activity Frequency Percentage Adjournment debates 86 57.0 Participation in other debates 104 68.9 Tabling amendments to bills 22 14.6 Parliamentary questions 124 82.1 Early day Motions 49 32.5 Select committee work 43 28.5 All-Party groups 76 50.3 Other 13 8.6

Signiﬁcant percentages of all respondents use their constituency work in parliamentary activities, particularly parliamentary questions. As with Q24, this question is designed to illustrate how far the roles of constituency MP and parliamentarian are interlinked.

26. If you had more time, where would you spend it? WHERE WOULD YOU SPEND MORE TIME Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Constituency 66 43.7 47.5 47.5 Westminster (constituency 2 1.3 1.4 48.9 matters) Westminster 44 29.1 31.7 80.6 (parliamentary) Mixture 18 11.9 12.9 93.5 Other 9 6.0 6.5 100.0 Total 139 92.1 100.0 Missing System 12 7.9 Total 151 100.0

Nearly half of those respondents who answered this question would prefer to have more time in the constituency, compared to 32% who would spend any additional time on parliamentary activities in cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w107

Westminster. Both these ﬁgures would be boosted (probably proportionally) by counting it those who responded with a mixture (13%).

27. How satisﬁed are you with your work/life balance, compared to that of your constituents or friends or acquaintances outside Parliament?

WORK/LIFE BALANCE—SATISFACTION Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very satisfied 7 4.6 4.8 4.8 Fairly satisfied 30 19.9 20.5 25.3 Neutral 28 18.5 19.2 44.5 Fairly dissatisfied 45 29.8 30.8 75.3 Not at all satisfied 36 23.8 24.7 100.0 Total 146 96.7 100.0 Missing System 5 3.3 Total 151 100.0

This is another key finding from the survey: nearly 1 in 4 of respondents is not at all satisfied with their work/life balance and 55.5% are dissatisfied to some extent compared to 25.3% who are satisfied.

These results can be cross-tabulated with party, age and sex as below.

PARTY * WORK/LIFE BALANCE—SATISFACTION CROSSTABULATION

Count Work/life balance—Satisfaction Fairly Fairly Not at all Very satisfied satisfied Neutral dissatisfied satisfied Total Party Conservative 4 16 12 26 17 75 Labour 3 12 12 14 13 54 Liberal 0 0 1 3 6 10 Democrat National 0 0 1 0 0 1 Other 0 1 2 1 0 4 Total 7 29 28 44 36 144

Dissatisfaction outweighs satisfaction with all three main parties with 57.3% of Conservatives, 50% of Labour and 90% of Liberal Democrats dissatisﬁed. The ﬁgures for satisfaction are 26.7%, 27.8% and 0%, respectively.

AGE * WORK/LIFE BALANCE—SATISFACTION CROSSTABULATION

Count Work/life balance—Satisfaction Fairly Fairly Not at all Very satisfied satisfied Neutral dissatisfied satisfied Total Age .21 to 30 0 1 2 1 1 5 .31 to 40 0 5 6 10 9 30 .41 to 50 0 5 11 13 13 42 .51 to 65 5 15 7 20 10 57 Over 65 2 4 2 1 3 12 Total 7 30 28 45 36 146

Only the over 65s reported themselves to be satisfied, rather than dissatisfied. Otherwise, the majority of all age-groups were dissatisfied. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w108 Procedure Committee: Evidence

SEX * WORK/LIFE BALANCE—SATISFACTION CROSSTABULATION Count Work/life balance—Satisfaction Fairly Fairly Not at all Very satisfied satisfied Neutral dissatisfied satisfied Total Sex Male 6 29 17 34 22 108 Female 1 1 11 11 14 38 Total 7 30 28 45 36 146

Women reported particularly high levels of dissatisfaction (65.8%) but there was also a majority score for men (51.9%).

Part4: Current Sitting Patterns 28. How satisfied are you that current sitting patterns and the parliamentary calendar enable you to fulfil your role as an MP? CURRENT SITTING PATTERN—SATISFACTION Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very satisfied 16 10.6 10.7 10.7 Fairly satisfied 50 33.1 33.6 44.3 Neutral 22 14.6 14.8 59.1 Fairly dissatisfied 38 25.2 25.5 84.6 Not at all satisfied 23 15.2 15.4 100.0 Total 149 98.7 100.0 Missing System 2 1.3 Total 151 100.0

Opinion is evenly divided between those who are satisﬁed (44.3%) and those who are dissatisﬁed (40.9%). Again, these results can be broken down by party, age, sex and parliamentary experience.

PARTY * CURRENT SITTING PATTERN—SATISFACTION CROSSTABULATION Count Current sitting pattern—satisfaction Fairly Fairly Not at all Very satisfied satisfied Neutral dissatisfied satisfied Total Party Conservative 10 31 16 12 8 77 Labour 3 14 4 19 14 54 Liberal 0 4 1 4 1 10 Democrat National 0 1 0 0 0 1 Other 1 0 1 2 0 4 Total 14 50 22 37 23 146

Labour Members are much more likely to be dissatisfied with sitting patterns (61% to 31.5% satisfied). Conservative Members are twice as likely to be satisfied as dissatisfied, while the Liberal Democrats are evenly balanced on this question.

