Editing Cloture (section)

==United Kingdom==

===Procedures===
A ''closure motion''  may be adopted to end debate on a matter both in the [[British House of Commons|House of Commons]]<ref name="ukparlclosure">{{cite web|url=http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/closure-motion/|title=Closure motions|work=Glossary|publisher=UK Parliament|access-date=22 February 2016}}</ref> and in the [[House of Lords]]<ref name="ukparlclosure"/> by a [[Plurality (voting)|simple majority]] of those voting. In the House of Commons, at least 100 MPs (not counting two acting as tellers) must vote in favour of the motion for closure to be adopted;<ref name="ukparlclosure"/> the [[Speaker of the House of Commons (United Kingdom)|Speaker of the House of Commons]] may choose to deny the closure motion,<ref name="ukparlclosure"/> if insufficient debate has occurred, or that the procedure is being used to violate the rights of the minority.{{citation needed|date=February 2016}} 

In the House of Lords, the [[Lord Speaker]] does not possess an equivalent power. He must read a statement stating the motion should only be used in exceptional circumstances, and then asks the member if they wish to persist with moving it. If they do, then the motion is put immediately without debate.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/5154/the-closure|title=Erskine May. Paragraph 25.54. The Closure.}}</ref> Only one closure motion is permitted per debate.<ref name="ukparlclosure"/>

Specific to legislation, a ''guillotine motion'', formally an ''allocation of time motion'', limits the amount of time for a particular [[Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom#Stages of a bill|stage of a bill]].<ref name="allocationukparl">{{cite web|url=http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/allocation-of-time-motion/|title=Allocation of time motions|work=Glossary|publisher=UK Parliament|access-date=22 February 2016}}</ref> Debate ceases when the allotted time expires. A single vote is taken immediately to pass the stage of the bill and, in the case of a [[committee stage]] or [[report stage]], to accept all undebated sections and government amendments. The use of guillotines has been replaced by the ''programme motion'', where the amount of time for each stage is agreed after a bill's [[second reading]].<ref name="allocationukparl" /><ref name="programmeukparl">{{cite web|url=http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/programme-motion/|title=Programme motion|work=Glossary|publisher=UK Parliament|access-date=22 February 2016}}</ref> Both guillotine motions and programme motions are specific to the Commons. The Lords does not permit time restrictions.<ref name="allocationukparl" /><ref name="programmeukparl"/>

