Provision for stages of bills

28.27Before the advent of programming, an allocation of time order was not usually moved until after the second reading of a bill, and then usually not until the rate of progress in committee had provided an argument for its necessity. The order normally provided that a certain number of days or parts of days were allotted in the form of a timetable to each of the remaining stages of the bill; on allotted days time limits might be laid down by which proceedings on specified portions of the bill were to be concluded. In the case of bills in public bill committee, a date for the bill to be reported was normally specified rather than a number of days or sittings.

There have been, however, regular instances of an allocation of time motion being moved before a bill's second reading,1 or before the commencement of the committee stage of the bill to which it relates.2 In modern practice, as already indicated, the ability to move an allocation of time motion before second reading may make it preferable to a programme motion when it is desirable to secure the timely passage of legislation required urgently, and most recent allocation of time motions have been of this kind. Motions moved in such circumstances have sometimes provided for the completion of all the stages of a bill in one sitting,3 generally the same sitting as that on which the motion itself was moved,4 and have also made provision for consideration of Lords amendments.5

Similarly, allocation of time motions moved in respect of bills committed to a Committee of the whole House, or moved after completion of the committee stage, have sometimes provided for the completion of all remaining stages on the day of the order.6 In such cases, the allocation of time is generally a specified number of hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for the order.7

Footnotes

  1. 1. For example, CJ (1990–91) 437; ibid (1991–92) 301; CJ (2002–03) 253–55, 384–86.
  2. 2. For example, CJ (1989–90) 316; ibid (1991–92) 194; ibid (1996–97) 51; ibid (1997–98) 39.
  3. 3. CJ (1993–94) 79–81; Votes and Proceedings, 19 March 2013 and 23 November 2015.
  4. 4. For example, CJ (1990–91) 301; ibid (1995–96) 280–82. In the latter case, the allocation of time order was moved at the same sitting as that at which the bill was presented.
  5. 5. For example, CJ (2002–03) 253–55, 384–86.
  6. 6. For example, CJ (1992–93) 209 (report stage and third reading); ibid (1993–94) 108–9; ibid (2010–12) 342; and Votes and Proceedings, 19 January 2015 (committee, report stage and third reading).
  7. 7. For example, CJ (1987–88) 538–39. For such an order relating to two bills, see ibid (1987–88) 787–88.