House of Commons Procedure Committee
Programming of Legislation
Fourth Report of Session 2003–04
Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence
Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 7 July 2004
HC 325 Published on 14 July 2004 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £15.50
The Procedure Committee
The Procedure Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to consider the practice and procedure of the House in the conduct of public business, and to make recommendations.
Current membership Sir Nicholas Winterton MP (Conservative, Macclesfield) (Chairman) Mr Peter Atkinson MP (Conservative, Hexham) Mr John Burnett MP (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon) David Hamilton MP (Labour, Midlothian) Mr Eric Illsley MP (Labour, Barnsley Central) Huw Irranca-Davies MP (Labour, Ogmore) Eric Joyce MP (Labour, Falkirk West) Mr Iain Luke MP (Labour, Dundee East) Rosemary McKenna MP (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) Mr Tony McWalter MP (Labour, Hemel Hempstead) Sir Robert Smith MP (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) Mr Desmond Swayne MP (Conservative, New Forest West) David Wright MP (Labour, Telford)
Powers The powers of the committee are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 147. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk.
Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_ committees/procedure_committee.cfm. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume.
Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Simon Patrick and Jenny McCullough (Clerks) and Susan Morrison (Committee Assistant).
Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerks of the Procedure Committee, Journal Office, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 3318; the Committee’s email address is [email protected]
Programming of Legislation 1
Contents
Report Page
Summary 3
1 Introduction 5
2 Programming: the general principles 8 Cross-party agreement 8 Programming too soon? 10 The role of standing committee chairmen 10 Dispensing with a programming sub-committee 11 Pre-legislative scrutiny 12
3 Programming: detailed issues 12 Committee stage 12 Number of “knives” 12 Delaying knives 13 Later sittings 14 Intervals between stages 14 Time limits on speeches 15 Technical amendments to sessional orders 15 Report stage 16 Third reading 17
4 The annual programme and carry-over 18
Conclusions and recommendations 19
Formal minutes 22
Witnesses 23
List of written evidence 23
Oral evidence Ev 1
Written evidence Ev 88
Reports from the Procedure Committee since 2001 Ev 89
Programming of Legislation 3
Summary
A system of programming of bills by agreement between the parties was introduced in 1997, but had broken down by 2000, and has been replaced by the current system governed by a set of sessional orders which do not require any cross-party agreement (although such agreement was envisaged by the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons in its 2000 report). Since then, the great majority of Government bills have been programmed. The system is the subject of a good deal of controversy, and programme motions are often divided on. We recommend that programming motions should be decided without debate only where there is cross-party support; on other occasions the Government would, if necessary, have to justify such a motion in a one-hour debate. In exchange, we would expect parties to adopt a constructive approach to programming. The initial programme motion for a bill should be taken not less than 48 hours after second reading, to allow the proposed date for the end of committee stage (the “out-date”) to take account of the second reading debate and any representations made; there should also be the possibility of a vote (without debate) on an amendment to the programme motion before the vote on the motion itself. In standing committees, chairmen already have the power to intervene and suggest a meeting of a programming sub-committee to change the programme; we believe that this is a suitable activity to assist with orderly consideration of the bill. If no member objects, the standing committee should be able to dispense with a meeting of the sub-committee and itself make any arrangements which the sub-committee could have proposed. We believe that it is usually best for programmes in standing committee to specify as few intermediate deadlines (“internal knives”) as possible, and that chairmen should have discretion to postpone a deadline by up to 15 minutes when it would be for the general convenience of the committee (during which time amendments to a programme motion could be considered if necessary); and any deadline should be delayed by the length of any suspensions earlier in the same sitting caused by divisions in the House. If time is insufficient, longer afternoon sittings may sometimes be a reasonable alternative to a later out-date. We do not recommend speech limits in standing committee, but expect all concerned to use good sense in deciding the length of their speeches. For report stage and third reading, we recommend that the Government should table its amendments in good time and that the House should be provided with a factual statement of which clauses and schedules were not considered in committee because of the operation of the programme; and we believe that the House will usually want to spend most of the time available on report stage rather than third reading. As with programming, we believe that the introduction of carry-over of bills to the next session, which has the potential to lessen bottlenecks in the legislative process, should proceed with cross-party agreement. A full list of our conclusions and recommendations is on page 19.
Programming of Legislation 5
1 Introduction
1. The introduction of programming is the most significant change made for some years in the way in which the House considers bills (another change is pre-legislative scrutiny, which we consider in paragraph 27 below). Until 1997, the length of a standing committee stage and the time allowed for report stage and third reading were not usually fixed by order of the House (although they were often the subject of informal agreements). Occasionally (on average, between 1979 and 1997, three times per session), the system would break down and the Government would table an allocation of time motion (often called a “guillotine”), laying down time limits and providing for the Speaker or chairman to put a limited number of questions to dispose of the business when those time limits were reached. Debate on a guillotine motion is limited to three hours.1 Normally, guillotines would be imposed after a standing committee had sat for many hours but made little progress, although they were sometimes used (and still are) before second reading when the Government wants to pass a bill through all its stages in one or two days. Standing Orders provide for the appointment of business committees to allocate the time (within the total laid down in the guillotine motion) for stages taken on the floor of the House, and for business sub-committees of standing committees to perform the same task in standing committee.2
2. Following many proposals for a more consensual system to apply to all (or most) Government legislation, the incoming Government in 1997 experimented with programmes agreed between the parties, which were implemented by allocation of time motions passed under the existing Standing Orders but generally simpler in form, signed by Members from more than one party, and often the subject of little or no debate.3
3. For reasons which we examine below (paragraph 13), this system had broken down by 1999–2000 and the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons recommended (in a Report on which the Committee divided on party lines) a series of sessional orders providing for programming of bills by means of a motion moved immediately after second reading.4 This recommendation was implemented on 7 November 2000 to take effect for 2000–01. The procedure specified was similar to that for allocation of time motions, except: a) the details of what questions were to be put when the time expired were to be set out in the sessional orders, allowing the programme motions to be shorter and simpler than allocation of time motions;
1 Standing Order No 83. The questions to be put when the time limit expires (apart from the question before the House or Committee at the time) are those on any amendments moved by a Minister (this can include non- Government amendments which the Government wishes to accept) and, for committee stage, that the relevant clauses and schedules should stand part of the bill. 2 Standing Orders Nos 82 and 120. The proposals of the Business Committee or Sub-Committee are subject to agreement (without debate) by the House or the Standing Committee, as the case may be. Sometimes a guillotine motion provides that a Business Committee is not to be appointed. 3 See the table appended to the Speaker’s letter, Modernisation Committee, Second Report, Session 1999–2000, Programming of Legislation and Timing of Votes, HC 589, Appendix 1, p 2. For further details of the background before 1997, see Modernisation Committee, First Report, Session 2002–03, HC 1222, paras 1–6. The 1997 experiments followed the First Report by the Modernisation Committee, Session 1997–98, The Legislative Process, HC 190. 4 Modernisation Committee, Second Report, Session 1999–2000, Programming of Legislation and Timing of Votes, HC 589
6 Procedure Committee
b) the number of questions to be put was reduced in some respects (Government amendments could be voted on en bloc rather than one at a time5), although new provision was made for separate divisions on non-Government amendments which had already been debated;6 c) business committees and sub-committees would be replaced by programming committees and sub-committees, with a two-hour limit on the length of their proceedings (and a standing committee could debate the recommendations of its programming sub-committee for up to half an hour); d) debate on the initial programme motion, which would be moved immediately after second reading and which would also specify the type of committee to which the bill would be committed, would be limited to 45 minutes (instead of three hours), and certain supplementary motions to amend a programme order would be decided forthwith.
4. The implementation differed, however, in one important respect from what the Committee had recommended: the Committee’s report specified that programme orders should be used when there was agreement between the parties (and allocation of time orders should continue to be used where there was not);7 but the sessional orders made no requirement for such agreement8 and, in general, it has not been forthcoming.9
5. Following another report from the Modernisation Committee,10 the sessional orders were renewed in a slightly modified form on 28 June 2001. In particular, the initial programme order was to be made without debate, instead of after 45 minutes’ debate, and programming sub-committees were empowered to recommend changes in the date of the end of the standing committee stage and for the amount of time for later stages.11 These modified orders have been renewed again, for a session at a time, on 29 October 2002 and 6 November 2003.12
6. Not counting Consolidated Fund Bills (which are not debated) or bills made the subject of an allocation of time motion, the following table shows the proportions of Government bills which have been programmed in each session since the sessional orders were made:
5 This could result in a considerable saving of time if a large number of controversial Government amendments remained to be dealt with: at a sitting on 23–24 March 1971 the House divided 57 times on Government amendments to the Industrial Relations Bill after the guillotine fell, a process which took over 11 hours. The sessional orders also made provision, at committee stage, for a single question to be put that a series of clauses or schedules should stand part of the Bill if there were no Government amendments to be made to them: this provision had already been made in some of the previous programme motions. 6 This is subject to the discretion of the Chair, which has to take into account the effect of allowing several divisions on the time available for the next debate, especially at report stage (Q 67). 7 HC 589 (1999–2000), para 27 8 See Q 4 (Clerk of the House) 9 The Chairman of Ways and Means told us that the House divided on 24 out of 38 initial programme motions moved after second reading between the beginning of 2002–03 and February 2004: Ev 20, para 11.
10 Modernisation Committee, First Report, Session 2000–01, Programming of Legislation, HC 382 11 If the standing committee agrees to any such recommendations, the Government is required to table a motion for decision in the House (though not necessarily in the same terms). 12 If the orders relating to programming of bills are renewed at the end of the previous session, they are technically temporary standing orders, rather than sessional orders. For consistency, however, we refer to them as “sessional orders” throughout our Report. The term “programme order” refers to an order, made under the procedure laid down by the sessional orders, relating to an individual bill.
Programming of Legislation 7
Session Proportion of bills Percentage programmed
2000–01 20 out of 21 95
2001–02 23 out of 34 68
2002–03 25 out of 29 86
2003–04* 19 out of 21 90
*Government bills which had received a second reading by the end of May 2004. In most sessions, nearly all Government bills were programmed, although use of the procedure was slightly more selective in 2001–02.
7. In connection with the latest renewal, the Modernisation Committee reported on the operation of the system in October 2003.13 It recommended no changes to the sessional orders, but called on all concerned to ensure that programming worked effectively, in particular by extending the time available if the Government had substantial new material to insert into the bill.
8. It was, however, clear to us that considerable disquiet remained about the way the system operated—and how this differed from what had been initially intended. This is shown by the fact that most programme orders have been the subject of divisions (even, occasionally, when they proposed an increase in the time available),14 and by frequent complaints that many groups of amendments and new clauses and (at committee stage) clauses and schedules were going undebated because of the operation of the system.15
9. We therefore decided to build on the Modernisation Committee’s Report by undertaking an inquiry of our own, taking oral evidence from groups of Members involved in the process, notably the Chairman of Ways and Means, Sir Alan Haselhurst, and two of his colleagues on the Chairmen’s Panel, Mr Roger Gale and Mr Peter Pike, seven Members who had spoken in the House on the subject (often during debates on renewal of the sessional orders), and the Leader, Deputy Leader and Shadow Leader of the House, and from the Clerk of the House and his colleagues. We also received a small amount of written evidence and also a Hansard Society paper on the subject published during the course of our inquiry.16 To all who helped with our inquiry, we express our thanks.
10. In the remainder of our Report, we consider first the general principle of programming and then some suggestions about changes of detail; we finally consider related issues such as pre-legislative scrutiny and carry-over from one session to the next.
13 Modernisation Committee, First Report, Session 2002–03, Programming of Bills, HC 1222 14 For example on 15 September 2003 on the Water Bill [Lords]. 15 See the tables for 2002–03 and the first part of 2003–04, in Ev 5–8, which need to be read subject to the caveats set out on Ev 4. 16 Hansard Society Briefing Paper: Issues in Law Making: 4: Programming of Legislation, April 2004.
8 Procedure Committee
2 Programming: the general principles
11. The Modernisation Committee’s latest Report sets out some principles which it applies when considering programming, namely: a) “The Government of the day must be assured of getting its legislation through in a reasonable time (provided that it can obtain the approval of the House); b) The Opposition in particular, and Members in general, must have a full opportunity to discuss and seek to change provisions to which they attach importance; c) All parts of a bill must be properly considered; d) Bills need to be prepared properly so as not to require a mass of new Government amendments.”17
We believe that these principles form a useful starting point, although we note that paragraph a) can be interpreted in a variety of ways and is not universally accepted.18
Cross-party agreement 12. We have already drawn attention in paragraph 4 to the fact that the Modernisation Committee’s expressed intention that programming should be an activity agreed between the parties (with allocation of time motions remaining available if agreement were unforthcoming) is not recognised in the procedure set out in the sessional orders. In fact, if anything, programming has the capacity to be a more draconian form of allocation of time, given the lack of the need for a three-hour debate on each occasion when it is to be used and the provisions for various questions to be combined if put after the allocated time has expired.
13. By the time that the sessional orders were passed in November 2000, it was clear that the principle of agreed programming had broken down. Eleven bills were covered by agreed programme orders in 1997–98, but only four in each of 1998–99 and 1999–2000.19 Mr Graham Allen, who was a whip at the time, ascribed the breakdown to a lack of willingness by the Opposition Whips to negotiate on the timetable within an overall limit;20 Sir George Young to a lack of agreement on the “out-date” from standing committee.21 Mr Heald said that “the Government refused sensible requests for flexibility and ended up guillotining everything” … “every time we could not reach agreement we got guillotined”.22 He suggested that the sessional orders were completely unacceptable, but “if we went back to what preceded it, then we could, with goodwill, make it work”.23 He expected that
17 HC 589 (1999–2000), para 5; HC 1222 (2002–03), para 11 18 Mr Richard Shepherd challenged the assertion that “the Government has a right to its business” (Q 157). Mr Mark Fisher thought that the business of the House should be “a matter for the House itself by agreement with the Government but not by imposition of the Government” (Q 145). 19 Clerk’s memorandum, Ev 2, para 8 20 Q 141 21 Q 153 22 Ev 61; Q 187
Programming of Legislation 9
voluntary agreements on out-dates would be achievable, and that the majority of bills would not need to be programmed.24
14. Mr Hain, on the other hand, thought that programming was working well and that the Government had recently made further efforts to achieve a consensual approach, pointing out that one third of the programme motions of the current session had been agreed to without division.25 Mr Phil Woolas stressed the importance of the relationship between the whips on standing committees in making programming work.26
15. Referring to complaints about undebated clauses and schedules, Mr Hain said that “there was never a golden age of scrutiny of all bills, every clause in every bill”;27 the Modernisation Committee’s 2003 report, which also says this, goes on to say: “on the contrary, prior to the introduction of programming, there was deep and widespread dissatisfaction with the haphazard nature of scrutiny”, which had led to proposals for various types of timetabling.28 We challenged this version of events, given that, before programming, only a small proportion of bills were guillotined, but Mr Hain pointed out that often clauses were undebated as a result of informal arrangements.29 Although some clauses or schedules of non-guillotined bills were not debated, we believe that this was usually because Members had no points to raise, rather than because they were prevented from debating them.
16. Mr Hain said that he saw programming as something to be operated on legislation in general rather than “on an ad hoc basis”.30 He described programming as “a win-win when it operates properly and, by and large, it is operating properly”.31
17. The Clerk of the House suggested that, although there were procedural changes of detail which could be considered (see paragraph 43), we should concentrate on how the procedures were being used and the safeguards applying to their use.32 The Chairman of Ways and Means wrote: “In my view, no procedural mechanism, however ingenious, will work unless backed by the political will to make it succeed”.33
18. We believe that, if programming were used as originally envisaged by the Modernisation Committee, namely only when there is cross-party agreement, it would have the potential to be a more effective way of considering, and improving, legislation, and we regret that it has come to be seen as the same as the guillotine, though more widely applied. We recommend that the sessional orders should be changed to allow programming motions to be decided without debate only with cross-party support; on
23 Q 189 24 Q 188, 191 25 Q 231 26 Q 235 27 Q 240 28 HC 1222 (2002–03), para 9(a)
29 Q 270 30 Q 241 31 Q 242 32 Qq 1–3 33 Ev 21, para 14
10 Procedure Committee
other occasions the Government would, if necessary, have to justify such a motion in a one-hour debate. In exchange, we would expect parties to adopt a constructive approach to programming.
Programming too soon? 19. If proceedings on a bill are to be programmed, the current sessional orders require a programme motion to be tabled in advance of its second reading and to be put to the House immediately following the decision on second reading.34 Mr Heald expressed the view that this was too early to make decisions about the length of the committee stage.35 The Chairman of Ways and Means suggested that we should consider whether the “out- date” should be left out of the programme order and be suggested by the programming sub-committee “once the pattern of debate for a particular bill has become clear”.36 The Hansard Society also raised the possibility of programme motions not being moved until after the standing committee had held four sittings.37
20. Mr Hain, however, said that the timetabling of an individual standing committee “… has to be taken in the round with the overall management of a full series of bills to go on”, but that the date originally fixed could be changed later if necessary.38
21. We believe that it is sensible to retain the initial practice of setting an “out-date” for committee in the initial programme motion put to the House, but believe that this should be taken 48 hours or more after second reading to allow the “out-date” to take account of the second reading debate, and any recommendations made, and with the possibility of voting on an amendment (without debate) before the main motion; in addition, we expect the Government to be flexible about adjusting the out-date in the light of experience during the committee stage. This is particularly important if substantial Government amendments are tabled, but may also be necessary for other reasons.
The role of standing committee chairmen 22. The programming sub-committee of a standing committee is chaired by one of the chairmen of the standing committee (who are appointed by the Speaker from the Chairmen’s Panel). In its 1997 Report, the Modernisation Committee envisaged that a programming sub-committee should:
take into account the need for all parts of the Bill to receive proper consideration and the rights of the Opposition and other parties and Members to be given adequate time to discuss matters to which they attach particular importance.39
34 Thus any proposal to limit the time for second reading, or to allocate time for a bill which was not programmed immediately after second reading, would be governed by the standing orders relating to allocation of time motions, not the sessional orders relating to programming.
35 Ev 61 36 Ev 21, para 15; see also Q 94 (Mr Eric Forth); Q 144 (Mr Paul Tyler). 37 Hansard Society briefing paper, April 2004, p 6 38 Qq 248–9 39 HC 190 (1997–98), para 89(ix)
Programming of Legislation 11
The Chairmen’s Panel pointed out that if this new requirement were introduced, it would fall to the chairman to ensure that it was carried out.40
23. The Modernisation Committee did not repeat this recommendation in its 2000 Report and it did not appear in the sessional orders. Nevertheless the Chairman of Ways and Means told us that:
some members of the Panel feel that the chairman should have a more proactive role in the process, possibly by being empowered to call a meeting of the programming sub-committee if progress appears to be slow …41
Sir Alan also, however, stressed the need to ensure that the existing impartiality of the chair should not be jeopardised by this.42 The possibility of the chairman taking the initiative was supported by Mr Paul Tyler,43 Sir George Young and Mr Mark Fisher.44
24. The Clerk of the House expressed the view that a chairman could already take the initiative in reconvening a programming sub-committee, although Mr Alan Sandall thought that this would happen only if the chairman “was reasonably sure that the meeting would in fact produce an agreement”.45 Mr Peter Pike told us that he sometimes suggested that the whips should discuss whether to call for a meeting.46 Mr Woolas said: “if a chairman wanted to suggest to the usual channels that the timetabling motion was not working, they do so”,47 although perhaps the Government does not consider this much of an imposition, as Mr Hain pointed out: “since the Government can count on the majority of the Programming Sub-Committee it is hardly necessary for us to resist calls for it to meet …”.48
25. Chairman already have the power to intervene when necessary and some have already done so. We believe that this is a suitable activity to assist with orderly consideration of the bill, and that such initiatives behind the scenes should not give rise to accusations of partiality.
Dispensing with a programming sub-committee 26. During our consideration of a draft of this Report, the issue arose as to whether a programming sub-committee meeting is really necessary if the proposals which it is to consider have already been agreed through the usual channels. Although there may be occasions when such an agreement may turn out to be to the detriment of other members of the Committee, there is an obvious method of testing this. A Standing Committee
40 Report by the Chairmen’s Panel, October 1997, HC 296 (1997–98), paras 8–9 41 Memorandum, Ev 20, para 8 42 See Qq 58, 81 43 Q 144; HC 1222 (2002–03), Memorandum, Ev 1
44 Q 180–3 45 Qq 32–35 46 Q 56 47 Qq 236–7. Mr Woolas also told us of an occasion where a chairman had put pressure on him to move an internal knife (Q 274). 48 Q 273
12 Procedure Committee
should be empowered to consider a Government motion embodying any proposal which could have been reported from a programming sub-committee, without the need for a sub-committee meeting, unless any member of the Committee objects when such a motion is moved.
Pre-legislative scrutiny 27. Successive Modernisation Committee reports have advocated pre-legislative scrutiny, and the Government is publishing increasing numbers of bills in draft to allow this. We asked the clerks whether such scrutiny shortened the time required to consider the bill itself later on: the general opinion was that, while the existence of the relevant committee’s Report on the pre-legislative scrutiny dealt with many issues which might otherwise have been raised by probing amendments at committee stage (especially if members of the previous committee were appointed to the standing committee), other issues would arise because Members were better informed (and outside bodies would be better able to brief them). The conclusion was that the consideration of the bill would be better, rather than briefer.49 This was also the view of Mr Hain.50 We believe that pre-legislative scrutiny is desirable in itself, but it does not have any particular implications for the system of programming. 3 Programming: detailed issues
Committee stage
Number of “knives” 28. The House’s programme order for each bill specifies a date by which the standing committee stage must end (the “out-date”), and it is for the programming sub-committee to put forward a timetable which may simply provide for proceedings to be brought to a conclusion on the date specified, or may also specify intermediate dates and times (“internal knives”) and specify which parts of the bill are to be concluded then. There are differences of opinion on how many internal knives are desirable.
29. The Chairman of Ways and Means thought that the provision of too many knives led to lack of flexibility, and suggested that we should consider recommending much more sparing use of them.51 Mr Peter Pike suggested that the Government would in general be in favour of the use of more knives than the Opposition.52 Mr Heald said that internal knives were “usually unhelpful” and that “Members are capable of budgeting their time as they go, so that if one clause takes longer than expected, it usually proves possible to catch up”.53 Mr Hain said that the number of internal knives proposed was decreasing, with almost half of bills so far this session having none at all.54 However, he believed in some cases internal
49 Q 12 50 Qq 288–9 51 Ev 20–1, paras 5, 15; Q 55 52 Q 56 53 Ev 61 54 Qq 231, 252
Programming of Legislation 13
knives helped to ensure that the back bench and Opposition Members had time for matters which they considered important and for outside bodies to know when measures in which they had an interest would be discussed.55
30. We believe that, for most bills, it is best to have as few internal knives as possible.
Delaying knives 31. When circumstances appear to require it, a programming sub-committee can produce revised proposals for the programming of a committee stage: often this is done at a meeting just before a sitting of the committee, but it can if necessary take place in the course of a sitting, with the main committee being suspended while the sub-committee meets. However, this procedure cannot cope with all contingencies, and Mr Pike told us of an occasion when such a meeting was about to take place when the committee had to be suspended for a series of divisions in the House, and when the committee resumed the knife had fallen and the chairman was obliged to put the questions.56 It has therefore been suggested that chairmen should have some discretion to allow “injury time” and extend the time available, either when there have been one or more divisions in the House, or when for some other reason a little extra time would be helpful, e.g. to allow a Minister to reply. This discretion was in fact envisaged in the Modernisation Committee’s 1997 Report:
The Chairman of a Standing Committee on a Bill subject to a programme should be given discretion to extend the time for debate on a particular Question for up to one hour where it appears to him or her to be necessary to ensure that all parts of the Bill are properly considered, within the overall limits agreed by the House.57
32. In response to this, the Chairmen’s Panel said:
It is a power we would expect to use only in exceptional circumstances, and a Chairman would be unlikely to use it unless he had clear assurances that to do so would meet the general convenience of the committee, and would not result in the inadequate discussion of later clauses or amendments.58
33. The provision did not appear in the sessional orders, and as with other suggestions for increasing the discretion of chairmen, it is important that their impartiality is not jeopardised. One could imagine chairman coming under pressure from committee members asking for extra time as each knife approached.
34. In his memorandum, the Clerk of the House suggested that we should consider a power to delay the falling of a knife by 15 minutes;59 Mr Pike suggested 15 minutes for each division which has occurred in the House.60 Other Members were in general in favour of
55 Q 255 56 Q 72
57 HC 190 (1997–98), para 89 (xii) 58 HC 296 (1997–98), para 11 59 Ev 4, para 22 (and see Q 28). This corresponds to the power the chairman has under SO No 88(2)(i) to delay the conclusion of a morning sitting by 15 minutes if he believes that consideration of the bill (or other matter before the committee) as a whole could be completed within that time. 60 Q 72
14 Procedure Committee
such discretion, particularly where there had been divisions,61 although Mr Hain pointed out that this might lead to uncertainty in the timetable and possible increased pressure on chairmen.62
35. We believe that the Chairman should have discretion to delay the falling of a knife by up to 15 minutes where this is judged to be for the general convenience of the committee (during which time amendments to a programming order could be considered if necessary). To avoid committee sittings overlapping with Question Time in the House, a knife due to fall at the end of a morning sitting would be moved to early in the afternoon sitting (rather than delay the end of the morning sitting).
36. In addition, when a committee has been suspended because of divisions in the House, any knife due to fall later in the same sitting should be delayed by a time equal to the length of the suspension.
Later sittings 37. Morning sittings of standing committees are required to conclude at 11.25 am, but afternoon sittings continue until the Committee decides to adjourn, on a motion moved by the Government; afternoon sittings regularly conclude at around 5.30 p.m. The Chairman of Ways and Means pointed out to us that, if Members consider that time in standing committee is inadequate, there is always the option of longer afternoon sittings.63 Mr Roger Gale suggested that the chairman could propose longer sittings, with adequate notice to those concerned.64 Sir George Young expressed a willingness to sit beyond 5.30 p.m. if it was the only way to get through the bill.65 Mr Heald said that “another hour here and there can be most useful”, but pointed out the need for the opposition front bench to prepare, and to allow time for briefing from interested bodies.66 Mr Hain pointed out that the standard finishing time was usually for the convenience of Members who had other work to do, but that the Government would not frustrate proper scrutiny by insisting on it.67
38. If the time available for considering a bill is considered inadequate, longer afternoon sittings may sometimes be a reasonable option as an alternative to a later out-date.
Intervals between stages 39. Our predecessors in 1978 and 1985 recommended minimum intervals between stages of bills: a) Two weekends between first reading and second reading;
61 See Qq 129, 178, 191, 207 62 Qq 271–2
63 See Q 52 64 Q 54 65 Q 160 66 Ev 61; Q 199 67 Q 258
Programming of Legislation 15
b) Ten days between second reading and the start of the committee stage; and c) Ten days between the end of the committee stage and the report stage.68
40. Mr Richard Shepherd pointed out that the usual interval before the start of the committee stage gives little time to consult outside bodies,69 and this is particularly true now that committees subject to programmes begin with four sittings per week (rather than the previous two).70
41. By contrast, the interval between committee stage and report stage is sometimes so long that it can be justifiably claimed that the committee stage could have been longer.71 The Modernisation Committee pointed this out and recommended that the Government should inform the programming sub-committee if the report stage is likely to be delayed, so that it might propose a later out-date.72 We agree.
Time limits on speeches 42. In his paper of September 2003 to the Modernisation Committee, the Chairman of Ways and Means said that:
Ministers … often have no regard to programmes, making speeches which are wholly out of proportion to the allocated time available … Equally it has to be said that Opposition members sometimes show no appreciation of time … and suggested that consideration should be given to time-limits on speeches.73 However, most of the evidence we received was against imposing limits,74 and we do not wish to recommend their introduction. However, we expect Ministers opening debates or replying to them to have regard to the time available, and also urge shadow spokesmen and the committee as a whole to use good sense in deciding the length of their speeches.
Technical amendments to sessional orders 43. The Clerk of the House raised, in his memorandum,75 two minor issues about the provisions in the sessional orders for the putting of questions when a knife has fallen. They are:
68 Procedure Committee, Report, Session 1997–98, HC 588–I, para 2.28; Second Report, Session 1984–85, Public Bill Procedure, HC 49–I, para 23. The earlier report referred to printing, and printing as amended, rather than first reading and the end of the committee stage, in paragraphs a) and c). 69 Q 177 70 See Q 7 (Clerk Assistant) 71 See Q 52 (Chairman of Ways and Means); Q 245–6 (Leader of the House). 72 HC 1222 (2002–03), para 31
73 HC 1222 (2002–03), Ev 2. Power for the chairman to time-limit speeches had been recommended by the Modernisation Committee in 1997: HC 190 (1997–98), para 97(iv). It was commented on by the Chairmen’s Panel in their Report: HC 296 (1997–98), paras 24–5. 74 Qq 61 (Mr Roger Gale), 110–11 (Mr Eric Forth), 168 (Mr Richard Shepherd and Mr Mark Fisher), 200 (Mr Oliver Heald), 261 (Mr Peter Hain). Mr Paul Tyler thought that the chairman should be able to introduce a time limit if really necessary, but not as standard practice (Q 167). 75 Annex 2, Ev 9
16 Procedure Committee
a) If the Government has indicated that it wishes to leave out a clause (or schedule) at committee stage, the question that that clause stand part of the bill needs to be put separately rather than as part of a question that several consecutive clauses stand part; b) Where several categories of questions fall to be put (amendments moved by the Government, other amendments for separate division, and—at committee stage— clauses standing part), the questions should be put in their normal order (the order in which they appear on the amendment paper) rather than in the order in which the categories of question are listed in the sessional orders.76
44. The Clerk pointed out that the sessional orders have been interpreted in such a way as to allow both practices, and we agree that they should be redrafted to make this clear.
45. The Clerk also pointed out an ambiguity in paragraphs (8) and (9) of sessional order A as to when motions making further provision for report stage or third reading are debatable. Again, we agree that some redrafting is necessary here, to make clear that the motion is debatable if any of the exceptions apply.
46. We recommend that suitable drafting changes be made to the sessional orders when they are next renewed.
Report stage 47. Sessional order B provides that a programming committee should be appointed to allocate the time available for report stage and third reading. In practice, programme orders nearly always provide that this is not to apply, and programming committees are used only for allocating time for committee of the whole House.
48. There are two reasons for this. The first is that if the parties are agreed on an appropriate division of the time, this can be tabled as a supplementary programme order without any need for a committee to meet (and if no such agreement emerges through discussions through the usual channels, it is unlikely to emerge at a programming committee).77
49. The other difficulty is, with or without a programming committee, there is little time to produce a division of the time if it is to take account of the Speaker’s selection and grouping of the amendments, which in turn cannot be decided on until the day before the report stage is to take place, as amendments can be tabled until the rising of the House on the day before that.78
50. Mr Heald said that the Opposition usually decided what issues they wished to debate at report stage and tabled their new clauses in the appropriate order fairly early in the process, but this could be upset by late Government new clauses: he raised the possibility of
76 This applies at committee stage and report stage. The provisions in sessional orders G and H for putting questions to dispose of Lords Amendments and Reasons envisage questions involving alterations to the Lords’ proposals being put before an omnibus question to agree with the remaining Lords Amendments (or Lords’ proposals). 77 See Q 19 (Clerk Assistant); Q 68 (Sir Alan Haselhurst); Q 275 (Mr Hain). 78 Amendments can in fact be tabled on the day before the report stage, but they will be “starred” on the amendment paper (to indicate that they have not previously appeared) and are not normally selected.
Programming of Legislation 17
requiring amendments to be tabled earlier to enable a selection list to be prepared.79 We recommend that the Government should table its amendments for report stage in good time.
51. In practice, many recent report stages have been allotted only one day (minus an hour for third reading), and unless there is a desire to ensure a vote on a particular group of amendments,80 it is usually preferable not to divide up the time available (especially if unexpected statements reduce the time still further).
52. Mr Paul Tyler suggested that there should be a report from the standing committee indicating which parts of the bill had, and had not, been debated, to demonstrate publicly what should be discussed at report stage.81 Mr Hain and Mr Woolas thought that the report, if it had to be agreed by the programming sub-committee, would become a politicised document; and if it were merely factual it would repeat information already available in the Official Report.82 We believe that a factual statement should be produced; it would clearly demonstrate to Members who had not been on the Committee, in a convenient form, which parts of the bill had not been debated.
Third reading 53. As already mentioned, programme orders usually allow only an hour for third reading (unless report stage is being allowed substantially more than one day), and this time can be eaten into by one or more divisions at the end of report stage. Mr Heald expressed the view that bills required a minimum of an hour on third reading and that some would require more.83 Mr Woolas pointed out that one consideration was whether opposition was directed at the bill as a whole or at part of it.84
54. Although it would be possible to allow extra time for third reading, this would be likely to be at the expense of debates at report stage, and we observe that the purpose of the third reading is to say “yes” or “no” to the bill in its final form. Debate at this stage tends to be either a restatement of entrenched positions or an opportunity to thank everyone involved for their work on the bill. Our predecessors in 1967 recommended that the question on third reading should be put forthwith unless six Members gave notice to require a debate; unfortunately, when this procedure was implemented such a notice was almost invariably given and the provision was removed in 1986.85
55. We believe that the House will usually want to spend most of the time available considering amendments on report, rather than debating third reading at length.
79 Qq 209–10 80 For examples, see Ev 18 (Supplementary memorandum by the Clerk Assistant).
81 Q 154 (Mr Shepherd and Mr Fisher agreed with this) 82 Qq 279, 281 83 Qq 217–18 84 Q 285 85 Procedure Committee, Sixth Report, Session 1966–67, Public Bill Procedure, etc., HC 539, para 27; Second Report, Session 1984–85, Public Bill Procedure, HC 49–I, para 22.
18 Procedure Committee
4 The annual programme and carry-over
56. Earlier proposals for a systematic allocation of time to bills usually involved, in addition, some mechanism to discuss the allocation of the time available in a session to the Government’s legislative programme as a whole—indeed, this is what the term “programming” was originally used to mean.86 The Modernisation Committee in 2000 recommended:
There should be discussions at the earliest possible stage of the Government’s legislative programme as a whole. We propose therefore that the Government should begin informal talks with all parties just after the Queen’s Speech.87
Mr Paul Tyler told us that such a meeting was held in 2002 but had not been held since.88
57. Previous proposals—notably our predecessors’ recommendation in 198589 and the Hansard Society report Making the Law of 1992—had been for a more formal arrangement involving a Legislative Business Committee (or Legislative Steering Committee). This concept was also supported by Sir Alan Haselhurst, Mr Mark Fisher and Mr Graham Allen.90
58. However, Mr Heald, while asking for earlier information about draft bills,91 was otherwise content with the current system of informal discussions during the course of the session, doubting that a Legislative Business Committee would “be responsive enough to the fast moving demands of Members”.92 The Leader of the House also expressed lack of support for a formal committee, saying that “it would in reality and practice rubberstamp the decisions made elsewhere”93 and that he was not “in the market for sub-contracting” the governing party’s control of the management of business.94 He also thought that producing an annual programme, with timings, would be “a formidable exercise”.95 This attitude may result from a House which has usually been controlled by a Government of a single party with an overall majority (unlike, for example, the Scottish Parliament), and also bears in mind that timings envisaged at the beginning of the session may need to change (this has particularly happened with draft bills).
59. The system of sessions lasting for one year, from November to November (except where a General Election disrupts the pattern), with all proceedings ceasing at prorogation,
86 For example, the Hansard Society Report Making the Law, chapter 7, distinguishes “programming” from “timetabling”. 87 HC 589 (1999–2000), para 18 88 Q 156 89 Procedure Committee, Second Report, Session 1984–85, Public Bill Procedure, HC 49–I 90 Ev 21, para 15; Qq 145, 156 91 Mr Graham Allen said out that the Government felt obliged to refrain from announcing bills or draft bills until they had been mentioned in the Queen’s speech (Q 157). Mr Hain pointed out that he had been able to give the Liaison Committee advance notice of the expected timing of draft bills (Q 287). 92 Ev 62, Q 219. See also Qq 222–3. 93 Q 233 94 Q 294 95 Q 292
Programming of Legislation 19
means that major bills need to be introduced early in the session. Following an experiment with the Financial Services and Markets Bill in 1998–99 and 1999–2000, the House has made a temporary Standing Order providing for the carry-over of bills from one session to the next. This matches a procedure which has been used for private bills (and, less frequently, hybrid bills) for over a century, except that it is currently limited to Commons bills still in the Commons. Two bills were carried over from 2002–03 to 2003–04, each on a division.96 The Lords have similarly agreed in principle to the carry-over of Lords bills still in the Lords, although by ad hoc motion rather than by standing order.97 Procedures for carrying over in one House a bill originally introduced in the other would require ad hoc motions and agreement between the Houses.
60. Opinions as to the importance of this procedure differed: Mr Forth thought that the removal of the discipline of the annual cut-off would mean that legislation would be delayed;98 Mr Heald thought that in most cases the discipline of an annual cut-off was good for the Government.99 Sir George Young suggested that the legislative programme could become a rolling programme and that there was therefore no need for an annual consideration of the programme which had been advocated in 2000.100
61. Mr Hain’s views were that it was right to seek to manage the Government’s business within a session, but that “having an artificial cut-off point at the end of the first, second or third sessions” seemed to be the wrong way to go about it.101 He expected Bills to be introduced towards the end of the current session with a view to being carried over, and that the Constitutional Reform Bill would be carried over in the Lords.102
62. We believe that carry-over increases flexibility and has the potential to lessen bottlenecks in the legislative process, but believe that the Government is right to introduce carry-over gradually; however, we also believe that this should proceed with cross-party agreement. Conclusions and recommendations
The principle of programming 1. We believe that, if programming were used as originally envisaged by the Modernisation Committee, namely only when there is cross-party agreement, it would have the potential to be a more effective way of considering, and improving, legislation, and we regret that it has come to be seen as the same as the guillotine, though more widely applied. We recommend that the sessional orders should be changed to allow programming motions to be decided without debate only with
96 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill (10 June 2003); European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill (21 October 2003). 97 House of Lords, Select Committee on Procedure of the House, Fifth Report, Session 2001–02, HL Paper 148, para 7
98 Q 132 99 Q 220 100 Q 156 101 Q 295 102 Q 302
20 Procedure Committee
cross-party support; on other occasions the Government would, if necessary, have to justify such a motion in a one-hour debate. In exchange, we would expect parties to adopt a constructive approach to programming. (Paragraph 18)
Programming in standing committee 2. We believe that it is sensible to retain the initial practice of setting an “out-date” for committee in the initial programme motion put to the House, but believe that this should be taken 48 hours or more after second reading to allow the “out-date” to take account of the second reading debate, and any recommendations made, and with the possibility of voting on an amendment (without debate) before the main motion; in addition, we expect the Government to be flexible about adjusting the out-date in the light of experience during the committee stage. This is particularly important if substantial Government amendments are tabled, but may also be necessary for other reasons. (Paragraph 21)
3. Chairman already have the power to intervene when necessary to suggest a meeting of a programming sub-committee and some have already done so. We believe that this is a suitable activity to assist with orderly consideration of the bill, and that such initiatives behind the scenes should not give rise to accusations of partiality. (Paragraph 25)
4. A Standing Committee should be empowered to consider a Government motion embodying any proposal which could have been reported from a programming sub- committee, without the need for a sub-committee meeting, unless any member of the Committee objects when such a motion is moved. (Paragraph 26)
5. We believe that pre-legislative scrutiny is desirable in itself, but it does not have any particular implications for the system of programming. (Paragraph 27)
6. We believe that, for most bills, it is best to have as few internal knives as possible. (Paragraph 30)
7. We believe that the Chairman should have discretion to delay the falling of a knife by up to 15 minutes where this is judged to be for the general convenience of the committee (during which time amendments to a programming order could be considered if necessary). To avoid committee sittings overlapping with Question Time in the House, a knife due to fall at the end of a morning sitting would be moved to early in the afternoon sitting (rather than delay the end of the morning sitting). (Paragraph 35)
8. In addition, when a committee has been suspended because of divisions in the House, any knife due to fall later in the same sitting should be delayed by a time equal to the length of the suspension. (Paragraph 36)
9. If the time available for considering a bill is considered inadequate, longer afternoon sittings may sometimes be a reasonable option as an alternative to a later out-date. (Paragraph 38)
Programming of Legislation 21
10. We agree with the Modernisation Committee that the Government should inform the programming sub-committee if the report stage is likely to be delayed, so that it might propose a later out-date. (Paragraph 41)
11. We do not wish to recommend the introduction of speech limits in standing committee. However, we expect Ministers opening debates or replying to them to have regard to the time available, and also urge shadow spokesmen and the committee as a whole to use good sense in deciding the length of their speeches. (Paragraph 42)
12. We recommend that suitable drafting changes be made to the sessional orders when they are next renewed, to meet the points made by the Clerk of the House. (Paragraph 46)
Report stage and third reading 13. We recommend that the Government should table its amendments for report stage in good time. (Paragraph 50)
14. We believe that a factual statement of clauses and schedules not considered in Committee should be produced; it would clearly demonstrate to Members who had not been on the Committee, in a convenient form, which parts of the bill had not been debated. (Paragraph 52)
15. We believe that the House will usually want to spend most of the time available considering amendments on report, rather than debating third reading at length. (Paragraph 55)
Carry-over 16. We believe that carry-over increases flexibility and has the potential to lessen bottlenecks in the legislative process, but believe that the Government is right to introduce carry-over gradually; however, we also believe that this should proceed with cross-party agreement. (Paragraph 62)
22 Procedure Committee
Formal minutes
Wednesday 7 July 2004
Members present: Sir Nicholas Winterton, in the Chair Mr Peter Atkinson Mr Tony McWalter Mr Eric Illsley Sir Robert Smith Mr Iain Luke Mr Desmond Swayne Rosemary McKenna
The Committee deliberated.
Draft Report (Programming of Legislation), proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read.
Ordered, That the Chairman’s draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 62 read and agreed to.
Summary agreed to.
Resolved, That the Report be the Fourth Report of the Committee to the House.
A paper was ordered to be appended to the Minutes of Evidence.
Ordered, That the Appendix to the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee be reported to the House.
Programming of Legislation 23
Witnesses
Wednesday 11 February 2004 Page
Mr Roger Sands, Clerk of the House of Commons, Mr Douglas Millar, Clerk Assistant, and Mr Alan Sandall, Deputy Principal Clerk, Public Bill Office Ev 9
Wednesday 25 February
Rt Hon Sir Alan Haselhurst MP, Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr Roger Gale MP and Mr Peter Pike MP, Members of the Chairmen’s Panel Ev 21
Wednesday 10 March
Rt Hon Eric Forth MP and Barbara Follett MP Ev 34
Wednesday 24 March
Mr Graham Allen MP, Mr Mark Fisher MP, Mr Richard Shepherd MP, Mr Paul Tyler MP and Rt Hon Sir George Young Bt MP Ev 46
Wednesday 21 April
Mr Oliver Heald MP, Shadow Leader of the House of Commons Ev 62
Wednesday 19 May
Rt Hon Peter Hain MP, Leader of the House of Commons, and Mr Phil Woolas MP, Deputy Leader Ev 72
List of written evidence
Clerk of the House of Commons Ev 1 Clerk Assistant (supplementary) Ev 18 Rt Hon Sir Alan Haselhurst MP, Chairman of Ways and Means Ev 19 Rt Hon Eric Forth MP Ev 34 Mr Oliver Heald MP Ev 61 Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody MP Ev 88
943143PAG1 Page Type [SO] 09-07-04 01:05:54 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 1 Oral evidence
Taken before the Procedure Committee
on Wednesday 11 February 2004
Members present
Sir Nicholas Winterton, in the Chair
Mr John Burnett Sir Robert Smith David Hamilton Mr Desmond Swayne Mr Tony McWalter
Memorandum from the Clerk of the House of Commons
PROGRAMMING OF BILLS 1. The Procedure Committee has asked for a memorandum to inform its recently announced inquiry into the procedures for programming the House’s consideration of public bills. This subject has been dealt with in a series of reports over recent years by the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House. A great deal of factual material and opinion is therefore already on the record, and it is quite hard to find anything significantly novel to say or propose. In the circumstances, this memorandum is restricted to a brief restatement of the history of programming, a summary description of current programming procedures, and an indication of a few practical questions the Committee may wish to pursue. The two Annexes contain up to date factual information about the use made by the Government of programming and some technical points about the drafting of the relevant sessional orders. I and my colleagues will of course be happy to supplement this memorandum with oral evidence if the Committee so wishes.
Background 2. Although the practice of programming bills dates only from 1997, the House has applied timetable motions (known as “guillotines”) to the stages of bills since 1887. 3. Until 1997, the normal practice was for the Government to seek agreement through the “usual channels” to a voluntary arrangement relating to the time that a bill would take in standing committee and for its remaining stages on the floor of the House. 4. The guillotine was applied to a bill when a voluntary agreement could not be obtained (and usually after several meetings of a standing committee when progress was very slow). Guillotines by their nature were an exceptional procedure, used when the passage of a bill through the House was either blocked or taking much more time than the Government had anticipated. In the period from 1946 to 1997, 67 bills were guillotined in this way.
Programme Motions 5. The basic concept of programming, that Government bills should be timetabled from the outset so as to limit the scope for lengthy debates on the early clauses and to encourage balanced consideration of the whole bill, is not new. The Procedure Committee made recommendations along those lines in 1984–85.1 The Committee’s recommendation also envisaged the establishment of a committee to regulate the House’s legislative business, either with a strong independent membership or chaired independently by the Speaker. The Hansard Society made similar proposals in its report “Making the Law” in 1992. Neither proposal was put into eVect. 6. In July 1997, the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons looked at the matter again and proposed the introduction of the “programme motion” which aimed at greater flexibility than the guillotine.2 The Committee’s recommendations suggested that such motions should propose (a) which kind of committee was to be set up; (b) the date by which the bill should be reported from committee; (c) the amount of time proposed for report stage and third reading; and (d) provisions for carrying-over to a subsequent session in defined circumstances.
1 Select Committee on Procedure (Second Report, HC 49-I). 2 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons (First Report, HC 190) para 89. 9431431001 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:05:54 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 2 Procedure Committee: Evidence
On this occasion, the Committee did not link the recommendations to a proposal for a Committee to regulate the House’s legislative programme as a whole. 7. Following the Modernisation Committee’s report, an experiment in programming bills was undertaken. During the 1997–98 Session, certain bills were selected, through the usual channels, to be subject to a “programming motion”.3 The first programme motion was put down on 13 January 1998 in respect of the Scotland Bill. Although the Committee had recommended that a programme motion should be debated for a maximum of 45 minutes, the motion relating to the Scotland Bill was considered formally without debate.4 8. In Session 1997–98 11 bills were proceeded with under agreed programme orders but, in each of the following two sessions, only four bills were programmed in the same way. Such consensus as existed for the experiment with programming had clearly come to an end. The lack of progress with one of its main proposals for changing the way in which the House worked led the Modernisation Committee to return to the issue of programming. In its Second Report of Session 1999–2000 the Committee5 examined the eVect of its previous recommendations as well as looking at the timing of votes and reiterated its view that “it remains our firm judgement that, whilst voluntary informal agreement will continue to have a role to play, agreed programming of legislation can have a role to play in ensuring more eVective and eYcient use of Parliamentary time and improvement in the scrutiny of legislation.”.6 9. Following that Report (agreed by majority vote), the Government came forward with proposals for a standard framework for programming, to be enshrined in Sessional Orders, leaving the motion passed in respect of each bill to fill in the detailed timing for each stage in the House. Motions for the new Sessional Orders on programme motions were debated in the House on 7 November 2000 and passed. Their provisions were applied to almost all Government bills introduced in the 2000–01 Session. It was notable that, although the 1999–2000 report of the Modernisation Committee had still referred to “agreed programming”, the Sessional Orders made no reference to any requirement for prior agreement, and the programme motions brought forward under the provisions of the Orders were in general not agreed with the opposition parties. 10. The Committee again reviewed the matter in April 2001, with a general election imminent. In its First Report of Session 2000–01, Programming of Legislation, the Committee noted that “in practice every programme motion in this session has faced opposition, irrespective of content”. Its recommendations proposed inter alia that there should be an indication in advance of second reading of the date by which the Government proposed a bill to be reported from its standing committee stage; and that programming sub- committees should have the power to recommend an alternative “out date” from committee and the amount of time the House should spend on the remaining stages of the bill. This element of flexibility was no doubt intended to make programming more generally acceptable to the House. 11. These recommendations were incorporated in the revised sessional orders debated and adopted by the House on 28 June 2001. The revised orders gave more power to programming committees and programming sub-committees but limited proceedings in these committees to two hours. They also limited the time normally available for debate on programme motions in the House. In particular the question on the initial programme motion was to be put forthwith immediately after second reading, on the understanding that issues relating to the programme could be dealt with in the second reading debate. These orders initially had eVect until the end of the 2001–02 Session but were renewed on 29 October 2002, and again on 6 November 2003 for the current Session.
Current Procedures for Programme Orders 12. The basic characteristics of a programme motion are: (a) notice of a motion must be given before second reading; (b) it is moved immediately after second reading; and (c) it must provide for the committal of the bill. At that stage, a programme motion is not debatable and so may not be amended. 13. If a supplementary motion is made to reduce the amount of time allocated to any stage of a bill, or if it is not in accordance with a recommendation of the programming committee or sub-committee, then the motion becomes debatable for up to 45 minutes.