AGE * CURRENT SITTING PATTERN—SATISFACTION CROSSTABULATION Count Current sitting pattern—satisfaction Fairly Fairly Not at all Very satisfied satisfied Neutral dissatisfied satisfied Total Age .21 to 30 0 2 1 0 2 5 .31 to 40 6 8 7 5 4 30 .41 to 50 2 15 9 10 7 43 .51 to 65 4 23 4 20 7 58 Over 65 3 2 1 3 3 12 Total 15 50 22 38 23 148 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w109

The results are remarkably evenly balanced for all age groups, except 31 to 40 where there are higher scores of satisfaction then dissatisfaction.

SEX * CURRENT SITTING PATTERN—SATISFACTION CROSSTABULATION Count Current sitting pattern—satisfaction Fairly Fairly Not at all Very satisfied satisfied Neutral dissatisfied satisfied Total Sex Male 13 44 15 25 12 109 Female 2 6 7 13 11 39 Total 15 50 22 38 23 148

There is a clear split here with men much more likely to be satisﬁed than dissatisﬁed (52.3% to 33.9%) than women (20.5% to 61.5%).

FIRST ELECTED * CURRENT SITTING PATTERN—SATISFACTION CROSSTABULATION Count Current sitting pattern—satisfaction Fairly Fairly Not at all Very satisfied satisfied Neutral dissatisfied satisfied Total First elected .2010 8 23 16 13 4 64 .2005–10 1 6 3 4 5 19 .2001–05 0 7 1 3 3 14 .1997–2001 1 3 2 8 5 19 Pre-1997 5 11 0 9 6 31 Total 15 50 22 37 23 147

The level of dissatisfaction is greater amongst those elected in 1997–2001 than in those elected in 2010 which is the only group to indicate statistically signiﬁcant higher levels of satisfaction than dissatisfaction.

29. What is your view about the frequency of Chamber sittings? (Indicate all answers that apply) Response Frequency Percentage The Chamber sits on too many days a week 24 15.9 The Chamber sits on too many days a year 30 19.9 The current pattern of Chamber sittings is about right 70 46.4 The Chamber should sit more often 13 8.6 Other 21 13.9

Almost half of respondents consider that the current pattern of Chamber sittings is about right (in terms of frequency). There is no great appetite to sit more often but signiﬁcant minorities consider that the Chamber sits either on too many days a week or too many days a year.

30. Have the current rules operated by IPSA affected the level of your satisfaction with the sitting hours and patterns of the House? IPSA EFFECT ON SATISFACTION WITH SITTING HOURS/PATTERNS Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid More satisﬁed 3 2.0 2.1 2.1 Less satisﬁed 71 47.0 50.7 52.9 No change 43 28.5 30.7 83.6 NA/Other 23 15.2 16.4 100.0 Total 140 92.7 100.0 Missing System 11 7.3 Total 151 100.0

Half of respondents expressed greater dissatisfaction with sitting hours/patterns because of IPSA rules. The majority of those who did not respond to this question were new Members who had no experience of the previous system. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w110 Procedure Committee: Evidence

31. If you could change one thing about the current sitting patterns or parliamentary calendar, what would it be? Responses have been divided into categories.

Overall pattern — Compact sitting hours but matched by programmed constituency times, and then adequate holiday to take account of long hours worked. — Concentrate into few days. Eg Tues 10am to 10pm. — Earlier starts on Tuesdays and Wednesdays to allow Thursdays off. — Fewer Thursday sittings. — I would have a committee day. — Less time in London. — Longer sitting hours Mon-Weds so able to return to constituency on Thursday. — Longer sittings on Wednesdays. Mon/Tues/Wed sit until late; Thursday—Private Members’ Bills. — More Thursdays with no business. — No Friday sittings. — No Friday sittings. — I would like three weeks in London and one week in constituency plus recess. — Sit less. — There should be set hours at Parliament and constituency days or weeks. — To have more time in my constituency and therefore with my family.

Sitting times — 9 to 7 pm. — 9 to 5 Monday to Thursday. — Adjourn one hour earlier Mon/Tues so I can go home. — An early start on Tuesdays. — Times of chamber sittings could be better organised with earlier sittings on Tuesdays. — Change all sitting times to 10am to 6pm. — Change hours. — Change the hours. It is absurd that we sit until 10pm. — Earlier start and finish on Thursdays. — Early finish on Tuesday (as per Wednesday). Move Wed finish to Thursday finish time. — End evening sittings. Commuting and late nights do not mix. The House should sit from 1pm until 8.30pm on Mondays and 11.30pm to 7 on Tuesdays. — End late sittings. — Start Tuesday sittings at 11.30am and finish as Wednesdays do at 7pm. — End voting late at night and begin earlier in the day. — Extend the time that the Chamber sits. — Family focus. — Finish and start earlier on Thursday—practical issues with trains and flights back to Scotland. — Finish at 6pm on Wednesday. — Finish earlier on Thursday to give me time to get home and see the children before bedtime ie leave at 4pm. — It is about the HOURS it sits. Finishing at 11pm sometimes is BONKERS. — Tuesday sittings between 11.30am and 7pm. — The Chamber sits at the wrong time of day. Change the sitting hours. All days apart from Monday should start at 10.30am and finish at 6pm. — The problem is timing. Start before the mid-afternoon and don’t force us to stay up all night. End Government business at 7pm, starting earlier so as not to waste the morning. — We should sit longer in the day and upgrade Thursdays and Fridays. — Getting rid of the 10pm finish on Tuesday. Sleep is not a luxury—it is important to good decision- making. — Have a fixed finish time including votes at 9pm latest every day. — Have earlier finish times on Tuesday and Wednesday evenings. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w111

