Clock watching in the Commons

Whatever the debate raging in the country, be it over the precarious economy, an era-defining global flux, or even a row over the British voting system, one thing is certain. In the Houses of Parliament, MPs will always clock-watch.

Yes, once again, MPs are gearing up to debate the hours which they sit. The first post-1997 modernisation committee report to suggest changes to sitting times appeared in 1998, with a second batch of proposals – centred on the suggestion that the House sit and rise earlier from Tuesday to Thursday – following in 2002.

Further reports from the procedure committee and, again, the modernisation committee, suggested alternatives, and eventually, in January 2005, MPs voted to revert the Tuesday to 2.30pm-10pm and ensure that the House sits at an earlier time on Thursdays. Predictably the arrangement did not leave everyone satisfied, and since the general election last May, the clamour has been growing to review the situation.

Back in November, Commons leader Sir George Young faced demands from both sides of the chamber to shift the Commons’ sitting hours. With the debates on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill seeing the House sit later than at any time during the previous Parliament, Sir George heard Labour’s Fiona Mactaggart request “more predictable and family friendly” hours, and Tory David Tredinnick call for Tuesday morning sittings. Two months later Caroline Lucas, Parliament’s sole Green MP, published a series of reform proposals on the issue.

MPs will soon have the chance for an extended say. Last Monday, the Commons procedure committee announced the terms of reference for a new inquiry into the sitting of the House and the parliamentary calendar.

The committee chairman, Greg Knight, explains why the time is right to pursue the issue. “There are many different views amongst Members about what hours we should sit,” Knight tells The House Magazine. “Every Parliament is different, so it is right that we look at this. We deliberately left this report until new Members were au fait with the hours.”

Given the relative youth of many of the new intake, and their willingness – see the Lucas reforms – to speak out, it is easy to assume that they are leading the charge. “I wouldn’t say they are driving this,” Knight replies. “I’ve met a number of new MPs who don’t want to go to nine-to-five hours.”

Where the current review will differ from previous reports, is the way in which it presents its findings to MPs. Instead of making one conclusive recommendation to the House, MPs will be presented with a platter of hours from which to choose. “A recommendation would almost certainly be subject to amendments,” explains Knight.

“Uniquely, after identifying the most popular, we will present a series of options. We don’t dictate any position, and won’t be bullying MPs. This is a matter for them.” And, Knight confirms, Sir George Young has indicated that he will be happy to allow the report – and its options – to be debated in full.

Knight and his committee are currently canvassing opinion, with the intention to complete their report a week before the House rises for the summer recess. The review will also look at the use of private member’s bills and Westminster Hall, with recommendations on both possibly having knock-on effects for what is unavoidably the committee’s main draw: the Commons sitting hours.

And, given that they are up for review, surely a change of sorts seems likely? “I don’t think you can make that assumption,” Knight quickly insists. “We’re still getting feedback, but it’s quite possible that the majority will be happy with what we have. There’s no right or wrong answer – it’s all just a matter of personal taste.”

As history has shown, those tastes are likely to vary wildly. In the House of Commons, timing is everything.

Have your say...

Please enter your comments below.

Name

Your e-mail address

Listen to audio version

Please type in the letters or numbers shown above (case sensitive)