Both Houses rose on Thursday and will not sit again until Monday week (23 February). The break was introduced as a ‘constituency week’ for MPs, though it is now generally referred to as half-term. The Taxpayers’ Alliance have argued against having the recess, on the grounds that Parliament should be sitting in order to call Government to account.
Should we have continued sitting? Should the Lords have continued sitting? We are not sitting because the Commons is not sitting. It has been the practice for a few years to mirror sittings of the Commons. There are various practical advantages to this. It enables some refurbishment work to be undertaken, it is useful for public tours, it avoids problems of communication if only one chamber is sitting and it helps with forward planning. There is also a political argument. If Parliament is not sitting, it constrains Government in terms of the amount of business it can transact. Against that, of course, is the point that the Government is not being questioned and forced to justify itself. There is also the additional consideration at the moment that the Lords is busy with legislation; a couple of Bills are not making quick progress. There is no compelling reason why the two Houses should follow the same sitting programme. Is it appropriate that both Houses have a short break? Should one House, or both, have continued sitting?
I must say I never understood why the practice grew up. The two chambers had managed to sit out of synch perfectly well enough in the past. I supposed the reality is the government has so few bills that the commons is left twiddling their thumbs and I doubt the government much wants them left with time on their hands to plot and gossip.
Still I would have thought the Lord’s would be largely unaffected in going though its legislative scrutiny and committee work by the commons absence. Who made the decision?
The Commons has to set the precedent. I doubt many parliamentarians work a strict 37.5 hour week, and there have been many recalls to parliament by the gvt – do the Lords also re-convene when this happens?
The Taxpayers Alliance is an interesting group, I cannot agree with anyone who believes that they have the right to describe themselves as an alliance of taxpayers when we already have a perfectly fine form of representation for taxpayers that we call ‘the electorate’
Dear Lord Norton,
No.
Howridiculous.
@Civil: Of course many millions of people are taxpayers but don’t have a national vote so it’s not that simple. As to their name most organisations speaking for groups have no mandate to do so nor need it, so it’s hardly unusual.
I’ve just had a look around their website. On balance, considering almost all other organisations that lobby government want it to do more, spend more (preferable on their goods or services, their cause or their region) having an organisation whose default position is spend less or spend it more effectively seems a healthy counterbalance irrespective of whether you agree on a policy by policy basis with their proposals.
I haven’t seen it this time (or perhaps I’ve missed it?) but it is getting a rather common practice for all sorts of embarrassing information to be released either at recess or on the last day before deliberately to stop scrutiny. I forget which department last time released huge numbers of questions, they had been delaying for months, the day before.
It’s an interesting question of how happy MPs would be if on their holidays they were forced to watch press interest shifting to the lords holding the government to account.
Lord Norton,
If a national crisis emerged while only the Lords were sitting, and peers used emergency questions to interrogate the government on their response, it would put the Lords very publicly centre-stage in holding the government to account. It would certainly reignite the debate about the relationship between the two Houses, and the expectation that the elected chamber takes the leading role.
So in answer to your question, I think it depends on whether potentially provoking that debate is something you desire or not.
Matt Korris
Hansard Society
Surely with between 50 and 80% of our legislation now framed by the EU (depending upon whose analysis you use) both houses should have far less real work to do and therefore should be able to have longer recesses.
The Commons might even like to think about a reduction in salary, commensurate with their reduced responsibilities. Oops, just had to duck to avoid a flying pig.
I think it is important that MP’s should have a week where they can inform constituents, and go about constituency business but I do think the lords could be sitting and show that it works harder than the commons. May I just ask what are the refurbishment programmes going ahead this week. The marine and coastal access bill could carry on with its committee stages, as can other bills which as you say are making slow progress. The lords could also get on with all those back bench short debates and long debates, which there are a lot of from reading the govt whips website.
Thanks for the various comments. There is clearly a difference of opinion as to whether the Lords slould be sitting this week. Howridiculous offfers a clear no, whereas others believe there is, or may be, a case for the House to sit.
The decision to sit (and recess) in tandem is a recent one. Previously it was common for the Lords to come back earlier than the Commons after the summer recess, and sometimes to sit for longer than the Commons in the summer. One year, I recall that the Lords returned towards the end of September and the Commons towards the end of October. If the pressure on business in the Lords gets particularly severe towards the end of a session, then I doubt if the present practice will be maintained.
Croft: The decision will be one primarily for the Government’s business managers. Ladytizzy: if there is a need to recall Parliament, then both chambers normally sit. Matt Korris: If we sat this week, then we would be centre stage, but no more than was the case when the House sat for longer after a summer recess. We would not necessarily get a lot of coverage – I doubt if amendments being discussed at committee stage of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill would suddenly become of great interest to the media – but at least we would be sitting and could deal with anything urgent that required a ministerial statement. Alfred: If we were sitting, we would be able to keep an eye on what the EU is doing. When the House is sitting, the sub-committees of the European Union Committee usually meet each week, so there is extensive scrutiny of EU proposals. Tory Boy; I am not aware of any extensive refurbishment programme – there is only so much that one could achieve in a week (compared to the summer recess) – though last Friday morning I did notice that much of the furniture in the chamber was being removed. I do not think refurbishment is a particular obstacle to the Lords sitting for this particular week.