— Have earlier sittings as commuting 50 miles a day each way is ridiculous at such late hours. I get home after midnight and back up at 6pm. — The hours, I believe, are now right and should not be changed again. — I am satisfied with the current arrangements. — I would be happy to sit later on Wednesdays so that Thursdays could be 9am to 1pm. I would also be happy to start at 11.30am on Monday and Tuesdays. — I would like Wednesday morning clear so sitting days would be at 2.30pm like Monday and Tuesday. — I would move to three days with late sittings and greater predictability about Thursday evenings. — Would like an earlier end to business son Tuesdays and/or 6pm finish on Wednesdays. — If we reduce the hours of Parliament, we reduce our ability to hold the Government to account—so we must sit for long hours. — Make 10 pm finish and Wed the norm. — Make Thursday a day when Members attend Parliament and move PMQs to Thursday and Tuesday. — More family friendly to those living outside London. — Move Mondays and Tuesdays to a Wednesday timetable, ie 11.30am to 7.00pm. — Move to 11.30am to 7pm on a Tuesday and move PMBs to Tues/Wed evenings. — Move to regular hours during the week—there is no need for evening sittings which are prejudicial to family life. — One late sitting is sufficient to manage without exhaustion. — Parliament should sit during normal working hours. — Put Wed back to 2.30 to 10. — Reduce Monday sittings to 8pm, sit Tuesday from 10am to 8pm, sit Wednesday 10 to 6pm, sit Thursday 10am to 6pm. — Reduce Tuesday night to 8pm. Monday to 9pm by sitting earlier on Tuesday and to 8pm on Wednesday. — Regular daytime hours Monday to Thursday. — Return to 7pm finish on Tuesday and introduce 7pm finish on Monday. — Revert to 2.30 to 10pm on Wednesdays. — Revised hours of sittings. — Reverse late sittings on Tuesdays. — Sit during standard work hours. — Sit less. — Sit longer on Wednesdays and finish earlier on Thursdays. — Sitting on Tuesday mornings from (say) 11am. — Start and end earlier on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. — Start earlier on a Tuesday. — Start later on a Wednesday. — Stop late night voting and particularly voting at 10.00pm on a Tuesday. — Stop these stupid late sessions. Parliament should sit at normal hours with the exception of Monday. — The hours we sit Monday to Tuesday. Prefer Thursday & would like that every day. — The late hours on Monday and Tuesday are unnecessary and a strain on family life. — The late nights on Monday and Tuesday followed by early Committees on Tuesday and Wednesday. — To start earlier on a Tuesday and Wednesday so we can have a personal life in the evenings. — Tuesday finish at 7pm. — Tuesday to start earlier/end by 7pm. — Tuesday should be 11.30 to 19.00. — We should sit not for fewer hours but for more family friendly hours. — We should sit until 9pm as a matter of course on Wed and use deferred divisions less as a consequence. — We start earlier in the day and we finish at 7pm.

Recesses — As a woman—to have the full week off leading up to Christmas. — Cancel September sittings and move the conference season forward—it’s a pointless 2 week return. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w112 Procedure Committee: Evidence

— End September sittings. — Return to long summer recesses. — Abolish September. — Greater alignment of school holidays and recesses. — Have no recesses of less than a fortnight and none of more than ﬁve weeks. — I always argued that there should not be a ten week summer recess—hopefully this has now ended for good—though we shall see! The week’s break in February linked to schools’ half term is welcome. — I would prefer the House to rise in early July and return in mid-September (ie without two week September sitting). — If the additional two weeks, currently in September, are needed, I’d want the conference season added to the summer recess and parliament to sit two weeks earlier in October. — Long sittings should be broken up with recess weeks even if summer is shorter as a result. — Longer recess periods. — Lose absurd September sittings. Allow a week/10 days off now & then. — More frequent short recesses. — More frequent/longer recess—as a marginal urban seat I want to be in my constituency—those with 10K plus majorities can swan off on holiday. — Move party conferences to allow earlier September start and have Autumn half term. — No September sittings. — Parliament should rise in July and return in September. — Scrap September sittings. — Recess dates matching school holidays. — Restore full summer recess and abandon 2 weeks in September. — Return earlier from summer recess and not come back for the two week period in September. Political parties would need to move conference season. — Return recess in September to the former pattern. August is a busy month in a rural constituency— village events etc. — Scrap the gimmick of September sittings. — September sittings should be abandoned. — Stop the September sittings. — The half-terms never match the children’s half-terms. — No September sittings.