3 Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords], Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Bill, Government of Wales Bill, Human Rights Bill [Lords], Landmines Bill, Northern Ireland Bill, Northern Ireland (Elections) Bill, Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill, Regional Development Agencies Bill, Scotland Bill, and Teaching and Higher Education Bill [Lords]. In his memorandum to the Modernisation Committee’s inquiry into Programming of Government Business, the Chairman of Ways and Means described the procedure as “no more or less than agreed guillotines . . . The single distinguishing feature that marked them out as programme motions was that they were signed by representatives of each of the three main parties represented in the House”: Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons (Second Report, HC 1168-II (Session 2001–02) (Ev 50 para 5). 4 HC Deb 13 January 1998 c. 254. 5 Programming of Legislation and Timing of Votes (Second Report, HC 589). 6 Programming of Legislation and Timing of Votes (Second Report, HC 589) p vii. 9431431001 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:05:54 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 3
14. Business covered by a programme order may continue for the time allocated regardless of standing orders requiring sittings to be brought to an end at certain times (ie it is treated as “exempted business” for the time allocated). In most instances, the Government has not proposed that the House continue for a significant period after the moment of interruption. 15. When the time allocated expires, only certain questions may be put, as specified in the sessional orders. In broad terms they are: (a) the question under discussion; (b) questions on amendments moved or motions made by a Minister; (c) questions on any amendment selected by the Chair for separate division; (d) other questions necessary to dispose of the business. 16. When a programme order covers proceedings which take place in the House itself (Committee of the whole House, consideration (report stage) or third reading), a programming committee may be appointed, consisting of the Chairman of Ways and Means and up to eight other members nominated by the Speaker. The function of the committee is to divide the bill into various parts and allot to each part such time as it considers appropriate within the overall time allotted by the original programme order. Proceedings in the programming committee are limited to two hours. The House may debate the programming committee’s resolution for up to 45 minutes and, if it is agreed to, it has eVect as if it were included in the programme order. In practice, the sessional order providing for the appointment of a programming committee has usually been disapplied except in respect of proceedings in a Committee of the whole House.7 17. Where a programme order covers proceedings on a bill in standing committee, a programming sub- committee of the standing committee is appointed. This consists of one of the chairmen of the committee and seven members of the standing committee nominated by the Speaker. Like the programming committee in the House, the programming sub-committee divides the bill up into parts and allots time to the consideration of each part in the committee. These arrangements must be approved by the standing committee. 18. The programming sub-committee may propose a change to the date by which the bill is to be reported to the House (ie the date on which the standing committee is to complete its consideration of the bill). If this is agreed to by the standing committee, the Government must then arrange for a motion to be considered in the House within five days, which either gives eVect to the proposal, confirms the date set in the original programme order for the bill, or otherwise alters or supplements the provisions of the original programme motion. 19. The programming sub-committee may also make recommendations about the programming of the consideration and third reading of the bill. If they are agreed to by the standing committee, then the Government must again set down a supplemental programme motion (as set out below). 20. The tables in Annex 1 set out the statistics on the operation of programme orders so far in the current Session and for Session 2002–03.
Programming Sub-Committees 21. In his evidence to the Modernisation Committee’s inquiry in Session 2000–01, the Chairman of Ways and Means concluded that programming sub-committees had operated with few procedural problems.8 Current practice is for the programming sub-committee to meet, at the latest, on the evening before the first meeting of the standing committee—which means that the draft resolution to be proposed to the standing committee is printed on the amendment paper. Divisions in programming sub-committees are quite frequent; however, programming sub-committees tend to begin with informal, select committee-style discussion rather than immediately adopting formal debate by question and amendment. The Chairman of Ways and Means told the Modernisation Committee that the position of chairmen of standing committees had not been called into question as a result of their chairing programming sub-committees; this remains the case.9
Possible Changes to the Current Arrangements 22. It is for the Committee to consider how far the current sessional orders and their operation in practice meet the long term requirements of the House. Below are a number of practical questions that the Committee may wish to examine. — Has the programming committee operated successfully and should its use be more regular than at present?
7 See Table B below. 8 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons (Second Report, HC 1168-II (Session 2001–02) Ev 52 para 13). 9 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons (Second Report, HC 1168-II (Session 2001–02) Ev 52 para 16). 9431431001 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:05:54 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 4 Procedure Committee: Evidence
— Could the operation of programme orders in standing committee be improved if the Chair was given authority (as in Standing Order No 88(2)(i) relating to the end of a morning sitting) to extend proceedings by fifteen minutes at a knife point to enable debates to be concluded and questions put? — Should provision be made to enable programmed proceedings in standing committee to be extended for the time of a suspension for a division in the House? — Should the chairman of a standing committee play an active role in the operation of a programming order and, if necessary, initiate further meetings of the programming sub-committee during the committee stage? 23. In addition, Annex 2 contains some proposals for proposed minor amendments to the Sessional Orders. These do not represent a change to their operation but clarify the wording in particular instances.
Annex 1
Operation of Programme Orders: Session 2002–03 and Session 2003–04to dat e 1. The Tables do not diVerentiate among bills in relation to their length nor their importance. Large bills may have many technical clauses; equally, a short bill may be of major political importance. 2. Table A does not seek to assess the relative importance of groups of amendments. For example, the Table cannot show where groups at the end of a selection list for a bill may be less important than those in the early part of the list, as a result of which the committee (or the House on report) may be content to devote most of the time available to the initial debates. Some groups not debated may be simply of a drafting nature or respond to Government undertakings which the House (or committee) would have passed over in any event. 3. The Tables do not directly show where a programme has operated largely by co-operation even where the introduction of a programme order was opposed or where there was no such co-operation. 4. When Table A shows that a knife has fallen, this does not indicate whether this occurred after a full or very brief or truncated debate. 5. In standing committee, some groups of amendments, which otherwise would have been disposed of rapidly, have not been reached before an approaching knife when a committee has had to suspend for a division in the House. 9431431001 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:05:54 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 5 Groups/3rd REPORT came into play of knife 222 2 hrs CwH have no Report stage and proceed directly to Third reading. as to generate no easily usable information. Bills not amended in orders to Report stages on CwH bills are so specific to each bill The circumstances relating to the application of programme because Knives (incl. Knives which reached because Cl/Sch stand Groups not parts not reading not Table A COMMITTEE days: OPERATION OF PROGRAMME ORDERS, SESSION 2002–03 Date of 1st Sittings Knives provided Knives which reached because reached order in House provided for for came into play of knife of knife Days 3rd rdg) ] 1Apr830——120— ] 20Mar810——1213 Lords ] 10 Feb 9 3 3 18 29 2 3 1 3 Lords Lords ] 15 Jul 10 4 0 — — 1 2 1 2 Lords ] 24 Mar 18 7 5 8 41 1 2 4 6 ] 9Jun83135120— ] 8Sep1143651542 Lords ences [ V Lords Lords Finance [part]Fire ServicesEuropean Union (Accessions) 21 May 6 May 8 May 1 2 1 2 2 2 0 2 — 1 2 — 3 7 2 Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) 27 Jan 1 2 1 4 3 Regional Assemblies (Preparations) [part] 26 Nov 1 4 3 3 3 (Pilots)Bills in Committee of whole House: 21 Oct 5 Sexual O Water [ committed)European Parliamentary and Local Elections 8 Sep 1 1 7 6 Crime (International Co-operation) [ Anti-social BehaviourFinance [part]Health and Social CareStandards) (Community Health and Courts [ 8 Apr 6 May 12 7 May 15 4 22 3 0 6 2 — 2 6 — 37 17 1 66 1 4 1 4 3 5 4 5 5 6 3 Planning and Compulsory Purchase (re- Licensing [ Hunting (re-committed) 1 Jul 2 4 4 0 12 Waste and Emissions Trading [ Police (Northern Ireland) [ Local GovernmentRailways and Transport Safety 28 Jan 7 Jan 18 14 5 4 0 3 — 8 — 36 1 2 2 5 1 4 1 9 HuntingPlanning and Compulsory Purchase 17 Dec 12 16 Dec 5 27 5 1 58 1 73 0 1 0 1 1 1 4 European Parliament (Representation) 10 Dec 7 2 0 — — 1 2 1 2 CommunicationsCriminal JusticeExtradition 3 Dec 4 Dec 9 Dec 26 32 9 10 11 5 8 7 1 36 71 105 1 106 2 5 3 3 1 11 3 2 11 7 13 1 2 Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) 28 Nov 4 4 4 6 8 1 2 1 1 Health (Wales) 27 Nov 4 1 0 — — 1 2 0 — Bills committed to Standing Committee: Regional Assemblies (Preparations) [part] 26 Nov 10 1 — — — 1 2 2 5 Title of Bill 9431431001 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:05:54 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 6 Procedure Committee: Evidence Groups/3rd REPORT came into play of knife 2 1 13 (out of 19) 12 1 2 1 4 (out of 7) 12 12 12 12 ° 12 12 12 12 1 CwH have no Report stage and proceed directly to Third reading. as to generate no easily usable information. Bills not amended in orders to Report stages on CwH bills are so specific to each bill The circumstances relating to the application of programme because Knives (incl. Knives which reached because Cl/Sch stand Groups not parts not reading not Table A COMMITTEE days: Date of 1st Sittings Knives provided Knives which reached because reached OPERATION OF PROGRAMME ORDERS, SESSION 2003–04 (as at 30 January 2004) order in House provided for for came into play of knife of knife Days 3rd rdg) c Management 5 Jan 12 1 Y Higher EducationBills in Committee of whole House: 27 Jan Fire and Rescue Services 26 Jan Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) 22 Jan Civil Contingencies 19 Jan 8 2 Employment RelationsHuman Tissue 12 Jan 15 Jan 8 1 Housing 12 Jan 18 8 PaymentsHorserace Betting and Olympic Lottery 8 Jan 8 6 Jan 3 4 1 0 — — 1 2 National Insurance Contributions and Statutory Tra Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) 17 Dec 12 4 2 9 5 1 2 (Pilots) (2002-03) Child Trust FundsEuropean Parliamentary and Local Elections 15 Dec 8 1 0 — — 1 2 Bills committed to Standing Committee: Planning and Compulsory Purchase (2002-03) Title of Bill 9431431002 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:05:54 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 7
Table B
GOVERNMENT BILLS: PROGRAMME ORDERS, SESSION 2002–03
Sess Further Further Order in Order B order in order in Order in Stg Stg Ctte (Prog Further House House Ctte (Stg (Out date/ Cttes) order in (Lords First order relating to Cttee later disap- House Amend- Title of Bill in House Ctte stage proceedings) stages) plied? H (consid/3r) ments) Regional Assemblies 26 Nov* 18 DecA 3 Dec 19 DecD yes 23 Jan*F 30 Apr (Preparations) (CwH and Stg Ctte) Health (Wales) 27 Nov* — 10 Dec — yes — — Community Care 28 Nov* — 10 Dec — yes — 19 Mar (Delayed Discharges etc.) Communications 3 Dec* — 10, 12 Dec 6 FebD yes 10 FebF 14 Jul* Criminal Justice 4 Dec* 6 FebB 17 Dec* 4 FebC no 5 MarF 18 Nov* 9, 23 Jan 27 FebD 2 AprE 4, 27 Feb 4 MarD 19 May*E Extradition 9 Dec* — 7 Jan 21 JanD yes 25 MarG 13 Nov European 10 Dec — 7 Jan — yes — 28 Apr Parliament (Representation) Hunting 16 Dec* 12 FebB 7 Jan 11 FebC yes 30 Jun*G — 1 Jul*BR 3 Jul*R Planning and 17 Dec* 8 Sep*BR 9, 14 Jan — yes — — Compulsory 14 OctR Purchase Local Government 7 Jan* 28 JanB 21*, 30 Jan 21 Jan*C yes 25 Feb*F 15 Sep* 13 FebD Electricity 27 Jan* — — — no — 30 Apr (Miscellaneous Provisions) (CwH) Railways and 28 Jan* — 4 Feb — yes — 8 July Transport Safety Police (Northern 10 Feb 4 MarB 25 Feb — yes 26 Mar*G 7 Apr Ireland) Bill 5 MarB 6 Mar [Lords] Waste and 20 Mar — 3, 10 Apr — yes — — Emissions Trading [Lords] Licensing [Lords] 24 Mar* — 1, 3 Apr — yes 16 Jun*G 24 Jun* Crime (International 1 Apr* 7 MayB 10 June — yes — — Co-operation) [Lords] Anti-social 8 Apr* — 6 May — yes 24 Jun*G 17 Nov* Behaviour Finance (CwH and 6 May* 8, 13 15 May* — no 1 Jul*E — Stg Ctte) MayA 5, 10, 12 Jun 4 Jun Health and Social 7 May* — 13, 22 May — yes 8 Jul*G 19 Nov* Care (Community Health and Standards) Fire Services (CwH) 8 May* 3 Jun* — — yes — 12 Nov European Union 21 May — — — no — 11 Nov (Accessions) (CwH) Courts [Lords] 9 Jun* — 26 Jun — yes — 17 Nov* Sexual OVences 15 Jul* — 9 Sept — yes — 18 Nov [Lords] Water [Lords] 8 Sep* 15 Sep*B 16 Sep — yes 5 Nov* — 21 Oct 9431431002 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:05:54 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 8 Procedure Committee: Evidence
European 21 Oct* 29 Oct* 30 Oct* — yes — — Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) * on a Division; A: CwH following Prog Ctte; B: Stg Ctte; C: Out date; D: Consid/3r; E: Pursuant to Prog Ctte resolution; F: Pursuant to Stg Ctte resolution; G: Free-standing; R: Recommittal; H In respect of proceedings beyond Ctte stage.
Bills not subject to programming order, but subject to Allocation of Time order: Bills not subject to a programming order: Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Consolidated Fund Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections and Periods of Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Suspension) Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission etc.) [Lords] National Minimum Wage (Enforcement Notices) [Lords] Industrial Development (Financial Assistance) Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) [Lords]
Table B
GOVERNMENT BILLS: PROGRAMME ORDERS 2003–04 (as at 30 January 2004)
Sess Further Further Order in Order B order in order in Order in Stg Stg Ctte (Prog Further House House Ctte (Stg (Out date/ Cttes) order in (Lords First order relating to Cttee later disap- House Amend- Title of Bill in House Ctte stage proceedings) stages) plied? H (consid/3r) ments) Planning and (2002–03) 8 DecG Compulsory Purchase Child Trust Funds 15 Dec 16 DecB 6 Jan yes Asylum and 17 Dec* 8*, 13 Jan yes Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) TraYc Management 5 Jan* 27 Jan* yes National Insurance 6 Jan* 13 Jan yes Contributions and Statutory Payments Horserace Betting 8 Jan 20 Jan yes and Olympic Lottery Housing 12 Jan 20 Jan yes Employment 12 Jan* yes Relations Human Tissue 15 Jan 27 Jan yes Civil Contingencies 19 Jan* 27 Jan* yes Armed Forces 22 Jan yes (Pensions and Compensation) Fire and Rescue 26 Jan yes Services Higher Education 27 Jan* yes * on a Division; B: Stg Ctte; G: Free-standing; H In respect of proceedings beyond Ctte stage.
Bills not subject to programming order, but subject to Allocation of Time order: Bills not subject to a programming order: — Consolidated Fund 9431431003 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:05:54 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 9
Annex 2
MATTERS WHICH MIGHT BE INCLUDED IN REVISED ORDERS
(a) Government motions to leave out clauses in committee Sessional Order D(2)(e), as applied by Sessional Order D(5), provides that, when proceedings in standing committee or the Committee of the whole House are to be brought to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order, only one question is to be put on standing part a series of clauses in a bill. By practice, when the Government has given notice of a motion to leave out a particular clause, the Sessional Order has been interpreted so as to allow a separate question to be put on that clause. It would be desirable for the wording of the Sessional Order to be amended to regularise this practice.
(b) Putting questions on programme motions forthwith Sessional Order A(8) provides that a motion making further provision for proceedings on consideration or third reading otherwise than in accordance with a resolution of the standing committee is debatable. Similarly Sessional Order A(9) provides that a motion reducing the time allocated under a programme order for any proceedings on a bill is debatable. A motion making further provision for proceedings on consideration or third reading in accordance with a resolution of the standing committee which reduced the time allocated for certain proceedings on the bill would not be debatable under Sessional Order A(8), but it is not clear whether it would be debatable under Sessional Order A(9).
(c) The order in which questions are put from the Chair Sessional Orders D(2) and E(2) specify the questions to be put from the Chair when proceedings in standing committee or the Committee of the whole House, or on consideration and third reading respectively, are to be brought to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order. The drafting does not make entirely clear whether those questions are to be put in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper, or in the order in which the relevant class of question is listed in the Sessional Order. (The former is what was intended and is the procedure that has generally been followed).
Witnesses: Mr Roger Sands, Clerk of the House, Mr Douglas Millar, Clerk Assistant, and Mr Alan Sandall, Deputy Principal Clerk, Public Bill OYce, examined.
Q1 Chairman: On behalf of the Procedure the details—although in our memorandum we do Committee, can I welcome Mr Roger Sands, who is draw attention to a few details—is what I would the Clerk of the House of Commons, Mr Douglas recommend this Committee concentrate on. Millar, who is the Clerk Assistant, and Mr Alan Sandall, Deputy Principal Clerk, Public Bill OYce. Q2 Chairman: Thank you. By the way, I should have Gentlemen, you will know why we are here. I think thanked you very much for your memorandum on it is very appropriate that we should be undertaking the programming of bills. Before I pass on to an inquiry into the programming of bills and the way Desmond Swayne, do you think that programming that it has operated since it became very much a has worked or does it require adjustment? This is a formal and regular part of the way that the House of general question, not getting into the nitty gritty Commons considers legislation. Can I welcome you which will come later in our questioning. and thank you for being prepared to come and be Mr Sands: Undoubtedly the procedure works in a questioned by Members of this Committee. Can I technical sense and I think that there are cases which start from the Chair, and perhaps I should address one can point to. The Modernisation Committee in all questions to Mr Sands as the Clerk of the House its last report on this issue pointed to two examples: but obviously any of his colleagues can also one of good programming, as they saw it, and one of comment. To what extent is it possible to improve, bad programming. I think if one went through most in your view, the operation of programming by cases you would be able to put them into one or the procedural changes, and how much has to be left to other category. Again, I do not think it is the way in which Members themselves operate the fundamentally a matter of procedural adjustment, it system? is the way in which it is used and the safeguards Mr Sands: I would certainly put weight on the which apply to its use. At the moment it has to be second of those, Chairman. I indicated when I gave said there really are no safeguards. When it was first evidence to this Committee on a previous occasion introduced it was seen as being essentially a that I sometimes feel too much weight is put on consensual procedure. The term used in the early procedure; procedure is usually just a vehicle, it can reports of the Modernisation Committee was be used constructively or occasionally it can be used “agreed programming”. In all the initial examples destructively. I think the way it is used rather than during 1998 and early 1999 the motions were, in fact, 9431431004 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:05:54 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 10 Procedure Committee: Evidence
11 February 2004 Mr Roger Sands, Mr Douglas Millar and Mr Alan Sandall agreed and were signed by representatives of all very drastic procedures if it is signed by Members of three main parties. The Government’s ambitious more than one party. I might mention that I was programme of constitutional reform got through the involved in the drafting of the Temporary Standing House, with surprising ease in hindsight, largely Orders as Clerk of Legislation in the year 2000 and because of agreed programme motions of that sort. that stipulation did feature in one of my early drafts But that consensus broke down in the course of 1999 but it did not survive the scrutiny of the usual and since then the whole procedure has become channels. highly contentious in a party political sense and was, I think, at one stage, seen by the Opposition as just having been taken over by the Government Whips’ Q5 Chairman: Is that not the problem, Mr Sands, OYce and used in a very ruthless partisan fashion. that the Standing Orders of this House to all intents You cannot do anything procedurally to cure that. and purposes depend upon the usual channels, but particularly the usual channels of the Government party and that is because only the Government can Q3 Chairman: But you still think that this inquiry table a motion to change Standing Orders? Is it not looking into it is worthwhile? really about time that the House itself established a Mr Sands: Yes, I do. I hope in particular that you committee, perhaps under the chairmanship of the might take evidence from the Whips of Government Speaker, to table changes to Standing Orders which and Opposition to get their perceptions of how it has would put the House of Commons rather than the worked, whether the programmes that are presented executive back in the driving seat? to the House for agreement after Second Reading Mr Sands: I think you are taking me a long way have been adequately negotiated or not, what sort of beyond programming, Chairman. I think that consultations go into them. I think that sort of perhaps that is not an entirely fair perception of the informal background to the use of the procedure is way things have gone over the years. In general until, perhaps the most critical thing to look at just at let us say, the creation of the Modernisation the moment. Committee, which is a rather diVerent animal from Chairman: Thank you. Do either of your colleagues its predecessors—and you are in a better placed wish to add anything? position to judge how diVerent than I am because I have never given evidence to it, nor indeed been Q4Mr McWalter: Just as a follow-up to that. You invited to—but before that it was the tendency for say nothing can be done procedurally, but if procedural change to originate in cross-party Members were aware of some of the data we have committees such as this and to come forward to the seen about the number of clauses of bills that have House on the basis of some degree at any rate of not been arrived at in Committee they may well take acquiescence, if not consensus. the view that the default should be that if there is no agreement between parties there should be something other than just the Government deciding Q6 Chairman: Is not part of the problem that the what the timetable has to be. You say nothing can be Modernisation Committee is, of course, chaired by done procedurally but I do not understand that. a Government Cabinet Minister and, therefore, it is Surely something can be done procedurally and you not quite the same as a House of Commons select could have a paper which sets out the options, committee because most of the proposals actually perhaps with the authority of the Speaker or emanate from the Leader of the House’s oYce? whoever, which actually says that the current system Mr Sands: I do not think that in itself is necessarily is failing in the following regards and the default a bad thing. Indeed, it could be seen as a good thing position could be quite diVerent from the position because a recommendation coming from such a we have at the moment. committee by virtue of that fact is much more likely Mr Sands: Yes, you are quite right to pick me up on to see the light of day before the House; but I think it what I said, Mr McWalter. I realised as soon as I had does put an obligation on that committee to roll the said it that it was not accurate because of course you pitch perhaps rather more thoroughly than has can do things procedurally. Originally when sometimes been done in the past. programming was first conceived by the predecessor of this Committee way back in the mid-1980s it was seen, quite rightly, as a very powerful tool and the Q7 Mr Swayne: To what extent does the evidence suggestion was that because it was such a powerful suggest that programming has led Members to be tool it ought to be mediated through a fairly high much more focused in tabling amendments to the level committee with quite a strong independent standing committee, or have they simply continued presence, let us say chairmanship by a Deputy tabling any number of amendments in the hope that Speaker or something like that. That suggestion has knives will fall and that will bring disrepute to the been repeated occasionally since then but has been system? Equally, as a separate issue, to what extent constantly resisted by the Whips’ OYces, I think it is has the implementation of programming had an fair to say, of both main parties. So I would rather eVect on the selection of amendments by chairmen? put that to one side as a possible procedural remedy Mr Sands: Can I ask my colleagues to deal with that? which is not in practice available. I think the same The Clerk Assistant is very much in the lead at the would apply to a stipulation which one could write moment on proceedings on legislation in the House, into the Temporary Standing Orders saying that a and Alan Sandall has a lot of contemporary programme motion will only get the benefit of these experience of standing committees. 9431431004 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:05:54 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 11
11 February 2004 Mr Roger Sands, Mr Douglas Millar and Mr Alan Sandall
Mr Millar: As to Mr Swayne’s first point, Chairman, Mr Sandall: It has certainly made the pressure of I do not think it has had that much impact on the work much more intense in recent years, largely volume of amendments that are tabled. I think what because of the greater speed with which bills tend to has had a great impact on the volume of go through. Going into afternoon sittings with eVect amendments tabled, particularly at committee stage, from the first day of committee stage, for example, is is the speed with which bills tend to go through the an enormous diVerence compared to 10 or 15 years House. When I was Deputy Principal Clerk in the ago. Public Bill OYce in the 1980s, bills would go through standing committee in a much more leisurely way than they do now. Now we automatically go to four Q12 David Hamilton: Is there any diVerence in how sittings a week, sitting morning and afternoon, and programming has operated between those bills that that on its own tends to make the passage of a bill have had pre-legislative scrutiny and those that through committee much quicker and makes it have not? harder for outside interests to alert Members to their Mr Sandall: I think we would take the view that bills V concerns and o er the options for tabling which have had the benefit of pre-legislative scrutiny amendments which might address those concerns. I have been better scrutinised in standing committee. do not think it has had a particular impact on the I think the extent to which programming itself has volume, although Alan, who has more recent had an impact on that is probably debatable. experience, may have a view on that. As to the Mr Millar: Could I add to that, Chairman. One of criteria for selection, I think it has had no impact. my colleagues who sat through the marathon of The only thing one can say is in the House, the the Joint Select Committee on the Draft Speaker has to be aware of the fact that there is Communications Bill, and also was Clerk of the limited time and, therefore, may have to be a little bit more selective in terms of choosing the groups which standing committee on the same bill in the following will be debated. But in general, that would be session, commented to me that there was less need reflected by having larger groups rather than not for time to be taken up with probing amendments selecting amendments which hitherto might have designed to elicit the Government’s intentions. come before the House. Those sort of amendments, where a Member could Mr Sandall: I do not think the existence of not understand why the Bill had been drafted in one programming has had any marked diVerence on the way rather than another, were perhaps fewer at way Members table amendments and it certainly has standing committee stage. But, of course, since a lot not aVected the way in which chairmen select them of Members who had been on the joint committee as far as standing committees are concerned. were then on the standing committee, and other Chairman: A very succinct response. Members on the standing committee had read the joint committee’s report, he notes that there was a much higher degree of knowledge of the bill, and so Q8 Sir Robert Smith: Even before programming, much greater interest in it and a greater degree of presumably people had to be ingenious in the way expertise which in itself brought forth more they tabled amendments to try to get to the head of the group if they wanted to lead that group in debate amendments. In the case of that bill, he would say it anyway. Presumably even in the absence of led to better scrutiny rather than quicker scrutiny. programming people had some thought as to how the legislation would progress. Mr Millar: Absolutely, that must be true. The Q13 David Hamilton: Has anyone looked at the chairman is always aware of, or sensitive to, any Scottish example? In the last six years that the artificiality which may be introduced in the drafting Scottish Parliament has been sitting they have done of amendments simply to try to engineer that a a lot of pre-legislative work and it is actually quite a particular amendment comes higher up in the bill strong element in the Scottish Parliament. Have any than another one. of you looked at that to see whether that might be something that could be applied far greater down here? Q9 Chairman: It is correct, is it not, and I speak as a Mr Sands: As I understand it, I think the big Chairman of standing committees, that the diVerence there—I am not a great expert on the chairman of the standing committee can allow an Scottish Parliament—is that it is very much a amendment that is not the lead amendment in the committee based parliament. They have given much group to be subject to a vote? Mr Millar: Absolutely. more power ab initio to their committees than is the case with us. The other consideration, of course, is it is a parliament with a form of proportional Q10 Chairman: So there are ways of ensuring representation and, therefore, there is a certain perhaps diVerent views in a group of amendments process of negotiation that needs to go on which is can be voted on if necessary. That is correct, is it not? conducted initially in the committees before a viable Mr Millar: Yes, you are quite right. legislative proposition emerges. David Hamilton: There is an old saying that every Q11 David Hamilton: Could you tell us how the upside has a downside. PR is the downside in the programming has aVected the work of the Public Scottish Parliament. Bill OYce? Mr Swayne: It is a fatal weakness. 9431431004 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:05:54 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 12 Procedure Committee: Evidence
11 February 2004 Mr Roger Sands, Mr Douglas Millar and Mr Alan Sandall
Q14David Hamilton: We agree. Are there any entail an exercise of detailed judgment as to why the diVerences between the way of working of situation has arisen, that the standing committee has Programming Sub-Committees (of standing reached the end of the bill and has not dealt with 50 committees) and that of previous Business Sub- clauses: what was the reason for that, was it a good Committees under the guillotines? reason or a bad reason? I just cannot imagine how Mr Sandall: I have no experience of Business Sub- we would be able to advise the Speaker on that Committees, I am afraid. background or how he would be able to make a Mr Millar: Neither have I directly but I suspect judgment which would not be seen to be politically when you think of a Business Sub-Committee under charged in one way or the other. a guillotine or a Business Committee in respect of proceedings of the whole House, this will have been Q17 Chairman: Surely chairmen of standing set up as a result of very long consideration of a Bill committees are bearing that responsibility, bearing in standing committee. We used to have the idea, in mind that they are not supposed to permit tedious which was commonly held by Members, that you repetition and filibustering, which often is a form of had to have 100 hours of debate on a bill in a tedious repetition. If there clearly has been, surely standing committee before the government was the Speaker can reprimand the persons responsible justified in introducing a guillotine. That was not or the political party responsible because he or she, invariably the case but nonetheless that gives you a as Speaker, should have the best interests of the flavour of what preceded it. At that stage the House at heart and the Speaker should ensure that government did not necessarily feel that it had to be legislation is adequately scrutinised by the House. as accommodating because they had already Mr Sands: I think it will be your experience, as it is accommodated a great deal. When you come to mine, Chairman, that there are many devices short programming, obviously the Government have of actual tedious repetition, such as frequent provided the framework within which the bill is interventions in a speech, the proliferation of considered. Without any specific knowledge of amendments which are perfectly orderly and viable discussions between the usual channels, my amendments but which nevertheless perhaps would understanding is that from time to time there are not be seen as having such a high priority as others. quite extensive discussions within the usual channels All these are ways in which if an Opposition is so to try to get co-operation within the framework minded it could create a situation where several which the Government have decided. clauses have not been debated but which a chairman really could not discipline. Q15 Chairman: Our witnesses have indicated that Chairman: Thank you. pre-legislative scrutiny means that there has been better scrutiny and there is a greater understanding Q18 Mr McWalter: I very much want to support the of the bill. What they have not responded to is an general drift of the Chairman’s questions. When a earlier question. Does current programming mean Committee reports, and it has a substantial number that legislation is currently going through of clauses and groups of amendments which have inadequately scrutinised? Do our witnesses, Mr not been tackled, is there no kind of report made by Sands, Mr Sandall and Mr Millar, think it is right the Chairs of that standing committee to the that large sections of important legislation should go Speaker? Is there no indication of why this through the House in standing committee, and even happened? Is there no room for people to complain in some cases during the report stage, undebated? that in various ways the business has been dealt with Mr Sands: No, of course it is undesirable in principle poorly or the timetabling was inappropriate? Surely, but in practice there can be many reasons for that following the Chairman’s line of questioning, the happening. Sometimes one can suspect that it is Speaker in the end is meant to be the custodian of the because the Opposition has simply not co-operated rights of back benchers, and if back benchers are with the planning process and so has deliberately being silenced on important matters, through engineered a situation where some clauses have not whatever mechanism—inadequate programming or been debated. That has been the suspicion on one or very poor use of the time, or even malicious two occasions. Equally, I am sure there are a number manoeuvres by Whips or whatever—I would have of occasions when the time allotted clearly was not thought there has to be scope for a report to be adequate however the cake was to be carved. made, and for the Speaker, in some circumstances, though not always, to take cognisance of that report, Q16 Chairman: Do you think that the Speaker which might involve just reporting to the should have a role in this, that he clearly should have Government that a particular Whip, say, seems to be a blocking mechanism, as it were, to prevent particularly incompetent or whatever. There could legislation passing through the House with large even be some accountability for Whips in here tranches of it undebated? Do you think that he has somewhere! It cannot be beyond the wit of man to any role to play in seeking to ensure that the House have a system in place which calls in some of these finds some time to debate all important parts of things from time to time and hopefully reorganises legislation? Currently, of course, he has no role. Do things in a way which would improve the whole you think that he should have such a role? business. Mr Sands: To be frank, Chairman, I think that Mr Sands: It is certainly not beyond the wit of man; would put much too great an onus on him, one that indeed, it was precisely considerations of that sort would be very diYcult to discharge because it would that led the initial advocates of programming, as it 9431431004 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:05:54 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 13
11 February 2004 Mr Roger Sands, Mr Douglas Millar and Mr Alan Sandall has come to be called, to suggest, as I mentioned Mr Millar: Presumably, they know which new earlier, that this procedure should be mediated clauses they want most. As everybody knows when through a committee with a degree of independence a bill is going to report, they table their new clauses in its chairmanship. That at the very least would very soon after the Committee Stage has finished have guaranteed that there had been genuine and everyone knows that, without intervention, the consultations before a programme motion was bill will be considered in the order new clauses and tabled. At present, there is no independent then amendments to clauses. That is how it is done, validation of that. We have had the experience of a with Government new clauses taking priority at the Minister getting up to move a programme motion, in beginning. the days when they were still debated—they are not normally debated now, of course—and saying “This Q21 Sir Robert Smith: If it is a bill that has has been agreed” and his Shadow opposite number highlighted the need for considerable areas of debate getting up and hotly denying it. If you have a on new clauses, is there no way of breaking up committee that has met under independent the time? Presumably that would require a chairmanship, with minutes being taken and all the Programming Committee. formalities that attend on such an occasion, you at Mr Millar: Indeed. The Government can table an least know whether there has been agreement or not, order of consideration motion or a programme and if there has been agreement, you know what has motion on their own initiative for Report Stage. been agreed. Q22 Sir Robert Smith: But for the Opposition, who Q19 Chairman: Can I say we are very grateful for has priorities to influence that? that proposal from you and your colleagues, who Mr Millar: On a number of occasions I have known have huge experience. Can I put the next question: in the Government to propose programmes at the recent years there has hardly ever been a behest of the Opposition. Programming Committee for the report stage of Mr Sands: The background to what the Clerk legislation, remaining stages. With the short Assistant was saying is that on many bills there is an observable tendency for the Opposition, and deadline for tabling amendments, is the sometimes other Members as well, to be more Programming Committee system unworkable, and interested not so much in the bill that is there and could it be improved? amending it, but using the bill as a peg on which to Mr Millar: I have been Clerk of the Programming hang other ideas which they would like to ventilate. Committee on a few occasions, Sir Nicholas, and we That is why we tend to get this proliferation of new tend to have had a Programming Committee when clauses at Report Stage. the bill has been controversial or when it has had particular features which require the proceedings to be managed to enable certain subjects to be properly Q23 Chairman: So you would like to see Members of debated. I am thinking of the Adoption of Children Parliament being more responsible and to table Bill1 and so on, where particular clauses or amendments and new clauses that are directly particular amendments were enabled to be debated related to the bill before the House? by the programme. In such cases, it has worked well. Mr Sands: You tempt me into adopting your Where the Opposition’s main thrust against a bill adjective. I think “responsible” suggests people are tends to be simply a series of new clauses, there is no being irresponsible, and I would never, ever suggest reason why a Programming Committee needs to that. No, I think it is for Members to decide how the meet to prioritise those. One would have expected limited time available to them is best used, and if the Opposition to have prioritised those for they decide to devote their time to new clauses, it at any rate suggests a feeling that the bill as it stands is themselves. The Programming Committee certainly broadly okay; there is not one big thing they really can add value and it does formalise the discussions want a go at. It is rather like people who fail to fill which the usual channels have, but you come back in a questionnaire; you assume that they are broadly to the problem that if there is going to be no real content. If they do not seek to amend the bill as it agreement through the usual channels, all that you stands, you assume they are broadly content with it. do in the Programming Committee is get the Mr Millar: The Speaker will take into account, Government to say what its proposals are and that Chairman, the need to get as much debated as programme is agreed by the Programming possible within the available time, and if something Committee instead of it just being placed directly on has been done to death in standing committee, as the Order Paper. you know, it is not normally the case that that matter will be returned to on Report. Clearly, if there are Q20 Sir Robert Smith: What is the diVerence propositions being proposed for Report Stage which between new clauses and how would the Opposition are central to the bill, and others which are not quite prioritise? so central, the Speaker will bear that in mind in making a selection. 1 Note by witness: The example cited was not appropriate. The Adoption and Children Bill was programmed on report Q24Mr McWalter: I certainly, as you will gather, by a Motion proposed directly by the Government. Examples of Programming Committee resolutions having feel pretty impatient at the way many of these things the same eVect are set out in a supplementary Memorandum operate. The context of my next question is looking (Ev 18). at the French Parliament, which has just had the 9431431004 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:05:54 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 14 Procedure Committee: Evidence
11 February 2004 Mr Roger Sands, Mr Douglas Millar and Mr Alan Sandall debate about the wearing of the hijab in schools, and I put to the Clerk of the House earlier, that the 130 people were called to speak in that debate, House itself should have more say over how it whereas in this Parliament last week we had a bill spends its time. But that is another matter. where, by the time the front benches had spoken, it was time for wind-up. I think there is a huge contrast Q26 Mr Burnett: From your experience of people between the way we are doing things. I think it needs Y to be improved. One of the things I would just like wandering into the o ce saying, “What is going to ask is whether you feel that the operation of the on?” or coming up to the table, the kind of questions programming orders is clear to Members, or do you are getting from Members, do you feel they Members just seem to be totally confused at how we understand what programming orders are about and could have arrived at a situation where there was no what is going on, or do you think there is an element room for any back bench contribution at all? Do of coming up to you after the event and saying “How people understand how this has arisen, do you think, did this happen?” and what their rights are in this regard? Mr Sands: I think they understand in principle only Mr Sands: Which bill was this? too well what is going on. Sometimes the details of where a particular amendment is going to come and how divisions are going to fall are obscure; but that Q25 Mr Burnett: There was a debate on the Local can be the case irrespective of programming, it has Government Settlement. It was not a bill as such; it to be said. Even before programming, the grouping was an order, and it literally was a disgrace. One of amendments sometimes caused diYculties for hour and 52 minutes, and many people wanted to Members. speak. The Minister generously took lots of interventions, but nevertheless, he spoke for 52 or 53 minutes. Q27 Chairman: Or even the non-selection of Mr Sands: The question of time limits on ministerial amendments? speeches is something that I know has been Mr Millar: That is a matter for the Chair. It was my considered from time to time, but has never been experience that when a group of amendments is of written into our Standing Orders, and it occasionally particular interest to a large number of Members— I am thinking of the amendments on Single Sex agitates the occupants of the Chair when we have Adoption and the amendments on the Hunting Bill our morning conferences and post mortems. and so on—those Members who are trying to Mr McWalter: This is not really the point. The organise for a particular point of view take advice in Minister, as was said, in fact used his time advance and usually know exactly what is going to comparatively well to try and let other people in, but happen. We will advise them—within limits, the issue was that two hours had been allocated for obviously—on their best tactics to ensure that they an issue governing 25% of public expenditure, with can get their point of view aired on the day. So huge repercussions over hundreds of governmental Members who really wish to know, generally know functions within each of our constituencies. It is the how to find out. allocation of the two hours that Members feel Chairman: Can I say from the Chair before we pass completely frustrated about, about how they on to John Burnett to question you, I think the influence that. Again, if we did have a hijab-type Houses of Parliament have the best clerks of any debate, there would be a day allocated for Second legislative assembly or parliament that I know of, Reading and huge numbers of Members who wished and the advice that they give is always impartial and to speak would be excluded. We need some way of their service to the House is absolutely transparent trying to organise it so that, where there is clear and total. evidence that there are a lot of people who want to make a contribution to the debate, the system is responsive. Q28 Mr Burnett: I endorse what you have said, and Mr Burnett: Can I just make a point? If you are the I think we all do, and we are grateful to you. The governing party, you rule the roost in this place, and Clerk said too much weight, as a general point, is put if the Government MPs will allow that to happen, on procedure. I very much agree with that. It could will allow their Whips to dictate those sorts of and should be significantly simplified. The point that timetables— I think Tony and all of us feel that the House should Mr McWalter: It is about programming. It is about take more control over its own business is absolutely the powers of those who fashion that schedule. It is beyond argument. It is a critical point. The Clerk has clearest and sharpest when you have a very suggested three minor amendments. They are not constrained Second Reading debate or an order, but earth-shattering. One is that there be injury time those powers, when manifested in committee, look allowed in standing committee to compensate for to be particularly pernicious. suspensions for divisions in the House. What do you Chairman: We take that point. I share the concern, consider the best way to make that work? Then there and while I was not here last week, I have to say I was is another suggestion, that the chairman of a deeply concerned that so little time was given to back standing committee should have discretion to delay benchers on matters relating to police and local the falling of the guillotine by up to 15 minutes, in government, which are critical to every single the same way as the end of a sitting can be delayed Member of the House, and too few got the if the bill could be finished in that time. Would this opportunity to speak. That comes back to the point be workable, or would Members press for an extra 9431431004 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:05:54 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 15
11 February 2004 Mr Roger Sands, Mr Douglas Millar and Mr Alan Sandall
15 minutes every time? The third point is the committees to decide, in the light of representations operation of programming, which we have talked made to them, the time from when it goes into about anyway, and whether it is clear to Members. committee to the out-time which has been decided Mr Sands: These were proposals that were put up to by the House in the programming motion? Do you me by the Public Bill OYce as a result of experience think that more authority should be given to the in the last session or two, so perhaps I ought to ask Committee through the Chairman than currently is Alan to explain the background to them. the case? Mr Sandall: There have on occasion been instances Mr Sands: The changes made to the Temporary where it is quite clear some time in advance that the Standing Orders in 2001–02 did give a lot more knife is going to fall at a pre-ordained time. It is too flexibility to the Programming Sub-Committee, and late in practical terms to do anything about it, but it is always, as I understand it, within the authority perhaps owing to some defect in the management of of the chairman of a standing committee to the business, the Minister may perhaps not have reconvene the Programming Sub-Committee if he or been given adequate time to reply to the debate, and she wishes to do so and thinks it would be the Committee as a whole might want to hear from constructive to do so. So there is that level of him for another few minutes, but it does not have the discretion available to the chairman already. option because the time at which the debate must come to an end has been set in advance. It might be helpful just to have a little flexibility—15 minutes Q33 Sir Robert Smith: So at the moment the would certainly cover it—just to allow a debate to be chairman has the discretion to look at the way things brought to a more natural conclusion in those are going and can if he thinks it would be helpful get circumstances. that Programming Committee back together to try and make best use of the rest of the time? Mr Sands: Or indeed to propose an extension of the Q29 Mr Burnett: Do you think that that time should overall out-date. It is noticeable that there are more be added on to the time for debate allocated for occasions this session already when we find a that day? supplementary programme motion coming to the Mr Sandall: There is not necessarily a fixed time House, shifting the out-date back a week or so, allocated for a debate on a particular day, because which presumably has come from some initiative the afternoon sitting of a standing committee has no such as I have described. fixed end time.
Q30 Mr Burnett: I see what you mean, because it is Q34Sir Robert Smith: Would there be a record more informal than that, as it were. anywhere to date of the Chairs initiating this or Mr Sandall: Yes. A morning sitting must finish at whether it has come through the usual channels? 11.25 but an afternoon sitting goes on until the Whip Mr Sandall: Any standing committee chairman moves the adjournment. would be reluctant to convene a Programming Sub- Committee on his own authority, unless he was Q31 Chairman: I have to say, I think that is quite a reasonably sure that the meeting would in fact constructive and flexible minor adjustment that the produce an agreement. chairman would have within his discretion an extra Chairman: Can I confirm that, as a chairman of a 15 minutes maximum, particularly in a case where standing committee? Alan Sandall is absolutely there has been no injury time because of what has right. Normally, the chairman of a standing occurred in the Chamber and the fact that the committee would only take such action at the business has been suspended while a division takes request of both sides of the committee, who would place. That does seem to me to be a very see the good intention and the good purpose of constructive, very modest gesture. You yourselves perhaps seeking to extend the out-date by one feel that would be a very sensible proposal to put further sitting or a couple of further sittings. forward? Mr Sandall: We think it might be helpful on the Q35 Sir Robert Smith: Just exploring the role of the margins. chairman a bit further, you have highlighted one of Mr Sands: I think as a general rule, Chairman, we the questions we need to look at. Could the feel that the experience shows that the more chairman take the initiative in representing the complicated a programme is, the more likely it is to interests of back benchers more? Could this be done go wrong. There was a tendency in the early days of informally or would it be enshrined in Standing programming to have a very elaborate structure with Orders? Is there a role for the Chair to be more lots of knives and everybody was very clever—three- protective of back benchers in the committee? quarters of an hour here, half an hour there—and it Mr Sands: I have no recent experience of never really worked, for all sorts of reasons. The Programming Sub-Committees. That is when the more flexible a programme is, or open-weave, if I can bill is in standing committee. I have some slightly out put it that way, with perhaps just a cut-oV at part 1 of date experience of Programming Committees for or part 2 of the bill and so on, the better. the whole House, and there I know in the early days of programming, the current Chairman of Ways and Q32 Chairman: Do you think, in a way, that in Means made very clear his feeling that there should standing committee, Mr Sands, more authority always be at least one genuine back bench member should be given to the chairmen of standing of the Programming Committee, and he banged the 9431431004 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:05:54 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 16 Procedure Committee: Evidence
11 February 2004 Mr Roger Sands, Mr Douglas Millar and Mr Alan Sandall table a bit about that, and it happened. Whether it talk to them rather than to me about that, and this had enormous impact in practice on the outcome I is not limited to programmed debates, because in a would not like to say. sense every debate is subject to a time limit; a Second Reading debate is not programmed but everybody Q36 Sir Robert Smith: When the Chairs of standing knows it has got to finish at the moment of committees are chairing the Committee, under the interruption, whether 7 o’clock or 10 o’clock, so current Standing Orders, they are a completely there is a time constraint there, and the longer the neutral Chair of that committee, and the way the Minister takes, the less time there will be for back House operates, would it be easy in the Standing benchers. What the Chair now finds increasingly is Orders to try and steer them towards seeing their that, as soon as the scroll goes up on the annunciator role as the protector of back benchers, and ensuring saying that there is going to be, let us say, a ten- eVective scrutiny of the executive, or are they really minute limit on speeches in a Second Reading there as neutral Chairs of the committee? debate, Members see it, get the message, and leap up Mr Sands: I think they have taken a slightly more to intervene in the Minister’s speech and make their proactive role in Programming Sub-Committees point that way, and of course, that expands the than they would when the full standing committee Minister’s speech and the problem gets worse. They was meeting, and the evidence given by the do not see an answer to that problem. Chairman of Ways and Means on behalf of the Chairmen’s Panel is that it has not in practice Q38 Chairman: Is there an answer? interfered with their impartiality; it has not impaired Mr Sands: They cannot put a closure on that in any way. How proactive they have been in interventions. If a Minister accepts an intervention, actively speaking up for back bench interests I do the Chair can do nothing about that. not know. Mr Sandall: I think that is largely a question of personalities, but it is easier for a standing Q39 Mr McWalter: Chairman, I do not think there committee to do that in the context of a is a problem. That at least allows Members to get Programming Sub-Committee, which operates as a their point over in a very economical and concise Select Committee like this, sitting round a horse- way. shoe, in private, with the doors closed, and perhaps Mr Sands: Indeed—well, sometimes, yes. influence can better be brought to bear in that relatively informal context than in the more formal Q40 Chairman: Can I say to you, Mr Sands, that you setting of the standing committee itself. have, I think quite rightly—and that is what I wanted you to do—said you cannot put guidance in Q37 Chairman: I think that is extremely good advice, any form of Standing Orders; it is either a rule or it is Sir Robert, but I think Mr Sandall is right; it does not a rule. Do you believe that debates and scrutiny depend upon the personality of the individual would improve if in fact front bench spokesmen did chairman. I happen to believe that chairmen should have limits on their speeches? Such a limit would take a more positive role in standing committees clearly reduce their willingness to allow an because I think they can lead not only to better intervention on any occasion. You and I know scrutiny but to better discipline in the committee as Members of governments and oppositions who have well, which is good for the progress of legislation. made brilliant speeches from the front benches Can I come on to a matter that we have touched on, without any prepared notes, surviving and feeding Mr Sands: concerns have been expressed by the merely on interventions. Deputy Speaker and the Chairman of Ways and Mr Sands: It would undoubtedly reduce the Means, and on the floor of the House of Commons, liveliness of the initial stages of a debate. The that lengthy front bench speeches in programmed corresponding advantage would be that it would debates—and colleagues around the table today provide a fairer structure for the debate overall. That have reflected that—impede proper and full is a balance which I think only politicians can make, consideration of parts of a bill by the House. Is the but I do myself begin to think that the length of front inclusion in Standing Orders of provisional limits or bench speeches has become a serious problem in the guidance on the limits on speeches from not only context of ever tighter limits on back bench back benchers but front benchers as well in speeches. programmed motions and debates a feasible option? Mr Millar: Can I just make one very small point? I have used the word “guidance” as well as perhaps One of the diYculties with programming, “provisional limits”. Do you believe that this would timetabling and so on is that most Members only sit really respond to the concern expressed by Tony in for a very small proportion of the debates, so they McWalter earlier in our deliberations? do not benefit from the accumulated experience that Mr Sands: I do not think you can put guidance in the experienced Chair of a Committee or the Standing Orders. A thing is either a rule or it is not experienced Deputy Speaker has in the Chair of the a rule, and the history of this Committee is littered House. They can see what is happening. But most with what I might describe as pious aspiration-type Members are focusing only on the debate in which recommendations. I am afraid that in the end they they are participating, and that is why sometimes do not have a great deal of shelf life. I suspect that they do not understand it if they do not get as much the current occupants of the Chair would actually time as they wish to make their point, because that welcome some rules about this. You would need to is the most important subject to them. 9431431004 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:05:54 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 17
11 February 2004 Mr Roger Sands, Mr Douglas Millar and Mr Alan Sandall
Mr Burnett: I would endorse the first part of what I Mr Sands: It has been used so little that it has not yet think the Clerk has just said. You can get more out of made a great diVerence. Personally, I am a supporter an intervention—I think this is roughly what you are of carry-over of bills, because I think if it were used saying. There are pluses and minuses. The plus of more systematically it could help the rational spread allowing a longer front bench speech is that back of business over the lifetime of a parliament. But it benchers get the opportunity to intervene, and often is still regarded with great suspicion by even the you can get more out of a sensible, sane intervention government whips, who you would have thought than you can listening to a whole lot of back benchers would find it useful, because they think it would droning on for hours on end, repeating themselves. destroy the discipline that now exists with the Chairman: I am not sure that everything you have sessional cut-oV. just said, Mr Burnett, will be too happily received by colleagues in the House. Q44 Mr McWalter: They are used to doing things David Hamilton: Interventions can also alter the one way and will carry on doing it that way, but the statement the Minister is making. They also change eVect of carry-over again ought to be to allow more the debate that they takes forward. I sat through the rational consideration of legislation and more whole day on Monday on the Scotland Bill, and the opportunity for those with some contribution to interventions and the hostility that the Minister met make to make that contribution. Is there some way with changed the whole way the debate went in which we can procedurally try and tilt the balance through that full session, and I think it is really quite rather more in favour of carry-over when matters are an important aspect of interventions where people contentious or when there are a large number of (a) do get their point across, (b) challenge what is would-be contributing parties? being said by the statement, and that allows the long Mr Sands: I do not think carry-over was ever intended speeches to be organised as they come forward. I to extend the overall time that any one bill would take. think that is a good indication of how interventions What it was intended to enable was the government can work very well. bringing in bills rather later in the session than they would now contemplate doing. Of course, we have Q41 Chairman: Do you think—and this is perhaps reached the stage in the Parliament when perhaps that drawing you into something you might not want to be is not something they would be looking to do in any drawn into—that guidance from the House to Ministers case; but carry-over is one of those things which I think that they should come with much shorter prepared might just get into the bloodstream gradually. It is speeches, which would then allow suYcient time for a going to be a gradual process. number of interventions, would be a good piece of Mr Millar: There is a limit to the impact that carry- guidance—not in Standing Orders, but in other ways? over can have while there is not agreement between Mr Sandall: Could I perhaps remind you that one the Houses on it. At the moment all carry-over of element of the Jopling settlement agreed between the bills is first house carry-over from this House. then Government and the then Opposition in about 1995 was that both sides would use their best Q45 Sir Robert Smith: On the smoothing out of the endeavours to restrict the length of front bench year, the fact is that Parliament has got into the papers speeches. It is there as a written answer. It may well these last few weeks for being unable to keep going until have been a dead letter all the time, but you may wish the moment of interruption on several days, and the to remind both sides of it. idea was that bills which started late in the last session Chairman: Words of wisdom! Do not worry; that would be able to use that time, because the new will feature in very heavy type in our report. legislative programme is not fully up to speed. Mr Sands: Indeed. At present we are in the part of Sir Robert Smith: It is already in our report. Y Chairman: It is already in a report on procedure for the year where when I go up to the Public Bill O ce debates, private members’ bills and the powers of the it is like the Marie Celeste; there is no-one there for Speaker, which only earlier this week I asked the most of the day because they are all in Standing Committee, and there must be large numbers of Leader of the House when he was going to reply to V and find time for a debate. Members there, which then a ects attendance in the Chamber. That is just the pattern of the session as we have got used to it. Q42 Mr McWalter: This is about the Annual Programme and how things go. The Hansard Q46 Chairman: Mr Sands, Douglas Millar, Alan Society Report Making the Law in 1992 called for a Sandall, is there anything that you would like to add committee to oversee the annual legislative to the evidence that you have given to us or to the programme, but those recommendations in the end questions which you have been asked to respond to? were not implemented. Is there any evidence of Mr Sands: Not as far as I am concerned, discussions between the parties of the distribution of Chairman, no. the legislative programme during the year? Chairman: Then on behalf of the Procedure Mr Sands: I am not aware of any such evidence, Mr Committee, can I thank you very much indeed for McWalter. the very valuable and positive evidence that you have given to us. I am confident that a lot of it will Q43 Mr McWalter: Has carry-over of bills helped form important parts of our report. Thank you very at all? much indeed. 9431431005 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:05:54 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 18 Procedure Committee: Evidence
Supplementary memorandum from the Clerk Assistant
Role of the Programming Committee in allocating time in the House or Committee of the whole House (Q 19) There are a number of examples of resolutions of the Programming Committee being designed to ensure that politically important parts of Bills were guaranteed debate in the course of programmed proceedings in Committee of the whole House or on Report. The way that this is done is by ensuring that a particular Clause or new Clause is debated at the beginning of proceedings on the bill or immediately after a “knife” has fallen. In November 200110, the Programming Committee on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill divided up the time in such a way as to ensure that there would be opportunity to debate in particular the duration of the Act and also religious hatred oVences. In May 200311, the Programming Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill ensured that debates would be held on mandatory life sentences for murder, on double jeopardy and on right to jury trial. The prioritising of particular Clauses or new Clauses in a programme Motion can be done equally by a resolution of the Programming Committee or by a Motion being tabled by the Government where the Sessional Order B relating to the Programming Committee has been disapplied. For either method of organising the proceedings to work for the benefit of the House, there must be a degree of engagement between the usual channels and with other Members interested in the Bill. February 2004
10 CJ 2001–02, p 206. 11 V&P, p 601. 947929PAG1 Page Type [SO] 09-07-04 01:06:04 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 19
Wednesday 25 February 2004
Members present
Sir Nicholas Winterton, in the Chair
Mr Iain Luke Sir Robert Smith Rosemary McKenna Mr Desmond Swayne Mr Tony McWalter
Memorandum from Rt Hon Sir Alan Haselhurst MP, Chairman of Ways and Means
PROGRAMMING OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
Introduction
1. This memorandum is submitted in response to an invitation from the Chairman of the Committee, dated 20 January. 2. I was invited to give evidence to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons in April 2002, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to bring my comments up to date in the light of subsequent experience. As on the previous occasion, I have consulted members of the Chairmen’s Panel on their experience of programming and I have taken their observations into account, particularly with regard to the operation of programming sub-committees—of which I have no direct experience myself. As before, however, the main body of the memorandum reflects my personal views and I am solely responsible for its contents.