===History===
On 24 January 1881, the [[second Gladstone ministry]] attempted to move the [[first reading]] of the [[Protection of Person and Property Act 1881|Protection of Person and Property Bill]], a controversial response to the Irish agrarian disturbances known as the [[Land War]].<ref name="koss2012">{{cite web|url=http://www.sv.uio.no/isv/english/research/projects/evolution-parliamentarism/events/seminars/legitimatesecret_2013_mk_istanbul_2013-koss.pdf#page=11|title="The Legitimate Secret." On the Evolution of Parliamentary Agenda Control in Germany|last=Koß|first=Michael|year=2012|pages=11–15|access-date=23 February 2016}}</ref><ref name="lee2015">{{cite journal|last=Lee|first=Colin|editor-first=Nicolas |editor-last=Besly|year=2015|title=Archibald Milman and the procedural response to obstruction, 1877–1888|journal=The Table|publisher=Society of Clerks-at-the-Table in Commonwealth Parliaments|volume=83|pages=22–44 : 37–43 |issn=0264-7133 |url=http://www.societyofclerks.org/Documents/TheTable_2015.pdf#page=27}}; {{cite book|last1=Redlich|first1=Josef|translator-first=E. Ernest|translator-last=Steinthal|others=Introduction and a Supplementary Chapter by Courtenay Ilbert|title=The procedure of the House of Commons; a study of its history and present form|chapter-url=https://archive.org/stream/procedureofhouse01redl#page/164/mode/1up|volume=I|year=1908|publisher=Archibald Constable|location=London|pages=164–185|chapter=The Urgency Procedure and the Introduction of the Closure (1881-1888)}}</ref> The [[Irish Parliamentary Party]] (IPP) under [[Charles Stewart Parnell]] responded with the most extreme example of its policy of [[obstructionism]] by [[filibuster]]. After two sittings lasting 22 hours and then 41 hours, the [[Speaker of the House of Commons (United Kingdom)|Speaker of the Commons]], [[Henry Brand, 1st Viscount Hampden|Henry Brand]] simply refused to recognise any further IPP MPs wishing to speak. In the early hours of 2 February 1881 he put the motion, which was passed.<ref name="lee2015"/><ref name="Lyons2005">{{cite book|last=Lyons|first=F.S.L.|title=Charles Stewart Parnell, A Biography: The Definitive Biography of the Uncrowned King of Ireland|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PkhfBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT159|year=2005|publisher=Gill Books|isbn=9780717163960|page=159}}</ref> The IPP MPs objected that this was an abuse by the speaker of their rights as members.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1881/feb/02/order-privilege-protection-or-person-and|title=ORDER—PRIVILEGE—PROTECTION OR PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) BILL—CLOSURE OF THE DEBATE THIS MORNING.|date=2 February 1881|work=[[Hansard|Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)]]|pages=HC Deb vol 258 cc7–43|access-date=23 February 2016}}</ref> The government responded by formalising the process as an amendment to the standing orders, moved by Gladstone on 3 February 1881:<ref name="lee2015"/><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1881/feb/03/rules-of-debate-divisions-suspension-of#S3V0258P0_18810203_HOC_351|date=3 February 1881|title=RULES OF DEBATE—DIVISIONS-SUSPENSION OF MEMBERS. (Hansard, 3 February 1881)|website=[[Hansard|Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)]]}}</ref>
{{Blockquote|
That, if upon Notice given a Motion be made by a Minister of the Crown that the state of Public Business is urgent, and if on the call of the Speaker 40 Members shall support it by rising in their places, the Speaker shall forthwith put the Question, no Debate, Amendment, or Adjournment being allowed; and if, on the voices being given he shall without doubt perceive that the Noes have it, his decision shall not be challenged, but, if otherwise, a Division may be forthwith taken, and if the Question be resolved in the affirmative by a majority of not less than three to one, the powers of the House for the Regulation of its Business upon the several stages of Bills, and upon Motions and all other matters, shall be and remain with the Speaker, until the Speaker shall declare that the state of Public Business is no longer urgent, or until the House shall so determine upon a Motion, which after Notice given may be made by any Member, put without Amendment, Adjournment, or Debate, and decided by a majority
}}

Gladstone described it as "a subject of considerable novelty, and of the extremest gravity",<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1881/feb/03/rules-of-debate-divisions-suspension-of#S3V0258P0_18810203_HOC_86|date=3 February 1881|title=RULES OF DEBATE—DIVISIONS-SUSPENSION OF MEMBERS. (Hansard, 3 February 1881)|website=[[Hansard|Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)]]}}</ref> and many Irish members objected and were suspended from the House before the amendment motion was moved.<ref name="lee2015"/><ref name="hansard1881">{{cite web|url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1881/feb/03/rules-of-debate-divisions-suspension-of |title=RULES OF DEBATE—DIVISIONS-SUSPENSION OF MEMBERS. (Hansard, 3 February 1881)|date=3 February 1881|work=HC Deb vol 258 cc.68-156|publisher=[[Hansard|Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)]]|access-date=22 February 2016}}</ref>