Procedural/cultural changes — A set voting time every day—not before 6pm. — Clarity over when I need to be there—whipping. — Could put private business on Wed nights. — Dispense with the disruption of running whip votes. — Give some Wednesday evenings (post 7) to Private Members or Backbench business. — Greater predictability of ﬁnishing times of a Wednesday and Thursday. — Make the Chamber more constructive, cutting repetitive and long speeches. — More notice of business—a fortnight’s notice makes planning other meetings, constituency business etc very difﬁcult. — More notice of sittings/events. — Pre-published speaking lists in the Chamber. — Predictability. — Private Members Bills enter on a different day (Mon-Thurs) or subject to a deferred division on Monday. — Question time to Opposition frontbenchers. — Shorten debates—make MPs sit through all debate. — Stopping time-wasting on efforts like these. — Too much time spent hanging around. — Try to use mornings and lunchtimes to more effect. — Votes at midday on the day after the debate. — Voting electronically to free up time in Westminster. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w113

IPSA — Regarding IPSA, I ran out of office allowance for the first time in 14 years! — IPSA means I do not know which money is mine! I am subsidising the state to do my job! — The rules operated by IPSA have caused serious problems in other aspects of my work. — Need more staffing allowance.

Additional Commentsto Part1

Many of the comments in this section were simply to provide background information on personal circumstances. Those which made more general observations are included here. — Bringing my spouse and son to London is very difficult under IPSA rules. This makes family life while in London very difficult. — Cost of childcare is significant. After 3pm (school pick up) to 11pm is 8 hours; on difficult weeks this can mean paying carer almost a working week’s wage and on costs. More than half my salary is spent on childcare. I don’t think a single parent could afford to be an MP. I would not recommend a woman with young children become an MP. A number are considering their position. IPSA have contributed to this. — I’ve just filled in the Hansard survey and am reminded how expensive/disruptive and damaging a lifestyle this is. I think morale in 2010 intake is rapidly collapsing. Parliament has lost its self-confidence and it’s not much fun being here. A privilege, always. But an unhappy one. — It is very difficult balancing home/Westminster. — My children are pre-school so we split our time almost equally between London and the constituency. — Q10 is a silly question. I have two homes. I live in both of them. The question can be answered in terms of bureaucracy but it is meaningless in practical terms. Asking the question is an insult. It is very difficult to run two homes and a family, with absolutely no support either practical or financial from anyone. — The change in the IPSA rules have been damaging to family life. — The interpretations and possible meanings of “main” home are dangerous and broad and multiple. Eg HMRC vs parliamentary definitions vs personal views behaviour during parliamentary session or recess vs what the public would think vs children’s schooling location. — The treatment of London MPs with regard to housing and travel costs has been discriminatory eg IPSA consultative document. — Travelling home—I am an outer London MP—it is not practical on Mondays and Tuesdays. If I did not have accommodating friends in London, I would be on the floor of my office, I suspect. — Westminster summer recess is 5 weeks after mid summer—means Scot MPs miss school holidays with their children. — Why do Members spend so much time getting elected to Parliament, only to spend so little time here?

AdditionalComments to Part2: Role of Parliament — All of the roles of Parliament are important and the balance varies over time [and many similar comments]. — Chamber effective following questions, statements and urgent questions. Some speeches. — Debates should be allowed to take their course—not packed with speakers the Whips have requested. — All the roles from a–f are important, apart from e) solving the problems of constituents. Parliament needs to be recognised as the place where the executive is held to account, national priorities raised and laws made. It looks—and feels- like a parody. — However the Chamber’s role is increasingly problematic—there needs to be a much clearer list of who is speaking when. A busy MP cannot be expected to sit up to eight hours only to be told “not called” or “cut speech to ﬁve mins”! — I believe that MPs are/should be national policy shapers, not constituency social workers. — What do we mean by effective? All aspects have a certain effectiveness but all could be improved. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w114 Procedure Committee: Evidence