Background
3. I do not propose to rehearse all the details of the background to current practice on programming which I set out in my memorandum to the Modernisation Committee, but there are certain elements of the history of programming that must be borne in mind when considering present practice: — The Procedure Committee’s report of Session 1984–851 and the report of the Hansard Society’s commission on the legislative process2 both envisaged that regular timetabling of government bills should be linked to a committee to regulate the House’s legislative business which would either have a strong independent membership or would be chaired independently by the Speaker. The clear implication was that no programme motion would be put to the House unless there was consensus on its provisions. — Although drafted in somewhat shorter and simpler terms than a conventional guillotine motion, programme motions in the period from the beginning of 1998 to the middle of 2000 were simply “agreed guillotines”,3 with the diVerence that they were signed by representatives of each of the three main parties represented in the House. — The July 2000 Report of the Modernisation Committee that led to the Sessional Orders approved by the House on 7 November 20004 was not supported by Conservative members of the Committee.5 — Though that Report had still referred to “agreed programming” and had clearly stated that the existing procedures covering guillotine motions would continue to be available for those occasions when agreement could not be reached, the Sessional Orders did not make agreement a prior condition for the operation of programming. — Subsequent experience has not revealed any great consensus between the Government and the OYcial Opposition on the operation of programming.
1 Second Report, HC 49–I. 2 Making the Law (1992). 3 And were moved under Standing Order No 83 (Allocation of time to bills). 4 Which took eVect at the start of Session 2000–01. 5 Who voted against the Chairman’s draft report and submitted their own report, printed in the Minutes. 9479291001 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:06:04 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 20 Procedure Committee: Evidence
Experience of Programming Since the Report of the Modernisation Committee 4. The Chairmen’s Panel has discussed the operation of programming several times, with the benefit of direct experience of chairing bills in standing committee. Various themes have emerged from those discussions, as I explained to the Modernisation Committee when I appeared before it in 2003. 5. First, excessive use of internal “knives” is not always helpful. At the beginning of a committee’s deliberations, it is not necessarily clear which parts of the bill are the most contentious and likely to require the longest debating-time. Once the likely pattern of debate has become clear, several meetings of the programming sub-committee are sometimes required in order to shift the “knives” to accommodate the desire to debate certain parts of the bill at length. It is sometimes diYcult, at report stage in particular, to estimate the length of time needed for a particular debate. In the case of the Finance Bill 2003, for example, the time allocated to the debate on stamp duty and stamp duty land tax (for which there was only one very large group of amendments) proved to be rather too generous—but no-one could have known that at the start of the debate. I think that there is a general feeling among Panel members that standing committees, especially, operate best with maximum flexibility. It should also be remembered that interested organisations outside the House, such as trade associations, professional bodies and NGOs, frequently submit draft amendments to members of standing committees and that many Members regard this as legitimate and helpful; such organisations need a certain amount of time in which to conduct consultations and turn policy proposals into draft amendments. 6. Secondly, members of the Panel wonder whether the original estimate of the amount of time that a bill will require in committee is always realistic. Some members have commented that long, complex bills (such as the Finance Bill) frequently fall behind schedule simply because they are so long, rather than because of any time-wasting tactics by Opposition parties. 7. Thirdly, there is sometimes a technical conflict between proceedings in standing committee and the simultaneous proceedings in the House when, as sometimes happens, a “knife” falls in committee at the same time as a division in the House. Coupled with this is the more general problem caused by divisions in the House; when a report stage coincides with a standing committee sitting under a programme order, a considerable amount of debating-time can be lost to suspensions for divisions—which has led to the suggestion that committees operating in such circumstances should be allowed “injury time” for divisions, as in Westminster Hall. 8. Fourthly, some members of the Panel feel that the chairman should have a more proactive role in the process, possibly by being empowered to call a meeting of the programming sub-committee if progress appears to be slow, or by stating an intention for the committee to reassemble after a dinner-break. Both of these possibilities would be in accordance with the Chair’s duty to secure progress on the bill. 9. Fifthly, it seems to several chairmen that Ministers sometimes take up a disproportionate amount of the time of the committee. Perhaps this is due, at least in part, to the need to get their views clearly on the record as a result of the House of Lords judgment in Pepper v Hart. But ministerial speeches sometimes involve what appear to us to be unnecessarily elaborate analyses of Opposition amendments. 10. Overall, the Panel’s view is that while the desire for firm out-dates is entirely understandable, and frequently helpful, careful thought needs to be given to the way the system is currently operating.
Is There Any Consensus? 11. From the point of view of establishing whether or not there is any kind of consensus, there are various possible indicators: whether or not the House divides on a programme motion taken immediately after second reading, whether or not a programming sub-committee at its first meeting divides on the initial draft programming resolution brought forward by the Government, and whether or not the standing committee divides subsequently on the programming sub-committee’s resolution. Since the beginning of Session 2002–03 to the half-term adjournment in February: — of 38 programme motions in the House immediately after second reading, 24 were divided upon; — of 35 initial draft resolutions in programming sub-committees, 9 were divided upon; and — of 35 initial programming sub-committee resolutions, 9 were divided upon in standing committee.
Possible Options for Change 12. In my memorandum to the Modernisation Committee in 2002 I summed up the situation at the time as follows: “I acknowledge that the Opposition has to share a degree of responsibility for this disappointing outcome. The stated refusal of many Opposition Members to support almost any aspect of the modernisation agenda or even to engage in constructive discussion about them was a discouraging background to the Committee’s inquiry in 2000. But the Government’s failure at that time to oVer any significant concession in return for the substantial advantages of guaranteed delivery of its business and no late sittings gave no indication of a commitment to meeting the original aspiration of reform.” 9479291001 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:06:04 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 21
13. Change has been slow. The Government has shown a degree of flexibility in extending proceedings in standing committee when there has been a compelling reason for so doing, while the OYcial Opposition has not invariably divided on everything to do with programming. That said, however, the two sides are still very far from agreement. 14. In my view, no procedural mechanism, however ingenious, will work unless backed by the political will to make it succeed. There are, however, various possibilities for reform that the Procedure Committee might consider (if only, in some cases, to reject) of which the most radical option would be to revert to the old regime of a combination of unprogrammed, open-ended bills (even if, in reality, there was always an out-date agreed informally between the Whips), with guillotines where proceedings were unduly protracted. 15. I wonder, however, whether the House, collectively, would wish to revert to the uncertainties of open- ended committee and report stages, and there are various other possibilities that the Committee might wish to consider in order to make programming more flexible: — Continue with programming as a matter of routine, but without any internal “knives” in committee (or at any rate, with much more sparing use of them). — Instead of setting the out-date in the original programming order, let the programming sub- committee consider the matter (if necessary more than once) and recommend an out-date to the House once the pattern of debate for a particular bill has become clear. — Re-examine the possibility of a permanent Business Committee to look at the amount of time to be allotted to bills, in the hope of procuring all-party agreement to the overall legislative timetable. This is not an entirely foreign concept. Since its inception the Scottish Parliament has had a Parliamentary Bureau, chaired by the Presiding OYcer, on which each party with five or more MSPs is represented, with voting weighted according to party strengths—and given that no single political party has ever had a majority in Edinburgh, it is diYcult to see how the Parliament could operate without some mechanism of that sort. — A more proactive role for the Chairman of the standing committee on the bill, for example in calling meetings of the programming sub-committee when he or she feels that an amendment to the programming resolution might assist progress. — A greater degree of flexibility in sitting-hours. At the moment, committees rarely sit beyond 5.30 in the evening. Committees (and Whips) tend to assume, wrongly, that the fall of a “knife” at an afternoon sitting signals the end of the proceedings for that day. But there is no bar on committees continuing to sit after that point, and it would sometimes be helpful in keeping to the timetable if they did so—always provided that this did not impose an unreasonable burden on the chairmen of the committee, who might reasonably expect to be consulted in advance. 23 February 2004
Witnesses: Rt Hon Sir Alan Haselhurst, a Member of the House, Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr Roger Gale, a Member of the House, and Mr Peter Pike, a Member of the House, Members of the Chairmen’s Panel, examined.
Q47 Chairman: Can I warmly welcome on behalf of have got hands-on experience, in a way that I have my colleagues (those present and those not present) not, so far as working on programming in standing the Chairman of Ways and Means, Sir Alan committees is concerned (and I am aware that you Haselhurst, and two of the leading members of the too will probably have that experience) and they will Speaker’s Panel of Chairmen, Mr Peter Pike and Mr come in according to the nature of the questions that Roger Gale. I think gentlemen, you are aware of you pose. I believe fundamentally that most things what we are discussing and our concerns about work in this place when there is a consensus. You programming and the operation of programming. can devise any kind of procedural modifications, Can I from the chair put the first question, and I do you can go for a grand design such as a Business so in the knowledge that the House has decided that Committee as has been proposed in the past, but programming is part of the way that the House will unless there is a degree of willingness and co- deal with legislation, and we are not seeking to do operation amongst the various parties then I do not away with programming. What we are hoping to do think you are going to get satisfactory treatment of is to make it work better so that legislation is Bills in the sense that I think is intended behind the properly scrutinised and so that the House does do whole process, which is namely that all parts of a Bill the job which it is here to do. So the first question I should receive such scrutiny as the members of the would like to put to you is: how can a consensus be Committee or the Members of the House deem built on the need to make programming really work? appropriate. Would any procedural changes be simply, in your view, tinkering at the edges of this problem? Sir Q48 Chairman: Thank you, that is a very brief and I Alan? think very relevant opening statement from you, sir. Sir Alan Haselhurst: Thank you very much indeed, Peter Pike, how do you view this, as an active Chairman, for inviting us here this afternoon. If I member of the Chairmen’s Panel which chairs may say by way of preface Mr Gale and Mr Pike standing committees? 9479291002 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:06:04 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 22 Procedure Committee: Evidence
25 February 2004 Rt Hon Sir Alan Haselhurst MP, Mr Roger Gale MP and Mr Peter Pike MP
Mr Pike: There are two aspects. Firstly is the there is simply a broad policy on the part of the programming motion that is agreed by the House Opposition that they would oppose almost in itself which gives the out date where I think principle a programme motion which is put down obviously it would help if more agreement was able and which has no debating time allocated to it. I to be reached between the parties on what that out think, if I may say so, there are two fundamentals date would be, but if every motion is voted against, underlying the whole of this that one needs to hold as not all but the majority are, it makes it very in mind. One is the importance that we attach in diYcult for a start if there is a view of any of the Parliament to the independence of the chair. I Opposition parties that the out date is too short. believe we are purer in our approach to this than Obviously the more detail—and I am sure we will go almost any other Parliament in the world, however on to that—of how it works within the Committee— close their own traditions are to ours, and it would be very diYcult, I think, to suggest a role for Q49 Chairman: Before you do can I come in because chairmen in committees that might be seen as being I intend to ask the same question of Roger Gale. Do too interventionist or stepping over that line and you believe as the chairman of a standing committee perhaps compromising the impartiality because the that there is any meaningful consultation or front line of impartiality, if you like, is held by discussion between the usual channels of the members of the Speaker’s Panel of Chairmen Government and the main Opposition parties about because they are the ones who are free to mingle in the out date of a standing committee? debate on all other occasions in other circumstances Mr Pike: To me that is shrouded in mystery. Even and therefore they might conceivably be more open when, as you will know yourself, you have been to reproach for something they have said or done, approached and you know that you are going to and yet in fact I think it is almost a total rarity that chair a committee you are not included in the there should be any criticism raised that any programming they do, so you are not involved and Chairman has behaved other than within strict you do not know, you just know what is put to the bounds of impartiality. The second thing, as I said in House and I have to take it that sometimes, because a submission I made to the Modernisation there is a determination to vote against it, that there Committee in the past, is that if one is honest the has not been such an attempt to reach agreement on Government always gets its legislation, unless— that out date. unless—there is dissent within its own majority, and there are not too many circumstances that I can recall in my parliamentary lifetime where even that Q50 Chairman: Roger Gale? has happened. What does of course happen is that Mr Gale I think I would concur with that. It is not although governments get their legislation and get it the job of the Speaker’s Panel of Chairmen to within the confines of a parliamentary session, they become involved in the votes taken on the floor of may well have accepted amendments, either because the House to determine the out date. I wonder, not they have been persuaded by the Opposition, they entirely idly, whether or not there is a formula that have been persuaded by outside argument as the Bill could be applied. It would be rough justice but it has progressed, or they have been caused to think does seem to me that it ought not to be beyond the again by decisions in the other place. At the end of wit of man to say X clauses equals X many sittings, the day the Bill, whether in the exact same form or as a matter of broad principle, and to take that as a not, that they have started out with at the beginning starting point for negotiation between the usual of the session gets through on to the statute book. If channels. Members of the Speaker’s Panel of one understands that one can see the confines in Chairmen, when they have reached the end in the which this present discussion can fit. Programming Sub-Committee, are faced with a fait accompli in terms of the out date. They have no control over that at all. Insofar as matters we can Q52 Chairman: The reason I asked the question— usefully discuss with you this afternoon, potentially and I would like to pass on to Desmond Swayne—is there is room for manoeuvre within that period of because as Chairman of Ways and Means you chair time, but we have no control over the out date. the panel meetings and I am sure you would agree that from time to time chairmen of standing Q51 Chairman: Thank you. Before I pass to committees will report to you what has gone on in Desmond Swayne could I ask the Chairman of Ways committee because I know of your great interest, and Means to deal with that question, which both and that they will say there has been no filibustering, Peter Pike and Roger Gale have dealt with, namely is there has been no delay by the Opposition, or for there in your view as Chairman of Ways and Means that matter Government party members, but there adequate discussion between the usual channels just was inadequate time properly to scrutinise a Bill about the out date of a Bill, ie, when it should and for various clauses to be completed before the complete its passage through standing committee? knife comes down and ultimately perhaps when the Sir Alan Haselhurst: Chairman, I really have no idea out date is reached, albeit a committee does have the either as to the test of adequacy in these opportunity of coming back to the floor of the circumstances. One may infer something from the House if the Government and Opposition agree, fact that the vast majority of programme motions particularly the Government, to say that there might are now divided upon. That suggests that there has be another sitting or another day allocated to the not been an adequacy of discussion but I have no committee. I was wondering just how many means of knowing whether that is true or whether representations may have been made to you because 9479291002 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:06:04 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 23
25 February 2004 Rt Hon Sir Alan Haselhurst MP, Mr Roger Gale MP and Mr Peter Pike MP of your unique position as Chairman of Ways and slightly onto diYcult ground by saying that the Means to reflect the concern expressed by impartial hours must fit the job that has to be done. A baker chairmen about the way standing committees are has to work through the night in order that we may run. eat fresh bread the following day. People work on Sir Alan Haselhurst: Indeed and I hope that was newspapers to make sure they are available the reflected in the memorandum which I submitted to following morning. I am not suggesting that we have your Committee. I put forward a number of options to sit all night as in the old days—I think that would for your consideration and, as I say, possibly your be wholly inappropriate—but the fact is the rejection, but at least to look at what the range of particular demands made on Members of possibilities might be for easing that situation. We Parliament made in two totally diVerent directions, do know there are occasions on the one hand where one from Westminster and the other their the Government in the course of consideration of a constituencies, does require some arrangement of Bill in committee have come forward with another hours which fits both and may mean sitting into the programme motion to extend the opportunities. evenings on occasions. There are equally on occasions Bills that have gone Mr Pike: If I could add to that, certainly from my through standing committee and the out date has experience (and I have now chaired five Bills since we been reached and then there has been, shall we say, have had this type of programming) it has been very quite an interval of time before the Bill has then rare that any committee has wanted to go back after come back for report to the House. That would raise the knife has fallen although the chairman has made a question as to whether or not on all those occasions it clear repeatedly that if they want to start debating there could not have been, with benefit, some extra the next section of the Bill it is perfectly permissible time spent in committee if there was no express hurry for them to do so. There is a reluctance on both the to get it back on the floor of the House. Again, Government and Opposition side equally to want to consensus is important in all these things, and with go back. It has been done on one or two occasions. co-operation it ought to be possible, I think, as is I have just finished the Housing Bill which came out shown in some minority of cases, to get extensions yesterday and the knife did fall and I had to put a lot within the framework of the Government knowing of questions at the end but on several days when the that it is going to get its legislation at the end of the knife was due to fall we had finished an hour or two day and that there should be more time devoted to hours before the knife fell in the afternoon and we it. Finally, if I may add on that point a point that I could have finished at the stage when the knife have made before and I feel quite passionately should have been taken but they did not want to go about, that it is no good on the one hand Members on for another hour or two to half-past five or six. complaining that there is not enough time to carry out the proper scrutiny of a Bill in committee if at the same time the committee itself is not willing to sit the Q54Sir Robert Smith: Have you been able to assess extra time. It needs therefore co-operation on all whether sometimes that reluctance is not just based parts. The majority (which inevitably controls a on convenience but also preparedness in the sense committee) has got to assent to perhaps more time that outside organisations and the individuals that being made available but so do the members of the were planning to debate the next section had maybe committee have to show a willingness to be able to not got themselves ready for the following knife do the hours that may be needed. point? Chairman: Thank you. Desmond Swayne? Mr Pike: I think that might be partly true but it often is not because people can quite clearly see that there is a possibility to move on and, in my view, should Q53 Mr Swayne: On that very question of the hours, be ready to do that. Having said that, at the end of how is willingness on the part of the committee to be the Housing Bill both sides did have to say that they more flexible, particularly about sitting beyond 5.30, thought all sections of the Bill had been fully and compatible with the convenience and the needs and adequately debated, which has not been the case on the comfort of both Members and staV? Are they not every Bill that I have chaired so whilst at the end I mutually exclusive concepts? had to put a whole mass of questions solidly for five Sir Alan Haselhurst: No and I do not think it is a minutes there was nothing within those that had not proper place to get engaged in a discussion about the been debated adequately at some stage over the last overall sitting hours of the House, although we few weeks. know that that may be reconsidered, but surely the Mr Gale Could I raise a line of enquiry that I think House of Commons has to do the work that is does need to be pursued, and if you will allow me to presented to it, and I would suggest that in trying to give a fairly comprehensive response I will do that as find a way through to this objective which, as I briefly as I can. First of all, we are governed by the understood it, has been there at the back of every end date, and we have discussed that briefly. I believe inquiry and report that has ever been made on the that there is a rough justice mechanism by which it subject to try to find a means whereby the entirety of could be determined how long a Bill needs in the Bill receives its due consideration, it does require committee per se. It goes almost without saying that flexibility on the part of the Government in terms of a Bill like the Transport Bill which I chaired with the overall dates it wishes to set, the Opposition on over 400 clauses is going to take a lot longer than a the extent to which it is prepared to co-operate, and modest Bill of some 30 or 40 clauses. Again, it then individual Members being prepared to put in depends on the nature of the beast but if you say 10 the hours which might be necessary. I will trespass clauses per session you are probably being tolerably 9479291002 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:06:04 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 24 Procedure Committee: Evidence
25 February 2004 Rt Hon Sir Alan Haselhurst MP, Mr Roger Gale MP and Mr Peter Pike MP realistic. To some extent that has to be by agreement disrupted—that that committee should sit for a through the usual channels because all grown-up further session on the Tuesday evening.” So you sit politicians know that there are pitched battles within on a Tuesday from 8.50, or whatever it is, until Bills, there are certain sticking points that may 11.25, 2.30 until 5.00, a natural break until 6.00 and require a great deal of debate, and then there are then 6.00 until 8.30. I think given that extra degree of tranches of the proposed legislation that require flexibility we could probably make a lot of progress. relatively little debate at all because apart from Chairman: Thank you very much. It has taken time drafting issues they are not contentious. I think the to say it but, yes, I think that is a very constructive first thing we have got to do is get the end date right, proposition that this Committee will consider. right-ish, as right as we can. Having done that, it Desmond, you were still with the questions. does seem to me that the biggest problem we are faced with is inflexibility within that timescale. I Q55 Mr Swayne: Within an overall timetable still recall, and you will recall Sir Nicholas, that at the pre-determined by the Government how would the end of the 1997 Parliament I was chairing a Criminal suggestion a) that the committee be smaller and b) Justice Bill which was suspended in disarray on the that there be no internal knives assist with the last day of its programmed sitting because the practical operation of programming? committee room was invaded by some of our parliamentary colleagues and it was impossible to sit Sir Alan Haselhurst: I think that the sparing use of and I had the unhappy duty of having to name those internal knives would be helpful and let the thing members on the floor of the House. It was then flow. I do not know that necessarily the smaller size deemed that that Bill had been reported to the House of committee would have a bearing on it. I do not know whether my colleagues would wish to even though that motion had not been passed in V committee and the Bill had not been properly comment on whether they sense a di erent debated, and a very considerable amount of the experience as to whether they are chairing 50 people legislation, rightly or wrongly, and I do not wish to or chairing 20 people; I think possibly not. We comment on the quality of the legislation as to would not see that as having any major bearing on whether it was good or bad, was simply not debated. it. If I may add where I do have direct hands-on We are finding with the big set pieces of legislation experience it is in dealing with programming at report stage. This is where I think a particular increasingly, I think, that vast tracts are going Y through on the nod when the internal guillotine di culty arises. It arises especially if the knives fall. As a case in point I bring the Hansard for Programming Committee is convened before in fact the first sittings of the Higher Education Bill that Mr selection has taken place. Selection obviously Hood and I are chairing at the moment. I happened cannot take place until the time of the deadline for amendments has been passed. It is still notoriously to be in the chair when the first knives fell at clause Y 20. We had reached clause 13. The content of clauses di cult to estimate at such time how to allocate time 14 to 20 inclusive may or may not be of great and the consequence tends to be that within a significance, but the fact of the matter is that those restricted period of time for report stage the went through on the nod without any debate at all temptation is for those who are conducting the and that is inevitably going to happen throughout selection—be it Mr Speaker or myself if it is a the rest of the Bill. It does seem to me that if the Committee of the whole House—to put large groups House were to place—and I accept Sir Alan’s caveat of amendments together in order that at least they that this could place the Chairman under some are on the Order paper rather than not to select circumstances in an invidious position—greater them, but it does mean that the chances of some of trust in the chairman then it ought to be possible to those specific points actually receiving any coverage recognise the fact within the committee that a debate in the rationed time available are not very high, and has suddenly, for reasons that may only have I think that it is again that flexibility of report stage become apparent after the timetable motion was which many Members would find helpful, particularly where fresh clauses and amendments agreed on the floor of the House, become prolonged. are being brought forward, sometimes in large Issues arise, lobby groups suggest amendments, not numbers by the Government of the day, and this has only Opposition but Government back benchers will been the practice over the years that partly through a suddenly find an issue they want to get their teeth change of heart, partly as a result of persuasion, the into, and that debate may be curtailed artificially Government at a relatively late stage in the day simply because the knife falls. Not only that but all suddenly decides on a change of course and a whole the successive clauses up to the knife will be passed new agenda is presented to the House at report stage. without debate. That seems to me to be highly That is where programming has bitten particularly undesirable. It does seem to me that it ought to be hard and harshly. possible for a chairman recognising that and doing his or her job properly to reconvene the Programming Sub-Committee to say, “Look, we Q56 Chairman: While I do not want to tie you down clearly need more time on this. I am, as chairman, to a single yes or no, do you think that the report therefore proposing by not later than the Thursday stage should be subject to a programme motion— afternoon that next Tuesday evening, to give notice bearing in mind that the report stage is very often the both to Members and to the oYcers of the House only opportunity that a backbench Member who is and staV of the House—who also deserve the interested in the subject may have of contributing to courtesy of reasonable notice to have their lives the debate on that legislation, bearing in mind 9479291002 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:06:04 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 25
25 February 2004 Rt Hon Sir Alan Haselhurst MP, Mr Roger Gale MP and Mr Peter Pike MP second reading debates are notoriously over- got the power to recognise that there is a problem. subscribed and the individual man or woman may We can often see that there is a problem but we have not have been selected for the standing committee, got no power to actually do anything about it. and bearing in mind that the third reading is inevitably very brief—do you think that it is good or bad that programming should be used for the Q57 Mr Swayne: Sir Alan has touched on grouping remaining stages or the report stages of legislation? and selection at Report Stage. To what extent do the chairmen’s selection and the group actually impinge Sir Alan Haselhurst: I think it is perfectly in order on the way a programme works in the committee that programming should be used. It is a question of and can it be used more eVectively? As a warning, the how it is used because if we go back many years— Clerk said it made not a blind bit of diVerence. and you and I share quite a large part of those Mr Gale: I do not think it would make a great deal years—we know that the custom has been to give of diVerence. The groupings are done very carefully either a day or two days according to the length and by good legal brains on the basis that these are complexity of the Bill. I cannot recall oVhand a related issues that therefore should be grouped Government that has been disposed to give much together, or they are inadmissible under the long title more than on the outside three days for the report of the Bill, and therefore would not be debated at all. stage in the case of a Bill and that presumably has I cannot see that changing the grouping of been done by pressure through the usual channels, amendments that are likely to be called is going to so there has been allocation of time even if it has make much diVerence, to be honest. been perfectly informal. Mr Pike: I would agree with Roger. Mr Pike: Can I just add to that. On the knives I always take it that the Government of the day, whether it is the present Government or any future Q58 Mr McWalter: I would like to pick up on the Government, will always want to have knives issue that Mr Gale made. I thought it was one of the because they will want to have what I call signposts most significant elements of Sir Alan’s submission along the way to show that it is making progress and that he talks about the chairmen having a more would not necessarily have confidence in the end proactive role. I think that was very much in line date, but that is the diYculty, so the Opposition will with what Mr Gale has said, but we have not want them, Government will, and that will not experienced a reluctance by, loosely, “the Speaker’s change when we have a diVerent Government. So OYce” to get involved in taking decisions which that will always be there. There is a diYculty that the look as if they might have been politically more knives you have along the way in that it does contentious. Clearly, the chairs saying, “Come on, make it diYcult particularly if the knife falls at chaps, it is really important that clauses 14 to 20 are exactly the same time as a division in the House, debated and get adequate time”, with one party particularly on a day where you have got the knives thinking, yes, that is absolutely right, we are going at six o’clock and then you have got the report stage for that to happen, and the other party saying, “We when there may be several divisions in the House want to put a blinder on this and move on to clause which will suddenly wreak total havoc with the 21”, does actually put the chair in a politically timetable because there is no “injury time” at the potentially vexatious position. I am pleased to see moment so it can suddenly knock an hour or more that in your report, Sir Alan, but is that view widely out of your afternoon time if you have got a series of shared by other, as it were, Deputy Speakers and divisions on the floor of the House, and that can be speakers and chairs within the overall structure? Are adiYculty. That is an aspect that needs to be looked they willing to engage with that kind of contentious at and I know Sir Alan’s paper does refer to that responsibility? particular point and I think it is something that does Sir Alan Haselhurst: I said, I think before, Mr need to be addressed. On the point that Roger made McWalter, that I felt that the purity of our approach earlier where he was suggesting that the chairman to the impartiality of the chair is a cornerstone of the might have a more proactive role, at the moment the way we have done things, but that is why I would be chairman cannot say that there should be a very cautious myself about inviting the chairman of programming meeting. The chairman can suggest, a standing committee to get too far into this because as I do from time to time, that those who can might he might be accused from some quarter of go out into the corridor and come back and tell the interfering politically, and that would besmirch then chairman that they want to adjourn for a the whole system. I think one has to take great care. programming meeting, but you depend on which My only direct experience of trying to broker and Whips you are dealing with. Some Whips are much improve what I thought possibly might be a solution more able to discuss this. The Housing Bill changed to an impasse between the two sides was in its timetable and programme motion at least three connection with the Finance Bill in the Report Stage times during the process and it did it very sensibly, where the Government had said in that particular very amicably. We just got a message come up to the case that, instead of allowing two days, which was Chairman, “We want there to be another quite usual, it would allow one day and a bit, in other programming so at the end of today’s proceedings words sitting till 10 I think it was rather than 7 on the we will take one next Wednesday night,” and they other days. That clearly did not please the adjusted it to meet that request, but it was done in a Opposition parties. I attempted to say, “Could an sensible way. If I was in the chair I can see the type extra hour be found to finish at 11 instead of 10?” of diYculty that Roger was referring to. We have not That was met, I have to say, with a fairly stony 9479291002 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:06:04 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 26 Procedure Committee: Evidence
25 February 2004 Rt Hon Sir Alan Haselhurst MP, Mr Roger Gale MP and Mr Peter Pike MP response. It immediately told me that if the chair on that. Can I change the direction of our question? starts getting involved in the work of the business Sir Alan, in your paper you expressed the concern, I managers of the House, there is a possible diYculty. think quite rightly, that lengthy front-bench speeches in programmed debates impede proper Q59 Mr McWalter: On the other hand, the judgment consideration of parts of a Bill by the House and you that no rational assessment of a group of clauses has recommend consideration of introducing time limits been made at all is not a party political judgment; for speeches in standing committee, including those that is judgment, as it were, in logic. I would have of a minister. Can I ask you: how would this work? thought that it is pre-eminently the role of someone Would the entitlement of Members to speak more chairing the proceedings to ensure that where than once in committee nullify any such advantages, Members have a capacity to apply their minds and or would you in fact abolish the right to speak more brains to an issue, they would be given an than once? Sir Alan Haselhurst: I make the qualification about opportunity so to do? V Sir Alan Haselhurst: I think that Mr Speaker and his the e ect of Pepper v Hart, that ministers now do predecessors behind the scenes may seek to influence need to get certain information on to the record. the various parties, but it has to be done discreetly. There is an argument which says that if that is a That is in very general terms because the Speaker is problem which is causing the length of a speech to be the ultimate guardian of back-bench interests and extended, your committee could consider the minority interests, and therefore he would use that possibility of some document being written into the position sometimes perhaps to say that there should record: it would essentially be there, if you like, for be suYcient time or whatever to guard particular subsequent legal purposes. That is a radical interests. It is very diYcult to go further than that suggestion but I merely throw it out as one and to be seen directly to intervene. So far as the possibility. problem which you identified, it has been there all the time. In the days when there was no declared out- Q61 Chairman: Words have been whispered in my date for a Bill, although in reality there probably was ear that it might be placed in the explanatory one, and the committee sat for hours and hours on memorandum. clause 1 until finally the government of the day lost Sir Alan Haselhurst: Indeed, there may be ways patience and imposed a guillotine motion—a three round that in order that it would have the validity hour ritual debate on the Floor of the House and that is necessary to satisfy the requirements of then the other 149 clauses were dealt with in a similar Pepper v Hart, but otherwise it is a matter of time—the clauses were not discussed in those consideration whether a minister’s speech should be circumstances. You may also get the situation—I limited to a certain time, as backbenchers have had simply observe it can happen—that it may suit the to endure over the years, as it were to set a new pace interests of one of the parties within the committee within the committee. I think that if a time limit is to delay over certain clauses, almost intentionally imposed generally upon the front bench and back not to reach the other clauses. I cannot possibly bench, then consideration would have to be given to opine as to why that might be but it happens. What whether or not there could be repeat interventions, we have failed to do so far, with all those good minds and people would have to concentrate more on that have been brought to bear on it from outside putting what they wanted to say into their speech. this House and inside this House, is to find the The only problem, in terms of the nature of debate perfect formula which ensures that every clause that in committee, is that sometimes it is the quick deserves detailed consideration gets it. We have intervention and so on that promotes and develops lurched from one position to another and still not the debate in committee. One certainly would not quite found that answer. want to rule that out, and so one might have to take Mr Pike: I have indicated from the chair on a slightly more generous view of what constitutes an occasions that obviously the chair has to determine intervention in the committee if only one actual that all amendments that are tabled are of equal major speech was permitted. merit, otherwise they would not be tabled. Having Mr Gale: I personally would not be in favour of said that, I have said to people who have tabled them curtailing speeches because if the chairman is doing that they really ought to look because time is his or her job properly, then either what is being said running out. I give the Housing Bill as an example; is in order or it is not. If it is not in order, it should on one day several amendments were not moved not have been said at all. If it is in order, one hopes because they wanted to get on. That is in the hands it is relevant to the debate. I think the grounds as laid of the committee members and the chair cannot go out in Pepper v Hart are very valid. Perhaps we could beyond that because the chair cannot determine the come back to that. To curtail a minister, some of V relative merits of di erent amendments that have whom are very good at seeking to respond been listed for debate. generously and properly to backbench contributions from both sides of the House, or to limit his or her Q60 Chairman: I think we are getting into some ability to do that because other things need to be said detail. I have to say to Mr Pike that I am not sure as well as part of the brief, I think would be very that all amendments are of equal merit. All damaging indeed to the process. Some ministers take amendments may well be in order but they will not the view that civil servants have written this material necessarily be of equal merit. As I know Sir Alan and that therefore it has to be read because otherwise would very quickly remind me, the chair has no view the civil servants would be upset. Some take a more 9479291002 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:06:04 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 27
25 February 2004 Rt Hon Sir Alan Haselhurst MP, Mr Roger Gale MP and Mr Peter Pike MP pragmatic view. (I think Sir Alan made the point Mr Pike: I would certainly take the view that if you about this perhaps for Pepper v Hart purposes.) And have had a long debate on amendments, you do not say, “I will write to the honourable gentleman” and need a “clause stand part” as well, unless any person three days later in committee a letter appears which can really show some aspect that has not been is circulated around the whole committee; that kind covered within the amendment, yes. of material, instead of having to be debated, could be published as an annex to the Hansard and therefore become, for Pepper v Hart purposes, part of the Q64Chairman: You are saying you are going to be record. That might go some way towards solving the a very tough chairman. problem. Sir Alan Haselhurst: This whole subject needs Sir Alan Haselhurst: Sir Nicholas, so that your macro-management rather that micro-management. committee has a range of opinions available to it on this matter, where a minister may be observed to be Q65 Chairman: May I very quickly, particularly to spending time talking about what an Opposition Sir Alan, ask this. The Modernisation Committee Member has put forward rather that explaining his recommended in 1999–2000 that all the detailed own position is where possibly speeches are getting provisions that apply when programming is used are extended. We all know that political advisers are now set out in Sessional Orders. Has this had the now playing over the years a more prominent role in desired eVect of allowing the House and all government. It may be that there is political material Members to see what is proposed much more easily being inserted into the folders to assist a minister. than hitherto was the case, or do some Members That is undoubtedly contributing to a lengthening of remain “outside the loop” in terms of their the contributions. That is why I would urge you at understanding of the impact of lengthy least to consider, even if in the end you dismiss the contributions on the time available for debating possibility, some kind of brake upon the extent of groups of amendments? ministerial contribution. Sir Alan Haselhurst: Sir Nicholas, I would not wish Chairman: I think research assistants for back-bench to be disrespectful of my colleagues, but I do sense Members themselves are now contributing that there is often a lack of understanding of what is increasingly to the material that Members use in going on in particular situations. The chair, and standing committee. I am not just blaming ministers. indeed the clerks more especially, are ordered to give Q62 Sir Robert Smith: To come on to Pepper v Hart advice but the complexities of our procedures aspects, when there are proven amendments tabled sometimes are not immediately fathomed by a to pin down ministers so that there is more guidance colleague who has a great interest in a particular for the courts than on the face of the Bill, is not the matter and is wishing to press that matter; he does interaction really crucial? It is possible that the not immediately see the overall shape of things. probing interaction, that bit in Hansard, is going to be of most use to the court and therefore you could Q66 Chairman: I would assume that your colleagues, not really reduce that to a memorandum that was Mr Gale and Mr Pike, would agree with that? tabled? Mr Pike: I think there is clearly an acceptance of the Sir Alan Haselhurst: I accept that but, by the very understanding of constraints on time as a result. The fact that we have started considering these things only thing I still find is that people do not understand and these expedients and their advantages or that they are not moving the third, fourth or fifth disadvantages, it has to be seen in the context of the amendment in a group, that the only amendment overall time available. If the committee is prepared that is being moved is the first. There are some to sit longer, if the usual channels are prepared to see people with very lengthy experience who still do not the committee sit longer, if the Government is understand that. prepared in a situation where it is in eVect dictating Sir Alan Haselhurst: May I add that our procedures the terms of a programming motion to be more at the moment make it quite diYcult to ensure that generous, these problems will be of less significance. Mr Pike: At the very first programme meeting on the an individual backbench Member, or on some Housing Bill, the minister, Keith Hill, indicated that occasions a group of backbench members who may he would like the first amendment on a clause to look not be entirely ensemble with their front bench, has slightly wider, which would be helpful to any time for matters of interest to them, amendments to subsequent amendments. We knew we were doing the Bill, to be considered. I have yet to think of a that; my co-chairman, Derek Conway, and myself perfect way in which that particular matter can be knew exactly where we were going in administering dealt with fairly. that. On the first group of amendments under any Mr Gale: One point has arisen out of that. Given the clause, we allowed slightly longer and slightly wider way the “knives” now work and the way that block speeches, but we knew it would help the subsequent votes are put together—and I appreciate this is debate and so we allowed a little bit more latitude. potentially open to abuse so it is a diYcult area—if, for example, during the course of the Higher Q63 Chairman: Are you saying, Mr Pike, and I think Education Bill under clause 5 an amendment in I share the drift of the logic of what you are saying, relation to clause 17 had been grouped and debated that if you allow a marginally wider debate on a earlier and the mover or sponsor of that amendment major group of amendments, that might eradicate had indicated to the chair that they wished that the need for a “clause stand part” debate? particular amendment to be singled out and voted 9479291002 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:06:04 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 28 Procedure Committee: Evidence
25 February 2004 Rt Hon Sir Alan Haselhurst MP, Mr Roger Gale MP and Mr Peter Pike MP on later, as things stand, it would not be possible make progress. In the end, they had to go away. The because that clause would be grouped and voted on usual channels with, if you like, a shotgun at their as part of the remaining clauses. head, still had to come to an agreement, which then Mr Pike: It can be. We had one on which quite went through formally in the Programming clearly I was given advice by the clerks that it could Committee. To have a Business Committee which not be and then the clerks re-read the Standing looks at it, which is a proposal that originally came Orders and I was still able to allow one that had been from the Hansard Society and which has some echo debated three weeks before—and I was on the in the Rules Committee in the United States House guillotine and covering the whole lot—because it of Representatives, but only some echo, is a totally had been debated and they had indicated at the time diVerent way of trying to do it. It is more formal, that they wanted a division. Mr Conway had given giving more people an opportunity to put on the the agreement that it could be voted on and I was record their views on certain matters, but it is wholly told I could take it and I did allow a vote on it. alien to the practice of this House, which has usually been about the power of the usual channels. Q67 Chairman: Can I say, Mr Pike, that I think you are correct. That is certainly the advice that has just Q69 Chairman: I am sure I am reflecting Iain Luke’s been given to me by the clerk. If in fact a particular position: is the power of the usual channels in the amendment for which a division is to be allowed had best interests of the good scrutiny of legislation? been debated earlier, when they reach that clause to Sir Alan Haselhurst: My adviser tells me that that is which it is actually relevant, it could be voted on. I something on which we could not possibly think that is important. comment! I merely observe that this House has been Sir Alan Haselhurst: If I may say, there is a diYcult ruled by the usual channels, mostly amicably, discretion to be exercised by the chair on Report whatever is said in public, but sometimes there have Stage where in fact there is perhaps only an hour been periods of attrition where perhaps Members’ between knives and Members come to the chair or interests and the scrutiny of legislation have have, in the course of their remarks, indicated in the suVered. previous section that they would like a separate division; sometimes they may press between them Q70 Mr Luke: The other questions I was interested for two or three divisions. It can completely blitz the to ask you were about the drafting of amendments. next knife appearing. These two issues interact and My experience on Standing Committees has been so the chair is forced, if you like, to take probably a through the Finance Bill where interested outside restrictive view on the number of divisions he will bodies have submitted draft amendments. Such allow, despite the fact that it was being sought by the organisations obviously would need a certain Members in question. amount of time to conduct the consultations on this. The question I would like to put to you is: within the Q68 Mr Luke: I think I should preface my question present system, is there any way in which by acknowledging the wide disparity there is in the consultation with those very learned outside bodies knowledge of the panel of experts we have before us outside Parliament might be enhanced during today. The questions I ask have been slightly proceedings on a Bill so that we get better law and touched on earlier by Sir Alan. Order B sets out better legislation, other than by means of a Special provisions for a Programming Committee to Standing Committee? Is the present timetable arrange the timetable for a committee of the whole hampering consultation with these outside bodies? House, Report Stage and Third Reading. In recent Sir Alan Haselhurst: I think any timetabling of a Bill, years, I am led to believe there has hardly ever been if it is harsh timetabling, does put pressure on that a Programming Committee for the Report Stage of interaction which many Members find valuable. Not a Bill. With the short deadline for tabling every Member is an expert on the detail of a amendments, is the Programming Committee particular clause or sub-clause and is genuinely system unworkable for this stage of the legislative pleased to have an input which he or she begins to programme? trust, as it were, after a while, if they know the people Sir Alan Haselhurst: The Programming Committee who are providing that comment. Yes, there does sits only rarely. I have not found myself being need to be time. The Special Standing Committee overtaxed, as it were, by the number of procedure, which has not been over-used—it was Programming Committees that I have had to chair. devised quite some time ago—is a means but of As I think I said in a previous memorandum to the course that period of consideration then ends just as Modernisation Committee, some are perfunctory; pre-legislative scrutiny comes to an end, and then there has, in eVect, been an agreement between the you are into the detail of a Bill. Amendments may usual channels before Members enter the room and come forward on which you would like to get advice the procedure that I have to follow can be completed from a trusted outside source. You then see in 45 seconds. On other occasions where there has Members moving out of the committee room into not been an agreement, I have had virtually to send the gallery or outside into the corridor to take advice the committee away until they get agreement. I as the thing comes along. There is that approach. mentioned a moment or two ago one occasion when Generally speaking, in this House, in terms of the I tried hesitantly to broker an agreement, which an passage of a Bill, if the time in total that has been independent chairman might feel inclined to do, for allocated to it is satisfactory, that has not been a the convenience of everyone, but it is not easy to problem. It is only when there appears to be little 9479291002 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:06:04 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 29
25 February 2004 Rt Hon Sir Alan Haselhurst MP, Mr Roger Gale MP and Mr Peter Pike MP time before the Standing Committee is convened, Committee for that kind of thing. How would you less time than there used to be between Second see that working? Would the knife be delayed for the Reading and the first meeting of the Standing life of the time that it took to have the division and Committee, that I think there has been some would all subsequent knives be delayed? pressure, and similarly if there is a very short time Mr Pike: I personally would go for allowing 15 between the completion of the Committee Stage and minutes for each division that has occurred. It can be report to the House. extremely diYcult. One division you can often Mr Pike: I am hopeful that the pre-legislative absorb without a problem. If it is just a 4 o’clock scrutiny as it works more will show that we are division because it is a half-day Opposition Motion, producing better Bills. I think most people would then it is not a problem but if I take the Planning and agree that, whichever government is in power, it Compulsory Purchase Bill where one afternoon I would be hoped to have less Bills and better Bills and think I had five divisions on an afternoon when there that every government wants to produce too many. was a knife on a committee and where I had major Perhaps that is one of the problems and not that we problems anyway, I can say that was a bad example do not have enough parliamentary draughtsmen, of programming. The Modernisation Committee although that is one of the things that is being used it as an example of bad programming. That increased at the present time. If I understand it committee finished in January and, as Sir Alan said, correctly, the present Leader of the House is aiming it did not come back for months and months and to go back to the normal convention of giving two then it was recommitted to committee. I am not sure weekends after a Bill has come out of committee whether it was a punishment but I was Chairman of before it goes to the Report Stage, which we had it again when it was recommitted. On one of the slightly moved away from. I believe the present afternoons when we had a major problem, we had Leader of the House is of the view that that should something like five divisions. In fact, they were going aim to be the norm. He is not guaranteeing it but I to change the programme; they had just agreed to think he accepts that that gives slightly more time to change the programme, and we were going to the type of problem that Sir Alan was referring to, adjourn for a programming sub-committee when that if it finishes, like the one last night, and if it is there was a division in the House; there were several going to be the next week in the House—and I do not know if it will be as I do not know what next week’s in a row. When I came back, I could not allow them business is—it does give more time if there is another to do that because the knife had fallen whilst we were weekend. out. I said, “I am sorry, I have now got to put the questions that I should have put at that time and you cannot do it”. If they had finished just a minute Q71 Chairman: I think these traditions also related, earlier and caught my eye, we could have had a did they not, and I think Sir Alan has referred to it, programming sub-committee, but we were caught for a period between Second Reading and going to because we did not know when it was going to come. Standing Committee. Would you yourself support At Report Stage you might have an idea but you do any decision of this committee that might not know exactly. recommend that those traditions be honoured? Sir Alan Haselhurst: I cannot see any reason why they should not be. We have all managed that way Q73 Rosemary McKenna: Sir Alan, what do you in the past and the government has got its legislation, think about this? It was you who suggested that which it is entitled to do, subject to proper scrutiny injury time was a possibility. and if it continues to command the majority. So I do Sir Alan Haselhurst: Yes, and I hope it is one to not see how a government is disadvantaged, as it which you will give consideration. We do that in were, by maintaining those traditional intervals. debates in Westminster Hall. I think it is all the more Chairman: Those are words of excellent wisdom. important if you are working on rationed time within a Standing Committee that you should be Q72 Rosemary McKenna: I think what we are seeing able to add the equivalent time that has been lost. now that this is taking place and our inquiry is There are complications because people are not taking place in the middle of the transition from how necessarily expecting that to happen. Everyone, things were in 1997 to how they are going to be in the from the chairman and ministers downwards, is future. If you look at the change of hours and the going to have his own schedule altered by that fact, knock-on consequences of that, and sometimes that but I think it is something which, if I may can be seen as negative—and I agree with what Peter respectfully say so, is for this distinguished Pike has just said—I think the pre-legislative committee to weigh and see whether or not it is a scrutiny and much more of that is the way forward. recommendation that should be followed. I hope that that is how things will progress. I think that would help considerably in all of these issues. Given where we are at the moment and in trying to Q74Rosemary McKenna: The Clerk of the House make sure that the Members’ interests are protected, has suggested that the Chairman of a standing Mr Pike referred to a problem in Standing committee should have the discretion to delay the Committee where there is a division called in the falling of the knife by up to 15 minutes, in the same House and it causes chaos. The Chairman of Ways way as the end of a sitting can be delayed if the Bill and Means said in paragraph 7 that perhaps an could be finished in the time. Would you support injury time could be allowed for in Standing that? Would it be workable, or would Members 9479291002 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:06:04 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 30 Procedure Committee: Evidence
25 February 2004 Rt Hon Sir Alan Haselhurst MP, Mr Roger Gale MP and Mr Peter Pike MP press for that additional 15 minutes every time? and in the other case you might not have done? Would it be abused and is there a propensity for Would you like to see us make that sort of abuse? distinction? Sir Alan Haselhurst: There is no provision that has Sir Alan Haselhurst: My instinctive reaction would ever been made that cannot be abused in some way be “no”; I think it would be very diYcult to have or another. So much does rest on common sense and almost a diVerent set of rules for diVerent goodwill. I think it would then be up to the chairman approaches in one’s mind to chairing the committee of the committee to decide in his or her discretion of a Bill which had received pre-legislative scrutiny whether that would be a proper occasion to allow and one that had not. I really do hesitate to believe that. The chair would have to have regard in those that that is a good idea. circumstances to any possible knock-on eVect that you could have by allowing that time: would it be Q77 Mr McWalter: On the other hand, if there were taking time from something else where there are adiVerent set of rules, that could have the eVect of Members very anxious to speak? giving an incentive to the Government to utilise the Mr Pike: The chairmen used to have a discretion. I process for privilege and scrutiny more often. That have not chaired a Private Member’s Bill but I was is my thought. once on a Private Member’s Bill many years ago Sir Alan Haselhurst: I think the Government is where somebody thought they had managed to talk committed to pre-legislative scrutiny. I think that if out a Private Member’s Bill and suddenly the it is seen by the House as a whole to have a useful chairman asked: “It is quite clear we can reach a function, then it is an idea that will take root and will conclusion on this. I have powers to extend the become a regular part of our procedures. It would be sitting by 15 minutes”, and the Bill completed its very diYcult to preclude then from the processes of Committee Stage. Somebody sat down and thought the actual standing committee on the Bill any that they had managed successfully to block it. I did arrangements which we currently have. not know that the chair had that discretion. It was Chairman: I pass on to Sir Robert Smith who is when I was a fairly new Member and I did not know going to deal with the role of chairmen, which we that such a power existed. I am not sure whether it is have touched on already. still there. I am told it is still there. Q78 Sir Robert Smith: On the pre-legislative Q75 Rosemary McKenna: What seems to be coming scrutiny, I think a lot of select committees are slightly worried that they may be chasing a certain out of this is a desire to make programming work, line of inquiry and then they suddenly find and I would support that very much because I think themselves with a Bill thrown at them by the programming and pre-legislative scrutiny is a good Government saying, “This is your choice for pre- way forward to get better Bills and get them through legislative scrutiny”, tripping up what other scrutiny as easily as possible, but what we cannot be seen to they are trying to carry out at the same time. be doing is compromising the independence of the Obviously this is going to develop and we may have chair. Is there a way that this committee could to look more carefully at how that works. On the consider giving the chair more powers but not to issue Sir Alan raised about the commitment of compromise the independence of the chair? people: if you are going to have more time in Sir Alan Haselhurst: If there is a way, it would be committee, people need to make a real commitment best found by this committee because it is then to be there if they want to have more scrutiny. Are coming from a relatively unimpeachable source, as it we reaching the point, with the way this is going, were. It is not for chairmen themselves to say what when maybe we have to look at the way other they should or should not do. The chairs abide by the parliaments operate and at sessions when the rules that the House has agreed on. If there is a way parliament operates in its committee structures so of doing it by which the House will be satisfied that that there is not a clash with the main chamber, and the independence of the chair is not compromised, then at sessions when parliament operates in main then I am sure that that would be to advantage. We debate when that is the focus of the work through suggest one or two ways in which it might be helpful the parliament? for the chair to be given that discretion. We have Sir Alan Haselhurst: By all means, the Procedure guarded it with a caveat about the independence of Committee and the Modernisation Committee the chair. could look at these things. I think that is painting a much bigger picture than I feel competent to address just now in answer to that question. I think it would Q76 Mr McWalter: This follows directly from what require very detailed consideration, almost possibly Rosemary McKenna has said. I would like the I dare to suggest a Speaker’s conference to opinion of the panel on this. Would you want the contemplate something as fundamental as that. I committee possibly to suggest that the procedure be would stick to my point that the peculiarity of the diVerent where a Bill has been subject to pre- job of a Member of Parliament is that he or she legislative scrutiny to where it has not been so that has to split himself between constituency eVectively you try and retain the rights of responsibilities, which have grown over the years, backbenchers in both of those scenarios when in fact and a scrutiny function, which has also grown over under one case you would probably have had a good the years. That, to my mind, suggests more hours opportunity to influence the development of a Bill than fewer. 9479291002 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:06:04 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 31
