How can the government timetable legislation in Parliament? 

For all governments, it is important that they are able to get their business through Parliament in a reasonable amount of time. At the same time, it is also important that parliamentarians have adequate time to scrutinise legislation. 

There are several different mechanisms through which the government can try and control the amount of time spent on legislation. While ministers can set out the amount of time available to Parliament to scrutinise legislation, the government’s preferred timetable does not always satisfy parliamentarians. In October 2019, the timetable for passage of the Withdrawal Agreement Bill, implementing the government’s deal with the EU, provoked significant controversy. 

How does timetabling work in the House of Commons? 

There are three main mechanisms that the government can attempt to use: 

Programme motions

Programme motions set out how much time MPs will have to debate and scrutinise a bill at each stage of its passage through the Commons: for example, the time available to conduct detailed line-by-line scrutiny of a bill at committee stage, or the time given over to the consideration in each House of amendments made by the other House during the ping-pong stage of a bill’s passage.    

Usually, programme motions are tabled by the government immediately after the second reading stage of a bill (a general debate on the key principles of a piece of legislation). MPs can choose to approve or disapprove a programme motion, but they cannot amend it at this stage. However, if the government opts to table a programme motion at a later stage in a bill’s passage, MPs may be able to amend it. 

Once a programme motion has been agreed to by MPs – for which a simple majority is required – then they are referred to as programme orders.  

Programme motions are a relatively new innovation in the Commons’ procedures: they were introduced in 1997/8, on the basis of recommendations made by the Commons Modernisation Committee. Most government bills are programmed, and in practice it is usually only government bills (rather than bills tabled by backbenchers) that are subject to programme motions. They are the usual mechanism that the government attempts to timetable legislation in the Commons.  

If the government is defeated on a programme motion for a bill, it has several options: 

• Table a revised programme motion that MPs are willing to agree 

• Let the bill run its course, without an attempt to timetable it 

• “Pull” the bill from consideration in the Commons, and stop its passage through the House  

• Try to use other mechanisms for controlling time on legislation, such as closure and guillotine motions

Closure motions 

A closure motion is a way of ending debate on a particular stage of a bill while it is happening – rather than a means of setting out a timetable for how a piece of legislation will go through its various stages in the Commons. This means that a government may need to successfully move and pass closure motions at each stage of a bill’s debate, rather than relying on one programme motion setting out the whole timetable. 

Any MP can move a closure motion, and they are most commonly used during debates over private members bills, as a means of preventing a bill from being “talked out” – i.e. time on it elapsing without the House having reached a decision on a bill, meaning that it falls and its passage through the Commons ceases. But a government could also make use of a closure motion if it wanted debate on a stage of its bill to end.  

A closure motion is moved by an MP standing up in debate and saying: “I beg to move that the question now be put”. It is then up to the Speaker to decide whether to accept the closure motion. In reaching their decision, the Speaker is likely to consider whether they think that MPs have adequately debated the matter in hand, and whether the views of MPs across the House have had the chance to be heard.  

If the Speaker grants the closure motion, then it is immediately put to the House. It may be agreed “on the voices” (in other words, without being pressed to a formal division). If the motion is taken to a formal vote, then the motion needs both a simple majority, and at least 100 MPs to vote for it, in order to pass. 

If the motion is agreed, then whatever the matter was that MPs were debating is immediately put to the House. 

If the closure motion is not agreed by MPs, or if the Speaker does not grant a closure motion, then debate simply continues at the point from which it was interrupted.  

Guillotine motions 

Guillotine motions are sometimes also known as “allocation of time” motions. Historically, they have been used to curtail debate on a particular stage of a bill, although their use has changed over time. However, since the introduction of programme motions in 1998 as a means of timetabling that was more flexible than guillotine motions, it is much rarer for governments to use them.  

Guillotine motions work by setting out hard time limits for any remaining stages of a bill. In theory, they can be tabled at any point in a bill’s passage, but usually they are used later, when the government has some idea of any potential delays. As such, they often stipulate that, for example, a bill must receive its third reading by a specific date. 

If passed by a simple majority, guillotine motions mean that debate on a particular stage of a bill ends at a certain time – regardless of whether all the clauses of a bill have been debated, or whether all of the amendments chosen by the Speaker have been dealt with.  

When a guillotine motion is tabled by the government, MPs have up to three hours to debate it. However, depending on what the guillotine motion covers and when it is tabled, if passed, any time spent debating it may be deducted from the remaining time given over to the bill. 

Guillotine motions have often been controversial. According to one estimate, the procedure was used only 70 times between 1881 and 1970; although from the 1970s onwards they did become more common. But even today – and in particular with the advent of programme motions – trying to guillotine a bill may prove a controversial choice by the government.  

How does timetabling work in the House of Lords? 

The government has far less ability to timetable legislation in the Lords than in the Commons. This is because the upper chamber has, as a key principle, the ability to self-regulate its proceedings, including how it wishes to spend its time. 

The Lords does not have any equivalent procedure to programme or guillotine motions, although it does have its version of closure motions. These are moved by a peer stating that “the question be now put.” However, the written companion to the Lords’ Standing Orders, or rules, states that the use of the closure is a “most exceptional procedure.”

If a peer tries to move a closure motion, the Lord Speaker is obliged to read a short statement reminding them how exceptional its use is. If they persist, the Lord Speaker then puts the motion to the House. If it is agreed, then the matter being debated is immediately put to the House. In 2019, attempts to filibuster (or talk out) the passage of the Benn Act in the House of Lords led to several closure motions being moved before agreement was reached between party whips that the bill would be allowed to progress.