— I have listed in order of importance (Q 11) the role of Parliament as I see it: 1, scrutinising legislation; 2 Debating issues of national importance, 3 Scrutinising government departments 4 Representing the views of constituents, 5 Solving the problems of constituents. Governments would prefer, though it would never be admitted, for Members to spend more time on local and less time on national and international matters. Hence the need for Members to bring a balanced attitude to the job while certainly not neglecting constituency issue and dealing promptly with correspondence etc. — I welcome the move back to the Chamber as the focus of the Commons since the Election. — In the Chamber: Statements/PNQs tend to be most effective overall followed by Oral Questions (with Topicals). However, debates seem to be improving in this parliament (notwithstanding line rehearsals). New intake and backbench business time probably are conditioners for this. Friday games are unimpressive—Private Member’s Bills should do more for Parliament’s effectiveness standing. — It’s not just about representing your constituents but how you are able to get the information to your constituents. — Main issue is that when members well prepared and focused all the different aspects of Parliamentary activity can help to tackle-solve an issue. Chamber is most effective part when it is at its best and the least when it is at its worst ie when long-winded and unfocussed. Westminster Hall is often better informed and more focused than the Chamber. Select committees also effective. — Most debates in the Chamber are too long and add very little value. — My somewhat paradoxical response to 13 & 14, is based on the Chamber’s ability to be very effective, but usually when the issue being debated carries no party whip. — Need to be clear about whether we are discussing Parliament or the HOC. Our constitutional role is primarily as member of a national parliament, not as fixers in our constituencies. Our top priority is the national interest. — Not enough training and ongoing support for new Members to do their job and learn. — Our constitution and the British State are in a mess, Parliament is failing to keep the executive under control—as ever. What do we want from democracy itself? Merely to avoid violent revolution? — Parliament has been sidelined by the Executive over many years. Now is the time to reassert our primacy. We should only change sitting times or procedures to achieve this, not to pander to MPs’ convenience. — Public Bill Committees are the unfinished reform, acknowledged by the Wright Committee. — Due to the growth of public expectation that MPs should be “super” councillors or spare majors—a lot of the public perception of a “good” MP is skewed by the amount of constituency based activity and profile—not work in the House. — Scrutiny and effectiveness rest in the combination of Parliament and the media. — Scrutiny of legislation is very unsatisfactory because of the combined input of politicisation and timetabling (plus a lot of self indulgence by Members). — Select committees also effective. All roles important. — The chamber has a very important place, but “theyworkforyou.com” values it above anything else and this devalues select committees. — The Chamber has become nothing more than theatre—a press release factory where everything is already decided! — The Chamber is mainly about theatrical grandstanding and is next to useless as a way of scrutinising Ministers. However, the Speaker’s policy/practice of allowing more urgent questions is welcome. — The control of Bill committees by whips severely limits their effectiveness. — The foremost role of an MP should be their work in the Chamber. This has been in decline for years! — The introduction of automatic programme motions means the Chamber does not properly scrutinise the Government. — The Speaker has made the Chamber much more relevant eg UQs, oral questions etc. Westminster Hall is also a vital forum. — The Speaker’s innovations on questions, backbench committee etc very good but mostly the chamber is a waste of time. — Too much power for Whips. Real scrutiny cannot happen in Bill committees due to fear of consequences of losing votes. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w115

— Too much wasted time on ridiculous general debates like Welsh Affairs/“Defence in the World” endlessly—when more pressing issues should take precedence. — Westminster Hall could be used more efﬁciently eg for committee stages of important bills.

Additional Commentsto Part3: Roleof Individual Members — A bit more predictability on some days a week would be helpful. — All work, no life. Major problem is IPSA. That takes hours. — Also want to spend more time in Chamber. — … and the child(ren) to try to minimise the numbers of nights apart. There is no serious attempt to address these issues. The hours and various demands means it is very difficult to plan family life. — As a Minister time is spent in department and depends on business. Further to Q 25 as a minister I cannot use constituency work in Parliament. — As a new MP I feel I haven’t quite got the balances right between constituency/Westminster work and being an MP/life balance! — As a Scot I would rather pass more time in Westminster Monday–Thursday rather than go home to an empty flat. — Before I was an MP I had a full time job and was a councillor so no work/life balance either. — Before I was elected I was involved in a number of charities, most of which I have dropped and I regularly went to theatre and opera. No longer. The lack of time to build a cultural life impoverishes parliament. — Being an MP has consumed my life. — Being an MP is all consuming. You are never off duty and it is difficult to control “when” one responds to rapidly changing demands. — Being busy out of “normal” working hours is reasonable—politicians need to be present when people can be around. The hanging around late at night, worrying about missing train, dumping on the babysitter and having to pay (in addition) for a late night taxi for her (I don’t get one) is just wearying. Constituency gets the exhausted, wrung out end of the week. Would like more quiet office time; space to think. Have no private office space. — But only because this is where I want to be and my family support me. The hours in Westminster and the constituency are stupid. — Comparison with constituents/friends is not relevant, the role of MP is individual. — Dealing with individual constituents is very important but is done at a separate time and place to Westminster. — Difficult to raise three children in this job! — Don’t forget the pressure on spouses. The high divorce rate and the level of pay relative to outside peer groups all adds to spouses misery. Travel to constituency makes it worse. — Every other sector has conditions of service and expectations of hours worked. Ours is open ended and increasingly unmanageable. — Family life has been destroyed particularly by the new expenses regime and September sittings. — Family life is very difficult to maintain, as is a normal social life. Hours are very long and unpredictable. — Frankly, I could earn more money and have a better life balance and enjoy life more doing another job. BUT that’s not why we do it!! That said, it is getting very out of kilter! — Further to Q 16: I’m in the House Monday to Thursday from 10am. Fridays and Saturday mornings in the constituency. Difficult to state [hours worked in recess]—I tend to come into the House to deal with various amounts of work. There is no doubt of the substantial increase in constituency correspondence—all the more through neverending emails often in a campaign—and which bears no comparison to prior 1970 or even prior 1987. The lower attendance in the Chamber, apart from PMQs and controversial issues, is linked to other matters as select committees and numerous other duties at Westminster, including office work. — Further to Q 19: Can’t answer—[hours spent on activities] varies enormously in small space of time I’ve been an MP. — Further to Q 25 he spends time in discussions with Ministers. Further to Q 26 he would spend more time with his family if he had more time. — Further to Q 26: The question is not what we would like to be doing—it’s what we ought to be doing. The work/life balance is hellish—so would it be at the top of any profession. — Further to Q 26: Would spend more time earning some money. [My work life balance] has changed dramatically from Government to opposition. Impossible to have any life outside work as a minister. Perfectly possible as a backbencher with a competent operation. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w116 Procedure Committee: Evidence