25 February 2004 Rt Hon Sir Alan Haselhurst MP, Mr Roger Gale MP and Mr Peter Pike MP
Q79 Sir Robert Smith: You have touched quite a lot Mr Gale: With respect, I possibly pioneered this on the role of chairmen. What, under the current business of taking a “clause stand part” away either Standing Orders, is the position of the chair? You at the beginning or at the end. I traditionally now say mentioned earlier that in the end the Speaker’s role in my committees, “No, I shall say that you can have is to protect Parliament and the backbenchers. Does a ‘clause stand part’ either at the beginning or at the the chairman at the moment in committee have a end but not both”. It is up to the Members to role to protect the interests of backbenchers, or is the determine that by the manner in which they debate impartiality such that it is just to serve the whole the clause. committee? Mr Pike: Take the one I did the week before the Mr Gale: That role has been eroded. The answer to recess where they had had the whole of the Thursday your question has to be “yes” but it is diYcult for a morning debating amendments to one particular chairman when in the committee he acts for the clause and there were vast clauses that they had to Speaker. The Speaker’s role very clearly reach by the end of business that day. I deemed it not traditionally has been to protect the interests of the unreasonable to use the power to say that there had backbencher. However, if the chairman’s ability to been a reasonable debate on all issues covered. do that is restricted by time, then it is not Nobody could show me that nothing had been infrequently not possible to do that. I can give you a debated, so I put the question on the “clause stand “for instance”, a very recent one. The first guillotine part”. They had debated fully for well over two and on the Education Bill fell theoretically at 11.25 on a a half hours in the morning. The chairman has a Thursday morning. I was chairing that session and I responsibility to see that other issues that may be was asked by consent by both the usual channels and important further down also get an opportunity of the minority parties to allow the sitting to end at being debated. On one of your points earlier about 11.20 because everybody on the Education Bill also pre-legislative scrutiny, one of the diYculties with wanted to be on the Floor of the House for the House increasingly is finding enough Members Education Questions, which were immediately after to go on all forms of committees. That is something Speaker’s Prayers. We had a guillotine to get in in that the House has to have regard to because some the time. As it happens, on that particular morning, select committees are popular but others are not. there were no government amendments. Select committees clash with standing committees Government amendments especially have to be and it is not easy. voted on as part of a package. If the advice that we Sir Alan Haselhurst: It is possible for any chairman, have been given this afternoon, and I am sure it is, is in interpreting or applying the Standing Orders, to correct and any other matters that the chair has be accused from some quarter of being biased or agreed shall be voted on also have to be voted on, unfair. The power to grant a closure, the power you can see a situation where you are, once again, whether or not to accept the division and so on, may having to curtail debate. The problem with be interpreted in certain quarters. What the chair, curtailing debate is that by implication you are however, tries strenuously to do is to be seen to be curtailing the right of a backbencher to speak. applying the power that he has in an objective way, and that he is treating everybody equally and has Q80 Sir Robert Smith: Would it be worth enshrining only the general interests of making progress or more procedural power? Putting stronger emphasis protecting backbenchers at heart. in Standing Orders on the need to protect backbenchers would not itself give you any more Q82 Chairman: We will probably all come in on this. help. It is an actual requirement. There are just a few questions left. Let me put the Mr Pike: You have to try to use a gentle hand to first. Is there any evidence of discussion between the steer the committee. The chair does have to try and political parties in the Commons about the rein a backbencher back because the chair knows the distribution of the legislative programme point that has to be reached and has to try and throughout the year? I think this is something in ensure that all parts of the Bill are debated and that which you yourself would be quite interested. How amendments are debated. With a gentle hand, you would the introduction of a permanent Business have to try and steer the committee through. Committee improve the situation that we face Obviously, if you can do that with a bit of humour today? Tied up with that: has the carry-over of Bills sometimes, it does help to see progress is made. helped, in your view, very much yet? Is there scope for doing it for more Bills, or is this inhibited by the Q81 Sir Robert Smith: There is one final matter on current restrictions on the procedure, namely only this. Sir Alan mentioned the concern about losing being applicable to Commons Bills still in the House impartiality, that the moment you are seen to make of Commons? decisions that could be influenced politically, your Sir Alan Haselhurst: I do not know whether there path is known, and then there is a worry that people has been suYcient discussion on planning the start to exploit that. You mentioned earlier on the timetable. I really do not know. I am not privy to role of the chair, that “clause stand part” decisions those discussions. I think if I listened to Business are obviously at the discretion of the chair as is the Questions, there probably has not been suYcient decision whether or not to take amendments at because this is a regular query on the part of the Report Stage, to take separate votes on amendments Opposition as to when a particular measure is going further down the clause. So already the chairs are to be brought forward. I do not always think that having to exercise discretion. that is a disingenuous question; it is a genuine 9479291002 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:06:04 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 32 Procedure Committee: Evidence
25 February 2004 Rt Hon Sir Alan Haselhurst MP, Mr Roger Gale MP and Mr Peter Pike MP question because they do not know what the answer Mr Pike: I believe that any Bill should have to be is. As for the carry-over of Bills, I think it is far too completed within a year of its introduction. I throw early to say whether that has any advantage. One has out a time but it should not be indefinite. to be careful that it is giving too much of an Mr Gale: This is slightly outside the remit, Sir advantage to the government of the day in Nicholas, but as we are here also to try to represent circumstances where its majority may not be as the broad views of the Speaker’s Panel of Chairmen, secure and intact as that presently in this Parliament. it ought to be said that perhaps not every member of One has to think of other situations in which a that panel would subscribe to the view that it should government might escape being very closely tested be a five-year plan. with a narrow majority in one session of Parliament Mr Pike: I was saying I was a radical and that it was if it could get out from under by saying, “We will my view. simply carry on into the next session and wait for a Chairman: Mr Gale, it will be in black and white in change of circumstances”, and so on. At the the transcript. moment, that is a situation which is perhaps not easily recognised compared with where we are at the Q85 Sir Robert Smith: On Mr Pike’s more radical present time. I have referred earlier to how the proposals, is that in itself not going slightly to assist? introduction of a permanent Business Committee The upside of that proposal would then be that the would improve the situation. I put that forward as a allocation of the time, in terms of the committees’ model, as an alternative way of doing it, but I am and people’s availability being spread more evenly afraid I am deeply suspicious that a power that is throughout the year, gives more of a chance that currently exercised, certainly by the government time will be found to scrutinise the legislation more whips of the day and probably most times an eVectively. influence possessed by the Opposition whips, is such Mr Pike: I think there could be much more sensible that neither side, each anticipating being in the planning. As I say, I have advocated such views on other’s position at some point or other, would the Modernisation Committee ever since it was willingly give that up. I think an independent established after 1997. I have not convinced the committee such as yours might perhaps give it majority and I am not likely to do so before I retire. serious consideration maybe even to reject it at the This is very much a personal view. end of the day, but it would be a way of bringing into the open some of the arguments that at the moment go on behind closed doors. It would certainly give Q86 Chairman: As a final question, and perhaps you may think it is somewhat complicated and not fully minority interests, and even sometimes individual V backbenchers, an opportunity to speak in public within your area of responsibility: what e ect, if any, before such a committee as to why they felt that time has programming had, in your estimation, on the should be made available for a particular tabling of Government amendments to Bills and on amendment or group of amendments. the way in which they are debated in committee? Could a “legislative business committee”, appointed to scrutinise the Government’s annual legislative Q83 Chairman: I think this question is linked with programme, be eVective in developing a timetable what we are talking about. Do you see the which would help the Government to present Bills introduction of a parliamentary calendar, which we with fewer drafting errors and inconsistencies? now have under this Government, as an indication Sir Alan Haselhurst: I do not find that an easy that the programming of the legislative session may proposition. I think that with more pre-legislative be a more realistic option than it once seemed? scrutiny, we would hope to get better Bills. That Sir Alan Haselhurst: Yes, but I do believe that a route would probably be a better one to follow, calendar is a sensible and adult move forward. It otherwise one has to accept that circumstances alter could have been provided many years before. cases; changes can take place and governments are Mr Pike: I would have no objection to the principle persuaded, for one reason or another, of a change of of a Business Committee being looked at. You, Sir course in a particular matter. If they wish to Nicholas, would know, having served on reconstruct a Bill, the government has to have Modernisation, that I am quite a radical on carry- flexibility to be able to do this. It would equally be overs because I believe we are elected for a five-year open, in certain circumstances, to strong criticism parliament and I would go for a five-year rolling sometimes perhaps for doing that. At other times, it programme with any Bill after being introduced may be acclaimed because it is clearly giving in to the having to get through within a year and, if we want will of the House or to strong views that it has to have a Queen’s Speech, still have that each year received from outside the House. I think it would be but have a sensible and phased programme with no inflexible to adopt that kind of approach. Let us see log-jams and bits and pieces of business. Hopefully, how pre-legislative scrutiny works first. long after I have retired, we may see that in years to Mr Gale: I would concur with that because come. I am a radical on that and that is my governments of all persuasions do respond to lobby personal opinion. pressure from interested groups that come forward with good, sensible suggestions for the improvement of a Bill and table government amendments as a Q84Chairman: Would you also relate what you result. Ministers do respond very often, more often have just said to Private Members’ Bills as well? than is perhaps recognised, to Opposition Would you roll them over? amendments that are tabled and withdrawn on an 9479291002 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:06:04 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 33
25 February 2004 Rt Hon Sir Alan Haselhurst MP, Mr Roger Gale MP and Mr Peter Pike MP undertaking from the minister that the government did not seem to be any problems in the afternoon will bring forward its own amendment at a later session that was debated yesterday, but there could stage. As Sir Alan has said, if you start messing have been. I think it is a little diYcult because there around with that, it will again take out a lot of the were several new clauses to deal with that new flexibility that is designed to improve the legislation. aspect, which was not in the original Bill; it was a Mr Pike: I am not too sure that if government tables major addition to the Bill in the view of some people. new clauses which add something to the Bill, they Chairman: May I thank all three of you for the wise should not be prepared to add time for it to be words that you have spoken in giving evidence to us debated. On the Housing Bill, just before the this afternoon. We certainly had very considerable February recess, they indicated that they would be experience displayed. I hope that as witnesses you tabling some new clauses on park homes, those will understand that, while we accept that permanent caravan sites. We only had one day left programming is part of the procedures of this House and that was debated yesterday with very little time now, we want to ensure that programming works. I for anyone really to take amendments or anything. can say to you, Sir Alan, as Chairman of Ways and It did not cause any controversy on the committee. Means, and to Mr Pike and Mr Gale as senior It went through reasonably well but it could have members of the Speaker’s Panel of Chairmen, that been a controversial issue. I am not too sure that the evidence you have given to us has been very fundamentally, if they want to do something like helpful as part of our inquiry. On behalf of the that, it would not have been wise to have said, “We committee, can I thank you for the time you have will add another day on Thursday of this week”, or spent with us and the valuable evidence you have something like that. As I say, in the end, the given us, which will clearly be very critical to the Opposition were not raising any objections; there report we will produce in due course. 950459PAG1 Page Type [SE] 09-07-04 01:06:14 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 34 Procedure Committee: Evidence
Wednesday 10 March 2004
Members present
Sir Nicholas Winterton, in the Chair
Mr John Burnett Sir Robert Smith Mr Eric Illsley Mr Desmond Swayne Mr Tony McWalter David Wright
Memorandum from Rt Hon Eric Forth MP
Programming of Legislation I believe that the routine programming/guillotining of Bills (particularly in Standing Committee) has been extremely detrimental to the role of the Commons in scrutinising legislation. The time allowed in Committee is usually inadequate, leaving large parts of Bills unconsidered. The opportunities for delay, amendment and debate have been reduced to the point of irrelevance— leaving the Government with total control at all stages. Legitimate outside interests cannot now guarantee that their issue or amendment will be considered—and Bills are passed to the Lords barely or inadequately scrutinised. This leaves the work of eVective scrutiny in the hands of the unelected, unaccountable House of Lords. The answer, surely, is to return to the time honoured procedure whereby there is no end date for a Standing Committee—with the government able to introduce a guillotine only when it can be properly justified—or demonstrated that proceedings are being unjustifiably delayed. Many substantial bills were in committee for over 100 hours in the 1980s—and may even have been improved as a result! At the very least, interested groups could feel that the Bill had been fully examined, and their representations considered. January 2004
Witnesses: Rt Hon Eric Forth and Barbara Follett, Members of the House, examined.
Q87 Chairman: May I welcome two very eminent say initially, to try to set the scene from my and colourful members of the House of Commons perspective, I think everything in this rests on the who have come to give evidence—and I do not say assumptions that one makes about the relative roles that just because Eric Forth, the former Shadow of government and opposition in the legislative Leader of the House, is renowned for his colourful process and particularly in standing committees. If ties or for that matter that Barbara Follett is well one assumes, as I do, that in our system of known for her colourful remarks, but we do parliamentary government where the government welcome both colleagues to the inquiry we are has, by definition, a majority and where it is the undertaking today into programming of legislation. government’s legislative programme that is being On behalf of my colleagues, may I welcome you scrutinised by Parliament, I believe it is of the utmost both. As is the prerogative of the Chairman of the importance for the eVectiveness of that process that Committee, I will be asking the first two questions. it is the opposition which essentially has the Could I put it to our witnesses that it appears there is dominant hand in determining how much time will a fundamental diVerence of view between those who be spent in committee. My contention is that this seek to divide up the time available in an agreed was largely the case, certainly from the time I came manner and those who view programming as a into this House in 1983 and through the 1980s and method of eliminating the opposition’s power of 1990s, and what happened then, from my delay. I put this question to both our witnesses: Do recollection—and, indeed, Chairman, from yours, you see any way of reconciling those two views; that going back much further than that—is that after the is, of those who seek to divide up time available in an second reading of a bill, when the bill was then acceptable and agreed manner and those who view consigned to standing committee, there was no the whole process of programming, guillotining, specified time limit on the deliberations of the time allocation as a method of eliminating the committee. It was for the Opposition to decide, opposition’s ability and power to delay? essentially, the pace of the committee and what was Mr Forth: Thank you very much, Chairman. Thank and was not considered. It was only after the you for the opportunity of giving evidence to your expiration of a very considerable period of time— Committee. If I may be slightly expansive in what I and, from memory, that was as much as 150 hours 9504591002 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:06:14 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 35
10 March 2004 Rt Hon Eric Forth MP and Barbara Follett MP in committee for a large and complex bill; latterly consensus but to a cut oV and this has become one perhaps down to 100 hours—that the Government of the adversarial issues. However, I do think it is would use its majority and say, “Enough, already. time we sat down and talked about it, because we We really must bring this to a conclusion,” and have tended to make decisions, on either side, by fiat would introduce a guillotine motion which would if we are in government. I think it is time that we then start to limit the amount of time. But notice that talked about it. Perhaps we could have guillotines up until that point it was the Opposition which had that came down if the opposition seemed to be the whip hand; it was the Opposition which filibustering. But can you imagine whichever party it determined the pace of the committee and which was having to defend their right to talk about tipping parts of the bill would get more consideration than for seven and a half hours on the basis that it was others. To my mind that was right and that was relevant? We are caught up in a game, almost, which crucial. My objection to what is happening now is I think we need to drop. I have just come oV the Fire that the Government decides from the outset, before and Rescue Services Bill and I was on the Planning the committee has even sat, how much time will be Bill. The Planning Bill is a wonderful example of allocated by the Government to the committee to programming gone awry and I think, having been on scrutinise a bill. That is a very fundamental change that bill, we need to have another look at how we do in the conduct of parliamentary scrutiny of the bill. it. But, I am very sorry, I do not have a specific Whereas on the one hand the Opposition largely answer, except—and you might say this is a very determined how long they spent—rightly so, in my girlie answer and Ms Greer will have me for this— view—giving time for outside interests to make their that we have to talk about this and try to work representations, giving time for due deliberation to something out—or the usual channels do. be made; now we have the Government deciding how much time it will allow the House or its standing Q89 Chairman: I am very grateful to Ms Follett for committee to deliberate on a bill. That is my that reply because, by implication, you are fundamental objection to programming. That is why indicating that, while programming may be I think it is dangerous and counterproductive to the necessary, it is not working, mainly because there is parliamentary process. inadequate discussion between government and opposition over how time should be allocated. I was Q88 Chairman: Thank you, Mr Forth. May I pass rather interested that you made reference to the Fire that question immediately to Barbara Follett. Services and Rescue Standing Committee, which I Barbara Follett: Thank you, Sir Nicholas, and thank had the privilege of chairing as one of the two you too for giving me the opportunity to give chairmen, and we actually completed that bill, with evidence here—and, forgive me, I have had all the clauses, all the schedules and all the new laryngitis, so I have a croak rather than a voice here. clauses being debated—albeit we did it in, if I may I came into this House in 1997. The first bill use the phrase, the nick of time. committee that I sat on was the Minimum Wage Bill. Barbara Follett: That leads me on to something. That bill committee is famous for having had the Chairing is also very important. On that bill—and I longest session of any bill ever in this House: 36 think that was the first time I have had the pleasure hours, in which we sat without a break. Because of being in a committee that was chaired by you—I Labour obviously had a majority, we could go out did enjoy it because you moved us all along, and have the occasional wash, but none of us looked impartially. As soon as people waZed and went oV very salubrious by the end of those 36 hours. A day the point, you were on to them. That does not always later we had a 24-hour sitting when a very similar happen. I think we have to be far more firm in our thing happened on the Employment Relations Bill. chairing of standing committees. I think those two incidents formed a lot of the Chairman: I can only express some appreciation of Government’s thinking, were the basis of the your generous comments. But, David, do you want Government’s thinking. Because I can tell you, to come in? having sat through the Minimum Wage Bill, that a great deal of what was happening on the opposition Q90 David Wright: I am probably being a little side was just good old-fashioned filibustering. You naughty now because I am going to try to bring one should hear John Bercow on the subject of tipping! of my questions forward, but it follows on from what To me it will remain, till my dying day, extremely Barbara Follett has said—and I would be interested interesting, but it was not relevant to what we were to hear Eric Forth’s views as well—about the general discussing. I understand entirely what Mr Forth is programming of the government’s business over a saying but the Opposition—and I include my own parliamentary session. My feeling is that you party in this—have not always used that prerogative probably do not have enough dialogue early in a responsibly. It is a bit like asking the press to self- session after the Queen’s Speech about when the regulate. Some of us have borne the brunt of that government is going to bring through particular lack of regulation when it seems to break down. In bills. One of the hobby-horses I have had in this an ideal world, I would prefer it to be a consensus Committee is that certain bills on second reading between government and opposition—it is a much deserve two or three days’ consideration on the floor fairer system—but I am not entirely sure how we of the House—because most bills at the moment get arrive at it. Because of the adversarial nature of this one afternoon’s consideration on second reading in place—and I completely understand it and quite the House. Some of the most contentious bills need enjoy it—we are always pushing things not to a a two- or three-day sitting on the floor of the House, 9504591002 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:06:14 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 36 Procedure Committee: Evidence
10 March 2004 Rt Hon Eric Forth MP and Barbara Follett MP in my view, at second reading. Do you agree with how much time there should be allocated to standing that? Do you agree that we need to have a better committee and report, remaining stages and third dialogue between the parties about which bills can reading? move through the House quickly, maybe at the start Mr Forth: I think that is a dream world, because, or, indeed, at the very end of the session, to maximise where you have a prime minister, in particular, or a time on the most contentious bills in the core weeks government who are not really interested in the of a parliamentary session. parliamentary process, in fact are rather hostile to it, Barbara Follett: I agree entirely with what you are no amount of cosy discussions or consensus seeking saying, Mr Wright. Particularly as a Labour is going to make any diVerence. Because the attitude backbencher, who is not a privy councillor or of the Government, generally speaking, is that you anything, if I want to speak on a contentious bill I do have a manifesto, you win an election and, frankly, not have a great deal of chance. I think honourable after that, all this parliamentary stuV is really a bit members should get a chance to express their of an irritation and a waste of time: we don’t want opinions or their constituents’ opinions, so more debate; we really don’t see why we should vote time on the floor of the House I would welcome. I because we win them all anyway. I do not mind also think that dialogue is essential. You have to people dreaming about a consensual world in which bring in the smaller parties as well, the smaller some arrangement is made about lots of time, but I opposition parties, because occasionally they will am not sure that is where the Government starts or, have a sticking point, but we should have a period of indeed, wants to finish. time after the Queen’s Speech when we discuss which bills are going to get perhaps lengthier attention but Q93 Chairman: Take it from me, the Committee we should also have a certain amount of flexibility which I have the honour of chairing is not inclined built in. to support that view. We believe that Parliament has an important role and in this inquiry we are trying to Q91 Chairman: Thank you. Eric Forth, I am sure ensure that backbenchers and the House of you have something to contribute to that question. Commons are able to do the job which people elect Mr Forth: If there is any lack of debating time at people to do here as Members of Parliament. second readings, then it is only that the Government Mr Forth: I hope you call the Prime Minister to give wants it that way, frankly. The Government has so evidence because he is at the root of all this. I think you should examine the Prime Minister’s attitude to much time now in the Commons that it could give parliament and to the parliamentary process. lots more to almost any measure. When one considers how much one-line business we now have on Thursdays for people who want to disappear Q94David Wright: The point I was trying to drive at from here, we are now getting towards a two-day a is that clearly in any government’s programme there week Parliament, with people arriving late on a are going to be a number of bills that the opposition Monday and leaving either on a Wednesday evening can sign up to that . . . Take the TraYc Management or a Thursday. Now, that is up to them, I say, but Bill, for example, on most of the elements of the they must not then complain that they do not get the TraYc Management Bill—I sat on the Committee chance to participate. Because the truth is that in a for that bill—the Opposition was supportive. lot of debates now the Chamber is almost empty and Therefore, surely we can come to an agreement people can walk in and speak if they wish to, so I where the opposition are going to say, “Right, okay, really do not have very much sympathy for people, this bill is largely acceptable—apart from, say, 10 or even on the Government’s side, with a large 20% of it which we will thrash out on the floor of the majority. I suVered the same fate back in the House and in committee. We will accept that we will eighties, when I was a government backbencher, spend much less time on this bill and we will try to when we had a majority of 140, and one just took maximise time on others.” That seems to be perfectly one’s chances. And back then I remember being reasonable. told, “If you’re lucky you’ll get to speak in a debate Mr Forth: No. Absolutely not. Because that makes in the Chamber four times a year.” That was your the arrogant assumption that we all know at second allocation and one accepted that. That was the way reading how much of the bill is contentious or not it was. So I am afraid I entirely blame the and how much time it requires. The whole point of Government on this occasion because, if members the scrutiny process, if it is done properly, is that feel that not enough time is given to second readings, when the bill gets into standing committee, outside I would recommend it is raised at the PLP and that interest groups by then have had a chance to Labour members in particular say to their betters, examine it and to make their representations, others “Why don’t you give us more debating time?” have had a chance to consider whether what they because frankly there is so much spare time in the thought was all right now is not any more, and very House of Commons now you can do it any time often during the process of examination, the tabling you like. of amendments and so on, it is discovered, perhaps, that the bill is not as we thought it was or has inadequacies or has problems. Indeed, very often— Q92 Chairman: Do you think, therefore—to an as the Committee will know, Sir Nicholas—it extent I think Barbara Follett has reflected this— emerges during that process that the government has there is inadequate discussion between government to bring forward a large number of amendments. and opposition when a new bill is introduced over And, since we are swapping anecdotes about 9504591002 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:06:14 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 37
10 March 2004 Rt Hon Eric Forth MP and Barbara Follett MP chairing committees, Sir Nicholas, in the one I have Barbara Follett: My point was going to be similar to recently chaired the Government brought forward a Eric Illsley’s. I think draft legislation coming in for huge swathe of amendments which radically altered scrutiny has been an immense help. Eric Forth is the bill halfway through the standing committee. talking about the fact that sometimes, when the That can happen as well, so I do not accept that even public realise what is in the bill, when on a bill which apparently is consensual and parliamentarians realise what is in the bill, the apparently is uncontentious we should then government have to change what is in the bill and minimise the time for scrutiny in standing there is a great deal of heat and light generated. I committee. That denies the whole process of prefer that to happen in the pre-legislative period, scrutiny and, most importantly, input from outside because then you can concentrate just on the interests. legislative side of it, but perhaps in the pre-legislative Chairman: Thank you. I am going to call Eric Illsley period we can also start flagging up which areas are and then I will bring Barbara Follett back in again. going to need a great deal of discussion and more parliamentary time. Perhaps at that point there could be discussion on both sides, with the usual Q95 Mr Illsley: The point Eric Forth made about the channels, of how much time should be devoted to it. present Government ignoring Parliament and that Or the select committee that does the pre-legislative Parliament is a little bit of a headache after we have scrutiny could recommend. won the election with a large majority, how do you reconcile that with the introduction of pre-legislative scrutiny on draft bills, where this Government have Q98 Chairman: Could I come in again because I actually produced bills a year before they come think what Barbara Follett has said is very before the House to allow for outside influences to important. Do you think there should be more comment and for members to consider those bills. meaningful consultation and discussion between the Mr Forth: So? I would say: So? I mean, it is fine as government and government usual channels and far as it goes but it should not alter or in any way opposition parties and their usual channels over the prejudice the proper parliamentary process that then time that it will need to take to bring legislation follows, because one of the other things we have to before the House? remember, Sir Nicholas, is the totality of the Barbara Follett: Absolutely. parliamentary process—and, by the way, I take the Chairman: Thank you. blame for this, but we have perhaps been concentrating excessively on standing committee Q99 David Wright: I wanted to pick up on the one stage. Let’s not forget report and third reading, point that Mr Forth made about pre-legislative where, crucially, members who have not been scrutiny. One of the issues that you raised was about privileged to be on the standing committee should the opportunities for outside bodies through a have an opportunity to participate, and we are committee stage to make representations. Would finding that report and third reading stages are now you acknowledge that one of the advantages of the being truncated to an alarming degree as well. You pre-legislative scrutiny process is that you can can have as much pre-legislative scrutiny as you actually call in expert witnesses? You can actually like—and I welcome it and all that—but, frankly— bring in people to talk directly about legislation and one of the things that I think the Government through that stage, which obviously is not open will learn to its cost—one of the things that happens during the committee stage when you are looking at during pre-legislative scrutiny is that people learn Members of Parliament to represent groups. So more and more about the bill and its weaknesses and there is a positive about that process, is there not? why it may not necessarily be a very good thing, and Mr Forth: Yes. Of course there is, and I welcome it may, indeed, lengthen the proper scrutiny process that, but let’s not get too carried away with it, of the parliamentary stages rather than reduce it. because there is, in that stage, no opportunity, formally or definitively, to amend the bill. Just as a Q96 Mr Illsley: But the point is the Government is word of caution, I think it is fair to say, Sir Nicholas, still having that amount of time to deal with it. It is with the greatest of respect to your Committee, that not as though the Government have simply said, not everybody here has experienced standing “You can have this bill and it is going to go through committees where a government has a very small majority. You will recall, Sir Nicholas, that there is a short committee stage.” By having a draft bill it V extends the time— a very big di erence between a standing committee Mr Forth: No, it does not extend the time—not the as now composed, as we have had it since 1997, and time I am talking about, not the proper the exciting days that you and I recall when standing parliamentary scrutiny time. In any case, relatively committees only had a majority of one on the few bills go through pre-legislative scrutiny. It is a government side. And at that point it becomes very diversion. It is something that Leaders of the House important as to what each member thinks and does, like to bring up and flourish, saying, “Isn’t this and the representations that are made and the fact good?” My answer is, “Only as far as it goes, but I that amendments can be made in standing don’t think it alters the argument at all.” committee that the government do not necessarily want. I know what is going on here, Sir Nicholas— I am not fooled at all!—that the Government, with Q97 Chairman: Before David comes back, could we all this sleight of hand with the pre-legislative ask Barbara Follett to comment. scrutiny, the three-card trick, is trying to get more 9504591002 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:06:14 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 38 Procedure Committee: Evidence
10 March 2004 Rt Hon Eric Forth MP and Barbara Follett MP legislation through in each session—and they have Q102 Chairman: Could I then come to one of those already tried to fiddle this one by carryover or delicate, sensitive members, Barbara Follett, who I rollover at the end of the session. That will end in am sure was going to respond to that observation. tears, I predict—I am not going to tell your Barbara Follett: Not very delicately or sensitively, I Committee how because I would not want to give it fear. I actually enjoyed those sessions. away to the Government, but they are not going to Mr Forth: Ah! get away with it in the totality of a Parliament. But Barbara Follett: But I do not think they were I know what is going on that is, “If we can move this particularly productive. You are quite right, it is up all around—pre-legislative scrutiny, less time in to the whips, and particularly the Government whip, standing committee, get these second readings but I think they wanted to break a filibuster and through in a day, cut down report and third show they would just go on. I am not going to get readings—hey! What’s the result? We’re getting into the ins and outs of it: it did happen; it was utterly more bills through every year!”—which is what a fascinating. The Members of Parliament for South government obsessed with legislation wants to do. Cambridgeshire and for Buckingham were really good to listen to at 3.30 in the morning on the subject of tips! But I do not know why—to answer Q100 Chairman: Thank you. Before we move to Mr Swayne’s question directly—people are Desmond Swayne, could I ask (with a simple yes or reluctant to sit beyond 5.30. I think it is to do with . . . no answer): Do our witnesses believe that the No, it cannot be to do with wanting to go in for the importance of report and remaining stages is wind-ups, because not that many people rush underestimated at the moment because very few straight into the wind-ups. I do not think it is members can speak at second reading, only a few because MPs are idle. I am sure they are not. I know limited members will sit on the standing committee, Mr Forth is not. I know I most certainly am not: I and therefore the remaining stage, the report stage of know that the calls on my time are so multitudinous a bill, is the only stage of legislation where I do not know how to fit everything in, is the truth backbench members, who have not been able to of it. I think that might be part of the reason people participate in second reading or to have participated do not want standing committees to go much later in the standing committee, have an opportunity of than half-past five, but I have been on one recently contributing to legislation? Do our witnesses believe that has gone on later. there should be a more generous time allocated to take account of that fact? Mr Forth: Yes. Q103 Mr Swayne: We have heard of the importance Barbara Follett: Yes. of report for providing an opportunity for members Chairman: Thank you. That is very helpful, because of the House who were not on the standing that is cross-party and that indicates that we must committee or who perhaps wanted to speak at never underestimate the importance of report and second reading but were unable to do so, to have an remaining stages. opportunity. Why do our witnesses think so few— shockingly few—take up that opportunity?— because report is typically the thinnest attended of Q101 Mr Swayne: I am sure it must be disagreeable, all stages. Is that perhaps itself a consequence of as Barbara Follett told us, to endure a session of 24 programming and the fact that often enough there hours and, indeed, 36 hours, but the Chairman of will only be time for the frontbenchers to contribute Ways and Means has pointed out to us that it is before the knife falls? perfectly permissible now for standing committees Barbara Follett: I am not quite sure. Prior to the to secure more time within the existing standing current programming regime, I had the feeling that orders by sitting beyond 5.30, but they are showing people were not particularly encouraged to speak at a remarkable reluctance to do so. Why do our that point. There are ways of encouraging and witnesses think that might be? discouraging people in this place, as you know, and Mr Forth: Because members are idle and do not they were not encouraged to speak at that point want to do the work. And actually the answer to because it was all done and dusted. This was really a what Barbara Follett said at the beginning—I think bit like the last minute on Christmas Eve, when you this gives me a chance to deal with it, Sir Nicholas— are putting the presents under your tree and you is that it was entirely a matter for the Government suddenly turn to your husband and say, “I don’t whip on that committee to have the committee think we should have given that to baby daughter adjourn at a reasonable hour and then return for X.” It is a bit like opening up the present again. A further sittings. The reason they did not was the report stage has become tying the bow on and Government presumably had in its mind that the shoving it under the tree and waiting for the committee had to finish at a particular endpoint and festivities to start, and that it should not really be. It therefore had to put its poor unfortunate delicate should perhaps be more reflective and perhaps members through this hellish process that has been should have messages for the other Place as it goes described to us. But since it is now the Government on its way. who is completely in charge of all these matters, then Mr Forth: It may be more fundamental than that. It Barbara should have taken it up with her whip and may be that the combination of a very large not been berating us, the poor Opposition, who government majority in two successive Parliaments simply had to abide by what the Government and the reduction in time available at all the diVerent decided to do in that committee. stages has meant that members progressively find 9504591002 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:06:14 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 39
10 March 2004 Rt Hon Eric Forth MP and Barbara Follett MP that other things are more important. I am I know Eric profoundly disagrees but I find it quite constantly at odds with some of my own colleagues, diYcult to explain to my constituents that I am in the Sir Nicholas, about this, who increasingly see that House of Commons doing important work on a other activities, other than the legislative, are Wednesday when they want me in Stevenage. The claiming their time. I cannot understand this. I have ceremonial role of an MPhas become greater and a complete mind-block about this, as members of the the social worker role of an MPhas become Committee may understand, or at least they may infinitely greater. We all know that. We would all sympathise with, because I think that the prime task like it to be other, I think, but I think we have to take of a Member of Parliament is the legislative task, that into account. That is part of the multitudinous and nothing else, in my mind, takes priority over pulls on our time. that. But, sadly, for a number of reasons, increasing numbers of members seem to think that scrutinising Q109 Chairman: Would Barbara Follett agree with legislation, participating in debates, and even the immediate past Speaker of the House, who said, participating in votes, is of less and less I think with great wisdom—and I was with her at importance—perhaps because it has become so lunch—“I am the Member for West Bromwich in predictable and they find that other activities are Westminster; I am not Westminster’s representative claiming their time. in West Bromwich”? Was Baroness Boothroyd right in saying that or was she wrong? Is not the prime Q104Chairman: Such as? responsibility of Members of Parliament to Mr Forth: I do not want to begin to imagine, Sir scrutinise the government of the day, and to hold the Nicholas, because it is beyond my powers to imagine government of the day to account over what it does, what could be more important than legislating for a the management of the aVairs of this country, and Member of Parliament. the legislation that it is introducing? Barbara Follett: Absolutely. But there has been a Q105 Mr McWalter: Chairman, could I perhaps— change. I am going to just take it away from Mr Forth: Ah! Westminster for a minute and let’s have a look at the Royal Family. It is the “tabloidisation”: they are Q106 Mr McWalter: The Right Honourable seen as remote and in an ivory tower if they are doing Member is sitting here giving us evidence when he their job of going through red boxes or whatever but could be legislating on the Justice (Northern are seen as part of the people if they are out, leaning Ireland) Bill [Lords] or attending its second reading. down and holding sick babies. I am afraid some of His presence here is testimony to the fact that MPs this has been associated with MPs as well: we are have various demands on their time, including, quite meant to be out there much more than ever we were, often, not being able to involve the legislative and visibly out there. I happen to agree with what process. His presence doth contradict himself, as it you have said, Sir Nicholas, and for once to be in were. agreement with the Right Honourable gentleman on Mr Forth: That is a particularly subtle point from what the main role of a parliamentarian is, but, one of the more subtle Members of the House and I remember, those are the people who sent you here will plead semi-guilty on this occasion, Sir Nicholas, and who perceive you as having a diVerent role. I that, yes, I have accepted the invitation that your think there is actually a job of work to be done, not select committee kindly gave me, which I regarded by this Committee but by the other committee on really as a summons—and— which both you and I serve. Chairman: Thank you. Q107 Chairman: Correct. Mr Forth: Indeed. And I am very happy to respond Q110 Mr Swayne: How do you greet the suggestion to that summons for what is a truly parliamentary that we might deal with some of the time constraints occasion. On advice from the honourable in standing committee by restraining the length at gentleman, I will slightly modify what I said and say which members might speak or, indeed, the number that parliamentary activities, whether legislative or of times that they might speak? select committee, should take absolute priority, and Mr Forth: That is completely unacceptable. I thank him for the modification. Chairman: In standing committee and the House? Mr Swayne: In standing committee. Q108 Chairman: Barbara Follett, before I go back to Desmond Swayne? Q111 Chairman: In standing committee. Barbara Follett: I think that Eric Forth has touched Mr Forth: No, that is completely and utterly on a very important point. The role of Parliament unacceptable. Because I thought that one of the has been diminished—and it has not just been under functions of Parliament was debate, the free this Government. I remember, when I was studying exchange of views and ideas, and the only way that government at LSE, you know, that it goes right can be carried out properly, I believe, is by back into the fifties, when things changed: the unrestrained contributions—and, if necessary, serial Executive became more powerful; we have had and repeated contributions. Because that is what successive governments with large majorities for a debate must be. That is particularly so dealing either long time; but also the role of an MPhas changed. with a complex subject or, indeed, seeking to There have come in recently, I think, many more represent legitimate outside interests, for example; demands for an MPto be in his or her constituency. and a combination of complexity and outside 9504591002 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:06:14 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 40 Procedure Committee: Evidence
10 March 2004 Rt Hon Eric Forth MP and Barbara Follett MP interests, I would have thought, would suggest that, Government does not have a majority there and, other than, as Barbara mentioned a moment ago, the more crucially, because the Government cannot yet excellence of Sir Nicholas’s chairmanship of control the timetable in the Lords (although it is standing committees which is legendary—and of desperately anxious to do so, for the reasons we have course performs the function of restraint that is quite been discussing). I say this because the crucial rightly to be there— diVerence with a Finance Bill, of course, is that it Barbara Follett: Yes. does not go to their Lordships. Mr Forth: —all I would say is that, in a sense, there is occasionally a battle of wills and wits between Q113 Mr Burnett: It never goes there. members of a committee and the chairman thereof, Mr Forth: And therefore there is an even greater or, indeed, members on the floor of the House and responsibility on us to make a proper job of it. There the occupant of the chair—a battle in which I have I think I would go back to the pearl that Mr Burnett occasionally participated myself—and that is missed at the beginning—it was my pearl, as it perfectly legitimate as well. But I think that once one happens!—and that is that there should be no starts to talk of arbitrary time limits, one is getting constraint on committees ab initio, but, if the into very dangerous territory indeed, and I hope the committee starts grotesquely to misbehave or Committee will not pursue that. whatever, then it is always for the government to Barbara Follett: I find myself, once again, in step in and seek to put a time limit on it but only after agreement with the Right Honourable gentleman. I the committee has demonstrated its incapacity or think there should not be a constraint on time or on inability. contributions. But it does go back to chairing and Mr Burnett: I must come back to Mr Forth on that. chairing very tightly, because sometimes that does Chairman: I cannot stop you, John Burnett. not happen, and it is when that does not happen that the real cut and thrust of the debate goes and people Q114Mr Burnett: Thank you, Mr Chairman. What glaze over and get bored. does Mr Forth mean by “grotesquely to Chairman: Before I pass back finally to one question misbehave”? Because there are many clauses in that I know Mr Swayne wants to ask, John Burnett many Finance Bills—very diYcult, very arcane wants to intervene. subjects—that are worthy of days of debate. Mr Burnett: I have only very recently arrived, so I Mr Forth: Yes. have missed out on many pearls of wisdom, I am sure. Chairman: You have! Q115 Mr Burnett: I could give you share option schemes, for example. Mr Forth: One then gets into the fascinating Q112 Mr Burnett: If there are no constraints on time, complexities of the membership of the committee, its what would happen, for example, with a two-volume expertise and ability and so on, but also perhaps— Finance Bill which could be debated for two years? It could easily be debated, I can tell you, for two or Q116 Mr Burnett: You have not answered my three years. question. Barbara Follett: I agree with you and obviously Mr Forth: I am about to. Crucially, on that bill, there has to be a certain amount of programming. maybe more than most or maybe more than any The constraints I do not really want are on the other, the committee should be unconstrained and amount of time a member on a standing committee find its own pace and decide its own priorities in can speak or on the frequency or for how long that terms of what it will debate, which parts of the bill it member can speak. I do remember, on the will look at and so on, and maybe even—dare I say Employment Relations Bill, a particularly it?—sit rather longer hours than the average idle impassioned subject about trade union membership committee these days chooses to sit? It is always for people from sects like the Plymouth Brethren— open to the standing committee, is it not, if it is about which I was extremely interested because my unconstrained by the government, to sit for lengthy husband’s family happen to be Plymouth hours in order properly to deliberate? Brethren—that went on at length, and there was a great deal of back and forth—of very illuminating back and forth on that—and we needed it. We had Q117 Mr Burnett: I am sorry, I have not had an to have it. We do not always know that beforehand. answer. I agree with the hours: longer hours for But I do think that the chairs have to be tougher— Finance Bills. We do fairly long hours—I mean, I because they are not always as tough as Sir Nicholas. have done most of them since I have been in the Mr Forth: There is a very crucial point about the House, all but one very short early one. Mr Forth Finance Bill—and I am rather glad John Burnett has must realise that there has to be some constraint raised it. One of the ghosts at this feast is the House because it has to be wrapped up before the summer of Lords. It is worth mentioning, I think, even if just recess. in passing, Sir Nicholas, that if the House of Mr Forth: In the end, of course, the government is Commons is going to derogate from its in control. responsibilities in proper scrutiny, it will and is inevitably passing that to the House of Lords, which, Q118 Mr Burnett: But I think you said earlier that in my view, is now becoming the superior Chamber really the government should not have that level of in terms of eVective scrutiny. Why? Because the control. What sort of control do you actually mean? 9504591002 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:06:14 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 41
10 March 2004 Rt Hon Eric Forth MP and Barbara Follett MP
Mr Forth: Again, perhaps John would actually read satisfactory way to cater for the other 40 members the transcript and get the answer, but I will give it who are distributed over, what, seven or eight again, without wanting to be too tedious. The point parties, including one very distinguished I am making—and I think it is valid here as well—is independent Member of Parliament currently—and that no committee should be constrained by the one whipless one as well, now that we are government when it embarks on its deliberations. mentioning it! How you cater for that diversity is the Only if the government comes to the conclusion, real problem. I do not think we have ever really got after giving the committee a very wide degree of round to tackling it. Even picking up the consensus latitude, that either it is unnecessarily delaying its dreamer’s point and saying, “Can’t we all sit round deliberations or it is running out of time—and in the in a cosy sort of consensus and hash these things case of the Finance Bill, the normal constraints of out?” again it is diYcult to see how you could resolve the session—then the Government always has the these sort of numbers in that respect—because, with capability to step in. We could of course get into—I the governing party with 400 out of 600 and doubt if you want me to at this stage, Sir Nicholas, something, and the main opposition party with a but I leave it as a thought—the whole structure of paltry 160, how do you deal with the Scottish the parliamentary year, because it is perfectly Nationalists or Plaid Cymru or the SDLP? possible that we should be arguing that the budget should be in October/November or November, at Q122 Chairman: Ulster Unionists? the beginning of the session, allowing the Finance Mr Forth: I will not go through the whole list, Sir Bill Committee then to commence its deliberations, Nicholas, but I think this is a very real problem. For let us say, in January and deliberate for four or five a long time, as I recall, the Liberal Democrats were months. There may be an answer there. I would given the responsibility to speak on behalf of the so- suggest to your Committee, Sir Nicholas, that you called minority parties. That broke down because I should not feel constrained by what is now; maybe think in the end even they were not, it was felt, able you should think out of the box and say, “Let’s satisfactorily to represent that interest because change the whole parliamentary year around.” That putting together all the minorities in one did not do might give us the answer. justice to each of the minorities. So I do not have an Chairman: We are grateful for the challenge, answer to it. I think what Mr Swayne has said is a Mr Forth. I am sure we will take it up and positive suggestion but I think in our Parliament it is consider it. diYcult to cater for these small minorities when you have such an overwhelming number from the Q119 Mr Swayne: To what extent are the interests of major parties. backbenchers and, indeed, minority parties catered Mr McWalter: Order B currently sets out a for by the existing arrangements, existing provision of having a programme committee for procedures? Are they satisfactory? report stage and third reading. In practice, the Barbara Follett: Is this programming particularly? provisions of Order B are disapplied unless there is a committee of the whole House, so you do not Q120 Mr Swayne: Yes, within the programming. actually get a programming committee to allocate Barbara Follett: I know that the minority parties the time for those stages. You have both indicated— would say that they are not catered for because I and we are grateful for that—in response to earlier have heard them say this. I do not have any questions, that you think actually those later stages particular experience of it, but they definitely feel are more important than currently they are that. With backbenchers—Mr Forth is completely evaluated as being. Do you think the Programme right—at the moment the average number of times a Committee could have a role in trying to ensure that Labour backbencher can hope to speak is about 4.5 there is an appropriate portion of time and that it or 5 times a year. And I really do not mind: you then does give members, particularly those who have not decide where you are going to use that limit. But had an opportunity to speak at second reading or at sometimes, when your constituents feel very standing committee, an opportunity to contribute to strongly about something, it is a problem. I know the formation of the bill? that some changes have been made to how people are called but in fact they are still called really in Q123 Chairman: Tony McWalter has asked a very hierarchical fashion. The system does not, I do not serious and, I think, a very, very sensitive and think, work terribly well for backbenchers, but I do important question. not really know how to make it work better. Barbara Follett: I am inclined to say yes, much as I do not like over-regulating situations, but just Q121 Mr Swayne: Might I suggest a programme to because of the problems that Desmond Swayne educate backbenchers and, indeed, the spokesmen raised, we do have to give chances for the multitude of minority parties as to how they table amendments of views there are in this House. I would just like to to secure the head of a group and then they will be correct Eric Forth: there are two whipless ones at the called first. moment. Mr Galloway. Barbara Follett: That is true. Mr Forth: Ah! Mr Forth: I think there is always a diYculty in a Barbara Follett: We have to make sure they are parliament of 650-odd—sometimes very odd!— heard and their points of view heard, so I think there members, where 610 of them belong to the three is a case for it. But it is something we would have to major parties. It is very diYcult for us to find a approach with extreme caution. 9504591002 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:06:14 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 42 Procedure Committee: Evidence
10 March 2004 Rt Hon Eric Forth MP and Barbara Follett MP
Q124Mr McWalter: The Member for Bromley does government backbenchers/opposition members to not like programming of committees, so presumably consult with the interest groups, to receive their he is going to think that there is no role for the possible draft amendments, to have the debate in Programme Committee, even though it is trying to committee, see the amendments debated and so on, achieve an end with which I suspect he would agree. becomes very limited indeed. And my fear is that, at Mr Forth: How well you know me, sir! worst, that may either discourage the outside groups from wanting to take legitimate part in the Q125 Chairman: You had better answer him, parliamentary process and/or it may shunt their Mr Forth. participation from the Commons to the Lords. If Mr Forth: Yes, I had better. members of the Committee are satisfied or relaxed about the burden of the parliamentary scrutiny and consultation process going to their Lordships’ Q126 Mr McWalter: I have been entertained by you House, that is a very interesting and very important many times. decision to make. But if we, as members of this Mr Forth: Mr McWalter is half right. I will concede House of Commons, want to continue to regard our that the existence of the programming sub- role as being prime, then I think we have to look at committees is a step in the right direction, in that it all this very seriously indeed. provides a vehicle potentially for discussion and Barbara Follett: I think our role should be prime, debate, and that does happen. One is aware of that. and is prime. We have to make sure that we guard But let’s not forget, Sir Nicholas, in the end the it—which is why I am glad that this Committee is government has a majority. In our parliamentary conducting this investigation. I think Mr Illsley’s system, the government always has a majority and question is a very good one because this is rather the government will always get its way. Therefore, in Y Y that sense, I do not think we should look too much to di cult to do. I suspect it was di cult well before the Programming Sub-Committee process to resolve programming came in because governments of any many of these problems because, quite simply, in the kind want to move their legislation through fairly end the government will decide and it will have its quickly: with or without programming, they have to way. I think we can say that they are an attempt to get it all through by the summer or all through by move us forward, and on some bills and with the Easter. I think that we probably have to look to pre- chemistry between some members they will achieve legislative scrutiny for most of the input. For a result, but I do not think they are the answer example, the Housing Bill had an enormous amount because, in the end, if there is a government of pre-legislative scrutiny, and I have not looked at determination to push a bill through in a particular the amendments recently but there were not as many time, at whatever stage, the government will have its as usual on a bill of that size and of that interest way anyway. because they had had so many representations beforehand. I think there are going to be one or two things that are suddenly thrown up, but with firms Q127 Mr Illsley: Just to come back to the suggestion and with interest groups now employing lobbyists I think, Eric, you made in your submission, that who look ahead, look at what the Queen’s Speech is programming is squeezing the amount of time that going to bring—I am already getting lobbied on outside bodies have to input into a committee stage potential legislation in the next Queen’s Speech, stuV of the bill, could I ask for a comment from you both which, frankly, I had not even realised we were going on how we can enhance that or protect it under the to think about, and probably we are not or possibly programming system. Do you think it is the case that we are not—people are ahead of the game. I think we outside bodies are getting less time? Other than, say, are probably going to have to look at front-ending the special standing committee or the draft and pre- for a lot of that consultation process, with only one legislative scrutiny, is there any way we can maintain or two bigger glitches coming up later. I know this is that outside input into a committee stage? adiVerence between how Mr Forth and I look at it. Mr Forth: My contention would be not whilst the system at the moment is determined to constrain standing committee time to the extent it now is. Q128 Chairman: Could I pose a simple question to Committees are now shockingly brief compared to both of you (again, a yes or no answer): Is it your what they used to be, and of course I concede that in view that successive governments have sought to put the old days a lot of time was wasted by through too much legislation? filibustering—and, frankly, low-grade filibustering, Mr Forth: Yes. Sir Nicholas, if I may say so: I like to see a bit of Barbara Follett: Yes. quality filibustering, but the low grade stuV is pretty oVensive! If one just thinks in one’s mind through the process—putting aside pre-legislative scrutiny Q129 Mr Illsley: At the moment, if a division in the for the moment, and I fully concede that that is or House is called during a programmed committee should be an opportunity for a very full consultation stage there is no facility whereby we can add on of legitimate outside interests and I would welcome injury time. Would you agree we can extend the that—once one gets into the parliamentary stage, if amount of time taken for the division? In other you get a fairly rapid succession between the first words, do you agree injury time for divisions, even reading of a bill, its second reading debate, moving where there is a programme motion? into standing committee, very brief standing Mr Forth: I would have thought that would be a very committee and so on, then the opportunity for helpful, if relatively minor, improvement. 9504591002 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:06:14 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 43