In 1882, Gladstone proposed a major overhaul of the rules of procedure. On 20 February debate began on the first resolution, on "putting the question".<ref name="lee2015"/><ref>{{cite web|url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1882/feb/20/parliament-business-of-the-house-the-new|title=PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE—THE FIRST RESOLUTION (PUTTING THE QUESTION). |no-pp=y|page=HC Deb vol 266 cc1124-95 |work=[[Hansard|Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)]] |date=20 February 1882 |access-date=23 February 2016}}</ref> The [[legislative session|session]] beginning in November 1882 was devoted entirely to the new rules.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1882/oct/24/parliament-business-of-the-house-the-new|title=PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE.—RESOLUTION. |no-pp=y|page=HC Deb vol 274 cc45-69 |work=[[Hansard|Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)]] |date=24 October 1882 |access-date=23 February 2016}}</ref> The motion on putting the question was passed, after 19 days' debate, on 10 November 1882:<ref>{{cite web|url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1882/nov/10/adjourned-debate-nineteenth-night|title=Parliament—Business of the House—the New Rules of Procedure—First Rule (Putting the Question) [Adjourned debate.] [Nineteenth night.] |no-pp=y|page=HC Deb vol 274 cc1206-87 |work=[[Hansard|Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)]] |date=10 November 1882 |access-date=23 February 2016}}</ref>

{{Blockquote|
That when it shall appear to Mr. Speaker, or to the Chairman of [[Ways and Means]] in a [[Committee of the whole House]], during any Debate, that the subject has been adequately discussed, and that it is the evident sense of the House, or of the Committee, that the Question be now put, he may so inform the House or the Committee; and, if a Motion be made "That the Question be now put", Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, shall forthwith put such Question; and, if the same be decided in the affirmative, the Question under discussion shall be put forthwith: Provided that the Question, "That the Question be now put", shall not be decided in the affirmative, if a Division be taken, unless it shall appear to have been supported by more than two hundred Members, or unless it shall appear to have been opposed by less than forty Members and supported by more than one hundred Members.
}}

The rule was invoked only twice by Gladstone's ministry,<ref name="koss2012"/> and the [[second Salisbury ministry]] secured its amendment, after six days' debate, on 1 March 1887:<ref name="lee2015"/><ref name="koss2012"/><ref>{{cite web|url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1887/mar/01/adjourned-debate-sixth-night|title=Business of the House (Rules of Procedure)—Rule 1 (Closure of debate).—Resolution. Adjourned Debate. [Sixth night.]|date=1 March 1887|work=[[Hansard|Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)]]|pages=HC Deb vol 311 cc916–79 |no-pp=y|access-date=23 February 2016}}</ref>

{{Blockquote|
That, after a Question has been proposed, a Motion may be made, if the consent of the Chair has been previously obtained, "That the Question be now put". Such Motion shall be put forthwith, and decided without Amendment or Debate: When the Motion "That the Question be now put", has been carried, and the Question consequent thereon has been decided, any further Motion may be made (the consent of the Chair having been previously obtained) which, may be requisite to bring to a decision any Question already proposed from the Chair; and also if a Clause be then under consideration, a Motion may be made (with the consent of the Chair as aforesaid) That the Question, That the Clause stand part, or be added to the Bill, be now put. Such Motions shall be put forthwith, and decided without Amendment or Debate: Provided always, That Questions for the Closure of Debate shall not be decided in the affirmative, if a Division be taken, unless it shall appear by the numbers declared from the Chair, that such Motion was supported by more than Two Hundred Members, or was opposed by less than Forty Members, and supported by more than One Hundred Members
}}

By 1909, the closure was applicable in committees and to motions as well as in the house and to bills.<ref name="lee2015"/>

In 2000, the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons recommended discontinuing the use of allocation of time motions for bills, and instead passing a programme motion to make a programme order.<ref name="hansard20001107">{{cite web|url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/2000/nov/07/i-programme-orders-supplementary|title=I. Programme orders: supplementary provisions (,)|date=7 November 2000|work=[[Hansard|Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)]]|pages=HC Deb vol 356 cc213–80 |no-pp=y|access-date=23 February 2016}}</ref> This was accepted by the Commons on 7 November 2000.<ref name="hansard20001107" /> One of the [[Cameron–Clegg coalition]]'s most significant parliamentary defeats was in 2012, on the programme motion for the [[House of Lords Reform Bill 2012]]. Some rebel MPs agreed with the substance of the bill but felt not enough time had been allocated to its debate.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-18786890|title=Lords reform: Coalition suffers biggest rebellion|date=11 July 2012|work=[[BBC Online]]|access-date=23 February 2016}}</ref>