— Growth of the internet, intrusiveness of the media, unreasonable expectations of the media have changed the job beyond recognition. Thanks to IPSA I am subsidising my constituents to the tune of £8k p.a. — I accept that being an MP necessitates sacrifices of time and work/life balance. I do it because I am committed to the work and the job satisfaction that goes with it. — I am exhausted during what little personal life I have. I am highly unlikely to stand again for parliament due to the lifestyle. — I am not hugely dissatisfied on a personal basis with my work/life balance but that does not mean the status quo is best. There is a strong case for reforming sitting hours. — I expected never to see my children and I was right. The hours are absurd for a parent. — I have no work/life balance—it is almost all work. But that is my choice. — I intensely dislike the late hours of Parliament and consider late votes as a waste of time. The voting system in Parliament takes too long—particularly wasteful late at night if there are multiple votes. — I see no justification for the House starting at 2.30pm on Mondays and Tuesdays—and keeping us all here late. — I was a solicitor before this, so this is better but it is an extreme lifestyle. I miss my home and family a lot but accept this is part of the job. — I work too hard and don’t see enough of my family and friends. My constituents believe I don’t spend enough time on them! — I wouldn’t recommend being an MP to anyone if the financial constraints currently in place are retained. No MP (esp. female with a young family) could afford to relocate to London unless they have private means or union backing. It does not bode well for a cross-section of society to be represented in Parliament in the future. IPSA is a four letter swear word and is a joke on so many levels. It isn’t business like nor does it help parliamentarians do their job. And their costs are exorbitant. Hours worked have not changed, although local media misreporting has meant I now consciously am trying to interject on anyone, ask PQs and speak more to increase my position in the league table! — i) E-mail and online engagement of all sorts are bringing response pressures of a different order than traditional constituent correspondence. ii) Academic enquiries, dissertation interviews and questionnaires ranging from simplistic to tortuous seem to be increasing inexorably. Against natural co-operative instinct, I have had to ration my willingness to respond in the face of other pressures. — It is the sort of job where there can be little work/life balance. Because of the need to spend so much time in London Saturday becomes a working day and Monday mornings are now spent in constituency so Sunday is only day for family and there are no evenings off. Email is relentless and impedes the rest of the job. — Late nights on Government business are absurd. Let us stay here if we want, but not force us to. Work/life balance is the no. 1 issue for my quality of life. We should end Government business at 7pm and use the Chamber for backbench debate thereafter. — Ludicrous over-expectation of time of individuals to be at Westminster and elsewhere at the expense of bringing up children. — MPs spend too much of their time dealing with local government, immigration, CSA and credit matters on behalf of constituents. MPs must get back to scrutinising Government. — My main problem is the ever increasing volume of emails with the expectation of an immediate reply and action. I also believe that EDMs are a waste of time and money. — My workload is so high because I do not have enough resource to pay more staff to help me do my job properly. I don’t have any social life because I spend every waking hour working. I haven’t seen my parents in weeks. — No time to think. Days filled with bitty odd hours. No time/resources to travel, think, write. — Not being able to stay overnight in London (as technically a London area MP as defined by IPSA), meaning late travel and over three hours travelling a day when the House is sitting. — Q 27 is a silly question. The time I spend at work is far greater than my friends or constituents. I spend far more time away from my child—which is very difficult. But I chose to undertake these duties so being “satisfied” is not relevant. — Recesses which coincide with school holidays were very important when my children were school age. — The expectation of an MP is now not a Parliamentarian who deals with constituency issue but to be a quasi social worker/uber councillor plus speak at outside meetings in constituency as well as Parliamentarian. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w117