10 March 2004 Rt Hon Eric Forth MP and Barbara Follett MP
Barbara Follett: My only caveat is the number of to prevent abuse, repetition or whatever it may be divisions that may occur. But, I think, in principle, within the committee, but maybe that could be yes, as long at it was not abused. extended; that, if a sense emerged that a particular Chairman: Could we now pass on to the role of matter deserved further attention and yet a knife or chairman. Barbara Follett has referred to this in a guillotine was going to intervene, a degree of some of the answers she has given. flexibility could be introduced. Maybe the committee could even interrupt proceedings, having taken informal soundings, convene a meeting of the Q130 Mr McWalter: I was interested in the view, I Programming Sub-Committee there and then, and think of both, of you that, in a way, chairmen of seek to get an agreement for some sort of extension committees could potentially be much more or relaxation of time limits. I find that a rather proactive about the management of the business and attractive idea. trying to gather the sense of the committee when it Barbara Follett: I do too. I think it might have even is clear that it wants to spend a bit more time on a happened on the Fire and Rescue Services Bill at particular event. Certainly, I was in a Northern one point. Ireland committee at one stage, at a very sensitive part of the evolution of the Belfast Agreement, and Mr Illsley: That power is available too. It actually we were guillotining some stuV that actually meant happens. It is usually through the usual channels, that people were potentially were moving into a where the usual channels would realise that a situation where they might have agreed, the guillotine is likely to fall and preclude debate. They guillotine came down and they both ended up on would agree with the Programming Sub-Committee. opposite sides of the division bell. I think it actually did some damage to the peace process, so I think Q131 Mr McWalter: Where the usual channels these things can be quite important. The question is work, I do not think any of us have a problem with how we get the chair to do that kind of work. I it. We all have a feeling that usual channels often do suppose, as the Procedure Committee, we are not work. Indeed, we all know government whips, looking to see if there is some way in which perhaps when they put you on a committee, say, “We’ll put it should be formalised in standing orders so that you on a committee but you will not speak, will they have some responsibility to seek to protect the you?” They do not say that to me but I hear they say interests of all backbenchers or all parties, or it to other people. There is a sense in which getting however you put it, in the conduct of proceedings. the business through quickly is often given such a Then there is still an issue about how they do it. The large priority that the eVorts of somebody to suggestion we are entertaining at the moment—and influence the way the debate goes is given shorter it may not come to this, and I am sure Mr Forth will shrift than it should be. There are two potential not like it—is the thought that the chair could custodians of that. One certainly is the usual actually convene the Programming Sub-Committee channels, but I suspect that that is not a very good and say, “Look, it is clear there is much more interest in this clause than was previously thought. It is vital custodian in a lot of cases, and the other is someone we give it an extra day.” Do you think that some representing the Speaker who is there to represent formalisation of what you are admitting to be the the interests of Parliament that a full examination of responsibility of the chair, an enhanced the legislation be held. That is the thinking we have responsibility for the chair, is appropriate. How behind thinking that the chair really does need to be would we do it? Would that compromise the given a stronger role. It becomes accepted it will be impartiality of the chairman if in fact he or she was normal and more unusual than it is now. You are seen to be proactive in making changes to the both nodding; that is good. timetable in that kind of way? Barbara Follett: I would like to see that happen; I Mr Forth: I suppose I have to declare an interest as think it is a very good idea. a relatively new member of the Chairmen’s Panel on Mr Forth: That leads me into making one this, and the Committee should be aware of that. extraordinarily risky observation and that is, I would be rather attracted by the thrust of following that point and again agreeing with it, that Mr McWalter’s question, Sir Nicholas, because I see the Chairman of Ways and Means might want to no problem with giving a chairman a greater and look even more carefully than I am sure he presently more positive role. After all, there is a convention, is does at the appointment of chairmen of certain there not, that the chairman, if he knows the committees to ensure that the chairmen, because, committee that he is going to chair will not these days, we invariably have co-chairman, were of participate in the divisions at second reading, and suitable weight and experience to grip what could be that the chairman is, in a sense, the representative of adiYcult committee. Although I have said over and Mr Speaker and must therefore have a strictly over again that the Government cannot and should impartial role. That I think is well understood and I not seek to anticipate the length of deliberations, I am sure it is completely observed. Going forward think we all have a fairly good feeling for when a from that, I would have thought that if there were a committee is likely to be relatively uncontroversial general agreement about it, it maybe would be or likely to be a real hot potato and I would have worth, for an experimental period, seeing if giving thought that, following Mr McWalter’s very standing committee chairmen a greater role would interesting and positive suggestion, the appointment work. The chairmen already have very considerable of chairman would have to reflect that in order to powers, as Sir Nicholas knows and exercises, to seek make it work eVectively. 9504591002 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:06:14 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 44 Procedure Committee: Evidence
10 March 2004 Rt Hon Eric Forth MP and Barbara Follett MP
Chairman: I am very encouraged by what the parliamentary session, do you think that carry-over witnesses have said because, though I should not say should also apply to private members’ bills which it from the chair, it happens to meet my own view have not appeared in either a government because I do believe that chairmen of committees programme at the beginning of the session or of can have a major influence on the way in which the course inevitably in an election manifesto? Committee is conducted and the way in which they Barbara Follett: I have never considered that, so I proceed with their responsibilities and I think that am thinking about it carefully. My instinct is the House should recognise that in a more positive probably “yes”. There have been some really good way. Can we now come to David Wright who is private members’ bills such as high hedges and the going to deal with the annual programme. one on gangmasters. There have also been some seriously wacky ones. Q132 David Wright: I did manage to sneak my question earlier on in the session in part. My final Q134Chairman: Where do the wacky ones as part of the question was about carry-over and you against the other ones produce the balance? have mentioned carry-over briefly. Do you think Barbara Follett: You can hear me weighing this up. that carry-over is a successful or will be potentially My instinct is to look at it very carefully and say a successful device in terms of improving “possibly”. I am afraid that I am going to sit on the opportunities for contributions and improving fence here because I do not know enough about it opportunities for opposition? One example that I but I can see that there are virtues. can think of recently is the Planning Bill which was Chairman: I think you are a considerable politician carried over. I managed to speak in second reading with that last response! Are there any other remarks in committee and on both report days and there was that either of our excellent witnesses, Eric Forth and quite a significant amount of time available for Barbara Follett, would like to make to the contributions. Does carry-over not mean better Committee before we conclude our deliberations? scrutiny? Mr Forth: No. It is a mirage! I will show my hand at Q135 Mr Illsley: It is a question in relation to the this stage because I think that the Government are annual programme and it is question for Eric Forth. fooling themselves. What carry-over does is buys What would be your reaction to a system perhaps— time and more legislation in year one and probably and I am thinking of a rough and ready system oV year two but, come years three and four of a the top of my head—where we agreed through the Parliament, if the Government are not very clever usual channels at a Queen’s Speech that we have a and very self-disciplined, the congestion of system whereby the length of time available to a bill legislation will have been pushed towards the back is determined on the size of the bill, the number of end of the Parliament. I am actually rather relaxed clauses and whatever, and you had a start date and about it as a member of the opposition currently. an end date but the opposition were allowed to The Government may well benefit in the early years determine how the time in between was dealt with? of carry-over through lack of self-discipline or Could that be acceptable as a form of programming running into time diYculties in one session or to you or is the end date the crucial aspect? another but I do not think that, in the longer term, Mr Forth: The end date is crucial. If I can give away it will benefit the Government or indeed the another trade secret, I actually think that knives are parliamentary process. To that extent, I think it is helpful to the filibusterers, if there ever were any a fiddle. such people and if they managed to escape the eagle Barbara Follett: I could not disagree more with Eric eye of the Chair of the Committee. No, it is the end Forth on that. I think that carry-over is part of date that is absolutely crucial to this. The opposition trying to get the proper scrutiny of legislation and gains very little if the Government say in a spirit of also to get proper legislation through. Quite a lot of rare generosity, “Having set a very tight ending, you legislation over the past 50 years has been too can decide how much time is used up on diVerent rushed, has not been thought through and things in the Committee” because the opposition governments of all colours have had to retract or will say, “Fine, but if it is not enough time for the wished they had never put it through. I like carry- whole bill, all we are doing as the opposition is over. The Planning Bill is an absolutely good taking the blame for parts of the bill not being example. It is very complex, people have strong scrutinised.” feelings about almost every clause of it, your constituents about strong feelings about and people V V Q136 Chairman: Following up Eric Illsley’s very have di erent attitudes in di erent regions. I do sensible and constructive point, do you think that if think that, if it is used wisely, it is an immensely there were more meaningful discussion between the helpful tool. If it is used badly and in a disorganised government of the day and the usual channels of the fashion, what Mr Forth said may come to pass and Y government and Her Majesty’s opposition and other an ine cient government would rue it, but I think opposition parties that an end date or an out date that carry-over is useful. could be agreed that was acceptable to all parties or a majority of parties in the House? Q133 Chairman: Can I just put to you the question Mr Forth: I do not see how the opposition can know that, while a case could be made out for the carry how long a committee stage will take either. The over of government business announced in an criticisms I have made of the government would election manifesto or at the beginning of a apply equally to the opposition. I, for the life of 9504591002 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:06:14 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 45
10 March 2004 Rt Hon Eric Forth MP and Barbara Follett MP me, cannot see how a responsible and eVective incorporated into the system. So, I would hope that opposition can predict before the Committee even we might find a way forward on that. Without that, starts deliberating how long proper scrutiny is likely you end of course with an opposition saying, to take and, worse than that, what we are saying “Yippee, you want 35 bills but you are going to be potentially is that the Government will start with a lucky to see five of them” and that cannot be right hugely ambitious legislative programme and then either. That is the constraint that I think we are all come to the opposition and say, “Given that we are under. going to want 35 bills this session, we want you to agree now how we are going to shoehorn that in.” Q138 Chairman: Do you want to comment on that? Mr Forth: I think that would be a step in the right direction and would be worth trying. Q137 Chairman: Both you and Barbara Follett have Barbara Follett: I agree. indicated that, in your views, there is too much David Wright: The diYculty is whether the legislation being sought by successive governments. opposition to a bill comes from the Government’s We have taken that on board and, if we can control own benches! that, is the question I put more relevant? Chairman: Maybe that is a point on which we should Mr Forth: Yes. If your Committee can constrain the conclude! Government’s excessive legislating, then we will all Mr McWalter: The opposition then say, “They’re cheer! taking our time!” Mr McWalter: I am not sure that is quite the point. Mr Swayne: Can we bring this community love fest If, for instance, there was an out date and it was to a conclusion! agreed and, without filibustering and in view of Chairman: We were just about to do that. I thought complications during the course of the bill including you were interrupting my deliberations and my obviously very often large numbers of government decision to do that. Can I, on behalf of the Procedure amendments and so on, the chairs had the powers we Committee, thank the right honourable Eric Forth were talking about earlier, it would not be too bad to and Barbara Follett for, I think, the most have an indicative out date that people were working enlightening and the most invigorating and the most towards and, where it had become clear that that was exciting and, in a way, the most provocative unrealistic, that that could be shunted for a couple evidence that we have so far received. I am confident of weeks or whatever. It might be possible to that it will form part of the recommendations that combine the idea of having some form of constraint we ultimately produce in our report and can I thank with some sort of discipline in the process with also you both very much for the very lengthy responses having a degree of flexibility about how the actual you have given and the very positive responses that need to debate the matter properly can be you have given to the questions put to you. 958781PAG1 Page Type [SE] 09-07-04 01:06:23 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 46 Procedure Committee: Evidence
Wednesday 24 March 2004
Members present
Sir Nicholas Winterton, in the Chair
Mr Peter Atkinson Mr Tony McWalter David Hamilton Sir Robert Smith Rosemary McKenna David Wright
Witnesses: Mr Graham Allen, Mr Mark Fisher, Mr Richard Shepherd, Mr Paul Tyler and Rt Hon Sir George Young Bt, Members of the House, examined.
Q139 Chairman: Can I warmly welcome our allowed Parliament, and specifically allowed the witnesses this afternoon who will help us with our Opposition, the ability to internally timetable a inquiry into the Programming of Legislation. I think Bill. As a closet moderniser who for some reason it is true to say that all of our five witnesses are got into the Whips’ OYce, I thought this was a experienced and distinguished Members of the great breakthrough. Indeed, on the Bills that I was House and I am very grateful to them for accepting whipping I used this to ultimate eVect whenever our invitation to come and help us with our inquiry. allowed to with the Opposition Whips to ensure We have Graham Allen on the extreme right— that the internal timetabling of Bills, for example Mr Allen: Not from where I am sitting, Chairman. on the Finance Bill when I was the Whip to the Chancellor and on Bills where I have been the Whip to the Deputy Prime Minister, was optimised Q140 Chairman:—whose views on reform are well for the benefit of the Opposition so that the key known and who represents Nottingham North. issues from Parliament’s point of view could be Mark Fisher represents an area not very far from my heard and the key issues from the Opposition’s own constituency, Stoke-on-Trent Central. Richard point of view could be heard. However, Shepherd, the Conservative Member for Aldridge- unfortunately, and again you will want me to be Brownhills, and his position as regards the blunt, Chairman— importance of Parliament and freedom of information are very well known. Paul Tyler, again a distinguished Liberal Democrat who has a great Q141 Chairman: I do indeed. deal to do with changes in this place. Sir George Mr Allen: I think it is fair to say that because of Young, who has held important ministerial oYce. the particular personalities who were dominant in We are very grateful to you all for coming to help us the chief Opposition Party, the Shadow Leader of with our inquiry. It is important. There is the House and Shadow Chief Whip and other considerable dissatisfaction at the way that personalities, it was felt at that point that somehow programming is working, not the concept of this was collaboration and that this was a trick and programming itself. Can I put the first question? It Parliament was better served by keeping MPs here appears that there is a fundamental diVerence of to three o’clock in the morning and all that view between those who seek to divide up the time nonsense which, thankfully, we have done away available in an agreed manner and those who view with. That philosophy, that mentality of a scorched programming as a measure which prevents Bills earth parliamentary view, which has meant that being properly examined. Do you see any way of Oppositions have achieved very little change over reconciling these two views? Can I perhaps start with the years, predominated in the higher decision a Government Party Member, Graham Allen. making circles of the Conservative Party. The result Mr Allen: Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, was, of course, that many Government Whips colleagues, for your very kind invitation to address were, therefore, left high and dry wishing to you today. I think it might be helpful just to say a participate constructively with their opposite word or two about the history of this, certainly numbers but with their opposite numbers unable to from my own perspective since I was incarcerated assist because of the orders they were working in the Government Whips’ OYce at the time this under. Therefore, Government Whips could not happened. The Government Chief Whip who then say “Fine, we will have to withdraw the Bill”, moved this on most was Mrs Ann Taylor, and I Government Whips were then put in the position would claim some credit, if allowed to, as one of of saying “Well, if you are not prepared to make Mrs Taylor’s greatest supporters on moving me an oVer on what the internal timetable should programming forward. The original concept was be, I have to bring in the internal timetable myself, that providing the Government got its Bill by a perhaps on some sort of crude division of the given date, an out-date from committee, the clauses half by half way, a quarter by a quarter of internal timetable actually since, to be blunt, the way”, that sort of stuV. In many ways, the Government could command the majority of votes failure of this experiment, which I think was in a Standing Committee and on the floor did not unbelievably generous and uncharacteristically matter as much as the out-date. I think in a fit of generous by governments of whatever party, generosity, which in some cases you may say has occurred because the Opposition failed to take backfired, the Government quite counter-culturally advantage of it. Now we are in a situation where 9587811000 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:06:23 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 47
24 March 2004 Mr Graham Allen MP, Mr Mark Fisher MP, Mr Richard Shepherd MP, Mr Paul Tyler MP and Rt Hon Sir George Young Bt, MP the collective memory of people like myself and early in other sessions because we had reached the Mrs Taylor and that generation of Whips has gone, appropriate milestone. I think what is needed is so Government Whips now assume that it is their more flexibility within the agreed out-date to do right to internally timetable and we have ended up justice to the Bill. In answering your question, if I with an Opposition in a position where they not may say so, I think there may be a third way between only have to suVer an out-date being imposed upon those who are fundamentally opposed to any them, they also have to suVer and then complain programming, on the one hand, and those who and whinge and say “Oh, my goodness, this is adopt a rather rigid approach on the other. It seems terrible how we are being forced to do this” having that we have not quite found that third way with the the internal timetable. flexibility that we need in order to make the system work satisfactorily. Q142 Chairman: Surely as a parliamentarian, believing in parliamentary democracy, you cannot Q144 Chairman: Thank you. This Committee is believe it right for large tranches of legislation to go really charged with the duty to find the very way in through undebated because of the coming down of which it will work, and work for the benefit of the the knives? House. Paul Tyler. Mr Allen: Absolutely. That is why, firstly, an Mr Tyler: Chairman, I very much welcome the fact appropriate amount of time should be agreed for thatyourCommitteeislookingatthisbecause,asyou discussion but, secondly, where the key issues are will know from your work on the Modernisation to be debated they should be in the gift of the Committee, we got so far and frankly got stuck. I Opposition, I think that is a generous thing to say, think bringing fresh minds to this is very helpful. and then the key issues are by definition, from the Perhaps I might just ask you and your colleagues, if Opposition’s point of view, going to be debated. If you have not already done so, to look at a very small that is forgone then I am afraid we are back in a written piece of evidence that I gave to that position of which I will give just one very brief Committee which is in our report on Programming of example. I have just finished on the Higher Bills, the first report of Session 2002-03,1 which at Education Bill and there were two superb debates least has the advantage of being less than a page long from all points of the House on the two key clauses and there are not many documents of that kind in this and the rest of the time was being wasted quite building. I will not take you through that, Chairman, deliberately in order to say “Oh, we did not have but can I just go back to points that colleagues have enough time to discuss some other key clauses”. It madealready.Ithinkthecriticalissueistoensurethat is a game, Chairman, and it is a game which those who are going to have the most active role in ultimately leads Parliament to be held in contempt decidingprogrammingarethosewhohaveaninterest by those we represent. It is far more sensible to in its success. By that I mean that those who are have a realistic timetable where, above all, actually within the Committee, it seems to me, on a Opposition spokespeople can have their say so that Bill should have the responsibility for deciding how Parliament can be seen to be debating some of these that Bill should be considered. You from your issues seriously. experience, Chairman, as Chair of many a Standing Committee, will be well aware that where that degree Q143 Chairman: Thank you. Sir George Young. of responsibility is accepted by the Committee, and Sir George Young: I agree with what Graham Allen given to it and recognised by the Members of the said at the beginning, I think the Government is Committee, there is a much greater likelihood of entitled to an out-date. That has benefits not just to success in dealing with all parts of the Bill in a way Government but to those who are serving on which is not only satisfactory to both the Standing Committees, they know when the Bill will Government of the day and the Opposition but end, and it is a great help to those who are following produces a better product which surely must be what the Bill from outside. I have no diYculty with having we are all interested in. What I and my colleague were an out-date. I think what happened when the new suggesting on the Modernisation Committee is that regime started, as far as my memory is concerned, we should try, and it may be diYcult, as Graham was not exactly as Graham Allen indicated in that I Allen was suggesting, to return to the consensus that remember adding my name, as I think Mr Tyler wasthereattheoutsetofthisprocessinthisway:there added his name, to some of the Government should not be an attempt to programme time within programming motions. So when the new regime the envelope of the end date until the Committee was started there was not a total embargo from the actually set up, until the Members who know they are Opposition at that time to what was going on; going to be dealing with that Bill are in place. There indeed, as I said, we oYcially supported the concept. should not be any attempt to programme the timing What has happened is that for whatever reason there until the Committee of Selection has appointed the is not the flexibility within the time available to do Committee Members and those Committee justice to the Bill. There are Members on your Members have been accepted by the House. Committee, Chairman, who have served on more Thereafter it should be a matter for the Committee, Standing Committees probably than I have. using a Programming Sub-Committee, not only to Certainly in the last two years I have been on two decide the outline at the outset that they hope is going Bills and on both Bills there were clauses which were wholly undiscussed and at the same time we rose 1 HC 1222 (2002-03), Ev 1. 9587811000 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:06:23 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 48 Procedure Committee: Evidence
24 March 2004 Mr Graham Allen MP, Mr Mark Fisher MP, Mr Richard Shepherd MP, Mr Paul Tyler MP and Rt Hon Sir George Young Bt, MP to be able to work eYciently, but if there are changes, Bill, where we, as the Opposition,—many of these if suddenly there is a whole flood of new amendments issues go back to this—outrageously manipulated and new clauses from the Government, which is not the system to make life as diYcult, as pointlessly unheard of, that Programming Sub-Committee diYcult frankly, for the Government as we could. should beasked toconvene anddeal withthat matter. We thought we had no other way, we only had the If in other circumstances it seems that greater weapon of time, and we wanted to cause as much progress is being made than the original programme bother to a piece of legislation that we thought, with agreed by the Committee had outlined, then the hindsight possibly misguidedly, was wholly Chairman should be in a position to ask the misconceived and we did everything that we could Programming Sub-Committee to meet again and see session after session to delay it in a way that whether a revised programme is appropriate. Putting Members who were not in the House at that time the responsibility on the actual Members of the would find hard to believe, that we would go on Committee to decide how they want to allocate the regularly through the night in Committee totally time seems to me, and to my colleagues, a better way pointlessly. Mr John Golding taught me how to do of ensuring that the Opposition get what they want, ie what he called a “Swiss roll” of Committee debates important areas of concern to them are going to be where he would unroll his argument in favour of an discussed, those Government backbenchers who amendment and then he would say “Ah, we will now may have concerns about a particular Bill have a roll it back and I will argue against myself”, thus better opportunity to ensure that those areas of the doubling the amount of time that his speech took up Bill that they are concerned with are discussed, and it scrutinising a particular amendment. There were is very much a question of self-discipline within the lots of old hoary things like that and it was totally Committee rather than outsiders setting the terms of pointless, it was not helping the legislation of this that programme. House, it was not helping Parliament. It was a huge abuse and it gave rise to the quite correct momentum behind the idea of programming. There are plenty of Q145 Chairman: Can I tell colleagues that I want all signs that programming itself is open to abuse from of our witnesses to give this opening response, so the other side, from Government, and we have to Richard Shepherd will be after Mark Fisher, and find a way of acting in goodwill and by agreement. then any supplementary questions on this matter can That is going to be very diYcult. It is probably the be put. most political element of this legislature: time. It is Mr Fisher: Chairman, thank you very much. I think the one area where people have embedded vested for most Members of this House, the principle as interests and find it extremely diYcult to express you outlined it in your question is easy to agree, that goodwill and find a way of doing what all of us ought if programming is agreed by all sides then it is a to be doing, both ensuring that any Government thoroughly desirable and sensible way of conducting ultimately gets its legislation but that that legislation our business. Equally, it goes that if it is imposed is well and truly and properly scrutinised. It is quite then that is not the case. The practice is very much clear under this present system that is not Y more di cult because the distinction between happening, just as it did not happen under the old agreement and imposition, where one slides into the system, and that makes the work of your Committee other, is absolutely crucial. If we could always have so important. I feel I have not helped you at all find an out-date by agreement rather than by imposition a way of teasing out that middle ground, but that is that too would help. I would take this whole debate why we are here this afternoon. back one stage earlier, which is something that I know you and your Committee have looked at, and certainly all five of us in diVerent fora in this place Q146 Chairman: Exactly. I hope that by the end of have also looked at, the whole idea that Government the afternoon when we have finished questioning should have sole rights and say over the business of you that you all may have contributed to a solution this House. There are many of us in this room who which will form part of our report. Mr Richard believe that the business of the House should and Shepherd. ought to be a matter for the House itself by Mr Shepherd: Thank you. I do not believe you can agreement with the Government but not by tease out a solution to this. Your introductory imposition of the Government, and that is why remarks suggested, and I think you used the words, many of us promote the idea of some sort of Joint “divide up in an agreed manner” and reconciling Business Committee rather than having that with the consideration of Bills. The historic role Government impose both the content and the timing of legislation going through this House has to be to of all the business of this House. Of course, every cast the Opposition as the determinant of how a Bill Government has a mandate to govern, and that is all is driven. The Government proposes, it has a governments, has a right to its programme, its majority, it believes that the measure that it is legislation, its time and its business, but this House proposing is appropriate and in the interests of the also has duties and responsibilities and we have a nation and, therefore, it is up to the contrary view to duty and a responsibility in this House, whoever is in present its arguments, and that is how Parliament Government, to scrutinise the legislation that is put has always functioned. When consigned to before us. The very first Bill that I served on in this Committee without date, although we all know that House in 1983 was the privatisation of the there were informally agreed out-dates, the telecommunications industry, Mr John Golding’s Opposition itself determined where it was. It was 9587811000 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:06:23 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 49
24 March 2004 Mr Graham Allen MP, Mr Mark Fisher MP, Mr Richard Shepherd MP, Mr Paul Tyler MP and Rt Hon Sir George Young Bt, MP what Sir GeoVrey Bowman, I think, said to you, sir, House, by a majority on the floor of the House of and I in another Committee, that the political Commons. They also had to take the consequences consideration of measures, the legal consideration is of that. It was something to do with the terms of done elsewhere. In that context these measures that trade, as I think Sir George has often alluded to. have come in front of us, Sessional Orders, etc., There was a degree of negotiation that could take strike at the very heart of the primary purpose of part in that. I just make the note that even under Parliament, which is the antagonistic contesting of what is a diYcult old system, in 52 years only 46 Bills Government’s propositions. It is true that were guillotined and that meant that the Opposition Government is Government because it has a had a run of striking at those, and that was all parties majority and it will ultimately get its way, but we at the time, which they thought were inappropriate have a long history of weighing the balance of how or politically sensitive or whatever the political this has gone right through the last century and even judgment that was made by the Opposition. This has Erskine May itself says of these guillotines, because totally changed that and taken it away. On the that is what we are dealing with, we are looking at a apportionment of Bills, who knows where they are system that has no distinguishable features from the to be apportioned. I think back to the Poll Tax Bill. guillotine as was practised. I will just quote from the It was its lengthy process through the House of 1997 edition a short passage which says: “Guillotine Commons that actually began to unravel the motions . . . may be regarded as the extreme limit to argument that the then Government was advancing which procedure goes in aYrming the rights of the so that it limped on to the Statute Book with a majority at the expense of the minorities of the growing opposition from Conservative Members of House, and it cannot be denied that they are capable Parliament themselves. It was the process of of being used in such a way as to upset the balance, examination, long, lengthy and painful, that enabled generally so carefully preserved, between the claims people to actually reflect, “I begin to understand of business and the rights of debate”. I think it is very what this Bill is about”. We are now having a gaggle important to remember where we come from. If we of Bills go through. I am sorry to give such a lengthy look just across the last half century from the great answer but the nadir of the present system was on 29 Labour victory of 1945, in 46 years only 67 Bills were January 2001 when the Government introduced the guillotined; only three in the Parliament when Criminal Justice and Police Bill, as you may Labour came in with that huge programme of social remember. It was done under a tight guillotine, I reform, only three Bills were guillotined. Yet in the would call it, a timetable motion. In fact, it could not six years of New Labour from 3 June 1997 to 21 report out of Committee because Ann Widdecombe October, despite the attempts of my good friend and stood up and, therefore, it had to be reported back colleague, Sir George Young, and others at this table to the floor of the House of Commons that it had not to try and make progress by signing even an agreed concluded its discussion. What had happened there timetable motion, and six of them took place, this was the Bill had only reached clause 90 out of 132 Government has now guillotined 94 Bills. It is a clauses. There were amendments yet to be systematic way of asserting majoritarianism and, considered, and this was the important section on therefore, defeats and disengages both Members of the police itself. By doing that, the Government then Parliament and the public from the process of retreated, and I think this is the motive behind much legislation. of this, to an Order which says: “The Bill shall be deemed to have been reported to the House as Q147 Chairman: Before I ask my colleagues to come amended by the Committee and if those clauses and in on those questions that they wish to ask, schedules, the consideration of which has not been specifically can I ask Richard Shepherd: in your completed by the Committee, had been ordered to alternative draft report for the Modernisation stand part of the Bill with the outstanding Committee, you advocated a return to the system of amendments which stood on the Order Paper in the guillotining Bills when the Government has found name of Mr Charles Clarke.” The Speaker advised “that the delay in the scrutiny of Bills by the House is the House that there is no precedent for such a unreasonable”, rather than using programming from motion, ie the House voted for a lie. I have taken the the outset. How would you define “unreasonable extreme case but this is where this dainty argument delay”? In the previous system, did Standing leads to. Committees not waste time, as has been said by at Chairman: Thank you very much. We have had least one or two of our witnesses in their comments in some forceful views expressed. Are there any response to my question, clocking up 80 or 100 hours supplementaries on the answers that we have before the guillotine was actually imposed? Is not the received so far? programming system perhaps a more constructive Rosemary McKenna: Specifically on the last point, way to achieve organised debate? and it ties up with the point that was made earlier Mr Shepherd: Yes, it is true, and still in Standing that the Bill was reported to the House, that Orders, that under the guillotine procedures as set particular one and others, where not all the clauses out there, debates could go on in Committee until have been discussed. Is that not because the such time as the Government decided that this was Opposition was at that time playing games and counterproductive or not in its interest or deliberately not allowing discussion about specific inappropriate. That was a decision the Government clauses in order to be able to then say on the floor of took. It could be supported, as everything in this the House that this was not discussed? Is not all of 9587811000 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:06:23 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 50 Procedure Committee: Evidence
24 March 2004 Mr Graham Allen MP, Mr Mark Fisher MP, Mr Richard Shepherd MP, Mr Paul Tyler MP and Rt Hon Sir George Young Bt, MP that what we have to get our heads round and try counts as a Leader of the House or what counts as and say we want to find a method here of taking the sort of person who can be trusted to deliver, and things forward where that kind of thing cannot those mechanisms in fact mean that it was not an happen? I agree with Graham Allen, I think that it accident you ended up with some people who were does bring us into disrepute if we are seen to be hard to work with, you were replaced by people from playing that kind of game. outside as it were who were hard to work with as well. Is there anything which should be done about Q148 Chairman: I think that is really for Richard those mechanisms? Shepherd to answer. Mr Allen: I regard myself as a recovering Whip; as a Mr Shepherd: In respect of the Bill itself, the poacher turned gamekeeper for a period and Chairman of the Committee stated that there had hopefully now back poaching, Sir Nicholas. I hope been no impropriety in the discussion of that Bill. I did my job conscientiously and imaginatively, but nonetheless in terms of programming that was Y Q149 Rosemary McKenna: To say there is no something that the Whips’ O ce as a whole but impropriety is because it fits the rules of the House, certainly very strongly under the leadership of Mrs but it is if there is a deliberate ploy to prevent Taylor decided was a positive way to go. discussion. I have sat on a Bill where I have been there for a couple of hours thinking, “Why are we Q152 Mr McWalter: She has been sacked as well! discussing this clause? It means absolutely nothing”. Mr Allen: On this issue, to be serious, it was felt this I now understand that it was a game that was being was a commendable thing to do. We were trying to played. Would you not agree that there are often make Parliament work as best we could, certainly occasions when games are played that are not not releasing Parliament from the control of the helpful? executive because we had that out-date, which is Mr Shepherd: Within the envelope of the what the Government wants. In an odd way, law is timetabling? regarded by the political classes, and by that I mean the civil servants and the executive, as being far too Q150 Rosemary McKenna: Yes. important to leave to Parliament, and that is why we Mr Shepherd: I am sure there are, as there always have what is normally a farcical Standing will be in any system. Unless you are going to say Committee process. There can only probably be one that I have to debate line one within one and a half person in the room who feels any sense of minutes and spell it out, I do not see how you can satisfaction having sat through a Standing stop that. Debates find their own feet often within Committee process; it is not a fulfilling job. You are the envelope of the Committee stage. That is my there essentially to go through a ceremonial, you are concern, that you are cutting out the proper not there to give a positive contribution. In many consideration that it is for the Opposition to ways that is why some of us have sought to invent determine where they should fall. Most legislation pre-legislative scrutiny because legislative scrutiny is actually is non-contentious, we all know that, and in so appalling and so trivialising and so missing of all fact would go through routinely. The Liberal the key political issues. One of the key things about Democrats, for instance, supported the idea of programming too is that it allows not only the timetabling. What has happened in the event is they Opposition, which I have made great play of and for are now consistently voting against the timetabling good reason, to participate in debates but sensible, motions, for a variety of reasons which this agreed programming between the Whips—and it has Committee understands and which presumably will to be between the Whips, whether as many members form part of the discussion the Committee is going of the Committee are involved, as Mr Tyler says, as to have. possible but at the end of the day somebody has to be responsible for doing this deal—and the Whips Q151 Mr McWalter: I think the representations we acting sensibly can under this system ensure that have had so far are far too interesting to leave Government backbenchers can make a serious without some supplementaries. I was going to ask a contribution too. Invariably, under the current question of Graham Allen, because when I first came system Government backbenchers are told to shut to the House I had a conception of a Government up and bring their correspondence to Committee; Whip which I now know to be highly inaccurate, and another absolute farce which if people outside knew you were in fact my regional Whip and I very much was going on would be outraged. Again just in my admire the way you did the job and the most recent experience on the Higher Education extraordinary rationality and responsiveness to Bill, clearly there were strong diVerences in the Parliament which you showed, but you got sacked! Government party on this issue and they were I was wondering whether somebody is going to stay expressed, not merely very eloquently by Mrs as a Whip who is perceived to be giving scope to the Campbell and Mr Mudie, from one point of view, Opposition, or someone who is seen to be giving but also from people who thought the policy was an scope to those members of the Government side who extremely good one, who were allowed to express have a less than fully developed capacity to be a that view without taking precious time from the Trappist monk. The problem comes down to the fact Opposition, who participated very well in those that Government and Opposition both have a rather debates. So I think it is quite important to see this macho view of what counts as a Whip or what not merely as a way of getting the business through 9587811000 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:06:23 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 51
24 March 2004 Mr Graham Allen MP, Mr Mark Fisher MP, Mr Richard Shepherd MP, Mr Paul Tyler MP and Rt Hon Sir George Young Bt, MP the House but within the very tight constraints of the which is not always even within the governing party Standing Committee process—which we really necessarily in favour of the executive, which is my should break the taboo on and have a look at view, I think the Speaker, who speaks for whether we can do it better and in a diVerent way— Parliament, with the authority of Parliament, might ensure that Members of Parliament can express their be more deeply involved in agreeing in a sort of views and bring their experience and their objective way, or as objective as we can be, with the constituency view-point to make better law. I have various parties the appropriate length of time, not been on a Standing Committee in my 16, 17 perhaps starting by going on precedent. Certainly years in the House which actually ultimately has when I was doing programme motions—I do not really made better law in the way I would be satisfied know if it is the same now—it used to be the Deputy defending it publicly; it has been a formality most of Speakers who would be there to agree the the time. programming sub-committee timetable, and they Mr Atkinson: I would sympathise with a lot of what would be in the chair in a Standing Committee. That Mr Allen has just said, having sat through 176 hours brought some authority of a neutral nature which of the Local Government etc (Scotland) Bill as a actually assisted me as a Government Whip in Government backbencher and never opened my ensuring we had sensible, external and internal mouth once. I know the feeling. timetabling. So whether the OYce of Speaker—and Chairman: That was your fault! I do not mean the Speaker personally—could be used in a sensible and mature way by all parties to Q153 Mr Atkinson: The problem, and I talk now as help this process on is one possibility. If we choose a current Whip so I do not have any views, as you not to take that, if we choose to play games, as Ms V know, Chairman, is an out-date is fine but the McKenna says, all bets are o and we can be sat Government can abuse that out-date, and as the here, as we used to be, until late at night or in Government’s legislative timetable gets under Committee spending two or three days on clause 1, pressure then that out-date becomes unreasonable line 1, rather than doing what the electorate put us and that makes a mockery of the whole idea. The in to do, Sir Nicholas, which is to scrutinise and out-date works informally, but if the Government make the law better. tries to shorten that period of time it does not work. Sir George Young: You will only get the Opposition to agree the internal divisions of a Committee stage Q154Chairman: Thank you very much for that. I if they are comfortable about the out-date. Where think this Committee will give very serious we indicated assent to programming motions in the consideration to what you say. The only danger and last Parliament, that was because we had agreement problem is just how far can the OYce of Speaker get on the out-date. That has to be a pre-condition, as involved without the Speaker trespassing into what Mr Atkinson rightly says. If there is no agreement on could become party political, and we do not want to the out-date then of course you will not get undermine in any way the impartial and vital role of agreement on the subsequent division within a the Speaker in presiding over this House and the constricted timetable. If one wants to take this trick, interests of this House. and I think there is a way through, there has to be Mr Tyler: To add a couple of points, Chairman. an element of trust and understanding between the Safety valves, I think, are extremely important here, various parties involved. A key element has to be the partly because we want to prevent the Speaker being out-date. Now the Government can carry over Bills, Y a flexibility they did not have before to the same dragged into a di cult situation. Two safety valves extent, it ought to be easier to reach agreement with seem to me important. One is where a very the Opposition parties on out-date than it was considerable number of Government changes are before. Once you have achieved agreement on the proposed during the Committee stage. I believe very out-date then you can have a sensible discussion strongly that the Committee, under the guidance of about how you divide it up. So Mr Atkinson has the chair of that Committee, should then have a indicated a possible barrier which, if it was removed, responsibility, not just a right but a responsibility, to might enable us to make sensible progress. seek out whether there could be an extension of time. Mr Allen: If we go into game-playing, all bets are oV There have been occasions when the Government and we can all muck about and make 80 hours- has agreed to extensions of time but I think it should worth of speeches, et cetera, but we are no better for lie with the Committee through the chair to have it. If we act maturely, and the attempt to programme that safety valve. The second safety valve, where it was a way of trying to get Parliament to act is apparent to the Committee and particularly to the maturely, we can do better on scrutiny and we can chair that sections of the Bill have not been given do better on accountability. In terms of the out-date, adequate scrutiny, there surely should be additional Sir George is absolutely right. One of the time at the Report Stage on the floor of the House possibilities your Committee, Sir, might consider is for the consideration of those parts of the Bill which this is a matter of parliamentary process, and have not been considered. At the moment there is a whether we parliamentarians see Parliament as a ridiculous situation in this House—it is one of those fight between an executive and a potential executive, misnomers we all live with—you have a Report which I think with respect is Mr Shepherd’s view, or Stage but no report from the Committee. A report whether we see a very distinct parliamentary interest from the Committee which indicated which parts of 9587811000 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:06:23 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 52 Procedure Committee: Evidence
24 March 2004 Mr Graham Allen MP, Mr Mark Fisher MP, Mr Richard Shepherd MP, Mr Paul Tyler MP and Rt Hon Sir George Young Bt, MP the Bill had been debated would help to exert I could draw the opposite conclusion to the one Mr pressure, in the open air of publicity, to demonstrate Wright has just drawn, one could say we no longer at Report Stage what was appropriate. need the Queen’s Speech at all. We are moving away from an annual programme of Bills towards a rolling Q155 Chairman: Can I ask Richard Shepherd programme of Bills which can be introduced at any whether he would agree with that last remark? point in the cycle and simply carried over. So one Mr Shepherd: I do, yes. could draw exactly the opposite conclusion, that there is now less need for the sort of process he described in November because you are no longer Q156 David Wright: I wanted to return to a point confronted with a cut-oV in October. So I think we Mr Fisher made earlier and broaden it a little. One can play that argument both ways. of the problems I perceive is that the Queen’s Mr Tyler: I wanted to endorse absolutely what Speech is no longer clearly an announcement of the David Wright said. In fact this was a Government’s programme of business, it is an recommendation, Chairman, as you may recall, of exercise to put across a message to the country on the Modernisation Committee, Second Report of a particular day. Do we not need to have a much 1999-2000, paragraph 18: “There should be more comprehensive annual programme of discussions at the earliest possible stage of the legislation which is discussed by the parties, where Government’s legislative proposals as a whole. We there is an agreement about which Bills are likely to propose therefore the Government should begin be contentious and which Bills are likely to secure informal talks with all parties just after the Queen’s a deal of agreement, and do we not need to split Speech.” I will not read the whole paragraph. That parliamentary time accordingly, maybe have meeting took place when Robin Cook was Leader of certain Bills with two or three days of debate on the House just after the Queen’s Speech of 2002 but Second Reading, others perhaps could have a has never been repeated, although that report was Second Reading in maybe half a day. We would actually accepted by the House. So implicitly, and as then need to allocate Committee time and Report a start, the system is in place but it has not been used. Stage time more eVectively. We carry over, as Sir Mr Allen: Our legislature is owned lock, stock and George has already mentioned, so we have an barrel by the executive, and therefore nothing we opportunity to move Bills between sessions. Do we propose will get through unless the executive not need to have a much more mature debate about approves of it. Why should the executive change? an annual programme of legislation? The executive might change and allow Parliament Mr Fisher: I entirely agree. That last point is very more independence and more eVective scrutiny well taken. I also agree with Paul Tyler’s point because the system is currently failing. We are about a genuine Report Stage. I would like to tie producing appalling law, we come back year after what David Wright has said to what I touched on year trying to put it right because we rushed it in my opening remarks, the idea and necessity I through last year. Personally my experience of believe in a number of diVerent areas for a Business leading on the Child Support Agency Act is a classic Committee of this House, in which the one, we have come back now four times to try and Government would have a very important part but get that right. On Criminal Justice we have come the House itself would have a very important part back. Because we do not listen to people. So we have and it should not be under the complete control of to do that. But even Governments may see that the Government. Then, as it were, an annual Parliament can add value to this process if Second Reading Debate on the programme of that Parliaments are allowed to get on and do their job Business Committee, looking at how the House is properly. In terms of the Business Committee, I going to spend its time over the year, allowing the think that is where we are going to have to go very strategic arguments about what this House is ultimately on this route, and I would commend some legislating on, for and why and in what proportions of the work which Mr Fisher was going to put in as over the year, would be one part of that. But it evidence to the Committee, and I hope he will, in strikes me you have encapsulated, and the debate respect of the Business Committee concept. I think so far has reinforced your encapsulation, the nub it is extremely valuable and I think would command of the problem, which is goodwill, and this tension all-party support. of vested interest between Government and Opposition. The only way round that I believe, and Graham Allen has touched on this as well, is to put Q157 Chairman: Do you think then that the House it into a safety valve chamber, as it were, and a itself through the Business Committee if we have Business Committee would allow these things to be one, should be responsible for tabling changes to worked out reasonably, and have a chance of Standing Orders rather than the Government working them out reasonably and rationally there tabling them? Because really the power of the before they get into the games playing and the executive rests in its authority to be in charge of posturing which has so bedevilled the old system Standing Orders. and the new. Mr Allen: I think that is a possibility. We could get Sir George Young: I agree with Mark Fisher that we there but we would need to take the executive with should seek to repatriate the business of the House, us, since they control every dot and comma of our but it would have to be done in such a way that the daily agenda. One of the answers to this problem is Government was able to get its business through. If to have proper pre-legislative scrutiny. If we had 9587811000 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:06:23 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 53
24 March 2004 Mr Graham Allen MP, Mr Mark Fisher MP, Mr Richard Shepherd MP, Mr Paul Tyler MP and Rt Hon Sir George Young Bt, MP proper pre-leg we would not have so many half the drivel of legislation which has gone amendments at the end and in fact we would be in a through here as parties have asserted the new position to say, “We will not tolerate amendments at nirvana and the world will be improved by the the end because this Bill has gone through the proper advances we make. That is why I want to see the process. If you want amendments you are going to culture of Parliament, our own self-esteem, revived. have to bring forward a new Bill.” That would It cannot be as long as these matters are determined sharpen up and discipline the Civil Service if we had beyond our grasp and we can make them within pre-leg. One of the things about the executive is that our grasp. they told me, when I pressed this, “We cannot even David Hamilton: As someone who has only been let the chairmen of the Select Committees know here three years, I have this concept in my head of a what Bills are coming up because we need to reveal light at the end of the tunnel but the tunnel is never- them in the Queen’s Speech.” What an absolute ending. The independence of Parliament and nonsense. There is a long list circulating and has goodwill of Members are alien concepts to me been circulating for six months in Whitehall of Bills because I have not seen that since I have been here. which will be in the Queen’s Speech, or the Queen’s As an ex-miner who is used to confrontation, I find Speech will be drawn from next time round. Really this place rather bruising. One of the things I would it is quite important we tackle both those questions. like to ask about, and maybe I am not aware of it, is One of the key changes would be the one which Mr pre-legislation. The good thing about pre-legislation Wright has proposed, which has a long history, and is it allows maximum discussion at a time when also the way in which Mr Fisher has worked through confrontation is not there. If the Government come this concept of a Business Committee which I would forward with an idea of where they wish to go, pre- commend to the Committee for examination. legislation allows that debate, not a heated debate, Mr Shepherd: A whole series of ideas. I do not not on a timescale which is restricted, it allows the accept, first of all, that the Government has a right debate to take place. I think, Mr Chairman, with to its business. That is a very modern construction your guidance, one of the things I do think we should and we have just seen, for instance, on the top-up do is look at the Scottish Parliament example where fees issue that many people took my view that they there is a very new concept but it has been working were not necessarily entitled to their own business. very well. I think pre-legislation tied up with the That is part of the parliamentary process. It was Business Committee which has been talked about, is not a manifesto commitment. I also take exception an idea we should take on board. I would be to Parliament owned lock, stock and barrel by the interested, as Graham Allen has mentioned pre- executive. That is a slur and reflection on us. legislation, to hear the points of view of other senior Parliament is up to us. Unless we assert that, unless members because I think that is an option which we only see ourselves as creatures of party, it will be could assist us through this process. owned by the executive. It is up to us as individual Members of Parliament to assert, and that is in a Q158 Chairman: Could those who have not sense what we are trying to do here. Whether it is answered, and Graham Allen has, indicate their to seek it through programming or whether there support for pre-legislative scrutiny? is a Commission of the House of Commons which Mr Fisher: Entirely. I would go further and say Mr sets that up, ultimately that has to be taken by a Hamilton’s point about the Scottish Parliament is vote on the floor of the House if Members feel also true of a Business Committee. I believe you have strongly enough about it. We know two Committee something akin to a Business Committee there. If Chairmen who were returned to their places when your Committee was minded to look at bringing a the Government tried to stop it. That was the view report back to this House of the way the Scottish of the House. So I am not negative about the role Parliament deals with both those things, we would of Members of Parliament, I think there are days be hugely in your debt, Sir. One further thing, you and tides in the fortunes of all Governments where were talking about Standing Orders and the power what Graham is asserting is not absolutely true. It they give. There is one key Standing Order and I ought not to be true if we believe in the purposes have not got it in front of me but I think it is Number and functions of this House as elected 14, and that is the lynch pin of the Government’s representatives. So I do feel strongly about that. All control. It is that Standing Order which says that I came here to identify was, the tables are there only the Government may put substantive motions now, I believe your distinguished Committee has on our Order Paper. It determines the business of the sought the information on how this is working, House. I think it is Number 14. It is that which gives what is the time allocated to every individual Bill, control, that is the post-Irish question Standing have they considered parts within the time. I did Order. not properly respond to the question on the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, it came out with Q159 Chairman: I have just had a word murmured its order on 31 January and this 120-clause Bill had in my ear. It may be 14 but the Government has “the to report back by 6 March. That is the sort of priority”. timetable we are consistently getting. We can make Mr Fisher: Precisely, it is the priority over all else wider comments that there is far too much that neuters the House and makes it very diYcult for legislation. I have been here 25 years, you, Sir, have the House to have an independent identity, much been here a lot longer, and I cannot remember even less an independent responsibility. It must be the 9587811000 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:06:23 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 54 Procedure Committee: Evidence
24 March 2004 Mr Graham Allen MP, Mr Mark Fisher MP, Mr Richard Shepherd MP, Mr Paul Tyler MP and Rt Hon Sir George Young Bt, MP only organisation, club, society, institution, which ceremonial. That seems to us to completely give up cannot determine of its own free will what its something that is of great value. If it became the case business is, what business is put in front of it. We are that was either absolutely common place or widely in the hands of the Government because of Standing understood, it would bring Parliament into Order 14. The Scottish Parliament has managed to disrepute. One of the issues which concerns us about form, as I understand it, an orderly way of doing Standing Committees is the complaint there business without putting their head into the mouth is insuYcient time to deal with matters, but of a Standing Order in that way. I do hope your considering the Chairman of Ways and Means Committee will look at how they have managed to pointed out that although there were all these achieve that. complaints there was also a marked reluctance on Sir George Young: The Government is doing well in the part of Members to sit beyond half past five in producing more bills in pre-legislative form but it the evening, and they could do that without even ought to do even better. having to amend the relevant programme order. I Mr Shepherd: I have served on two of these pre- wonder whether you would give us your reasons for legislative committees, on corruption and on that and whether you think that is potentially freedom of information, and in both cases the solvable. I suppose there are two potential Government rejected the solid work done by us and explanations. The first is the Government Whips will proceeded ahead. It is a mixed answer that I am tend to select people to sit on the Committee who giving here. will, as it were, give them a fairly easy time in terms Mr Tyler: I very strongly endorse both of the points of predictability of out-date and things, or perhaps David Hamilton made. Just to add two other it is that the Opposition, although they might advantages of the pre-legislative process. One is you complain they want more time, in a sense when they can have a Joint Committee of both Houses of have the opportunity to have more time they simply Parliament so you can have the advantages of both refuse to take it anyway. Is there something we could Houses and the expertise from both Houses working do to make longer sittings to address this grievance together on the Bill. The other is, it is not more a practical reality? constrained by the parliamentary year. You do not Sir George Young: Some of us have a culture which have to close it oV. You can start the pre-legislative goes back to sitting all night on Standing scrutiny at this time of year, carry it through into the Committees. My answer is in two parts. The point I next session and then produce the Bill later in the made at the beginning was you did not actually need next session. Both are practical advantages. to sit any longer than you were programmed for, Mr Allen: May I apologise for having to leave the because you finished some sessions ahead of time. Committee, Sir Nicholas, I have an appointment What I was arguing for was more flexibility, so when with a Government Minister. Can I strongly endorse you caught up time you could then use it for the bits pre-legislative scrutiny. Could I ask the Committee you had not had time to discuss. So I think you can to consider whether it would recommend that pre- have the flexibility without sitting later. Speaking legislative scrutiny should be the standard process personally, and I am sure this is true of many of my rather than the process which may be adopted, the colleagues in Opposition, we would be happy to sit standard process from which you can deviate if you slightly longer in order to do our job properly to wish, so that can take place. In the strongest possible hold the Government to account. Speaking terms can I recommend that last great extension of personally, if I felt the only way I could get through franchise, if you like, in that pre-legislative scrutiny a Standing Committee was to sit after half past five, should take place on-line so that the electorate I would be very happy to sit after half past five. themselves may feed in bright ideas as Bills develop conceptually in the pre-legislative state. This worked Q161 Mr McWalter: Would you be even more incredibly well on the Communications Bill when it willing to sit longer if you thought it was going to was tried. I think allowing the electorate some kibosh the whole Bill because you would drag the V influence, as they have done very e ectively through whole thing down? It is certainly one of the the Petitions Committee for example on the Scottish motivations people have for trying to sit longer. Parliament, would be a break-through. Certainly if Sir George Young: Once a Bill has reached Standing the BBC did it, it would be one of the great break- Committee the House has approved the principle of throughs for their public service obligation too. the Bill, and I am not quite sure how you totally Chairman: You have, I think, Mr Allen, approached kibosh a Bill at Standing Committee stage. All you this Committee on the subject of petitions. If you can do is run out of time. I am actually not in favour have not, another Member has. I am just advised by of the guerrilla tactics which Mark Fisher referred to my Clerk that you have indeed and we are in receipt somewhat nostalgically— of your letter and it will in due course be considered. Mr Fisher: No, not at all, with horror. What you have said is now on record and clearly will be taken properly into account by the Committee. Q162 Chairman: You could, of course, Sir George, move to leave out all the clauses of the Bill. That Q160 Mr McWalter: We have been giving quite a lot would kibosh it in Standing Committee, but it is not of attention to the business of Standing Committees. very often done. With respect to Mr Allen, who is about to leave us, Sir George Young: One has diYculty in persuading we do not accept we are going to treat them as the majority of the Committee to do that. 9587811000 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:06:23 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 55
