1 Monday 2 March 2009 THE WESTMINSTER PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM Speakers: Professor the Lord Norton of Louth (Conservative; Professor of Government, University of Hull) Mr Robert Rogers, Clerk of Legislation, House of Commons Chairman: Rt Hon. Kevin Barron MP (Labour) The Chairman introduced the session. Professor the Lord Norton of Louth explained that he would provide a conceptual overview of the Westminster system of Government. Westminster was often described as the mother of all parliaments, but this was a mis-quotation. The original quote stated that England was the mother of all parliaments. A parliament had existed at Westminster long before it began to use what was known as the Westminster parliamentary system. The Westminster system was one of three main systems of Government. There were also presidential systems and continental parliamentary systems. A presidential/premier hybrid could be considered a fourth type. The features of the parliament in Westminster were not necessarily essential features of the Westminster parliamentary system. Not all were bicameral and others had an elected second chamber. They varied in size from a handful of members to 1400 over two chambers. The Westminster system was a type of parliamentary system which was characterised by a lack of a separate election of the legislature and the executive. It was majoritarian. The executive dominated and operated in the legislature, as well as leading it. Parliament was crucial to the legitimisation of the political system. Key factors are that a Westminster-style parliament governs with consent, with the capacity to endorse the action of the executive and it was effective since it was exclusive in the sense that it was autonomous and had sole capacity to legitimise the executive. A parliament of the Westminster system was detached from outside interests with no mandate. Scrutiny maintained the legitimacy of a parliament. In the Westminster system there was a distinctive system of scrutiny with the concept of the official opposition. This phrase was first used in Canada. Parliaments using the Westminster system operated on the basis that the Government was entitled to its business and that the opposition was entitled to be heard. The system was chamber-orientated with the chamber being the arena in which deliberation occurred. Parliaments operating on the Westminster System tended to have relatively weak committees. Select committees were a slight exception to this but were a recent innovation in Westminster and have had trouble establishing themselves and gaining influence. The first chamber dominated and the powers of the second chamber are often unused or used with reluctance. The shape of the chamber in Westminster was historical and a legacy of previous meetings in St Stephen’s chapel. Other parliamentary systems often had semicircular chambers. Parliaments in which the Westminster system was used tended to have a more adversarial chamber design. Another feature of Parliaments using the Westminster system was that they had a neutral presiding officer which was rare under a presidential or continental system. This provided an even playing field and ensured the fair application of the rules. Clerks, the library and other support staff were also neutral. Transparency was the final feature of a Parliament of the Westminster system. Debate occurred openly in the chamber and there was therefore no need for secrecy. Continental parliaments often concentrated on efficiency and used committees to make bargains. The Westminster system coped well when there were two parties and the first past the post electoral system facilitated this. A third and other smaller parties were hard to accommodate because of the majoritarian nature of a Westminster parliament. Parliaments using the Westminster system provided little scope for compromise and little specialisation since the chamber was the focus. The select committees, appointed in 1979 had been the first opportunity for specialisation in Westminster. The Executive dominated and government MPs therefore had a conundrum. They were obliged to support the Government but should also support parliament by scrutinising the executive. The advantages of the Westminster system were that it allowed effective government. Governments were able to deliver a programme. It also correlated with political stability. The even playing field for debate with stable rules and a neutral presiding officer meant that both sides of the debate could be put and all sides heard. Accountability was provided by the system because at an election the executive was an identifiable body. Those who were responsible for governing were easily identified. Not all Westminster style parliaments exhibited all these features all the time and there was variation, for example the executive would not always get its way if the system was a federal one. Some parliaments deviated enough from the model not to be recognised as Westminster-style. For example, New Zealand had a system of mixed member proportional voting. Mr Robert Rogers explained that he would begin by identifying the drivers which made the Westminster Parliament work as it does. The first of these was the building which was designed as a Victorian palace in which there were no offices or research facilities. The common spaces such as the division lobbies and tearoom encouraged informality and free exchange and led to a volatility in the way in which views were transmitted, which for example, could foster rebellions. Another driver was the design of the chamber. There had been a chance after its destruction in 1941 to change it. Churchill had redesigned it as an arena for free, easy and conversational debate. There were seats for 420 Members which meant that 50 people made the chamber feel full and 200 could provide chemistry and drama. The House of Lords had 745 Members of whom an average of 411 turned up daily. In the House of Commons there were 646 Members. Matching opportunities to take part in proceedings to the number of Members was difficult, leading to many things being balloted for and raffled. This included Oral Questions and Prime Ministers Questions, of which 300 were tabled for 15 spaces, Private Members’ Bills of which 20 were selected by ballot to get priority, and Adjournment Debates. In the 19th Century there were over 700 Members. Constituencies were small with an average of 67,000 electors and 90,000 people. Each had specific characteristics, for example a city, fishing or farming constituency. This was an influence on the parliamentary activity of MPs. 3 Another driver was the role of the Government in Parliament. As Lord Norton stated, MPs of the governing party faced a dilemma since they were obliged to support the Government as part of the electoral majority but were also obliged to hold the Government to account as MPs. There was little ring-fenced time in the House of Commons. Twenty days each session were reserved as opposition days, there were half hour adjournment debates at the end of each sitting day and question time. Otherwise, the Government controlled the time available. The House of Lords was very different. It was often considered odd by outsiders that the Leader of the House in the House of Commons was able to give details of the next fortnight’s business each Thursday and that the House did not debate its own agenda. There was considerable complementarity between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Robert Rogers did not believe that increasing the powers of the House of Lords would necessarily mean removing powers from the House of Commons. Each had a different character and did a different job and the effect would be to increase the power of the parliamentary component of the constitution. The select committee systems of the two Houses did not clash since House of Commons select committees shadowed individual Departments of State (a vertical specialisation) whilst House of Lords committees were focussed on a particular subject such as economic affairs (a more horizontal specialisation). The impartial parliamentary service, separate from the Civil Service was of enormous practical value. Ministers and officials were often in the sights of select committees and therefore it would be inappropriate for staff of a committee to take instructions from a Minister. A similar issue arose in respect of the scope of Bills. For example, the Government had not wished to see abortion included within the scope of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill but Robert Rogers had advised that it was within the scope of the Bill. Legislation was one area in which the House of Commons did not do things well. Only 40% of the House’s time was spent on legislation. Most of these were Government Bills. There had been about 100 Private Members’ Bills over the last 25 years and on average 10% of them had been passed. In 1993 there were 2645 pages of primary legislation but in 2006 this had risen to 4911 and another 11700 pages of secondary legislation. Legislation was now prepared faster than before so that in the previous year 5000 Government amendments had been made to Government Bills. There had been a number of changes to procedures over the last few years. One recent innovation was programming of Bills. It was sensible to apportion time so that it was not all spent upfront on the early provisions of a Bill but programming caused disputes. Select committees carried out scrutiny of draft bills. Other recent changes included a shorter notice period for Oral Questions and the introduction of Topical Questions and Debates as were already held in other parliaments. Over his 37 year career the biggest changes had been the increase in Members’ staff, the increasing importance of the constituency to Members and the lower attendance in the chamber of the House of Commons. Hon. Rahila Al Riyami MSC (Oman) asked how the number of Members in each House was determined, how the select committees of the two Houses complemented each other and what the levels of attendance in the House of Commons were.