— The hours are silly. The way work is structured and the very outdated way parliament is organised does not lend itself to a good work/life balance. — The huge increase in e-mail correspondence has turned role into more of a mail processing centre, requiring extra staff/internal volunteer time as well as a huge burden on me. NGOs/“38 degrees” etc think swamping MPs with standard messages makes them more effective, when in fact it diverts attention from policy/legislation scrutiny. — The sitting hours are fine. Fitting in everything in 4 days—with Friday in the constituency— would be difficult if the hours were altered. — The system has turned MPs into slaves to BlackBerrys/communications/all the “busyness” of modern bureaucratic media-driven short-termism and careerism. We need a profound restatement of the role of Parliament. — The volume of correspondence generated by email/other new communication, coupled with the expectations this engenders of faster and more personal replies, is the greatest pressure. It is not unwelcome (quite the reverse) but it is hard to manage. The shortage of research capacity is also hard to deal with. — The whips are not very helpful and the Parliamentary timetable is too hectic. — There are too many demands and a lack of appreciation of the role of an MP. Sitting hours are too long and over too many days—a better balance is needed. — There is insufficient time to deal with our primary function and purpose. Bizarre. — There is no doubt that IPSA regulations prevent MPs from fully participating in parliamentary and constituency activities. Expectations from constituents are high, which impose significant travel and participation costs. — There is no work/life balance as an MP. If you want it, then you are in the wrong line of work. — Time in Westminster feels wasted and ineffective. If this were a business it’d be bankrupt in a month. — Too much time on admin—IPSA etc. Plus [...] lower staff bonus etc. Very poor public image due to media. It costs far more now personally to be an MP and is very family unfriendly. No sense of team/partnership with leadership—poor whipping. — Very few people understand the nomadic existence of a backbench MP who represents a constituency a considerable distance from London. The job is tough, but that is what I signed up for; it’s what I expected. — Very unfriendly to family life. — Westminster hours consume a huge amount of time. — What life? I have no leisure time except occasionally on Sundays but not always. — While the work/life balance is not good it is a choice that we make. So while “fairly dissatisfied”, I am NOT complaining. — Whilst email is only slightly down in recent years, the boom in email is getting to the point when it is hard to manage the volume within existing time available and current staffing levels. — Work 7 days a week. — Work very long hours. Travel time-consuming and tiring. Spouse complains. — Would absolutely not want less constituency time. Accept work/life balance is minimal—hard as have elderly mum and new grandchild to come. — You don’t fully know what you are signing up for, however, the initial rush of never missing a constituency event has to be balanced with personal time and Parliamentary time.

Additional Commentsto Part4: Current Sitting Patterns — 1. Now there’s no November State Opening, and therefore no “mini recess”, the “Autumn Term” is too long. Instead, move a few days from another Recess. 2. Start the Summer Recess earlier (helpful for Scots too) and come back in late August, not early September. — A longer recess would be useful to allow for both constituency time in a focussed block and a holiday (which I did not get at all in 2010). — Absolutely need time in constituency over summer—more if possible and recess periods. Casework is more onerous and I have no staff in London as the constituency is where I am grounded—and where people vote for me and expect me to have them as my main concern! — Being in Parliament is like being in a hamster ball: much like a hamster in a wheel but with less stability. It seems something of a waste of one’s life. — Chamber should sit more often in the morning. — Days are too long. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w118 Procedure Committee: Evidence

— Do not let IPSA drive the sittings of the House. That would be grotesque. It should be the other way round. — During the summer is when my towns and villages have their galas, picnics and fetes and schools go on holiday in July in Scotland. London is hell during the summer. We should have long breaks rather than short ones so we can reconnect with our constituents. — Either (1) Have a set voting time every evening of 6–7pm or (2) Move the starting time Monday to Thursday to 2.30pm. — Finishing so late on a Monday and Tuesday when we work seven days a week is ridiculous and leads to ill health and exhaustion. It is un-family friendly and we are expected to pay for the privilege because of IPSA. If we weren’t elected politicians we would be balloting for strike action over thoroughly unsatisfactory working practices. — For those who have to commute 3 hrs overnight sittings ending at 22.00 are a killer. — Friday sittings should be abandoned except for sitting a whole week before a recess. Attendance is too random due to constituency commitments and off putting experiences of frustration tactics over Private Member’s Bills. — Furthermore senior management and employees in public sector bodies are often on holiday during August, which makes meetings etc difficult to hold. To do so in September would be better use of time. Finally, IPSA rules prevent me from carrying papers to and from the constituency. ie travel (within London to the train station is prohibitive whilst transporting files, papers etc.) — Hardly claim through IPSA because scared of media coverage. — Having to return to the House for a fortnight in September is an expensive nonsense. If we need this extra fortnight, it should be tacked on to the end of July recess dates. — I am against changing the sitting hours of the chamber on Monday & Tuesday, as I need the time for childcare and catching up on work. — I prefer having my select committee when parliament/Chamber is not sitting. Too much debate time is taken with UQs/statements with no compensating injury time. I appreciate that gives some predictability on voting times for most of the week but curtails contributions. Also, we should look at injury time. I suggest it should only be given if taking interventions from an opposing party. Further an indication/list of those who have put in to speak may inform a Member whether or not to accept interventions. This would be particularly helpful in Westminster Hall debates. — I strongly support the reform of the hours of the House of Commons. Hope proposals will be brought forward soon. — I would oppose any move to Monday morning sittings, which would severely penalise those us who represent and live in constituencies more than 300 miles from London. — I’d favour earlier sittings on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, leaving select committees in early evening slots. I’d also like to see evening sittings for Private Member’s Bills. Fridays should be left for constituency work. — If people want to use the Chamber until late at night, that’s fine. But why keep it empty for three quarters of the normal working day, then keep everyone up until 11pm whether they like it or not? We do not perform best when tired. — If we could have more flexibility in Parliamentary sittings ie one week it could be 4 days and then the next 3 days and so on that would enable more time in constituency and with family— be more reflective of other professions which involve travel but recesses could be shorter so sitting days are not lost. — Increasingly attendance in the Chamber should be looked at by the Committee, and whether more topical matters can be debated at short notice. It is of interest that when a matter comes up when it is not clear how the vote will go at the end, the Chamber fills up. Standard opposition debates after the front benches speeches usually have a low attendance, though it is necessary for the opposition to have adequate time on a regular basis to put its views. Could some of the opposition debates be turned into a question time operation? — IPSA has left me less able to do my job effectively, particularly in regard to accommodation costs and admin time. — IPSA is a disaster. — IPSA makes you choose between doing your job as an MP or being with your family. That’s unacceptable. — IPSA processes use up a number of hours of my time every month—this must change. It is ineffective for MPs to work the hours we do on Mondays and Tuesdays—this ought to change. — IPSA’s rules and bureaucracy are debilitating. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev w119