24 March 2004 Mr Graham Allen MP, Mr Mark Fisher MP, Mr Richard Shepherd MP, Mr Paul Tyler MP and Rt Hon Sir George Young Bt, MP
Q163 Chairman: Indeed. Chairman: Anyway, the questions you wished to Sir George Young: If Mr McWalter is making the put? case for more flexibility within a constrained out- date, I would heartily agree. I would not rule out Q167 Rosemary McKenna: There are three sitting slightly longer. questions here and I will contract them into one. They are all about improving the Standing Q164Sir Robert Smith: To clarify, in our view there Committees and how the Standing Committees is not a constraint. The Committee, having reached operate. Would a limit of time on speeches help? a knife point, says, “We have not got round to How would you improve the opportunities of the tabling the amendments. We had better go home.” minority parties and backbenchers in the Standing There is nothing to stop them carrying on looking at Committees? Is the power of the programming sub- the next section but they choose to go home. committee useful or would it be just as easily done Sir George Young: But they may have gone past the through the usual channels? clauses which they did not have time to discuss. Then Mr Tyler: I think the chair should be able to they have some spare time but you cannot wind the introduce a time limit on speeches if he or she clock back. begins to feel it really is becoming necessary, but I hope it would not be standard practice. As we all know, it can be you are dealing with quite complex Q165 Chairman: So this is really your plea for matters, actually more complex than on the floor greater flexibility? of the House, at either Second Reading or Report Sir George Young: Absolutely. Stage, and I think it would be unfortunate if it Mr Tyler: I agree very much with that last point Sir became the rule. On the issue of minority parties, George has made. I, too, remember all-night sittings. by which I do not mean any of the three parties, Indeed, in the 1974 Parliament I was the swing vote the real minorities, they have a problem in that very on Standing Committees and if I decided to go home often they are not represented on the Committee at midnight, which I did, the Committee had to stop and I think there is an issue about the Report because they knew they could not get a majority. To Stage. Chairman, I hope we are going to come back go back to Mr McWalter’s point: I think there is a to the Report Stage because it is an extremely particular problem now and it relates back to the important separate issue and I will leave my issue of the very considerable legislative programme, comments to then. I am desperately trying to both the number of Bills, the complexity of Bills and remember the third question. the length of Bills. Around the table on all sides now there are both existing and past Whips, and we all know persuading a colleague to go on a Committee Q168 Rosemary McKenna: The powers of the on a Bill and be able to promise that is the last one programming sub-committee. Are they useful? they will have to do this session, this year, is much Mr Tyler: I have not got a great deal of experience easier if there are not that many Bills and you know of the programming sub-committees but such you are not going to have to break that promise. It experience I have had, and reported to me, and is a fact of life, I think, that in recent Parliaments, indeed the evidence given by the Deputy Speaker, particularly since 1997, the sheer weight of the Chairman of Ways and Means to the legislative programme has put very considerable Modernisation Committee, and I think to this pressure on all Members. Committee too, is that they are a mixed bag. Like so much in this building sometimes they are incredibly successful if the right mood is there and Q166 Chairman: Can I put a question to all the right people are participating and the ethos of our witnesses. Is it your view as experienced co-operation is present—and sometimes I am parliamentarians in all the major political parties afraid that is not the case—but that is sometimes that successive governments have sought a much too and sometimes not the case with the usual channels. ambitious legislative programme, ie that they are Mr Shepherd: On the length of speeches, I introducing too much legislation too quickly? absolutely agree with Paul Tyler. Often there are Mr Tyler: Yes. complex issues and they cannot be reduced to two Mr Shepherd: Yes. minutes. The value of Parliament is actually Sir George Young: Yes. through exposition and debate to expose where the Mr Fisher: Yes. balance of argument lies and the justification for Chairman: That will read very well in our evidence. that argument. One thing which slightly concerned Rosemary McKenna: Could I make a comment. me, and it is in part answering it, part of our If you remember, last year the Government process is the Report Stage of a Bill and we have were accused of having to use devices to fill up not even discussed that. The third stage is the final parliamentary time. There was an accusation there Third Reading and what we are watching is now a was very little legislation going through the House. contraction. I will take Graham Allen’s point, if we Sir Robert Smith: Are you sure it was not that there are so subservient to the authorities of the House, was a lot of legislation going through but it was so to the executive that is, why would we ever then over-programmed— take to ourselves the allocation of the business of Rosemary McKenna: I do not think that was the the House? I think there is a fundamental case. contradiction in that. The revival of this House 9587811000 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:06:23 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 56 Procedure Committee: Evidence
24 March 2004 Mr Graham Allen MP, Mr Mark Fisher MP, Mr Richard Shepherd MP, Mr Paul Tyler MP and Rt Hon Sir George Young Bt, MP comes through us as individual Members saying, additional number of amendments to the Pensions “This is not working.” It is in that context that I am Bill, but that they are going to allow additional very nervous about some Committee purporting to time as a result? represent the interests of individual Members, and Mr Atkinson: That is correct. there are matters where we can see it on issues Chairman: Can you indicate the sort of time? I within parties. Often the party speaks with the understand there is a tremendous number of Whips’ voice but in fact within a party there are amendments which have been tabled. many, or sometimes, diVerent voices of some Mr Atkinson: Forgive me, Chairman. A lot of urgency and importance, and there is the exclusion amendments have been tabled and they can be seen, of that whole range of independently-minded but negotiations are currently in place through the backbenchers, and they are diVerent at diVerent usual channels. times and on diVerent issues, who actually take a Chairman: I only mention it because it does appear contrary view. I do not know who speaks up for that on something which is critical to the people of that in any of these contrived committees. this country, namely pensions regulation and Sir George Young: Just one comment. The curse of legislation, there should be a certain amount of life on a Standing Committee is the late tabling of cross-party co-operation and consensus. Government amendments the night before you Mr Atkinson: In fairness to the Government, some reach the clause. You have briefed yourself on what of these amendments were dependent on the is in the Bill, you have your own amendments Budget. I am not blaming the Government entirely down, and overnight you find the whole thing has for this but the burden remains. been transformed and re-jigged and all your Chairman: I wanted to have that on the record of preparation is just out of date. I do not know what this meeting. your Committee can do about that, Sir Nicholas, but it is the most frustrating point serving on a Q169 Sir Robert Smith: Standing Committee. I think, if I may say so, it has On the Report Stage, which has already been raised, there are issues we want got slightly worse over recent years. to tease out, and obviously there are other things Mr Fisher: I think we are all in agreement on the people will want to say as well. There is a vicious point about time limit, though I entirely take circle at the moment in that amendments cannot be Richard Shepherd’s and Paul Tyler’s points, that it selected by the Speaker until they have been tabled is at Committee Stage when the process of and the deadline passed, and if a programming debating, in an ideal committee, teases things out. committee were trying to programme business it Crude time limits such as there are on the floor of cannot do that until that point has been reached, the House (and are appropriate on the floor of the which is so close to the actual time of the business House on Second Reading where you ought to be it seems that the programming committees rarely able to make your generalised comments on a Bill meet to programme the Report Stage. So with the in a set number of minutes) really are not short deadline, do people suggest it would be more appropriate in Committee, where it is examples acceptable to have an earlier deadline for tabling from your constituents, the anecdotes, examining amendments at Report Stage which would then how a clause might apply to a particular person in allow a more programmed approach? There is a your experience, which is that which actually teases second question, running the two together, is it out, like a dentist, the weak spots, the ill-thought ideal to programme the Report Stage anyway, out spots, of a particular provision of a Bill. A very because you end up with one section being debated wise and clever chair of a Committee can both at length and then you find the feeling of the House make sure there are time limits and say, “I hope the is that the next section is more important but, Hon. Gentleman, or Lady, will conclude in the next because of the way the knives fall and if people five minutes” and have the power to do that, while want to have votes, you end up with the bit which still allowing that probing that can sometimes, as is more likely to be teased out suVering and you both Paul and Richard have said, take time. cannot get to the relevant section as they are Mr Atkinson: This is a comment on what Sir grouped? George said, and I hope you will forgive me. If you Mr Tyler: Horses for courses, I think, on the latter want an example, look at the Pensions Bill where point. Perhaps I can just illustrate that: I recall there has been a huge raft of amendments put in. negotiating, in fact on behalf of Government The Committee should not forget that for backbenchers, with the then Chief Whip who was Oppositions, Committees are hard work. There are referred to earlier, Ann Taylor, on the Report Stage no civil servants behind the Opposition drawing up of the Transport Bill which dealt with the amendments. So when people talk about privatisation of Air TraYc Control. It was that part Committees sitting beyond 5.30, there is quite a lot of the Bill which the Government backbenchers 1 of work required in going for a further 2, 22 hours, were most concerned about and it was vital it was which puts a serious burden on Opposition not only properly debated but there was a division spokesmen. on the appropriate amendment. In that case, I have Chairman: Could I ask my colleague, Peter to say—and there were tributes paid to her Atkinson, to help me and the Committee? Am I earlier—she was incredibly helpful, and though it right in the information which has come to me, that was not in the interests of the Government we did the Government has tabled some very large make sure that Parliament had a proper 9587811000 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:06:23 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 57
24 March 2004 Mr Graham Allen MP, Mr Mark Fisher MP, Mr Richard Shepherd MP, Mr Paul Tyler MP and Rt Hon Sir George Young Bt, MP opportunity to debate and divide on both issues. actually are seemingly specific to the Report Stage That was well programmed. I would say in most but they apply actually to the conduct of Bills. I cases the eVective programming of the Report have seen so often, when my party was in Stage will ensure there is a proper opportunity for Government, the requirement of eager all issues which are still controversial at that stage backbenchers to stand up and eVectively block to be properly debated. That would be the answer consideration of clauses they did not want to be I would give to the latter point. On the earlier reached by talking out the preceding section of the point, yes, we certainly need a wider and greater Bill. This is why—and I come perhaps with the least period for the consolidation of amendments and popular view—I think it is the tragedy of this their subsequent selection between the completion House and why we are no longer relevant to a of the Committee Stage and the Report Stage. In wider public, that we do not even discharge the one that process I would hope that the chair, the fundamental piece of business of holding the independent chair of that Committee, could have a Government to account through the laws they bigger role in deciding the format of the Report make, which may even have criminal implications. Stage, even to the extent of being able to make a recommendation in a report to the House, as to 1 Q171 Chairman: But could there not be ways of whether it is necessary to have one day or 12 days ensuring at the Report Stage that those matters or two days at Report Stage. It seems to me an which the Opposition—I say “Opposition”, not just extraordinary anomaly at the moment that there is one party but perhaps more than one party in no representation whatsoever—formally at any Opposition—might wish to have debated and voted rate, there may be some informal contact—between on are debated? Is there not a way in which those who worked on that Committee on that Bill Opposition parties should have the right to decide and then its final process on the floor of the House. the matters which they wish to have debated and Mr Shepherd: I value Report Stage, let’s start with to be voted on? Would that overcome some of the that proposition. If you look at last session’s concerns you have expressed? Committee Stages, out of 27 Bills which were in Mr Shepherd: The culture of this House has Standing Committee as of last 12 September, 24 of changed so much, as I guess it did right through its them did not complete the stages within the history. There always was an opportunity, there Committee Stage. Therefore the Committee Stages was negotiation, the usual channels discussed out- are a vital part of the consideration of the Bill. dates and by and large could keep to them. There therefore was a tolerance by which Opposition had Q170 Mr McWalter: Report Stage? that opportunity. I have been in this House, as you Mr Shepherd: The Report Stage; the remaining have, when the Opposition withdrew co-operation stages, because it must take up that slack for a start with the Government, it was a miserable period in or have the ability to take up that slack. The second the early 1990s, because they claimed a reason why it is an incredibly important stage, is Government Whip had breached pairing that it is the only stage at which every Member of arrangements. As Sir George has used in earlier the House can participate in a major matter going reports, the terms of trade enabled negotiation, and into public policy. What we are reducing Report that is what has been excised, the necessity for Stages to, which is the extraordinary feature, trading or dealing from both sides. I do not want including Third Reading, almost invariably now is to overstate it, but I actually think the careful what we grandly call “one day” but is often little development of the old procedures gave balance more than five hours. So we practise a deceit on a and now there is no balance. The argument which wider public as to an understanding as to how we you are addressing is, can there not be balance are even considering these. The diYculty with all within some matrix of construction, which would truncated proceedings is that it gives the meet the requirements of the House? I actually do Government an initiative to eVectively talk out not think so. This is a place of passion, we feel those parts it does not want discussed. Knives are strongly about many of the issues, and sometimes a most agreeable way of doing that, an open debate there are blocks, and that is why the Government is even more agreeable because there are whole has always had as this last thing through Standing sections we simply do not reach. I will give an Orders—they are still there—the ability to impose example, the Northern Ireland Peace Bill. The the guillotine as long as it commands a majority. Secretary of State, who was then Peter Mandelson, Sir George Young: I think the thinking behind your was unable to speak on Third Reading because question, Sir Nicholas, was, instead of having the there was no time for Third Reading, so it was a knives by time and clauses, which is what happens formal vote, yes or no. So we have so truncated our at the moment, you could have knives by subject? processes. There is a wider point I wanted to make, Sir Nicholas, here. Historically, this House used to Q172 Chairman: Yes. give two or three days to Second Readings where Sir George Young: In other words, the Opposition they were of high importance, where wide numbers parties would say on Report Stage, “We want to of Members who may not ever participate in the debate, for example, variable fees for tuition”, and Committee Stage wanted to establish their locus in in order to stop somebody putting down an terms of their constituency or a regional concern or amendment in the section which was ahead of that their own personal general concern. These remarks and speaking at length and never reaching it, you 9587811000 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:06:23 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 58 Procedure Committee: Evidence
24 March 2004 Mr Graham Allen MP, Mr Mark Fisher MP, Mr Richard Shepherd MP, Mr Paul Tyler MP and Rt Hon Sir George Young Bt, MP would have a guarantee there would be a debate. Mr McWalter: We actually have a mechanism I see no conceptual reason why that should not be whereby it is clear next Wednesday that 80 done, so the Opposition parties would know there Members want to speak, but 73 of them are going 1 would be three debates for 12 hours each on the to be disappointed, and the next day we will issues they really minded about, and it would not probably debate bicycle helmets, important though be left exposed, as can happen at the moment, that those are. There is a frustration in allowing you are in a group with other people and Members, who have something to say on issues of miraculously the controversial bit is never reached importance as a Member of Parliament, to come because you spend all the time on the bit before. here and for somebody to say, “Actually, there is Mr Fisher: We are probably all in agreement but I absolutely no prospect of you making your views hope your Committee, when you are looking at felt on that at all because of something called this, will give a very stern look at how the Report programming or timetabling or something”. One’s Stage has become virtually an appendix in the first reaction is, “Can’t we do anything about that House; it has shrivelled so it scarcely exists at all. programming or timetabling”, which is why we end We are going to see an example of that next week up being members of the Procedure Committee! on the Higher Education Bill because I think it is Any help you can give us to try and help those scheduled for a Tuesday or Wednesday but we are backbenchers, particularly those who are going to finish at 7 o’clock and there will be a very independently minded, would be welcome. I once short amount of time to discuss something which asked the Prime Minister what weight he put on obviously the House was very uncertain of at independent-mindedness and his response was, “As Second Reading. The House has an interest in much weight as any previous Prime Minister”, to knowing what happened in Committee and which I said, “That is that much”! Whatever Mr whether the Bill has changed and to debate those Shepherd’s view of history is, the fact is that history changes, and it will be shuZed through, and that serves us ill here. We need to have a new is worrying for the quality of scrutiny and debate. dispensation in which really it is understood that As Mr Shepherd has said, in the past Report Stages debate and rationality have a very important role have not been necessarily confined into one day. to play, and access by Members to make their contribution is secured. Any help you can give us Q173 Chairman: No, they have not been confined to get that would be most welcome. to just one day. Chairman: Can I say that I think our witnesses have Mr Fisher: It brings me back to my earlier point, given us considerable help in the answers they have that the only way to resolve this probably is to have given this afternoon, and I hope in due course the a more objective Business Committee which would Leader of the House will find time for an earlier apportion time more reasonably. report of this particular Committee to be debated which recommends the provision of an hour in a major debate when shorter speeches will be Q174Rosemary McKenna: A very quick correction: available which in the course of an hour could get finishing at 7 o’clock does not reduce the time for 20 additional Members called, which I hope will be debate because we start equivalently earlier. something to be welcomed. Mr Fisher: A very, very good point! Sir Robert Smith: We could bank some of the time Mr Shepherd: You know very well it is called a day which was available for the Budget debate when but it is only a few hours. there was a lack of interest. Rosemary McKenna: Absolutely. Q175 Sir Robert Smith: Does that mean in terms of trying to get this Report Stage more eVectively used, if we are going down the road of the Q176 David Hamilton: On outside groups, programming committee, to follow this whole idea, interested organisations outside the House that the whole process should be elongated, tabling frequently submit draft amendments. Within the deadlines should be earlier, so you have a greater present system, is there any way in which idea of what amendments are there so the consultation with those outside Parliament might programming committee has something to work be enhanced during proceedings on a Bill, other with and there is time for it to meet, so there is a than by means of a Special Standing Committee? gap between the end of the Committee and the Is the present timetable hampering outside groups? Report Stage? Is that part of the practical way of Mr Fisher: I am not sure I have a qualified view on achieving the goal? that but I would have thought certainly our Sir George Young: I think that is a separate point relations with outside groups generally and the from the one I was making about having ability for outside groups to access this House is earmarked subjects. I would be slightly worried if unnecessarily constrained. I am not an expert to there was an early cut-oV which meant the go further. Government put down some late amendments at Report Stage and it was not then possible for the Q177 David Hamilton: I suspect I know Graham’s Opposition Parties to table their amendments to answer to that. the Government amendments. Subject to that Mr Tyler: Pre-legislative scrutiny gives huge proviso, I have some sympathy with the point opportunities, as your previous question, Mr which was made. Hamilton, suggested. The other thing is, where you 9587811000 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:06:23 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 59
24 March 2004 Mr Graham Allen MP, Mr Mark Fisher MP, Mr Richard Shepherd MP, Mr Paul Tyler MP and Rt Hon Sir George Young Bt, MP get Government amendments at the very last Sir George Young: Yes, I am in favour of him minute, it is diYcult enough for the Members to having the power to initiate the process. deal with that, it is impossible for outside interests Mr Fisher: I too. to deal with that. Mr Shepherd: There used to be a rhythm and a season to the conduct of Bills: Second Reading, Q183 Sir Robert Smith: There is one reservation principle discussed, but the Committee Stage did that some of the chairmen have had, which is that not take place by convention until two weekends it could jeopardise their impartiality if they are seen had passed. It gave members of the Committee an to be siding with the backbenchers rather than opportunity to read the Bill, hopefully the Second serving the whole Committee. Reading had raised the issue with the wider public, Sir George Young: I have every confidence in the it gave the wider public an opportunity to make Chairmen’s Panel to exercise that power without their views known. We are now hurrying through incurring that criticism. legislation: Second Reading on a Wednesday and Mr Tyler: I agree. Since the Speaker very often it appears in Committee the following Tuesday, or says, and this should apply to the whole Speaker’s Tuesday to Tuesday, something like that. The Panel, that it is his responsibility to defend the present system has in many instances, not all, rights of backbenchers, this is a very practical way reduced that period of time. in which he could do so. Mr Fisher: Hear, hear. Mr Shepherd: I just chuckle! Q178 David Hamilton: Injury time for divisions in Mr McWalter: So, Chairman, we have reached the the House is the next theme. Are you in favour of stage where we are not only saying the chairman “injury time” for Standing Committees when one should be active in this whole process of or more divisions in the House reduce the time for programming within the committee but he should debate just before a knife is due to fall? also be active in terms of recommendations about Mr Fisher: Yes. the way the Report Stage is held, and I think that Sir George Young: Yes. is something which previously we have not quite Mr Shepherd: I am opposed to the guillotine, so my focused on in this way. view is quite clear. Q184Chairman: Is there anything else which our Q179 David Hamilton: I will call you Mr Angry! extremely helpful witnesses would wish to add to Mr Shepherd: Oh I am a believer! their concluding remarks? Mr Fisher: One further point, Sir Nicholas. Everything you are discussing is of such interest Q180 Sir Robert Smith: I think we have touched on and central importance to the role of every Member this already but it is a question on the role of of this House, particularly backbenchers, that this chairmen in committees in terms of whether to call Report, more than the average Select Committee meetings of the programming sub-committee if report, really needs to be debated, when you do put they feel things are going wrong or, as has been it in front of the House, on the floor of the House suggested, they feel they could be better used. at a time which will encourage and enable Members Should this be done informally or should it be of this House to discuss it. We have got to the nub enshrined in Standing Orders that the chairman has of many things, the whole balance between the a role to protect the backbenchers in that situation? legislature and the executive, and this should be Mr Tyler: I suspect it is going to have to be properly deployed. It has been from my point of enshrined in Standing Orders, because otherwise it view a very interesting debate in this chamber but will be so diYcult for the chair to be able to exert there have only been 15 or so of us, and this is that informal influence. something which aVects all 659 of us. Mr Shepherd: But Standing Orders do make provision for reconvening and asking for more time, and the Government consistently suspend it. Q185 Chairman: I believe debates of the Procedure I suggest you direct that question to Mr Hain and Committee are matters for the House as a whole, ask him why it is they consistently suspend that and I would hope that the Government would meet facility. the request which you have made, which certainly would be the request of this Committee as a whole, that any report we produce which is answered by Q181 Chairman: As he is likely to come before us, the Government should be debated, and I hope it can I say that that question will be put to the will be soon, it will be on the floor of the main Leader of the House, and I thank Mr Shepherd for Chamber of the House of Commons. enforcing his requirement that it should. Mr Shepherd: Sir Nicholas, with your tolerance, Sir George Young: I favour the chairman having may I say something else? that discretion. Q186 Chairman: Of course. Q182 Chairman: But should it be enshrined in Mr Shepherd: When the predecessor Committee of Standing Orders? this distinguished assemblage reported in favour of 9587811000 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:06:23 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 60 Procedure Committee: Evidence
24 March 2004 Mr Graham Allen MP, Mr Mark Fisher MP, Mr Richard Shepherd MP, Mr Paul Tyler MP and Rt Hon Sir George Young Bt, MP programming, the motion was properly put by the Chairman: I am sure that is not the last word on then Leader of the House, John BiVen, to the the subject, but on behalf of all my colleagues and House, and in putting the motion, because it was the one or two who have had to go, can I thank a free vote in those days, he said that we should the witnesses who have come before us this remember that today’s Government is potentially afternoon for their amazingly helpful and tomorrow’s Opposition, and in the remembrance of instructive response to the many questions which that the House then voted down programming. I have been put to them. They have been very helpful hope that is helpful! indeed. Thank you very much. 965657PAG1 Page Type [SO] 09-07-04 01:06:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 61
Wednesday 21 April 2004
Members present
Sir Nicholas Winterton, in the Chair
Mr Peter Atkinson Sir Robert Smith Mr Iain Luke Mr Desmond Swayne Mr Tony McWalter David Wright
Memorandum from Mr Oliver Heald MP, Shadow Leader of the House
Practical Operation of the New System and the Temporary Standing Orders Consensual programming of legislation died in the Sessions 1997–2001. Despite initial goodwill from all parts of the House expressed in All Party Programme Motions, the Government refused sensible requests for flexibility and ended up guillotining everything. What happens now is oppressive of the Opposition and we are opposed in principle to the current practice. The right to debate should not be treated as a favour to be handed down by a generous government to a supplicant Opposition. There are discussions between whips and the Usual Channels about the timing of Bills and the Opposition tries to be constructive, but the Government has so much power through the changes in procedure that discussions are inevitably one-sided.
Material not scrutinised The analysis at page 7 of the Modernisation Committee Report HC 1222 shows that current practice leads to a significant number of clauses and schedules in Bills not being debated. The Committee points out the “undesirable eVect of curtailing debate on controversial matters on which Members wished to speak” and that “concern about the volume of legislation which passes undebated is entirely legitimate.” The system is failing.
Agreeing out-dates In its “good example of programming” on page 8, the Committee applauds a simple programme with a single knife falling on the out-date and is critical of motions containing complicated provisions with multiple knives. The truth is that the whips were almost always able to agree an out-date under the old system. Enforced Government “out-dates” and multiple “knives” reflect the language of guillotines previously only used on the rare occasions when agreement was not possible or parliamentary delaying tactics were in play. Although we agree with Sir Alan Haselhurst’s evidence that a programme for a Standing Committee should prescribe an out-date only, we question whether a motion is necessary to achieve an agreed and eVective out-date in all but the rare cases of controversy.
Internal knives unhelpful The use of internal knives is usually unhelpful in that it artificially restricts debate. It can be diYcult to estimate how much time is needed for each clause or group of amendments, but Members are capable of budgeting their time as they go, so that if one clause takes longer than expected, it usually proves possible to catch up.
Flexible sitting hours in Committee A degree of flexibility on sitting hours is helpful. If the Committee gets behind, another hour here and there can be most useful. The Government side should accept such requests.
Time for setting out-date It is illogical that the Government expects to set the time for Committee, including the out-date, before the Second Reading debate. This means that the full ambit of debate is not known at the time when decisions on timing are made. The problems on the Standing Committee of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill referred to at page 20 of the Modernisation Committee’s report were partly the result of a Government time estimate prepared before it became apparent at Second Reading that substantial Government amendments 9656571001 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:06:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 62 Procedure Committee: Evidence
were needed to deal with the “Huntingdon Life Sciences situation.” The fact that the Government then forced through a reduction in the number of sittings made matters even worse. Committee timings should be agreed after Second Reading and kept under constant review.
Report Stage Sometimes, a situation such as that at Huntingdon Life Sciences demands immediate action and late amendments are justified. But all too often, great rafts of Government amendments are produced at Committee or Report stage, because the Government is not properly organised. The Criminal Justice Bill was an example of this. It was published in November 2002 and entered a Standing Committee in December. The Committee met 32 times and reported in March. The Government then added 500 amendments and 28 New Clauses at Report Stage. This approach aVects the realities of when the Business Committee should sit. There is no point until the Provisional Selection of Amendments has been made. Then the overall shape of the business is clearer.
Third Reading Adequate time should be available for a Third Reading debate.
Planning Ahead and the Annual Legislative Programme It would be very helpful if the Government could, in future, provide a full list of its intended Bills and draft Bills for the Session at the time of the Queen’s Speech. Through Usual Channels’ discussions, the Government’s programme evolves in accordance with the demands of the House. There is a constant need for speed and flexibility to accommodate urgent debates and to deal with build-ups of work. It has been possible at short notice to fit in urgent debates, a recent example would be the debate on Equitable Life. We doubt if the more substantial architecture of the “Legislative Business Committee” would be responsive enough to the fast moving demands of Members. Business Questions already provides backbench Members the opportunity to make their own specific requests.
Extending Programming to Second Readings,Pre- and Post-Legislative Scrutiny The rigidities of programming should not be extended further. Second Readings should normally be allowed a day’s debate or more, where the proposed legislation warrants it. 24 March 2004
Witness: Mr Oliver Heald, a Member of the House, Shadow Leader of the House of Commons, examined.
Q187 Chairman: On behalf of the Procedure agreements on certain bills, not all bills, whereit Committee, I welcome Oliver Heald, the would be helpful to Members to have a more Conservative Member of Parliament for North East structured programme for the legislation, and also Hertfordshire, who is Shadow Leader of the House, to have a clear out-date for committee. We and thank him for coming to help us with our envisaged, a bit like pre-legislative scrutiny, that it inquiry into programming. Mr Heald, we have had would be something that would evolve over time and your paper, which we have read with interest. I that we would find the measure of it and how it congratulate you on its succinctness, which is worked best. I was the whip on the Scotland Bill, certainly very helpful to members of this Committee. which was the first bill that was programmed, with In your submission, you say: “Initial goodwill of all John McFall for the Labour Party, and we tried very parts of the House” in relation to programming of hard to make it work. On reflection, I would say that Bills, was lost when the Government “refused the Scotland Bill, with the exception of one day sensible requests for flexibility and ended up by where it all went horribly wrong, went okay. Then guillotining everything”. Can you describe to the we got on to the Government of Wales Bill, where it Committee how this situation arose and why it really became very, very diYcult to programme arose? successfully. There were three or four diVerent kinds Mr Heald: Mr Chairman, in 1997 I went to the of opposition to the Bill, so it was not just the Whips’ OYce as a whip, and the Chief Whip at that Government and the Opposition. The Government time, James Arbuthnot, was very prepared to look at found a lot of the opposition it was receiving new ideas such as programming, and in a sense we extremely tiresome, including some of the were learning opposition for the first time in a long opposition from its own side, so a certain rigidity time. The Shadow Leader of the House at the time, developed. We ended up with quite a lot of Sir George Young, was also very willing to look at arguments towards the Government of Wales Bill programming. We thought it meant reaching about the detail of the programme. In the first year, 9656571002 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:06:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 63
21 April 2004 Mr Oliver Heald MP the Chief Whip and the Government Chief Whip and Police Bill, where Ann Widdecombe staged a sit- were able to agree about eleven programmes, and we in at the end because we were so unhappy, that was signed up to them with Sir George Young’s name on an absolute disgrace and an example of the the motions. It progressively got worse as the Government abusing its power. Parliament went on, with the Government increasingly wanting to get through more Q191 Mr McWalter: I wanted to say from the legislation, not necessarily more bills but sheer pages Labour Benches that, clearly, what you say in your of legislation, and insisting on tighter and tighter Y memorandum is very serious. If you say consensual programming; so it became more and more di cult. programming died, that is very serious, and this Frankly, we felt we were being oppressed because Committee feels to some extent that it is the every time we could not reach agreement we got custodian of the rights of Members, to be able to guillotined. There was really a state of hostility have a say and to have time apportioned to them for between the Government and the Opposition whips’ Y that, no matter where they are coming from. That is o ces, not on a personal level but on a professional very much the view of the majority of Labour level, from about 1998 onwards. I would say that Members, and not just Labour Members of the when the Modernisation Committee introduced the Committee. Given that even if you lost some new structure in 2001, we felt that was just beyond goodwill, say from the Government’s Whips’ OYce, all, and were extremely unhappy with it. Of course, and assuming that I am right and there is a great deal it proved to be disastrous. of goodwill from Members of Parliament in general, would you be prepared to submit a paper based on Q188 Sir Robert Smith: In the third paragraph of that premise, on the assumption that it will have a your memorandum you talk about the early stages reasonable chance of at least getting a fair hearing, being okay, and then you say: “The Government has leading to changes in procedure which might well so much power through the changes in procedure address the very strong grievance that you feel? that discussions are inevitably one-sided.” Is there Mr Heald: We have an issue of principle about the anything that could be done to change Standing Government simply imposing a programme on the Orders now that would help this sort of thing? Opposition, and the fact that that is the backcloth to Mr Heald: I think we need to go back to the original discussions in the usual channels. I could state that, idea that there are quite a lot of bills where the usual as I have in this paper, but that is an objection of channels can agree an out-date easily. For three principle. It is true that within the current structure years I had no problem at all agreeing out-dates. The there are changes you could make which would idea of programming should be a consensual thing. improve things. The Clerk has suggested overtime We should be aiming to look at some of the original being made available to a chairman of the Standing questions like what kind of committee the bill goes Committee in circumstances where a debate has not to. We have not used a special standing committee concluded, and suggested that a chairman could give for a long time. If it became a matter of consent, and an extra 15 minutes. I think that is a good idea, and it was not a mandatory structure of the sort we have it is a good idea that there should be some overtime now, then that would make a diVerence. in circumstances where there is perhaps more than one division. Those are minor changes that would Q189 Sir Robert Smith: Are there specific changes in improve matters, but they would not go to the heart standing orders that could facilitate that, or is it of our grievance, which is that we believe more a cultural operation? programming should be consensual and that we Mr Heald: I think what I call structure 2, what we should have a right to say that this is not the sort of have at the moment, the standard structure and bill which we think requires a formal programme. I framework which is in the temporary standing would not have thought that the majority of bills orders, is completely unacceptable; but if we went would ever need to be programmed. back to what preceded it, then we could, with goodwill, make it work. Q192 Mr McWalter: If you were able to make that representation, not to those who are clearly in Q190 Sir Robert Smith: You do not think one of the opposition to some of that representation, but to challenges though in making anything work at the some other party, for instance the joint chairs of a moment is such that when the Government has such committee or whoever, would that not be a a huge majority, in the end, whatever happens, it procedural improvement? That formal request feels it can get its own way! could hopefully be negotiated more eVectively and Mr Heald: I do think that. The fact is the formally in the way that currently you are indicating Government has got such a big majority that it has those requests are not negotiated? become arrogant, and it does not really take very Mr Heald: The diYculty with it is that on the one seriously the Opposition’s requirement to raise hand the Government is entitled to have its way. All issues in bills. I have recently been spokesman on a our committees, with the exception of Standards and bill where there were a lot of outside representations. Privileges Committee, reflect that. It is part of the As all Members will know, bodies want a point of backcloth of what we do. I think it is an important view aired in committee. The present balance of principle that the Government should be able to arms is such that they do not get a fair crack of the have its way. However, at the same time, you do not whip. If you think of that dreadful bill on which I want to compromise the chair or the Speaker by was the spokesman in 2000–01, the Criminal Justice turning that role into something which is in any way 9656571002 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:06:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 64 Procedure Committee: Evidence
21 April 2004 Mr Oliver Heald MP political. It is a good thing that we have managed to Government has a knife between Part I and Part II. have an independent chairman or chairmen of our If that was the only provision in the programme proceedings in committee. Once you trespass motion, I would not be against it because I think it beyond the minor change that the Clerk is was sensible to divide oV the local arrangements suggesting, you have a diYculty. I cannot envisage from the national, and to secure the time in two clear what sort of committee you could set up in this place, portions for the two halves of the discussion. I am understanding the Realpolitik of it, which would be not saying it cannot be done. There are also able to get away from the political arithmetic. situations where the Government and the Opposition just flatly do not agree about how long Q193 Chairman: Have you, Mr Heald, sought to go it requires to debate a bill, and then the Government and discuss this matter with the Leader of the House, has in the end to guillotine. That is the way it Peter Hain? Have you considered sending a paper to should work. the Chairman of Ways and Means, who, as it were, Chairman: We should get on record at this stage that presides over the panel of chairmen? To my mind, when we refer to constitutional bills, they have these sorts of approaches might well produce a move historically always been taken on the floor of the in the right direction. I am seeking, as it were, to House rather than in committee, and it is important explore matters along the lines that Tony McWalter for those that will read the minutes of this meeting to is taking you down at the moment. appreciate that fact. Mr Heald: I do not think it is impossible that we could reach a better accommodation than we have at Q195 Mr Atkinson: Mr Heald, the Chairman of the moment. I have not been doing this very long, Ways and Means, in his paper, takes the view that but I have had a preliminary discussion with the there should be no knives, but that the Government Leader of the House, and a very informal chat with would be entitled to have an out-date, and he thinks Sir Alan. Having said that, it is something I would that is as far as the programming should go. You need to pursue quite carefully and discreetly. disagree with that. Mr Heald: I broadly agree with that for most bills. It is just that I think there is a small category where Q194Mr McWalter: If that does not happen, what it is either complexity or just the particular nature of you were saying before the Chairman’s question is the bill where it is quite useful to have perhaps one that it is broke but you cannot think of any way of knife. Where we tend to have gone wrong, though, fixing it. If that is what happens, this comes over as over the past few years, is having a lot of knives. As a whinge, so we have to find a way of translating the you will see from table A of the Clerk’s evidence, very strong negative sentiments expressed in this they are very often eVective knives, in the sense that paper into some kind of programme for positive they do cut oV debate. That shows the failure. action. We really need your help, and indeed of the Speaker or chairmen’s panel, to do that; but there has to be a way in which we can get people signed up Q196 Mr Luke: Interestingly, the Finance Bill, to addressing these matters. We cannot have the which is about to start its course, is completely Opposition expressing these sentiments in this way unprogrammed. That is the first that has been and such a paper is simply allowed to lie on the table. unprogrammed for a considerable length of time, so We need to find a way of programming. it would be interesting to see if consensus lasts Mr Heald: With respect, I do not think that it is through the course on that. controversial or mean-spirited to say we are Mr Heald: I particularly welcome that because with prepared to do this in a consensual way, which is the Finance Bill there are so many outside interests what we used to do and tried to do. Part of the that want to make representations to members of the problem after the 1997 general election was the committee that unless you have some flexibility with nature of the legislation that we were trying to do the timing of the programme, so that as the this with. If you think about the Scotland Bill and representations come in they could be reflected in the Government of Wales Bill, and some of these amendments, unless you have that sort of steady other bills, they were very hotly contested. There progress at the beginning of the Bill and then speed were diYculties which we did not necessarily up at the end, as the Finance Bill has always done, it appreciate at the outset. For example, on the does not work. Government of Wales Bill, there were four diVerent kinds of opposition to that Bill, and they all wanted Q197 Chairman: Mr Luke has mentioned the to have their say, and it was all on the floor of the Finance Bill. Can I ask how and why that situation House. We got to the position one day where we had has occurred? Why has this exception been made by half a dozen privy councillors wanting to speak and the Government, that the Finance Bill, which as you ten minutes left before a knife. Those sorts of have said is a critical bill, and perhaps the most problems did make it very diYcult, but I would have important bill in the parliamentary year, is thought that for most bills you do not need a unprogrammed? programme motion at all. On the others, they fall Mr Heald: The history is that it has been less into two categories. There is the sort of bill where it programmed than almost any other bill. It was is quite helpful for all parties to have a programme, programmed last year, but not the year before. It perhaps because it is a bill with two very clear halves does not go down at all well in business and City to it. With the Civil Contingencies Bill we did not circles if an important debate about something agree the programme, but that is a Bill where the which aVects billions of pounds is cut oV half-way 9656571002 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:06:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 65
21 April 2004 Mr Oliver Heald MP through. I think the Government recognises that; or Q200 Mr Swayne: You have acknowledged the I guess that is the reason. The other thing is that on concern that many clauses now go undebated. One the Finance Bill there are always traditionally very of the more bizarre suggestions that is doing the experienced whips and also very experienced teams rounds as a means of addressing this is that we on both sides, the spokesmen and the minister. That should have more eVective rationing in committee, helps because the preparation is done very well, and in terms of time limits on speeches. How do you a lot of the relationships are well established. react to that suggestion? Mr Heald: I do not agree with time limits on speeches, but I do think it is encumbent on Members Q198 Mr Atkinson: In the paper you talk about to make succinct, sensible contributions to debate; flexibility of hours, adding to a point that the and I think chairmen are often prepared to make Chairman of Ways and Means in his evidence said that point. that committees seem to be unwilling to sit beyond five or five-thirty. What is your view on that? Are Q201 Mr Swayne: Do you believe that the interests committees regularly sitting longer hours, or should of minor parties, indeed backbenchers, are that just be available to them if proceedings are adequately represented; and, if not, what might be getting too delayed? done to address that? Mr Heald: I think a lot of Members have got rather Mr Heald: It is important to recognise that the sloppy and are not prepared to do the hours that number of people you have here as members of your they should. Say we did have a much more balanced party does aVect what you can do, so it is not Parliament in terms of the numbers, I think a lot of possible for a party with two or three members or people would get quite a shock when they saw what even with 60 or 70 to do as much around the place as this place is like, with the sort of electric atmosphere a party with a lot more members; it is not physically you get in a committee where the majority is one or possible. It is quite diYcult to obtain eVective two. We are sent here to do a job, and the whole representation as a minor party, given that you have place should not be run for our convenience. We not got enough people to be on everything at the should get on and do our job, and if it takes extra same time. It is certainly something we would review hours then we should make them available. I think again, but I have not really found a very eVective Parliament should come first above some other answer—or nobody has given me a very eVective activities. answer—on how you achieve a really satisfactory solution. They tend to pick and choose their issues much more than a major party would. Q199 Mr Atkinson: Being in the position of a shadow spokesman on a bill on many occasions, asking a committee to sit for an extra two or three Q202 Mr Swayne: Is there any way that the main hours every now and then—does that not put a lot opposition or Government backbenchers could be of pressure on opposition spokesmen who do not better represented, in that the Opposition have any civil servants to brief them? spokesman would be called first after the minister, Mr Heald: There is a balance to be struck. I think we and in a guillotined debate it is often the case that should work the hours that we need to, but I do there is not any time for backbench contributions, agree with the point that if you are the opposition and people will be squeezed out? Going back to the you are often working with one researcher and Scotland Bill, if those backbench contributions outside bodies who are making representations to happened to be from Tam Dalyell, as was often the you, which you obviously want to look into case, he had a major point to put and actually never carefully. To get a day’s worth of committee’s got to put it. Is there any way in which the structure business prepared, where you have your speaking could address that, or is it simply having to do away notes, your amendments properly flagged up and all with the knives in entirety? the rest of it—just the technical side of it—is quite an Mr Heald: I do not agree with the internal knives objective. The other thing is that if you rush it too except in very rare cases. I do think you are right that much, quite a lot of outside bodies do not catch on backbenchers and Government backbenchers to what is going on with the bill until rather later particularly lose out in the current system. We would than you would expect, funnily enough—as object, given the way that the programme is colleagues know. I remember on the Regulation of negotiated—or not negotiated at the moment—by Investigatory Powers Bill, we had been doing it in the Government, if a lot of Government committee for quite a while, and suddenly the whole backbenchers started standing up, using the world knew about the Bill. It suddenly hit the precious time in committee, because at the moment headlines and was on every website, and lots of we are being pushed into a position where we are not public meetings were held. Issues that we had not getting the time we want, and the last thing we want realised were important became important. The is a lot of Government backbenchers standing up, banks suddenly realised that the Bill had eating even more into the time that we consider very implications for them. If you are rushing everything, precious. But if we went back to the sort of system I you can get to the point where you have gone beyond am talking about, where it is a much more a particular part of the bill before you realise it is a consensual, flexible system, then Government significant issue; so rushing it is not a good idea. backbenchers would do better as well. 9656571002 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:06:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 66 Procedure Committee: Evidence
21 April 2004 Mr Oliver Heald MP
Q203 Chairman: Following up Desmond Swayne’s Q205 Chairman: Are you saying that perhaps question, what about the Government party, taking discreetly and privately, if in respect say of the Iraq the current situation, where there are a number of debate the Speaker had 60 or 70 Members who had Government members who take a diVerent view to indicated their strong desire to speak, that it should the party view? Is it not appropriate and proper that be open to the Speaker privately, not in any way their views should have proper expression? publicly, to indicate his concern that so few of those Mr Heald: Exactly, Mr Chairman; I could not agree that had wanted to speak were going to get the more. That is exactly the opposite of what the opportunity of doing so? Government is attempting to achieve the whole Mr Heald: I think it is useful if the Speaker can have time. The whole backcloth of recent important some discreet discussions with the Leader of the debates on tuition fees, Hutton, and the local House. government settlement, was to restrict the amount of time available for those who did not agree with the Q206 David Wright: It is encumbent on the whips’ Government. We have actually had the ridiculous oYces to ensure that they are not whipping in large situation where almost everybody wanted to speak numbers of lists of speakers into the Speaker’s oYce. on tuition fees, on Hutton and on local government There needs to be a consensus there between settlement, and hardly anybody—half the Members government, opposition and other parties; that they who wanted to speak got a chance on Hutton and on are not putting undue pressure on the Speaker in tuition fees. Yet we have had other days since those circumstances. It is a diYcult one to manage. Christmas where the business has been very light. I Mr Heald: It is probably less of a problem for the did a rough calculation that we had 14 hours of opposition because there are so few of us at the possible sitting time that were unused between moment. Realistically, given that we have to man Christmas and the end of March, so that was two committees and perform all the other duties, 160 days of business which were not used; and yet I had MPs is a smallish number for a major opposition asked for two days’ debate on tuition fees and two party, and I do not think we would be easily doing that. days’ debate on Hutton, and more time on the local government settlement, and been told, “oh, no, we are far too busy”. It is Government Members as well Q207 Chairman: Would you also translate the view as Conservatives and other parties that are missing that you have expressed about the role of the out. Speaker, which is very critical to our democratic Chairman: Are there any colleagues on the parliamentary system, to be extended in committee situations to the role of chairman? They are Committee that would like to take up this matter generally joint chairmen, and again they are entirely with Mr Heald, because we have a number of impartial. It is important to emphasise that once Government backbenchers on this Committee? they are appointed to chair a standing committee, Mr McWalter: On the third item that Mr Heald they take no further part in the debate on that bill, mentioned, the local government settlement, it is including third reading. Do you think that your important to note that all that was heard was the views on the Speaker might be translated to— Front Bench spokespersons, and there were no Mr Heald: If the sort of proposal that the Clerk was opportunities at all for backbenchers on either side putting forward, that if a debate is obviously of to get up. interest to members of a committee and is continuing, then there should be the possibility for some limited overtime, which is within the discretion Q204Mr Luke: We raised these issues of special of the chairman, then I think that is a sensible idea. recalls and debates, like Iraq, which the Speaker recommended—and we have had an investigation Q208 Mr Atkinson: Turning to the power of the into the role of the Speaker on the basis of the programming sub-committee, do you think that if it number of people wanting to speak in a specific could recommend changes in out-date or debate, to give a recommendation to the recommend more time in the report stage, that Government that there may be more time needed. would be a useful tool; or do you think the same Mr Heald: I do think the Speaker has a very discreet thing could be done just as eVectively by the usual role. It would be wrong, I think, if we got our channels? Speaker into the situation that certain other Mr Heald: If you are going to programme a bill, then chairman of proceedings in other Parliaments are in, there is no harm at all in having a programming sub- where essentially they are part of the fabric of committee. I think it would be useful if there were government. It is a marvellous thing that we have a minutes available for the formal part of the tradition of an independent Speaker who is not proceedings so that everybody could refer to them. either the opposition spokesman to the government Once you have agreed a programme, then why not or the government’s spokesman to the opposition, have a programming sub-committee? However, I do and is truly independent. I would not want to not think they are necessary for most bills. interfere with that, so I would be quite careful about how I did it. I am sure that the Speaker, behind the Q209 Mr Luke: There has hardly ever been a scenes, tries to pursue his traditional role on programming committee for the report stage of a representing the interests of backbenchers—and he bill. In your submission you make the point there should. may be a case for delaying the sitting of a 9656571002 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:06:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 67
21 April 2004 Mr Oliver Heald MP programming committee until amendments have Mr Heald: It makes it almost impossible if that been tabled. How would you see that in practice happens. It is something that should not happen. being put into eVect? Sadly, even though we have been saying this for Mr Heald: At the moment, the Opposition tend to some time—and my predecessor—indeed Angela try and manage the report stage by putting their new Browning and Eric Forth took a very strong view on clauses down that deal with their main issues, in an this—only recently with the Planning Bill, at a very order which suits the Opposition, at a very early late stage, we had a whole new section of the Bill stage. That means that you do not really need a added at report; so it is still going on. programming committee in those cases. However, one of the problems is that the Government can slam down a huge number of amendments, and then you Q213 Chairman: Can I ask you this question, as are scuppered because you have lost the chance to somebody committed to the role of backbenchers in have your new clauses and the Government goes this place. Very often, somebody who is interested in first. It is helpful to good order if the Government a bill and the issues behind that bill will not be called can get themselves better organised from the start at second reading. Their chances of getting on to the and not produce large numbers of amendments. I committee if they did not speak during second also think it is quite impossible to programme a bill reading is less than if they did participate in the using a programming committee system unless you second reading debate; and the only opportunity know what the amendments are and how they have they get to contribute to an important bill which may been selected. The point I was making was that have considerable implications for their own unless there is a provisional selection, which there constituency or their own region is at the report has not always been with programming committees, stage or remaining stages. Do you believe that it is it is quite impossible to do any programming. My appropriate, in the interests of good legislation and view is that the date when the amendments should be democracy, that programming be applied to down should be earlier, and you should then have remaining stages, the report stage of legislation? your programming committee if necessary. My third Mr Heald: No, I think it is something that should be point is that the Government should, where used very sparingly. You are absolutely right, possible, not put down huge numbers of Chairman, that if you think about some of the bills amendments. There have been some absolute like the recent Higher Education Funding Bill, stinkers over recent years. The Criminal Justice Bill, where there was huge interest in the House and a which started in 2002–03 Session, went into pretty rigid guillotine, backbenchers have not had committee for 32 sessions; it came out, and then at their fair say. It is the reason you come here, report the Government put down 500 amendments obviously, to be able to represent constituents’ and 28 new clauses. Of course, it made it very, very interests and speak in major debates. If it is very diYcult for the Opposition to get any sort of say at vigorously curtailed by a guillotine, you cannot do all. that.
Q210 Mr Luke: To make that work eVectively you Q214David Wright: I was one of the few Members would need to set an earlier deadline for who attended all or most of the sessions in the amendments tabled. Planning Bill, and there were so few of us that we Mr Heald: Exactly. I support that. hung our anoraks up in the cloakroom before going in there! In some senses, that Bill is a poor example because the Government has spent a long time on it. Q211 Chairman: How can you do that, Mr Heald, if Is not the key to this problem, draft bills and more a bill is making steady progress and outside eVective pre-legislative scrutiny? That is the way in organisations that need to make representations to which you get organisations to contribute more government or to opposition parties, whether it is eVectively and bring forward their views. They can Her Majesty’s opposition or other opposition potentially table the amendments that can be used parties? How can you get amendments down earlier? by opposition or indeed by government Mr Heald: The secret is to have a long enough gap backbenchers at a very early stage. between committee and report to have time to play Mr Heald: I am very strongly supportive of pre- with; and then you also need to be able to advertise legislative scrutiny and always have been. I am glad the final date for amendments in a very clear and that the Government is increasing the number of straightforward way. I would have thought that we bills they subject to it. It is worth remembering, should look at our website and the ways in which we however, that you cannot amend the bill when you publicise what we do. As you know, Mr Chairman, are doing pre-legislative scrutiny, and there can still the Modernisation Committee has been looking at be an important role for the standing committee that. I think that publicising the final date for stage where you can make changes to the bill. I also amendments for the report stage of a bill and for like the idea of more on-line pre-legislative scrutiny, committee as well would be a useful thing to do. where experts in particular fields, bodies with an interest, can give us the benefit of their views. With Q212 Chairman: If, as you have indicated, the the Communications Bill, I understand it worked Government itself can come back to a bill at report extremely well to have an on-line facility, and I stage, tabling 500 amendments and 28 new clauses, would like to see more of that, properly moderated is that feasible? by the Hansard Society. 9656571002 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:06:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 68 Procedure Committee: Evidence
21 April 2004 Mr Oliver Heald MP
Q215 Mr Swayne: Do you accept that eVective pre- much time should be allocated for each bill, and legislative scrutiny does not necessarily reduce the having a more consensual approach on that basis time required at committee because members, both and agreeing where we can reduce time on bills backbench and frontbench, will be better informed where there is broad agreement. On the Civil as a consequence of scrutiny and they may well have Contingencies Bill there may be five or six points you more to say? are hoping to get the Government to change its mind Mr Heald: I do agree with that. I have just been on, but I do not think there is any feeling across the doing the Civil Contingencies Bill, because I am also House that we should not have that Bill. I think it is the spokesman on the Cabinet OYce. That Bill had about better management of time and a better had a lot of pre-legislative scrutiny and we had eight session programme. very full sessions on it. The advantage of it is that the Mr Heald: We do not feel that there is too much debates are much better focused, and you are wrong with the overall structure of the annual round making points that the minister has had the of legislation. We have a very good working opportunity of researching through the pre- relationship in relation to that with the Government. legislative process; therefore, you get a much better Our arguments tend to be over the more immediate debate. Sadly, we have not been able to agree on six issues. In terms of the year as a whole, the Chief points that we still think are vitally important. It has Whip and the Government Chief Whip do not have certainly improved the quality of the scrutiny. a problem. I have a very good relationship with the Leader of the House and I am not unhappy with Q216 Chairman: Therefore, it is better legislation that. I would have thought that there was not really when it comes for Queen’s assent. much need to change the way we do the overall Mr Heald: I am hoping that Douglas Alexander will picture, with one exception: I strongly believe that agree my remaining six points, and then I would the Government should produce a full list of its bills assent to that completely. and intended draft bills at the beginning of the year. Chairman: I cannot make any comment from the This year, we have had an absolute farce, with Peter Chair. Hain saying that if I could guess what draft bills he was going to put forward, then he would agree that Q217 David Wright: I want to touch briefly on the that was one of them. We therefore had a guessing issue of second and third reading. It seems to me that game for about a week, trying to work out which one of the problems with this House is that for an draft bills were going to go ahead. I do not see any enormous bill, one day is allocated to second reason why the Government at the time of the reading, and for a small bill one day is allocated for Queen’s speech should not put out a document that second reading. We need to look at the time we are simply lists the bills they intend to take forward, and giving to second-reading debates on major pieces of the draft bills they intend to put forward for pre-leg. legislation. There is no reason why we cannot have a We would all then accept that they might want to two-day debate on second reading, and also on third change it as the year goes on, but there are not many reading. You say within your material that you think businesses where you do not have an annual agenda. adequate time should be allocated to third reading. How would you define “adequate”? Is that on the Q220 Chairman: In your submission, which was basis of the size of the bill or the number of succinct and very helpful to us, you emphasised the amendments that have been made? Ultimately, third need—and you said it several times during the reading is a bit of a final nod, is it not, so how would evidence you have given us this afternoon—for you see time splitting on second reading? flexibility to accommodate what you describe as Mr Heald: On second reading, I think there are very urgent debates and to deal with build-ups of work. few bills that do not warrant a day, and I think that You also reject proposals for a legislative business more bills warrant two days than currently get them. committee to oversee the Government’s sessional As regards third reading, I think an hour is the programme or legislation. Do you think that minimum. That is my overall view. increased use of the carry-over of bills or even a rolling programme of legislation during a Q218 Chairman: That is not really a very good Parliament might enhance the flexibility and answer because David Wright asked what you responsiveness of the current system? considered to be adequate time, not the minimum. Mr Heald: I think it is important that the Mr Heald: With a really substantial bill with a Government should run an eVective, eYcient, number of issues involved, I believe you need more legislative operation. Although there is a case for than an hour, but there are a lot of bills that do not carry-over with particularly diYcult, complicated, fall into that category. Obviously, there are about 40 not very controversial bills, such as the major a year, so you could go through dividing them into Financial Services Bill a couple of sessions ago, two categories: those that should have more than an overall I think it is a good discipline for the hour; and those that should have an hour. Government to be told, “you have an order of bills, you have a programme; you prepare your business Q219 Chairman: This is all about programming for properly”. You start Bills oV with pre-legislative Parliament and about parliamentarians and the scrutiny perhaps in session 1 and finish them oV in main parties sitting down and looking at the session 2, with the proper procedure of the House for legislative programme for the coming parliamentary legislation. I am not someone who thinks we should session, deciding what are the key bills and how make a lot of concessions on carry-over or run to a 9656571002 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:06:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 69
21 April 2004 Mr Oliver Heald MP two-year or five-year programme, because I think the House, “really the system cannot take the that would make them sloppier than they are at the volume of legislation that you are clearly going to moment. You have only got to see the great rafts of seek to put before the House; is it not possible to amendments they are bringing in at report stage and address this matter and perhaps drop one or two committee to see that they are just not preparing pieces of legislation that may not be urgent?” these bills properly. It is partly the fault of ministers Mr Heald: One of those ideas of course has an for not giving clear instructions to the parliamentary attraction in the sense that, as you say, experienced draftsmen, and partly trying to put too much Members here have a lot of wisdom. However, the legislation through. It is not just the number of bills; great advantage of the current system is that I can it is the number of pages of legislation that is the pop in and see Peter Hain and have a chat about problem. They are simply trying to put too much some issue that has cropped up, and we can sort it through. out. The same is true with David Maclean and Hilary. I would not want to prejudice that speed of Q221 Chairman: If that is your view, why are you so action and that flexibility, which has always been the strongly opposed to a legislative business committee advantage of the usual channels. that could assist in sorting this matter out? Mr Heald: We do not believe the problem is with the Q224Chairman: I am going to put you on a spot overall annual amount of time available, or the bills though. You have come forward and submitted a that the Government is trying to put forward, except memorandum which indicates that the current the quantity of them. system is not working and is quite intolerable, to paraphrase what you have said. If the current system Q222 Chairman: Is that not the point, Mr Heald? A is so acceptable because you can pop in and see Peter legislative business committee could indicate to the Hain, and David Maclean can pop in and see Hilary Government that they are trying to put too much Armstrong, why did you write this paper? legislation through the House, which would result in Mr Heald: I wrote the paper because of my great inadequate scrutiny of that legislation and bad concerns—at your request, Sir—and those of the legislation coming out of this House? Opposition—about the way that programming Mr Heald: I do not think it would be possible to have works. We feel short-changed and badly treated over such a committee designed in a way that did not programming, and we would like to go back to the reflect the arithmetic of the place; and the power is previous system before we had the structure imposed with the Government. If you had a committee that on us by Modernisation Committee Report No. 2. was a Government committee, I do not think you That does not mean that there are not some would gain much advantage. A lot of people have advantages to having a flexible system for the day- pointed out that they try and get too many pages of to-day management of the working of the House of legislation through each year, but they ignore the Commons. Being able to fit debates in at quick advice, and I do not think that having a committee notice and the sort of flexibility that I describe on my would change that. Our arguments with the last page is something that we value. The other point Government in the usual channels, tend to be over is that we do not believe that the more substantial matters of week-by-week importance. They are architecture of a legislative business committee matters about whether we should have one day or would necessarily improve matters. two days next week or the week after. We argue about that. Generally, the advantage of the current Q225 Mr McWalter: I can quite understand why you system is that it is very capable of putting in an extra yourself would not want to pursue some of the lines debate at short notice if we want to. After the that we were pursuing about whether changes of Equitable Life statement I had been pushing very procedure would make a diVerence. It seems to me hard for a debate. The Government was able to you are telling us that the procedures are perfectly all quickly re-jig the agenda and put one in. I would not right as they are, and that you appreciate all this want to prejudice the ability to act swiftly like that. flexibility, but that you would like to get your own We have a good working relationship on a personal way a little bit more than you do. Of course, it is the level with the Government. The things that we argue job of Opposition, if the Government comes up with about are not the long-term things but the short- 40 bills, to try and organise it so that only 25 of the term things. bills see the light of day; and then the Opposition will feel a great sense of triumph and joy. The Q223 Chairman: Are you not really under- Government will say, “we know what you are about. estimating the good sense and responsibility of You are trying to fix things so that in the end, from Members in all parties in the House, particularly as the programme we have got for 40 bills, less than 40 perhaps the more experienced Member in all the will emerge”. That is the standard party-political political parties is likely to be the individual battle. Omitted from what you have told us, Mr appointed to a legislative business committee? They Heald, is any sense that what you are trying to would have a broad experience of this place, and protect in the end is better legislation; that more they might carry some influence with Government; people should be given an opportunity to make their and that includes the Government Members who contribution. We do not necessarily want that to would be on that committee. They might themselves result in you winning and fewer bills going through; say to Hilary Armstrong, the Government Chief we want to make sure that the procedures that are Whip, or for that matter Peter Hain, the Leader of operated are such that they are independent of one 9656571002 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:06:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 70 Procedure Committee: Evidence
21 April 2004 Mr Oliver Heald MP side or the other. It is simply about whether there are work harder and longer hours but would not be adequate opportunities for people to influence the impugning the capacity of the House to send other procedure, the running through of a bill. As a result, legislation through as well, that would perhaps be we are looking for structural changes. We are deemed not to be politically invidious or as looking, for instance, for example, of taking quite complying with the agenda of the Opposition or the seriously the idea that a programming sub- Government, because the Government sometimes committee chairman should have exclusive does not want to have these opposing views heard responsibility for the interests of backbenchers, and and so a Chair could remain impartial but have more that that should be formalised in the standing orders powers than currently he or she has to ensure that relating to programming. We see that that is a there is appropriate and extended scrutiny. I possible way forward. You say: “No, no, we are not suppose we are looking to you as Shadow Leader of very interested in programming sub-committees the House for some kind of thought or steer as to anyway.” As a result, it comes down to the fact that whether you feel that in the end that would be an we are trying to find a way of structurally addressing improvement and so far what I have got from you is the sort of problem that you have given us, but now, that it would not be. lo and behold, (a) you do not seem to want any Mr Heald: It would be an improvement to have changes in the structure, and (b) you more or less some limited ability for the Chairman to give a bit pull the rug out from the paper you have given us more extra time. The Clerk suggested 15 minutes; about describing the problems. As I started by you could argue a little either side of that. saying, I was very keen indeed to see a way forward from your paper, but this Member feels as though this paper is best thrown in the bin and that we should start again. Q227 Mr McWalter: But you yourself said that was Mr Heald: Could I just answer that? I think that is a totally inadequate. harsh judgment. The first point I would make is that Mr Heald: No. I said that my view on programming we do not accept the current structure and we want overall is that the current structure is unacceptable to abandon it, so I would not want to resile too and that we should go back to the structure which we strongly from that by accepting proposals which had before the second Modernisation Committee would embed the current structure which we find report was implemented in 2001. As far as the unacceptable. Having said that, anything that can be present system is concerned, I do agree with the done to give a little bit more latitude or to give the Clerk that a certain amount of discretion in the Chairman a bit more say we would welcome, but, Chair to give extra time, the 15 minutes or maybe a when it comes down to it, we do not believe that bit longer, is a good idea. I also think some extra every bill should be programmed and that we should discretion to deal with divisions and that side of it be forced to have Government timetables on would be useful. I agree with the Chairman that it everything imposed upon us. That is the first point. would be useful if the Chairman could at least The second point is that, as regards the relationship present to the Government Minister and the Whip a between the Government and the Opposition and particular problem if it arises in the way that was the business of the House, of course, it is not all described; I am in favour of that, but I would not legislation and it is very useful to be able to call for want to give the impression that any of this meets a short debate or an all-day debate on a particular our principal objection to being forced to accept less subject at short notice and to have an easy time than we believe is necessary for a lot of bills. arrangement, which we do at the moment, to enable You only have to look at the number of knives that us to make those representations. A lot of the most have been implemented to see just how destructive of important debates we have here are adjournment our democratic process that has been. A final point debates on subjects of vital interest to our I want to make on the Chairman is that Roger Gale constituents. What I say about programming is that was the Chairman on the Criminal Justice and Police it is not the whole picture and we feel that a Bill when I was the Conservative Shadow Minister legislative business committee would not be and he was put in a very invidious position. The responsive enough to meet all the needs that we see. Government had promised us 16 sessions. They went back on that and only presented a programme Q226 Mr McWalter: But in the end, when you have at the Sub-Committee for 14 sessions despite the fact somebody chairing proceedings, whether it is the that they had added a whole load of new Speaker for a full Second Reading debate, or amendments to do with the Huntingdon Life whether it is the Chairman of a Bill Committee, one Sciences issue, and so we had a lot more work and of the issues is what powers does that person have? less time to do it in. It was a very hot political issue We do not want it to get to the situation where that how much time that Committee had and I think it position becomes politically invidious so, for would have been unfair to put Roger Gale in a instance, if by adding on ten sessions to a bill’s position where he could have changed the proceedings, it is quite clear that two other bills are Government’s time allocation, and I am sure he going to fall, then that Chairman’s action would be would agree, because he would then have been right seen as invidious and politically partisan. We at the centre of the political debate. He would be in obviously want to try and avoid that situation. On the position as Chairman of being politicised. What the other hand, if by adding some sessions on, the should have happened was that the Government Chairman would eVectively be asking members to should not have been in a position to dictate that 9656571002 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:06:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 71
21 April 2004 Mr Oliver Heald MP without having to bring forward the guillotine Question two is, do you think that the Chairman of motion that they used to have in the old days which a Standing Committee could seek to bring together was quite a diYcult thing for a Government to do. a meeting of the Business Sub-Committee of that Mr McWalter: First of all, it was a joint Standing Committee, if clearly that Committee is chairmanship, so there would have been a Labour getting behind, to suggest both to the Government Chairman as well, and if they had jointly said that and to the Opposition parties that that Committee that was unacceptable (and as you describe it it might, particularly in its afternoon sitting, sit for certainly sounds that way) then if they were longer in order to try and provide more time without empowered to reinstate the 16 sessions or whatever in any way changing the out-date from Standing that would not have been quite as invidious and, Committee? That really follows on, I think, the sort furthermore, if there were some system whereby they of questioning that Mr McWalter has addressed to could report to some other body, say, the Speaker or you. this Committee or whoever, on their action and seek Mr Heald: As regards the Finance Bill, it is just an approval for it or otherwise, then again that would odd anomaly, I suppose, or something we rather like take away some of that invidiousness. I do not see and hope will continue, that the Finance Bill is why you should give up the game and say, “Look exempted formal business. how dreadful the Government is”. It may be helpful to say, “Look how dreadful the Government is”, but Q229 Chairman: Indeed, but it is important to get the truth is that we are trying to make sure that they that on record. cannot behave dreadfully. We are looking for ways Mr Heald: Of course it is, and it is an important of trying to protect people against such behaviour. point that you have raised, Chairman. As regards the Chairman expressing a viewpoint, I do not think there is ever a problem with the Chairman of a Q228 Chairman: Before you answer that, can I come Committee saying, “We have got a lot of people in with two questions, because I do think you need rising on this particular issue. The usual channels to answer that question that Mr McWalter has put? may want to consider the timing of matters”, so to Let us take the business of the House yesterday. The raise the point in that way I think is absolutely fine. House did not in fact rise at seven o’clock. It rose at The only problem that would arise would be if the 7.40 p.m. We knew early in the day that there had Chairman was given a very wide power to change the been two very important statements, one by the programme of the Committee. Prime Minister on the Government’s decision to Chairman: Do any colleagues wish to put other have a referendum on the European constitution, questions? If not, we have made quite a lot of and again a lengthy statement, an important one, on progress. On behalf of the Procedure Committee, the Independent Monitoring Commission. Could those who are here, those who have been and gone, you perhaps help this Committee and also those who can I thank Oliver Heald, the Shadow Leader of the will read our minutes and are following this House, for coming before us, for his very succinct discussion and inquiry, particularly the Hansard and I think helpful memorandum and for the very Society and others, about who took the decision that full and frank way in which he has answered the there should be another 40 minutes for the Second many questions, including provocative ones, which Reading of the Finance Bill? That is question one. have been put to him. 978572PAG1 Page Type [SE] 09-07-04 01:06:42 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 72 Procedure Committee: Evidence
Wednesday 19 May 2004
Members present
Sir Nicholas Winterton, in the Chair
Mr Peter Atkinson Rosemary McKenna David Hamilton Mr Tony McWalter Huw Irranca-Davies Sir Robert Smith Mr Iain Luke
Witnesses: Rt Hon Peter Hain, a Member of the House, Leader of the House of Commons, and Mr Phil Woolas, a Member of the House, Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, examined.
Q230 Chairman: Can I welcome the Leader of the whereby Members have to take responsibility for House, the Rt Hon Peter Hain, and the Deputy those visitors, sign in on that responsibility and take Leader, Mr Phil Woolas, to the meeting of the the consequences including apologising to the Procedure Committee this afternoon to give us House if there were an equivalent incident. We want evidence into our inquiry into the programming of to look at whether those procedures need to be legislation, which is a matter of very considerable tightened up and whether additional information importance to all Members of the House of should be sought on visitors who are signed in by Commons. Leader, can I thank you for coming, and Members of the House in that way. your Deputy too. It has been a busy, an interesting and an exciting day. Your Deputy was put through Q231 Chairman: Can I say on behalf of my the hoop to an extent this morning in Westminster Committee that we are very grateful for that Hall in a debate that arose through the application comment and I think that we all take what occurred of Sir George Young into our report into sessional this morning during Prime Minister’s Questions very orders and resolutions, and I hope that you and your seriously and, as you have indicated, clearly a review Deputy will consider the matters that were raised, of procedures will be carried out and no doubt in due particularly in relation to the response which you course appropriately reported to the House. Thank have kindly given to that report. Perhaps it would be you, both to yourself and to your deputy, for coming appropriate, bearing in mind what happened in the this afternoon and can I put the first question. What Chamber today at approximately 12.20, for you to is your current assessment of how well programming say something to the Committee about that event. of legislation is working and is it improving at all Mr Hain: First of all, thank you very much for following its initial introduction? inviting me along and for you also accepting that it Mr Hain: I think it is working, I think it is working would be sensible for Phil Woolas, my Deputy, to well and I think it is being improved, not least as a come as well because, with his experience in the result of the Modernisation Committee’s report Whips’ OYce, I thought it might be helpful to the which recommended a series of changes and I will Committee. I very much welcome this inquiry and perhaps explain the progress on those. That does not also any advice you have as a result of it. On this mean that there is not always room for improvement morning’s debate, as I indicated in my letter to you, and I think it is valuable to monitor it. When it I am sorry that the response from the Government works well, it is of benefit to the Government in took so long. You, quite properly, pressed me on this terms of getting their business through, of benefit to regularly in business questions and it may well be the Opposition because it can focus on the key issues that the pressure, including this morning’s that concern members of the Opposition and it is of adjournment debate, helped hasten a response! I am benefit to the public because they know which sorry that it took so long to come. I regard the particular parts of the bill will be discussed on a incident that took place today as very serious. The particular day or at a particular time of the day and decision to erect a security screen was taken on the therefore can make arrangements in their diaries advice of the Security Service who came to me in accordingly. As you will recall, in the report last summer last year and, immediately, I was aware of year, the Modernisation Committee firmly endorsed the threat to the Chamber based on intelligence they the principle of programming, believing that some had received. I was of the firm view that there needed measures could be taken to improve the operation of to be a security screen and had to persuade many the system, and of course programming came in as a others of that point of view, but thankfully that was result of a long history of independent reports which done. There clearly now needs to be a proper review, indicated that the House’s business ought to be including advice by the Security Service, on the managed in a more systematic fashion. I think we circumstances in which visitors can come into the made some considerable progress in this session to side gallery. The side galleries are normally occupied remedy some of the problems that the by visitors who are there as a result of a request from Modernisation Committee identified. We, for a Member of this House, but it seems now also a example, made renewed eVorts to engage with the Member of the House of Lords, and we want to be Opposition as a Government to try and achieve a clear that there are additional procedures in place consensual approach. One third of the programme 9785721001 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:06:42 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 73
19 May 2004 Rt Hon Peter Hain and Mr Phil Woolas motions moved this session have been approved Compulsory Purchase Bill, as the Modernisation without division, which indicates a greater Committee made clear, that has often been to do consensus than there was before. The great majority with perhaps inexperience by the Whips in dealing of detailed programmes have been agreed with bills of that kind in the programming context or consensually. Of the 22 programming sub- a breakdown of trust in relations between the whips committees so far this session, only three have had on either side. I think where the usual channels work divisions and we made much less use of internal well, as they do in the main as the figures I have given knives. Of the 17 bills programmed in standing you show, then I think it is a satisfactory procedure, committees this session, eight have had or are but perhaps Phil Woolas could speak from his own expected to have no knives and the others have had experience. only a few. I think we have shown great flexibility in varying programmes both in terms of internal knives and out-dates when circumstances have merited it. Q235 Chairman: Before he does, can I just, in respect We have oVered more days on report where there of the use of programming, quote the Clerk of the have been significant numbers of Government House who said, “initial advocates of programming, amendments, for example on the Pensions Bill, in as it has come to be called . . . [suggested] that this order to make time to consider amendments. We procedure should be mediated through a committee also responded to suggestions by facilitating later with a degree of independence in its chairmanship. start times for standing committees if this was That at the very least would have guaranteed that desired. there had been genuine consultation before a programme motion was tabled.” Perhaps you might care to reply to that but, if your Deputy would like Q232 Chairman: I thank you for that reply but you to bear that in mind now, as it were, in dealing with will accept that, following initial cooperation when this question. programming was introduced, there was a Mr Hain: I do not agree with that proposition. I breakdown in the relationship between Government think that as we already show in this session, and Opposition which has caused serious problems programming is working much better than it did on and I put to you that, when proposals for the previous occasions and it has been a learning curve programming of legislation were first made, it was for everybody. Some of the recommendations of the suggested that a committee should decide when and Modernisation Committee have in practice been how the procedures should apply. Could the adopted, as both Opposition and Government operation of such a committee go some way towards Whips and Members have been more experienced restoring the initial consensus on the programming with programming, and the figures I gave you show of bills? This, I say from the chair, is important that it has worked on a more consensual basis, but because obviously in debating legislation, the perhaps Phil Woolas could add to that. Opposition—and that includes all Opposition Mr Woolas: My view is that, whatever structure one Parties—should have a major say because it is sets up, whatever the formal channels are, Government legislation and obviously the committees or business committee or programming opposition in the main, although occasionally on the sub-committees or the full programming committee, Government side itself, is going to come from the because of the nature of our system, if you formalise Opposition Parties and they therefore must have things in that way, if relationships have broken some meaningful say in the programme motion and down between the two main Whips, then it does not do you think a committee could help to that end? matter what the structure is, it has just broken down Mr Hain: Are you referring to the proposition for a and all that we are doing, I would argue, is delaying. business committee? To shed some light on this—and I think I have seven standing committees under this procedure—what Q233 Chairman: However you put it. became clear to me was that the relationship with my Mr Hain: If it is the formal idea of a business opposite number was as important to me, if not committee which has been suggested by some, I am more important, in achieving my aim of delivering not convinced by the arguments for that. I think the the business as my relationship with the minister on present usual channels procedures have stood us my side was. The minister on my side, in practical very well for many years and I think that, if we did logistical terms, would often cause me more have a business committee, it would in reality and problems than the Opposition Whip, as indeed, as I practice rubberstamp the decisions made elsewhere; subsequently learned, the relationship between I do not think it would really add any transparency him—it always was a him—and his Shadow front or shift control from the existing legislature. bench caused him greater problems than his relationship with me, unless it broke down and, Q234Chairman: If there is a breakdown in when it broke down, one then has to take a decision communication between the Government’s usual as to whether you put it back together again or channels and Opposition usual channels, does that whether you do not. If it has broken down for real not create a serious problem? reasons as in the case where we had problems with Mr Hain: I might bring Phil Woolas in on his working on the Finance Bill where the timetabling experience of programming. If there is a breakdown, motion clearly was not going to satisfy anyone, so we then that is serious but in fact this does not happen decided to change it mutually, but if there were a very often and, where there has been, as for example political fight over a point of principle, for example occurred in the planning of the Planning and there was one point on the Transport Bill, then it did 9785721001 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:06:42 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 74 Procedure Committee: Evidence
19 May 2004 Rt Hon Peter Hain and Mr Phil Woolas not matter what the formal relationship was. I have Mr Hain: The Chairman’s role is important, very read the Clerk’s comment and my fear about that is important. As a member of the Programming Sub- that it would diminish that ability to get that good Committee, he or she can get things together if he or relationship going. she thinks things are not going as they should be and, as I understand it from the advice I have taken, Q236 Chairman: Albeit that I think the Chairmen’s Whips on both sides take strong advice from the Panel in the House has a very fine reputation for its Chairman in those circumstances. That is a diVerent impartiality, whether a chairman is of the matter from putting the Chairman into an overtly Opposition Party or the Government Party, they can partisan role which has been a suggestion. I do not and have displayed on many occasions the think that would be the right way to proceed. The impartiality that I think the political parties other point I would make or rather that I hinted at appreciate and certainly people outside this place earlier is, where things have broken down, which is appreciate. Would you accept that? not very often, it often is due to inexperience of Mr Woolas: Very, very much so and I would also say Whips involved on both sides. As I think Phil that if a chairman wanted to suggest to the usual Woolas will confirm from his own experience, it is a channels that the timetabling motion was not complicated business. People are sometimes on a working, they do so. very steep learning curve. Chairman: While I think we can sort out the Q237 Chairman: I am glad to have that on record! problems at standing committee stage, we have had Mr Woolas: They do so and my experience is that concerns expressed to us about the fact that there has they do so out of a motive of commonsense. There been little or no consultation apparently between the were some bad examples of timetabling. The Leader usual channels over the programme motion that is has referred to the Planning and Compulsory put immediately after the second reading of the Bill. Purchase Bill. To be fair to the Government, they It may have improved in the more recent times but, did recommit that Bill for further scrutiny. I believe at some stage, we did get quite a lot of concern that people learn from their experiences and there expressed—and not just from Opposition Parties— are no courses on how to do it for the people about the fact that the programme motion was involved. basically tabled by the Government and had to be Chairman: Mr Woolas, I hope that the smile that voted on without debate immediately after the appeared on the Leader of the House’s face second reading debate and division and that too indicated his support for the comment that you have little consultation had occurred at that stage. Is that made because, if one can proceed by consensus, I am still the position or is there now a meaningful one of those who does have an understanding of and consultation between Government and Opposition? support for responsible programming. I think it is to I know that my colleague Peter Atkinson would the advantage of all concerned. want to come in on this, so perhaps, Peter, you would like to come in on this before the Leader of the House responds. Q238 Mr McWalter: This is the Procedure Mr Atkinson: Really just to pick up on that point. I Committee and, in part, it is right that we are think that there are—and I talk as a member of the looking not only at getting reports on whether a Opposition Whips’ OYce—discussions between the particular way of doing things is going quite well but usual channels about the programme motion prior also looking at the extent to which they have a to post second reading. The problem arises because propensity to go badly and ask whether the the whole shape of the bill changes enormously in procedures that we have in place will deal with things the course of its proceedings and a number of when they go badly. So, when the Leader of the Government amendments may be added at the time. House tells us that it is all going quite well, what The bill that eventually goes into Committee or crosses my mind is that he is the man who has the comes out of Committee into Report stage is a very lever and he pulls it and the people who would like diVerent thing and, to actually predict how much it to be a diVerent lever that they pulled might diVer time we want at the later stages would be very with him about the eYcacy of that particular diYcult indeed and I think that has often been the mechanism. I do wonder whether if we had not only cause for some problems. Forgive me, it is not a the capacity for Whips of opposite sides getting on question, it is more of an explanation. well and sorting things out, but a Programming Committee and therefore this extra valuable resource, which the Chairman has talked about, of Q240 Chairman: That was very helpful and the people within the Chairmen’s Panel who can Leader will have the opportunity of responding. actually mediate when things go badly and tell Mr Hain: If the programme motion moved after the someone that they are being unreasonable and that second reading, clearly that sets an out-date. If in the would actually be a sounder procedure and would course of scrutiny it is felt that the out-date should cover us for the cases when things went badly. be extended or revised, then there is flexibility in the Would you not agree with that? system to do so, as we did, for example, with both the Mr Hain: Obviously, yes, and I think the Pensions Bill and the Higher Education Bill, largely, Chairman’s role— in the case of the Pensions Bill, as a result of additional or an unexpectedly large number of Q239 Mr McWalter: That is good! We run them, Government amendments. I think it is important to that is fine, and that is all we need to know! remind ourselves in the round that there was never a 9785721001 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:06:42 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 75
19 May 2004 Rt Hon Peter Hain and Mr Phil Woolas golden age of scrutiny of all bills, of every clause in to be very cognisant of the timetables—they do not every bill. That just did not apply, as the do specify timetabling in bills but they have their Modernisation Committee reported, and in fact plan for the legislative programme overall and of there was actually deep and widespread course the Government do not necessarily have their dissatisfaction with the haphazard nature of a great say in there. Those are the two main criteria. For the deal of scrutiny, concern over filibustering and Opposition—and it is not for me to say but in my pressure from Members over a number of years of all experience of the conversations—they will take a parties for some form of timetabling in Government judgment which is political, that is in part their job, Bills to be introduced. So, I think that fine-tuning the what they can get out of cooperating in one area that system, as we did following the Modernisation they want in another area and is also down to Committee’s report and your own pragmatic things and I think one of the changes that recommendations as a result of further study will has helped programming and that discussion take obviously be considered very carefully, is one thing, place in the better way is actually the parliamentary but throwing the programming baby out with the calendar because there is a general acceptance, bath water is altogether another matter. although there can be flexibility forwards and Chairman: I have to say as the Chair of this backwards, that the parliamentary calendar does Committee that that is not our intention. We believe help in timetabling the overall legislative programme there is a role for programming and it is perhaps the and, within that context, the discussions will take finessing of it, the fine-tuning of it and the role that place. the Opposition necessarily needs to play in Mr Hain: I think it might be helpful to add, further programming is what must be recognised. to that question that, if the concern is that the Government are not providing enough time in some Q241 Mr Luke: The Shadow Leader of the House in instances, I should perhaps report to the Committee his evidence to this Committee made the point that that, of the 15 standing committees that were the oYcial Opposition do not believe that the reported this session, four have reported early. So, majority of bills need to be programmed. What steps provided there is flexibility and provided that the do you take to agree on an out-date from Committee Government have some certainty about the out-date on a voluntary basis before deciding to table a and are in a position to have significant influence programming order? over that through programming, then the scope for Mr Hain: First of all, I think that you cannot have filibuster and for wrecking tactics in terms of the programming on an ad hoc basis. You either decide progress of the Bill is reduced but actually, from the to operate in that way for legislation or you do not. Opposition’s point of view, the opportunity to focus It is always the intention and it is indeed in the on the things that really matter to the Opposition are Government’s own self-interest to generate a improved. So, it is a win-win when it operates consensus with the Opposition through the usual properly and, by and large, it is operating properly. channels. I think it would be a mistake to use programming only where we cannot agree as a Q243 Chairman: So, what you are saying to the weapon of last resort. I think it works best when we Committee is that you yourself do see an increasing can achieve a consensus and I think the existence of use of flexibility because, while the out-date may be programming encourages and can to some extent finite and must be stuck to, what goes on in between force a consensus. On the issue of an out-date, there before the out-date is reached really is very much for is scope for that to be revised and it has been revised the Committee and clearly, in that debate, the in the two examples I have quoted and I dare say will Opposition Parties will be able to dictate very much be in the future. what they want time to debate. Mr Hain: Yes and that happens in practice. It is not Q242 Mr Luke: Obviously the out-date may well be in the interests of the Government to frustrate the the major point of divergence between yourselves Opposition from the ability to focus on the things and the Leader of the Opposition. How much on that it really wants to focus on. It is in our interest to average does the out-date diVer between yourselves encourage that, otherwise you do not have a proper and the Opposition? scrutiny of the bill and you do not have an Mr Woolas: All out-dates are discussed. The opportunity to build a consensus. The Government imperative on the Government for an out-date is have no interest in creating circumstances where actually determined by the required Royal Assent there are not the greatest opportunities for a date first of all, which may be in itself determined by consensus. It is in our interests to get one. financial, legal and real-world events. For example, the out-date on the Higher Education Bill, believe it Q244 Chairman: So, you would share the view of all or not, the whole timetable was determined by the who are deeply concerned when a bill leaves requirement of the University Admissions standing committee with many of its clauses and Departments to print their prospectuses. They told schedules and new clauses undebated? the Department for Education that they had to be Mr Hain: Yes and no. Yes and no in the sense that ready by the first week in January and the legislative this has always happened. This is nothing peculiar to timetable worked backwards from that. The second programming. It has always happened that a limited criterion is of course the House of Lords because, as number of clauses and schedules have been subject well as the usual channels where we have specific to detailed scrutiny, partly because the others may timetabling within bills here, we also of course have well not be regarded as suYciently of concern or may 9785721001 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:06:42 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 76 Procedure Committee: Evidence
19 May 2004 Rt Hon Peter Hain and Mr Phil Woolas be non-controversial or completely acceptable. So, I more time on those clauses than indeed the do not think the fact that a chunk of a bill or a Opposition and the Government Whips were, and schedule or two has gone unscrutinised or that we were able to accommodate but of course the undebated means that therefore there has been a danger without timetabling in that particular complete failure. It may well be from the instance is that those back benchers, who very Opposition’s point of view, in fact I dare say it is reasonably were putting forward their constituency likely from the Opposition’s point of view, that point of view, would have taken a lot more of the actually nodding that business through means that Committee’s time by tabling amendments and there is no real concern about it and that you focus forcing debate had they not got a satisfactory chunk on the areas where you have concern, otherwise you of their timetable. So, when one timetables on a would never get any legislation through and the programme motion, it is not just Opposition Government could not actually govern. Government, there are other criteria, and I know that that happens on the other side. Often the back Q245 Mr Luke: In some cases, there is quite a gap benchers on the other side gang up on the Whips and between the end of the Committee stage and the demand time and I believe that the programming Report stage in the House. Does that not indicate facility can allow those pressures to be reconciled in that, in some instances, you may not be as generous a mutually convenient and satisfactory way. with the time you allocated for Committee stage as you could be? Q248 Huw Irranca-Davies: Could I test you a little Mr Hain: I do not think so unless evidence is further on the issue of the out-date being set and the provided to the contrary. I think there is a great deal correct timing for it and it may be helpful if I read to of advantage of going into Committee in the way you a short piece from the Hansard Society briefing that it does reasonably quickly after the Second paper of last month in which they said, “There may Reading in order that the Bill can be progressed and be a case for a delay between Second Reading and in order that you can manage your business. As you the fixing of the outdate, so that points raised during will understand, the Government have to manage a the Second Reading of debate may be taken into whole number of bills at the same time at various account.” I inquire as to your view as to the stages in both this House and the House of Lords possibility of fixing the out-date either after the and, unless you have some certainty about where Second Reading or after a few sittings of the you are going and when, the whole system can Standing Committee, or perhaps that is too flexible. become pretty chaotic. Mr Hain: I think it is clearly preferable to allow Members, the Government and the Whips an Q246 Chairman: How would you respond to the opportunity to consider the balance of debate and Civil Contingencies Bill that reported in February issues and concerns raised in Second Reading and is only coming forward for Report and clearly, but you also need to bear in mind constantly remaining stages next week? the need to get that Government business through. Mr Hain: I just respond by saying, that is what is I do not say that in any steamroller fashion. On the happening! contrary, we are just as anxious and I think have good cause to claim through pre-legislative scrutiny and so forth, to get as great an amount of common Q247 Chairman: It is unfair of me but that is an scrutiny as possible, but the timetabling of the start example and the Civil Contingencies Bill is an of the Committee and the out-date compared with important bill and it might have had extra time for the Second Reading has to be taken in the round debate because it is not now until May, having with the overall management of a full series of bills reported in February, that the bill is going to be in to go on. its Report stage and remaining stages. Mr Woolas: There is a natural pressure, I think everybody in the room would recognise, on Q249 Huw Irranca-Davies: From your earlier governments of any colour to want to get there early comments, you are clear that there is some flexibility and the pressure upon the floor and the Leader of the in amending the out-date once you are in that stage. House to allocate a time for debates and so on is not Mr Hain: Yes and indeed that flexibility has been as flexible as people, particularly at 12.30 on a shown and demonstrated by what has happened Thursday, would have us believe that it is. In that just recently. particular case, I do not think it would be fair to say that insuYcient time was given, given the nature of Q250 Chairman: As a supplementary to what Mr the bill. That is not, as you know, Chairman, a Irranca-Davies was saying, do you not feel that it particular party-political bill. I think the other point would make a more rational way of proceeding if the I would add, if it reassures members of the Government and the Opposition parties were able to Committee on this point about how one decides how take into account the issues that were raised by much time to give to each section of the Bill, it is Members during a Second Reading debate and not often the case that one’s own back benchers will be a have the programming motion taken immediately major criterion as well as the Opposition in how one after the vote, ie that there would be a gap, as Mr timetables. I can think of the Commonhold and Irranca-Davies has said, of a day or two and the Leasehold Reform Bill where back benchers on the motion could still then be put without debate but it Government’s side had genuine important would have taken into account the issues raised constituency interests and were demanding much during the Second Reading debate? 9785721001 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:06:42 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 77
19 May 2004 Rt Hon Peter Hain and Mr Phil Woolas
Mr Hain: There are two issues here. One is the out- total nine bills had no knives, one had one knife, date, which of course is set in the programme motion three had two knives, five had three knives, four had and I do not think that is particularly an issue to four knives, one had five knives, one had six knives change unless, in the course of scrutiny, you decide and one had seven knives. Those are figures which I to change it for the reasons we have already do not think have been fully checked and, when it discussed, but I think that, in terms of the actual comes to the record, they probably will have been in management of the Committee’s business and how the meantime, but they are of that order. So, what I the Programming Sub-Committee decides matters think you get is a picture of, yes, knives deployed but and so on, obviously it is sensible to take into not, as it were, knifing members of the Committee in account what has happened in the Second Reading. the back the whole time but used in a sensible and sparing fashion to permit the focus to be on key Q251 Mr Atkinson: As a supplementary to that, debates and issues of concern. leaving aside the issue of the out-date—and Mr Woolas mentioned the Finance Bill and, in the Q253 Huw Irranca-Davies: I think that the Leader of previous Finance Bill, there was a lot of criticism the House has gone a fair way to answer this from outside bodies that their issues had not been question but it would be worth clarifying it. At the properly debated—the Leader may be aware that risk of using that over-used phrase the “middle this current Finance Bill is not programmed at all. way”, one of the matters of evidence we received is There was not even an out-date on it and, since I am the feeling that, in terms of knives and guillotines, the Whip on it, it is proceeding rather well. where in the good old days before I was here, you Mr Hain: These are issues to do with excellent could get into debates on committee that would whipping on both sides! clock up 80 or 100 hours before finally a guillotine would be invoked in order to stop it in its tracks as it Q252 Mr Atkinson: The issue is knives or what we had gone too far ahead, certainly, at least one person call the knives which I think are the problem to the said to this Committee that they feel now that it has Committee and I think that the Programming Sub- gone the other way where you actually have those Committee is really battling in the dark when it tries guillotines and the full programming in place before to put in knives at an early stage of the proceedings. you even know what is coming and it could be The question I want to ask you is, if there is an out- followed by a raft of amendments as the Committee date agreed, formally or informally, providing that begins and that gives it no flexibility. So, what do is stuck to, why is it necessary to have knives at all you feel about the middle way approach where you because the Government get their business when get into a Committee stage and then you decide what they want it and therefore the speed of the is going to happen in terms of guillotines? Committee and the way it proceeds is really in the Mr Hain: Perhaps I could bring in Phil on this to hands of the usual channels and the Opposition? speak from his own experience. Mr Hain: Can I first of all say on the Finance Bill, I Mr Woolas: What is happening is that the pendulum think it is very much a special case and has only is swinging back. At the extreme before recently been programmed. Provisions have always programming, one would look at the National been subject to wide consultation and, as you Minimum Wage Bill which had the longest sittings indicated, we achieved formal agreement on the of Standing Committees that we have ever had and I timetabling of the Bill this session, so a programme Y motion was not necessary. On the other hand, if speak from personal experience. The di culty, apart progress were not to be made, we would not hesitate from the time, was that it was not as if in practice the to programme it. The other reason of course is that Committee members’ time was spent discussing each the Budget was a lot later last year. On the question clause and each schedule. In practice, what of knives, I think it is significant that, following the happened was that a particularly controversial area Modernisation Committee’s report—and I do not would be strung out for many hours and that meant Y mention that report in any gratuitous fashion but I that progress was very di cult which meant that think it has helped improve things and doubtless the guillotines were used. When knives were introduced, Procedure Committee’s consideration will do the the prime purpose of the knife, as was explained in same—and representations made by the Chairmen’s the debate on the House, is in fact not to benefit the Panel, we significantly reduced the number of Government but is to benefit back benchers and, internal knives this session. The Committee might crucially, outside bodies. If one looks at the Local find it useful if I just gave some of the facts here. Of Government Finance Bill, which was a bill of I think the 17 programmed bills which have been committed five chapters, each chapter was on a completely to Standing Committee this session, eight have had diVerent area and external groups, whether or are expected to have no knives incorporated into voluntary or statutory bodies, were able to plan their their programme resolution, apart from the end own lobbying, their own travel in their own time time, the out-date. Of the nine bills so far where around those things. However, I think it is fair to say Programming Sub-Committee has agreed to the that the knives were set too draconically. What is incorporation of knives in addition to an end time, happening now, as the figures that the Leader has two had one knife, two had two knives, two had just given by relevant illustration, is that there is a three knives, one had four knives and two had five more consensual approach and more commonsense knives. So, I think the balance of that shows that coming into it. So, I think that your middle way has knives are sparingly deployed. In the last session, in been achieved. It is often the successful way, is it not? 9785721001 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:06:42 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 78 Procedure Committee: Evidence
19 May 2004 Rt Hon Peter Hain and Mr Phil Woolas
Mr Hain: Not a third way, a middle way! frustrate it, quite legitimately, that is the role of the Opposition. I think the main conclusion must be Q254Chairman: Of course, there could well be a whether the main parties engage positively in the problem if Opposition Parties have wanted to debate discussions on the programme and can work very what they consider to be particularly important well including on the issue of knives. aspects of a bill and that in fact, from time to time, Members of the Government or even Ministers Q257 Chairman: Would you say that the role of the might speak at abnormal length in replying to Chairman of the Business Sub-Committee is critical debates which means that important parts of the bill in this? that the Opposition want to debate are never Mr Hain: Yes, I do. I think that the role of the reached before the knife comes down. chairman generally is critical. I would say that in Mr Woolas: Equally, for reassurance, the front of you, Chairman, but I mean that sincerely. I Government are trying to make this work and I think that a chairman who has the experience and believe successfully. There are also many examples the authority can bring to the usual channels where ministers wish to put on record their policy for discussions and to the overall handling of a bill a very important reasons of clarifying the intent of the great deal of additional benefit. law which is often what a ministerial reply in Standing Committee is about, where a knife that is Q258 Rosemary McKenna: You probably agreed too draconian may prevent or risk the prevention of with the Chairman of Ways and Means when he said a minister from being able to do that. So, there are that although there are often complaints of incentives from the Government side to make the insuYcient time to consider bills in standing knives sensible as well and to cluster the debates committee, the standing committees were showing a around the important things in the Bill. marked unwillingness to sit beyond 5.30 which they Chairman: I can only express from the chair that the could do without having to amend the relevant wisdom and good advice that is flowing from programme. What is the Government’s attitude to Government Ministers at the moment and from the the sitting hours and would you agree if the Committee be practised by the House on all Opposition asked for longer sittings? occasions. Then we would get better legislation. Mr Hain: Yes. As you know, there is no requirement, certainly not from the Government, Q255 Rosemary McKenna: I think we all live in hope for standing committees to rise at a particular time; is the answer to your last comment! So, you would it is a matter for discussion in each committee and not agree with the Chairman of Ways and Means the Government are always willing to accommodate who suggested that maybe all that was necessary for the wishes of the Committee. I do agree with the a timetable in a standing committee is an out-date? Chairman of Ways and Means on this point. The Mr Hain: No, I would not because I think that for 5 pm knife, if you can describe it as that, has come some of the reasons that Phil Woolas has explained, to mean the close of play for the evening, though from the point of view of Members focusing on the there is no requirement that this should be the case. things—and this is primarily back bench and On the one hand, I guess from the point of view of Opposition Members, self-evidently—that they Members, there may be some consumer resistance to really want to home in on and from the point of view going beyond that time because people want to get of outside bodies and members of the public who can back to their oYces and have other business to then turn up with some certainty and plan ahead for discharge, but there is absolutely no reason and we when the particular issue or clauses that interest certainly would not want to be in a position—and I them are being debated, I think it is a sensible way to can say this quite unequivocally—of wanting the proceed in the way that we are now. 5 pm end time to frustrate proper scrutiny and the proper progress of the bill. Q256 Rosemary McKenna: I actually agree with you Mr Woolas: I would like to try and help the from the other side because I spent a lot of time here Committee by giving a practical example. Pre-knives lobbying during the Local Government Scotland and pre-programming when what took place may be Bill and our oYcials had to spend a lot of time in described as filibustering, in practice a lot of that London in the expectation that an issue was going to contribution was in reality taking place to help the be discussed on a, b, c, d or whatever day fruitlessly respective front benchers get more time to prepare and very expensively when, given the present system, for the next clauses. So, you could spend two hours you would be able to plan much, much better in a on a clause that either the Minister or the Opposition way which would have been more eVective and themselves were up to speed on in order to give him certainly more cost eVective. or her time to get ready for the next one. What Mr Hain: Perhaps I could just add briefly to that happens with knives is that it helps everybody plan point by saying that the figures I have indicated their preparation time for the discussion of their show that sometimes no knives are necessary and amendments. In fact, one of the strongest weapons things can sail ahead quite comfortably knifeless, as of the Whip on either side is the threat that says, “We it were. I think it is also important—and perhaps I are going to make you go beyond 5.00 if you don’t should just put this on the record—that play ball”, and I do not mean in policy terms, I mean programming does not take the politics out of in how amazing it is that that focuses the mind. Parliament. Rather naturally, the Opposition tends From the Government’s point of view, the out-date to dislike Government legislation and seeks to is important. How often one meets between then and 9785721001 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:06:42 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 79
19 May 2004 Rt Hon Peter Hain and Mr Phil Woolas for the duration is not actually that important. On Mr Hain: The minority parties do have a number of the start times, the 8.55 is mentioned a lot. Only two concerns, which they represented to me, about the per cent of standing committees in this session have extent of representation they have between them and actually started at 8.55. A draconian Whip’s OYce as a collective whole, but I do not know that I have would want that figure to be 100% but, if the any words of wisdom to add to where we are on that. Committee could meet agreement within itself— Q263 David Hamilton: Let us explore the case that the Liberals used to represent the minority parties Q259 Chairman: I think the chairmen prefer the later but that has ceased, as I understand it. Is there any one of 9.25. mechanism to change that? Mr Woolas: The chairmen are omnipotent. With or Mr Hain: It has created a bit of diYculty from our without a Business Committee, the chairmen decide point of view. That has broken down. I have not the timetable. heard of any good solutions to that problem. Mr Hain: I think there has been a response certainly Mr Woolas: Our attitude, Chairman, is that we from our side on this because it was a matter raised would prefer it if the parties could agree an with me very soon after I came into post as Leader arrangement. of the House and we have responded. I understand that most committees are now meeting at 9.30 am, some at 9.10 am, but only one this session at 8.55 am. Q264Chairman: But, inevitably, the Selection Mr Atkinson: I think I should get on the record that Committee, in choosing people to go on to Standing one of the reasons why we wanted to start at 9.30 was Committees will clearly pretty accurately reflect the actually for the clerks who have to do a lot of work minority parties I referred to—Plaid Cymru, the before a committee starts and to start at 8.55 put a Scottish National Party, the Ulster Unionists and huge burden on them to come in before 7.00. other Northern Ireland parties—where legislation is specific to those parts of the United Kingdom. Mr Hain: Indeed. Q260 Chairman: I think in other evidence we have had, it has been established that the clerks do have a Q265 Chairman: So that, in fact, they are not treated very diYcult but very important job to do and, if that unfairly, it is whether or not they are always they are working the previous evening late getting in going to get representation on all Standing from where they live sometimes before 8.55 is Committees. extremely diYcult and puts them under, I think, Mr Hain: I think that is a very fair point, Chairman. unnecessary pressure. Mr Woolas: What annoys the Whips in Opposition Mr Hain: I very much agree with you, Chairman. of Government is when a lot of time has been spent Indeed, if you recall, that was one of the early points debating the numbers of the minority parties and you made forcibly to me in your usual moderate then, in fact, in practice there is an absence on the fashion when we met very soon after I took up the Standing Committee. job. Q266 David Hamilton: What mechanisms could be devised to extend the time available if the Q261 David Hamilton: Do you think there is any Government tables substantial amendments during advantage in giving chairmen powers to limit the the course of Committee stage? length of speeches in standing committees? Mr Hain: We have already shown on, for example, Mr Hain: I understand the reason for the suggestion the Pensions Bill that we have been prepared to because Members find it a little irritating when one extend the time, and I think it would be or two can speak at great length, whether it is a unreasonable if the Government was just reining deliberate filibuster or just verbosity, but I am not down amendments, as I am afraid has happened far sure that speech limits of the kind that operate in the more often than it should in recent times. We stand House would work in standing committees and I ready to make more time available when it is asked would be interested in your views on this because for. Members are not limited to speaking only once on a question. I would be more inclined to apply persuasion and your Committee might encourage Q267 Chairman: Thank you. We now pass to short speeches and the Chairmen’s Panel might find someone where still wisdom abides— ways of encouraging good practice, but I would be Mr Hain: Chairman, there is one other thing, if I very reluctant as a government to make that an issue may? I apologise. We have been willing, on an for us, but it is an issue for the Chairmen’s Panel and exceptional basis, to recommit bills to Standing an issue for perhaps your Committee to look at in Committee. That happened, of course, with the the round. Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. Chairman: Thank you for that information.