— It is ridiculous that major pieces of legislation eg Localism Bill, are timetabled such that there is a 5 minute limit on speeches in 2nd reading—and superfluous bills, eg National Insurance Bill struggle to get any speeches. Why? It doesn’t make any sense & is a waste of time. — Main complaint is that Commons debates rarely ever change anything and in most cases are just used by MPs to boost their stats on theyworkforyou! Chamber sits too late and wastes too much time. — Making the 7pm Wednesday and 6pm on Thursday. — No one else would do the work for the pay! — Parliament has become too part time with Members coming down late Monday and leaving Wednesday night. This is far too easy for the Executive. Members must spend more time scrutinising the Government. — Parliament has been downgraded. We must work harder and longer to do our duty. We must not concede to “family friendly” whingers. — Parliament needs to become more efficient. — Please do not change the hours to some sort of family friendly hours. This will help the small number of MPs who can go home to a family in London midweek, at the expense of the rest of us, who prefer to get work done during the week (including evenings) so we can try to spend time with families at weekends. — Q30 is nonsensical as a question. — Really appreciate new back bench debates. Dislike way speaker operates—feel PMQs is a waste of time—needs to be far more productive and focussed. — Sitting weeks are fine; but hours need reform—10am to 8pm each day! — Staying on top of constituency casework is the hardest. Expectations of response times are so high and volumes are never-ending. IPSA is also ridiculously time-consuming. There must be a better way! — Survey too long and not clear enough. The minutiae of sittings and hours is secondary to the bigger picture of restoring Parliament’s morale and self respect. — Thanks for asking. Q29: but it reflects English society why not help accommodate Scots too please. Q30:IPSA forms make the simple difficult. — The Chamber should meet the same number of hours with a different distribution. There should be designated constituency days. The Chamber must meet regularly to hold the Executive to account. — The Christmas term is far too long. A break would really help. Normal office hours required. — The current IPSA rules require me to leave my small son in my constituency on a Monday morning and not to see him again during his waking hours until Thursday evening. This is cruel and vindictive and makes it almost impossible for a divorced mother to be an MP. The clock has been turned back many decades and I am in almost the same position my grandmother would have been in had she tried to become an MP. The current system is utterly hypocritical. — The hours the Chamber sits are too long on Mondays and Tuesdays. Answers to questions were often not appropriate. Open questions would have been better. — The IPSA bureaucracy is a significant impediment to my effectiveness and that of my staff. — The IPSA regime has made it increasingly difficult to undertake parliamentary responsibilities due to the unpredictable nature of the job. — The role of Parliament, the power of government, likely changes in the Lords means it is increasingly questionable as to how fit for purpose it is. The low regard in which parliamentarians are held and lack of understanding about an MPs role need addressing. The increasing pressure on MPs in the constituency is itself a full time role. Recent changes mean that autumn sittings mean that there is no time to keep in touch with constituents that is programmed, or no time when not working. — The September sitting in 2010 and proposed 2011 hinders my ability to make constituency visits, especially to schools—which are of course on holiday when we are on recess. The hours of sitting do not bother me—even if there were earlier finishes on Monday and Tuesday I would still be working in Parliament. — There is a case for shorter recesses but, I repeat, for more family friendly hours whereby we start earlier and finish earlier. — Tradition is not a good argument against efficiency or effectiveness. — We must reinstate some help for spouses to travel. They are often providing semi-official support by being present and for many of us this is the only thing that helps to make the job doable at all. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-06-2012 09:43] Job: 019792 Unit: PG01

Ev w120 Procedure Committee: Evidence

— We need a better balance—especially in the period from July to October. More days then from other parts of the year. — We will not be representative of the public if we continue to sit at hours that are completely incompatible with family life. No one with half a brain and a family would become an MP if they knew how bad it was. — When an “early” night means arriving home after 8pm it’s neither good for work or family. It’s late to start a local meeting (I try and do these at 8pm/8.30pm but it just pushes to a 3rd very late night). With family, small children in bed and older need time, so time with partner very reduced. We seem to sit late because it is miserable for colleagues a long way from home to have to be in Parliament aimlessly. A 10pm vote gives a reason to be in bar/library. But it drags in all who could otherwise be at home. I need a bit more desk time. This could be any time of day, quietly at home even. Being home to work would save a lot in caring costs. [On IPSA] bureaucracy increases; little proper budget management info; up front expenses can be crippling. — Why was there no question about sitting hours? — You mention IPSA. Without rehearsing arguments, it has cast a pall over the Commons and their ridiculous rules are making MPs watch the clock regarding the sitting times of the House.

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Ofﬁce Limited 06/2012 019792 19585