Q262 David Hamilton: I am sure we will look at that. Q268 Mr McWalter: We are back with knives again, My second point is, are the interests of minority really. Before asking my question, I just do think parties—the Liberal member is not here, he has had that if the reference class is all bills then, in a sense, to go to a meeting—and back benchers suYciently it looks like having a knife is quite a rare event, but if recognised in the current procedures and, if not, do the reference class is, as I believe it should be, Chair, you think it should change? those bills that either the Opposition or some of the 9785721001 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:06:42 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 80 Procedure Committee: Evidence
19 May 2004 Rt Hon Peter Hain and Mr Phil Woolas
Government’s own backbenchers believe to be Sub-Committee can meet and change knives, if that controversial, then I suspect that knives apply nearly is desired, and they do. The Programming Sub- all the time. If that is the case, then I think maybe Committee do that, often prodded by the Chairman, that should be the reference class that we go on. If and that is good—that is the very flexibility we are that is the case, since a knife, in fact, is a block of a talking about. The obverse of knives is having bill which has actually not been debated, that is a chaotic business where outsiders cannot be there to hugely important thing to happen—to have see the things that really matter to them, on the one something that is going to pass into legislation and hand, and actually sometimes Members find that nobody has worked out its implications, its they do not reach the business that really matters consequences, and whether the wording is to the to them. satisfaction of those who represent the communities V that are going to be a ected by that legislation. Is Q271 Mr McWalter: You are emphasising, and this that not a huge thing to impose on anybody? V is very welcome, the powers of the Chair. My Mr Hain: We are not talking about a cut-o point to experience is that very often the Chair will say stop debate, we are talking about a way of arranging “Sorry, this is it; the finished clauses 22–79 are not business to actually enable progress to be made going to be further taken”. If, in fact, what you are instead of debate, perhaps, to be bogged down on saying is that the Chair does have those powers, only one area. would you support formal provision in the calling of a knife, possibly, for instance, because a division in Q269 Mr McWalter: I can understand that. In the the House causes a Committee to be suspended end, what happens when a knife falls is that clauses (which currently does not happen, at the moment) and schedules, and so on, do get ditched. I sat on a or, again, if the Chair thinks that a short extension Northern Ireland Bill, very sensitive stuV, and it will be desirable for some other reason, those actually looked as though, if we had had more time, reasons possibly to be articulated more closely? the conflicting sides of the Northern Ireland dispute Mr Hain: It is quite a complex matter, on which I might actually have been able to have made their would welcome the views of the Committee. I am way through it, but the knife fell, bitterness ensued aware of injury time for divisions and that and they all just went into separate lobbies and we suspensions for divisions in the House can cause lost the opportunity. I do think it is a hugely serious diYculties. I have experienced that, myself, on Select matter, and that, perhaps, sitting back and saying Committees, for example, particularly when they “We only had one Bill that had 7” is actually a little occur shortly before knives fall, although the bit laid back in terms of the gravity of what happens reduction in the number of internal knives that we when a knife falls. have seen over this past session should significantly Mr Hain: I understand the point that you are ease those diYculties. I know that some Members of making. May I just oVer these observations? First of the Chairmen’s Panel have argued we should allow all, that always happened anyway, before injury time in the same way as we allow for programming. I remember it myself in Opposition. I Westminster Hall. I have got some concern that that make no particular complaint about the then would lead to uncertain timetables in the Standing Conservative Government; that was the way things Committee and, perhaps, to perverse incentives to went. press multiple divisions in the House. So I think that we have got to look at this extremely carefully. Q270 Chairman: Are you saying there, Leader of the Perhaps, when you do—or if you do—you might House, that it happened on every bill or it only consider all those points as well. happened where the government of the day introduced what was then a guillotine motion? Q272 Chairman: Would you look at it seriously, Clearly, if there was not a guillotine motion Leader of the House? I think Mr McWalter has everything was debated. It was only when a raised a very important matter. I am not sure that it guillotine motion was introduced that there could be would be easy for the Opposition to stage multi- a number of clauses and schedules or even new votes in the House. It is possible and it is feasible but clauses which were not debated, because without a I think it is unlikely. However, if there is a loss of guillotine motion the bill would go through in time due to divisions, and it has come at a critical Standing Committee from one clause to the next, time for a bill in Standing Committee, does it not one clause to schedule, schedule to clause and so on, seem rational and reasonable to you, Leader of the through to the end of the bill. House that extra time should be provided for, Mr Hain: As I recall, and I will ask Mr Woolas to particularly, divisions in the House? come in, if I may, you would sometimes just go Mr Hain: I am certainly willing to consider these shooting past a whole series of clauses. I remember it options. I think it is a case that has been made and I well on Standing Committees; you may not actually am willing to look at it. I would be very open-minded have had a knife, as it were, to stop you debating about any recommendation that you make. The only because of the management of the business which thing I would be a little worried about—and you created the circumstances that are being described, may have a view on this—is that any changes are but you actually did, for the usual channels reasons, added to the pressure on Standing Committee make progress. Can I make another point, which I Chairmen to take a particular role as between think also answers the point that has been raised. Government and Opposition or any other Members Knives can be reviewed, and are. The Programming involved. I do think there are great advantages to 9785721001 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:06:42 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 81
19 May 2004 Rt Hon Peter Hain and Mr Phil Woolas
Members to having clear end-points to Committees, Chairman, but perhaps Phil Woolas could give his so Chairmen can plan their diaries. I think your own own experience on it. I also think that Standing observations on all the complexities on this would be Committee Chairmen could play an invaluable role valuable. in encouraging a consensual role in the Standing Chairman: I will only comment from the Chair, and Committee. Of course, since the Government can as a Member of the Speaker’s Panel of Chairmen, count on the majority of the Programming Sub- that we take our role as Chairman of a Standing Committee it is hardly necessary for us to resist calls Committee very seriously and if that, from time to for it to meet in a way which would incur the wrath time, means that there will be a clash with other of a Member of the Chairmen’s Panel. engagements and commitments, I have to say to you, Mr McWalter: Is your answer saying that the Chair as a long-standing Member of the Speaker’s Panel, does have the capacity to call a meeting? Suppose a that the role and responsibilities of the Speaker’s knife has fallen really inappropriately. Would a Panel come first, and a dinner or other things would Chair regard themselves as having the power to come second. I do not envisage it happening very convene a Programming Sub-Committee after that often because I think the number of times there knife had fallen in order to deal with some of the would be divisions in the House—for which I think, clauses which had been victims of the knife? personally, extra time should be provided—would be relatively limited. Q274Chairman: Can I come in, perhaps, quickly Q273 Mr McWalter: Chair, I was about to welcome from the Chair? I appreciate the point that Tony the general way in which the Leader of the House McWalter is making but I have to say—and my was responding to my observations and I am Clerk has whispered in my ear something I was going grateful for that because I think it should be on the to say anyway—it is a bit late to do it after the knife record that the business of having knives is has fallen. It could be that the Chairman might something you view with concern and you want to intervene in the debate anticipating that the knife do everything you can to limit them. I think that that was going to fall to suggest that there is a short is very welcome. The last remark you made about suspension of the Committee to enable the business asking the Chair of a Committee to take what you Sub-Committee to meet to reallocate the time at call “a particular role” worries me a little bit, which a knife should fall. because in the end the Chair is in a situation where, Mr Hain: Of course, that can happen. I will ask Phil for instance, if somebody is filibustering, if they are Woolas to give some examples that help us in this repeating themselves or if they are otherwise respect. Can I just distinguish between the Chairman behaving unreasonably, it is the job of the Chair to being given a formal power and the present reality pull the person up and to try and expedite the where a suggestion by the Chairman is never business appropriately. There are certainly quite a ignored—at least in my experience—and counts for lot of occasions when Chairs do not do that because a great deal? Perhaps you could confirm this. they are worrying—if it is a Conservative Chair and Mr Woolas: My experience is that the Chairmen of a Labour Member blathering on, or vice-versa— the Standing Committees are extremely good at because they do not want to be seen to be political, doing their jobs. If they believe that a knife is going but I think the House should have greater confidence to cause a problem they do approach both sides in the capacity of its Members to take that fair- informally. Sometimes they do it with a raised minded, impartial approach when they are asked to eyebrow and sometimes they do it with a note— perform these roles. I think that is a great strength of although they rarely write it down because they are the House and I would hope that we would be willing to put greater weight on that expertise and that very wise in that regard. Sometimes if the capacity than, perhaps, we currently do. In that relationship has broken down between the two front connection, I wonder whether (I think I know what benches the Chairmen do act as ACAS, and they V you are going to say but I have to ask it formally have lots of devices they can do that with: long co ee anyway) the Chair sometimes could take the breaks, ruling people in and out of order. If the initiative in representing the interests of Chairmen thinks that one side or the other is not backbenchers or others in calling meetings of behaving reasonably vis-a`-vis a knife they can Programming Sub-Committees; whether actually, in impose their will. It happened to me once where I the end, it would be a sensible thing to have Chairs was crashing against a knife at 5 o’clock, my that are sometimes proactive when it looks like the Minister wanted to get to it because he needed to get train is coming oV the rails? away, the Chairman was not happy with that Mr Hain: First of all, I agree with you about the because, in fact, a Conservative backbencher had an political and, in a sense, constitutional importance amendment down and the Chairman made it clear of the Chairs of Committees in this context, but I do that when we came back from the vote downstairs he not see any reason, if that is what is being suggested, was going to have several coVee breaks, which he to give Chairmen an express power to do this, as, had the power to do, unless we reached a new say, in Standing Orders. I do not see any case for agreement to put the knife back to Thursday that. In my experience, Chairmen are not usually lunchtime. So I did because I had no choice. I am not very nervous about making their views on these going to say which Chairman it was, but it was on matters clear to the Government’s Whips. I think it my side of the House and she has a strong interest in would be unlikely that anybody would ignore the railways! 9785721001 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:06:42 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 82 Procedure Committee: Evidence
19 May 2004 Rt Hon Peter Hain and Mr Phil Woolas
Mr McWalter: You met your Waterloo there then? Mr Woolas: There are two issues to bear in mind, in Chairman: It was not Agincourt, it was Waterloo. answer to your question. One is that the advantage We now pass to, again, north of Hadrian’s Wall. that that gives to external bodies at Committee stage Rosemary McKenna. does not apply at Report Stage because they are here anyway. The second point is that, of course, it is the selection of amendments that, in practice, Q275 Rosemary McKenna: Can I move on to Report determines the structure of a debate. When we put Stage and Third Reading. There has been very little knives in on Report Stage—I would say the main programming in recent years on Report Stage. What criterion for the selection of a knife is not its is the reason for this? Is it a lack of time? Would it controversy because, by and large, force majeure help to establish an earlier deadline for tabling means one has to provide a reasonable time (the amendments so that a selection could be available Opposition will never be satisfied, in public)—it is earlier? actually where the subject area is diVerent. Because Mr Hain: We have tended not to use Programming the selection of amendments determines the Committees for Report Stage because we have been structure of the debate in practice, and because one able to get agreement through the usual channels. It cannot give certainty to Members as to when one is open to Programming Sub-Committees to make will reach that amendment, if you have got a group recommendations in respect of the remaining stages, of amendments, you will notice sometimes there will including Report, but they do not often do so. I be a knife at 5.00 and you vote at 4.45, so the knife understand that in the current session Programming does not actually help the Members in the way it Sub-Committees have not made recommendations does in Standing Committee. That also bears upon concerning Report. Examples from the last session the Chairman’s point, which is, as the Leader says, were that the Programming Sub-Committee extremely important; if one plays politics with the recommended that, for the Criminal Justice Bill on knives of a Report Stage one can squeeze out 4 March 2003, “the proceedings on consideration of Members who have got a legitimate point of view the report should be concluded within three days”, and, of course, that Member can be squeezed out by but that was a specific recommendation. This the political use of amendments, which happens not resolution was subsequently put to the House as a just between the two front benches but on the back further Programme motion and agreed the next day. benches as well. So for those reasons the main So that is an example where— advantages of knives, which are for external bodies, are the ability to plan and do not apply, on the Q276 Rosemary McKenna: It was by consent? whole, at Report Stage. Mr Hain: It was by consent, yes. On the Communications Bill, which had its own problems, Q279 Rosemary McKenna: One of the witnesses as you recall, the Programming Sub-Committee suggested that the Standing Committee should make recommended that on 6 February last year “the a report about which parts of the bill had not been proceedings on consideration of report should be discussed in order to help the House apportion its concluded within two days”. Again, that resolution time during the remaining stages. What would you was subsequently put to the House as a further think about that? Programme Motion and agreed. So what I am Mr Woolas: I think it is a good idea but I think it saying is when you need to do it you can. would not work. I think the road to hell is paved with good intentions. What would happen is that that Q277 Rosemary McKenna: But if you can do it document would become a politicised document and without it, then— it would inevitably be picked up. We would do it if Mr Hain: Then there is an advantage in doing that. we were in Opposition and the Opposition do it now. Rosemary McKenna: You would not refuse, if The Liberal Democrats would do it under all someone asked? circumstances because they always make those points at the beginning of debates. That would force the Government to use its majority at the Q278 Chairman: Again, as an evergreen Programming Sub-Committee to change the nature backbencher, it is a fact that the Report Stage of a of the Report. What I would say is very important is bill is the only stage of a bill in which some Members that the usual channels pay a lot of attention to the can participate, because if they are not selected to way in which the Standing Committee has gone, and speak in the Second Reading and they are not you will normally find that under both governments selected to serve on the Standing Committee, the (and I believe this has happened for 40 or 50 years) Report or remaining stage of a bill is the only the Whip on the Report Stage will be the same Whip occasion in which, historically, they have an as at Standing Committee. That is the normal opportunity of participating. It could be that they convention and that is the reason why. So I think it is have an important constituency interest or there superficially a good idea but I fear it would not work. may only be a personal interest in a bill. Therefore, Rosemary McKenna: I think that is a very good would you accept that the programming of Report answer. I remember sitting on the Finance and Stages is an undesirable development and should be Pensions Bill before programming came in, when the avoided whenever possible? Opposition made great play about issues that had Mr Hain: I think that is a very fair point, but perhaps not been debated during the Committee stage, but in Phil Woolas could give his own experience of this. actual fact they had prevented them being debated, 9785721001 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:06:42 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 83
19 May 2004 Rt Hon Peter Hain and Mr Phil Woolas or they had chosen to debate an issue which was who have, presumably, weekly surgeries and are really insignificant over a great length of time, so inundated with correspondence and e-mails, and so that they could not debate that very important issue on—so might have a fair chance of being in touch and then raise it at that stage. So I think you are with the issues—are marginalized and those who are right, Mr Woolas, that it would become politicised. not elected but appointed are then given the guts of Chairman: As the Deputy Leader did make a direct the bill, often, to deal with. I must say that while, reference to the Liberal Democrats I will allow a historically, that is the way these things have been Liberal Democrat Member of my Committee to done, it seems to me an appalling way to manage intervene. things, and if we can organise things so more things Sir Robert Smith: I would just like to understand are dealt with competently, by those who are elected, Rosemary’s experience, because if there was not that would be, surely, a real improvement. programming how could any length of time talk anything out, because if there is no programming— Q282 Chairman: I think that is an observation to Rosemary McKenna: There was not programming, which no reply is necessary. they chose the amendments that they put forward to Mr Hain: If I may, except in this respect, that I debate another issue rather than— dispute the fact that the House of Lords does a better Chairman: We are supposed to be questioning our scrutiny job than the House of Commons. I think the witnesses, not each other! record shows otherwise. Sir Robert Smith: It would not be a politicised report, though, would it, because the report is a Q283 Mr McWalter: But they are asked to do so factual record of what had happened in the because we have not actually debated the thing Committee? because of these crazy timetables. Mr Woolas: We miss out clauses not because of Q280 Chairman: It could come, Leader of the programming; we have always missed out clauses. House, from the Chairman of the Committee, the Mr McWalter: But we have also always kicked them senior Chairman: “I report to the House that clauses over to the House of Lords when we do not need to A to B or A to D, and Schedules 1, 2, 3 and 4 were be doing that. not debated and new clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4 were also not debated”. If it were factual would you have the Q284Chairman: There are occasions when clauses same opposition as you expressed to Rosemary are not debated at Standing Committee stage and, McKenna’s question? also, sadly, because of programming, are not Mr Hain: I am not in favour of that. I think what debated at the remaining stages of the Report Stage that does is it then transports on to the Floor of the as well. If that is the case, clearly, the House of Lords House, in a staccato form, that kind of information believes that they have a duty, perhaps, to look which does not take into account the real situation particularly closely at them. We have covered a lot in the Committee—why certain things occurred and of this already and I think the Leader of the House why they did not—and it enables mischief to be and his Deputy have really made their point made in a way that I do not think— extremely well. Can I put a further question relating to Third Reading? Your standard allocation, Leader Q281 Chairman: Will you give an assurance to this of the House, for Third Readings is an hour, Committee, Leader of the House, that the although this is sometimes eaten into by divisions at Government in dealing with Opposition parties the end of the Report Stage. What considerations would take fully and properly into account the fact aVect how long you, in fact, do allow for a Third that certain clauses and schedules and new clauses Reading, and given that the only decision for the had not been debated at the Standing Committee House at Third Reading is saying “Yes” or “No” to stage, for whatever reason, in the allocation of time a bill as a whole, is in your view the Third Reading if that were necessary in a Report Stage? Debate actually necessary? Mr Hain: Of course. I also just add two other points. Mr Hain: There is a series of issues here. I do think It is a matter of public record what was not debated Third Reading is necessary but often it is very short. in a Standing Committee; it is not as if it is secret I think there is an issue about the length of summing- information. Anybody can go to the record and up speeches, which is a factor here—on which, make what use of it they wish in subsequent again, your observations would be interesting. proceedings. I would also make this, I think, quite important point: whether an issue is being debated in Q285 Chairman: So you are saying it is necessary. a Standing Committee, as you will be aware, is also What considerations do you take into account as to an issue the Speaker takes into account when how long to allow for a Third Reading Debate? selecting amendments. Mr Hain: I think I had better ask somebody who has Chairman: Thank you. It is good to have that on done it to respond on this. the record. Mr Woolas: What happens is that you look at the Mr McWalter: One of the things I find most Second Reading, look at how many people are infuriating about the current structure is that if, say, trying to get in and you look at the balance between clauses 22 to 72 have not been taken, then we are told the controversy around the bill—as to whether that “That is fine because they will be taken in the House controversy is in its clauses or in its general of Lords”. So we can have an arrangement where principles. One does try to give more than an hour those who are elected, who have constituencies and for Third Reading. Tomorrow, I think I am right in 9785721001 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:06:42 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 84 Procedure Committee: Evidence
19 May 2004 Rt Hon Peter Hain and Mr Phil Woolas saying, the Pensions Bill is a three-hour Third managers. I think it is a good thing and I do think it Reading, and there have been other examples where has improved Bills as a result. I have experienced this we have had two hours. So it is a balance, as I say, as Secretary of State for Wales, where we pre-leg Chairman between whether the controversy around every Bill and that has actually improved the Bill, so a bill is on a clause or a particular aspect—on the I have seen that at first hand. I think it is true in other Higher Education Bill the controversy was around areas as well. variable fees not around the general principles of the Bill. Q290 Mr McWalter: Is there any evidence it has lowered the number of rather panic-stricken last- Q286 Chairman: Thank you very much. Can we now minute Government amendments we sometimes pass to draft bills, and from the Chair can I put this witness as part of the process, or do you think it is question to you? The Shadow Leader of the House, not going to make much diVerence? Mr Heald, has called for the Government to publish Mr Woolas: No, because the Government never full lists of its bills and the intended draft bills at the introduces panic-stricken amendments. beginning of the year. Can I put the question to you: why do you not do this? It certainly superficially Q291 Mr McWalter: I am sorry, I thought I just saw appears to be a very rational and construction a dodo fly into the room! request to make. Mr Woolas: One sometimes has to react to real Mr Hain: It has been a tradition that not everything world events. that subsequently appears in the legislative Mr Hain: Indeed. I do think pre-legislative scrutiny programme appears in the Queen’s Speech. I means legislation is in better shape when it is discovered this, much to my surprise, last year. introduced and that the scrutiny is better informed, and that must mean better legislation at the end of Q287 Chairman: “And other measures”? the day. That is why we have been keen to encourage Mr Hain: Which obviously takes into account that more draft Bills. In 1997–98 there were just three life changes and events occur. I think, myself, that draft Bills, there were nine last session, this session there is a great deal to be said for publishing a list of there have been five so far and ten to 13 draft Bills draft bills at the beginning. Indeed, I, at the request are expected, so we are on an upward curve, which I of the Liaison Committee, met their request in a way very much support and have encouraged. which had not been achieved before, of giving the Chairman: Thank you very much. Could we now Liaison Committee an advance plan of when the pass to the subject under the general heading “The draft bills were likely to be ready for introduction Annual Programme”, and I would like Sir Robert to and, therefore, they could plan their Select come in. Committee hearings in advance, as it were, and they were very grateful for that. I do think, since we have Q292 Sir Robert Smith: You touched on this right at mentioned draft bills and pre-legislative scrutiny, we the beginning in terms of the role of the Business do need to take that into account together with Committee and in terms of the annual programme of carry-over. I think it indicates a greater propensity legislation. The Government has not taken up for scrutiny on behalf of the Government and a previous proposals, for example in Making the Law, willingness to encourage scrutiny and to improve for a committee to oversee the annual legislative legislation, so that it does improve legislation, than programme, and in this respect Mr Heald appears to has occurred before. So when we consider the issues agree with you. Was not an annual programme part of programming and knives and so forth we ought to of the whole package which was originally sold to look at it in the round—pre-legislative scrutiny as the House, that as well as programming individual well. Bills the idea was we would have a programme for the year as well? Q288 Mr McWalter: On pre-legislative scrutiny, I Mr Hain: It is very diYcult for me to envisage how think one of the things the Committee would like to you could have an annual programme in the sense of know is whether you have a perception that pre- exactly what happens when. You have a myriad of legislative scrutiny has actually changed the way a diVerent factors as business manager, you have bill goes through the House; whether the when parliamentary counsel time and resources amendments are more rational and whether the allow a Bill to be drafted, when instructions are apportionment of time is more felicitous and so on. received from government departments, and getting What is your opinion about that? those two in sequence properly, and then when it Mr Hain: I do not think it encourages bills—that is goes into the House, either House, it has all to do to say pre-legislative scrutiny—to go through more with a set of factors to do with how other Bills are quickly. operating. So I think if we were to publish an annual programme it would be a formidable exercise. I am Q289 Mr McWalter: I am not worried about that, I not saying it cannot be done, but it would be very am worried whether the bill ends up better. diYcult. Mr Hain: In some ways I actually think it encourages greater expertise and, therefore, greater Q293 Sir Robert Smith: In the Scottish Parliament, diYculty for the Government in terms of answering the Parliamentary Bureau is responsible for the diYcult questions. I do not think that is a bad thing timetabling of all Bills and is independent of the at all but it makes it inconvenient for business Scottish Executive. 9785721001 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:06:42 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 85
19 May 2004 Rt Hon Peter Hain and Mr Phil Woolas
Mr Hain: Yes. Mr Hain: I cannot see, Chairman, how Government would sub-contract that, I really do not, in the way it works. I think a combination of carry-over and more Q294Sir Robert Smith: Have you looked at that, draft Bills, these two things, allow us to have a more and do you see any way that you would want to consensual basis to the introduction and progress of import that? legislation which achieves that outcome without, as Mr Hain: I do not, to be honest. It is interesting. The it were, the Government losing control of the Scottish Parliament obviously is a new body. I think business. It may sound attractive in Opposition, and it would always be the case that the governing party is attractive in Opposition, I have played the same or parties will want to control the management of game myself as a back-bencher, but actually it is very business and I am not in the market for sub- unattractive in Government. contracting that, if I can put it that way.
Q298 Chairman: Leader of the House, you have a Q295 Sir Robert Smith: How do we get round this very important job in not only representing the perception, and probably experience, of the House but in getting the Government’s legislative Government trying to get too much legislation programme through. If I can ask you to be, as you through and not setting hard enough priorities on have been in most of your answers to us this itself as to what its key targets are for the year? afternoon, transparently honest and forthcoming— Obviously the amount of scrutiny of individual Mr Hain: “Most”! legislation and the quality of the Bill which appears at the beginning is aVected by the whole year’s programme and the panic in departments, “We had Q299 Chairman: Do you feel successive better get in the queue quickly even if the Bill is only Governments, and that is Governments of both half-baked, get in the queue, bag the time from the major parties, have tried in recent times to get too Government’s business managers and somehow much legislation through in a session of Parliament, cobble something together”. This may be a bit so that Parliament and Members have become unfair. heavily legislatively constipated, and that this has Mr Hain: I will be very frank about this, I do think not necessarily led to good or, what I would call, there is a tendency in government departments to excellent scrutiny of legislation and good legislation want their place in the sun of the Queen’s Speech, at the end of the day? often for very necessary and excellent and Mr Hain: You would not expect me to accept that compelling reasons, others perhaps less so. I think description, of this current Government at any rate. this also raises the issue of how we deal with the Let me put it this way: there is a sense of a legislative session and how we deal with the Parliament, and sausage machine, and you do feel this as Leader of through carry-over we have as it were broken down the House when you look at the great list of bids and the knife, if I could use that term, on legislation, you ask, “Is that really necessary?”. I can think of an enabling us to look at a full Parliament rather than occasion in this past session where an absolutely a session as a discrete legislative programme which emphatic case was made to me why a Bill should be has to be at all costs seen in its own box. I am in the programme—and I will not finger the encouraging a much more strategic approach to department concerned—and I said, “Is this really legislation by my colleagues and by the Cabinet as a necessary or can we achieve this objective by non- whole, which does see it as part of the Parliament legislative means?” and we accepted it in the and looks ahead rather than a desperate rush to programme after a lot of force majeure being squeeze everything into one particular legislative exerted, and then a month or so later we discovered programme. I do not think that means you do not they did find another way of doing it and it was have a Queen’s Speech, I think that is important. I quietly withdrawn in a dignified fashion. So there is do not think that means you do not have sessions, I that sense that whatever party is in power there is a think they will remain, and you would seek to kind of sausage machine at work. On the other hand, manage your business within a session, but having it is important for us as Government to get through an artificial cut-oV point at the end of the first, the key reforms necessary which we think are second or third sessions, seems to me to be the wrong important, whether in the field of law or order or way to go about it. health or education or many others. Chairman: Thank you. I pass the final question to David Hamilton. Q296 Sir Robert Smith: Do you think that can be achieved by maintaining the Government control over the agenda rather than trying to create more Q300 David Hamilton: Before I ask the final concessions across parties about the use of question, the Deputy Leader gave some answers a parliamentary time? while ago on the interests of minority parties. One of Mr Hain: I dispute the fact that there is not a the answers you gave, the base line, was that in cases V consensus in programming. This is the nub of the where you have a orded the minority parties issue. positions in committees on many occasions they have not taken them up. Could we have the evidence of that, Chairman, because I think that is an Q297 Sir Robert Smith: More the programming extremely important issue in relation to this report. year. Would it be possible to give examples of that? 9785721001 Page Type [E] 09-07-04 01:06:42 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 86 Procedure Committee: Evidence
19 May 2004 Rt Hon Peter Hain and Mr Phil Woolas
Mr Woolas: Yes. It is very frustrating. It is quite and I myself would like to see this become a legitimate for the minority parties to ask for places permanent feature of the Standing Orders rather but if that comes about, in the case of a nationalist than a temporary one. party, because there is a particular part of the Bill V which is a ecting Scotland or Wales, then they will Q304David Hamilton: You obviously acknowledge often come just for that part of the Bill and they may there is a danger, if you move Bills from one session say that is quite reasonable, but from my point of to another, rolling back, by the time you get to the view it is never reasonable if I have had to refuse last session in Government you end up with a free- another Member who may equally have a for-all because you might have several Bills which constituency reason or a general interest in that Bill, have pushed the agenda back. and of course the only option in that case is to Mr Hain: I am well aware of that. increase the size of the Standing Committee, which then puts pressure on back-benchers right across the House. I have not got figures with me, but I could get Q305 Chairman: You do personally believe that some if that would help. carry-over should be by consensus if at all possible, Chairman: If you could provide the Committee with and you are not seeking to remove the current some, at your earliest convenience, that would be restriction, namely—and I think David Hamilton most helpful. referred to it—that Bills can only be carried over if they are Commons Bills still in the House of Commons? Am I correct? Are you in favour, albeit Q301 Sir Robert Smith: To be fair, you probably there is a Standing Order which would give you should look at the major parties and whether they authority to do it even without consensus, subject to turn up— this restriction, do you believe it is best to have Mr Woolas: Those figures are available. I am not consensus in respect of the carry-over of Bills? particularly directing my remarks at Liberal Mr Hain: I always think it is best to achieve Democrats. consensus in the management of Government Sir Robert Smith: No, although I am sure at times we business, and that applies to carry-over as well. I are equally guilty. I am just thinking in my think we have to be aware that the Opposition, experience of Standing Committees or other whatever colour it is, sees the sessional cut-oV as a committees of the House, all parties at the moment control on the Government and an opportunity to Y seem to find it di cult to turn up. make mischief or stop things it does not like, so you need to have a sense of balance about this. On the Q302 David Hamilton: I appreciate the comments of whole, whether it is a Bill carried over from the my colleagues but it was in specific terms in relation House of Lords into the Commons, as will happen to how the Liberals did not represent them in the first on the Constitutional Reform Bill, or whether it is place and that was how the discussion came about. other Bills going the other way, I think there is a big It was a specific issue because they have raised on the advantage, not just from the point of view of floor of the House on a number of occasions about Government but from the point of view of the unfairness in terms of being dealt with and other Parliament because it does also encourage better parties are not doing that. That is why I think it is legislation. important. Can I come to the final part of our questions. At the end of the last session, only two Q306 Chairman: Are you then suggesting to this Bills were carried over to this session. Are you Committee that you intend to change the Standing envisaging any carry-over Bills from this session? Order that relates to the restriction that it can only How many are we looking at? be Bills which are Commons Bills still in the Mr Hain: I am envisaging some. We have agreed the Commons, because of course the Constitutional Constitutional Reform Bill will be carried over in the Reform Bill started in the other place, did it not? Lords from this session to the next, and it may well Mr Hain: Yes, it did. be that other Bills are introduced in the Commons for carry-over and we are still making decisions on that. My prediction at the moment is that there will Q307 Chairman: So this is a House of Lords Bill be Bills introduced for carry-over. which would therefore not be able to be carried forward unless you changed Standing Orders. Mr Hain: No. Q303 David Hamilton: I think you have answered this question already, is the scope for carry-over of more Bills inhibited by the current restrictions on the Q308 Chairman: The Lords could do it, of course, procedure? It is only applicable to Commons Bills in but I believe we could not do it, could we? the House of Commons of course. Mr Hain: I think you can carry-over— Mr Hain: You obviously have to get agreement on this, it is not something which Government can just Q309 Chairman: If it is still in the Lords, of course, do. In October 2002, the House agreed a temporary it has nothing to do with us, we accept that. Standing Order with eVect for the current Mr Hain: As I understand it, you can carry-over Parliament only providing for the carry-over of Bills in the second House by agreement, and that is Bills. So there is an issue about this. I very much saw I think an ad hoc motion of the House which is open this as part of the first step of a rolling programme to the House to consider, and that is happening with for legislation in the way I was describing earlier, the Constitutional Reform Bill. It is in the Lords at 9785721001 Page Type [O] 09-07-04 01:06:42 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 87
19 May 2004 Rt Hon Peter Hain and Mr Phil Woolas the moment, it is coming from the Lords here rather Mr Hain: Perhaps, but I think you could look at this than from the Commons the other way. I think there both ways. Some of the Bills which are in front of me are other Bills in that position as well. for possible introduction and carry-over which were not in the Queen’s Speech for that course of action I think would be Bills that the Opposition will welcome. Q310 Chairman: I am grateful for that clarification because it is complex. Q312 Chairman: If I may say, Leader of the House, Mr Hain: I do not have any plans to change the that is a very constructive and positive note upon which to finish. We have had a very long session this Standing Order at the moment. I think it is a sensible afternoon. As you will have seen, members have way to manage business, for carry-over to continue. drifted in and out and back again but on behalf of all members who have been here today can I thank you for the very valuable evidence which you and your deputy have given to the Committee. That evidence Q311 Chairman: Although for Opposition parties— will weigh very heavily with us when we come to and this is really the last observation rather than consider our report which clearly will be not only question and no doubt you will wish to comment or important to you, as Leader of the House, but to the respond—the sessional cut-oV is a democratic House as a whole. So can I say to the Leader of the safeguard. To an extent, carrying forward, carry- House and the Deputy, thank you very much for over, does further undermine the ability of your evidence and thank you for giving us so Opposition parties to frustrate the Government of generously of your time. the day. Mr Hain: Thank you. 9785721002 Page Type [SE] 08-07-04 21:37:49 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2
Ev 88 Procedure Committee: Evidence Written evidence
Letter to the Chairman from Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody MP Unfortunately, as you know, I am not able to respond to the Committee in person. It has been clear to me for a long time that the programming of Bills, which is undertaken routinely, is a backward step in relation to legislation. It is quite clear that the arguments for timetabling are of considerable interest to the executive government, who always want to put their Bills onto the statute book with the minimum of fuss and the greatest amount of speed. This is not, however, a reason why Parliament should accept the situation without very considerable questioning of the responsibility of individual Members of Parliament to study legislation and, where necessary, improve it. When I first entered Parliament, it was clear that many Bills were only timetabled after there had been a very determined attempt to filibuster the initial stages in a Committee session. This was not only irritating but constituted what many regarded as a considerable waste of time. Unfortunately, the use of Parliamentary time was one of the few weapons left to an opposition and was therefore frequently employed. There were, nevertheless, diVerences between various Bills some of which were allowed to go through virtually unaltered, but others, because of their political content, required a great deal of debate and, if necessary, change. I think it is vital to understand that this was not always simply a “waste of time”, it was frequently a very specific attempt to ensure that the general public understood the legislation that was being proposed and were given the chance to comment on the content. What now happens is that Bills routinely go through at enormous speed so that those who are most concerned have very little opportunity either to become aware of the legislation or comment upon it before it goes onto the statute book. The resultant situation whereby the government frequently finds itself introducing 300 amendments at the Report Stage or, even worse, where the Upper House is entirely relied upon to make routine recommendations in relation to Bills seems to me to be not only dangerous but unacceptable. I realise that those who are powerfully concerned with their own manifestos will feel that they have a god given right to push whatever has been voted for by the electorate with as little impediment as possible, but I do not think that this is commensurate with a democratic system. I am deeply concerned about the routine acceptance of a circumscribed attitude towards debate and decision which is now growing up within the House of Commons. 2 March 2004 Procedure Committee Ev 89
Reports from the Procedure Committee since 2001
The following reports have been produced since the beginning of the 2001 Parliament:
Session 2003–04 First Report Estimates and Appropriation Procedure HC 393 (Reply: 1st Special Report, HC 576) Second Report Results of Sitting Hours Questionnaire HC 491 Third Report Joint activities with the National Assembly for Wales HC 582 (Reply: 4th Special Report, HC 681) Fourth Report Programming of Legislation HC 325
Session 2002–03 First Report Delegated Legislation: Proposals for a Sifting HC 501 (Reply: 2nd Committee Report) Second Report Delegated Legislation: Proposals for a Sifting HC 684 Committee: The Government’s Response to the Committee’s First Report Third Report Sessional Orders and Resolutions HC 855 (Reply: 3rd Special Report, Session 2003–04, HC 613) Fourth Report Procedures for Debates, Private Members’ Bills and HC 333 (Reply: 2nd the Powers of the Speaker Special Report, Session 2003–04, HC 610)
Session 2001–02 First Report Making Remedial Orders: Recommendations by the HC 626 Joint Committee on Human Rights Second Report Appointment of Deputy Speakers HC 770 (Reply: 2nd Special Report, HC 1121) Third Report Parliamentary Questions HC 604 (Reply: Cm 5628) First Special Report Major Infrastructure Projects: Proposed New HC 1031 Parliamentary Procedures
Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery OYce Limited 7/2004 978572 19585